Fun talk:Music videos featuring barefoot females

What the Fuck?
I mean, What the fuckin' fuck?
 * Fuck if I know. Foot fetishist maybe? ТyUser_talk:Ty 19:01, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
 * What the fuck Fun:Analingus, Fun:Cunnilingus, Fun:Scat, Fun:Toilet Sharks, and Fun:That fine-ass Mary Magdalene?Civic Cat (talk) 19:07, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Fucking funspace is a fucking mess. ТyUser_talk:Ty 19:07, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
 * If a Loya Jirga member's gotta problem, they should be consistent.Civic Cat (talk) 19:10, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Um, the is defunct. ТyUser_talk:Ty 19:17, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
 * (EC) Admittedly, we do have some bizarre funspace articles. It is a mess.  This page just falls in like the rest of them.   19:18, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
 * True. The purge ran out of steam. :/ ТyUser_talk:Ty 19:20, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
 * If the Fun page ain't intended for fun, then what is it intended for?Civic Cat (talk) 19:25, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
 * People's definitions of fun vary. This leads to some strange stuff. ТyUser_talk:Ty 19:29, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I think some people confuse the Fun space with the Wikipedia Sandbox. DMorris2 (talk) 19:32, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh Yeah? What previous edit of WP sandbox does it most look like?Civic Cat (talk) 19:38, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
 * DMorris. Ain't you got any more articles about homosexuality to create at CP?Civic Cat (talk) 19:39, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Oh here are some more fun stuff. Fun:Greatest Aryan songs. Now this one looks good (Fun:Greatest songs, liberal and conservative), but I'm sure there are editting potential there. It was once an article, until P-Foster moved it into the Fun namespace.Civic Cat (talk) 19:42, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
 * The existence of other crap is not reason to add more crap to Funspace. -- Nx  / talk 19:48, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
 * You calling this crap? Wikipedia seems more tolerant of similar lists. Wikipedia seems more tolerant Nudity in music videos and List of music videos set in London. Might as well move my article there, leave you guys to go around vapourizing all those fun articles (and others) that you think need vapourizing. Heil Loya Jirga!!Civic Cat (talk) 19:54, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Just move it to Essay space and nobody will complain. It may be stupid, but unlike some stuff there it's not anti-mission. --Benod (talk) 20:00, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
 * And then they'd say it should be in the fun page. :-D   My internet access is limited, so I can't do it now, but I'll try it on Wikipedia, and once done, put a link to it here.Civic Cat (talk) 20:04, 9 June 2011 (UTC)


 * See, I think these are good funspace songs. This, as well as the scat, analingus, and cunnilingus articles are probably just creepy.  Were you trying to be random?  Because if you were, know this: Uncyclopedia is unfunny, and pervert's Uncyclopedia is as well.  Even Family Guy has gags when they cutaway.  Inserting random nonsense places isn't really "snarky," anyways--  20:17, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I largely agree with you about Unc and even more ED, and +90% of the "fun" spaces here; and no, I lifted nothing. On Wikipedia, I'm often contributing to song lists: thought I'd start here. While snark can be fun, I figured it wasn't the necessary ingredient here. If this article is deleted, while some of the aforementioned stays, it will be [[Hypocrisy|

hypocritical]]. Kinda makes one wonder why one is here anyway? It's not as scientific as WP, it's not fun as Youtube videos, and attempts to make it so means effort in articles being vapourized. HmmmmmmCivic Cat (talk) 21:34, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
 * List like these existed elsewhere in the internet. My intention was to put a list in wikiform. Now, if people come in for the fun, they might stay to edit.Civic Cat (talk) 21:48, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Okay, I've about 2/3rds a day to mellow out. I'm reminded of the WP articles and sections Wikipedia:Don't-give-a-fuckism, Wikipedia:Don't-give-a-fuckism/haiku, and "Don't kill my baby!". P-Foster, sorry about the Loya Jirga reference. Your WTF references seemed somewhat of a hissyfit, but my retort likely didn't help matters. As for my comments of RW, such may be true, but it's a wiki in progress, and my dismissive remarks likely don't help much. Even my snapping at DMorris2 might not have been warranted. DMorris2's post comment might have not been directed at me (though if it was, okay, then it might have been warranted), and while CP is certainly obsessed with homosexuality, DMorris2 himself might not be--I've yet to check his edit histories on either CP or RW. As for whether this is fun or creepy, as they say, one man's poison is another man's meat. If RW can have "fun" articles on analingus, which, I admit, isn't as bad as it initially looks when you go into it--I can't see why mine can't be tolerated--by the way, anyone who wants to vapourize my article should check it out--don't be like the typical religious censor. If the consensus says it should be vapourised, then I will have to re-evaluate my pressence here. No, I'm not threatening to leave and never come again. It will be more like my account at Answerbag which, according to them, I haven't even accessed in almost 8 months (and about 6 months before that only intermittently). It too was a great site until about Dec 2009. An article I made about it here was vapourised (Talk:Answerbag). No use walking around here if I'm going to be stepping on garden rakes. Go where I'm more useful--like Wikipedia. So here are my intentions in light of all of this. I'll let this go for a while and do a parallel article in WP, and do mutual links on the talk pages. If this article is around after a few weeks--say when the Googlebots and the like have checked it out, I'll do a few more fun page articles or significant edits here, and likely a few regular ones, later. If not, I'll fill up the Category:Fun. Currently it has 7 articles. When I'm done, it might have over 100. I suppose the more censorious of you can then have "fun" vapourising the fun articles. Then I'll go, and likely do only a few edits for the remainder of the year. As for right now, I'll listen to the somewhat mellow sounds of Caribou's Hendrix with KO and Caribou's - Odessa. :-D Civic Cat (talk) 14:40, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Why did I have to search to find this? Category:Articles for deletion  Civic Cat (talk) 15:05, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
 * If I were to express my opinion of this debate then "utterly indifferent" would be a gross exaggeration.BobSpring is sprung! 16:05, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Hey Civic -- I would argue that an article (even a mainspace one) on analingus would be relevant because writing about that ort of thing gets at the way that religious fundamentalism tries to make a lot of sexual practices "icky." A smart, funny article on foot fetishism would be totally appreciated; a random list of pop music videos doesn't really do a lot one way or the other. And stop using WP as a model for what we shoud do. We're no WP. P-Foster (talk) 16:25, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
 * There are no articles about analingus, only a fun one, which is a stub that plays on the word and hasn't changed in almost 4 years. An article about foot fetishism would be as off-mission as an article on, and a fun article about it would be as lame and/or difficult to create as most of the other attempts of sex--likely more so. It would require a degree of effort that I might not be up to for a wiki that couldn't tolerate this page. As for my list, it's far from random: it has sub-headings and is in alphabetical order--unlike the aforementioned greatest list of songs, liberal and conservative, which has no (apparent) alphabetical, chronological, or genre order. As for Wikipedia, I've yet to read all the help and meta articles here. As WP has more articles, many for issues that aren't really discussed here, if at all, I tend to use it as a fall-back where I can't remember or easily find the RW alternative. Btw, just what are the RW alternatives to the WP meta articles I referred to in my previous post? If none, what would be your objections to what they advise?Civic Cat (talk) 17:03, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Here's the version I made in Wikipedia. :-D  Civic Cat (talk) 19:51, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Looks like it's being assassinated there as well.--George (talk) 15:45, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Not with out a fight. The page here has already been accessed 107 times.Civic Cat (talk) 20:21, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Funspace content is supposed to be "fun" as in "humourous", not as in "sexually titillating", which I assume is the point of this list. No doubt there are sites that would appreciate this list, but I don't think RW is one of them. As it has a single author, user space is probably the most appropriate place for it if it stays here. 23:43, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Gotcha. Not sexual titillation, and Bob Marley is fun and belongs there and not in some user's page. Btw, can one put a user's page in any of the categories? Also, what wikis would you suggest. Tell us Weaseloid, you might save us all.Civic Cat (talk) 16:33, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't think Fun:Bob Marley is here for sexual titillation. It was a mainspace article that got kicked into fun along with rest of Category:Musicians, something I don't much agree with.  But I don't see what it's got to do with this article.  You don't seem to be doing a very good job of staying on topic, nor calm.  Can one put a user's page in any of the categories? There are differing opinions.  See here for a lively quarrel on the subject.  What wikis would I suggest you put foot fetish stuff on?  I don't know or care & it's not my responsibility to find out for you.  The internet is wide & there are reliable ways of finding things in it, like using a search engine or asking people in relevant forums or chat rooms.   18:00, 15 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Guess it will be a while before I draft those articles on and, if ever.Civic Cat (talk) 16:37, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
 * if a component of your sexual fetish is to share it with others, then you must take it upon yourself only to involve those who are willing. By putting this up on RW, you are involving people who do not wish to be a part of your sex life in your sex life.--  17:15, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
 * It was P-Foster's suggestion that I do an article on foot fetishism. I intended this to be my only sexually--related one--at least for a few months--and move on to other stuff.Civic Cat (talk) 17:21, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
 * If this page is truly P-Foster's idea, then I say "You fucked up royal, P-Foster." I should also like to note that P-Foster proposed the vote to delete this, and subsequently voted to delete it.  See below.--  17:33, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
 * No, this page was not my idea. Here's what I said: "I would argue that an article (even a mainspace one) on analingus would be relevant because writing about that sort of thing gets at the way that religious fundamentalism tries to make a lot of sexual practices "icky." A smart, funny article on foot fetishism would be totally appreciated; a random list of pop music videos doesn't really do a lot one way or the other." P-Foster (talk) 18:04, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Civic cat, P-Foster made that suggestion (if we can call it that) not for this page, but for a future possible page. No one asked you to make this page, and nobody approves of you involving us in your sex life.  I'd use the "r" word, but this is not so terrible as that unfortunate type of crime against humanity.--  18:12, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Weaseloid, first of, thanks for the link on sub-pages. I'll give it the perusal it deserves. About 1/3rd of those musicians in the category are regular articles. I think I'm on topic: what constitutes a fun article on RW and how this list I fits into the definition or not. As for calm, what makes you think I'm otherwise? Lastly, could you please be linear with your postings--it makes for easier reading? brxbrx, yeah, I'm going to tell P-Foster that he fucked up. P-Foster's idea was an article, and as I've stated above, given my luck here, it would have been vapourized as off mission. As for this "r" word (just what is it) Wikitruth refers to "atrocities" :-D  Civic Cat (talk) 18:19, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
 * the r-word is rape. including us in your sexual fetishes without our consent is akin to rape.  I did not wish to use the word rape because obviously this is not nearly as severe, though it is at least one of rape's third cousins, if not nephews.  As for a foot fetish article, create it in your user space first and then query support and feedback from others.
 * Well I'm glad you don't consider it rape, or as bad as rape. :-/  Civic Cat (talk) 18:29, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I replied to your comment right below the same comment. That's linear as far as I'm concerned; much better than answering it somewhere else on the page where it wouldn't be clear what I was replying to.  "I think I'm on topic: what constitutes a fun article on RW and how this list I fits into the definition or not".  Nope, this talk page is for discussing one article only.  If you've seen other things you don't think belong in fun, bring it up on those articles' talk pages.  If you want to raise general questions about what should be in funspace, try the Forum.  What makes I think you're not calm?  Your behaviour.  Calm or not, you're not being reasonable or civil & you keep responding to criticisms about this page with personal insults & demands aimed at other users.  Please cut it out.   20:35, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Weaseloid, you replied  in  the thread. This is what it looked like before, this is what you did. Now correct me if I'm wrong, but when one is posting a reply, one should go into the bottom of the sub-heading. Otherwise one might slip in something into a body of text another has thought that he/she has already read. "Nope, this talk page is for discussing one article only." For the most part yes, but in a discussion of the suitability of content in a particular fun article, one might get into a discussion of what "Fun:" is and isn't. "Calm or not, you're not being reasonable or civil & you keep responding to criticisms about this page with personal insults & demands aimed at other users." What personal insults or demands, other than snide comments at DMorris2, and P-Fosters "WTF" which I've took back days ago.Civic Cat (talk) 21:44, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm aware of where I placed my comment - right below the comment I was responding to & indented appropriately. That's pretty normal for a wiki.  The bottom-of-the-subheading rule you cite is non-existent, at least on RW.
 * "one might get into a discussion of what 'Fun:' is and isn't" - but you haven't even explained what you think funspace is or should be about. All you've done throughout this talk page is list off other funspace items (none of which are actually very similar to this).  & As has been pointed out to you already, both here & at WP, "other crap exists" is not a sound rationale for keeping something around.  If you can't justify it on its own merits, there is no good argument for keeping an article.
 * "What personal insults or demands"? Irrelevant ad hominem references to Loya Jirga and Conservapedia membership.  Demanding that editors look at a whole bunch of other funspace pages before taking action on this.  Responding to DMorris's relevant comment by telling him to go write about homosexuality at CP, then admitting you don't actually know anything about him or what he writes about.  Telling P-Foster that he "fucked up" by expressing an opinion & making a suggestion.  Insisting that I tell you what other sites to post this on. . ..
 * This seems to be part of a pattern. I've seen you react exactly like this before, every time something you've written has (justifiably IMO) been nominated for deletion.  And your user page indicates that you seem to hold it as a badge of honour that you've been banned from other sites for flaming.  Try to think about why you're acting like this & what it looks like to other people.   22:58, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
 * "I'm aware of where I placed my comment - right below the comment I was responding to & indented appropriately." You did that much. A lot of folks don't seem to take care to sign things here at times. "That's pretty normal for a wiki. The bottom-of-the-subheading rule you cite is non-existent, at least on RW." Is it? I thought otherwise--or maybe it's a WP rule. It's why I tend to like forums more for chit chat--why Answerbag was once much better than RW-SB. "All you've done throughout this talk page is list off other funspace items (none of which are actually very similar to this)." Yeah, many of them are crappier. "Irrelevant ad hominem references to Loya Jirga and Conservapedia membership." Which I took back days ago--I was taken aback by the "WTF". "Demanding that editors look at a whole bunch of other funspace pages before taking action on this." I referred to my intentions. "Telling P-Foster that he "fucked up" by expressing an opinion & making a suggestion." I said no such thing. I was expressing sarcasm at the idea of telling him that he fucked up. "And your user page indicates that you seem to hold it as a badge of honour that you've been banned from other sites for flaming." One site (Yahoo Answers--though suspended several times).Civic Cat (talk) 23:18, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Putting to the mob.
Does anyone besides Civic Cat think this should be here? P-Foster (talk) 00:15, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Yo

 * Yeah why the hell not. When I first saw it I thought it was a parody of stupid Wikipedia list articles. -  π    00:19, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

No

 * No. P-Foster (talk) 00:15, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
 * No. Why is the author so insistent on this page? It's weird to include in this wiki, and to my knowledge no one has found it to be "fun."  If the author wishes to bring up similar pages present on the wiki, then I suggest we delete those pages as well (after review, naturally)--  00:20, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
 * No. User space or delete.   18:03, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

There. I vapourized it myself.
Civic Cat (talk) 20:16, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
 * yay! feel free to write an article on foot fetishism in your user space, though you'll have to provide mission rationale for a mainspace move--  20:27, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Oops. The reason should have said, "to deny any bastard the pleasure of doing it him/herself." Sorry folks, I was in a hurry at the time. :-D brxbrx, I'm not going to bother. Again, an article would be off-mission, if a fun page is sexually titillating, then it's "rape," and I suppose there's a byzantine rule or other,or interpretation of such that will lead to a lot of aggravation on my part, and likely others. (RationalWiki:Community Standards: "An editor's user page, and other pages in their user space, is their personal space and they are free to do with it what they want (with common-sense-exceptions, such as  patently offensive material , copyright violations or spam).") I should tone down my postings here. Some more categorizations--if that's alright by the community--and then I'll wind it down here.Civic Cat (talk) 22:02, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
 * or maybe listen to some great calming music about travelling. The Charlatans - Alabama Bound (long version) :-D Civic Cat (talk) 22:16, 15 June 2011 (UTC)


 * sigh* That's why I didn't want to invoke the r-word.  As soon as you heard it you became completely unable to understand my argument.--  22:32, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Completely? Lemme guess. To you, it was to you and others, unwanted sexual allusions, and as such considered it a violation. Not as bad as rape, but along those lines.Civic Cat (talk) 22:40, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Halleluiah It lives again!
User:Civic Cat/List of music videos featuring barefoot females. (For now.) :-D  Civic Cat (talk) 18:10, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
 * You know, your browser has this feature called bookmarks. It allows you to save web addresses so you can easily find them later. You should try it out. -- Nx  / talk 18:13, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Tell me how.Civic Cat (talk) 18:16, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Pray to Jeebus to forgive you for your foot fetishizm sinz. Then google browser bookmarks. And beef prices are rising!--Colonel Sanders (talk) 18:20, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
 * "Music videos featuring barefoot females" sounds like a category straight from Ed. I approve. Occasionaluse (talk) 18:21, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
 * What the hell? Elvis was a foot fetishist? What's wrong with people?--Colonel Sanders (talk) 18:25, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Colonel. Here's the WP list. The Wikipedia version on my article is still under Deletion review as well as Music Project deletion review. I wonder how long the list will stay. :-D. When I search "featuring barefoot females" on Google I still get the old article. Hmmm.Civic Cat (talk) 18:36, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, Jimbo will delete it soon enough.I assume you are among the likes of Elvis the Pelvis being ze foot fetishist, eh? I wonder if Ameriwiki would accept that list? Probably not.--Colonel Sanders (talk) 18:41, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Somewhat, but not like the stereotypes you see in the media. My possible future article will explain it all.Civic Cat (talk) 18:53, 17 June 2011 (UTC)