User talk:Star651

Welcome to Wipipedia; we hope you enjoy this site. Thanks for your contributions. Please feel free to create or edit further pages; we always welcome fresh material and viewpoints. We do prefer British spelling here, but don't worry, spelling will be corrected. If you need any help, please e-mail me or leave a note on my talk page.--Ropeuser 18:55, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

educational vs. informational

The word "educational" has some distractingly inappropriate or irrelevant connotations, so it's unfortunate that you place such great emphasis on it. "Informative"/"Information" would be better... AnonMoos 11:09, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

"BDSM theme"

Don't want to be too much of a nitpicker, but it seems a little odd that after you complained that an article lacked enough of a "BDSM theme", your next edit was to create an article without any "BDSM theme"... AnonMoos 16:29, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

The article about Cannibalism didn't sound sexual at all. This article has something to do with a sexual website, right? Star651 02:12, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure that you've grasped what AnonMoos is saying. This is a fetish and BDSM encyclopedia. It is not about sex in general, but alternative sexuality. As such, run of the mill pornography is out of scope.--Ropeuser 07:00, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

I think this website is more general-sex than SM-201; SM-201 is 100% alternative. The reason I say this? There is already Playboy in Wipi, let alone common-place sex terms such as penis, orgasm, impotence and possibly erection. If Playboy is okay, why not RedTube? If there were no articles like the one I mentioned, I'd definitely stick to fetish-themed articles. Star651 17:57, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

SM-201 seems to be rather indiscriminate in accepting material from diverse places and not bothering to impose any kind of common editorial style or apply any quality control. On this site, we have some articles on subjects which are not inherently BDSM-related, but are encountered in BDSM contexts. Notice the difference between our article "penis" and the Wikipedia article "human penis"? Our article is much shorter, and much lighter on the medical technicalities.

It could be that some articles here, such as "Playboy", "Cannibalism", "Usenet", should be deleted due to irrelevance or semi-irrelevance, but that doesn't do anything to make "RedTube" useful for this site in its current form... AnonMoos 04:00, 9 April 2012 (UTC)