Female masking unmasked, It rubs the lotion on its skin or else it gets the hose again. Options

[carbuncle]

I think that people should be free to engage in the sexual practices of their choice in the privacy of their own homes (or in a private club with groups of like-minded individuals) but I don't think that means I have to pretend that I don't find some of those activities to be weird, if not outright signs of mental illness.

By including things like Scrotal inflation in WP, the appearance is given to readers that this practice is as notable as something like transvestism or exhibitionism. How common is this practice? At least that article has references (and notes the dangers).

Which brings me to an article that I stumbled across today - Female masking.

[Peter Damian]

I think that people should be free to engage in the sexual practices of their choice in the privacy of their own homes (or in a private club with groups of like-minded individuals) but I don't think that means I have to pretend that I don't find some of those activities to be weird, if not outright signs of mental illness.

By including things like Scrotal inflation in WP, the appearance is given to readers that this practice is as notable as something like transvestism or exhibitionism. How common is this practice? At least that article has references (and notes the dangers).

Which brings me to an article that I stumbled across today - Female masking.

It's totally normal for many Wikipedians. Speaking of which, my research into Wikipedia's past continues to confirm my hypothesis that the weird stuff was there from the very beginnings. A very early editor was David Merrill. "My User ID is only 118. I'm very proud to have been involved in getting this incredible resource off the ground."

And here's his website. http://www.masterdavid.net/ with pictures of his 'family' and of him being flogged with a very red bottom. http://www.masterdavid.net/family-album/dave Not for the squeamish and certainly NSFW.

In my personal case, I pick out all my slave's clothes for him, and I dress him how I think he looks good. That works for me because dave's dress is really only for when he is out in public. When he's at home, dave just wears his tighty whiteys. I don't think boys need pants in the house.

Certainly not.

Also of interest is the 'manual' on how to train slaves. Totally surreal. http://www.masterdavid.net/slave-manual/why

Especially the bit about the slaves' 'Bill of Rights'. I thought the whole point of being a slave was not to have any rights?

This post has been edited by Peter Damian:

[mbz1]

It's totally normal for many Wikipedians. Speaking of which, my research into Wikipedia's past continues to confirm my hypothesis that the weird stuff was there from the very beginnings. A very early editor was David Merrill. "My User ID is only 118. I'm very proud to have been involved in getting this incredible resource off the ground."

And here's his website. http://www.masterdavid.net/ with pictures of his 'family' and of him being flogged with a very red bottom. http://www.masterdavid.net/family-album/dave Not for the squeamish and certainly NSFW.

OMG! His home page is linked to from his wikipedia user page. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/huh.gif)

[Peter Damian]

OMG! His home page is linked to from his wikipedia user page. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/huh.gif)

Well as the pictures on the website are somewhat milder than the most extreme things you would see on Wikipedia, I suppose that's not a problem, Peter said ironically.

[mbz1]

OMG! His home page is linked to from his wikipedia user page. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/huh.gif)

Well as the pictures on the website are somewhat milder than the most extreme things you would see on Wikipedia, I suppose that's not a problem, Peter said ironically.

Well, yes, right, but the user pages and the articles pages are different. According to WP:UPNO "Generally, you should avoid substantial content on your user page that is unrelated to Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a general hosting service, so your user page is not a personal website. Your user page is about you as a Wikipedian, and pages in your user space should be used as part of your efforts to contribute to the project". Of course he provided only the link to his web page, but still...
He claims to have written Evolution. This article is read by kids. What, if an innocent kid would hit the link at the author of the article's user page in the hope to learn something more about the evolution and ... (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/wtf.gif)
I believe that user pages should be free from any of this. For example this discussion about Lesbian sexual practices

Fingering can be penetrative, and oral sex can as well, when either fingers or the tongue enter the vagina. The Non-penetrative sex article makes this clear

should not have taken place at admin's talk page that is visited by kids.
Or let's take for example that porno-loving administrator Malik Shabazz (see user boxes). I of course have absolutely nothing against Malik enjoying porno, I even believe that, if Malik were spending more time enjoining porno than he is spending editing wikipedia, wikipedia would have been a much better place (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/biggrin.gif) , but come on who needs to know what Malik likes to do, when he's not editing wikipedia? What his enjoyment of porno has to do with his activities on wikipedia?

This post has been edited by mbz1:

[lilburne]

And whilst they are discussing random porn pages on foundation-l


(IMG:http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6043/6264143785_781d5719df_z.jpg)



Now will the TROLLISH LITTLE FUCKER in question please step forward to claim your prize ....

I think we can chalk that up as a success. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/biggrin.gif) (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/biggrin.gif)

[Michaeldsuarez]

By including things like Scrotal inflation in WP, the appearance is given to readers that this practice is as notable as something like transvestism or exhibitionism. How common is this practice? At least that article has references (and notes the dangers).

The person who uploaded the image for the "Scotal inflation" article is, oddly enough, indefinitely blocked from editing the German Wikipedia:

http://de.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...AExpert19612005

His obsessive scrotum fetish is stated as the reason for the block. If any of the "Let's feature a vulva image on the Main Page" people read this thread, not only will they attempt to unblock him, but they'll probably give him a medal as well. To fair, the block is perhaps too long for the crime, and I don't see any signs that Expert19612005 received any warnings.

Here are his uploads to Commons:

http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?t...=Expert19612005

Those are apparently images of himself.

This post has been edited by Michaeldsuarez:

[mbz1]

By including things like Scrotal inflation in WP, the appearance is given to readers that this practice is as notable as something like transvestism or exhibitionism. How common is this practice? At least that article has references (and notes the dangers).

The person who uploaded the image for the "Scotal inflation" article is, oddly enough, indefinitely blocked from editing the German Wikipedia:

http://de.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...AExpert19612005

His obsessive scrotum fetish is stated as the reason for the block. If any of the "Let's feature a vulva image on the Main Page" people read this thread, not only will they attempt to unblock him, but they'll probably give him a medal as well. To fair, the block is perhaps too long for the crime, and I don't see any signs that Expert19612005 received any warnings.

Here are his uploads to Commons:

http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?t...=Expert19612005

Those are apparently images of himself.

It is funny he got warned on commons "that Commons is not an amateur porn site" (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/biggrin.gif) (highlighted by me). So as long as porn are of a pro quality, it is OK to upload them to commons (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/hrmph.gif) It is his gallery on commons. Even flickr gives warnings for certain galleries. Commons do not.

BTW what was he blocked on German wiki?

This post has been edited by mbz1:

[Michaeldsuarez]

BTW what was he blocked on German wiki?

http://de.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...AExpert19612005:

Kein Wille zur enzyklopädischen Mitarbeit erkennbar: Hodensackfetisch

He was blocked for his "Hodensackfetisch" (scrotum fetish). There's a 13-day gap between his last undeleted revision and the block, so I can't say for certain what he was blocked for, but in his last undeleted revision, he added an image of a scrotum (his I presume) to the the German IV infusion article (an article where one doesn't expect to see genitals):

http://de.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...&oldid=75165849

This post has been edited by Michaeldsuarez:

[mbz1]

I think that people should be free to engage in the sexual practices of their choice in the privacy of their own homes (or in a private club with groups of like-minded individuals) but I don't think that means I have to pretend that I don't find some of those activities to be weird, if not outright signs of mental illness.

I've just tried to find an entry for scrotal inflation in Encyclopedia Britannica, and to my horror (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/tongue.gif) there was none!Neither Encyclopedia Britannica has an entry for antisemitic garbage by carlos latuff. No wonder wikipedia is so much ahead. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/yak.gif)

This post has been edited by mbz1:

[communicat]

I think that people should be free to engage in the sexual practices of their choice in the privacy of their own homes (or in a private club with groups of like-minded individuals) but I don't think that means I have to pretend that I don't find some of those activities to be weird, if not outright signs of mental illness.

By including things like Scrotal inflation in WP, the appearance is given to readers that this practice is as notable as something like transvestism or exhibitionism. How common is this practice? At least that article has references (and notes the dangers).

Which brings me to an article that I stumbled across today - Female masking.

Can't see what all the fuss is about here. I mean, after all, pornographers and sexual deviants have a lot in common with WP's general fantasy-based dumbing down of the real thing -- a sort of pornography of knowledge.

[melloden]

a sort of pornography of knowledge.

You should become a writer.

[EricBarbour]

A very early editor was David Merrill. "My User ID is only 118. I'm very proud to have been involved in getting this incredible resource off the ground."

And here's his website. http://www.masterdavid.net/ with pictures of his 'family' and of him being flogged with a very red bottom. http://www.masterdavid.net/family-album/dave Not for the squeamish and certainly NSFW.

Good find! This just gets better and better......

The hell with scrotal inflation. Kid stuff.

What about meatotomy? Or penile subincision? (extremely NSFW or anyone)

[communicat]

A very early editor was David Merrill. "My User ID is only 118. I'm very proud to have been involved in getting this incredible resource off the ground."

And here's his website. http://www.masterdavid.net/ with pictures of his 'family' and of him being flogged with a very red bottom. http://www.masterdavid.net/family-album/dave Not for the squeamish and certainly NSFW.

Good find! This just gets better and better......

The hell with scrotal inflation. Kid stuff.

What about meatotomy? Or penile subincision? (extremely NSFW or anyone)

WP allows/encourages/accommodates that kind of (comparatively low-traffic volume) stuff simply to convey the false impression that it doesn't engage in censorship; whereas censorship is in fact the norm in certain high-volume WP history and politics articles. Not since Winston Smith found himself in the Ministry of Truth in George Orwell’s 1984, censoring and rewriting old newspaper articles on behalf of Big Brother, has there been such a perversion of objective truth as there is in relation to WP's repackaging of world knowledge, which would make Orwell’s Ministry of Truth beam with pride. There’s one difference between the rewriting of documented knowledge and what went on in Orwell’s Ministry of Truth. Our knowledge-warpers haven’t actually physically destroyed all the evidence showing that much of Wikipedia is in fact an intellectually arrogant and venal venture -- and there’s mountains of such evidence.

This post has been edited by communicat:

[mbz1]

WP allows/encourages/accommodates that kind of (low-traffic volume) stuff simply to convey the false impression that it doesn't engage in censorship

Actually traffic is not so low

[carbuncle]

The hell with scrotal inflation. Kid stuff.

What about meatotomy? Or penile subincision? (extremely NSFW or anyone)

And, yes, there are WP articles to go along with those pictures.

Penile subincision was created in , and has two references, one of which is simply "Myerhoff 1982: 122" (with no clue as to who Myerhoff might be) and a link to an off-hand reference in a site about languages.

Meatotomy has been around since 2004 and is still completely unsourced. User:OldakQuill is an admin who still pops in from time to time to edit. Along with "meatotomy" they also created Genital bisection (also completely unsourced after seven years on WP), Ampallang , Apadravya (sourced only to a body modification wiki), and Dydoe (also completely unsourced after seven years on WP).

[Tarc]

and to my horror (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/tongue.gif) there was none!Neither Encyclopedia Britannica has an entry for antisemitic garbage by carlos latuff.

Hey Mila, does the Encyclopedia Britannica have an entry for Antisemites and the Jewish Girls Who Love Them ?

This post has been edited by Tarc:

[Jagärdu]

The hell with scrotal inflation. Kid stuff.

What about meatotomy? Or penile subincision? (extremely NSFW or anyone)

And, yes, there are WP articles to go along with those pictures.

Penile subincision was created in , and has two references, one of which is simply "Myerhoff 1982: 122" (with no clue as to who Myerhoff might be) and a link to an off-hand reference in a site about languages.

Meatotomy has been around since 2004 and is still completely unsourced. User:OldakQuill is an admin who still pops in from time to time to edit. Along with "meatotomy" they also created Genital bisection (also completely unsourced after seven years on WP), Ampallang , Apadravya (sourced only to a body modification wiki), and Dydoe (also completely unsourced after seven years on WP).

I would guess that's Barbara Myerhoff but it might be a fake citation. I can't find any published work of her's that deals with the Arrernte people. Of course that's really neither here nor there. Sometimes censorship is just fine and dandy if you ask me. These are great examples of such times.

OMG! His home page is linked to from his wikipedia user page. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/huh.gif)

Well as the pictures on the website are somewhat milder than the most extreme things you would see on Wikipedia, I suppose that's not a problem, Peter said ironically.

Well, yes, right, but the user pages and the articles pages are different. According to WP:UPNO "Generally, you should avoid substantial content on your user page that is unrelated to Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a general hosting service, so your user page is not a personal website. Your user page is about you as a Wikipedian, and pages in your user space should be used as part of your efforts to contribute to the project". Of course he provided only the link to his web page, but still...
He claims to have written Evolution. This article is read by kids. What, if an innocent kid would hit the link at the author of the article's user page in the hope to learn something more about the evolution and ... (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/wtf.gif)
I believe that user pages should be free from any of this. For example this discussion about Lesbian sexual practices

Fingering can be penetrative, and oral sex can as well, when either fingers or the tongue enter the vagina. The Non-penetrative sex article makes this clear

should not have taken place at admin's talk page that is visited by kids.
Or let's take for example that porno-loving administrator Malik Shabazz (see user boxes). I of course have absolutely nothing against Malik enjoying porno, I even believe that, if Malik were spending more time enjoining porno than he is spending editing wikipedia, wikipedia would have been a much better place (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/biggrin.gif) , but come on who needs to know what Malik likes to do, when he's not editing wikipedia? What his enjoyment of porno has to do with his activities on wikipedia?

Grind a lot of irrelevant axes much?

[mbz1]

OMG! His home page is linked to from his wikipedia user page. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/huh.gif)

Well as the pictures on the website are somewhat milder than the most extreme things you would see on Wikipedia, I suppose that's not a problem, Peter said ironically.

Well, yes, right, but the user pages and the articles pages are different. According to WP:UPNO "Generally, you should avoid substantial content on your user page that is unrelated to Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a general hosting service, so your user page is not a personal website. Your user page is about you as a Wikipedian, and pages in your user space should be used as part of your efforts to contribute to the project". Of course he provided only the link to his web page, but still...
He claims to have written Evolution. This article is read by kids. What, if an innocent kid would hit the link at the author of the article's user page in the hope to learn something more about the evolution and ... (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/wtf.gif)
I believe that user pages should be free from any of this. For example this discussion about Lesbian sexual practices

Fingering can be penetrative, and oral sex can as well, when either fingers or the tongue enter the vagina. The Non-penetrative sex article makes this clear

should not have taken place at admin's talk page that is visited by kids.
Or let's take for example that porno-loving administrator Malik Shabazz (see user boxes). I of course have absolutely nothing against Malik enjoying porno, I even believe that, if Malik were spending more time enjoining porno than he is spending editing wikipedia, wikipedia would have been a much better place (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/biggrin.gif) , but come on who needs to know what Malik likes to do, when he's not editing wikipedia? What his enjoyment of porno has to do with his activities on wikipedia?

Grind a lot of irrelevant axes much?

Well, if I found out that my children's teacher's school website links to his home page, in which he describes his sexual slave, I would have taken my children out of this school.
In some way wikipedia is as a school, and in some way the users who write the articles are like teachers. Wikipedia is not censored. That's fine, but user pages should contain info related to wikipedia, and not information about how somebody is enjoying pornography or links to let's say very uncommon sexual practices.

This post has been edited by mbz1:

[Jagärdu]

OMG! His home page is linked to from his wikipedia user page. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/huh.gif)

Well as the pictures on the website are somewhat milder than the most extreme things you would see on Wikipedia, I suppose that's not a problem, Peter said ironically.

Well, yes, right, but the user pages and the articles pages are different. According to WP:UPNO "Generally, you should avoid substantial content on your user page that is unrelated to Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a general hosting service, so your user page is not a personal website. Your user page is about you as a Wikipedian, and pages in your user space should be used as part of your efforts to contribute to the project". Of course he provided only the link to his web page, but still...
He claims to have written Evolution. This article is read by kids. What, if an innocent kid would hit the link at the author of the article's user page in the hope to learn something more about the evolution and ... (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/wtf.gif)
I believe that user pages should be free from any of this. For example this discussion about Lesbian sexual practices

Fingering can be penetrative, and oral sex can as well, when either fingers or the tongue enter the vagina. The Non-penetrative sex article makes this clear

should not have taken place at admin's talk page that is visited by kids.
Or let's take for example that porno-loving administrator Malik Shabazz (see user boxes). I of course have absolutely nothing against Malik enjoying porno, I even believe that, if Malik were spending more time enjoining porno than he is spending editing wikipedia, wikipedia would have been a much better place (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/biggrin.gif) , but come on who needs to know what Malik likes to do, when he's not editing wikipedia? What his enjoyment of porno has to do with his activities on wikipedia?

Grind a lot of irrelevant axes much?

Well, if I found out that my children's teacher's school website links to his home page, in which he describes his sexual slave, I would have taken my children out of this school.
In some way wikipedia is as a school, and in some way the users who write the articles are like teachers. Wikipedia is not censored. That's fine, but user pages should contain info related to wikipedia, and not information about how somebody is enjoying pornography or links to let's say very uncommon sexual practices.

How do you know Malik's user box isn't facetious? The point is that Malik and Gwen Gale are 100% irrelevant to any serious discussion about pornography on Wikipedia. We get it. You don't like them, but please don't abuse threads just to drag your least favorite editors through the mud. It is a waste of everyone's time.