User talk:Iamcuriousblue

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Comment

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)

[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)

You are an idiotic moron. Simple. Commercial sites -even commercial porn sites- can still offer something of value and the advice given on such site is highly qualified. But some can't see the forest. Trees are on the way. In your case, must be dirt on your eyes or your mind. By the way, on the page for 'lesbianism in erotica' there are several external links that lead to commercial sites in disguise. Furthermore, one of the links to clublez.com only links back to leszlove.com giving such site not one but 3 out of 5 links. This could be your page, but SPAM nonetheless. Learn to respect others, the world is larger than your little corner.

[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)


[edit] sexual objectification

Hi, I mades some more changes, I hope I did not step on your toes. I tried to be delicate. Also, I see you removed the section on men. I didn't much care for it, however it does add balance to the article to make it neutral POV. It needed substantial improvement. If we have a section about that, someone won;t come along later and try to add one, written poorly. Atom 22:54, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, considering you did an almost total revert of my edits, I'd call that "steping on toes". I really think my version was far more NPOV than 68's and I really can't see why you reverted back to her version. Also, I didn't remove the section on objectification of men, I simply cleaned it up.
I think the degree of removal of my edits was uncalled for and I plan to revert some of my edits back in.

Iamcuriousblue 02:43, 31 January 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Edits summaries

Ok you probably heard that one, sorry to have reverted one of your edits, being without summary I thought it was blind removal of content (I only see the last edit, not the whole picture). Please accept my apologies. I of course reverted my revert ;) -- lucasbfr talk 23:04, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Lesbianism in erotica

I responded to your concern on the Talk page. I would be happy to hear your input! Cheers, Joie de Vivre 23:06, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] RfC

Tried to respond to your RfC, but there is no properly formed RfC section under Talk:Lesbianism in erotica for such. Could you please create one according th the RfC instructions, and then link to the appropriate section directly from the RfC page? You'll get more feedback that way.

If you need a model, try one of these:

/ edgarde 03:28, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

My mistake – will do so immediately. Iamcuriousblue 04:04, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
Great. My vote is cast in the new section. / edgarde 21:15, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
Problem
I just realized User:Joie de Vivre hasn't actually commented in the RfC yet. This has the potential to invalidate the RfC, so I've struck the comment representing JdV's position for now, and left a note on JdV'sTalk page to please make a statement.
I hope this doesn't come off heavy-handed on my part, but without JdV's participation, the RfC will be considered unfair, which will defeat the purpose of the thing.
At this time the topic is redirecting where you want it, so if no comment is left by JdV and there are no further reversions, this issue can be considered settled for now. However, if that is the outcome, you should discount comments from this RfC in future discussion (to preserve the appearance of fairness) — hopefully, JdV will choose to participate and we will have a precedent against future redirect warring. / edgarde 15:21, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
You know, I did leave a message on JdV's talk page, immediately after I created the RfC, in fact. I was certainly not trying to go behind JdV's back on this. Looking at User contributions:Joie de Vivre shows this user hasn't made any edits for over 24 hours. Hopefully when JdV gets back, there will be a response from this user. Iamcuriousblue 16:08, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
I suspect your entry was in good faith. If JdV doesn't enter a statement, it should be JdV's loss. You don't want to risk the appearance of putting words in JdV's mouth, so to speak.
Also, 24 hours is nothing. It usually takes a few days to get RfC feedback from WP:RFC/SOC. I'd recommend waiting a week or two before declaring the thing decided. / edgarde 16:23, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
OK with me. Iamcuriousblue 20:44, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] refactor of RfC

I hope this isn't overstepping, but I've rearranged[2] the Talk:Girl-girl RfC so it will be more readable to editors new to the discussion. If I've left out something important to your reasoning please restore it, but the Statement isn't intended to document your interaction with the other editor, so it's important to keep it on-topic. / edgarde 16:47, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm glad you reformatted it, actually – I think it needed it too. However, I was in no position to do so, as JdV surely would have been all over me for such an action. I'm not going to put yet another bee in this user's bonnet. Iamcuriousblue 20:26, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Compromise proposal

In a system everyone can edit, cooperation is the only way to work.

Would you settle with the compromise link to List of pornographic sub-genres#Lesbian pornography? JdV has modified her original proposal considerably — I'd say meeting you about halfway — and dropped the Pornography redirect, which I think was the initial big objection. I'd recommend[3] taking her offer. / edgarde 16:31, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Stupid

Now, thanks to you, we have the Reverse missionary position and the Reverse receptive partner on top sex position. What do you propose we rename the latter? Reverse reverse missionary position? Great work. Joie de Vivre 16:12, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Stupid II

Lovely little campaign you've got going there to revert all of the work I've been doing recently. Get a life. Joie de Vivre 16:19, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

The same could be said about your "campaign" to linguistically cleanse Wikipedia. BTW, I'm noting these last couple nastygrams on my talk page as instances of personal attack on your part. 17:36, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
You've got a giant chip on your shoulder and you're looking to pick a fight with me. You actually looked up my recent contribution list with an agenda to revert my work. That's being a bad neighbor, and it will get you nowhere nice. Joie de Vivre 18:36, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
P.S. The fact that you even know and use this word "nastygram" leads me to consider a few conclusions about your online behavior. "Nastygram" is news to me. Pick a new target, please; I'm busy. Joie de Vivre 18:46, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
Actually, in terms of "giant chip on your shoulder", I was thinking the same of you, and I think its pretty evident from the sheer dogmatism of your approach to language and the nastiness of your responses. If you have a problem with me, I suggest you take it to mediation. Hell, I welcome it, since I'd really like to have several third parties have a look at your personal campaign to purge any language you personally find offensive from Wikipedia. I think you should note that 1) your attempt to retitle Sexual intercourse was rejected and 2) every single response to your proposal to expunge the word "lesbian" from Lesbianism in erotica was quite negative. Perhaps this should clue you in on the fact that you're on a personal campaign to make huge changes in Wikipedia when in fact you have no consensus to do so.
As for looking at your list of contributions, I most certainly did so, since you messed up Lesbianism in erotica so badly, I was wondering what other damage you might causing. Specifically, I'm a member of WikiProject Porn stars, so I'm specifically interested in what you were doing with porn-related articles. Where you've made less-than-useful contributions, I've changed them. Iamcuriousblue 19:16, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
Your attempts to reframe my actions and their meaning will ultimately fail. Get a new hobby. Joie de Vivre 19:28, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Censorship on adolescent sexuality (concerning Illuminato)

I'm sure you've noticed the ongoing dispute between me and Illuminato on the article about Adolescent Sexuality. I've gotten hardly ANYTHING done in the last 3 months due to his endless reversions to my edits. Yet he adds more and more POV to the article every day.

I really don't know what to do. I've tried telling an admin. Yet one of his 'friends' counter reported me and put a civility warning on my talk page. (Which they put back on after I removed it, even though Illuminato removed a 3RR warning on his talk page and the user in question didn't complain).

He beats around the bush and uses umbrella talk to make his actions on this website seem acceptable. even though he's lied, been uncivil, censored, and done numerous other things which are maddening to someone simply trying to fix up an article that seems to stay crappy because of a few users crappy actions.

Identical copies of the article are in the main article on the United States Culture (maybe the main U.S. article even), on the AS in the U.S. as you well know. And it could be in even more articles.

I don't know. This guy is impossible. Some help in dealing with him would be nice. Desperately, Nateland 02:15, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh yeah, he 'cleaned up' the Adolescent Sexuality talk page by deleting half of the posts. (Including a post I made today)

[edit] Recommendation for adolescent sexuality

I left the following message with Illuminato. I'll post my reccomendation in the talk page. give about a week for discussion. And based on the discussion. BOOM!. Feel free to participate.

Illuminato, Admit it.

Those two articles ARE simply copied text. I left the adolescent sexuality in India article stay as is because it wasn't carbon copied text.

Remember, your actions are putting undue strain on the servers. I'll put it up for vote in the talk page. And Illuminato, I'm sorry but you'll probably outnumbered. And seeing as you are about the only one objecting it WILL probably go through. I'm simply asking you to put aside your views and think rationally. DOZENS of people have complained about and critisized your actions on wikipedia. Far more than mine.

Sincerely, Nateland 00:56, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] MedCab response

You listed a dispute at the Mediation Cabal that I have decided to mediate. Please see [the cases mediation page] for my proposed steps towards mediation. --CaveatLectorTalk 23:16, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Help needed on article for adolescence, plus an announcement

Due to the large volume of opposition and little support for the section on adolescent sexuality in the main article on adolescence. Which has gone unchanged for months, i've removed the section and placed a link to the article adolescent sexuality at the top of the article.

The signature part of my explanation is below.

the main article on adolescent sexuality has been updated and thus the current section should be updated. The section itself seems irrelevant to the article on adolescents worldwide as a whole and I say it should be removed and a link at the top of the article saying 'for the article on adolescent sexuality see adolescent sexuality. There is strong opposition to the current and the exact same data has been literally copy & pasted into numerous other spin-off articles.

I'm removing this section. And I hope i'll get support when doing it.

Seeing as Illuminato will likely try and revert my change I ask for your support in stopping yet another potential edit war over a triviality and to counter revert if need be. Thank you.

P.S. due to the massive amount of spin-off article that were once created by Illuminato. With adolescent sexual behavior being the newest. I'm seeking to turn these into redirects to the main article as they were simply created to try and make ineffective compromises. These spin-offs include. adolescent sexuality in Britain adolescent sexuality in the united states adolescent sexuality in India and possibly other articles or as irrelevant sections in other articles that I haven't noticed yet. I think these spin-offs need to be made into redirects. And perhaps we should coordinate efforts to fix this mass of spin-offs of the same topic on a subset of a wikiproject page like wikiproject sexuality. Get more people involved. This overpour can't be good for wikipedia. Facewise or server bandwidth wise... Nateland 21:16, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] merge

I saw you redirected the AS in the US article to the main article. If you look at the talk page, you will see that the proposal failed. I reverted. --Illuminato

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../i/a/m/User_talk%7EIamcuriousblue_6a3b.html"