Lustywench

• Welcome to Wikipedia and thank you for your contributions. However, I noticed that your username (Lustywench) may not meet Wikipedia's username policy because it is sexual in nature. If you believe that your username does not violate our policy, please leave a note here explaining why. As an alternative, you may ask for a change of username, or you may simply create a new account to use for editing. Thank you. --He to Hecuba (talk) 21:15, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

I do not see what is wrong with my username. I do not wish to change it. --Lustywench (talk) 21:20, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

The term "wench" is potentially offensive, and in combination with the word "lusty" it has strong sexual connotations. As you are unwilling to change it to something more innocuous, I will open a discussion at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User names, which you are free to contribute to. --He to Hecuba (talk) 21:27, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Hello, Lustywench. The result of this discussion was to allow your username. The discussion has now been closed. If you would like to see what concerns were raised, you can find a link to the discussion in the archive. You do not need to change your username. Thank you. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 22:50, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Really, don't worry about your username (I was making a lot of fuss about nothing). I think your new signature's better though. I'm currently trying to get Clement of Alexandria to good article status, so if you'd like to help out with it, please feel free to contribute ! Thanks. --He to Hecuba (talk) 09:32, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Cheers, it's all forgotten. I'm glad we've been able to work through that. Clement is an interesting fellow. I've taken a look at the article and I'm not sure if Clement's pivotal role in crystalising Christian attitudes towards sex is adequately explained. What do you think? --Lw (talk) 11:00, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Currently, no, but I intend to write a "legacy" section once I've finished writing about the Stromata and done a section on the minor works, which will cover Clement's impact on such matters among other things. Feel free to start the legacy section without me, although as I've already written a decent amount about his views on sexuality under the Paedagogus section, probably just a paragraph is needed in the legacy section about the impact of his view on sex. The Kochuthara source has a good summary. --He to Hecuba (talk) 11:38, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, your work on Clement and sex is quite impressive. I think a legacy section would be very good. For the first couple of centuries AD, Christian fetishisation of chastity created such mayhem in their communities. Are men called to chastity married or not? Clement's rather brutal distillation of the purpose of sex resolved that to an extent but created other problems. Of course we have to avoid original research but I'm fairly confident that sufficient sources exist to allow a real expansion of this aspect of his impact on Christian theology. --Lw (talk) 12:54, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Clement is pretty moderate on the chastity question, viewing marriage as a blessed state, and thus supporting sex within marriage. Many heterodox thinkers of the same period had much more extreme ideas (either complete chastity or promiscuity). --He to Hecuba (talk) 13:10, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Lustywench, I have just been informed of the message you were trying to leave on my talk page, so I apologise for my tardy reply (and for the edit filter: I don't know why it prevented you from sending me that message). I really appreciate you chose to modify your signature! Happy editing! Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 01:57, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Barack Obama

Hi Lustywench. I'm not sure that "it may be worded funny" is sufficient cause to delete my recent, 100% factual (reported in the USA's newspaper of record, the New York Times) addition to Obama's page.

Would you like to discuss the substance of my addition, as opposed to its "funny wording"? or hey, even both? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Settdigger (talk • contribs) 07:08, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

No thank you. --Lw (talk) 19:40, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Religious views of Adolf Hitler

Recently, you undid an edit I made on the religious views of Adolf Hitler,

In his work on Protestant imperialism, historian Frédéric Hoffet concluded that "Hitler, Goebbels, Himmler and most members of the party's "old guard" were Catholics", writing "It was not by accident that, because of its chiefs' religion, the National-socialist government was the most Catholic Germany ever had."

Now, as you can see, the reference was by Frederic Hoffet, but was ALSO referenced in another book. So because it was mentioned in another book it automatically makes it irrelevant? I fail to see your logic on that. Awaiting your response. Also, I ask you to use the talk page on articles before simply removing information from it because you "don't agree with the implications", which I assume is the real reason you removed it? Greengrounds (talk) 01:58, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

My apologies for the late reply. I have examined the talkpage of the article and I have nothing to add to that conversation. As to your substantive comments, I do not accept your premise and believe that my edit should stand. That said, I have no intention of engaging in an edit war on this matter. --Lw (talk) 20:34, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Recent edits to Craig Kelly (politician)

Hello, and thank you for your recent contributions. I appreciate the effort you made for our project, but unfortunately I had to undo your edit(s) because I believe the article was better before you made that change. Feel free to contact me directly if you have any questions. Thank you! Greenmaven (talk) 06:27, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

ArbCom election

You are not eligible to vote in the 2013 ArbCom elections as you have less than 150 mainspace edits; I have therefore removed your votes. On behalf of the Election Commission, GiantSnowman 21:13, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Barack Obama Alt text

Regarding your recent revert [1], the editor changed the Alt Text, not the caption. It is a reasonable change such that users that are displayed the alt text will see that text, and not the image. The caption is still shown. I'm going to undo your change. Respectfully, JoeSperrazza (talk) 19:28, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Oh, ok. Sorry if I buggered something up. Lw (talk) 19:43, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

No worries. Thanks! JoeSperrazza (talk) 20:06, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Australian Vaccination-Skeptics Network

Hi there! Please discuss your desired change to Australian Vaccination-Skeptics Network on the article's talk page at Talk:Australian Vaccination-Skeptics Network. This specific content was just the subject of a debate. The source was verified, and the content re-written to be encyclopedic. I've reverted your edit for now. Thank you for your time. Chrisw80 (talk) 09:24, 19 February 2016 (UTC)