User talk:Iamcuriousblue

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Your recent edit to Dorchen Leidholdt was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to recognize and repair vandalism to Wikipedia articles. If the bot reverted a legitimate edit, please accept our apologies – if you bring it to the attention of the bot's owner, we may be able to improve its behavior. Click here for frequently asked questions about the bot and this warning. // Tawkerbot2 06:16, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Hence its a bot, its automatically triggered, nobody specially told it to look at your edits. Seeing as your revert was a copyvio, I've striked out the warning, sorry about that (by the way, you left a message on the bots user page instread of its user talk page, it was a fluke that I saw the user page, in the future it might be best to go to user talk :) -- Tawker 06:33, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

OK, apology accepted. How does the bot determine which reverts it reverses and which it leaves alone? (Also, the reason I didn't end up leaving the message on your talk page was because when I followed the link there, I hit a blank page, hence I had though it wasn't a good place to leave a message.) Iamcuriousblue 06:40, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Contents 1 Response, and why you're work has been deleted 2 TfD nomination of Template:User porn2 3 One of your edits, please explain... 4 Template:Female adult bio

[edit] Response, and why you're work has been deleted

Response to your note in the history log of GodsGirls...

Wholesale deletion of section TOTALLY uncalled for. Also, where in WP guidelines does it say that blogs are not a valid source?

"Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, and then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published books, personal websites, and blogs are largely not acceptable as sources." -- from Wikipedia Guidelines: Reliable Sources

Of course, blogs can be useful on Wikipedia in a few rare instances, such as:

> A blog kept by a notable public figure can help substantiate statements about their lives and personal beliefs.

> A blog that breaks, or is the subject of, a major media story can be used as a direct link. (Even then, it should be backed up by an actual media source.)

If Wikipedia considered blogs to be credible sources for the factual statements in it's articles, it would implode. Major newspapers and magazines are by no means perfect, but they have a good deal of oversight. They have to publish corrections to their mistakes.

Wholesale deletion of a section with no verifiable media backing of it's claims is not uncalled for. No matter how much you may trust Altporn Gossip, you need an unbiased report from an outlet with journalistic standards, especially when you're throwing around some pretty heavy claims about a person or business. --relaxathon 12:34, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

The names of Annaliese Nielsen and Offworld Media were confirmed in an article in Willamette Week, actually; what was pointed to on AltPorn Gossip was their interpretation of it. AltPorn Gossip provided a link to another source that I consider much more primary, and that was a Livejournal conversation between Annaliese Nielsen and several ex-Suicide Girls. [1] Its an established fact that GodsGirls is owned by some combination of Annaliese Nielsen and Offworld Media, and that can be interpreted in a number of ways – the fact that some bloggers interpret that as suspiciously similar to how SuicideGirls is set up is noteworthy, in my opinion. As for sources, GodsGirls is largely an internet phenomena, with much of the discussion of the formation of GodsGirls and its rivalry with SuicideGirls taking place on the "sgirls" (ex-Suicide Girls) LiveJournal community. Hence, prohibiting blogs and discussion boards as sources cuts off a very important source. Iamcuriousblue 16:38, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

I would agree that the Willamette Week article confirms the names of the GodsGirls' owner. I just don't see how that opens the door for illustrating various interpretations of that fact here on Wikipedia, or reporting a squabble on LiveJournal. The internet is bursting at the seams with people opining and squabbling over anything and everything. Anybody can do it to their hearts content. That's why, when crafting an encyclopedia article on a subject, we have to really try and include what is actually notable, has been independently verified, and reported on by a citable media source. (There are of course exceptions on very basic or scientific subjects that don't garner media attention, but this sure aint one of them.)

Take the SuicideGirls article - they're controversy over ownership and such was definitely notable and verified, as it was reported on in the Willamette Week and, more notably, Wired. It easily deserved coverage in Wikipedia and it has that. I'm sure if GodsGirls gains enough noteriety, and these issues actually amount to something, the press will sift through the muck and make a verifiable fact out of all this. Until then, theres no place for a "Controversy" section - though it wouldn't be out of line to include the hard facts about who owns GodsGirls, that the ownership has irked a few people is hardly a full-blown controversy - yet. --relaxathon 00:17, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] TfD nomination of Template:User porn2

Template:User porn2 has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. Konst.able 12:23, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] One of your edits, please explain...

Hello, I have noticed that one link I proposed to the section "lesbianism in erotica" has been deleted by you even though it passed the mustard by other members. Although I am aware of the stringent regulations to post on wikipedia I truly believed that page offered valuable and REAL advice to women who are engaged in lesbian activity. I would appreciate you reconsider your action, or perhaps help me understand why that link to pinkisbeautiful.com is not meaningful to lesbian women, or even suggest another section where this relevant information can be posted. Thank you for your cooperation. -Wikirober / 15 October 2006 --Wikirober

"Valuable and real advice"? C'mon, its a commercial porn site! The reason I deleted the link is because is because its external link spam and therefore prohibited by Wikipedia rules. It doesn't belong linked to Lesbianism in erotica or any other article and I'll delete it if I see it again. Look, the article may very well be about lesbian porn, but there are literally thousands of lesbian porn sites. Why should your site have a link and the many thousands of other commercial girl/girl sites not be linked? And since it would be unweildy to do this, and since Wikipedia is not a portal site, links to specific commercial sites are not OK. A link to an independent portal that in turn linked to multiple girl/girl sites might be OK, but not links to single sites. Iamcuriousblue 04:33, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Female adult bio

Your work here seems to be putting a }}{{#if: at the top of every page that uses it. How about testing your code into your user space first? Make User:Iamcuriousblue/TestTemplate and User:Iamcuriousblue/PageThatUsesTestTemplate and go wild, and don't promote it to the main article space until you are sure you won't break a template used by hundreds of articles. Thanks. AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 18:52, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for fixing that. AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 19:00, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Sorry about the first version. Next time I edit a template, I'll start it in my own userspace and make sure it works first. Iamcuriousblue 19:02, 15 November 2006 (UTC)