User talk:Iamcuriousblue

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Lesbian literature

Hey, I'd like to help with compiling things for Lesbian erotica in literature, but I'm a new Wikimember, don't think I have enough experience on my own and would like your thoughts on might be the best way to proceed? Mistsrider (talk) 11:23, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

[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

[edit] I have a way to stop the debate about adolescent sexuality. (sorta)

See Talk:adolescent sexuality for information on the proposal. It would create a branch off article containing solely views on the subject and hopefully get rid of the POV currently in the articles which are supposed to say what adolescent sexuality is. Not is it good or bad. In my opinion I say let the POV wars take place in an article ABOUT POV. not elsewhere. Tell us what you think at the above link. Nateland 02:10, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks for moving WP:P*

WikiThanks

It's appreciated. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 16:46, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

You're welcome – it seemed like the consensus was there to expand the project. Iamcuriousblue 16:48, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cup of tea

☻ Someone has poured you tea ☺

--Illuminato 21:28, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, thank you. I would still prefer to negotiate this with the aid of third parties, because I find its easier to come to a consensus this way. This can provide some check and balance for both parties involved in a dispute from people not necessarilly invested in either POV. Iamcuriousblue 01:50, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, but your response was removed via this edit, probably due to Wikipedia:A nice cup of tea and a sit down not being for dispute resolution, mediation, and arbitration, so I pasted it above.   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 00:19, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] MedCab case

Hi! I'll be taking over your MedCab case. If you have any questions, feel free to leave a note on my talk page! mcr616 Speak! 23:15, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:I Am Curios (Blue) DVD cover2.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:I Am Curios (Blue) DVD cover2.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use. Suggestions on how to do so can be found here.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 00:29, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:SDDM677.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:SDDM677.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use. Suggestions on how to do so can be found here.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 10:06, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Improper reversions

You reverted a number of my edits with "improper speedy delete nomination." As far as I know, none of these were speedy delete nominations. I would request you go back and correct your incorrect reversions. Also, please do me the favor of replying on my talk page if possible. Thanks. 151.203.18.206 17:35, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

I would like to remind you about WP:CIVILITY and that the sheer arrogance you are displaying here is clearly in violation of that. I am not going to go back and revert any of these reversions as I was correct in making them. These were clearly speedy delete nominations, as it is clearly stated on the template that the articles would be deleted in 5 days if the tags are not removed. You are clearly attempting an improper end-run around the WP:AFD process. Also, if you're going to leave notes on people's talk pages and expect a reply, you should have the courtesy of checking/watching those pages – consider this your reply. Iamcuriousblue 17:43, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
It was not my intention to upset you. Speedy deletion uses the {db} family of tags. Proposed deletion uses the {subst:prod|reason} tag. These are entirely different procedural processes. If you can explain to me what you find arrogant about what I'm writing here, I will try to take it into consideration in future communications. I'll also suggest that your response was not particularly civil. Also, accusing me of "attempting an improper end-run around the WP:AFD process" violates enough policy pages that I won't bother listing them here. One should assume good faith, and as there is nothing "vandalistic" about my edits, I'll suggest you take my comments, whether they are right or wrong, simply at face value. 151.203.18.206 17:51, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
Technical point. You are putting up tags that result in automatic deletion if not responded to within 5 days. This improperly avoids the entire WP:AfD process, in my opinion. If you don't think particular artilces are notable, I suggest you take those articles through that process rather than have the articles dumped without proper review. Frankly, I consider your actions to be vandalism and I'm going to keep an eye on your contributions page to make sure that you do not persist in this course of action. As for what I found "arrogant" about your first message, I'd say "please go back and correct your incorrect reversions" is pretty damn arrogant – it presumes I agree these reverts are incorrect just because you said so. And following it up with "please do me the favor of replying on my talk page if possible" is the icing on the cake – you have no right to demand that of any Wikipedia editor. If you are going to leave messages on other people's web pages and are interested in the response, you should go through the trouble of checking such messages. Iamcuriousblue 18:15, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
You claimed they were speedy deletes -- they clearly were not -- and reverted them on those erroneous grounds. Is it really so outrageous (or arrogant) to ask you to retract your mistakes? And I added "if possible" to my request to reply on my userpage. If you didn't want to, you certainly didn't have to. Does my request make me so evil? I respond to some of your other points below. 151.203.18.206 18:29, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
I think nominating 50 articles for automated deletion is an outrageous act of vandalism and I'm not going to let it stand. If you don't like it, tough. If you want to express your concerns about the notability of an article by using templates like Template:Unencyclopedic or Template:Notability that don't result in automatic removal, then, hey, more power to you. I've kept those templates where I've seen them. But having an article removed solely on the judgement of one anonymous user and one administrator? Don't talk to me about "democratic" Wikipedia process if these are the actions you're taking. Iamcuriousblue 18:47, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
It is difficult to have a conversation with someone who is being so nasty. You are free to remove requests for deletion, and in fact, they specifically say this. Is that not democratic? I objected to your misclassifying them as speedy deletes, which they obviously were not. I suggest we cease communication for a little while until the tone calms down a bit. 151.203.18.206 21:25, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
Oh, and I have a suggestion – if you want to be taken seriously as a Wikipedia editor, especially one that is "activist" around Wikipedia issues like notability, you really should get an account rather than post as an anonymous IP. Iamcuriousblue 18:15, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
I used to contribute under an account. But if the goal of wikipedia is to permit anyone to contribute, I decided to use that democratic, anonymous avenue exclusively. As soon as my (non-static) IP address expires via DHCP, I'll be contributing under a different IP address. My goal here is not to seek recognition or admin'ship but simply to help constructively determine if this is a viable enterprise. One downside, for example, is that for some reason I cannot initiate a WP:AFD process as an anonymous user (because I can't create new articles). IMHO, anonymous users who seem to be making good faith attempts to improve the encyclopedia should be taken as seriously as User:Jimbo himself. That is true democracy. 151.203.18.206 18:29, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sock puppet anonymity

Hi, I'd like to suggest that this socket puppet does not sufficiently hide your identity; rightly or wrongly, this could have a highly adverse impact on your future career, whether in academia or elsewhere. I already know one person who has (unjustly) suffered for something similar to this. I agree it should not be this way, but one cannot always control what goes on in the outside world. 151.203.18.206 17:41, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

I'll be the judge of that. Its entirely intentional that this account be traceable back to my real identity. However, my real identity, if googled, does not lead back to this user name. That's all the separation between identities that I need, really. Iamcuriousblue 18:17, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
Ok, fair enough. I'm a fellow academic, probably a few years older than you. I have unfortunately seen the consequences to a dear friend's academic career devastated through something similar to this. You are of course free to make your own decisions. My apologies for offering unsolicited advice. 151.203.18.206 18:31, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Manuel Neri

Discussion moved to Talk:Manuel Neri. Iamcuriousblue 19:33, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Orphaned non-free image (Image:I Am Curios (Blue) DVD cover2.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:I Am Curios (Blue) DVD cover2.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 03:10, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Deux, trois jours avec moi

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Deux, trois jours avec moi, by Mike Payne (talk · contribs), another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Deux, trois jours avec moi fits the criteria for speedy deletion for the following reason:

this article shouldn't even exist on the english wikipedia


To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Deux, trois jours avec moi, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Please note that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it did not nominate Deux, trois jours avec moi itself. Feel free to leave a message on the bot operator's talk page if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot. --Android Mouse Bot 2 06:20, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Diplôme universitaire de technologie

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Diplôme universitaire de technologie, by Mike Payne (talk · contribs), another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Diplôme universitaire de technologie fits the criteria for speedy deletion for the following reason:

this article shouldn't even exist on the english wikipedia


To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Diplôme universitaire de technologie, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Please note that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it did not nominate Diplôme universitaire de technologie itself. Feel free to leave a message on the bot operator's talk page if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot. --Android Mouse Bot 2 06:21, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Institut universitaire de technologie

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Institut universitaire de technologie, by Mike Payne (talk · contribs), another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Institut universitaire de technologie fits the criteria for speedy deletion for the following reason:

this article shouldn't even exist on the english wikipedia


To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Institut universitaire de technologie, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Please note that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it did not nominate Institut universitaire de technologie itself. Feel free to leave a message on the bot operator's talk page if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot. --Android Mouse Bot 2 06:21, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Match TV

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Match TV, by Mike Payne (talk · contribs), another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Match TV fits the criteria for speedy deletion for the following reason:

this shouldn't be on the english wikipedia


To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Match TV, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Please note that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it did not nominate Match TV itself. Feel free to leave a message on the bot operator's talk page if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot. --Android Mouse Bot 2 06:21, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Laurence Ferrari

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Laurence Ferrari, by Mike Payne (talk · contribs), another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Laurence Ferrari fits the criteria for speedy deletion for the following reason:

this shouldn't be forwarding to an article in french


To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Laurence Ferrari, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Please note that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it did not nominate Laurence Ferrari itself. Feel free to leave a message on the bot operator's talk page if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot. --Android Mouse Bot 2 06:22, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Little context in Pierre Mendès France University

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Pierre Mendès France University, by Closedmouth (talk · contribs), another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Pierre Mendès France University is very short providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles.

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Pierre Mendès France University, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. --Android Mouse Bot 2 05:27, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Courtesy cc

I have left commentary referencing you on my Talk Page, consistent with Wikipedia's request that we deal directly with other users, or at least put them on notice, before pursuing other options. August 19, 2007 Heartsees2

[edit] Wikipedia talk:Notability (pornographic actors)

There is a discussion occuring here regarding nominations for an award counting as a sign of notability. As an active participant in WP:P*, your input is welcomed. Tabercil 15:53, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Talk Page Massacre!

Hello Iamcuriousblue! - I see your situation and stance in these circumstances - but my user talk page cannot be used as a battleground. I am sure you, just as I, would not want users completely unknown to create an uncomfortable "piggy-in-the-middle" cramp for yourself. I appreciate and understand your comments, and this is why I have made no direct accusation towards you in the response I sent to the user in question' talk page. I would suggest using WP:ANI for further developments to be realised, so this "edit-war" based on a rather minor AfD to spiral out-of-control on my talk page! Thank you. Regards, Onnaghar tl | co 19:51, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Sorry – I should have simply noted that I left a response at User_talk:Heartsees2#Deletion_of_Article_Cheryl_Lindsey_Seelhoff and left it at that. And note that this isn't even what I'd call an "edit war" – there is no existing article that's at issue. Just somebody who's pissed that their pet article got AfD'd and wants to see me somehow punished for my role in it. Iamcuriousblue 19:56, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Regarding edits to Lesbianism in erotica

Thank you for contributing to Wikipedia, Iamcuriousblue! However, your edit here was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to remove spam from Wikipedia. If you were trying to insert a good link, please accept my creator's apologies, but note that the link you added, matching rule photobucket\.com, is on my list of links to remove and probably shouldn't be included in Wikipedia. Please read Wikipedia's external links guidelines for more information, and consult my list of frequently-reverted sites. For more information about me, see my FAQ page. Thanks! AntiSpamBot 03:11, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Indifferent

Hello! "Sparklingly" cute is Christel Takigawa! I hope "Iamcuriousblue" will have the "Curiousity to Japan"----The DQN,macbeth 04:19, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Women Against Pornography

I reviewed the article since you nominated it as a good article candidate, and left comments on the talk page. GreenJoe 15:36, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Images aren't necessarily a hinderance to getting passed, however they'd be nice. See also this great eassy on getting images. As for citations, check out the link I left in the review, it'll take you to some tags with the proper formatting, etc. GreenJoe 15:59, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Request for Mediation

A Request for Mediation to which you were are a party has been accepted.
You can find more information on the case subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Melissa Farley.
For the Mediation Committee, Daniel 04:16, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to perform case management.
If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.

[edit] Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Melissa Farley

A Request for Mediation to which you are a party is now active, and your input is requested. Further information is available at the Mediation location, Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/Melissa Farley.

Kind regards,
Anthøny ん 12:04, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Nikki Craft‎

There's no reason you'd have know this because I didn't leave a helpful edit summary, but user:Leaveextra is a sock puppet of a hard banned user. As it happens, so was user:RidinHood25 before that. I've now reverted the article to erase those edits. If you feel any of those edits are worthwhile you may reinstate them on your own, preferably not labelled as a simple revert. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 09:12, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Talk:Linda Lovelace

Hi Iamcuriousblue. Posts by the permanently banned user Amorrow are a special case. They are not to exist on Wikipedia. See Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive313#Everyking_blocked; in amongst this recent thread are the various reasons why. Neil ☎ 20:32, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Amorrow is a stalker, who has harrassed female Wikipedians both online and in real life, to the extent that restraining orders have been placed and the police have been involved (at one point, they took his computer off him and shut down his websites). Neil ☎ 07:56, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] {{NPOV-section}}

Will you be discussing the NPOV tag you added to The erotica/pornography debate? Tagging and running on a subjective topic like this one isn't very helpful. / edg ☺ ★ 18:16, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Removing a tag on a clearly biased presentation of a topic isn't helpful either. And, yes, I did add a discussion of the topic, here.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Iamcuriousblue (talk • contribs) 18:24, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. The tag was removed because there had been no substantial discussion. I agree the definition of the term on that page is biased and unduly disparaging of porn, but if one opens a can of worms, one should really bring a spoon. / edg ☺ ★ 18:32, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
Agreed. I'll make an effort to do some work on this article over the next several weeks and months, but I really want to hit the library first and get some real sources for the article and porn/erotica section in particular. Iamcuriousblue 18:35, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
Cool. Thanks in advance. / edg ☺ ★ 18:38, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Melissa Ashley vid count

...is from an old version of her XXX-movies page; Archive.org has copies, EG: [4]. OTOH, I don't think it's that important a detail to the entry. Abb3w 21:50, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Charlotte Stokely

Please stop adding promotional material to Wikipedia, as you did to Charlotte Stokely. Josephgrossberg (talk) 17:08, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] PeachyWiki

I notice you are linking peachywiki.com to various articles. That site does not seem to have the sort of uniquely informative content that Wikipedia:External links recommends. If anything, PeachyWiki seems more like an image aggregator, at least for the articles you have linked. Also, since it appears to be at least partially a wiki, it's a self-published site, which per Wikipedia:Reliable sources is not excluded from external linking, but is certainly less valuable. A number of sites exist dedicated to the subject of porn stars, including wiki sites (NikkiWiki is one I know of), and maybe one of these will be established as a useful site the way IAFD is. But I'm fairly certain links to PeachyWiki at this time are spam. / edg ☺ ☭ 04:31, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

I think PeachyWiki is actually a useful resource ala IAFD. Several of its pages give lists of website appearances by porn models, information that only a few places have in any kind of centralized form. For example, this page on Charlie Laine:

http://peachywiki.com/Charlie-Laine.ashx

There are very few resources out there right now that give the equivalent of filmographies for website appearances and I figured PeachyWiki would be one of them. Iamcuriousblue (talk) 04:58, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Filmographies are not copyrighted information, and can be found on IMDB (Charlie Laine at the Internet Movie Database) as well as IAFD. As I stated above, PeachyWiki does not seem to have uniquely informative content. Please do not promote it on Wikipedia. / edg ☺ ☭ 05:15, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
As for website appearances, there exist dozens of porn aggregators, many of whom give comparable reasons when attempting to spam Wikipedia. I'm asking you not to use Wikipedia to promote yet another one. / edg ☺ ☭ 05:22, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
And I really don't take kindly at all to accusations of "spamming". What single commercial website am I promoting by giving a page with multiple website appearances of an actress? PeachyWiki is a wiki, not a for-profit porn aggregator. As for "uniquely informative", I think there are several PeachyWiki pages that qualify as such. Iamcuriousblue (talk) 05:53, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
PeachyWiki is (from what you're saying) a new site. If at some point PeachyWiki becomes a worthwhile site, maybe it can be considered. You might bring this up at WP:P*. / edg ☺ ☭ 06:18, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
OK, I see what you're saying about PeachyWiki in its present form not having much in the way of useful additional information, which is a different (and more relevant, in my opinion) statement from saying its commercial spam. Also, I actually was thinking of bringing up the topic of porn databases in general over on WP:P*, since the topic has also come up on Template_talk:Female_adult_bio#Adult_Web_Movie_Database. Some consensus on what kind of external links to include in porn-related articles and what the dividing line is between that and porn linkspam would be a good thing. I do think porn linkspam is a problem in Wikipedia and have reverted a lot of it myself, but I also think there are grey areas that need to be acknowledged. Iamcuriousblue (talk) 14:03, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hi

Hi, i think i'm in love with Ava Devine, what should i do about it? --79.72.5.42 (talk) 03:18, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Trafficking in human beings

I agree that Coalition Against Trafficking in Women statistics are open to debate. But they have not been used. Those figures come from the State Department, not from Coalition Against Trafficking in Women.

I have not seen serious criticism of State Department methodology on trafficking, other than accurate stats are not possible, and both the State Department and the article says that due to trafficking being an illegal activity, reliable data is difficult to come across. The best way to 'balance' is to say “Due to the illegal nature of trafficking and differences in methodology, the exact extent is unknown.” That balances it. Regards. Chwyatt (talk) 09:53, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Disputed fair use rationale for Image:SDDM100.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:SDDM100.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. Jackaranga 01:14, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Would you take a look?

An image used in the article on the first Bangladeshi pornstar Jazmin, Image:WorshipThisBitch3.jpg, the cover of the DVD that made her the selling point, a first for a Bangladeshi, is up for deletion here. You may be interested to take a look. Aditya(talk • contribs) 21:19, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] A friendly reminder

Edit summary reminder
Hello. I noticed that your edit to Mélissa Theuriau did not include an edit summary. Please remember to use one for every edit, even minor ones. You can enable the wiki software to prompt you for one before making an edit by setting your user preferences (under Editing) to "Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary". There is also a tool you can check to see your current usage of edit summaries. Thanks, -MBK004 08:05, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Replaceable fair use Image:DanyVerissimo.jpg

Replaceable fair use

Thanks for uploading Image:DanyVerissimo.jpg. I noticed the description page specifies that the media is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this media is not replaceable, please:

  1. Go to the media description page and edit it to add {{di-replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.
  2. On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace the fair use media by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, fair use media which could be replaced by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if not used in an article), per our Fair Use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Garion96 (talk) 22:02, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:SDDM100.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:SDDM100.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Jackaranga (talk) 15:59, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Don't Forget the Sex Work Task Force!

Hey, haven't seen you around in awhile! Please head to the discussion board on our project for a bunch of posts I did awhile ago. Love to hear your input and see your work!--NoMonaLisa (talk) 05:20, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Arbitration case

An arbitration case has been filed involving you: Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#iamcuriousblue Appropriate links will also be given on the Melissa Farley entry talk page . axiomatica (talk) Axiomatica (talk) 03:33, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi, got your message and will reluctantly seewhat I can do CyntWorkStuff (talk) 04:03, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Melissa Farley

I come here from WP:3O. I think this should be resubmitted to formal mediation (not arbitration), but given that User:axiomatica says the subject of the article requested that content be blanked, Dr. Farley should be invited to participate in the mediation process directly. If blanking is the only outcome acceptable to her (if she claims that she is non-notable, for example, or she believes the article is an undue invasion of privacy), this should go to WP:Afd as well. 69.140.152.55 (talk) 13:52, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Blogs...

I removed a few links on the alt porn article because someone had put some spam (yahoo search for redtube videos, a double whammy in terms of inappropriate link), and given the number of external links that may be dated, I quickly clicked a few suspicious ones that could be removed according to WP:EL. Blogs are allowed if they are written by a recognized authority, but this is rarely the case or, on this matter, it is hard to establish what is a recognized authority. I'm not the type to edit pornography related article in general (wandered there through video sharing website article, also prone to spam), but if some of the links I removed (particularly blogs) were meant as reference, they should be made as footnotes in a reference/footnote section (using reference tags and templates), and the links should point to the appropriate post, instead of having a the main blog page put in some random place in an external links section (unless, again, said blog is by a recognized authority, but that's hard to define/prove). That being said, aside from the forum and the dead link that have no reason to be there, I won't edit that article again if you reinstate the removed blog links.--Boffob (talk) 19:59, 13 May 2008 (UTC)