User talk:Spankart/Archive 4

From Spanking Art
Jump to navigation Jump to search

This is an archive of my talk page on the Spanking Art wiki. Please make no more edits here.

Helen Burns and recent jpeg image[edit]

1. Should the recently posted artwork Image:EDITORIAL UNION JACK GUY.jpg even be on this site? It's an unrelated advertisement placed by the artist and adds nothing to the site.

2. Should "Helen Burns", a minor character from a novel, have a separate web page? Who is searching for Helen Burns? She's in Jane Eyre which has no page of its own. Wouldn't it be better to just list the novel?

3. Having frequent problems getting to the main page. Keep getting a message saying the page is "temporarily unavailable". I don't know if this is due to site maintenance or some kind of glitch at the site. Jameslovebirch 00:32, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi Jameslovebirch. 1) I agree. We have no policy about such cases, but I think we can delete it as I can't see any use in this image on this wiki either. 2) I agree and have started a discussion to the same end on Talk:Helen Burns. 3) I get different error messages at such times (such as 503, 404, "Spanking Art has a problem" etc.) and often just a blank page. It has nothing to do with the main page, as far as I can tell the problem affects the whole wiki. 10 minutes later it usually works again. And then again it stops working, etc. My guess is that the servers are often temporarily overloaded, but maybe User:Ai could tell us more about what's happening and what's the cause. --Spankart (talk) 21:51, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
With #3 IIRC the issue is the load on the SQL server, not it is not limited to the wiki, but effects all of Ai hosted's sites at the same time, Except Handprints and Boyz Being Boyz which do not use SQL. —Roguebfl (talk) 22:20, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
Yes, the problem is the mysql service. The current server is struggling to cope with the ammount of visitors all my sites are now getting and preiodically the mysql service overloads as it runs out of ram. I do have plans in the pipework to move to a new and more powerful server, but finincial difficulties are making that hard. For now I'll just keep tweaking the mySQL configuration and seeing if there is anything I can to do make it a bit more stable. -Ai 04:30, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
Ok, thanks for the info and thanks for looking into it. --Spankart (talk) 20:56, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Horsed Image[edit]

I understand preferring the historic image for the article, but the image was also used on your own page, wold you consent to it being restored for that purpose? —Roguebfl (talk) 01:07, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Actually I wanted to delete it from the wiki, I had just forgotten to remove it from the Spankart article. --Spankart (talk) 08:45, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Re. Traditional School Type Birching Position image recently added to the Wiki and to "Eton" page[edit]

Dear Spankart

I have had second thoughts about the above image which I recently uploaded. Having considered the provisions on obscenity published in the wiki's legal terms, I feel the image crosses the boundary, and I should not have uploaded it. I am the author of the image, and I classified it as PD. Also, I feel it does not add anything of value to the article. The Eton flogging block and how it was used are very well described in the text, combined with the existing drawing image. The lurid detail shown in my photograph is better left to the imagination. I would be grateful if you would be so kind as to delete the image from the article and from the wiki.

many thanks for your help and cooperation



No worries, I was just going to delete the image but Roguebfl was faster than me! --Spankart (talk) 10:10, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Many thanks for your prompt response and action.


M/F Pairings in film lists[edit]

This is regarding the newly added M/F pairings in the "Spanking in motion picture" page. I've added greatly to this list and also took the time to add pairing symbols for all the non-M/F scenes that I knew of. Since 90% are male-female scenes anyway, it just looks cluttered (and distracting) to have M/F abbreviations after nearly every title. I would greatly prefer to leave them off and instead put in a note at the top of the list saying something like: "All spanking scenes are M/F unless otherwise indicated." That way the list is just as accurate but more streamlined and easier on the eyes. Jameslovebirch 15:18, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

I moved this discussion to Talk:Spanking in motion picture. --Spankart (talk) 10:11, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Age disclaimer statement page, etc.[edit]

Regarding the Teenager page (Misuse of Term section), a couple of important legal issues should be mentioned here (and at other age-related pages).

(1) First, it should be mentioned that not only does a performer in an adult fetish (or porn) video have to be over 18, but also the character he/she is playing. All depictions of children (17 or younger) are illegal in adult films made in the U.S. I'm not sure what year this went into effect (possibly 1995 when 18 U.S.C. 2257 appeared) but would want to include that date. The year is important as older videos exist with adults playing children that appear to be exempt from prosecution. (Also not sure about how this law applies to videos made outside of the U.S. -- another subtopic in itself.)

Many companies of course test this boundary with ambiguous girl and schoolgirl characters who may or may not be 18. Some play it safe by mentioning they're 18 in the dialog or switching from high school to a college setting. The more reputable companies like Raven Hill add a secondary disclaimer at the beginning of their films that says no character is being depicted as being under 18. (A complete copy of that satement might we worth posting as well -- which brings us to item #2).

(2) The 18 U.S.C. 2257 Record-Keeping Requirements Compliance Statement, aka 18 U.S.C. Section 2257 Compliance Notice. As you know, since 1995 adult material (films, websites, magazines, etc.) must include a boiler plate statement that the actors were over 18 with "proof on file" and the address of the custodian of records, etc. (I know there's a link to another website at the Child pornography page, but that doesn't seem good enough -- plus the Child page is only concerned with artwork and ignores the issue of adult videos altogether.)

I think it would be worthwhile to create a separate page about the compliance statement itself and include a sample copy like the one I've provided below ("website" could be changed to "video"). There are many variations, long and short, but this is the best example I've seen.

The problem is what do you call it? "18 U.S.C. Section 2257 Compliance Notice" is not a catchy title and may not be best in terms to reaching people doing searches. Whatever name is likely to get the most search hits is always the best title.

18 U.S.C. 2257 Record-Keeping Requirements Compliance Statement

All models, actors, actresses and other persons that appear in any visual depiction of actual sexually explicit conduct appearing or otherwise contained in this website were over the age of eighteen years at the time of the creation of such depictions.

Some visual depictions displayed on this website are exempt from the provision of 18 U.S.C. Section 2257 and 28 C.F.R. 75 because said visual depictions do not consist of depictions of conduct as specifically listed in 18 U.S.C. Section 2257 (2) (A) through (D), but are merely depictions of non-sexually explicit nudity, or are depictions of simulated sexual conduct, or are otherwise exempt because the visual depictions were created prior to July 3, 1995.

With respect to all visual depictions displayed on this website, whether of actual sexually explicit conduct, simulated sexual conduct or otherwise, all persons in said visual depictions were at least eighteen years of age when said visual depictions were created.

The original records required pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 2257 and 28 C.F.R. 75 for materials contained in this website are kept by the appropriate Custodian of Records as listed below:

Jameslovebirch 23:53, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

I would suggest a lemma such as Legal issues for adult media or Legal issues for adult material. That page could discuss not only adult videos but also adult magazines, adult websites, etc., and it could be expanded for other countries. --Spankart (talk) 09:22, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Recent Picasa Uploaded[edit]

SpankArt are you recently uploaded 5 images you found on picasa under CC-BY-SA, but forgot to name the artist, that is a requirement of the license... —Roguebfl (talk) 22:44, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Ok, I will add it. --Spankart (talk) 07:46, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
Are you really quite sure that ninjaleaf3 and this mr gigs person are in fact the artists? I find it really very unlikely indeed. Both of them have multiple galleries filled with a mixture of anime screencaps, commercial wallpapers, scans from magazines and CG reciprical art from japanese computer games - a few of them I recognise - and a lot of original art tagged and copywrited to at least five different artists.
I think you'll find that in both cases the pictures you've just uploaded are from someones "Really cute pictures I found on the Internet" folder and are not in any way the uploaders own work. RobM 16:43, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
It could well be so. The question is, what procedure should we follow when we search for CC-BY-SA licensed images and find such images but can not find out the name of the artist. Picasa apparently has a way for uploaders to publish images under Creative Commons licenses but does not force them to provide the artist information. I think in this scenario we must make a decision: Either we assume on good faith that a) the license information is legally correct and b) that the uploader of the image is the artist. Or if we have reason to believe the image is a copyright infringement we should decide not to use it. Alternatively, in such scenarios we could also write "Artist's name unknown, image provided under CC-BY-SA 3.0 license by *name* at *source*" and leave the responsibility to that person. Or we could establish a procedure to try to contact the uploader to find out whether they are the artist themselves or what the artist's name is -- and if we don't get a reply we should not use the image. --Spankart (talk) 19:57, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
Whats wrong with common sense, why do we need another committee on it? Just because Picasa is one of those 'a bit like creative commons' site and has a database which encourages the uploading of free license pictures doesn't mean we ought to blindly assume that everything anyone banned from flickr and photobucket for spammage has stuck in one of 28 galleries of cute girl pics is not only the artist but has also allowed full usage. I raise the point because I'd have thought it obvious hiddenleaf wasn't the artist. He's got 28 galleries of pictures by dozens upon dozens of different artists, companies and sources. Images from games, images from magazines, images with Japanese text, images with spanish text etc etc. You only ever apply "Good faith" as you put it when it comes to beliving something a specific person has told you - you should never assume "Good faith" just because of an originating website. Hell, for one example: I don't trust wikipedia one-inch. If an individual contributer told me something directly I might be prepared to believe it in good faith, but I'd never believe anything just from the basis of what site it comes from. If Hiddenleaf eMailed you to say that he was the artist (I still wouldn't believe him) then thats one thing... but just because its been uploaded to a CC-BY-SA website is meaningless~
I think its a very safe assumption these are just users with 20 or more galleries of 'Cute things I found on the interwebs'. RobM 20:29, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
I think you are right and in this case it would be a waste of time to contact the uploader, so we should go for the decision "we have reason to believe the image is a copyright infringement and decide not to use it". I will delete the images. But as I said, we may want to think about a general procedure to apply in such a case, so we can save future discussions. After all there are not just 6 but thousands of potentially useful CC-licensed images out on the Web. --Spankart (talk) 22:10, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Re: The images I uploaded[edit]

Trueth is the two posts I made here were my first attempts wiki-ing. I didn't really know what I was doing and Roguebfl helped me with what he could (I'm a friend of his elsewhere) How do I go about correcting the image details and what exactly should I put there? (ps; all the images I uploaded are owned by me so i dont know where that puts what) --Toyloli (talk)

No worries, I can do it for you. Would you like me to put them under the same license as you did in the Last Cycle cardset images? --Spankart (talk) 09:24, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Name change[edit]

Hi, I created my account using a screen name I use on many spanking related sites, which is danny1xx when I realize now that I should have used the name I put on my spanking art , which is Danny M. Is there a way I can change my account name or you can change it? I would like for that name to be associated with art I upload rather than the one I used. I appreciate any help you can give me on this.

Hi Danny, unfortunately it is technically not possible for us to change an account name as far as I know. I suggest you to create a new account and leave a note on your first account's user page saying that you are the same person. Or if you want, we can also delete the images you uploaded and you can re-upload them under your new account name. --Spankart (talk) 13:53, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
Or in you preferences you can you set you signature preferences to sign you name as such that it look like: "--Danny M(talk) HH:MM, DD Month YYYY (ZONE)" and coup that with Setting you User page to say you are Danny M. Such that it would not matter that you account name does not match. --Roguebfl (talk) 19:33, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Some revenue generating ideas[edit]

1. Web rings: The Consumer's Spanking Video News & Reviews site has a banner ad link to the Spanking Web Ring. Joining that, and similar groups, would bring in more visitors and make the site more attractive to advertizers.

2. Web sites: The Spanking Video Review Page has an extensive directory of all sorts of related news, art and info sites. I would think they would include this site to that list if you approached them. Especially since they have a page here so there is mutual back-and-forth traffic. That would boost the number of hits as well. They must get quite a few visitors as they have dozens of banner ads from many major video producers listed under Favorite Links. I'm sure there are dozens of popular sites where a similar arrangement can be made to generate more hits.

3. Ads: The Lupus Pictures home page has links to both of those review sites, which must work out nicely in terms of traffic for all three of them. I would approach every video producer out there, big and small, and offer a sweet deal where they can have a banner ad for a free trial period of X number of months, followed by a small fee. In exchange, they would include a link to Spanking Art at their home page, thus increasing the traffic.

4. Videos: Nu-West used to accept submissions of amateur films that they would cobble together into anthology videos for sale. You could try something like that. Amateur Spankings ( also started out that way and they seem to be doing pretty well.

The same idea could be applied to publishing a newsletter (offered for free at first) or books/magazines of fan fiction and artwork.

Jameslovebirch 15:00, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Jameslovebirch, that's some good ideas. More visitors are always welcome, they bring potentially new editors/authors/image donors too. As to whether we should or should not make this wiki, which is currently completely noncommercial, commercial in any way (e.g. by ads), I won't take any position; we should also discuss this with our host Anime OTK -- but frankly I'm personally not too keen to push the question. One issue we have to consider in the discussion is that anything commercial requires at least one person to give up anonymity, I think, for legal reasons. I wouldn't want to be that person. --Spankart (talk) 10:23, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

From Corpunisfun[edit]

Hi Spankart, I'ts Franco, (Corpunisfun) How are U? This site seemed to be down, or gone, etc, etc...and now I'm on it again, and forgot how to move around, upload etc. I'm having trouble authenticating my emial address...I keep sending out requests and nothing happens. I got one back yesterday, but it said the link was expired...Am I doing something wrong??

Bottoms up!

Hi Franco, good to see you back! I'm very well, thank you, and I hope the same for you -- I haven't heard from you for a long time. Yes, the site is occasionally down, unfortunately, because Anime OTK (our new host) is too popular and their servers are often overloaded to cope with the traffic. If this happens, just wait a few minutes or hours and try again. Spanking Art:Welcome is a good starting point, and if I can help you further how to use the wiki, I'll be more than happy, just let me know what your questions or difficulties are. I see you're using a different login now, in 2007 you had used the login User:Corpun. That user account should still exist, have you tried signing in with your old username Corpun and your old password? As to your troubles confirming your email address, I'm not sure what could be the cause. Let me know if that issue persists and I'll see what we can do about it. And once again, welcome back! --Spankart (talk) 10:05, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi Spankart. Thanks for your cordial response. I did get my emial confirmed, it just took a few tries. As to that male posterior image, I think it once was possibly a magazine scan, from years back...but I've seen it alot in various "butt" sites on the web. I have other generic posterior shots, that are more specfic in few to the cheeks and less of a whole model.

Hi Spankart. I had a thought about that pic, which is you could delete it, and I could crop it, so the focus is on the cheeks...make it more generic. Just a thought.

I'd like to contribute some thoughts, but I wasn't sure if I should branch out in this area. I know that people have had wonderful memories, or have been made into spankos by watching a spanking, but do you think that there would be a good thread about a voyeur watching a spanking, a witness that both parties in the spanking don't know about...would that be under the heading of Watching a spanking or voyeurism??

Corpun.... Thanks again for all of your support to me. It is greatly appreciated. And, in case I never mentioned, If you are the author of my (Franco's) description, I loved how you described my drawings. Thanks again. Corpun (Franco)

You're most welcome! If you want to see who wrote what in an article (and when), you can consult the history of the article -- since this is a wiki every article can have more than one author, and the history preserves every edit.
I deleted that pic because no matter how much it has been posted elsewhere, it is most likely still copyrighted artwork and since we don't know the photographer we can't ask for permission to license it under GFDL. Cropping it wouldn't help: a cropped section of a copyrighted work is still a copyrighted work, unless that section is so trivial (e.g. blue sky) that it's below the threshold of copyright.
As to your question, that would be a very welcome contribution, especially when it's written in the factual, encyclopedic style that we favour. We already have an article witness that describes the witness role in a spanking scene. If you want to extend that, you could do that e.g. under a new heading "Secret witnesses", "Voyeur witnesses" or similarly. Or if you would prefer a new article, I would favour the lemma voyeur. --Spankart (talk) 10:38, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Greetings...well I did my first edit attempt on "Voyeur", I uploaded a drawing specifically to embed in the article, but it won't go there...I got a link to upload, but I ended up uploading the same drawing twice, and it still isn't in the article. I don't know what I did wrong...I did manage to include some interal links to appropriate words...but I'm not good at this...

Thanks Franco (Corpun)

The drawing is perfect for the subject, thanks a lot! I deleted the duplicate image, inserted the image into the article and also made a major edit, hope you don't mind. By the way, when you use the "Information" template, don't type anything in the first line after the word Information, that stops the template from working -- enter text only in the lines that end with an = sign.
When you upload an image it is not inserted to any article -- it is just an image that sits there in the Image: namespace of the wiki, ready to be used in one or more articles. To actually insert the image into an article, you need to edit that article and insert the image using the double square brackets notation, the "thumb" qualifier and a caption -- just see the code of any article that has an image for an example. --Spankart (talk) 09:29, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you Spankart. The editing you did on "Voyeur" is perfect. Again, thanks for your assistance..!


R Humphries/Lodgy53 uploads[edit]

Question~ How come both of these users are uploading the same pics? I didn't do a full check of the duplicates, but it could be as high as 45 images, of which R Humphries are of a noticably lower quality (probably due to all that stuff he's scribbled all over it). With all the orpaned image problems, can we just ask them both to use the same images in their seperate galleries and pages - preferably the higher quality ones provided by Dave himself. Far less messy that way. RobM 11:11, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, here we have two contributors, one who uploads higher resolution versions but doesn't bother about inserting the image to any page, and one who uploads lower resolution versions but makes proper image descriptions and also inserts the image into the relevant article. I agree with your suggestion, but I'm afraid you can't really talk to Lodgy53, he has never replied to anything on his talk page. R Humphries on the other hand seems to prefer uploading his versions with the copyright lines added at the bottom of the image. In doubt I would vote for deleting the orphaned versions with the poor descriptions even if they are higher resolution. --Spankart (talk) 11:19, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
Heh, I however am of the opposite opinion. Delete the lower quality ones and replace them with the higher quality versions of Lodgys. Even though he does show a total disregard for the wiki beyond his own uses (And other sites he posts on, I'm so glad he's not come to AotK or he'd ragequit in an afternoon) the pictures are better, clearer and more in keeping with the wiki aspect, specifically because of Humphries copyrighting (And possibly uploading lower quality images for the purpose of discouraging their future use). Besides, its free licence remember, Humphries can't have it both ways. Free and copyrighted? Heh, I don't think so. There's absolutely nothing wrong with my simply taking his pictures, cropping that stuff he jams all over them out and reuploading them - thats the whole point of this free licence crap.
Shall we put it to the vote? Replace all of Humphries stuff as superseded and unorphan all the other pics, it can't be more than fifteen minutes work and I'd be prepared to do it. If you still decided to keep Humphries stuff, I'd still be happy to volunteer my services to just crop his crap off them and reupload. Deal? RobM 15:58, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
I discussed the subject of the misleading copyright notice (by email) with R Humphries two months ago (The "(c) Woodettes Publications 2010" is perfectly okay (copyleft and copyright are not mutually exclusive) but it should say "Some rights reserved" not "All rights reserved"). His reply was "the Woody Toon collection is commisioned by Woodettes Publications with all copyrights transferring to me ... although I say 'All Rights Reserved' whenever I post on my site I grant free access for others to copy or use as long as they acknowledge the source." So I understand R Humphries is the actual copyright holder, not Dave Ell. R Humphries has every right to put labels (misleading or not) on his images (and yes, the GFDL permits anyone to crop the image to remove the labels, but it wouldn't be good netiquette.)
R Humphries also told me (and I hope he doesn't mind me sharing this here) "Regarding Dave Ell, he has become a good friend of mine and I have no objections to him using the artwork to promote his business as a freelance illustrator. In general most people recognize the Woody Back to School Unit brand and give acknowledgements if they post our stuff. I don't have a problem with the way we are set-up right now (even if the copyrights do conflict)."
Since R Humphries is a constructive and friendly wiki member, and I have no problem with two versions of each image coexisting in the wiki, I would personally respect his preference of using the smaller image versions with the copyright labels in the R Humphries article. The "doubtful" versions are the ones by Dave Ell. Let me talk to R Humphries before you take action, ok? --Spankart (talk) 09:03, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
Fair enough if you don't mind the duplicates, I'm not moved to complain. Although I would politely bring up the question if the reason the pictures he uploads are of lower quality is because he's trying to discourage reuse of them. Seems patently unfair to give and take with the (copy)left and (copy)right hands. I only brought the subject up because its a shame to see the lower-quality images orphaned when there are at least two/three pages they could be used to replace the rubbish ones. RobM 10:51, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
Well I certainly did not expect to cause such controversy and disquiet when I started posting in the gallery ... just to be quite clear I write, the books, briefings and commision the art, Dave is a freelance cartoonist who is paid for his work end of story ... on my blog I convert his jpeg files to powerpoint and save them as png files before posting ... if this results in 'crap' as RobM observes my apologies ... I have no particular gain from posting my purchased work around the net for free and if it would be the better resolution we can just delete the R Humphries page from the wiki and carry on peacefully with our lives ... it's your site ... please do as you feel fit Esoterick1 10:51, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
Oh do please calm down. This is a wiki, and like all wiki's its subject to editing and opinions of everyone - even anonymous people and people with no registered accounts who can be far harsher - my opinion is that the images you upload are of significantly lower quality than Lodgys originals and if you call one contributer discussing something with a senior editor of a wiki 'controversy and disquiet' important enough to ragequit then you live an enviously trouble-free life. I'm sure I don't need to tell you that Powerpoint is a dreadfully poor program to use images with and the results are, as I put it - crap. If Gordon Ramsey tried to mix a cake with a cement mixer it too would be - crap - and this isn't a personal slight but a opinion of results. Spankart already stated clearly that he doesn't mind the duplicates and I capitulated and acquiesced to that. RobM 08:13, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
I suggest we continue to use the R Humphries versions in the R Humphries article, and the Lodgy53 versions can either remain orphans or can be used in other articles - if you find homes for them, please go for it. And if someone really wants to spend the effort, it would be good to interlink the duplicate images via the line "Other versions" in the image information template. In any case we owe thanks to both Dave Ell and R Humphries for sharing their art under free licenses. I have great respect to any artist who spends hours on a work (and sometimes also money) and then shares it under a free license so that others can legally reuse it. The world needs more artists to follow their example. --Spankart (talk) 04:16, 27 March 2010 (UTC)


Hi I am looking for a previous picture of the month that was removed. It is the The July 2007 picture showing the underarm position. If you could send the picture to my e-mail, or a link to a website that would be great. I want to give the picture to an informational website(s). One of the websites is corpun, if they will use it. If you send me a link, please make sure there are no viruses on the website, and if possible, non-pornographic. Please post it on my talk page, or send me an e-mail, either one.

Thank You


I replied to you by email. --Spankart (talk) 11:54, 9 April 2010 (BST)

Spam attacks[edit]

Given the frequency of nonsense spam and advertisements being posted as "Talk" pages (today it's "Talk:Catherine Corbett"), I would recommend changing the system so that only registered users can add to these pages. The casual, non-registered visitors don't contribute anything substantial so, I see no loss in making registration a requirement. -- Jameslovebirch 15:54, 20 April 2010 (BST)

Won't make a jot of difference, it'll just be the same but with accounts we have to ban thus making our users section look like we purged half the
And besides, anon users make more contributions than you seem to think. Recentchanges&days=30&limit=100&hideliu=1
RobM 16:41, 20 April 2010 (BST)
Though we do encourage those Anonymous users to make account, because a pseudonym is more anonymous than an IP number, but not disabling it because we want the good impulse contributions too.—Roguebfl (talk) 23:10, 20 April 2010 (BST)
I see it the same way. Closing the wiki for unregistered users is something I would really only consider in the case of massive spam/vandalism attacks that we can't cope with otherwise. And even if it comes to this magnitude, I would probably suggest captchas before we go as far as completely blocking unregistered edits. The spam/vandalism/rubbish edits we experience here are minor enough (in my perception), thank God, and the rollback and blocking is done very easily (two clicks) and usually within hours. --Spankart (talk) 14:03, 21 April 2010 (BST)

Artist profile help[edit]

okay - so I thought I'd run this by you first.

I've been talking to the comic writer RedDragon, who wrote and commissioned the comic series Jade growing up again for which there is a wiki on this site. I think I have him convinced into letting me create a wiki page about him and he's been telling me stuff about himself, the commissions, things he's written and commissioned in the past etc.

Now I have a few questions,

  1. Is it okay for me to create a page for somebody else like that or does he have to make the page himself (he isn't too keen on that idea)
  2. I have a picture he commissioned from an artist - but I have no way to contact the artist. Does permission from the comissioner count as permission to redistribute.
  3. because my conversation with him has been like an interview, am I allowed to 'quote' sections of it as bulk like a proper interview in a newspaper?

Response apreciated in advance. Toyloli 12:38, 15 May 2010 (BST)

.... Answered sortof by RobM

A little Help[edit]

Hope you see this before RobM gets to it.

I asked the question above here to RobM's talk page since you didnt come on for a while. And he did answer it, but afterwards he began an unwarrented and unneeded rant, began throwing around insults, made unfounded accusations and decided to outright cut text and dialog for no fair reason. Please help me - I want to do the right thing but this guy seams more concerned with pressing his own agenda and opinions than talking about the wiki itself. I have taken on board what he has said, what I am trying to do does not break from the rules and guidelines of the wiki too my knowledge but as all he seams to want to do is rant at me and insult me I have no clue whether anything he says is relevent.....

.... If you see this and Rob doesnt delete it first (He's getting delete happy) I would apreciate any input you have. To be honest I am sorry I even asked rob in the first place - he clearly isnt interested in anything but his own opinions. Toyloli 07:25, 17 May 2010 (BST)

*Sigh*. I answered her questions then she threw her toys out of the pram because I used a word as it is defined in the english dictionary she feels is perjorative. As for 'delete happy'... I removed one section of a article talk page after she posted a 6 paragraph personal attack calling me a bigot. I discussed the removal with roguebfl as being utterly non-constructive, not discussing the article and an affirmative defense to something that didn't exist. Toyloli, that is an actionalable Libel, do you honestly expect it to be productive to leave it there? Toyloli, can you PLEASE do something constuctive with your edits and stop looking for places to make attacks on me? RobM 10:21, 17 May 2010 (BST)
It was not a personal attack - it was an elaboration on a point that I have had and seen argued out again and again against people with a pre-concieved notion of what that comic was, is, is about and will contain because you were propogating that rumour. And you Started this when you went on a four paragraph rant to my saying "I take partial offence to you calling it porn" and outright insulted me, and anyone else who might be a fan in the progress. Every response you have given to me has been a tirade of rants where you say that everyone else is wrong for having any opinion other than yours....
And you expect me not to seek mediation on this ?
Hun, seriously. I said it before - if you have nothing nice to say and cant give me straight answers without inserting the attitude, then please keep your opinions to yourself.
~ 10:49, 17 May 2010 (BST)
erk - forgot to log in ~ Toyloli 10:51, 17 May 2010 (BST)
Hi Toyloli, I just came back to the wiki and am trying to catch up with what went on!
First, let me answer your three original questions: 1) Yes that's perfectly okay. 2) That depends on the conditions agreed between the artist and the commissioner when the work was made. Normally the commissioner should know what redistribution rights, if any, they have bought along with the work. In doubt, no redistribution and no relicensing of the work without the artist's explicit permission. 3) Yes, quotations in an article are okay, but there are two things to consider: a) if the quoted material is from a private conversation that was not an official interview, does the person consent to its publishing? b) it might not be best style to write an article half like a biography and half like an interview. Depending on what your material is, it might be best to separate the quotations from the rest of the text (as e.g. in the article Lurking Dragon -- use the templates Template:Quote box and/or Template:Quotation), while in other cases, especially for shorter quotations that don't need to stand out that much and for sentence fragments, it might be best to integrate the quoted line into the body of the article text.
As to the recent discussion I read on User talk:RobM, I understand why you feel offended by Rob. I don't think it's fruitful to argue with him most points that you disagree on. What is porn and what isn't is a question that you might best agree to disagree on. Articles on spanking comics are definitely welcome in this wiki. Where appropriate, add warnings. As to how-to articles and how-to like sections in articles, they are welcome in this wiki too, if they have a relevance to the topic of the wiki, but they should follow the guidelines of Spanking Art:Conventions and Spanking Art:Nonviolence policy. We do not have a strict "how-to's are not welcome" rule here in this wiki, and in fact a lot of our articles contain some sort of how-to information -- for example the articles in Category:Types of punishment, Category:Positions and Category:Spanking techniques. These kinds of articles are welcome because they describe methods and concepts frequently (or very occasionally) encountered in spanking art. For the same reason I have no problem with the article Four Steps, in fact I find it highly interesting and relevant.
So much for tonight, I'll try to be back tomorrow to catch up with the rest of what's been going on. --Spankart (talk) 15:03, 17 May 2010 (BST)

novels vs books[edit]

Just putting in a hand here. Since there are both spanking novels and non-spanking novels I am willing to volunteer to go through all the pages in the catagory, sort them and put them in apropriate catagories. I imagine others will too - just saying I'll help :D

Thanks! But for now, please take the one-week break I suggested. Thanks, --Spankart (talk) 12:05, 19 May 2010 (BST)


Spankart, I need you to drop me an email about BareBot --  Roguebfl   talk    contribs    email   18:35, 31 July 2010 (BST)

I emailed you back. Sorry for the delay, I had not checked my mail for a few weeks. --Spankart (talk) 10:36, 5 August 2010 (BST)

Spanking Community[edit]

Hello, I was wondering if where I could find an art gallery by Cc. The author of Avoiding Domestic Discipline. I am already aware of AnimeOTK having one, but I wonder if she has her own website or perhaps another site that features her work. I was also wondering if you could recomend any websites where I could talk with other Spanko's. A place for roleplaying or disscusion. Thank you very much.


Hi Spankofficial. I would try to contact Cc, e.g. at AnimeOTK ([1]) and ask her directly. Or post the question in a forum at AnimeOTK. AnimeOTK has also rooms for roleplaying. As to other spanking community websites, have a look at Spanking web forums and groups. This list is probably very incomplete and outdated and there are surely tons of more and newer spanko web groups. I'm no regular in any, so I can't give you any good personal recommendations, but just join some of the groups/forums listed, read the old threads and talk to the members there, and you'll probably find more community places quickly. Hope this helps. Good luck! --Spankart (talk) 20:25, 14 August 2010 (BST)

Hey SA, GM here[edit]

Hi SA, GM here. Please check your Gmail account, I've sent you a private email. Ciao, GM.

Blackshade9 03:01, 21 August 2010 (BST)

RE: Series Temples and other subjects[edit]

Thanks very much for raising these issues. I'll try to answer your questions as best I can,

The purpose of the "Series Templates" was to provide an eye-catching alternative to more conventional systems such as See Also or Categories. The strong colors and bold type works like an advertisement, alerting the reader that related information is available. My personal view is that a picture is worth a thousand words, and for that reason, I believe the templates might encourage users to "explore" subjects they might otherwise have overlooked.

with the new boxes how did you plan to make navigation to the other articles in the "series" be possible?

I was planning to make the templates collapsible, so that by clicking on an "expand" link, the user can access every article connected to the template.

In addition, Special:Whatlinkshere/Template:Animation could also be employed as suggested in your post. Obviously, some users may prefer a more familiar approach to navigation; using Series Templates in tandem with Special Pages offers the best of both worlds.

Perhaps what we might consider instead is something more along the lines of the navigation templates (navboxes) from Wikipedia.

Naturally, the decision lies with the admin - I'm not trying to force unwanted change onto anyone. At the same time, however, I'd like to make a few suggestions regarding the site and its community.

The Spanking Art Wiki deals with a form of creative art. On this basis, perhaps you should encourage a more creative atmosphere within the site itself. Allowing your users to experiment with features like userboxes and templates might generate greater interest and more cohesion within the community. I don't believe that deviating away from the wikipedia model will lead to chaos; I imagine it will attract people who possess both wiki mark-up skills and a genuine interest in the content. The benefit to the site would outweigh any perceived disadvantages (at least in the long run).

Another thing we should consider is that this Wiki has outgrown its original scope. Although the main focus is still on spanking, we also have hundreds of articles dealing with both related and non-related topics. In some respects, SAW has become a resource for a range of online communities (BDSM, Femdom, TG, Hentai etc) - and this is an extremely good thing in my opinion. As more eclectic content flows into the site, the larger and more sophisticated it will become. From this perspective, we have the potential to become a kind of "Commons" for similar wikis dealing with sexual or adult themes. Many of these are barred from Wikimedia Foundation due to content restrictions: Spanking Art Wiki serves as an alternative to WMF projects.

At the risk of sounding corny, I believe the site is entering a new era, and while we should continue to follow traditional encyclopedic structure, we should also encourage innovation and forward thinking - for every step that Wikipedia makes, we should try to take two. Call me an idealist, but my ideals are completely genuine in this regard.

Thanks for allowing me the opportunity to discuss my views. I'd be interested in reading feedback from admin and other users alike.

Ciao, Blackshade9 12:50, 24 August 2010 (BST)

While I agree with the concept and that an image is often better which is why {{NavigationBox}} supports images, but be careful of your "encourage innovation" because it an art site, if you don't have a consistent theme in look you will end up with the 90' Geocites "eye-sores" that distract from your content and people will assuming you are doing it to distract from the fact you don't have any content and click away before they notices you actually do. Basically build your series templates along the lines of {{NavComics}} and i thinks things would work well.
As too Userbox, we have supported {{Userbox}} since May 2010, but they have seen little use. --  Roguebfl   talk    contribs    email   01:07, 25 August 2010 (BST)
I appreciate your initiative and creativity, GM, and I also think that we can improve what we currently have. I have no issue with bold colors, images, big fonts; so long as the boxes don't become too big, annoying or distracting from the contents, as Rogue said rightly, it's fine. Collapsible is a nice idea. The "part of a series" attention-getter boxes you started could get an 'Expand' link, which when clicked transforms the box into a full-width navigation box such as Template:Rejuve. Please collaborate with Rogue at this; he's very experienced with templates and he has also edit rights to critical special pages such as MediaWiki:Common.js which is where Wikipedia has their Collapsible tables code. Otherwise, if collapsible is too complicated, I'd suggest non-collapsible navigation bars such as the ones we started. In any case I think we should try to follow a consistent concept, not two similar but slightly different concepts. --Spankart (talk) 11:21, 25 August 2010 (BST)
I have just successfully ported Collapsible tables, and add them to {{NavigationBox}} (hence to {{NavRejuve}}, {{NavAnime}} etc.) Do we want them to continue to be blue? if not, I need to edit MediaWiki:Common.css. I'm willing to go with a bold color too but I what it to match the site (basically stand out with out clashing) and I do what a different color for ever series/navigation, basically by look at the color people should know the box does the same function letting the image and text customize them.
Would you to be happy with {{NavAnime}} ? --  Roguebfl   talk    contribs    email   13:20, 2 September 2010 (BST)

Box update[edit]

What would you think {{box}} and {{box-centered}} being replaced with {{box2}} especially look at using the rounded corners option on some of the existing templates using those classes (like {{ quotation}} --  Roguebfl   talk    contribs    email   13:20, 2 September 2010 (BST)

Yes, if I understand it correctly, box2 is completely configurable so it would be good to base all other boxes on it as our generic box template. And 'box' is a better name for it than 'box2' so we might replace the current template 'box'. --Spankart (talk) 14:13, 2 September 2010 (BST)


Given Stoner informed me of the security risk to allow individual users access to custom javascript, the individual choice on when autocollapse kick in is not an option. So what should we set it to? It is currently set at 2, meaning it will collapse all such tables if there is more than one on the page. I was thinking we might want it at 3 so that we can have 2 show by default, but pages like Erection which has both {{NavSex}} and {{NavAnatomy}} both big Navigation boxes should be considered in this. --  Roguebfl   talk    contribs    email   15:51, 4 September 2010 (BST)

Yes 3 would be ok for me, so we can display 1 or 2 boxes expanded. --Spankart (talk) 11:29, 5 September 2010 (BST)

Template for Internet Archive[edit]

Following the YouTube model, could we set up a template for embedding video clips from the Internet Archive ( This site is one of the few places one can post almost any clip without the annoying censorship YouTube, and others, employ. (Over half the YouTube clips I've linked or embedded have been deleted.) Lately, I've been posting all sorts of clips to the Archive (Irving Klaw, vintage fetish stag loops, etc.), many of which would be nice to embed at this site. It might also be a good idea to have a template for DailyMotion as they have a large collection of film clips. -- Jameslovebirch 15:52, 11 September 2010 (BST)

Yes, YouTube is known for their deletion of videos for various TOS reasons. Unfortunately support for other video hosters is a bit more complicated than setting up a template, we would need to install a new MediaWiki extension for this. We can only embed YouTube videos currently thanks to the YouTube extension which is installed and running. Here is an overview of all currently available extensions.
  • VideoFlash can do Dailymotion and others using the FLV format -- does Internet Archive offer this format?
  • FramedVideo supports 44 services including Dailymotion, but not Internet Archive.
  • EmbedVideo can do Dailymotion but needs Mediawiki 1.14 (we have MediaWiki 1.11.1 currently, see Special:Version)
But installing an extension is somewhat difficult as it can only be done by our hosts (Stoner or Ai), not by me or Rogue, and they are busy with lots of other tasks. --Spankart (talk) 12:53, 12 September 2010 (BST)

Database Error[edit]

When I update the spanking blog page (and this page), I get the following error:

  • - - - -

Database error From Spanking Art A database query syntax error has occurred. This may indicate a bug in the software. The last attempted database query was:

   (SQL query hidden)

from within function "SearchMySQL4::update". MySQL returned error "126: Incorrect key file for table './animeotk_wiki/searchindex.MYI'; try to repair it (localhost)".

  • - - - -

The update appears to succeed, but I have to imagine this is not good.

Thanks! --Bonnie Oct 2, 2010

Hi Bonnie, thanks for the notification. Must have been one of those temporary glitches we experience from time to time. It seems to work again. --Spankart (talk) 20:49, 4 October 2010 (BST)


Have you ever had the case that you browsed the web and thought you saw a spanking image at a first quick glance where in fact there wasn't any? I just had this here. Must be a brain malfunction, is it called selective (or expective) perception...? :) --Spankart (talk) 19:59, 8 October 2010 (BST)

I can't see what it is, but it looks very beautiful, even if it has nothing to do with our concerns here on this site. eric 10:13, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
It's Iris appearing to Hypnos, the god of sleep --Spankart (talk) 22:15, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Special Oakland Creperie Will Spank You For a Mere $25[edit]

This is too good to lose the link: :D --Spankart (talk) 21:28, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

The Gambols[edit]

Hi Spankart,

Thanks again for the great work you are doing. I uploaded the two cartoons of the Gambols, where Mr Gambol is spanking his pretty young wife. You asked me if it is in the public domain. I really don't know, and I don't know how to find out. But it IS freely available on several sites on the Net, including Flickr. And there seems to be no probs there. Because only two cartoons are being used, and they are 50 years old, it would be a legitimate defense that they are being used for the purposes of research. Certainly, that is not a lie. These cartoons speak absolute volumes for what the middle class accepted as proper marital practice in those days.

If we can't use the images, perhaps we could have a reference from spanking cartoons to these other sites. There should be more of them. I would like to see separate articles on the Phantom, Mandrake, and others where spanking is featured.

Btw, I have downloaded many such retro mainstream spanking cartoons from other sites. They are a special favourite of mine. I really think that compendiums of such images should make a clear distinction between the innocent mainstream cartoons of yesteryear (like the Gambols here) and the consciously erotic stuff from later times. The last has its own appeal but it has NOTHING to do with the first. eric 11:02, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Copyright is 70 - 120 years long, the fact they 50 years old is NOT a defense. copyright and [2] should help you. --  Roguebfl   talk    contribs    email   17:30, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Fair use? After all, I can put 2000 words under both of them to discuss how each reflects the early 1960s view of psychiatry, fashion (skirts and hats) and marital relations (spanking). Is taking two cartoons out of 100s of Gambols really any different to quoting a couple of passages from a novel? In any case, these images are ALL over the net, and no one seems to have objected. The material is out of print anyway. If they REALLY can't be here, and I can't see why not, then we could still have the articles, and the text, and link them to those sites which do. eric 04:04, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, just a quick note that I'm very busy in RL at the moment, I will try to reply properly next week. As to fair use, see Spanking Art:Image use policy "You are also explicitly not allowed, on this wiki, to upload copyrighted images which may be used only because of a claim of fair use." Articles about this kind of cartoon, with links to images on the web, are most welcome and no problem. ---Spankart (talk) 20:56, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
I just extended the The Gambols article, please continue there. And you might want want to link to it from Spanking in comics 1938-1970. --Spankart (talk) 21:14, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
Sorry again, but we just can't use copyrighted material here without permission from the copyright owner. So I will go ahead and delete the two images. If you have a friend with a Flickr account who is willing to upload these cartoons on Flickr, or anywhere else on the Web, we will be happy to link to the images. You could also convert them (along wih more of your retro mainstream spanking cartoons) into a YouTube video which would enable us to embed them in the wiki as a video clip. That's about the only options I see. --Spankart (talk) 18:52, 29 December 2010 (UTC)