Talk:Pasties
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of the Fashion WikiProject. Please work to improve this article, or visit our project page to find other ways of helping. Thanks! |
||
| Stub | This article has been rated as stub-Class on the assessment scale. |
||
| Low | This article is on a subject of low-importance within fashion. | ||
|
Article Grading: The article has been rated for quality and/or importance but has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and then leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need. |
|||
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sexology and sexuality, an attempt to build a comprehensive guide to human sexuality on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. If you are new to editing Wikipedia visit the welcome page to become familiar with the guidelines. | ||
| Stub | This article has been rated as Stub-class on the quality scale. | ||
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale. | ||
 |
This article is supported by the Sex work task force. (with unknown importance) | ||
|
Assessment comments
|
|||
[edit] Health risks
Recently, studies have shown that pasties can prevent certain health risks.
What risks are those? Flapdragon 10:55, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
My guess is that he meant 'present' certain health risks - but what am I doing on this page anyway?
Jigsawpuzzleman 21:30, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Images
We're all aware that (rude, thus far) user:davidshankbone is very proud of his photos; he's got his name plastered all over them. As per Wikipedia:Conflict of interest, Wikipedia is not a forum for advertising, nor a vanity press. We earn the trust of our peers, and the public, by placing the interests of the encyclopedia first. Any editor who gives priority to outside interests may be subject to a conflict of interest. Placing your photo first above an existing photo, and your rude edit summaries, show open conflict of interest. I'm not getting into an edit war with you, but your edits have now become a matter of record should there be further unpleasantries with you. I made no personal attacks in my edit summary following you, you would do well not to be rude in yours. Chris 02:12, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
- My contributions stand on their own, and you can check out my user page to see. Yes, I'm proud of my photos. Regardless, there was a vanity photo with an advertising-oriented caption that is found on three articles. I removed the photo from one article, and you told me not to remove a photo (see WP:OWN) from a page, as if it is permanent. There was no personal attack (that policy is too often thrown around just when someone doesn't like what was said). I told you to follow your own advice, which you didn't. And my WP name is no more vanity than it is for you to sign your edits. It's not COI. You can bring it up with any number of admins and they'll tell you you're wrong. --David Shankbone 02:28, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
- I dispute that the subject of the first photo is in fact a "girl" as the caption alledges. I suggest that it be relabeled as a "person with burlesque pasties." Thank you. Pygmypony 18:56, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
- As per WP:OWN, the burlesque photo was not my own, and I had left the original caption as it was on the photo itself, that was not an advert, it was sourcing. My stance that your edits were a personal attack still stands, based on the wording of your edit summaries. I never said your WP name is vanity, just your spamming of your own photos over pre-existing ones. Along those lines, must both photos in this article be garish or ugly, as they are now, where the topic itself sprouted from a modicum of style? Chris 20:08, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
- Chris, it's your personal opinion that those photos are garish/ugly. One photo is of burlesque pasties in action, the other shows more than enough examples of women wearing pasties, and in no less or more flattering a light than the stripper with pasties. WP:OWN doesn't come into play here at all with my edits, although with your hurt tone and alleged victimization from one brusque edit summary you certainly seem to need to review it yourself. Perhaps if your wiki-stress level is this high that you haven't gotten over it by now, you should take a wiki-break. --David Shankbone 20:22, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
- As per WP:OWN, the burlesque photo was not my own, and I had left the original caption as it was on the photo itself, that was not an advert, it was sourcing. My stance that your edits were a personal attack still stands, based on the wording of your edit summaries. I never said your WP name is vanity, just your spamming of your own photos over pre-existing ones. Along those lines, must both photos in this article be garish or ugly, as they are now, where the topic itself sprouted from a modicum of style? Chris 20:08, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
- I dispute that the subject of the first photo is in fact a "girl" as the caption alledges. I suggest that it be relabeled as a "person with burlesque pasties." Thank you. Pygmypony 18:56, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
