Talk:Masturbate-a-thon/Archive 1

Archive 1

Not nonsense

OK, two of us have tagged this as db-nonsense, but Google backs it up. It's ridiculous, but apparently for real. Fan-1967 01:58, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

EVERYONE, STOP TAGING IT THE FIRST MOMENT YOU SEE IT, I'L FIND SOME REFERENCES IF IT'L MAKE YOU HAPPY. --Fabio 02:01, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

• C'mon Fabio, wouldn't your first reaction be "this has to be a hoax"? Fan-1967 02:03, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
• I know, that was my first impression, but most people arnt even reading the article, there just taging it in the first micro-secound they see the title. --Fabio 02:18, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Notable?

I'm dubious that this is notable enough for an article, but have improved it a little. You're going to have to come up with some references and citations, though, or someone is bound to nominate for deletion on some grounds or other. Please see WP:V for WP requirements for citations and references. —Hanuman Das 02:06, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

does no one else think this is notible on just the fact that its so controversial and shocking??? im not sure uk television/society has much history in programms or events of this nature.--Fabio 02:15, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

No. Merely being unusual doesn't make something notable. Fan-1967 02:19, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Links asked for below... Wikipedia:Notability and Wikipedia:Pokémon_test -RJFerret 02:37, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Personally, I think those who think this is notable are just wankers. :-) —Hanuman Das 04:49, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

If wikipedia is the encyclopedia to end all encyclopedias, who gets to decide whether an article merits inclusion? If it's all user-contributed and this was user contributed.... Gidklio 04:37, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Certainly notable for elevating public awareness and appreciation of sexual health. An innovative charity event held in several cities and two countries, so far. Benjiboi 00:46, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Merge as section of Masturbation?

Isn't this simply an example of a social masturbation use? Seems this would belong in there, perhaps under "Masturbation in history and society". (Simply including the other terms would negate all the "promotional" redirects...) -RJFerret 02:27, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

i think it would be good to mention it there, but i feel it should also have its own article. oh and is there even wikipedia guidlines on notible articles of this nature?, if so please put a link somewhere here.--Fabio 02:29, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Look Rjerret, the masturbation article is already too long, and it has been said to be to long on the descusion page. it has been suggested that it be split, hence it would be unapropriate to merge this into Masturbation. (So i removed the template)--Fabio 22:34, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

The point is to get others input, we already know your opinion and mine. There's been no feedback here so the purpose of the template is to solicit others opinions. Please don't defeat that tool. This page may be considered redundant to that one, having nothing more than some history of masturbation already there, and a bit of promotion for this cause. Let's get some others input please--we already know you like this content, that's why you provided it--that's a good thing! You might, ironically, find more exposure there rather than "burying" the information here separately. Rather than flagging the history section as off topic and redundant, it seemed more logical to merge it since it is topical there. Please let someone else remove the merge tag if consensus finds that's appropriate. Thanks! -RJFerret 04:05, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

PS: The length of the masturbation article isn't an issue as this information is mostly already there!

The Masturbation article does have references to masturbation, though they refure to things like Islamic and christian views, etc and ancient society, i dont feel this content would be apropriate in that section.--Fabio 04:28, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Result: I "pulled" the merge template since no additional input in a week. -RJFerret 01:14, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Dozens of people?

That report makes me laugh. After I got there at around 4pm, they were turning people away and telling them to come back in an hour because the place was full. They said there were about 60 people in there at the time and there had been 80 people in total. That was when I was still in the queue with about 20 people in front of me. Lots of people came and went while I was there and I left at 6.30 so more people would have turned up after that. There's a bit of original research for you ;) -- AnemoneProjectors (talk) 11:15, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

lol, thanks for that. so what was it like anyway?, old men with raincoats? homely lookng women?--Fabio 13:39, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Most people were naked although some had at least one item of clothing on and some were fully dressed. There were very few women there. Mostly straight guys, judging by the type of porn they were looking at. And it was very warm. -- AnemoneProjectors (talk) 13:56, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

I have no doubt that "lots of people came." Ahem. Okay, if you think the release had the right number and the Guardian is wrong, is there any citation available for the higher number? Matchups 04:02, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

lol, doesnt really sound like the social expression of sexuality they had in mind. i did think it would be a bit of a long shot trying ot get atractive women to actually have the nerve to take part. i wonder how channel 4's going to make a good programm out of that, im guessing there going to hire some people to pretend they took part.--Fabio 15:48, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

There was plenty of filming going on. One area was just for filming and there were about 5 people in there at a time. One really hot guy who I can't wait to see again on Channel 4! ;) I'm just wondering what they will actually be able to show on TV. -- AnemoneProjectors (talk) 16:16, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

lol, i doubt they'l show anything below the torso, and if they do it'l be so pixilated and you wont be able to tell what you're looking at. so were you taking part in it or what? What exactly where they filming, just people beating it off or where there interviews, etc?? --Fabio 16:20, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

I was taking part. I didn't go into the filming area so I don't know if they were interviewing, I just saw a few of the people in there through the doorway. I raised £37. -- AnemoneProjectors (talk) 22:18, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Six a record for UK; really?

I find it amazingly incredible that anyone would claim six orgasms as a national record in any country with more people in it than the Vatican. Is that really accurate? -- Cimon Avaro; on a pogostick. 19:36, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

from the sound of it there was a TV crew... Potatoswatter 19:43, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

This has to do with the rules of the contest I believe. It requires that all contestants consistently masturbate for 55 minutes out of every hour. Also: This is apparently supposed to be the international male record I believe.70.231.134.205 (talk) 08:40, 27 April 2008 (UTC)