User talk:Yami Takashi: Difference between revisions

my ISP is 207.200.116.67 and it was autoblocked please help Yami 02:37, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did to Trunks (Dragon Ball)‎. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 17:10, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

my edit was not vandalism and that article is ramshackle with false info. I tried to add real info. Remember to keep a good faith at all times. until now i had missed this comment. Yami (talk) 00:59, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia! I am glad to see you are interested in discussing a topic. However, as a general rule, talk pages such as Talk:List of characters in Ben 10 are for discussion related to improving the article, not general discussion about the topic. If you have specific questions about certain topics, consider visiting our reference desk and asking them there instead of on article talk pages. Thank you. Ged UK (talk) 15:49, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:Ssanneporttruck.gif. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information; to add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia.

For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 17:11, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I saw that; I posted on the talk. He's asking for consensus, but as yet he's the only one to oppose that I can see. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 20:13, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would also like to note that he also undid you contribution to the same article, and i feel if there was somethign wrong with it or what i added you would have fixed it. he keeps saying its speculation and wait for "consensus"Yami (talk) 20:19, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. Artichoker^[talk] 20:42, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This proves you are being Bias and abusing your power and personally attacking me. Yami (talk) 20:51, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See my reply here. Artichoker^[talk] 20:52, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I have reviewed the situation and I am going to post this message on the talk pages' of both interested parties. We have a disput here regarding whether or not a particular truck in the game is notable. Now, keeping in mind that Wikipedia is not a collection of all human knowledge, and that Wikipedia is also not a game guide (we have www.gamefaqs.com for that, it must be determined if this particular truck is notable enough for inclusion. Now, I notice that you've both reverted twice within an hour, dangerously close to 3RR. So here's how this is going to have to work. I do not want the article to be used as a battle ground. This should be discussed on the article's talk page. I'm going to remove the content for now, then in a calm manner, without any ad hominem attacks from either party, Yami will present evidence as to the notability of this truck. Then Artichoker can refute the claim if he so desires. Note that Yami's evidence must be toward the notability of the truck not to the existence of the truck. Existence alone is not enough to warrant inclusion in the article. During the discussion, neither of you should edit that particular information into or out of the article. Let's not let this escalate into a 3RR block or page protection. Useight (talk) 20:59, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thought the argument wasn't entirely on the existence of the Truck, but also the Notability of the truck.

I admit a lot of my frustration came from the terms "Speculation" and "Non Notability" being repeatedly used.

Rather my contribution was or was not notable, it by any means was not speculation. I apologies if I seem to be arguing for its existence but I want to clear every detail up to keep my thoughts Linear.

Now to prove that this information belong here.

In the Pokémon world, most of the show and in the games is surrounded by nature. The only thing that contrasts this is the surprisingly advance technology seen in the franchise. Even though they can transform Pokémon and objects into energy, and even teleport it long distances, they still have lots of nature. Even in the show the viewer hardly sees any automotives. The exception being officer jenny's bike and the police force cars, a few ambulances and the occasional truck.

Unless the plots needs it you rarely see any vehicles in Pokémon. The games and show is almost always done on foot unless you get a bike or a Pokémon to transport you somewhere, and even then that leads to more walking.

The word of Pokémon is just full of Technology, yet they don't rely on it to get them where they're going and when you see a truck it contrasts everything else. Even here on wikipedia the fact that there is a strange nature-human contrast is noted in the Pokémon article.

The Truck was put there by the developers/programmers for one reason or another, either for a nice little Easter egg, or a joke of some kind. For all we know they could have put it there to start rumors on it and maybe increase game sales. Who knows I'm not going speculate on that.

The truck is apart of the games (Red, Blue, Yellow and even more notable Pokémon Fire Red and Leaf Green.)

The fact that the game developers and programmers in charge of redoing the first two games for a new market and keeping such a feature proves that it has some worth.

I didn't even see another Truck or car in the games until I read about the new Pokémon Sapphire and Ruby. Then when I got a emulation of Pokémon Emerald I enjoyed another chuckle as I saw the moving van that brought the player to their new home in the Hoenn region.

The moving truck reminded me of the first time I saw the only vehicle in the games that I knew of. The whole game is nothing but walking, biking and using a Pokémon to transport you. Through most of the game you feel like the only technology around was a few electronics here and there.

Having to walk through tall grass, caves, and make it across bodies of water gives the franchise a certain charm. In the real world we can get on our bikes but when your and adult a car is just so more natural. The game keeps an certain kind of innocence because it keeps the fantasy of child hood alive by not having cars and trucks everywhere.

Not only does the truck completely contrast the nature to human side of the game, but it brings with it a whole mythology with it.

Through out the years one of the most sought after and quested Pokémon was Mew. Many Rumors on how to catch Mew without a Nintendo event blanket the internet and a few magazines for years. Among the many rumored methods of acquiring Mew was using well known glitches and secrete places.

When I first heard the rumors about mew and the truck, I naturally turned to the internet. Though the method I found was a lot harder then a recently discovered method, I still enjoyed finding this truck.

I even sacrificed a 100+ hour game on my Pokémon Blue to go through the game without obtaining cut from the S.S. Anne's captain and worked my way to finding the truck.

The truck is apart of the game, it contrasts the human-nature tone of the franchise, and it has spawned a rumor that gave many people hope about getting their own mew.

I think this is why it is notable and a nice addition to the article. Yes we have sites like gamefaq for this stuff, but if there is going be a article on the cities of the country from a game like Pokémon, then why not put as much detail about the cities in as possible.

I'm sorry I repeated something, and didn’t keep a linear thought to well, but I want to make it clear that I love the show, and I want to contribute to the best of my ability. Yami (talk) 22:03, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see where you're coming from as to the work you did to get this information available. However, I am not the "super judge king" of Wikipedia. Is the truck notable or not? I don't know, I have never played the Pokémon video game series (although I plan to give Leaf Green a try here soon). I'm not going to be the final decision maker in this situation, perhaps instigating a poll on the Kanto talk page would help get an idea of where consensus is. As for any personal attacks by Artichoker, can you point out an exact example of when he violated WP:NPA? Useight (talk) 02:01, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Edit Summaries in the history of the article Kanto (Pokémon)

He also just kept coming back and undoing anything i did to the article and called it speculation and non notable despite me giving sources and all that, he keeps trying to twist my words and has continued to ridicule me. I have read the article on referencing and all that and followed all the protocols on citing a source. Yami (talk) 03:24, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. If you can't type the tilde character, you should click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot (talk) 03:43, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I went through all his contributions related to this content dispute. I couldn't find any comments that appeared to be violations of WP:NPA, the closest ones being: "Quit being so stubborn", "It obviously appears that you didn't, "Please stop beating around the bush", "Did you read what The Hybrid just said?", "That argument is invalid", and "I find that reason invalid". None of those warrant a warning, let alone a blocking. You also said that there may have been a problem with the text he wrote in edit summaries in the history of Kanto (Pokémon). I checked into that and the worst ones were "Well, I have said this three or four times, so I guess another time won't hurt: DO NOT revert until we have reached a consensus. thank you." and "removing speculation (and as a matter of fact it does NOT hold a mew.". Using the capital letters is often interpreted as shouting, so that's never a good idea, but I was unable to find a "warn-able" offense. If you think my interpretation of the situation is incorrect, please find another admin, one who is not yet involved in the matter and bring up the issue with them, so it can be looked upon by a fresh set of eyes. Thanks. Useight (talk) 04:53, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll just trust your judgment thank you for your time, but now i think there is a real case of personal attacks form The hybrid so please help

Yami (talk) 05:16, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Any personal attacks during this issue should be handled by a third-party that hasn't been involved in this situation. Please contact another admin in regards to any actions of The Hybrid that you feel are a violation of WP:NPA. If you have trouble finding another admin that is online, you can post your message at WP:ANI. I, personally, am going to get to bed here really soon since I have a Business Law class to attend in 8 and a half hours. Useight (talk) 05:30, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I don't have a problem with keeping the image in the article. It's a fairly long article that has a lot of text and few images. You might be able to get away with saying the image improves the article if the caption is something neutral, such as "A screenshot of Vermilion City" or something. Useight (talk) 05:25, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can I just add them to the article or do i have to get consensus so another dispute doesn't happen? Yami (talk) 05:57, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was thinking of adding both images with maybe a little humor Yami (talk) 06:14, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

thumb|right|The Truck with a shady past

Thanks for uploading Image:NonFreeImageRemoved.svg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information; to add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia.

For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 06:08, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I looked briefly, but not finding anything through google. If you know the Pokemon world well, you may know about game guide books and magazines- using something like that as a source would be best. A website reference only works if it doesn't allow users to contribute, e.g. wikis and forums. Hope this helps. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 19:18, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I have posted my opinion on the matter at Talk:Kanto (Pokémon)#Compromise regarding placing the image on the article. This seems to be the solution that 1) follows policy best; and 2) satisfies both parties best. Please comment there if you have any opinion regarding this possible solution. Useight (talk) 23:28, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I can't even find your opinion, i don't even know when it was added, the place is a mess. I hardly know what they want from me anymore. First it was about the truck being speculation, then not being notable, and then they dragged the images into the deal and kept only focusing on those. I'm so confused i hardly know which to cover first.

I'm trying to keep my cool but i know i lost it a few times and i know i probably personally attacked someone but when i have to jump from top to bottom to middle 15 times to find where someone posted i think anyone who was me would snap.

then i got people preaching policies and what should be and shouldn't be on the article and people attacking me and getting off topic Yami (talk) 02:55, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And the images also got removed because they were not in a article, and they couldn't go into the article because Artichoker kept removing them and all info on the truck. He then said they shouldn't be added because the article doesn't talk about the truck, but he' the one who made sure of both of those things

And the Hybrid is just causing more trouble it seems and focusing more on me then anything else. Yami (talk) 02:58, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:Thetruckreturns.png. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:41, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that talk page has gotten so big it's hard to navigate around. My opinion on the images can be found here and here. To summarize those comments, I said that I thought an addition of an image would improve the article if a free one could be found. I thought that if you take your own screenshot, it'd be fine, however, I am no expert on images or copyright and, according to Artichoke, even if you take your own screenshot, because it is of a copyrighted game, it'd still be a non-free image. Useight (talk) 17:45, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think he's more or less trying to use wikipolicies in his favor, and all the images on there are not free. Yami (talk) 18:38, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, this Wikipedia policy is explicit, and cannot be manipulated. Please remember to assume good faith. Artichoker^[talk] 18:54, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All the pictures on that page are non-free and i'm sure there are a lot of wiki articles with multple non free images Look at the Johto article the pokedex doesn't even fall under the Criteria unlike the images i uploaded. And my good faith is running low Yami (talk) 19:13, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) The other images on the Kanto article are apparently not free ones either, but a case can be made, and apparently has, that those images are necessary to provide pertinent information. The two on the top of the article, I can understand their importance for sure, but the one down below, the Pokémon mansion, I have no idea about its importance; I've never played the game series. Therefore, I am assuming that it has already been discussed and a consensus made by parties with a more experience in the Pokémon universe that those images, while non-free, facilitate some purpose of conveying information that could not otherwise be conveyed via text. Useight (talk) 19:16, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All of the images compy with all Wikipedia policies. The Pokémon mansion is needed as it is a rather large part of the game, and well as being the place Mewtwo was born and helps convey the mysterious atmosphere of the mansion. Also, I have removed the image of the Pokédex from Johto. Artichoker^[talk] 19:18, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As a side note, Mewtwo was born? To whom? Mew? Once I've recovered financially from paying university tuition, I'm going to have to pick up a Nintendo DS and play LeafGreen. Useight (talk) 19:20, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Artichoker keeps saying that the text or at least how i want to write it helps convey the truck's notablity, but then argues that because the truck ins't mentioned the images shouldn't be added, but if how i want to write the text doesn't convey the information then an image would perfect for conveying information that could not otherwise be conveyed via text.

He is now resorting to arguing that it shouldn't be added because my writing style is that of a magazine. I don't think Artichoker has the article or anything else best interest in mind and only wants to cause trouble for me.

Everytime i think i'm getting somewhere with him he makes up another excuseYami (talk) 19:55, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You misconstrue everything I say. Also, I never take anything too personally. I am arguing about this matter not because I hate you, but because I want what is best for the encyclopedia, and that means not including every negligible detail. Artichoker^[talk] 19:58, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Frist you complained it was speculation which i disproved, then you said it wasn't notable because i didn't have a reliable source but when i got one you still say it is not notable. You are the only one that had a problem to begin with at the very start of this whole thing, even JeremyMcCracken said you were the only one oposing it when this whole thing started. I went to the third option and posted I was being picked on by you and he said he saw that. go and check up above some.

You started this and everytime i think its safe to add the info when i have proven my case you take it downYami (talk) 20:09, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You were stating rumors, which I correctly identified as speculation. You did not "disprove it," you simply stopped mentioning that part. The information will need more sourcing in order to prove its notability. If you can get two sources, I won't object to the information being added to the article. And NO ONE said you were being picked on by me. I would like to see where ANYONE (besides you of course) said anything remotely resembling what you claim. Artichoker^[talk] 20:17, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jeremy didn't deny it, and I made it clear that the rumor was only attached to the truck. Kinda like in the pokedex they say Rumor has it this pokemon blank, It was rumored that this pokemon comes from blank.

I just said that this truck was rumored to blah blah. You toke it out of context. Yami (talk) 20:48, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1 reference/citation is good enough, you don't get to decide how many it takes to make something notable. Yami (talk) 02:44, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This specific bit of information is very controversial, as evidenced by the size of Talk:Kanto (Pokémon). Also, The Hybrid agreed with me that at least two reliable sources are needed in order to establish notability. Until you can find another and consensus is reached on the talk page, please refrain from editing the actual article. I do not want this to escalate into an edit war. Artichoker^[talk] 02:47, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It only became contriversal because you didn't want it on there. you are vandalizing the article. I have noticfied multiple admins about your actions Yami (talk) 02:49, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All it takes is a few people's opinions in order to make content controversial. My edits are not vandalism; there is a large difference between vandalizing and a content dispute, and you will need to understand that. Artichoker^[talk] 02:51, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You turned this into a edit war, and i suggest you keep from any more edits as i will do the same because multiple admins have been alerted to your actions on the article, history, and talk page. Yami (talk) 02:54, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Technically you were the one who restarted it by breaking consensus. But that's not important. What is important is that you should try and find another reliable source if you want your information displayed in the article. Also, I know that you have notified admins, however if your reason for alerting them was that you want to get me "punished," I don't think that will be the case. Artichoker^[talk] 02:59, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You'll find that I have fully protected the article to stop the edit war. More details can be seen at the bottom of the Kanto (Pokémon) talk page. Useight (talk) 03:09, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

According to Artichoker here, you found another reliable source for the information regarding the truck. I have unprotected the article so you can add the information back into it. Useight (talk) 16:07, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

things are still shaky because artichoker added the info back, but i tried to rephrase it and add more info because he wrote it too dry. I'm not going get into another dispute, i just think talking about the area more like a real dock and still mentioning the item in the area, but not explicitly saying what the item is would make it less dry sounding with the way he wrote it. I mean when i first wrote it, it had more body because i mentioned the rumor with the truck, but just saying there is a pickup truck with no back or side story is too dry and not what i had in mind for the article. I wanted at least to mention the area, what is in the area and/or the rumors built on the area. Yami (talk) 17:40, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You must remember that this is an encyclopedia, not a magazine, or novel. You are saying it is too "dry," but remember that Wikipedia articles are not supposed to be "spiced up." The way it is written right now is informative and correct. Artichoker^[talk] 17:46, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

well can we mention the item that goes with the truck some how, or mention the old rumor? maybe says the docks use to have rumors or something? Yami (talk) 17:54, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, because the item is gamecruft, while the rumors are speculation. Just the mention of the truck is enough. Artichoker^[talk] 17:56, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

mentioning the rumor in this context wouldn't be speculation. And what about the game freak team paying tribute to the same rumors with that item? that wouldn't be game cruft. Game gruft is saying the port opens, or the game corner motto is this and that Yami (talk) 18:01, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The rumor is nonnotable and cannot be verified. And it would be gamecruft to mention a specific, nonnotable item. Artichoker^[talk] 18:02, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

so in order to confirm that there was a rumor, and that a item was place as a tribute to them i have to go through hell again to get that much added into this article? Yami (talk) 18:04, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, pretty much because this is purely cruft and does not warrant mention in the article. I would suggest letting it be. The truck is already mentioned. Artichoker^[talk] 18:08, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've added info to other articles that didn't need a citation just for a little extra info. Just like when i went to the loveless article and found that they failed to mention that the characters still have human ears along with their metaphorical virginity cat ears.

That might be because you only have to pay attention to see it, but i still didn't have to go through hell and creation to keep it in the article.

I had forgotten all about it until i looked at my contributions. I got worried about some contributions i made and didn't pay attention to how i made them, like putting info in the wrong place trying to edit 3am. Yami (talk) 19:28, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you are talking about the Mt. Silver section of the article, I believe it details everything correctly. If you read the article, it states he is based on the protagonist from R/B/Y as well as from the anime and manga. So I don't see a problem. Artichoker^[talk] 20:35, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The text says

"though the Pokémon in his team (specifically a high level Pikachu) may imply that he is also based on Red from the manga and Ash Ketchum from the anime."

But i think it would be more appropriate if it said

"though the Pokémon in his team (specifically a high level Pikachu) may imply that he is more based the protagonist of yellow, Red from the manga and/or Ash Ketchum from the anime."

You get a pikachu in yellow right at the start, then you get bulba, char, and squirt. there is a free Eevee in the celadon mansion, and snorlax is in two locations and you can get all of these Pokemon in yellow through the methods and various events i mentioned. Yami (talk) 20:45, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See my reply here. Artichoker^[talk] 20:49, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:Vermilionport.png. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:28, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The presence or absence of the video has been a contentious matter recently. Removing it without participating in the discussion is a bad idea. The Wednesday Island (talk) 03:58, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The video add nothing to the article, would you add a video two people actively engaged in intercourse for the intercourse article? Yami (talk) 21:55, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. The Wednesday Island (talk) 22:09, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The video doesn't belong on the article. Yami (talk) 00:41, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Yami: I just wanted to chat with you about your work lately. I'm only one person, and only offering my own opinion. I'm not an admin or anything.

I have my preconception of who you might be, not that it is important, but as possibly Japanese, maybe living in a foreign country, 19 or 20 years old, and relatively new to Wikipedia. From looking at your edits, you seem to have an interest in video games, Pokemon, etc.

I am of the opinion that you are making edits on a variety of sex related articles, because you are trying to do what you feel is to improve Wikipedia by addressing issues that you view that some outsiders to Wikipedia may find objectionable. Articles with explicit images seems to be your current focus. Some people, perhaps you, have the opinion that there is something wrong with explicit images. Some people, probably not you, look at an image, and if they see skin, they immediately try to eroticize the image. Once it is eroticized, then going to pornographic, or just feeling that it may be okay for "me" to see it, but I wouldn't want children, or my Grandmother to see it.

In my mind, there is a distinct line between erotic (or what some people perceive as porngraphic) or even objectionable material. In my mind, there is nothing erotic about nudity. I have seen so many people naked, so many times that it is no different than walking through a grocery store. Naked is not inherently erotic. It is natural and normal -- how we are all born. SO, a Wikipedia image showing someone who is partially naked in the context of an article is not objectionable or erotic. If it is a picture of a breast, a penis, an asshole, it is the same as a picture of an elbow, a knee, a shoulder. If there is no inherent attempt to make it sexual-erotic, then it is just the human body, or some portion of it. The ejaculation article pushes that a bit farther. Yes, the image is sexual in nature, as, of course, ejaculation of sperm is essential in procreation. But, I don't find the image erotic, arousing or pornographic. Again, it is just a part of the human body, operating in the fashion that it is supposed to.

I can't say that everyone I know feels the same way that I do about the topic. But, I find that people who are exposed to sexuality regularly don't find parts of the human body to be inherently arousing. I find that people who are sheltered, afraid or shy about sexuality, and with little experience with it can be aroused by very innocent and normal/mundane things. When they see a picture that includes a naked penis or breast, they sexualize it and eroticize it in their mind. Many of the people who object to images in the sexology and sexuality category often are those kinds of people. They are immediately shocked to see a naked penis, on the penis article, and try to call in pornography, mostly because the only time they see a penis is when they watch pornography. Not because there is anything inhenrently erotic or pornographic about a penis.

So, I am of the opinion that the MORE people see normal human sexuality and sexology in a normal context, the less they will eroticize it. I am not for forcing people to look at images that are pornographic. I think that if enough men see pictures of womens breasts and women showing their breast in public (see top freedom) the more they will begin to not objectify women sexually, and will become to think of it as as normal as seeing a woman ride a bicycle down the street. I am of the opinion that MORE images on articles that are directly related to the topic is better, healthier, and promotes healthy views about the topics, rather than associating anything involving nudity with pornography. The solution to the pornography problem is not to hide the body everywhere, but to expose it everywhere so that people don't inhrently find it arousing.

When you work to keep taking images off of articles, it seems like although you have the best of intentions (I believe that) you are really (in my opinion) acting to keep the world in a mode of objectifying and erotisizing things. It upsets me because we both work towards the same general goal of trying to make the world a better place, and a place where women can be themselves without being perceived as sex objects, but we are pulling in opposite directions. (ypu are pulling in the wrong direction -- my opinion)

BTW, although we may not share views, I invite you to join the Sexology and Sexuality project. You have a general interest in the topic, perhaps you'll choose to help us improve the entire area. We welcome a range of opinions, and yours seems to be on the other end of the spectrum to mine own. Their is a broad range of topics in our project, much broader than you can imagine. Trying to keep a handle on it all is an enourmous task. Currently I have more than 578 diffent Wikipedia articles in my watchlist, and nearly all of them are Sexology and Sexuality related.

So, I'm not suggesting that you change your views in any way. But, if you would not mind reflecting on it a bit I would appreciate it. Please consider that when three or four editors (who are somewhat older and more sexually experienced) fight to not censor, and to add images that some people object to in an article, that it is not because we are dirty old men who want to push porno in front of people or something. It is, in fact, exactly the opposite. Pictures of the human body in the context of the human body and what it does normally are normal, not erotic. The more people that see those kinds of images in normal, and not erotic contexts, the more they will stop to automatically eroticize everything that they see, and build a filter to see someone naked and choose to see it differently.

Regards, to you! Atom (talk) 02:55, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

go to your talk page for my reply. Yami (talk) 04:08, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are correct that the video needs to be removed, and I will start a discussion as soon as I get some time. Right now, I am really busy in real life, so it will probably be a couple of days before I can begin. Artichoker[talk] 11:50, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also the edit summary of "Not this again" is not appropriate conduct.Yami (talk) 04:08, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This has been exhaustively covered on the talk page, if you bothered to look. Asher196 (talk) 04:10, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed content from Breast. When removing text, please specify a reason in the edit summary and discuss edits that are likely to be controversial on the article's talk page. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the text has been restored, as you can see from the page history. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you.Asher196 (talk) 04:47, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I specified a reason in the edit summary and i was not experimenting. I was following wikipedia's advice on being bold. I removed images that didn't add educational value to the article or were not straight on subject.

Don't act like i'm some new guy to editing. Yami (talk) 05:05, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

read the entire message. "and discuss edits that are likely to be controversial on the article's talk page" Asher196 (talk) 05:09, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, this should be discussed on the article's talk page. However, Asher196, there is no need to call others "trolls" in edit summaries, and you both should consider WP:DTTR, when communicating with other established editors, it is generally better to write out your comments in your own words instead of pasting in a template. Useight (talk) 17:35, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:Yami Takashi Put a 3RR warning on my talk page for reverting his unilateral edits. First of all, this warning is not valid as I reverted a total of three edits. I then added a delete 1 template to his talk page to illustrate how absurd it is to communicate in this fashion. It was not done out of retaliation. I consider his actions trollish, and said so on MY edit summary on MY talk page. Asher196 (talk) 18:48, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The 3RR warning does not need to be given after three reversions have already taken place. It is supposed to be used to indicate to a user that if they continue, they may be blocked for 3RR. However, it would've been better for him to not use the template. Also, your use of a template in order to tit-for-tat is not the best form of communication, it would've been better to let Yami know that he shouldn't communicate via templates. Also note, you do not own your talk page, it belongs to the community. Useight (talk) 18:54, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But you reverted the same edit twice which is dangerously close to braking the 3RR rule. Also I was being bold like Wikipedia asks. I didn't know about the lead image being discussed on the talk page but no where was it brought up that the gallery had been discussed. I was removing images that didn't show a medical or relative content to the subject and what was miscellaneous. Yami (talk) 19:01, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted a total of three edit, which is not a violation of anything, yet you put a 3RR warning on my page as if *I* was some kind of noob. Utilize the talk page before making controverial edits, which is the gist of the delete 1 template I added to your page. Asher196 (talk) 19:04, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Getting close to the number is worth a warning. Also how was i to know people would argue for having a image like what is currently shown as the lead would be controversial? You'd think with so many editors trying to keep a pure and on topic article they would keep the lead image restrained to a more medical tone. I simple replaced it with a image that already existed on the page. The Image seemed unencyclopedic so I removed and replaced it. It is not like i am out to censor the article. Yami (talk) 19:10, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also how did you guys on that article allow the current lead to be there in the first place? Somewhere someone must have added it and that was not controversial yet replacing it is?Yami (talk) 19:14, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In the Breast article, I hid the gallery so that you need to click a button to show it. See if you like that better. Asher196 (talk) 04:40, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rather it is being shown or not it still has many images that are miscellaneous. Also like someone has brought up it does take time for all those images to load even with my high speed connection i have to wait.Yami (talk) 00:40, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not against removing the images if consensus takes us that way. By the looks of it, a number of editors would like the gallery removed. Asher196 (talk) 03:39, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Right now though, it is just some editors talking. Consensus is built over time. The reason it has a Gallery is because of an earlier consensus -- see history. If you want to try and float a removal of the whole Gallery, I can direct more people to discuss it. It should be a process of discussion and comments that takes six weeks or so. Three editors offering an opinion in that direction would not be considered a consensus to remove. Atom (talk) 18:11, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean direct? Yami (talk) 19:10, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Then stop reverting and use the talk page to discuss the matter until a consensus is reached. This is exactly what your problem was on the Kanto issue. Artichoker[talk] 11:43, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cut from the local paper (Star Trubune): "Kakkoi Con is the weekend interactive destination for all things Japanese, including music, fashion, lifestyle, culture and subcultures. Panels and workshops cover everything from gaming and role-playing to the basics of the Japanese language. There will be musical performances, film screenings, appearances by anime voice actors, gaming rooms and a marketplace with a wide array of products, games, DVDs, clothing and more. Check website for details. (1:30 p.m. today; 9 a.m. Sat.; 10 a.m. Sun. $15-$50. Sheraton Hotel Bloomington, 7899 Normandale Blvd., Bloomington. 612-825-1832"

I think I may go. Atom (talk) 18:08, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yami:

Sorry to step on your toes. My apologies. I returned the many images you removed from the article. Note that there is a section where we are discussing which images should stay, be moved to a section, or be removed. Please participate in the discussion, rather than removing against a previous consensus. If you like I can invite other sto participate in the discussion and we can see how other people feel as well. In the mean time, please I would appreciate if you would not step on other editors toes (mine own included.)

Atom (talk) 21:16, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The articles you are talking about are ejaculation and breast, right? I have looked into the matter, and find that I agree with you completely. The video needs to be removed on the ejaculation article, and the gallery needs to be removed on the breast article. What you are doing is not censorship, simply trying to clean-up and remove media which is not needed and instead clutters the article. I support you on this matter, and as I have said before, I will soon be able to directly help you with the content dispute. However, right now I am swamped with real-life stuff, as well as trying to improve some other articles on-wiki. Once things slow down, I shall start discussing things with the opposing editors on the respective articles. Cheers, Artichoker[talk] 00:40, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. I really don't want to edit articles of that nature, but I agree that a gallery is not necessary. Having such an excessive number of images does not provide any extra encyclopedic content. I also see no reason to have a video on the other article. I hear the article already has an image, so that should be sufficient in portraying the subject matter. 99% of articles do not have a video, so I don't see why this article needs one. Useight (talk) 01:06, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

@Artichoker

yeah those are the articles I feel uncomfortable mentioning them on your talk page since you do such good work with the pokemon articles and that kind of makes me want to remain conservative there but as for my editing those articles it purely for the good of wikipedia. I might find the image on the Ejaculation article a little graphic for my taste when it comes to what i expect to see in a encyclopedia i admit that much but articles need images. What articles don't need is multiple representation of content. I mean you don't need 15 pictures of pickachu to illustrate a point that he has yellow to yellow orange fur and red cheek pouches.

To many images are overkill.

@Useight

What ever happened to be bold and focus on the content not the editor.

There is so much red tape to get through on wikipedia. I at least tired to keep the medical images but those editors are so bent on keeping the other images. At least i got rid of the Nude Beach picture with some good logic. every little edit i do though is to big and they want consensus.

How am i turning those images into pornography if i just want to lighten the article's load. Wikipedia needs to limit articles to 10 pictures only. 4-10 in the article and 6 max in galleries with the article counting towards the 10 image limit.

@both

I hate to involve you guys but i know you both and I know you know Wikipedia policies and what is and is not worthy to be in a article. Yami (talk) 01:28, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

By "What ever happened to be[ing] bold and focus[ing] on the content not the editor", I hope you're not implying that I'm focusing on the editor instead of the content, because I don't believe that I am. Sometimes, it does seem like there's a lot of bureaucracy you have to cut through, but I think a consensus can be reached to remove the abundance of images. Useight (talk) 04:00, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think we're on not the same page but different books i mean people are not allowing other to be bold and they focus on the editors who try to help by being bold and tell them they need consensus to even put a period in a article and the users are getting violent on that article. Yami (talk) 04:06, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Have you tried asking them to consider WP:OWN, WP:CIVIL, and/or WP:NPA? Useight (talk) 04:09, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll see where that gets me. They won't discuss the lead image but they won't let me change the lead saying consensus has been made but how can it when its still being discussed?

they completely ignored my last post in the lead image 3 section. Yami (talk) 04:12, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think a survey could be a good idea, if they're not just counting votes though. In any case, I have !voted in it. Also, I do think WP:OWN may apply here. Artichoker[talk] 14:08, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't want to edit the article or its talk page, but I Support a change in the lead image to image 289. That one is a more crisp image, takes a more encyclopedic angle, and actually provides more information. If you want to move my comment to that talk page or link to it from there, go right ahead. Useight (talk) 16:02, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]