Talk:Female dominance

message: I looked at the logs of this article.  While http://www.femdomale.com/female-domination.html is an article that could be a reference for this article, http://www.regimeimperia.com/ is a commercial site.  This is in conflict of the external links policy of wikipedia. Therefore, can someone help me here? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Automanation (talk • contribs) 04:03, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: links

message: It seems to me that there are things that this article are referenced to "Female Domination".  It also came to my attention that someone always tries to remove this link.
Any explanations?  Please discuss it here. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Automanation (talk • contribs) 22:16, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In other words, the problem is not the link, but apparently just the fact that it's put in External links instead of in References. :) If it was used as a reference for the article, it should be cited under "References" and not "External links"; External links sections are for additional material, not source material. --4.238.17.86 (talk) 16:19, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Resources and Further Reading 

message: I am not the person who either puts it or removes it but I have a GREAT hypothesis and it is about commerce.  According to my claim, someone is using Wikipedia to SELL a book and someone doesn't want that book to be sold either because they want to deffend the real purpose of Wikipedia (which is, obviously, non-comercial) or because they want to deffend any other interest that opposes that of the person who wants to sell the book.  Like my explanation?  Wouldn't be surprised if its just pure truth!—Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.141.211.64 (talk • contribs) 20:14, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: This Might Explain It

message: I am not sure why the Elise Sutton books seem to keep getting removed and put back in.  I just put them back in because they are good books on the topic (both have 4 stars on both Amazon and Barnes & Noble).  I want to note that I am not trying to sell books and I get nothing from the sales of the books (other than knowing that they might improve someones life). -- BottomOut (talk) 10:57, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Elise Sutton books

message: It bothers me that "Loving Female Authority" (and previously "Female Led Relationships", which has disappeared completely) link to this page.  I perceive they can be somewhat different, for example a "Female Led Relationship" doesn't require BDSM, which seems to be the main focus of this page.  One example would be http://aroundherfinger.com where they try to cater to a general audience.  I would like to create a separate page for Female Led Relationships/Loving Female Authority. -- BottomOut (talk) 11:10, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Redirection

message: the user Atomaton's behavior is absurb.  See above.  He places commercial spams on Wikipedia (check his contribution history) but removes qualified links (check his contribution history).
Where should I report his misbehaviors?  Any helps?
—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Automanation (talk • contribs) 01:00 and 01:06, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  on Atomaton  

message: This phrase may derive from the practice of motorcycle gangs wearing red aviator wing patches on their colors to show they've done the same act.  They have brown wings, too.  Do the math.
Basesurge (talk) 00:23, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Trivia -- "Red Wings"

message: I think a disambiguation page is needed for "Female dominance," but I want to get some feedback before I make the changes.  Female dominance not only refers to a topic under human sexuality, but also a social system in biology.  According to WP:D, "if there are two topics for a term but neither is considered the primary topic, then a disambiguation page is used."  Would anyone be opposed to renaming this page Female dominance (human sexuality), with a disambiguation page pointing to both it and a (new) article to be named Female dominance (biology)? –Visionholder (talk) 15:51, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: suggestion:first write the new article. I think there's a good possibility here. at the moment, the closest article is  dominance hierarchy--there's a section there to expand.  I find the  Jolly's work on lemurs   particularly interesting, and there's more recent work than in any of  the Wikipedia articles. let me know if I can give you any help with this.     DGG ( talk ) 03:12, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds like a good idea.  However, in 3 days I am leaving to do some volunteer work in Madagascar for 3 months, so it will have to wait until January.  I'd also like to note, though, that female dominance is not just a lemur trait, although they are best known for it.  Although I can write from the lemur perspective, it will be important that other people interested in animal behavior contribute to the article as well. –Visionholder (talk) 12:10, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

text: 'Female Dominance' as a social system is called Matriarchy, and there is already an article on the topic.  --Ludwigs2 08:57, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disambiguation needed 

message: This article reads more like a one-sided attack on femdom. I don't know enough about the subject to change it, but it makes me very sad. Fabien (talk) 18:36, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV 

message: I was visiting this article to see what another user had edited and was a fair way back from my screen when reading the caption above the top right image. What I saw, I thought conflicted with the description as I thought the man in the picture was indeed a woman. I've had long hair as a man before, and I don't mean to be insensitive, but from a distance it was ambiguous at the least. When I looked at the image more closely, it was obvious and I felt a little bit of a fool, but given the subject matter and the purpose of the picture, maybe another is more appropriate?--Senor Freebie (talk) 10:39, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Nice observation. Indeed, I knew the then-long-haired guy by myself. When I told him that his face is featured on Wikipedia's article on FemDom, well, "surprise, surprise" ;-) --212.201.73.253 (talk) 21:25, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Odd observation 

message: This isn't the first time i read this article  but  i think they wa s more info on it last  time  like if someone deleted it was the info unneccessary or did the person not like  how the article  was layed out. user--86.41.159.158 (talk) 23:13, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  something strange 

message: reguarding: http://femdomstudygroup.blogspot.com/
I have reviewed the methodology of Mr Starks and feel that it warrents special consideration as a valid research refrence. Mr Stark uses sound science and takes great lengths to compensate for the fundamentally difficult nature of researching stigmatized subject matter. I would hate to see his work dismissed without consideration. Wikipedia is rooted in Boldness, so altho Peer Reviewed Journal support would be preferable, i cannot in good conscience dismiss sound scientific research done on topics as relevant and elusive as human sexuality. I would love to hear from others about this "expcetion to the policy" --Arkbg (talk) 05:48, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Does anyone know if Starks' work is being considered for peer reviewed publication? Review by Wikipedia editors cannot substitute for this process. I doubt that this subject would be unpublishable in academic circles simply for being "stigmatized". New research from self-published sources is generally not suitable for Wikipedia. / edg ☺ ☭ 11:57, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Blogs are not considered reliable sources. However, I would welcome the inclusion if a reliable source published his work. Asarelah (talk) 22:01, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Credibility Consideration