Talk:Mermaid

If you were to create a mermaid what will she be like

first thoughts Thinker kelp Tuna muscles parthenogenic Chloride metabolism gaze benevolent metabolism

well mermaids will enjoy thinkerkelp kelp that like duckweed is high ptotein floating food. Thinkerkelp like many known plants will have specific benevolent qualities that go with form

Mermaids with all their beauty do much swimming Tuna have muscles that are capable of 7 to 12 times the energy activity of human muscle Tuna are able to move or virbrate their muscles twice as quickly as those of humans If you were 12 times as strong as a human swimmer any body form will do light like Ariel Darryl plus the many form mermaids findable with Yahoo image mermaid Wonderful advantages to tuna muscles are the ability to live at an enjoyable temperature from the far north to the waters of human swimmers

There you is breathing theres a better way mermaids use the chloride ion of oceanwater or body deposits of chloride where there is freshwater to run their ATP Krebs metabolism O youve heard of it, the gas humans breathe is the electron donor of land peoples metabolism just 3 pt of each lungful of air matters to make water from carbohydrates or lipids uses two hydrogen to each O a Kg of tasty kelp oil typically will have just a quarter mass hydrogen, two hydrogens per O or 4 Kg O per Kg kelp Mermaids that filter chloride Ion from the water are able to swim anywhere ignoring the surface Mermaids make O from carbohydrates The fish like that from a fish perspective the mermaid plantlike benevolent metabolism is like the water surface .

Better things that go with mermaids are their gaze Naming things is funny. A mermaids gaze is like her hair tiny lines like stringy goo come from her think touching fish the tiny lines are appealing to fish when a mermaid prefers to move rapidly or be a little like what humans name an artcar the fish school along her gaze lines then swim with fish mitts water effects make this like adding swim mitts with living viscosity hydroguides Mom n baby dolphins were research to do this with a 30 pt better swim to the young dolphin when the mom swam maternal guide type

parthenogenic with more to come

tiny yellow green blue orange fishes run laughing through your fingers n you long to nosh on kelp

^^^ WHAT ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT? pomegranate 01:10, Sep 9, 2004 (UTC)

If I may conjecture, this would appear to be a mermaid typing... or at least that's how I imagine they would probably speak. <,< all disjointed and full of mishmashed science and fish references. either way, this ought to be left here for a good laugh. actually, this shizzle belongs on the 'deleted nonsense' page, if it's not there already.

Can anyone come up with a singular gender-neutral word for a mer... person, that has mythological backing?

"Completely Safe"

I reverted the last edit. The edit added the following external link at the top of the list:

I object to the description of it as "completely safe." I would define "completely safe" as being something I wouldn't hesitate to send a young child to. I would not expect such a page to include material like this

"She's naked and continually wet, with long hair and bare breasts, but she lacks the vagina that (perhaps) dominates the dreams of the sex-starved sailors who encounter her..."

"Actual mermaid stories are fascinating for precisely the opposite reason: they're the most complicated form of male sex fantasy. Mermaids are sex objects on prima facie grounds, but they're missing some salient parts below the waist."

"In The Little Mermaid, she trades her tongue for a vagina, but is forced to endure terrible stabbing pains. She also bleeds from her feet when she walks, adding a layer of the ever-popular menstrual theme to an already overcrowded set of symbols."

"dugong, a sea lion species whose females have hooter-like mammary glands ... If the mind-blowingly ugly dugong somehow stimulates your libido ..."

Now, there's nothing wrong with the content. Wikipedia is not "safe," and its links do not need to be safe. But there's something wrong about misrepresentation. If a link says "completely safe," it should resemble that description.

I could have just removed the "completely safe." But I thought the misrepresentation should be noted (in case it becomes a pattern) and others brought in to discuss its re-inclusion. I also object to a mediocre cryptozoological article at the top of the external links, but this is a much lower-order objection. In fact, I wouldn't have changed it just for that; I figure, good references will bubble up and bad ones bubble down over time.

Lectiodifficilior 03:51, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• I would understand removing the image if you WOULD NOT LIKE or would think that it does not fit there. to avoid "editors war"; If you think that me placing it there is a problem I can email some of my friend and they will place it there(hence it will NOT be listed y the artist; in fact the person who writes from this account and Nick Gabrichidze as physical persona re not necessarily a same person.

The copyright can be changed for "fair use" if it is more convenient. If you feel like IMAGE does not fit there then tell me and I will forget about this page(I am not a this page creator after all and I respect the hard work of people who did create it). Otherwise I will change a copyright status and will place image back there(or someone to do it for me if that bothers you) within a few days OK? Please remember that ADDING content to wikipedia is better then removing staff. May be this on-line encyclopedia seems like full pot for some but believe me some parts of it( and especially visual information) is like desert yet.

Anyway I will do as I wrote; if you have an objection please get back to me, otherwise I will assume that "science is sign of agreement" if it's OK with you Cheers Gabrichidze 1:54, 18 June 2005 (UTC

Gabrichidze's Mermaids

For the umpteenth time I am reverting Nick Gabrichidze's "Mermaids" image (seen to the right); others have done so too. I think the arguments against it are strong, and there are clearly others who feel the same way. I think this imposes a duty on the poster (whom I believe to be the artist) to explain and justify the post. Others should agree or disagree with his reasoning, and some sort of rough consensus be reached.

My arguments against are:

• I have concerns about self-promotion. It doesn't help that the page Nick Gabrichidze was removed for self-promotion.
• I have concerns about the image's copyright status, and whether the artist is in fact willing to give up all the rights that GFLD requires.
• Not just any mermaid image will do. The Gabrichidze image is not famous, universally esteemed, historically interesting or representative. (The current image, with the swimmer is historical and also funny, but I don't think it's necessarily the best image either.)
• In concert the swimmer and the Gabrichidze image take up a lot of room and move the text around in a very awkward way.

What do other people think? -- User:Lectiodifficilior

For the purposes of use in a Wikipedia article, the issue of copyright status trumps all other points. The artist may if they wish release the jpg scan uploaded here under GFDL or copyright-free-use and still retain copyright to the original and higher resolution versions. However if not, it is inappropriate to an article that already has PD or GFDL images. Non-free images are only reluctantly and conditionally tolerated on Wikipedia when no free image can be located, and may be subject to deletion in the future, especially if there is a free alternative. -- Infrogmation 04:05, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for adding my sig; apologies for forgetting. "Trumps" seems a bit strong, but I get your point. In any case, if that issue were to go away I still don't think it deserves to be in the article, let alone at the top. Mermaids on the Web (http://www.isidore-of-seville.com/mermaids/) has over 1,300 images, many of them PD and I'd bet half of the others would gladly make their work PD in order to get the promotion that Mermaid offers. Lectiodifficilior

This has never been enforced seriously against a user, but technically he already did license them under the GFDL. By uploading an image that you own, you automatically license it under the GFDL. It says it right there on the upload page. Rhobite 07:47, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)

Note: The digital image is released into GFDL

• The owner of the account is not the creator of the image, thus he cannot release it into GFDL. He claims to be a friend of the painter, and claims that the painter wouldn't mind its inclusion in Wikipedia. While that's very nice, it falls somewhat short of our legal requirements. The image is presently listed on WP:CP for investigation. Radiant_>|< 10:53, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)

Following the harsh discussion at [[caucasophobia] and Nick Gabrichidze VfD pages group of our oponents including Radiant began to remove and re-edit all wikipedia content regarding NckGabrichidze,including the images submited for featured picture category and pages they had previusely shown nointerest for. most content is either removed or taged with absolutely inapropriate tags(see caucasophobia decoration or absolutely unacceptable tags of copyright violation) The vandalism in progress will be filed this eve I guess. Gabrichize