Commons talk:Sexual content/April 2010/Definitions

Moved discussion from project page

The edit history of this page is rather silly - basically I (Privatemusings) pop some definitions in, that I doubt anyone has really read (!) - and roux takes them away because they upset him. Take a look if you like, but don't add the definitions back please - it's causing upset. - Roux (talk) 16:08, 6 May 2010 UTC

I'd suggest that the discussion move to the more active area at Commons:Sexual content and talk page at this point. Privatemusings (talk) 06:21, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Now now, how about being honest? There's a radical concept. You have attempted to include Americentric definitions repeatedly, have had them removed repeatedly, and your sole justification on talk pages is "Well I think they should be here" whereupon you re-add them. You have editwarred across three separate pages and have failed to obtain--or even attempt to obtain--consensus for inclusion. Don't lie. Roux (talk) 06:25, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

(you see, folks? - don't poke the roux ;-) - I apologise unreservedly for any untruths I've subjected you to, and I hope we can be friends. Privatemusings (talk) 06:29, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

How about refactoring your paragraph above to become congruent with reality? Roux (talk) 06:32, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

dagmanit, I was gunning for a 'poke' pun there ;-) - The reality of the situation at this point from my perspective is that this conversation about whether or not it was appropriate to have a page of external definitions (things like US law for example, which worryingly does seem to be a bit Americentric) is no longer really particularly important or useful. It's not the end of the world that we disagree on the point of substance, and I think I'll leave it there :-) cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 06:43, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

So you won't own up to your fundamental dishonesty in the first paragraph here? That's telling. You won't answer direct questions, either. I have given up believing that you are well-meaning (if wholly misguided); you are interested in nothing more than trolling. Defined, by the way, as making outrageous or provocative statements without anything to back them up. Given that you won't back up what you have to say when challenged directly on it, and given your absolute disconnect with reality in the first paragraph, there is simply no other definition that fits. Roux (talk) 06:46, 7 May 2010 (UTC)