User talk:Hosadmin

I have reverted your changes to the Nudism article. The site you are linking to does deserve a place in the external links section, but to give it undue prominance at the top of an alphebetised list would violate the Neutral point of view policy we have at Wikipedia. Also because of this policy, the description of an external link should also be neutral, which the subtitle of that site is not. If you disagree with this, please explain your reasoning on the Nudism article's discussion page, but please do not simply revert to your preferred version. If you revert more than three times in 24 hours you can be blocked for breaking out Three revert rule. Thryduulf 11:13, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

reply to your email

I am replying here as I cannot fill out your form (I am very particular about which cookies I accept, and have had a bad experience with your email provider in the past).

Hi

Its fine for you to email me this way, although the normal method of communication with other users is through the user talk: page (e.g user talk:Thryduulf for me). At the moment I'm just an ordinary user on wikipedia, but there is currently a vote taking place as to whether I become an administraotr or not (I'll know on Wednesday!).

The link is currently there. If there is a disupte over whether or not it should be included this shoud take place on the talk page (Talk:Nudism) of the article. The only way to protect the link from being removed is for the page to be protected from editing, but this would only be done temporarily to prevent vandalism or an edit/revert war. This is not taking place at the moment, and nobody has violated the three revert rule so nodoby will be blocked over it.

This is a controversial site, I don't like it myself, but it represents an alternative POV from the other links. Part of the goal fo an NPOV encyclopaedia is to represent all points of view, and so I feel it deserves a link. If a discussion/debate ensues about whether it should remain then whether it does so or not will depend on what consensus is reached by the editors of that article. Thryduulf 23:28, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

More on that link

I have removed the link from Child Online Protection Act, Child pornography and Topfree Equal Rights Association, and another editor has removed it from Nude beach, and I discourage you from re-adding it. The content of the site isn't relevant to these topics, and so placing it there could be considered spamming, which is an activity Wikipedia takes a dim view of. Thryduulf 23:28, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

Inconsistent removal of links

I don't understand what you are saying about cookies however, I just figured out how to reply correctly to this page.

I had already put up the url on those pages before I saw this reply. The link is relevant to each place I have put it. It's relevant to any page that relates to nudist activities as much as the other organizations that are listed repeatedly. Why are they not spamming when their links appear repeatedly on multiple pages? Thank you for a consistent application of wikipedia rules.

Please sign your posts

As a courtesy for other editors, it is a Wikipedia guideline to sign your talk page and user talk page posts. To do so simply add four tildes (~~~~) at the end of your comments and your user name or IP address and the date will be automatically added along with a timestamp. Signing your comments helps people to find out who said something and provides them with a link to your user/talk page (for further discussion). For further info read Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines. Thank you. Thryduulf 13:10, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

okay thank you, I didn't know how to do that. I'll try it here. Hosadmin 06:52, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

cool. thank you!Hosadmin 06:52, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

Larry Flynt

Hi, just wondering if you really think it's necessary to describe Larry Flynt's relations with a chicken so vividly. Some of the language, "pussy" and "banging away" for example are pretty unencyclopedic, and I think just stating that he had sex with a chicken and why is enough. Thanks. --TheMidnighters 03:42, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Hi, I did not see this otherwise I would have replied before I put the information back on the page. Thank you for writing. Of course it is very unencyclopedic to put a hard core pornographer who has published such rank sh*t in his magazine too. However, once that is being done, in order to tell the truth and have an accurate entry this is necessary. Sorry, I know it's uncomfortable, but that's what the First Amendment is all about.

Oh yes and sorry that I removed some of your links. I did try to put them back, however notice that I missed a few. From now on before you do something like that I believe it would be more polite to ask before you did it, wouldn't it? Thanks for leaving the truth on the page from now on. Hosadmin

So you think users need to ask other users before editing a page? I don't think you're fully aware of how Wikipedia works. The encyclopedia strives to maintain a neutral point of view. I recognize you have objections to a pornographer being documented here, but it is not the goal of Wikipedia to include only those individuals who are deemed proper or upstanding.

As for having an accurate entry, one still needs to be sensible. For example, on pages that relate to someone being raped it is not standard to list every graphic detail involved in the crime. It is possible to relate offensive information in a manner that is not in and of itself offensive. Perhaps rather than simply reverting to your wording you could work on achieving a factually complete, but less graphic account, I'll take this discussion to Talk:Larry Flynt where it can be worked on. --TheMidnighters 04:07, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps you'd be interested in starting a Criticism section on the article? Here you would be able to compile comments by groups and people explaining their own views on Flynt and his organization, such as Gloria Steinem and others. This way the concerns you share with many others can be documented as well, but supported by cited sources and respected political figures. Just remember to remain NPOV in how it's presented, and be prepared to have your work edited by others. Happy editing, --TheMidnighters 05:01, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Hi, I am sorry I was in error about asking first before changing someone elses entry. I was not aware of the proper proceedures. The current change is fine as it is, even better in some ways. I agree that Flynt's wording from his own book was out of bounds however I had not wanted to change his own wording, but yes you are right about it. Thanks.