User talk:Iamcuriousblue

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)

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)

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)

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)

AdrionackMan

If you're asking for mediation, I'm all for it. As it happens I am leaving this article behind in favor of another interest. I think the articles on the Emergency Alert System, Emergency Broadcast System and CONELRAD could use some work. Want to help? AdirondackMan (talk) 02:28, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

I am not looking to seek a battle with you. I'd like to prefer working with you if possible. AdirondackMan (talk) 03:49, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm all for mediation if Axiomatica even bothers to show up again. Its been well over two months now and I consider that editor to be no longer an active party at this point. As I said, I'm probably going to issue an RfC soon and settle any remaining neutrality issues that way. Thanks for the offer on the various articles, but those areas aren't really one's that I know much about, so I don't think I'd have much of value to contribute. Iamcuriousblue (talk) 03:58, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I have had a pretty rough start here on Wikipedia, but I'm looking to work more at peace with others. To that end I'm backing out of this war with Axiomatica. Got enough headaches off the wiki as it is right now. AdirondackMan (talk) 06:10, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

So as a new start, would it please you to withdraw the complaint to user:Scientizzle? Thanks. AdirondackMan (talk) 06:12, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Done. Iamcuriousblue (talk) 06:18, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Replaceable fair use Image:KawasakiOyasumi.jpg

Replaceable fair use

Thanks for uploading Image:KawasakiOyasumi.jpg. I noticed the description page specifies that the media is being used under a claim of fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first non-free content 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 this non-free 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 non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our non-free content 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, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per our non-free content policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Melesse (talk) 06:42, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

WP:PORNBIO

As a member of WikiProject Pornography, I'm just letting you know there's currently a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Pornography about changing the WP:PORNBIO criteria. Your opinions would be appreciated. Thanks. Epbr123 (talk) 15:47, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Laura J. Lederer

Sorry for all the WikiDrama involving you. I won't reply to Tiptext any more; he's now crossed the line to vandalism, and I don't think that trying to engage him in a discussion will bear good results. Yours, Huon (talk) 18:29, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree. I thought some explanation of where I was coming from and what the rules and guidelines of Wikipedia are might channel that editor toward more productive collaboration. In any event, he's contributed the beginnings of a good article, just needs some change in language, fleshing out, and rewriting parts of it so it reads less like a resume. Iamcuriousblue (talk) 19:44, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

KINK.com

Discussion moved to Talk:Kink.com.

CfD nomination of Category:Adult movie awards

I have nominated Category:Adult movie awards (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) for renaming to Category:Pornographic film awards (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs). Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:15, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Abbywinters.com

Apparently mediation had been opened here regarding the inclusion or not of the use of the blogs and forums on the article. Since you voiced an opinion, perhaps you would like to add your name to the involved parties. Law _{type! snype?} 06:41, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Zafira

Hi. I will probably propose it for deletion soon, because I do not see the notability criteria fulfilled as defined by WP:PORNBIO. I think it's polite to let you know, as you are the creator of the article. --Tchoř (talk) 12:04, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

At the time I created it, I thought she might qualify based on the appearance in the Shai ad. In retrospect, that was not a major product ad, considering the company is not even in business a few years later. She does seem to be highly prolific, appearing in a large number of videos and websites, but the same could be said to be true of a lot of Central European porn performers who, outside of porn circles at least, lack name recognition even in their home countries. Iamcuriousblue (talk) 02:59, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

New York Feminists

As you're aware, the primary editor of New York Radical Feminists has been acting inappropriate lately, towards you, and towards me as well. This is all the more strange given the absolute lack of content editing I have done on that article (or even similar articles), and the very minor edits you made and that I restored (those have been my only content edits); my actions on the article were almost exclusively related to the removal of template tags that you originally added (which were entirely appropriate). This editor has had similar edits in the past, and has also made their commentary almost entirely in the edit summary on articles, as opposed to in an open forum, such as a talk page. I wanted to let you know that this editor has now referenced our changes on their user page. I'm also curious as to what the appropriate action is on the NYRF page. My only concern was basic WP procedure on the page; I have no idea about the content, but since you're familiar with the issue, I'm interested in your input. Shadowjams (talk) 06:23, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Actually, there were recent edits to the NYRF article by this author, and it consisted of her removing all material based on Alice Echols book or other sources she happened to disagree with. This editor's actions are highly aggressive and inappropriate and clearly not in keeping with Wikipedia's rules. I'm going to try and get an administrator to intervene, though if I can't do that, I'll put forward an "request for discussion" to bring more editors in on this. In the meantime, if you can help me revert inappropriate edits to the article, that would be helpful. Iamcuriousblue (talk) 16:14, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Dispute Resolution Process

Hello, Iamcuriousblue. I've noticed that you have taken a step in the Dispute Resolution Process by posting in WQA. Please note that it is recommended that you advise the other party of your complaint filing so that they are aware of it, and so that they have a chance to respond.

If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 20:51, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Image Request

Do you still have Image:SDDM100.jpg that was deleted from the Lesbianism in erotica article? CultistBlue (talk) 23:01, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes. You can email me about it here: Special:EmailUser/Iamcuriousblue. Iamcuriousblue (talk) 04:04, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Tag

OK I put a different tag in. I think this suits the purpose. In general tags can't be subst'ed usefully because the categorization breaks, among other things. If this is still a problem you could see if one of the generic cleanup tags allows a custom message/ Rich Farmbrough, 10:09, 29 July 2009 (UTC).

Thanks for this. The template you used approximately covers my issues with the citations in that article, though I also wanted to point out that the bibliographic style itself needs cleanup, since its difficult to tell in some cases whether what's being referred to is a primary source that's very difficult to verify or whether its a published (hard copy or internet) document that others can find. The questions arise because the primary editor of the Noreen Connell article had included clear original research in a related article, New York Radical Feminists. Iamcuriousblue (talk) 14:29, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

WP:SPS

Self-published material may, in some circumstances, be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications. However, caution should be exercised when using such sources: if the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else is likely to have done so.

I don't think it is acceptable or particularly reliable in this instance, please find evidence of it being reported on by a third party source. This not only lends more credibility to the verbiage, but also helps avoid WP:UNDUE weight. JBsupreme (talk) 02:23, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

And I specifically pointed to the next section as well, WP:SELFPUB, although you don't seemed have read it. I quote:

Self-published or questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, especially in articles about themselves, without the requirement that they be published experts in the field, so long as:

1. the material is not unduly self-serving;
2. it does not involve claims about third parties;
3. it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject;
4. there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity;
5. the article is not based primarily on such sources.

Its patently obvious that the SuicideGirls website is a valid source for an article on SuicideGirls. I'm not sure why you're so insistent on deleting this material, but your reasoning strikes me as pretty dodgy and based on a basic misunderstanding of what is and isn't an appropriate use of primary sources, per WP:VERIFY. Hence, I'm going to continue to revert unless you can provide some justification for your edits beyond "its a primary source". Iamcuriousblue (talk) 07:14, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

I accept your apology...

...and raise you one. I was too harsh. I am very sensitive to the history of this article where meat puppets and anons have been at war for ages and ages. And I know that anything about her birth date in the article probably scares the subject to death as that is how you find her birth record, and she wants to maintain the fiction that she never changed her name. So when you showed up with "blue" in your name, I did not give you a fair shake. --BenBurch (talk) 01:43, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Apology accepted. And sorry if I was too harsh or if I implied that any edit on your part would create COI issues. Iamcuriousblue (talk) 05:20, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I really have no interest that would conflict. I think very little of the subject, this is true, when I think of the subject at all, but I think Henry Ford was a jew-hating piece of crap who helped Hitler, and I still edit his article. --BenBurch (talk) 08:56, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

User talk:70.62.27.102

Sorry what? this makes no sense to me. [[1]] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.62.27.102 (talk) 13:05, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't know why you want commentary on the raw edit, but I assume you mean User talk:70.62.27.102#May 2009. I think that's all pretty straightforward. See WP:SOAPBOX, WP:NPOV, WP:VERIFY, and WP:BLP – you need to pay attention to these policies in your Wikipedia contributions. Cheers – Iamcuriousblue (talk) 17:11, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

x

lol. Yeago (talk) 05:56, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Feminist views articles

One of the core policies of Wikipedia is that articles should always be written from a neutral point of view. A contribution you made to Feminist views on prostitution appears to carry a non-neutral point of view, and your edit may have been changed or reverted to correct the problem. Please remember to observe our core policies. Thank you.

I have to say, the Feminist views on prostitution article is one of the most unbalanced articles I've seen on Wikipedia in a long time. The Feminist views on prostitution, while more balanced, is unreferenced and basically factually inaccurate in much of its presentation of sex-positive feminism, and also not entirely accurate in how it presents the anti-porn feminist movement. Iamcuriousblue (talk) 22:19, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

I didn't write the entire article, I just transfered some relevant content in order to create a useful entry, while attempting to write a summary of what was already there.

I don't think it's inaccurate to say that radical feminism is a dominant current among the feminist movement, because it tends to serve as a type of social orthodoxy, as opposed to sex-positive feminism, which has a reputation for heterodoxy. When you examine the different feminist organizations, their leading activists often come from the radical feminist crowd because that group had arguably been the most vocal in its opposition to what it deems to be violence against women.

ADM (talk) 05:21, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, I do think its inaccurate, and if you're going to declare sex-positive and sex-worker feminism a minority view, then you damn well better have some sources conclusively proving that radical feminism is the majority view. (This is one of the many contentious statements you've failed to back up with proper references, by the way.) I'm familiar enough with the literature on feminism and pornography to know that such a statement and such a slanting of the article is unsupportable. Iamcuriousblue (talk) 05:33, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

NPOV issues

I'm moving this to Talk:Prostitution #POV_Forks, because I think this point needs public discussion, and it concerns several articles that have been broken out from Prostitution. Iamcuriousblue (talk) 22:34, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Dany Verissimo

Please do not add unreferenced or poorly referenced information, especially if controversial, to articles or any other page on Wikipedia about living persons, as you did to Dany Verissimo. Thank you. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 02:32, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

The information is not "controversial", and it is referenced, though unfortunately, not properly footnoted at the moment. That's not sufficient reason to delete content, especially in a stub article like this where content can be readily checked against listed sources. Don't read French? Oh well – use an online translator. Iamcuriousblue (talk) 04:10, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Annabel Chong

Heya... I was reverting some vandalism on this article, and I noticed the last reference in the article, the one entitled "From sex marathons to real marathons" doesn't work. In fact the source URL ain't there any more. Can you find this reference again? Tabercil (talk) 13:28, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Done. Iamcuriousblue (talk) 23:21, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Iamcuriousblue. You have new messages at Excesses's talk page.
Message added 15:07, 3 October 2009 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

~Excesses~ (talk) 15:07, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

123username

You seem to be into editing articles about prostitution, could you please have a look at Legality of prostitution. You've dealt with 123username before, I can't seem to get what I believe is Muslim bias out of that article without a possible revert war with him, I'd like your opinion on this. I think he may believe I have something against the Muslim faith, or something, I don't know, it seems pretty obvious to me that I'm right, but I feel way a lot of the time. Gigith (talk) 04:40, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Atlantic books plagiarism

I never got a response from Mgoodyear, which was a bit surprising. Were you able to identify any of the text in the book as belonging to you specifically? If so, you may want to make an official complaint to Atlantic books over the violation of your copyrights, although I never received a response from them myself. Alternately, you may want to contact Mike Godwin and ask if he has any advice on how to persue it further. Kaldari (talk) 20:15, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Michael Goodyear is an intermittent contributor to Wikipedia, so he may not have logged in recently enough to have seen your message. I'll try and contact him directly about this – I know him from off-WP forums like Sex in the Public Square. Iamcuriousblue (talk) 03:32, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Grigori Galitsin

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Grigori Galitsin. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Grigori Galitsin. Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:20, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Unreferenced BLPs

Hello Iamcuriousblue! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot alerting you that 1 of the articles that you created is tagged as an Unreferenced Biography of a Living Person. The biographies of living persons policy requires that all personal or potentially controversial information be sourced. In addition, to ensure verifiability, all biographies should be based on reliable sources. If you were to bring this article up to standards, it would greatly help us with the current 694 article backlog. Once the article is adequately referenced, please remove the {{unreferencedBLP}} tag. Here is the article:

1. Anja Laval - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 17:52, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Please note that this article, as first created it, was a direct translation from the corresponding article in German Wikipedia. Iamcuriousblue (talk) 18:28, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Anja Juliette Laval

The article Anja Juliette Laval has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Unreferenced, negative biography of a living person. Please do not remove this prod tag without sourcing the article.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{dated prod}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. NW (Talk) 20:15, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Feminists Fighting Pornography nominated for deletion

There's a nomination to delete or merge the article on Feminists Fighting Pornography. You've been a contributor, but it appears you weren't notified. Nick Levinson (talk) 20:27, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Janice Raymond

Hi I amcuriousblue. I have noticed your editing at several articles. Although I don't think I'd agree with many of your views, you seem like a reasonably fair and careful editior. I would greatly appreciate it if you could take a look at the Janice Raymond article. I removed BLP violations and biased material from it, but another editor restored them. Please help me to stop that from happening. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.72.30.64 (talk) 00:13, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Upon looking at it, I think that a lot of the language needs a cleanup, since there's clear bias and soapboxing going on. However, referenced discussion of the reactions of trans activists to Raymond's work should be included, so long as it does not take up undue weight. I'll try and do some of my own edits on it by this weekend. Cheers. Iamcuriousblue (talk) 06:57, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for taking a look. I think there are still problems with that article, however. My main concern is with the sentence that reads, "She has also created much controversy over her writings against transsexualism which many other feminists have criticized as extremely transphobic in nature." I understand that Wikipedia articles can have criticism of living people if it is properly sourced, but that sentence looks as though it is designed to emphasise the criticism of Raymond as much as possible, by stressing the number of people who disagree with her. It certainly doesn't look neutral at all. Even though there is a footnote mentioning some specific people by name, that sentence in the lead is still much too vague and too sweeping. I think it violates BLP written like that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.72.27.210 (talk) 05:53, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Not only CAN it have criticism, if there is a non-trivial, citable and verifiable body of criticism, the article MUST include it. BLP does not trump NPOV (and exclusion of criticism to create an article that is favorable to the subject is decidedly not NPOV), something many proponents of "BLP culture" lose sight of. The footnote needs to be worked into the section on "views of trans people" rather than be a stand-alone footnote. Iamcuriousblue (talk) 16:08, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Please reconsider your attitude. The way the article is written is hardly in accord with NPOV. The sentence "She has also written extensively about transsexualism, and her views on transgender have met with great controversy, as they are viewed by many as transphobic" is very biased since it presents only criticism of Raymond and gives readers no idea that many feminists AGREE with her views about trans issues. I have tried to start a discussion about this on the talk page, but no one has replied.