User talk:AnonEMouse/Archive 3

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
← Archive 2 |
Archive 3
| Archive 4 →


Contents

Gay Video Awards

I understand your concern; however, with the exception of the Grabby and the Gay AVN awards, I'm not sure any of the others survive; however, they were important in their day. It will be difficult to write articles on them; finding information will prove problematical, I'm sure. I'm in touch with the owner of the Grabby Awards; the original owner died and they are in the process of updating the website; I can't even get stats for that award, and it's still being given! I'll give it my best shot, but don't be surprised when the articles get AfD'd. In the meantime, I'll take out the links; I'm working on more stats for the talk portion of the page. (By the way, when you leave a comment on my talk page, am I supposed to respond on yours, or mine? I'm still pretty new at this!) Thanks.—Chidom talk  22:10, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I've attempted to roll all the past awards up into this article: Discontinued gay pornography awards. Thoughts?—Chidom talk  07:57, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
Thanks. I felt the info was important to have for reference sake, and finally came up with a way to not have little homeless stubs running around! Have good days.—Chidom talk  20:32, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Protoscience

You're quite right in removing the prod-dicdef tag as you did from this article[1]. I had assumed that like other dispute-templates it was supposed to remain on the page pending editorial consensus, but that was incorrect. The previous editor was mistaken in reverting it, especially on the fifth day. Thanks, Jim Butler(talk) 05:44, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

User:Haham_hanuka/Tiffany_Holiday

I'm asking to expand it (you are free to edit it or to copy to your user space), like you saved Dora Venter, it's the same case (which was proded and deleted by survived 2 AFD's and expanded and now available in 3 languages).

Not just she add about 100 films (or more like Dora), pass WP:PORN BIO, WP:BIO and she is very active now, she considered the hottest thing in porn now and we can write about her alot. She is worth an article. By the way it was written twice (by someone else) after it was deleted by you - so it's another proof of notabilty. See my comment in User talk:Joe Beaudoin Jr.. Thanks. --Haham hanuka 21:07, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Fair use and magazine covers

You're right, since Virinova is known mainly as a Playboy model, her Playboy covers are probably fair-usable. But you're worng to put them back, since WP:FU doesn't allow this kind of fair use of images. From policy, counter example of prohibited use: "An image of a magazine cover, used only to illustrate the article on the person whose photograph is on the cover. However, if that magazine issue itself is notable enough to be a topic within the article, then fair use may apply." I don't think every issue of Playboy is notable in that way. Better idea -- PB Cyberclub provides relatively small "head shots" of Playmates which are used in other articles, find one of those, Fair use will still apply, and WP:FU will allow. Unless you disagree about WP:FU I'll remove the cover image shortly. The editor soon to be formerly known as Harmonica Wolfowitz 21:58, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

On my "Criticism of" stats

That's an interesting point. I compared the size of the original articles, not their sub articles; and I used Wikipedia's own figures in terms of size. As for sub-articles, I thought about it, but there are complications that arise from going into sub-articles. For example, though "Anti-Zionism" is a sub article, its paragraph in "Criticism of Judaism" makes it quite clear the movement was originally secular. The article itself isn't about Judaism at all. So this sub-section doesn't really warrant mention as a 'criticism of' article in the sense that "Criticism of" articles are often articles containing criticisms. "Anti-semitism" for example, is not a criticism of Judaism at all, but of those who express hatred or fear of Jews. On the flip side, there are many other articles that are not explicitly sub-articles, but in content are critical enough to warrant being listed as criticism articles. To my eyes, the entire purpose of the Dhimmi articles is to compare the policies of Islamic governments to Nazism. That's a comparison made by several of the 'scholars' cited in the article, including Bat Ye'or and Andrew Bostom. Hate-websites like Robert Spencer's are using Wikipedia articles as 'see also' pages. I don't see anything from within Wikipedia that amounts to a resistence against the exploitation of Wikipedia as a propaganda/hate-speech front. That's the point I'd like to get across, although people don't seem interested in listening. His Excellency... 23:06, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

An interesting thing to note is that Criticism of Judaism reads as an encyclopedia article should. It documents occurances of critcisms, including times in which criticisms took place, people who made them, and why. It reads like a documentary. Criticism of Islam reads differently. It's divided into several sections, focusing mostly on criticisms of Muhammad and the Quran. The content is big not because it covers the range of criticisms, but rather because the article itself reads like a thesis on "Why Islam is bad". It goes in depth, pointing to every alleged flaw Muhammad ever had. If Muhammad had dandruff, Criticism of Islam would tell you about it. The people editing Criticism of Judaism understood their responsibility was to document the range and types of criticisms. The people editing Criticism of Islam imagined they were writing a paper meant to be critical of Islam. Not until I editied it were mentions of the criticisms of evangelical americans like Pat Robertson of Falwell even mentioned, even though they were the most prominent and notable criticisms of Islam uttered recently. There's no mention of Ann Coulter. There's little mention of the criticisms made by the Vatican for centuries. The rhetoric that lead up to the crusades. The editors on that article weren't concerned with such documentation. They weren't interested in making the article encyclopedic. They were interested in making it very pointed. It's incredibly opinionated. And it's about 60 pages long. It's a book.

In short, while I make a rather shallow comparison between Criticism of Islam and its contemporaries, in truth there's nothing quite like Criticism of Islam. While Criticism of Judaism is about historic occasions of criticisms, Criticism of Islam is criticism of Islam. The comparison of page sizes is still notable though.

There are sub articles for Criticism of Islam too, by the way:

His Excellency... 23:26, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Monica Coghlan on DYK

Updated DYK query On 5 August 2006, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Monica Coghlan, which you created. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

-- Scott eiπ 17:18, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

You've got a Thank you card!

Open your card!

Thank you, thank you!

My dear Mousey, and Muse! :) Yes, it is your idea, not mine - I had planned to make personalized test templates, but you gave me the kick in the butt I needed to get it done, and in fact I borrowed your text so heavily, that the credit is entirely yours :) Thank you, dear M! I share your thoughts regarding Crzrussian, and I must confess you that it pains me no end. Seeing friends of mine facing each other like it happened there is saddening, and I didn't know what to say or do. Crz knows that he'll have my support in 2 months, for he is a hard working, good and well-intentioned person. Have a great hug from me, and ttyl! :) Phaedriel ♥ The Wiki Soundtrack!♪ - 03:59, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Peer review of Vicca

Just to let you know, I've requested a peer review of Vicca, since I would very much like to see it become a featured article or, at the very least, a "Great Article" to be included in WP 1.0. -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. Think out loud — WP:PORN BIO? 00:42, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Link to election information

Thanks a lot for the info. Love the username, by the way :-) Karwynn (talk) 15:51, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

FHM lists

A deletion discussion that you participated in before has arisen again. Uncle G 13:12, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Edit to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/His excellency/Proposed decision

Hi. Thanks for making that edit! There's no big problem with you making little corrections (i.e. spelling fixes, link fixes) to proposed decision pages. This applies particularly when they're my mistakes! Calm those whiskers down... Sam Korn (smoddy) 21:29, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Re : Daniel Dvorkin

All done! :) - Cheers, Mailer Diablo 19:24, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Barnstar!

Thank you very much! very appreciated. Happy editing! ++Lar: t/c 14:48, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Porn bio?

Ah yes. My reasoning would be that a pornstar bio is (of course) a bio, and the guidelines should overlap quite a bit, and it would be nice to have everything related to people in the same place. If you disagree, I'd have no objection to removing the tag, it's no big deal. Yours, >Radiant< 16:15, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Thank you ...

... for the barnstar. I leave to your discretion whether and to what extent to endorse any proposals that I or anyone else might have made. At this point I'm not sure how much of the workshop will be useful to the arbitrators anyway, given the general din, but I appreciate your kind words about my contributions. Regards, Newyorkbrad 22:32, 29 September 2006 (UTC)