Talk:Bikini waxing

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Bikini waxing. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080213192038/http://www.islamonline.net:80/servlet/Satellite?pagename=IslamOnline-English-Ask_Scholar/FatwaE/FatwaE&cid=1126012472670 to http://www.islamonline.net/servlet/Satellite?pagename=IslamOnline-English-Ask_Scholar/FatwaE/FatwaE&cid=1126012472670

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:46, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Edit-warring by Fuzheado

Fuzheado added content which I believe contravenes WP:NOTPROMOTION. After twice removing it he has twice reverted. It is always disappointing to see an administrator engage in edit-warring rather than follow the guidelines outlined at WP:BRD. The reason I removed the content—in this case the mention of the book—is because the addition has no information value whatsoever: it simply touts the name of a book. We often draw on the background of experts in Wikipedia articles but it is not necessary to list all their published works. In this case the place of the J. Sisters salon in pioneering the Brazilian Wax is already covered and adequately sourced. Simply adding that one of the sister wrote a book about it adds nothing to the article. If the background to the involvement was extended and their book used a source then citing their book as a source would be acceptable, but simply namechecking a book that a person has written—which is incidental to the article i.e. not a biography, not a list of works—is simply promotional and adds nothing to the article. Betty Logan (talk) 22:50, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

I'm disappointed you are bringing this up in bad faith and characterizing it as "warring" when it was *you* who have simply hit the revert button without any discussion. My followup edits have added more context and proof from references as to the notability and importance of the book and Janea Padilha. Those sources are from Vanity Fair, Marie Claire and the LA Times, which are all prominent mentions that are highly relevant to describing the spread and signficance of the Brazilian procedure. Of course these are relevant to the section of the article about Brazilian. You cannot simply dismiss an edit because it contains a reference to a book. I'm eager to hear your rationale other than "It's a book." (PS: You might want to copy-edit your talk messages) -- Fuzheado | Talk 22:59, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

The guideline is BRD, not BRRD. Simply put, after I reverted you with a valid reason (which I provided in the edit summary) the onus was on you to come to the talk page and start a discussion, so you are not really in a position to take the moral high ground. Let's not overlook the fact that it fell to me to start the discussion, when it is supposed to be the editor who is attempting to make a challenged edit. Namechecking a book in this way for the sole purpose of namechecking a book is pointless and is completely incidental to the article. It is not being used to source any information, nor is this article about the sisters where such a book may warrant a mention. Lots of people mentioned in Wikipedia articles have written books but we don't bother namechecking them unless i) the book is used to source content; ii) the article is about the author of the work; iii) the article specifically exists to list works according to some particular criteria. In this particular instance you added the content three times and on all three occasions your additions did not go beyond mentioning the existence of the book. If the book provides essential background information that is relevant to the article then a more appropriate course would be to create a "further reading" section, although if that is the case I always think it is better to incorporate the content into the article and use the book as a source. Betty Logan (talk) 23:18, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

wow, i guess the new process is edit; revert; veto. why collaborate when you can revert all work that does not jump through all your hoops. i guess you need to wiki-splain the new process with the recalcitrant editor at ANI, warnings are not enough. no wonder that this article will not improve in quality. Beatley (talk) 17:50, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

The edit process is the same as it always is: be bold, and if someone challenges your edit then begin a discussion on the talk page and obtain a compromise with the editor or a consensus from other editors. Articles are also not improved by letting editors add whatever they want but rather adding substantive content, so would you care to explain how the edit in question constitutes an "improvement in quality"? In what way does Fusheado's edits further educate us about the background of the procedure? The only way this article will actually improve is if editors add information and source it appropriately. If the book contains relevant background information about the procedure would you not agree that the best course of action for improving the article is to incorporate the relevant information from the book into the article and use the book as a source? Betty Logan (talk) 22:29, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

i see a lot of this - "i reverted you, now prove to me it is a good edit, or i will continue to revert." it is not my idea of consensus. it is a blocking / gatekeeper mentality that has crippled other wikis such as wikinews. i see that is how you "collaborate", but when you pull your "rule by process" on this editor, the dysfunction is crystal clear. you might want to drop it, he has a little more wiki-cred than you. Beatley (talk) 18:53, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

You probably see a lot of it because that's how Wikipedia works - as Betty explained. Your summary of "i reverted you, now prove to me it is a good edit, or i will continue to revert" is actually pretty close to how it works. If an edit is removed, then reinsertion can be considered disruptive if no discussion has been attempted. Justification for it to stay needs to be provided - and that happens by discussion.

Also, you're correct that this is not how consensus works, but that's because while a consensus is established - through discussion - the original version of an article stays in place - not the proposed change.

Basically, you're incorrect to advise Betty to drop her position, as her understanding of the process is clearly correct. Frankly, I think this is the first time an editor has been accused of being in the wrong due to their accurate understanding and implementation of policy. That's just plain weird. Chaheel Riens (talk) 19:53, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

no, that is not the way it has always been, and that is not the process. this "i'm right, and you are wrong" is a new innovation in consensus discussion. you will have to forgive the old editors who remember the good old days, when they did it a different way. i'm not advising the editor to drop her position, i'm suggesting that dictation is not collaboration. this is not the first time this editor has been "accused of being in the wrong": this editor has been warned before. templating the regulars is bad form, but i do not expect you to understand. Beatley (talk) 19:50, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

I have successfully led articles through GA and FA reviews so I think my "wiki cred" is in good standing order, thankyou. Rather than discuss procedural technicalities the article (and this discussion) would be best served if the actual content were discussed. I will repeat my question: in what way does simply adding that "someone wrote a book" improve our understanding of the topic? I have asked this question three times now and it is yet to be answered. Betty Logan (talk) 21:06, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

I agree with the removal, and that the information is tangential and promotional. The onus is on those seeking inclusion. Without an independent source demonstrating some encyclopedic reason for including it, I don't know how we can have any confidence that it doesn't violate NOT to include it. --Ronz (talk) 21:33, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

i guess we have diametrically opposed views of what consensus is, and how to collaborate. i guess we have different views of what the meaning of RS is - when the NYTimes says something, it is a statement in a RS not "promotional". (i see people attacking sources as promotional, when they want to delete them.) i look forward to your improvement of this article to GA. if you would care to come to wikimania, and scholarships are now open, we could discuss our different interpretations of collaboration there. when i say wiki-cred, i do not mean number of GAs or number of edits, but rather teaming with an exhibit about wikipedia at the Computer History Museum. Beatley (talk) 19:33, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

I'm genuinely interested now to hear how you think consensus should be achieved, if not through methods described above. All snide remarks aside, I'd like to hear your intepretation of it - if you don't think this page is appropriate, please start a new thread either on my own talk page, or yours if you prefer. Cheers. Chaheel Riens (talk) 21:10, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

user:Chaheel Riens - there are many books on the subject, but you could start here Consensus decision-making. blocking further work by others, or voting is a failure of the model, which requires a shared ethos to get things done. the ethos should be that you place the good of the project over your own opinion. that is sadly lacking in most wiki-discussions which are really battleground with a consensus patina. Beatley (talk) 19:56, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

No, I asked for your interpretation of consensus and BRD on Wikipedia. There has been no "blocking" of further work - or rather the blocking that has been done has been because it has tried to implement changes before any kind of discussion or consensus had been reached to include the work - and so has gone against policies and practices of Wikipedia. This is the very crux of consensus - a change was suggested, and opposed. Now the merits of the change are discussed - but it is clearly not the logical decision to keep those proposed changes in situ whilst their validity is considered.

Pointing me to an article does not explain what your "views of what consensus is, and how to collaborate" are. Everybody here knows that the project - and the good of it - is the reason we are here, yet you haven't clarified what you think is wrong with the process as outlined above. Simply saying that it's wrong (at least in your opinion) is no help if you don't qualify why you think it's wrong. In the same vein - I don't see any voting, nor even any suggestion of it - apart from you that is. Can you clarify where you think voting has played a part? Chaheel Riens (talk) 20:16, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

my views happen to correspond to the reliable sources, and the article. the conduct on this page does not. when editors boast of their GAs, that is a sure sign of battleground; when you template regulars, that is not collaboration.

as far as blocking goes, the ORES says article quality before edit war was: "B": 0.3539356364540658, "C": 0.2478673124742018, "FA": 0.3062362754302484, "GA": 0.07187254384245706, "Start": 0.018248921285020422, "Stub": 0.0018393105140065643 [1]

quality now : "B": 0.3487591959880669, "C": 0.24618405292169807, "FA": 0.31445721099818774, "GA": 0.07068651749637979, "Start": 0.018097054934555868, "Stub": 0.0018159676611118366 [2]

keeping in mind a good student can raise by one level in an hour or two. Beatley (talk) 18:45, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Right, I see the problem. It's WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. Betty responded about her GA submissions when you claimed that Fuzheado had more "wiki-cred" than her. GA submissions would seem to be a reasonable measure of Wiki-cred. In other respects, you're still refusing to acknowledge the simple fact that if a change is reverted is should be discussed before it is re-inserted. Again, this is a classic example of "I didn't hear that", or as the section explains: "Believing that you have a valid point does not confer upon you the right to act as though your point must be accepted by the community when you have been told that it is not accepted."

I see no reason to continue this; I've learnt all I can from this topic - and it wasn't much. It could even be deleted as WP:FORUM as it clearly has no relevance to the article itself, nor would I care if it was. Chaheel Riens (talk) 19:53, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Perhaps this is a good time to remind everyone that WP:BRD is an "explanatory supplement," and the page clearly states that, "It is not one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines." So to quote it as if it was canon or mandatory behavior is off base. -- Fuzheado | Talk 18:12, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

I get tired of people abusing BRD as Betty does here. That page includes (emboldening in original: "If you revert twice, then you are no longer following the BRD cycle: If your reversion is reverted, then there may be a good reason for it. Go to the talk page to learn why you were reverted.". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:35, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

And yet you don't think it abuse when Fuzheado does exactly the same thing,[3][4] nor do you consider it poor form that the page includes (emboldening in original: "If your bold edit was reverted, then do not re-revert to your version. If your reversion was reverted, then do not re-revert to your version. If you re-revert, then you are no longer following BRD." - Fuzheado's beaviour in a nutshell. Although as Fuzzy points out, as BRD is not a policy we can disregard it at will and yar boo sucks to you all. Chaheel Riens (talk) 15:00, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Judging by your block record, Andy, I can appreciate why you must be tired of it. However, if we followed your facile logic an "abuse of BRD" would amount to reverting anybody who effectively chooses to reinstate their edit rather than discuss it. Betty Logan (talk) 01:27, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Bikini waxing. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.essortment.com/different-types-bikini-wax-application-techniques-59434.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121023074402/http://blogs.ajc.com/better-health/2009/03/19/a-ban-on-brazilian-bikini-waxing/ to http://blogs.ajc.com/better-health/2009/03/19/a-ban-on-brazilian-bikini-waxing/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:06, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

A little toned down may be?

I know Wikipedia is not censored, and I don't like censorship myself. But, can we just tone down the image part a bit? We can do that without losing the informational value, of course. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 03:19, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

We only need at most one image for each style. I have spaced out the images as well because the layout was atrocious. Betty Logan (talk) 17:13, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 14:21, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

ETHICAL REVIEW REQUIRED: Gratuitous images of female genitalia

This page is seriously messed up. Why are there a billion images of female genitalia? (I think we all know the answer to that question.) They serve little to no informational purpose, with the exception of those in the style section. I'm going to remove all of the others, and suggest a discussion here about which, if any, should be put back in.

If you think I'm overthinking this, look at the equivalent page for male grooming: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Male_waxing. There is NOT ONE IMAGE of male genitalia on that page. So please do tell me: if graphic images have informational value when it comes to personal grooming, why are there NONE - not a single one! - on the male page? Could it be because Wikipedia editors are predominantly male and apparently can't get kicks for their pr***s elsewhere? It's a bit pathetic, frankly, and, more seriously, it potentially creates a toxic and off-putting environment for female readers of WKP.

UPDATE: I noted, when removing the gratuitous images, the comments about WKP and censorship. This has NOTHING to do with censorship. It is about the impact that informationally unnecessary imagery has on the overall environment of Wikipedia, specifically for women (and those with female genitalia). When such imagery has no true encyclopedic value, it serves only to objectify the subject. That is potentially discomfiting, demeaning and toxic for female readers (I'm female and this page creeps me out), and in an open platform like WKP, accessible by anyone anywhere in the world, that IS a problem. Just because you CAN post graphic images of genitalia according to the rules, does not mean that you SHOULD. I'm actually a bit amazed that I'm having to explain this.

UPDATE #2: Please see this stipulation in Wikipedia's Image Use Policy (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Image_use_policy):

"Not all legally obtained photographs of individuals are acceptable. The following types of image are normally considered unacceptable: Those that unfairly demean or ridicule the subject"

Let's clean this up and grow up, fellas.Zedembee (talk) 16:17, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

It's an article about bikini waxing, the nature of it, the methodology and the different styles. It is completely reasonable to include images. They do not seem to gratuitous to me: there is a single image to illustrate each style, a single image illustrating the technique, and an image in the lead to convey the content the article. The Hairstyle article has far more images, and your objections have everything to do with censorship IMO because you are using words like "graphic" and "gratuitous" to justify removing the images. The simple question is this: are these images helpful to readers in understanding the content? I would argue that they are. Betty Logan (talk) 18:37, 28 February 2023 (UTC)