User talk:Xomic/One

The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Welcome

Hello Honeymane! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking

or using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! -- T H L^CCD 08:06, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Getting Started
Wikipedia Tutorial • The five pillars of Wikipedia How to: edit a page • upload an image
Getting Help
Frequently Asked Questions Where to ask questions or make comments Request administrator attention
Policies and Guidelines
Neutral point of view • Reliable sources Verifiability • Citing sources • No original research What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons Manual of Style • Three-revert rule • Sock puppetry Copyrights • Fair use • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability

The Community
Build consensus • Resolving disputes Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • No legal threats Community Portal • Village pump Signpost • IRC channels • Mailing lists
Things to do
Be bold in editing • Help develop an article Pages needing attention • Peer review Join a WikiProject • Translating articles Cleaning up: General • Spam • Vandalism
Miscellaneous
Useful templates • Categories • Stubs User pages • Talk pages Tools • User scripts

Thanks, is there somewhere I can go to get help with my sig? I can't figure out what's wrong with my HTML tags :( Honeymane ^{Heghlu meH QaQ jajvam} 04:15, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Signature#Customizing_your_signature may or may not be of help. That has useful information on how to actually customize your signature, but I see you've already figured out how to do that fine. If you need HTML help, you may want to visit a site like http://www.w3schools.com/ and check out their HTML section. I'd also be happy to help if you posted a sample of the problem code on my talk page. —Lantoka ^{( talk | contrib)} 01:49, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Rv ing articles

See User_talk:Mgoodyear#Rv_ing_articles. —Lantoka ^{( talk | contrib)} 01:40, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

HTML help :(

Honeymane_{Heghlu meH QaQ jajvam} Where Am I going wrong?--Honeymane Heghlu meH QaQ jajvam 02:10, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You need to get the tag inside the <a> tag (handled with [[ ]] brackets on Wikipedia). You would do this with the following code:

[[User:Honeymane|<span style="color:red; font-family:Old English Text MT, Papyrus">Honeymane</span>]]
 <sub>[[User:Honeymane/talk|<span style="font-family:KlingonTNG, New Times Roman">Heghlu meH QaQ jajvam</span>]]</sub>

Which renders:

Honeymane_{Heghlu meH QaQ jajvam}

—Lantoka ^{( talk | contrib)} 02:29, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks :) now, if only I could fix my Copy function! --Honeymane_{Heghlu meH QaQ jajvam} 03:05, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chakat

I've undeleted the article to allow you to get a copy. Note that it sometimes takes a little while for articles that are undeleted after a new article is created in its place to appear (such as the redirect created in this case). I don't see the article yet, but it should show up soon. Let me know when you have copied the article. —Doug Bell ^talk 21:17, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you're still here, it's available now in the history. (Go to the redirect page and click on the history button.) —Doug Bell ^talk 22:02, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I see, it was never really deleted was it? just altered. Okay then I have my copy, thanks for all your help Doug, I hope it wasn't too much of a problem.--Honeymane_{Heghlu meH QaQ jajvam} 02:05, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. I learned something about how to purge the cache so that the undeletion shows up right away, so that was useful for me. Also, no, it was deleted before; when it got undeleted it merged it with my previous edit that redirected it. If you look at it now, you can see what it looked like before I undeleted it and that there was no history before I undeleted it. —Doug Bell ^talk 02:35, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unilateral move of Male bra to Male brassiere

Have you ever even read WP:NAME? – Lantoka (talk) 21:48, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What are you pointing out?--Honeymane_{Heghlu meH QaQ jajvam} 21:52, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Generally, article naming should give priority to what the majority of English speakers would most easily recognize, with a reasonable minimum of ambiguity, while at the same time making linking to those articles easy and second nature." The reason you cite for making that page move is that the new title is more formal. That seems to go contrary to WP:NAME, since it states that the most easily recognizable title should get priority.

In short, I disagree with your move and once again urge you to make good use of talk pages and read up on applicable policies, guidelines, and previous discussion before proceeding with controversial moves. This isn't the first time we've stepped on each other's toes. – Lantoka (talk) 22:04, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you read the section you are quoting, the article is name Brassiere not Bra because it's ambiguous. And frankly I agree; Just because we use the term Bra in everyday slang (which is what it is) does not mean that the article has to be termed that. This is why we have redirect pages.--Honeymane_{Heghlu meH QaQ jajvam} 22:18, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Which... I already said. "::The article brassiere is at brassiere and not bra for disambiguation purposes. There was actually discussion about the name on its talk page, and it can be found in the first archive."

And according to Wikipedia guidelines, since male bra is completely unambiguous and is unarguably the more common usage (unlike brassiere where there's ambiguity), male bra is the ideal article name.

Please, try harder to work with others and to understand what they're trying to tell you. I've put considerable time and effort into arguing with you on talk pages and trying to explain things to you and you always somehow seem to miss my points. – Lantoka (talk) 23:09, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's only 'unambiguous' because of the word 'male'.--Honeymane_{Heghlu meH QaQ jajvam} 23:49, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar Trophy

Thanks a lot! That's cool. -- T H L 23:52, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! add it to your (where ever you keep your awards)!--Honeymane_{Heghlu meH QaQ jajvam} 23:55, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is on my user page right under the RAoK barnstar. Thanks again, -- T H L 00:24, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

Suddenly I'm seeing you all over my watchlist, doing good things. Pleased to meet you - glad to see your good work. KillerChihuahua^?!? 02:26, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I'm making good use of Firefox's tabs tonight!--Honeymane_{Heghlu meH QaQ jajvam} 02:43, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RE:

What article is it, and have you tried to sort it out on the talk page? -- T H L 00:04, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The article in question is History of Feminism, but it's okay, I have another user helping me with it.--Honeymane_{Heghlu meH QaQ jajvam} 00:11, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Help

I'm the logged out User:The Hybrid. I messed up my skin trying to get a new anti-vandal tool, and now whenever I try to log in or fix it logged out my computer freezes. Could you blank User:The Hybrid/monobook.js please. I'll return the favor however you want. Please tell me on my IP talk page if you do this. Cheers, 71.223.40.167 08:43, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm back!!!!!! Thanks for posting the helpme template, that was a good idea. Cheers, -- T H L 09:19, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome.--Honeymane_{Heghlu meH QaQ jajvam} 20:25, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Iranian women's movement

Hi there. I moved the template as it looked ugly in my browser. It pushed all photos down and they are not in front of the paragraph refered to them any longer. Maybe in your browser it looks different. Please let me know about that.Thanks.Sangak 09:26, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, next time, please fill out the edit summary; I'm going to se if there is anything I can do to fix the image formating, so give me a half an hour.--Honeymane_{Heghlu meH QaQ jajvam} 20:20, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Martin Luther Timeline

Hi! I noticed that you adjusted the timeline some. I'm not quite sure what you did to it, but it now displaces the first section head a little. I thought I'd ask why you did this before trying to fix this problem. --CTSWyneken^(talk) 12:15, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

When I came across the image, it didn't seem 'right' if was not alinied with any side, and was just sort of floating in the middle between the introduction and the first heading, I felt it looked better in a box and located on the left side.

However, feel free to change it back, or change the size of the image so it doesn't displace the first heading. I just felt it added to the readablilty of the article.--Honeymane_{Heghlu meH QaQ jajvam} 20:15, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Scizor animation

Image:ScizoranimatedGIF.gif

I replaced the animation as it seemed rather distracting. I've uploaded the animated version to a separate file for you, I won't object if you want to change things back. LukeSurl 12:58, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I think I'm going to edit it and reupload it, hopefully improved.--Honeymane_{Heghlu meH QaQ jajvam} 04:21, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mind if I upload my newer version?--Honeymane_{Heghlu meH QaQ jajvam} 04:55, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re. My Name

Hmm, never noticed it. I just wanted it to be the shade of blue it is now, never noticing the color of the interwiki link. As it is, I've been dragging this sig for too long, I'll probably change it in the next couple of days anyways. Cheers, The Raven's Apprentice ^{(Talk|Contribs)} 12:30, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Don't change it on my account, I just thought I should point that out.--Honeymane_{Heghlu meH QaQ jajvam} 04:23, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Brassiere Article

I am asking your assistance to help stop the removal of the 'male bra' segment on the Wikipedia Article Brassiere, I noticed you helped to keep it before, but now STEPHEN BURNETT keeps removing it HELP! MPBorisJohnson

Request for editting

Now that a consensus has been established on Talk:Breast for the inclusion of the deleted images, especially "Image:Breast_shape_type-_lengthwise_growth_and_angled_end.jpg|thumb|right|Breasts with a high length-to-base ratio, angled ends, and a straight upper part." (the new image), I request that you revert the deletions, as it is generally better that a variety of edittors make the same revert, so as to demonstrate consensus. I have made one revert in the last 24 hours, and so has MotherAmy.

By the way, I noticed on your user page that you share many interests with me, such as star wars, the legend of zelda, atheism, and evolution. Coincidence?

Embryoglio 04:27, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I must confess, I'm not really sure where I should start my editting with such a large edit war going on.--Honeymane_{Heghlu meH QaQ jajvam} 05:22, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The main dispute is over the image that I mentioned, which is from the top of the section 'shape and support' (where the images were deleted from). There are also 2 other associated images in that area, such that all 3 images are used to demonstrate contrasting breast shapes with the minimum necessary number of images. See the edit history of the article. The 3 images, complete with their descriptive captions, and sans brackets, are:

Image:Weibliche-brust.jpg|thumb|right|Relatively round breasts which protrude almost horizontally.
Image:Ptosis.jpg|thumb|right|Relatively large breasts which extend below the inframammary line
These breasts also have a low length-to-base ratio, flat ends, and a very convex upper part.
Image:Breast_shape_type-_lengthwise_growth_and_angled_end.jpg|thumb|right|Breasts with a high length-to-base ratio, angled ends, and a straight upper part.

Embryoglio 06:29, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We've completed re-adding all of the images that had been removed from the article for MotherAmy. Now we are discussing what images, if any might add to the quality of the article. Thanks in advance for your participation. Please see (Breast/sandbox. Atom 02:54, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Correction of deception by Atomaton

At Talk:Breast, the user Atomaton tried to fool you into thinking that the 'badly drawn breasts' that you mentioned (the painting, which appears near the end of the article) is the image that I added. That is false. The image that I added can be seen at Talk:Breast under the RfC section, in which it is the second image (it is titled "Image:Breast_shape_type-_lengthwise_growth_and_angled_end.jpg"). Embryoglio 05:34, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reverting my Pokémon edits

I may have been misunderstood. All I did was add the official Japanese name Romanizations and delete unnecessary foreign-language names like those of France and Germany. (these are articles on an English/American site on something of Japanese origin so only those two should matter, right?)—ウルタプ 00:45, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

some of them didn't look like romanizations of the names, and looked almost exactly like the english name, you also removed the Japanese characters.--Honeymane_{Heghlu meH QaQ jajvam} 01:00, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there are a lot of cases where both names are identical (the vast majority of legendaries, for example; with the exception of the original three birds there've only been spelling changes to make pronunciation more obvious). And katakana and Roma-ji don't really need to be on the page twice.

That maybe, but don't remove the japanese characters, they are impotent to the article.--Honeymane_{Heghlu meH QaQ jajvam} 00:47, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, yeah, I'm not removing the ones in the Template:Nihongo.—ウルタプ 01:03, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure how that's related to this discussion. I suggest you refer to the Pokémon Collaborative Project before making more changes regrading the japanese names, as you once again have removed the japanese characters from an article's japanese name space.--Honeymane_{Heghlu meH QaQ jajvam} 01:48, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

NS Image

The nation I sreeenshot just happens to have a large flag. I can use another nation if you'd like.--Whytecypress 02:01, 2 February 2007 (UTC) What size would be most representative? It seems to vary quite a bit. Should I use the Default Aboriginal flag?--Whytecypress 01:36, 4 February 2007 (UTC) Well, currently, custom flags have to be with in a size, I can't remember what it is right now though.[reply]

Vista

Please restate your opinion on the Vista move on the Vista talk page. Thank you. W3stfa11/^{Talk to me} 03:20, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: "Censorship"

I'm sorry but I'm afraid you're misusing the term "censorship." It means making something forbidden or unavailable while the picture is still available with the linkimage template; the only difference being that readers are not forced to see it but they can simply choose. Please note that the opposite of "forbidden" is not "obligatory" but "allowed."

Please note also that Wikipedia:Image use policy contains an important caveat: "Do not upload shocking or explicit pictures, unless they have been approved by a consensus of editors for the relevant article." WP:NOT#Censor is not an open door to everything; it does not trump all other policies on Wikipedia. Adam78 12:49, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merging fetish articles

I'm noted that you've said that merging all the Fetish stubs into one article is a good idea; however, I'm not sure hoq to go about this, I rather not step on people's toes, should I create the article and then put up notification's on the articles to be merged into it? --Honeymane_{Heghlu meH QaQ jajvam} 23:01, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Honeymane, thanks for writing me. Yes, I do think creating a new article to merge the stubs to is a good idea. If you are worried about stepping on toes, here is the procedure I would use: 1) create a new article with enough context to stand on its own; 2) for each article to be merged, add the tag {{mergeto|new article name}} and also say something like "I would like to merge this article to [[new article name]], any objections?" on the talk page, 3) wait for responses, 4) if no negative responses, then do the merge. If you're feeling more bold, you can also think about doing larger structural changes, such as moving the "Types of fetishes" section of Sexual fetishism to its own article (e.g. Types of sexual fetishes) so that merging minor fetishes there won't unbalance the primary Sexual fetishism article. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-21 07:16Z

Moved to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Insertion fantasy

Quarl, thanks for you advise, is there any way that I can gain access to the information in the deleted articles of Insertion fantasy, etc (I'll get a list) for the new article List of uncommon fetishes? It's a bit difficult to have any information in the article if I have nothing to 'list'.--Honeymane_{Heghlu meH QaQ jajvam} 20:21, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, I have undeleted the article Insertion fantasy to User:Honeymane/Insertion fantasy. Before you merge content from this one though, make sure that it's attributable. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-25 03:49Z

thanks, I'll see what I can do--Honeymane_{Heghlu meH QaQ jajvam} 08:05, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, the article I created is up for deletion.--Honeymane_{Heghlu meH QaQ jajvam} 19:37, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey! I have already assembled a list of 20 articles that I think could be made into a single "Garment fetishism" article. Check it out on my page here (at the bottom) and tell me what you think. I think it will help alot. If you agree I'll start a model for the page in my sandbox. Thanks. NeoFreak 03:17, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I don't think the title "List of uncommon fetishes" will work because all fetishes, by their very nature, are considered to be uncommon. NeoFreak 03:19, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I know, I watch your list. Uncommon among uncommons perhaps? the title's really only a place holder, If you want to suggest another one, on it's talk page, that'd be great.

as for you article; I agree that they could be merged into one article, or, they could be merged into a garment section (etc) in the article I'm attempting to create. Sadly, It's already been put up for deletion, and I'm meeting some resistance on the pages I've tagged.--Honeymane_{Heghlu meH QaQ jajvam} 08:05, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RfC on bobsmith319

I've done an RfC on bobsmith319 (the guy who keeps removing the nude image from pregnancy, if you would come comment, that'd be appreciated. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Bobsmith319 Kuronue 20:39, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:POKE is doing some housecleaning

This notice is to inform you that because many people have added their names to Wikipedia:WikiProject Pokémon#Participants but do not seem to be active, all names are being deleted in an effort to find out who is still truly interested in the project. All you have to do is re-add your name if you'd still like to be considered a member of WP:POKE. Any questions, you can contact me on my talk page. -ΖαππερΝαππερ ^Babel_Alexandria 17:40, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Furry

Looking for something to do? WikiProject Furry is improving articles on furry and anthropomorphic topics, and we'd like to have you on board.

Our current goal is to raise Anthrocon, furry convention and furry fandom to good article status and beyond - but if that doesn't take your fancy, there are plenty of other articles to work on. Give it a go and let us know how you're doing!

You received this one-time invitation because you are a Furry Wikipedian. GreenReaper 22:48, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Notability in fiction

There are dozens of Star Trek ship-, species-, character- and planet-related redirects (that once were "articles") because the subjects lack any coverage by reliable third-party sources. Please do not restore non-notable content that is written from an in-universe perspective and lacks any assertion of real-world notable with substantiating reliable sources. I'd be happy to AfD them all, but it is swifter simply to maintain the redirects. If you want to give these separate articles, please first read Wikipedia's guidelines for writing about fiction and the (recently updated) guideline for notability requirements for (elements of) fiction. --EEMeltonIV 03:24, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All I'm asking is to at least attempt to make an effort to discuss the redirect of the article in question, or possible merge the information with the other article it would redirect to.--Honeymane_{Heghlu meH QaQ jajvam} 03:32, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm happy to add Memory Alpha links in the External links, but the material in, say, Caitian and Wells-class starship is trivial in-universe plot summary that doesn't fit Wikipedia's guidelines for inclusion. --EEMeltonIV 03:35, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If the formate isn't correct, fix it. Being a plot summary isn't reason enough to delete or redirct something, because it merely needs a re-write.--Honeymane_{Heghlu meH QaQ jajvam} 03:44, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Formatting and plot summary, no, not a reason to axe. But being non-notable trivia is a reason to get rid of it. --EEMeltonIV 04:06, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Like I said on the talk page, it's possible we're missing the reason for it being notable. Someone who doesn't have an good grasp of physics and such, may not understand why dark matter or thermodynamics are notable, but that doesn't mean they're not, ether of us are (I'm assuming) an expert in the topic, so we should seek the knowledge of someone who is.--Honeymane_{Heghlu meH QaQ jajvam} 04:12, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm part of the Star Trek wikiproject and consider myself sufficiently versed both in Trek geekiness and Wikipedia policy to know that the content of both of these articles is more appropriate for Memory Alpha, since they lack any real-world notability and are not the subject of significant third-party coverage. --EEMeltonIV 04:14, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps, however, the other members of the group would disagree, which is, after all, the whole point of discussing dramatic moves on the talk pages.--Honeymane_{Heghlu meH QaQ jajvam} 04:24, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edit to Separatist feminism

I reverted the edit because bell has always spelled her name with lowercase letters only. This is a frequent change made here, for some reason. --Orange Mike 03:49, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your unexplained revert on Pregnancy

Why did you revert that which was not sourced anyway, and had fact tags in place for months? It is only someone's opinion and has nothing to do with biology, or medicine. Are you Zerida? I had to revert, but unless you can source that statement, which I doubt can be, then by all means it should stay. Until then, it should stay out of the article. It's a myth, or at best an opinion of a few lay persons. ←Gee♥Alice 03:48, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's often important to discuss the whole-sale removal of statements, even if they have been fact tagged for a long time, especially in articles like pregnancy. Given the nature of the article, it's important to try an make sure all edits done to the article aren't vandalism, assuming good faith and being bold are fine, but sometime one has to exercise caution, especially on articles relating to sex. Rather then removing it, why not try to find the citations you seek? --Honeymane_{Heghlu meH QaQ jajvam} 05:02, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Brassieres & Cancer

I think the broader point is that the original claim that bras cause cancer is not supported by any legitimate study.

While I suspect there's an uncurrent of inclusiveness of any and all opinions in Wikipedia, this one is so outside of science we ought to excercise some editorial control here. If you read the whole thread, you see some very nutty ideas, including one proponent of the "all clothing can cause cancer" hypothesis.

When do we draw the line? I think this is a good time to do it. Reputable experts on the topic have not found a link. And demanding proof of there not being a link... well then we should accept all opinions so long as nobody has developed a specific test to disprove. Effectively, what Jonatham108 is demanding is a Null hypothesis test.

It's an old trick promoted by minority voices demanding equal time. See Intelligent Design and Teach the Controversy to see how this tactic has been used recently to introduce pseudo science into a scientific discussion.

Likewise, this "bras cause cancer" hypothesis is not science or a ligitimate inquiry (according to expert sources). So I'm strongly against having this in the article. I hope you'll consider weighing quality of content over broad inclusiveness on this one. Mattnad (talk) 22:58, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I hear what you're saying about the cigarette analogy but we should still focus on established science. What I find interesting about the debate is that people are willing to accept the plausible (bras and cancer) while rejecting the implausible (clothing and cancer) even though they have equally weak foundations. These two authors cited by Jonathan108 did not follow any accepted scientific method. Their sample was biased and their methods suspect. Their conclusions are therefore tainted. Why then should we accept this into wikipedia? This is why we have WP:UNDUE as a guideline. I'm all for considering this hypothesis once it has some scientific support behind it. Otherwise we're introducing myth into an article. Mattnad (talk) 13:13, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I think we don't see eye to eye on the relevance and authority of the "study." For instance, you referred to it as a "theory." It is not a scientific theory but an untested hypothesis. It's actually no different than a myth like Creationism. Don't take it personally, but many people misunderstand the scientific method, and what qualifies as science. The fact that an optician and a fellow with a masters in anthropology publish something doesn't make it a) scientific, or b) part of a real debate.

What's telling about these two authors is that they never bothered pursuing their own hypothesis with further testing beyond the initial flawed study. Instead, they published their sensational conclusions and then made hay out of the broad rejection of their work.

I'm also curious why you don't see this as a fringe idea? Aside from this old and discredited study, is there some other support that shows bras (and other binding clothing) cause cancer? If there is, then please share since my concern is that this is unsupportable nonsense and I could be very wrong.

Perhaps we can put this up for discussion so that others can chime in. If there's a consensus in favor of it, I would expect us to explain who the authors are, and include the qualifiers that no scientific study has validated this myth. We should also include our finding that organizations who take breast cancer seriously have considered and rejected this notion. Mattnad (talk) 16:24, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

breast

You removed the image i used without discussion so what makes what i did any different then what you did you haven't posted in the talk thread.Yami (talk) 02:02, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Breast Discussion

Do you know who I should talk to about that user? They seem pretty clueless tbh, and I'm sick of running in circles with them.--Honeymane_{Heghlu meH QaQ jajvam} 04:08, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I know what you mean. The only thing I can think of is Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism Asher196 (talk) 04:29, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also Wikipedia:Dispute resolution Asher196 (talk) 04:34, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

lede

Hey:

Thanks for looking out for my many spelling misses. Unfortunately, this was not one of them!

Please see lede definition -- and Lede.

Atom (talk) 05:31, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RE:

Since Asher wants to be a dick I'll have to show you some of the things that makes Puberty 101 discreditable on your talk page.

Careful there mister. You don't need to carry out a discussion with Honeymane on my talk page, that's why I removed your long winded reply. Asher196 (talk) 04:15, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

their discalimer

Disclaimer: Answers to questions should not in anyway be considered as professional advice or used as an alternative to seeking qualified professional help or guidance from your parents or legal guardian. Answers to questions are strictly for educational and entertainment purposes only. If you need professional advice you should consult a qualified professional, health care provider, or doctor. If you need guidance trust the judgement of your parents.

examples of judgmental user generated content.

Q Matthew (15-17) asks:

I masturbate 3-4 times a day in private, and maybe once or twice with one or two of my friends. The thing is they only play with themselves once a day, am I normal or am I some kind of sicko?

A Matthew:

Well, as you can read from the other responses, masturbating a few times daily isn't necessarily bad unless it gets in the way of other activities. Now, I assume you don't mean that you masturbate with with your friends every day also? I guess that wouldn't necessarily be a bad thing, but at this point, masturbating 4-6 times per day may be taking time away from other activities. You are probably in the normal range, although most boys don't "circle jerk" that often as they reach their late teens. If you're obsessed with masturbation, or masturbating with your friends, then perhaps you should take up a sport or hobby that will give you something else to do also.

Q Brian (15-17) asks...

When I am in Gym, I take a look around at other boys undressing and I get my penis gets stiff. When we are in the shower, it gets even stiffer. I'm not gay, but why is it doing this?

A Brian:

You're getting erections because it turns you on to see other boys undressing, and it turns you on to show them your own penis. Many people (gay and straight) get turned on by sexuality itself, regardless of the subject. True, you may not be gay, but I wouldn't totally rule it out. You should explore in your head what really does turn you on. And like I mentioned to Ryan, above, perhaps you should consider avoiding putting yourself in that situation. Yami (talk) 04:12, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Survey request

Hi,
I need your help. I am working on a research project at Boston College, studying creation of medical information on Wikipedia. You are being contacted, because you have been identified as an important contributor to one or more articles.

Would you will be willing to answer a few questions about your experience? We've done considerable background research, but we would also like to gather the insight of the actual editors. Details about the project can be found at the user page of the project leader, geraldckane. Survey questions can be found at geraldckane/medsurvey. Your privacy and confidentiality will be strictly protected!

The questions should only take a few minutes. I hope you will be willing to complete the survey, as we do value your insight. Please do not hesitate to contact me or Professor Kane if you have any questions.

Thank You,

Peanut shape Prolate_spheroid

Not sure if the above is close enough to a peanut shape? Answers on ref-desk but thought would add note here incase didn't notice (question is a couple of days old). 194.221.133.226 (talk) 11:19, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your actions on Jon & Kate Plus 8

Stop blindly reverting. The section does NOT pass Reliable Source. SirFozzie (talk) 21:19, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The source is unreliable because it's self published. If it was covered by reputable sources, that's fine (and this battle would have been over months ago). And the reason for a "Wholesale revert" of a section, is because there's a group of people out there desperate to fill the article on this show and the people involved with "controversy" derogatory information about them, because of a personal dislike for them or their parenting skills. Also, you are at 3RR already, another revert will violate Wikipedia's policies SirFozzie (talk) 21:53, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

stop reverting my edits

before removing me edits, please explain what I did write wrong`? Wiikkiiwriter (talk) 00:34, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Firefox

Does copy just fine for me. Had an old version but got an update today, both copied just fine. Thought Honeymane would like to know.

Cakes Downey (talk) 14:16, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Revert to neutral in Circumcision

Click on view history and select a version you agree with ([[1]]) and then click undo and click save to maintain the honest neutral concensus text. Just don't do it more than twice per 24 hrs. Trying to discuss anything with Jakew, Coppertwin, jayg, and Avi is a huge waste of time. They are a cabal, and discussion a sham designed to waste time with false statements. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.191.234.191 (talk) 01:33, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]