View source for Wipipedia.org talk:Community Portal

==Copyright==

===Images===
I have just seen an [http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Armbinder.jpg image] from here on Wikimedia.  It has the [[GNU Free Documentation License]] attributed to it (user:Balzac) '''even though the image doesn't say so on this site'''.  It IS reasonable to assume that unless an image has anything specific, it falls under the site's overall licence but I am not sure this is so in every case and I feel we really must go through all the images we have on this site putting copyright notices on them ALL.  There are [[Help:templates|templates]] to assist.  We might  otherwise be exposed to quite severe penalties.  I can start going through them myself but unless there is some annotation, the best I could do is remove the image (perhaps first putting it in a new category "''about to be deleted''" for a while).  --[[User:Interesdom|Interesdom]] 07:30, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

----

==Non-consensuality vs BDSM==
With all the publicity around about forced-labour and forced prostitution etc. I have little doubt that some people looking for links about <b>non</b>consensual slavery will end up on this site.  It occurs to me that we should have a page on it, distancing this site and BDSM generally and pointing to other sites such as the BBC (I have the link somewhere) and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery etc.

What does anyone else reckon and does anyone want to start it?  I'm not sure what title for the topic would be best.

--[[User:Interesdom|Interesdom]] 18:08, 11 May 2005 (BST)

Take a peek at [[slavery]] and see what you think.  I don't think the site needs to take such a negative stance with something that is generally accepted (outside of BDSM anyways) to be an illegal activity.  It's assumed outside the BDSM lifestyle that slavery is socially unacceptable.  --[[User:ViciousLover|Vicious Lover]] 05:47:11, 2005-12-26 (GMT)

----

==Topic Labels - abbreviations or not?==
Please see [[Talk:Safe, sane, and consensual]] for proposals I have in this area.
--[[User:Interesdom|Interesdom]] 19:10, 28 May 2005 (BST)
----

==Topic Labels - Singular or plural==

We currently have a mixture.  What is the 'correct' ruling for this?  [[Cane]], [[Dildo]] and [[Paddle]] but [[Blindfolds]], [[Spreader bars]] and [[Violet wands]].  I can understand some things remaining 'plural' even if we have singular - [[Handcuffs]] for example because we don't use 'handcuff' as a noun.  Similarly, if we go plural, some things will make easier reading in the singular, such as [[St Andrews cross]].  Nevertheless, I think it would make easier navigating and linking if we were consistent.

Again, much easier if we sort this out now rather than wait until there's many more links.  Any ideas?

--[[User:Interesdom|Interesdom]] 16:51, 20 Jun 2005 (BST)

I try (most of the time) to use the singular. [[User:Balzac|Balzac]] 17:19, 20 Jun 2005 (BST)

:Someone has already moved all three of your 'plural' pages to the 'singular' form. I've gone to the old redirect pages and redirected the links directly to the singular form of the word. I think that you should be bold and change any plurals that you think should be changed to the singular form. It doesn't take long to move a page from 'Blindfolds' to 'Blindfold' and it doesn't take long to hunt down the small number of pages that link to the old page. [[User:Big Birdwatching Bob|Big Birdwatching Bob]] 22:34, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
:: If the plural article exists, with a redirect from the singular, sometimes the software won't let you rename the plurl to the singular unless you're an admin. [[User:Ropeuser|Ropeuser]] 07:14, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
----

There are always redirects.  I know they are a pain in the @ss, but they are very effective in keeping people from getting lost. --[[User:ViciousLover|Vicious Lover]] 05:50:07, 2005-12-26 (GMT)

: The pretty standard wiki convention is Article use singular when possible, as <nowiki>[[Paddle]]s</nowiki> becomes [[Paddle]]s, where it is much more annoying to go the other way (i.e. <nowiki>[[Spreader bars|Spreader bar]]</nowiki> )
: Where as Categories use Plural. --[[User:Roguebfl|Roguebfl]] 18:36, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

==Technical flaw==
I repeatedly found that the Search/Go functions did NOT contain the clickable link to start creating an article (just some coe, probably with a small but critical error in it), while that is still possible if one first creates a 'red link' in an existing article, so the actual creation routine must still be valid - probably a small task for an expert, but greatly needed! [[User:KosmetÃ¨s|KosmetÃ¨s]] 19:17:50, 2005-11-20 (GMT)

Thanks for pointiong that out. We upgraded to a new version of the software recently, there must still be some bugs to iron out! [[User:Balzac|Balzac]] 23:12, 20 November 2005 (GMT)

Fixed it. --[[User:Interesdom|Interesdom]] 18:32, 24 November 2005 (GMT)
----

==Copying from Wikipedia==
Now that this encyclopaedia is established, I really don't think there is benefit in copying vast amounts from Wikipedia, especially without any alterations to change the point-of-view, or to add anything specifically Fetish or BDSM to the content.  Wikipedia will always have a greater number of readers and editors than this encyclopaedia and so will always be able to be better and  more informative on the 'standard' aspects of things.  I think there is far better value in letting Wikipedia handle the main topic (such as [[cat o'nine tails]]) while this encyclopaedia just handles the specific aspects of Fetish/BDSM and puts that perspective and meaning on topics.  After all, if I wanted to really know the 'standard' definition and use of some word, I will use Wikipedia.  I come here - and edit/contribute here - for the Fetish & BDSM context or information.

As a further note, we must ensure that we credit Wikipedia whenever we use copy from there, in accordance with the terms of its licence.  See the template [[Template:Wikipedia|Wikipedia]] and its [[Template_talk:Wikipedia|discussion page]].

--[[User:Interesdom|Interesdom]] 18:53, 24 November 2005 (GMT)

Any chance of a bit more, well, community?

The community talk page is empty and hasn't been edited since November

I can't find any list of admins to talk to regarding general newbie questions and stuff

Come on, this could be so great a project if people pulled together a bit more.

--[[User:Mistress Selina Kyle|Mistress Selina Kyle]] 13:17, 24 December 2005 (GMT) ([http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Mistress_Selina_Kyle The same Mistress Selina Kyle from Wikipedia])

>>>> P.S. Clicking the link above incorrectly displays that you're still on the '''Wipipedia''' website in the address bar, not '''Wikipedia''' - I guess this is because you are using frames to hide the lfhosting address - maybe you should make it so external links open automatically in a new window to avoid opening in a frame, or use "a href="whatever" target="_top"> to make it open ignoring the frame as a proper link.

alternately you might want to set up your website DNS to point directly to lfhosting instead of simply having a "frame" page on wipipedia.org that displays the real site, lfhosting in the frame: talk to your host if you don't know how to do this :)

Yeah, I know I'm clever. Thank me later. ;) :p --[[User:Mistress Selina Kyle|Mistress Selina Kyle]] 13:20, 24 December 2005 (GMT)

'''''Above message also on [[Talk:Main Page]] in hopes someone'll see it!''''' --[[User:Mistress Selina Kyle|Mistress Selina Kyle]] 13:22, 24 December 2005 (GMT)

== User Templates/Userboxes ==

I'm a member of the wikipedia userbox project (See[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Userboxes Wikiproject Userboxes]) and I think it might be a good idea to set up our own templates here, so that we can easily say what sexual fetishes etc we have, like or like to have. I've already got an idea to seperate the templates into topics, such as [[Alt Sex]], [[BDSM]], [[Bondage]], [[Clubs]], [[Fetishes]], [[Toys]] and [[Wipipedia]]. I created a link for it, [[WipiProject: Userboxes]]. [[User:ISD|ISD]] 07:06, 24 May 2006 (GMT)

== Wikipedia article on Wipipedia proposed for deletion ==

[[Wikipedia]] is thinking of deleting the article for [[Wikipedia:Wipipedia|Wipipedia]]. The article may be deleted on 23 June 2006 if the article is not improved. Please help improve our article! [[User:ISD|ISD]] 17:53, 18 June 2006 (GMT)

:I can't see how amending the article would help.  They say it's a good article, but that this site is insufficiently notable to be worth an article.  The thing to do is to get everyone we know who is a Wikipedia editor to say that it is a notable site. --[[User:Taxwoman|Taxwoman]] 21:39, 18 June 2006 (BST)

The article has been kept! Thanks to everyone who helped save it. [[User:ISD|ISD]] 06:41, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

==Pornographic images==

We have had a number of posts of pornographic images to the site and I think we need to agree a policy regarding this. I have no problem with porn as such, and this is an adult orientated site but we do not have a splash screen warning users that they may come across pornographic images. It is also a UK hosted site so comes under UK jurisdiction in terms of obscene publication laws. My feeling is we should limit any images to softcore only and there must be a clear statement about the licence of any image uploaded to protect us against any possible claims from the image owner. Opinions please. [[User:Balzac|Balzac]] 17:29, 8 July 2006 (BST)

I'm comfortable with the images already posted. I feel that as long as the copyright is mentioned, then it is alright to post them. [[User:ISD|ISD]] 20:45, 8 July 2006 (BST)

==Wiki for Porn==
Some of you might be interested to know that I'm working on [http://wikiforporn.org Wiki for Porn], it's a GFDL licensed Wiki, well, you guessed it, for porn. We will probably have some more explicit material on the site. And, since it's GFDL, some articles will be based on Wipipedia articles. It might even be cool to set up interwiki links on articles that are available on both wikis. [[User:Fantasia|Fantasia]] 08:24, 5 November 2006 (GMT)

==Fuck==
Why is this word "nothing to do with BDSM" (and therefore deleted)?  I thought [[User:MineShaft|MineShaft's]] final version was quite good (sorry, only admin can see deleted pages), linking as it did to three valid topics in Wipipedia and being synoptic (though perhaps the first sentence (opinion) could be removed).  BDSM and fetish is, for many, largely about sensuality/sexuality and fucking is a major culmination of sexual activity.  I'm all for un-deleting, ''at least until we can have a debate over it''.  --[[User:Interesdom|Interesdom]] 07:41, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
:It's been deleted before.  However, this is a community endeavour and if others want the article restored, please go ahead.--[[User:Taxwoman|Taxwoman]] 20:58, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
::It has been restored and so far no-one has put any discussion on it about deletion.  Maybe it will stay?  --[[User:Interesdom|Interesdom]] 05:43, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
:I've decided after much thought that I'm indifferent.  It is probably slightly out of scope for Wipipedia, but some people would expect to find an article like it.--[[User:Taxwoman|Taxwoman]] 14:13, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
:::Re-fuck article [[Fuck]]; I will improve the fucking article. So bring it back; I promise to make it S&M sick.--[[User:MineShaft|MineShaft]] 05:56, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

== Hard core porn images ==

We need copyright-free porn images to decorate our articles. For instance, I want some hard core [[scat fisting]] pix (been there, done that, but forgot to take Polaroids). I do have some Polaroids of me wrecked with five needles in each tit. Forgot to sign, so I do: --[[User:MineShaft|MineShaft]] 06:44, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
:We need to ensure that nothing breaches English obscenity laws, or there might be legal action against us.  I would certainly delete anything I thought might get us into trouble. --[[User:Taxwoman|Taxwoman]] 10:48, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

==Namespace==
I've seen a couple of pages which I think belong in the Wipipedia: or Help: namespace.  I haven't moved them since I'm still a little vague about what really belongs where, and why.  However, both [[Editing policy]] and [[Edit wars]] are to do with maintaining the encyclopeadia rather than being content that belongs IN it.  Should they be moved, and where?  --[[User:Interesdom|Interesdom]] 09:48, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
:I've moved Edit wars to Wipipedia space; I'm not sure about Editing policy.--[[User:Taxwoman|Taxwoman]] 10:49, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

==Delete [[Maeoniae]]==
I'm not even sure of the procedure to start a deletion discussion here, but the guy who started the article never really replied to my comments on [[Talk:Maeoniae]], and I very strongly suspect the whole thing is completely bogus. [[User:AnonMoos|AnonMoos]] 17:47, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

In my opinion it is a complete hoax, but to the author's credit, it is very well done. I added the section with the link to the wikipedia deletion discussion. Personally I am happy to leave it up as a bit of fun, providing we are not trying to pass it off un challenged. But if there is a consensus to delete then I won't object. [[User:Balzac|Balzac]] 21:54, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
:I'm in two minds about it and happy to go either way.  On the general issue, I could easily start a VfD page.--[[User:Taxwoman|Taxwoman]] 22:20, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

We don't have a specific procedure to propose deletions and, given the mess that Wikipedia is in some areas, I'm not sure that is such a bad thing on a smaller-scale encyclopedia like this: the talk pages should suffice. I've added my comments about deleting [[Maeoniae]] at [[Talk:Maeoniae]]
. --[[User:Interesdom|Interesdom]] 09:39, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

:I just think that if we want to keep it as an example of marvelous bullshit, then we should move it to "Story:Maeoniae" or whatever, and remove all pretenses and claims to encyclopedicity.  I'm not sure that a brief header which vaguely casts suspicion on the article is quite adequate. [[User:AnonMoos|AnonMoos]] 07:56, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

::Moved it to "Story:". [[User:AnonMoos|AnonMoos]] 21:17, 31 March 2007 (BST)

== Uploading images == 

I don;t know if this is the right place, but i extended the articcle about chastity belts by copying the wikipedia=page. Problem: why aren't the pics visible? Where/how to load them? 
Please let me know: chastityslave22@hotmail.com, so i can correct this.<br>
{Comment by Chastityslave, 16:58, 7 May 2007}
:I've had to revert you.  We shouldn't just delete our article and replace it with the Wikipedia one.  To upload photos, put them on your hard disk and click on "Upload file" on the list at the left of the screen.--[[User:Taxwoman|Taxwoman]] 18:33, 7 May 2007 (BST)

== Forced homosexuality ==

Much to my disappointment, I can't find any articles on forced homosexuality [[User:Faustus Tacitus|Faustus Tacitus]] 23:29, 5 June 2007 (BST)
:We tend to deal only with consensual activity here.--[[User:Taxwoman|Taxwoman]] 18:58, 9 June 2007 (BST)

::Surely, BDSM forced homosexuality is a matter of "consensual non-consent" and the consensual aspect is not a reason for it not to appear.  I would suppose that we simply haven't had anyone interested enough in the topic to even put in a few words about it.  Why Faustus Tacitus hasn't done so is a puzzle to me.  --[[User:Interesdom|Interesdom]] 05:50, 14 June 2007 (BST)

==Categories==
I think it is over time that we looked at our category structure.  I have no wish to upset anyone with criticisms but I have a number of issues with the structure as it stands:
* Some categories hardly ever stand on their own, always being with another.  E.G. where there is [[:Category:Bondage]], there is almost always [[:Category:BDSM]]; this is a wasteful and confusing duplication.
* Some sub-categories don't make much sense.  E.G. we have [[:Category:BDSM equipment]] subset to [[:Category:Bondage]] even though not all under BDSM equipment is to do with bondage.
* Far too much is under [[:Category:Other_Topics]].  12 subcategories and 84 articles is, to me, indicative of an incorrect or incomplete structure.
* When considering ''why'' someone might want to use categories (see below), the current structure often fails.

Points to consider:
* This is an encyclopaedia on BDSM and fetish.  We need clear topics explaining what those are (and the relationship between them, which I don't think we have) and should treat those topics as gateways, as they form natural top-level categories (but see below also). Unfortunately, while breaking down BDSM is easy, I personally am unsure how to break down Fetish, and our [[:Category:Fetish|category]] on it doesn't help (Body, Clothing, Objects?).
* We can use categories any way we like and for multiple purposes.
* We can use [[Wikipedia:Wikipedia:Namespace|namespaces]] and although these may seem more limiting, perhaps we should consider having some custom ones.  How about one for ''Advice'' pages and another for ''Personal Experience'' pages?

There are a number of ways that categorisation might be useful:
# To break down the components of terminology.  This may help people who find they are interested in, for example, S&M, to follow a path on that specific category.  (This is the easiest structure to build.)
# To highlight an 'effect' path.  Some want to understand about relationships, some want to know about sex, others about erotic fun etc.
# To guide and assist newbies (and academic researchers).  This would entail enabling them to approach subjects from common starting points, such as kinky sex, bondage, dressing up, role playing etc.

I'm willing to work up some recommendations for a new category structure '''if''' there is enough interest and a consensus on the ways we want to use categories.  --[[User:Interesdom|Interesdom]] 12:47, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

:You are right to suggest that the categories need an overhaul. They were never fully thought through in the first place and as you say are contredictory and confusing in places. If you are up for suggesting a new structure I would be very supportive. I think what we should do is to map out the structure first, get agreement, and only then implement it. This is something that will take quite some time to do and I do feel that we should not rush in to make wholesale changes without having time to first fully consider any consequences of the changes. [[User:Balzac|Balzac]] 00:42, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

:Before mapping out the structure, we must know what the structure is trying to achieve.  I mentioned (above) three ways that categorisation might be useful.  I think we should try to cope with them all, even though that may mean that most topics will be under at least three categories, if not four or five.  The disadvantage to this is that too complex a category structure may put people off from using it at all.  --[[User:Interesdom|Interesdom]] 16:40, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

There's no problem with having an article in more than one category.  It would be silly to have a dozen categories in an article, but I can't see that happening.--[[User:Taxwoman|Taxwoman]] 19:04, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

:For what purposes do we want to use categories?  --[[User:Interesdom|Interesdom]] 11:24, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

To allow people to find articles related to the one that they have just seen.  If they have read an article on punishment, theyy may wish to see all such articles.--[[User:Taxwoman|Taxwoman]] 20:41, 9 January 2008 (UTC)


<font color='blue'>I'd like to take on a re-ordering of categories under BDSM.  Initially, I'm thinking of creating/moving categories to suit the entire structure. Moving articles would be the second phase.  Until the entire job is completed, the wipipedia categorisation will look a bit jumbled: as case of things getting worse before they can get better.
I think that BDSM should be structured as follows:

Content
:BDSM
::Bondage
::Discipline (rename Punishment to this - or include it under?)
:::Punishment equipment
::Domination and submission (should this remain "D/s"?)
::Sadomasochism
::BDSM equipment
:::Gags
:::Punishment equipment
:::Sex toys
:::Shopping (also under Fetish)
::History (also under Fetish)
also I'd like to bring in two new categories that cut across this hierarchy (do these belong under BDSM?):
:Roleplaying
:Relationships
:::  '''Please provide feedback on this proposal.''' --[[User:Interesdom|Interesdom]] 20:16, 9 May 2009 (UTC)</font>

Looks good. Rather than BDSM equipment, should we have Bondage equipment (covering gags of course) and SM equipment? I would argue that sex toys should only be on Wipipedia if they are in one of these categories. [[User:Ropeuser|Ropeuser]] 22:02, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
:Equipemnt is a tricky area and I don't have a firm opinion. There is equipement used for bondage, for discipline, for S&M.  There is also stuff used primarily to enhance D/s (though when I think about this, it is often clothing, and not necessarily fetish clothing).  I wonder how often items would overlap these categories if we broke them down.  A [[spanking bench]] for example, is something that can be used for restraint (bondage), used in Discipline and used as an aid in S&M.  If many itmes would be in all categories there is no point splitting them that way.  How about a split between toys and furniture, though?  --[[User:Interesdom|Interesdom]] 14:27, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

A split between toys and furniture is cool. I think I was wrong before; for example, dildoes are not necessarily Bondage or SM. [[User:Ropeuser|Ropeuser]] 20:52, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

==Milowiki==
I had never heard of [http://www.milovana.com/wiki/index.php/Main_Page Milowiki] until a Google search came up with it (ABOVE Wipipedia - what are we doing wrong?).  It appears to be a [http://www.milovana.com/wiki/index.php?title=Special:Recentchanges&days=30&limit=100 replica] of 838 pages from here, with the only mention of Wipipedia being on the wiki main page.  (I have not put Milowiki on the [[List of AltSex Wikis]] because they don't have anything extra to offer.)  I think we should make an approach to them to credit Wipipedia properly, on every topic copied, but didn't want to step on any toes if this is an arrangement with people at LFS. --[[User:Interesdom|Interesdom]] 11:24, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
: They are technically compliant with GFDL, which only requires acknowledgement of the contributors, not Wipipedia itself.  Since they have reproduced the whole edit history of each page, they have actually done more than if they had done a cut and paste of the text and just given a link back to the article here.  However, it would be courteous to make more acknowledgement.  Further, they seem not to have edited since February 2007 so in many cases the articles are not the latest versions.  It is thus worrying if they come above us in a Google search.--[[User:Taxwoman|Taxwoman]] 20:58, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
::this is the first I have heard of it. The Wiki [art appears to be an add on to the site in the same way the the wipi is an add on to LFS (but theye don't seem to be as proctive!) I have no problem with them using our stuff (teh GDFL allows them to do so) but they should creit us correctly (as we do for the wikipedia) [[User:Balzac|Balzac]] 21:56, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
It seems to be a redirect to something else now. [[User:Ropeuser|Ropeuser]] 20:47, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

==Effect of costumes on women?==
I noticed [http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/01/07/fancy_dress_research/ this article]: "It is rare to find any situation where women drink more than men, and these events tended to have sexualised themes and costumes.".  A search on some of the text showed up other pages such as [http://www.physorg.com/news118598891.html this] and [http://www.medindia.com/news/Drinking-Games-and-Themed-Parties-Make-Young-Women-to-Drink-More-31471-1.htm this].  It's all outside my area of knowledge but does anyone want to work any it into a any article?  --[[User:Interesdom|Interesdom]] 12:40, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
: Is the suggestion that women drink a lot more when costumed but men don't?  Preposterous!--[[User:Taxwoman|Taxwoman]] 12:01, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

== Persistent vandal ==

TrbocCnava, AclioLotrl and RelbaStroc are clearly the same person.  They all did the same type of silly vandalism and edited from open proxies.  Encyclopedist may also be the same person.--[[User:Taxwoman|Taxwoman]] 21:25, 11 July 2008 (BST)

==Image problem?==
Uploaded a slightly tweaked version of [[:Image:Kajira-kef.png]], and now it doesn't seem to be displaying correctly in article [[Kajira]].  The uploaded image is fine as a PNG, as far as I can tell...  [[User:AnonMoos|AnonMoos]] 02:40, 16 August 2008 (BST)

:Tried to delete the "01:10, 4 August 2008" version of [[:Image:Kajira-kef.png]] as a preliminary to fixing problems with the recent versions of this image, and couldnt... [[User:AnonMoos|AnonMoos]] 14:15, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

:: I've tried to upload images and found I can't. [[User:Ropeuser|Ropeuser]] 09:13, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
::: I'm in the same boat --<span style="font-family:Kristen ITC,Bradley Hand ITC,Forte;">[[User:Roguebfl|Roguebfl]] <sup>([[User_talk:Roguebfl|talk]])</sup></span> 18:47, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

:::Well, at least [[:Image:Kajira-kef.png]] seems to be properly resizing now... [[User:AnonMoos|AnonMoos]] 21:19, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

== Cite ==

I notice this wipi is lacking the [http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:Cite/Cite.php Cite] extension that allows <ref></ref> and <references /> you might want to consider adding it. --<span style="font-family:Kristen ITC,Bradley Hand ITC,Forte;">[[User:Roguebfl|Roguebfl]] <sup>([[User_talk:Roguebfl|talk]])</sup></span> 18:52, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
:I agree with the above. Citations would help readers work out exactly which source each fact comes from.
:(Over at Wikipedia, the delitionists are actually attacking articles, specifically because they are badly citated. The anti-delitionists are having a hard time at defending facts, because they are effectively needing to repete the research that the original author did when creating the article under attack.) I don't expect Wipipedia to get its own delitionists, but if anyone researching sex for a degree surfed onto this website, it would be good for them to be able to use the citations inside articles to surf onto research papers and other technical sources of sexual information. [[User:Big Birdwatching Bob|Big Birdwatching Bob]] 22:54, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
:: Just adding some references at the end of the article would help. [[User:Ropeuser|Ropeuser]] 07:15, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
::: Not really. As you have no clue which fact is being sourced that way. --<span style="font-family:Kristen ITC,Bradley Hand ITC,Forte;">[[User:Roguebfl|Roguebfl]] <sup>([[User_talk:Roguebfl|talk]])</sup></span> 00:41, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
:::: True, but it would be better than nothing and would require no software upgrade. [[User:Ropeuser|Ropeuser]] 07:11, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
::::: It works as a stop gap, but if you have access to the account the wiki is running on it actually rather trivial to install extensions (think plug-in rather than update).  --<span style="font-family:Kristen ITC,Bradley Hand ITC,Forte;">[[User:Roguebfl|Roguebfl]] <sup>([[User_talk:Roguebfl|talk]])</sup></span> 06:43, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

== Broken image in [[Template:User_uniform|Uniform User Template]] ==

I was surfing around the user templates, when trying to find some that I might want to put onto my user page, and found that the above template had a broken image. The original image [[Image:Uniform.jpg]] was pulled off the wiki because someone withdrew permission.

As a temporary fix, I've linked the template over to the image from the [[Template:User school|School Uniform User Template]] but in the long term, it might be better if someone could find a new uniform picture to put into the Uniform User Template. [[User:Big Birdwatching Bob|Big Birdwatching Bob]] 23:00, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
: I've altered that to the photo in [[Uniform fetish]]. [[User:Ropeuser|Ropeuser]] 07:16, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

== New category ==

Think it would be useful to have a centralized category for flags, emblems, symbols, and signals of various kinds... [[User:AnonMoos|AnonMoos]] 00:09, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
: Yes, that makes sense. [[User:Ropeuser|Ropeuser]] 08:37, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
:: How about [[:Category:Symbols]] as the category name? --<span style="font-family:Kristen ITC,Bradley Hand ITC,Forte;">[[User:Roguebfl|Roguebfl]] <sup>([[User_talk:Roguebfl|talk]])</sup></span> 06:39, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
:::Started [[:Category:Symbols and signals]] to try to be comprehensive.  It might be good to copy Wikipedia article [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ring_of_O Ring of O] over here... [[User:AnonMoos|AnonMoos]] 18:35, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
:::: The thing is all signals ''are'' symbols, so it not more comprehend to add it ans a secondary word, even words and letters are symbols for sounds, and words are symbols for concepts and meanings. All the "and signals" adds is possibly of getting the category name wrong. --<span style="font-family:Kristen ITC,Bradley Hand ITC,Forte;">[[User:Roguebfl|Roguebfl]] <sup>([[User_talk:Roguebfl|talk]])</sup></span> 21:01, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
:::::You may be right, but I wasn't sure that people would think that things such as the Hanky Code are "symbols"... [[User:AnonMoos|AnonMoos]] 18:09, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
:::::: Such unsureness can be elaborated on in the Category description. --<span style="font-family:Kristen ITC,Bradley Hand ITC,Forte;">[[User:Roguebfl|Roguebfl]] <sup>([[User_talk:Roguebfl|talk]])</sup></span> 01:23, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

==Further category note==
<s>Wonder why we have [[:Category:Men]], but no [[:Category:Women]]? [[User:AnonMoos|AnonMoos]] 07:46, 25 February 2009 (UTC)</s>

Scratch that, we did have it, but the category itself was miscategorized... [[User:AnonMoos|AnonMoos]] 07:48, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
: Sorry I missed that what I work on category structure. --<span style="font-family:Kristen ITC,Bradley Hand ITC,Forte;">[[User:Roguebfl|Roguebfl]] <sup>([[User_talk:Roguebfl|talk]])</sup></span> 09:10, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

==Merger?==
Articles [[Usenet]] and [[Newsgroup]] should probably be merged and slightly condensed, and the BDSM history aspect further expanded, but I don't really feel up to it at the moment... [[User:AnonMoos|AnonMoos]] 03:16, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

== License Change ==

With a new version of [[GFDL]] an one time option of changes it [[CC-BY-SA]] was available. Wikipedia and it's sister projects made the switch. I would recommend that we do the same. 

GFDL requires a complete version of the license to be distributed with every copy. (which is ~5 page printout) CC-BY-SA only requires a notice on the license it is under. That later is much more inline with how how this wiki does things. --<span style="font-family:Kristen ITC,Bradley Hand ITC,Forte;">[[User:Roguebfl|Roguebfl]] <sup>([[User_talk:Roguebfl|talk]])</sup></span> 21:04, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

: It's a pretty big change and it might have implications for our parent site www.londonfetishscene.com. [[User:Ropeuser|Ropeuser]] 21:21, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

::I'm fairly sure the change has to be ''completed'' by August 1st.  I don't like to throw cold water on something which undeniably would have some positive effects, but for a small project like ours, with no staff and no real access to legal advice, unless we have a very enthusiastic volunteer who would be willing to take on quite a bit of work, and has been given access to tinker with the configuration parameters of the Wikimedia software (to change the messages that appear beneath edit forms, etc.), then by far the safest alternative would be simply to do nothing... [[User:AnonMoos|AnonMoos]] 23:01, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
::: Actually nothing need to be changed software wise. Those pages you pointed out all wiki pages, not software pages. --<span style="font-family:Kristen ITC,Bradley Hand ITC,Forte;">[[User:Roguebfl|Roguebfl]] <sup>([[User_talk:Roguebfl|talk]])</sup></span> 23:39, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
::::We're currently stretching things by not including a sentence such as "By clicking the submit button, you agree to license your contributions under the GFDL" -- and if we were to do something complex like change to dual licensing without indicating the licensing terms in the edit forms, then we would be stretching even further what is already probably stretched a little bit too far.  The change could backfire if it's not done well, and what is really needed is someone willing to work on all the details necessary to make sure it goes well, and for that person to be fairly quickly be given access to change the software configuration parameters (reasonably in advance of the impending deadline). [[User:AnonMoos|AnonMoos]] 02:05, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

----
Is this change retrospective?  If not, it will be very confusing knowing what's GFDL and what's CC.  If it is retrospective, could someone ever complain that they had granted GFDL but were not happy about CC?  (Some people are perverse.)--[[User:Speedoslover|Speedoslover]] 19:39, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
: It is retrospective, but Images are given a separate license to the main text (i.e. images are licensed individually where as the text of the wiki is licensed collectively) So the main things is to only move the wiki's license and leave the individual changes to images up to the owners. --<span style="font-family:Kristen ITC,Bradley Hand ITC,Forte;">[[User:Roguebfl|Roguebfl]] <sup>([[User_talk:Roguebfl|talk]])</sup></span> 16:27, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
At a glance, the effects of the GFDL and the [[wikipedia:Wikipedia:Text of Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License CC-BY-SA]] are similar. Has anyone looked through them to compare and summarise the differences?  --[[User:Interesdom|Interesdom]] 11:22, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
: {{Wikipedia-ref|Wikipedia:Comparison_of_GFDL_and_CC-BY-SA}} 
: But the main reason I'm recommended the change is:
:# The GFDL can require front or back cover texts, and force people to preserve invariant sections. The GFDL also requires users to "Preserve any Warranty Disclaimers" such as Wikipedia's General disclaimer for example.
:# The GFDL absolutely requires that distribution be accompanied by the full text of the license (much like its sister for software, the GPL)
: Both of which we are lax on complying with. But CC-BY-SA requirements matches our current practices --<span style="font-family:Kristen ITC,Bradley Hand ITC,Forte;">[[User:Roguebfl|Roguebfl]] <sup>([[User_talk:Roguebfl|talk]])</sup></span> 16:27, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

A lot of our photos were copied from [[Wikimedia Commons]], [[SMiki]] Commons and [[Latexwiki]] under GFDL so we'd have to change our licensing if they do. I fear though that SMiki Commons is dead. [[User:Ropeuser|Ropeuser]] 22:20, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
: Well just rembed Photo will be case by case changes --<span style="font-family:Kristen ITC,Bradley Hand ITC,Forte;">[[User:Roguebfl|Roguebfl]] <sup>([[User_talk:Roguebfl|talk]])</sup></span> 01:23, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

----
There appear to be several misconceptions here.  First, the change is from GFDL to '''dual licensing''', so that an end-user will be able to choose either GFDL or CC-SA (whichever is most convenient or preferred).  The GFDL is not going away.  So this means that photos at Wikimedia Commons will never have fewer licensing options than they had before.  They may have additional licensing options, but the ones that existed previously will still be there.

Second, all that about GFDL "invariant sections" and "cover texts" is really irrelevant for us here.  We can choose to reject contributions whose uploaders insist on "invariant sections" and/or "cover texts", and that's the end of it.  No contributor can force "invariant section" or "cover text" provisos onto content generated by any other contributor.

Third, text contributions are in fact licensed by the individual editors (that's the point of including the license terms in the edit forms).

Fourth, on Wikimedia Foundation wikis (Wikipedia and Wikimedia commons), traditionally every page has linked to [[GFDL]], and there also have been links to image description pages and article edit history pages -- and for a number of years, this was considered "good enough" in sastifying the GFDL requirements, as long as the GFDL-licensed information stayed on the Wiki (if the content were to be copied to another publicly-accessible website, that might be another matter).

Fifth, Smiki Commons kind of lost most of its point when the English Smiki site never gained momentum, but if you have a serious concern about Smiki Commons, then you can leave a message on the talk page of the main page of Smiki.de (i.e. http://www.smiki.de/Diskussion:Hauptseite ) and there's good chance of receiving a reply. [[User:AnonMoos|AnonMoos]] 02:33, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

: It this forth point that key. Because LOOK at our pages... WE don't do this. --<span style="font-family:Kristen ITC,Bradley Hand ITC,Forte;">[[User:Roguebfl|Roguebfl]] <sup>([[User_talk:Roguebfl|talk]])</sup></span> 02:57, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

::If this site is not in full technical compliance with GFDL licensing terms, then switching to dual-licensing will not by itself fix such problems (and the change to dual licensing may involve many additional issues which we are not well-equipped to handle).  I recommend that Balzac add the following text to edit forms: ''"By submitting an edit, you irrevocably agree to release your contribution under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.2, 1.3, or any later version published by the Free Software Foundation; with no Invariant Sections, with no Front-Cover Texts, and with no Back-Cover Texts. Re-users will be required to credit you, at minimum, through a hyperlink or URL to the article you are contributing to, and you hereby agree that such credit is sufficient in any medium."''  This will be a significant good-faith gesture towards GFDL compliance... [[User:AnonMoos|AnonMoos]] 16:23, 27 June 2009 (UTC)


Actually on [http://www.wikia.com/wiki/Forum:Licensing_update_June_19,_2009 further reading] dual licensing is an option, NOT a requirement. You can switch ''fully'' over CC-BY-SA. and the long and the short of is CC-BY-SA IS better for reference material, easier to understand, available in multiple languages (GFDL is only available in American (legal) English), and most important complaince is exactly in line with how we do things. --<span style="font-family:Kristen ITC,Bradley Hand ITC,Forte;">[[User:Roguebfl|Roguebfl]] <sup>([[User_talk:Roguebfl|talk]])</sup></span> 06:47, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

A complete howto is [http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Licensing_update/Outreach here]. Thought most of the software steps don't need to be taken, because this this site does not use the standard GFDL settings --<span style="font-family:Kristen ITC,Bradley Hand ITC,Forte;">[[User:Roguebfl|Roguebfl]] <sup>([[User_talk:Roguebfl|talk]])</sup></span> 07:11, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

== copy article (before it gets deleted) from LGBT wikia ==

http://lgbt.wikia.com/wiki/Barbara_Asher has been nominated for deletion. If you think it would be appropriate for your wiki (Wipipedia), feel free to copy the article to Wipipedia. Article will probably be deleted from LGBT Wikia on Sunday July 25 at 8pm GMT. --[[User:EarthFurst|EarthFurst]] 22:59, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
: Thanks for the suggestion, but I can't see that it's terribly relevant to our aims.--[[User:Ropeuser|Ropeuser]] 17:01, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

:: Thought it might be of interest to Wipipedia because it seems to me the police attempted to railroad her (without evidence) because she was a dominatrix. However I see only 78 people listed in this wiki's Category:People so I understand Asher is probably not notable enough for Wipipedia. SM201 wiki now has a modified version of the article. --[[User:EarthFurst|EarthFurst]] 19:11, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

==Cutting down on spam==
I think some versions of Wikimedia software have an option to disallow newly-registered accounts from creating new articles until three or four days have passed.  It might be time to ask Balzac about turning on this option... [[User:AnonMoos|AnonMoos]] 14:09, 24 March 2011 (UTC)