Talk:Phone sex/Archive 1

message: The original talk page is archived here, it was such a mess that it unsalvageable.  You can try to make sense of it by looking through the history of the original talk page.  Users are reminded that they ought to log in, sign their names with four tildes (~~~~), and try to structure their comments with paragraph indentations. Dunc|☺ 11:33, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comment 

message: This conversation, near as I can tell, had turned into a tiny war; basically, one user with a personal agenda against the community. I'd like to suggest, since user Dunc has archived the whole thing, that everyone involved start over -- first researching Wiki policies, and then working toward consensus. 
For what it's worth, most of users in this conversation seemed to be doing just that, but it bears repeating for those who don't take time to learn and understand, what Wiki is and what Wiki is not.   Karlelvis 19:21, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Start Over 

message: Beginning in December of '04, I contributed many substantial edits to the phone sex article. In addition to those credited to my username, I'm also responsible for the edits attributed to 69.133.64.7 and 209.148.113.104. I was very disappointed to see the article devolve as a result of the edit war, which in turn seemed to begin when someone posted a large edit that was apparently based on original research (a patent violation of Wikipedia policy).
The article still contains a great deal of anecdotalism, speculative extrapolation, and other counterproductive vestiges of the edit war. I would like to see it develop into something objective and actually worthy of an encyclopedia, and I welcome the assistance of objective individuals with a sensitivity to the needs of comparative studies.
Given that, as of this writing, the archived Talk page simply reads "Not mature enough to allow you to have this page! Will keep deleting until you remove links from all commercial sites!", it seems the vandalism and vindictiveness continues. Would an admin please lock the archive after reverting the destruction?  All I can say is that it would be truly unfortunate if this type of behavior ultimately resulted in a page lock on the article itself. Ringbang 01:48, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:   Damage control 

message: Recently a user named WildSusan has been spamming this article with phone numbers.  Can't this user be banned or something?
Of course. See Wikipedia:Vandalism for the steps. Bustter 19:17, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think blocking one IP address will do it. The majority of spam inserts are coming from IP addresses with one-time edit histories. –edgarde 17:22, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Under "As a business", I removed the final paragraph as it was an advertisement cloaked as "history" with a link to phonesex.com -- Glevey (talk • contribs) 16:35, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

text: Declined. From Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection:
"Your request for semiprotection for phone sex was declined, because there is not enough activity in that page to require semiprotection (which, by our Semiprotection Policy is a last resort). I've put that page on my watchlist, though, and I suggest that you do too. Thanks! -- edgarde 21:55, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  spam on this page 

message: Reversion makes it easier to identify abuse. Also, please include an edit summary. rv spam link is usually sufficient. –edgarde 19:13, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please ''revert'' spam instead of editing 

message: Someone keeps linking to a commercial site , which I keep removing because I can't access the site at all.  The font is so enormous at the bottom of the page that each letter nearly fills my screen, and I can't even manage to get access to the site.  Does it do this for everyone else?  --Xyzzyplugh 18:06, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  fone-me  

message: Let's keep all such discussion under this header, ok? 
We've got an anonymous user, 75.16.53.223, replacing his advertising-afiliate "topsites" link every time it's removed. I placed a warning on the appropriate user page, if it keeps up he needs blocking. Bustter 19:22, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think blocking one IP address will do it. The majority of spam inserts are coming from IP addresses with one-time edit histories. –edgarde 17:22, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Under "As a business", I removed the final paragraph as it was an advertisement cloaked as "history" with a link to phonesex.com -- Glevey (talk • contribs) 16:35, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  inappropriate links 

message: I believe this page would benefit from requiring login, and have requested semi-protection, which would disallow edits from anonymous users. –edgarde 16:55, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Declined. From Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection:
"Your request for semiprotection for phone sex was declined, because there is not enough activity in that page to require semiprotection (which, by our Semiprotection Policy is a last resort). I've put that page on my watchlist, though, and I suggest that you do too. Thanks! -- edgarde 21:55, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  request for semi-protection 

message: I have made a minor change to the article. I have removed Alexander Graham Bell's credit of creating the telephone due to the likelihood of Antonio Meucci creating the instrument prior to Bell's patent filing. -- Robisbor (talk • contribs) 
07:51, 27 May 2007
=== More Susan Block spam ===
The Alexander Graham Bell reference is pointless pseudo history in this article — the entire section (now deleted) was unsourced speculation inserted to link Block's site.
There actually is a recent history of commercial phone sex that would be worth including in this article, and Susan Block is as non-notable a player as practically any phone sex provider that could be mentioned. / edgarde 08:14, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Alexander Graham Bell 

message: The Alexander Graham Bell reference is pointless pseudo history in this article — the entire section (now deleted) was unsourced speculation inserted to link Block's site.
There actually is a recent history of commercial phone sex that would be worth including in this article, and Susan Block is as non-notable a player as practically any phone sex provider that could be mentioned. / edgarde 08:14, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  More Susan Block spam 

message: A bit more well sourced material certainly wouldn't hurt.  --Simon Speed 10:46, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. If I had reliable sources handy, they would have been added by now. I think some US-specific documentation exists in magazine articles (I'm thinking maybe the New York Times mag, not porn), but finding these would be some work. Dunno what books have been written. A Google search on "phone sex history" might be a fun afternoon for someone, but not me. / edgarde 11:18, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Finding reliable sources on the current phone sex industry is extremely difficult. I've been working on a first-person phone sex memoir project for a few years now and the best information is rarely from a published or "reputable" citeable source. That said, there is a decent but dated book by Amy Flowers called "The Fantasy Factory," published in 1998. And I know it's of no practical use, but my personal experience and research have been in agreement with the article as it currently stands. --LylaZ 18:20, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sources 

message: I have removed the images (:Image:CandlestickTelephones.jpg and :Image:TelephoneHelloNellie.jpg) from this article twice now because they are not connected to it. Here's what the first image is described as:
"Man and woman using telephones, c. 1910 -- Scanned from a period postcard. Reverse says "Printed in Saxony." No notice of publisher, date, or any copyright. Indistinct postmark appears to be 1911."
Caption: My word! You do tickle me.
The second:
"Man using telephone -- Scanned from a (cheaply printed) postcard, c. 1905-1915; no notice of publisher, date, or any copyright."
Caption: Hello Nellie, anything on for to night? [sic]
It's patently obvious that any attempt to imply that they have anything to do with phone sex is  original research at best and outright fantasy at worst. — Hex (❝?!❞) 09:22, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What's your interpretation of 'you do tickle me' then? Arlo James Barnes 15:08, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Images removed, again 

message: This image is awful and I'm going to remove it.  Somebody produced it and added it to the article where it met with much hostility from various editors.  I moved it to the Commons and svged it, trying to be positive and also because we have so few images on the subject.  But the thing is so badly drawn that it can barely function as a basic illustration and I think it undermines the encyclopedic status of this article. --Simon Speed (talk) 21:32, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[:file:phonesex.svg]] 

message: -- special:contribs/115.69.159.213 (talk) 07:25, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Raju sarkar 

message: Color me crazy, but it doesn't have to be secret.  I've overheard it in public all the time. 24.117.9.135 (talk) 16:07, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  A "secret" conversaton?