Talk:Sex club

This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Sexology and sexuality Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sexology and sexuality, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of human sexuality on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Sexology and sexualityWikipedia:WikiProject Sexology and sexualityTemplate:WikiProject Sexology and sexualitySexology and sexuality Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

>Sex clubs are clubs where people can have sexual intercourse with one another, either in private rooms or in public areas.

>Sex clubs also differ from gay bathhouses in that they do not have private rooms, and all sexual activity must take place in >the open.

So private rooms or no private rooms? Not my area of expertise, but can't help but notice a contradiction! Matt 22:26, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think the problem is that a bathhouse is a type of sex club, but when we say "sex club" we generally mean a place that has no rooms. It is a contradiction, yes. Perhaps someone can think of a better way of phrasing it. Exploding Boy 23:09, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've moved the sentences around so that it's not such an obvious contradiction based on what you've said. Article needs sources throughout, though. Matt 21:39, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It would be a very unusual sex club indeed that has no rooms (none that I've ever seen), they will at least have several different rooms for playing even if none are private. Though frequently there will be rooms suitable for private playing as well. Mathmo ^Talk 07:52, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why are these clubs being listed? None really seem notable. They all seem to be promotional and there are probably thousands in North America. It continues to grow with additional listings all the time. RECOMMEND deletion of this entire section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JohannVanbeek (talk • contribs) 17:08, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with this. It looks like games are being played by taking away one club an adding another, and at least one of the claims about party size doesn't have a legitimate citation. I don't see any value in keeping the section. --Somerandompersonality (talk) 13:13, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

While the list may be incomplete,the information contained is accurate and in the regions mentioned, these are indeed the most notable establishments. Someone should expand the list and if I have the time I will. One was removed and another added for the sake of accuracy. The club previously listed has long since been replaced as the principle establishment in that vicinity, by the one with which it was replaced. (citations on request) I will also, time allowing, add a list of notable establishments in the Caribbean, Latin America and Europe. Perhaps a mention of the many cruise line tours around the world is worth a mention as well. 99.72.90.6 (talk) 20:59, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Accuracy and notability is not the point. The point is they appear to be promotional and not informational. They add no value, other than to promote the clubs.--Somerandompersonality (talk) 22:34, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. There really is no reason to be listing any clubs other than the most notable ones. Wikipedia isn't a catalog. Any thoughts? Otherwise I will go ahead and remove some of the less notable ones, in my opinion. -download ׀ talk

Absolutely. And they are NOT notable. If you follow the notability rule then each of those establishments should/would have a wiki page dedicated to them elsewhere. this is how Dating Sites Comparisons are done. JVB 05:41, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

I made some additions, revisions and corrections. Red rooster has not been "notable" for years and is in fact not located on the Vegas strip, I replaced it with a club which is both on the strip and notable. I put back the principle club in the upper Midwest, as I suspect it's removal was vandalism, and added a very notable club in the south. Notability by the way is a matter of documentation and citation, not "opinion". As I said, I plan to create a more comprehensive and complete list both for the US and other regions of the world when time allows. Rather than cherry picking the content and leaving inaccurate information via a lack of research, I would welcome others assisting in it's legitimate creation and improvement. Finally, a page about sex clubs without principle examples is essentially incomplete and non encyclopedic. It would be like an page about Mountains without mentioning Everest, K2, or Kilimanjaro. Finally, an entity is not notable enough for Wikipedia unless it has it's own Wikipedia page? All due respect,that is just bizarre Cosand (talk) 13:59, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that is how it is done under the Dating Comparison section of Wiki. Unless a site is notable enough (by wiki or whatever standards) that it deserves its own dedicated webpage on Wikipedia then it is NOT considered notable enough for a listing. I'm sorry I simply do not see the value of ANY kind of listing of clubs by country, region or other locale. It just ends up being a laundry list of various clubs, porn shops, strip joints, adult theaters, and brothels. Beg your pardon, but I cannot compare sex clubs with geological features of the planet earth. I'm quite certain we do not have NOTABLE Television Repair Shops or NOTABLE Electricians or NOTABLE Fitness Centers. Sex clubs are nothing more than businesses. Unless the sex club was frequented by historic leaders as they framed the Constitution or planned a major battle in World War II, I cannot fathom why it would be included. And those that would be wouldn't be listed by region but explained in text such as "YadaYadaYada Club was the first openly Gay Sex Club in the US and the site of thousands of protesters in the 1970's until landmark legislation by the US Supreme Court upheld the legality of private gay clubs in America." And your right whatever the reason it would have to be well documented by peer reviewed scholarship and cited in impartial and unaffiliated resources. JVB. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.251.89.57 (talk) 18:26, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

With all due respect, and no offense intended, since you choose to compare a swing club with a porn shop or a brothel, clearly you are not qualified to comment on the subject. One has NO similarity with the others. My facetious Mountain analogy in fact, had more applicable similarity. Also, again, how can the measure of the legitimacy or an entity on wikipedia, be a wikipedia page or the absence there of? That would be an endless chicken or the egg scenario with no logical conclusion. Like it or not there is in this industry, and in any other industry,(Make no mistake, it IS an industry, not just random businesses) a corporate hierarchy and governance at all levels of government jurisdiction,taxation, permits and permissions. There are the McDonald's and the Burger Kings such as those listed on the page, and there are the small local burger joints which are not. There are those who thrived in the 70s and 80s like one that was formally listed which have since declined, and there are those who have replaced them as the principle club in an area like the one with which it was replaced. There is a long history of litigation of everything from implications of pardoring to urban and suburban zoning laws, so much so that there are attorneys who specialize as adult industry lawyers. We are not talking about TV repair shops and dry cleaners here, we are talking about an industry which again, describing without principle examples, is at best incomplete. I respectfully ask that you allow those of us with knowledge of this subject be allowed the time to complete the section before you judge this information as irrelevant.Thanks in advance Cosand (talk) 02:19, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

++++With all due respect, your presumed "I Have More Knowledge Than You" attitude is silly and irrelevant. If you know what you're talking about--put in the impartial references and citations. (Besides opinions of those close to the subject matter--such as myself--could be argued as being LESS reliable because of biases.) This is the classic argument in anthropology about whether the In-crowd or study group should ever be allowed to dictate or influence research. Also why we have Notability rules. With only 1 of 3 sex clubs having an online presence and lists over 1,000 long, who gets to decide what is notable and what gets listed (or not)? Well..... Wiki has standards for NOTABILITY for organizations and companies. It is as follows: An organization is generally considered notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources. Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability. All content must be verifiable. If no independent, third-party, reliable sources can be found on a topic, then Wikipedia should not have an article on it.***** And regarding Web content.... Wikipedians are averse to the use of Wikipedia for advertising, and the idea that Wikipedia articles are not advertisements is an official policy of long standing. Advertising is either cleaned up to adhere to the neutral point of view or deleted. Wikipedia is not a web directory, in that it is not a site that specializes in linking to other web sites and categorizing those links.******* Where are the citations and references for these presumed NOTABLE clubs? All I see so far are self-published self-promoting URLs for the establishments themselves espousing their own membership numbers and marketing tactics. If a site or a business or organization is notable enough, it can have its own article and page devoted to it--with citations and references from 3rd party or reliable sources. If not, then it is just opinions, advertising or self-promotion. The argument about industry or business is irrelevant. Doesn't matter if they have had a rough road or are socially marginalized or fought for legal recognition. The point was (and is) that there are criteria for business and organizations to meet notability. Same thing with the Burger Kings and McDonald's. Those are businesses (local) and corporate (as franchises) which are all part of the INDUSTRY of fast food and restaurants. If there is something special about a particular fast-food restaurant (such as, historic connections, unique cultural or academic associations) that's fair game. Otherwise the franchise should have its own article. (They do: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burger_King and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonald's) Or the industry would have a page. (They do: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fast_food) But even under the concept of Fast Food as an industry the US$5.58 billion company Burger King's entire citation is as follows: "Burger King has more than 11,100 restaurants in more than 65 countries." That's it. Compare that to The Farm listed here--a collection of trailers and double-wides in York PA. Also, where are The Trapeze franchise entries in FL, GA and PA or The Rooftop? They are bigger and better and have more membership than the Tabu club in a suburb of Baltimore. And even though you removed Red Rooster, they probably HAVE notability with over 30 years of existence open 7 days/week and a Vegas landmark with lots of newspaper recognition and national stories! Where are the lifestyle resort clubs and the swinger campgrounds? the dance halls? the Meet and Greets that have memberships and facilities? the strip clubs that also serve as On-Premise clubs? It would never stop. That's why there are Notability rules.+++++ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.251.89.68 (talk) 20:17, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed some of the more promotional-sounding clubs and descriptions that were recently added to the list. To be honest I believe that the entire list should be removed (apart from the general information) with only a few very notable examples left intact. -download ׀ talk 23:57, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The basis of your argument is all well and good, the problem is, once again, your deletions show you have no knowledge or experience in the subject matter, nor have you taken the due diligence to do your own research,. Add the fact that by your own admission, you have a personal bias against the industry, I say again, you are unqualified to participate in this work, and should gracefully rescue yourself. A list of principle clubs in the US minus the Las Vegas, Nashville and Chicago clubs you arbitrarily deleted reads like a list of notable sports franchises minus the Dallas Cowboys, NY Mets and Chicago Bears. AS for the red Rooster, I replaced it with the Green Door based on a reality, namely the fact that the Red Rooster is widely regarded as a once notable club which has fallen out of popularity due to the fact that indeed,it is 30 years old and has run it's course. It was also in fact, never in it's 30 years, an actual CLUB, but rather a glorified house party, venues of which is already mentioned in the artical. With all due respect, I would suggest that either by design or by subconsciousness, you are dumbing down the page to suit your own POV. I will again restore some appropriate data, and ask that you allow the completion of the page and a wider consensus of opinion from other editors before you arbitrarily make decisions on a subject on which you clearly have no expertise or apparent willingness to research. Cosand (talk) 13:34, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The consensus so far has been that a listing of clubs is either not needed, or at most only the truly notable ones should be listed. Are you a club owner that is trying to make sure his/her own club is listed? --Somerandompersonality (talk) 14:06, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am not, I am a casual editor who has an interest and has knowledge of the topic, and beleives what is the the standard in any reference material, that description without example is all but worthless. All do respect, YOU, "download" and a random unsigned comment do not = a consensus. I did not list all of the clubs, But the ones myself and other listed are indeed notable, and more should be added. I also plan, time allowing, to create a "history" section noting the rise of the industry in the mid 70s with Platos, The wave, midnight interlude and Executive north, all of which, should you choose to research it, were the principle and notable early clubs. Cosand (talk) 14:10, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You attempted to add a page for "Partyperks" which was a speedy deletion, and you've added that club to this list. Is that your club? --Somerandompersonality (talk) 14:18, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It is NOT my club... To assume is MOST unencyclipedic Cosand (talk) 14:21, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There was no assumption. It was a question. --Somerandompersonality (talk) 14:30, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It is a club I am most familiar with, but my lack of bias should be noted in the fact I also listed it's direct competition. Indeed the two clubs, one in Chicago, the other in Milwaukee, are the two largest in the Midwest. I did indeed attempt to create a page for a club, and it was "nominated for deletion" after literally 11 words were entered. Again, the "hard core" wikipedia editors sometimes, many times in fact, use the very same "original research" they so quickly point out in others, to dismiss actual research. This is not a mainstream topic, why not let those of us who have access to the finte research work it? I would argue there is NO bias or favorable promotional discrepancy is any of the clubs I listed. Cosand (talk) 14:41, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Would you have a problem with the club being removed from the list since the only citation is their own placement on a discussion board, and there is no citation to back the statement that it is "one of the largest clubs of it's kind in the US"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Somerandompersonality (talk • contribs) 14:51, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

FYI...the wordy UNSIGNED and UNCITED comment is from a biased vandal who spans the internet misrepresenting himself as a "club owner" when in fact he is a co host of a house party, and demening and slandering other clubs. His web site in fact, contains 2 entire pages dedicated to nothing but trashing clubs accross the country. His syntax and repetitive rhetoric is unmistakable. I propose his comments be at least ignored, and at best removed....LEECosand (talk) 14:23, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a directory. A listing of clubs serves no encyclopedic purpose and should not be present on this article. If these clubs are notable, produce the reliable and independent sources that document them, unsupported claims of being large or old or whatever are not relevant. - MrOllie (talk) 14:57, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you read the citations. 3rd party and otherwise, and the pages to which they lead (at least on the clubs I added) you will see size, age, prominence, etc is documented. If however, someone can produce reliable and independent documentation that these listed clubs are NOT notable, debunking the current citations, I would then relent and agree they should be removed, or there would at least be a bais for discussion. Absent that, logic and accepted rules of referenced material would dictate they should remain. I continue to be confused at this line of objection, since virtually EVERY Wikipedia main page contains similar references and examples of the subject matter. I would add that while Wikipedia is not a 'directory", nor is it or should it be a clearing house for a moral caste system either.If indeed it's stated purpose is to be an archive of all accumulated knowledge, that must include off beat as well as mainstream topics. Once again, I ask that you not allow pre connived notions and "original research" cloud actual research, and please wait for the completion of the page improvements before making a final judgement. Thanks in advance Cosand (talk) 15:40, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Can you identify the specific citations I should be looking at? All I see are business directories and a forum, which do not meet the reliable sources guideline. I'm not sure what 'accepted rules' you are referring to, Wikipedia policies place the burden of evidence on you as the one arguing for inclusion. - MrOllie (talk) 16:22, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The accepted rules I am referring to is that description without example is worthless as a reference source. You can either be encyclopedic or nit pick, you can't be both. As logic would dictate, this is not a topic that is widely reviewed in mainstream media venues except as novelty pieces. HOWTO is one place that has done an excellent job with this topic, but apparently the powers that be at Wikipedia have decided not to allow it as a source. (???)Your standards, which clearly you are at BEST, selectively applying, have been met. Again, your are violating your OWN rule by allowing YOUR original research and pre concived notions to trump citations, because in your OPINION, they may be biased. I will search and cite sources which will hopefully satisfy your double standard..To do so however, requires vandals stop arbitrarily deleting constant...again..I ask that you allow some time to do so. Cosand (talk) 16:51, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am not seeing any pointers to specific citations which comply with Wikipedia's sourcing guidelines, so at this point I am forced to assume that you do not know of any. Please stop returning the disputed information to this article, it is quite clear that consensus is against you. - MrOllie (talk) 17:26, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'll weigh back in since I originally posed this question for discussion. I still see no value for any "listings" at all. Regarding notability, the rules are that the references have to be independent of the subject (WP:Notability). So a club's own website should not be allowed as a reference. Also, notability is not temporary. If something was once notable, it doesn't need to keep getting coverage. Red Rooster could be out of business and would remain notable because "...the fact that the Red Rooster is widely regarded as a once notable club..." (--although I would want proof.) Personally I have a hard time imagining there is ANY notable club, but I'll keep an open mind and ask senior editors to decide. JVB (talk) 17:05, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There you go ASS-uming again...Which by the way neither I or anyone else can FORCE you to do. If this is the case, why did you not remove ALL the examples, and only the most recent? (hummmmm?) There ARE 3rd party citations with more to come. Please stop shilling for one particular club, vandalizing and and dumbing down the page. You are using "original research" to try to trump actual citations, which is not acceptable on Wikipedia Cosand (talk) 19:04, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Enlighten me, how long of a period is "wikipedia accepted" to gain a consensus,I admit I don't know, but I dare say more then the hour intervals we have seen here, and more than ONE editor who bothers to sign his comments, Did I mention JVB's talk page reads like the diary of one with pscho sexual aversion disorder? Seems the extent of his discussions in wikipedia is denying sexuality is relevant. His remarks are IMO, moot in terms of any consensus on this subject. Cosand (talk) 19:22, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The period of time is irrelevant. Four people disagree with you, and so far no one has agreed with you. Personal attacks on other editors are irrelevant, and will probably result in your account being blocked if continued. - MrOllie (talk) 19:32, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK. I'm done here. I just posed a question, no real edits. This has turned into an edit war and personal attacks. My vote is that ALL listing of any clubs be removed. If a club is truly notable, it can go into text somewhere. Logging off. JVB (talk) 21:51, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, according to Wikipedia standards, the time period IS relevant. It states (to paraphrase) that a sufficient amount of time and discussion is required to get a cross section of opinion in order for a consensus to be created, that has not happened. As for the "4 peoples" one is a co host at Red Rooster who also happens to be a serial internet slanderer of virtually every other club in the industry with the exception of his personal friend from GA, and the house party he co hosts on at least 5 venues I know of including his own web site (who if you notice, didn't sign his comments), ones whose talk page reads like a person with some personality disorder with an adversity to sex,(NOT a personal attack, read his talk page...http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:JohannVanbeek) another who wants ALL references to be removed, and you. On the other side is me, the person who wrote the page, the person who contributed the Canadian clubs, who may not have yet joined the discussion..IE, NO consensus. Finally...do a Google search of ANY listed club, and you will find HUNDREDS if not THOUSANDS of 3rd party objective documentation on each. The "non notable" argument is moot PS...is the German brothel shown on the main page "notable"? Cosand (talk) 22:13, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

God I'm sick of this. Don't care about results. Just want rules followed. OK. NOT paraphrasing, but quoting from notability page all located in original text at WP:N (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability)

"Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, so no original research is needed. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material.

"Reliable" means sources need editorial integrity to allow verifiable evaluation of notability, per the reliable source guideline.

"Sources" should be secondary sources, as those provide the most objective evidence of notability. Multiple sources are generally expected.

"Notability requires verifiable evidence." It must be objective evidence that the subject has received significant attention from independent sources to support a claim of notability. No subject is automatically or inherently notable merely because it exists.

Notability guidelines apply to the inclusion of stand-alone lists and tables. Notability of lists (whether titled as "List of Xs" or "Xs") is based on the group.

Wikipedia requires "that all articles rely primarily on "third-party" or "independent sources" so that we can write a fair and balanced article... [so] that articles are not advertising a product, service, or organization."

...And finally (regarding temporal--not time--objections)...

Notability is not temporary: once a topic has been the subject of "significant coverage" in accordance with the general notability guideline, it does not need to have ongoing coverage. JVB (talk) 13:30, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

JVB

Why is every objection or challenge to content on you talk page sex related? Are there no other topics in the bazzllion pages of wikipedia in which you feel notability rules are being violated? <it's a rhetorical question> Do you at least see why I and others are of the belief your objections (which I still contend, and have shown are not valid) have more to do with your personal view of the topic matter,than the rules of wikipedia? I'll also ask again, are the brothel in Germany on the main page and the Canadian clubs "notable" or are you only concerned with all but 3 of the American clubs? Cosand (talk) 22:33, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Since you brought it up... No, it's a silly photo of little value. It could be a photo of anything. Not sure how it contributes anything to an encyclopedic entry on sex clubs. It could easily be eliminated. Then again, it is only a SINGLE photo as one example of the whole. It is not an endless POV list of hundreds that would grow and grow and grow without end because there are no standards being followed. I see nothing wrong with useful valued contributing examples of sex clubs that truly have contributed in some fashion to the development of the genre as it is known today. (I'm not sure what ones that would be but there probably are a few.) For sex resorts both Hedo II and Hedo III could be added. Why? because there are ALREADY wiki entries for BOTH of those clubs even though one of them is now extinct! They are/were both NOTABLE. There is tons of 3rd party documentation and references about both clubs from many different resources. NOT from the Hedonism site itself nor from SUPERCLUBS nor from Issa as owner nor from affiliates who garner financial gain from the club being promoted. But they are still NOTABLE and could be included. IF the consensus from the community was that sex resorts are appropriate for this entry on sex clubs, or if they deserve their own article for sex resorts or sex tourism. AGAIN, I have NO QUARREL with the subject, just want the rules followed. JVB (talk) 00:20, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

HEDOs III is closed, and has been for at least 2 years. (some of the details on the HEDO page regarding the lease of the property and financing are incorrect, but I don't feel like nit picking minor errors, and this WOULD be original research, since it is proprietary and mostly unpublished) Point is this is why why notable examples are important both in terms of those which are, and are NOT included? If you would like however, I can add HEDOS III and mention that it no longer operates, just as I did with Red Rooster, by providing current cited information that it is no longer a principle establishment within the industry,if in fact it ever was. There is an argument to be made that minus it's refusal to comply with Clark County zoning laws and the tabloid notoriety it received as a result, it would be just one of thousands of unknown house parties. I know how you hard core Wikipedia editors loathe "original research" but like it or not, previous knowledge of a topic one did not have to Google search, adds immeasurable quality to the description of any topic. Otherwise, Wikipedia is not an encyclopedia at all, but rather a clearing house for search engine queries. If any Sr Editors(whatever that means)would like documentation of my expertise on this subject, I would be happy to provide it under the condition of anonymity. Finally, for the record, I did not enter the picture of the German brothal Cosand (talk) 15:13, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I asked about the NOTABILITY of Hedo III from the Wiki page about a year and half ago (just like I did with the sex club page) because it had been closed for some time. They opened the archive on the webpage from when it was originally established, and they ruled that the page met the notability rules and said that it was appropriate to have a page specifically for this commercial enterprise. They opened another ticket on the issue of Hedo III's suitability for notability and the ruling was that it SHOULD REMAIN on the Hedonism Resorts wiki page because it ONCE WAS NOTABLE and the fact that in no longer was (or even open) didn't matter. I haven't looked at how well that page has fared with keeping up the standards for wikipedia rules, but the overall concept of it having its own article because of notability stands. That's a good example of how a commercial business/franchise/shop/boutique/website/establishment can be cited without it being purely advertisement or promotional because it has notability. Hence my willingness to change the citation in the list to Hedonism Resorts... I still dislike the promotional aspects of all the others in the list. Even my own contribution in an attempt ot make it at least look like an encyclopedia description. JVB (talk) 14:07, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a way to have this article and issue reviewed and ruled upon by an administrator/Sr Editor or whatever the correct title is? It appears we will never agree, and even though the edit warring has been reported, no action has been taken either way. This is my first involvement with an issue of this type, and although I assumed that "rules are rules", it appears that maybe that isn't the case when someone is adamant about pushing their agenda. --Somerandompersonality (talk) 15:50, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The only agenda being pushed here is that of those who allow personal biases to effect their objectivity, and those afflicted with "wikipedia delusional grandiose editorial syndrome". Meanwhile, I and other continue to improve the page. Cosand (talk) 17:29, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I will soon be improving the page by adding a list of major Cruise lines that have special cruses for the swing community, notable national and international conventions, and resorts and clubs in Europe, Asia, Central America, South America and the Caribbean. Cosand (talk) 22:42, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the vandalism from the Sex Tourism and Swinger, Nudist and Naturalist Vacations section Cosand (talk) 15:02, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I cleaned this section out per the discussion above - it lacked any independent references and served only as a directory of links, which is not allowed per WP:NOT, WP:ELNO, and the consensus arrived at on this talk page. - MrOllie (talk) 14:29, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Since several others added to the material I originally posted, if indeed there is a consensus, it is in favor of keeping the factual and cited material, as opposed to TWO(2) WikiNazis saying "Nuuh Uhhh" (one of who's talk page reads like a sexual repression handbook) and one embittered failed industry member grumbling sour grapes. Please stop dumbing down the article and separate emotion from intellect and fact, I put back the factual material. Cosand (talk) 16:53, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The page history shows that you are the only person who has added a list of cruises to the article. Perhaps I'm missing something, though. Can you provide a list of the 'several others' who added to the material? - MrOllie (talk) 18:06, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I added only HALF the US clubs and NONE of the Canadian clubs...those who did represent the consensus you speak of so often Cosand (talk) 18:12, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Sex club. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20121110070043/http://www.canada.com/nationalpost./news/story.html?id=df5ac2e9-351c-4973-bbf2-756403fb1184&k=46743 to http://www.canada.com/nationalpost./news/story.html?id=df5ac2e9-351c-4973-bbf2-756403fb1184&k=46743

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

N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

• 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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 15:56, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Sex club. 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/20080104165312/http://news.independent.co.uk:80/uk/this_britain/article1190592.ece to http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/this_britain/article1190592.ece
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080104165312/http://news.independent.co.uk:80/uk/this_britain/article1190592.ece to http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/this_britain/article1190592.ece

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) 23:48, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]