Talk:Violet Blue/Archive 2

need help!

Headings need to be better, links need to be placed, references need to be cited, content needs to be filled out, and external links need to be updated. Yeesh, lots o' work to do! Please help, even with one little thingie! --Vcdevx99 23:58, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Survival Research Labs

I have updated the section on SRL with numerous references to establish her work there.Wikiwikimoore 20:29, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

There seems to be some debate about her current status with Survival Research Labs. Since the person or persons repeatedly removing it are contributing anonymously, I can't discuss over their talk pages. It seems that, at least in the past, she was a very active member, and I don't see why that shouldn't be a part of an encyclopedic entry on her, though I only know as much as is available on the SRL website archives. I'm going to restore it with past-tense verbiage, and if there is objection, then it can be discussed here. KathrynA 20:26, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

As some one who has worked with SRL and a close fried of Violet; I can state that Mark Pauline and not a anon editor, 67.188.110.143, is the final word on who is in SRL. Violet has had a long history with SRL, longer then her history writing professionally. This can be seen throughout the SRL web site and in photos the SRL shop and shows. Numerous examples of her on the SRL web site:

first listed in the credits of this 1996 show: http://www.srl.org/phoenix_show.html

listed on *all* of these show DVD and VHS credits as crew:

ran the funhouse bot here: http://www.srl.org/shows/sf_minna96/

ran the inchworm in 1997 austin show: (http://www.srl.org/shows/austin/) http://www.srl.org/shows/austin/preshow/austinpre19.html

ran the inchworm in 1998: http://www.srl.org/shows/web98/postshow.html

1999 Japan show crew: http://www.srl.org/shows/ntt/crew.html

berkeley show 2001 crew, ran the inchworm: http://www.srl.org/shows/berkeley/

amy show, 2002: http://www.srl.org/shows/events/amyshow/images/index.html

zero one, 2002, loaded machines, no online evidence

pulsejet demo 2003 : http://www.srl.org/shows/events/thumb/

webbys 2002, ran the inchworm with todd blair: http://www.srl.org/shows/webbys/4.html

los angeles 2002 post gallery show: http://www.srl.org/shows/la/crew.html

Laughing Squid's Tentacle Sessions #35: the women of SRL 2002: http://www.srl.org/shows/events/tentacle/ http://www.srl.org/shows/events/tentacle/women.html

Tim North benefit, 2003: http://www.srl.org/shows/events/timbenefit/calendar.html

berkeley art museum show 2003, ran the air launcher: http://www.srl.org/shows/bam/

reserach pranks festival 2003: http://www.srl.org/shows/events/pranks/pages/030.htm

SRL 25th year anniversary 2004, ran the merch table and participated in baseball bat soldier activity: http://www.srl.org/shows/events/25/

LA SRL 2005: http://www.srl.org/shows/la2005/crew.html

2006 LA show Fish Boy's Dream: http://www.srl.org/shows/la2006/crew.html

san jose show 2006: http://www.srl.org/shows/sanjose/crew.html

2007 Maker Faire machine demo, ran the running machine: http://www.srl.org/shows/events/makefaire/crew.html

She has even been mentioned on NPR in relation to SRL as noted by Xeni Jardin, who produced the NPR peace, on BoingBoing:

http://www.boingboing.net/2005/04/21/xeni_tech_on_npr_srl.html

Given her long history and the fact that there are references to here involvement in march of this year I think that it is not unreasonable to believe those, such as I, that claim not only was she a member of SRL but can still currently be considered one. Wikiwikimoore 11:31, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't think the article needs six references in the SRL section. Your thorough list is here in the discussion if individuals are concerned about it, but I think the earliest and most recent links are enough for the article itself. KathrynA 22:22, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm not really sure if the Laughing Squid page is much of a credible source. The SRL links are original research, see: WP:NOR. The BoingBoing link and associated NPR piece are good sources though for her having been a part of SRL. I will attempt to tweak the SRL section to only rely on established facts from valid sources. Flowersprout 02:09, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Okay, done. I hope my edit satisfies everyone. Since there seems to be a dispute as to whether or not Blue is currently involved in SRL, there seems no reason to speculate one way or the other. If there are any sources indicating that she is currently part of SRL, let's add those and change it, otherwise I think this is an appropriate compromise. Flowersprout 02:21, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't really think that this is much of a comprise, "has worked" is past tense. The dispute is between on anon writer and two people people providing references. The anon author making claims that Violet is not longer working with SRL has no evidence to that effect. I think KathrynA's version was very concise and was more clear on the facts. I would like to revert to that unless some one can give a argument as to why I should not. Flowersprout what is your intrest in this? Your account is brand new and you have only edited Violets page. Wikiwikimoore 06:25, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi Wikiwikimoore, I don't want to be profiled based on the articles I edit, so I create new accounts. You can learn a lot about someone by the articles they edit! The great thing about wikipedia is that so long as everyone follows policies, it doesn't matter if a user is or isn't a sock puppet. That's why it doesn't matter if KathrynA is also a new account that has only edited this article and your talk page. That said, I appreciate your being upfront about your relationship to the subject.

Fine if you want to be private but it is not a good way to endear trust; but I still wonder why you have taken this cause on. The edits you changed were reasonable and cited. Wikiwikimoore 09:25, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

"Has worked" is an accurate phrase based on the source. "Flowersprout has consumed pizza" is an accurate statement based on a photo of me eating pizza. It does not preclude me from future pizza consumption, but it is more factually grounded than calling me a "pizza eater." SRL, with the exception of Mark Pauline, seems to be a transient collective of artists. It is indisputable that Violet Blue has worked with SRL in the past, that she has worked on the crew of shows, but no where is it documented anywhere that SRL has a standing crew or membership roster or other affiliative mechanisms, nor that Violet Blue is included in such.

"Flowersprout has consumed pizza" implies that Flowersprout is not currently consuming pizza. As I have documented on this discuss page Violet have been involved with SRL on a continual basis for the last eleven years with the most recent being in March of this year, the most current show to date. If we had pictures of Flowersprout eating pizza regularly starting in 1996 with current photos as well, then it would be entirely accurate to state that "Flowersprout has consumed pizza since 1996" which is exactly the form of the copy you removed. Wikiwikimoore 09:25, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

I could add that her blog seems to support the implications that she's had a falling out. But that's beyond the scope of our discussions here. Let's just stick to credible sources and factual statements. Flowersprout 07:38, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

I fail to see how the entry you edited dose not stick to the facts. "She has been involved as a mechanic, fabricator, and performance artist[3] with Survival Research Labs since 1996." It states the work she has done and when she started with references to back it up. There has been some drama emanating from others at SRL, some who have been, in my opinion, lying to try and get there way; but according to what Mark Pauline has told me in personal conversations that she is still a member. Given that KathrynA's version of the statement includes more information than yours and is entirely backed up with citations. I see no reason to not use it and will revert to it tomorrow unless some one can cite evidence that it is wrong. Wikiwikimoore 09:25, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm happy to reach a consensus, but I have issues with the current revision. "Mechanized performance art shows" is worded oddly, and "in the past" is trying to establish exclusive past tense participation with no sources, credible or otherwise, to back it up. Also, the SRL website would be a primary source for an article on SRL, but doesn't fall under WP:NOR - There's nothing speculative about a crew roster. Laughing Squid is a fine secondary source for establishing what we're trying to establish - namely, the fact of her participation.

Since there's no actual evidence that she's *not* currently in SRL, I think we shouldn't explicitly state that her involvement was "in the past" - I'm happy leaving it vaguely past tense for now, though it would seem silly to only come and update the page with present tense during an *actual show*.

I really like the "has been a member" wording for that reason. It establishes the past but doesn't necessarily rule out the present. Would it help if we removed "since 1996"? KathrynA 17:18, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

I see not what portion of WP:NOR that states that primary sources are excluded, WP:PSTS explicitly allows them. I would really like it if some respected Wikipidea editor could help resolve this dispute. Of the people commenting now only I and KathrynA have accounts that were not created in the last few days. Given that this started with defacing of the page, even the hole sail removal of all references to SRL, it is hard to know who's opinion to trust. We of course what this entry to meet the standards of wikipedia lets try and resolve this issue and move on to other improvements. Wikiwikimoore 20:14, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Wikiwikimoore I think you and your girlfriend Ms. Blue are abusing Wikipedia by using the term "defacing" to disenfranchise the editing process- the WP process that determines if someone is notable, and if their trivial side projects (including who they call "Mom") is encyclopediac. I welcome any editors' input on this. I am sure Ms. Blue's frequent posts to her blog mischaracterizing these edits as vandalism and defacing will result in Some Friendly Editor resolving all of this and feeding into her delusions of internet fame. I resent your mischaracterization and find it even more shocking that you are claiming the high road of "anonymous accounts" while Ms. Blue's Sock Puppet Kathryna has only done edits to this page as well- come on, let's be fair here and remember WP:Civility. There are clear conflicts of interest here, and attempts to warp WP:POV with Original Research, that we should resolve. Also, invoking Mark Pauline's name is disingenuous. Ms. Blue is no longer part of SRL (which should not be a part of this article as it is Original Research). PS Thanks Flowersprout for the BOLDING idea, as this talk page is so hard to follow thanks to an unreasonably large pasted-in list of SRL events. SpiritMovesMee 18:40, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Has been a member is not established anywhere. It's not clear that SRL has "members". All that is citable is that she has been a member of the crew for various shows. Again: the SRL website is not a citable source and neither are her blogs. Use of primary sources as citations violates WP:NOR. I have included a highly credible source, NPR, to document her participation in SRL, I don't see how any reasonable person could dispute that. This is a frequent problem with bios for less notable people, there is a larger body of things that people "know" about the person than there is interest in the person, thus these "facts" are non-encyclopedic and/or do not have sources. Encyclopedia articles must be entirely comprised of external sources. Flowersprout 18:59, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I'm willing to concede on using NPR, but I still think some of the wording should be modified. I'll make another edit based on this, and if we need to we can keep discussing here. KathrynA 19:54, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Wikiwikimoore is clearly dating Blue and Kathryna is probably her sock puppet- that being said, I agree on the points above re: Original Research, but I do think it's important to keep a record (on this talk page) of her resignation letter blog post where she publicly resigns from SRL: http://www.tinynibbles.com/blogarchives/2007/05/flameout.html also her past-tense reference to membership at SRL (and thinly veiled criticism) in a recent blog post: http://techyum.com/2007/08/knifehandchopbot.html Good luck figuring all of this out with WP:NOR in mind! SpiritMovesMee 17:26, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Wow. This is astounding. Violet Blue has contributed so much to the sex-positive, sex education, and LGBT communities. Her contributions there, alone, make her such a heroine to so many. Her talents in publishing and advocacy are so valued, and so proven. Why all the fuss about something so fringe? It seems to be more of a distraction, than a contribution. For the credibility of our heroine wordsmith, please keep this un-credible drama off of her wikipedia page!! It is just so irrelevant. Whatever may or may not have happened with SRL- please, Violet and wikiwikimoore, take a long stroll through a rose garden, get over it, and look towards the sunshine! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Delbertpk (talk • contribs)

Well, it's not *her* Wikipedia page, it's a page about her. The SRL involvement is notable, so we're sorting through credible sources to back up the involvement. Welcome to Wikipedia! KathrynA 19:54, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

I edited it down to "She has been involved as a machine operator and performance artist with Survival Research Labs," with the NPR source cited. The NPR piece states that she works as a machine operator, and SRL is a performance art group. We could change it to "machine operator with the performance art group, Survival Research Labs", instead, if that makes more sense. Opinions? KathrynA 20:04, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

I think this is good wording but I believe that it should include the 1996 date for her first participation as it can be backed up with links and adds more to information. Wikiwikimoore 20:14, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

I am not sure which of the links Wikiwikimoore has pasted above actually reference Violet Blue- the few that I clicked on are just marketing promotion materials for Survival Research Labs, and have no reference to Violet Blue. Do these qualify as linkspam? They definitely make this talk page a chore to wade through! ChoochooBiz 19:22, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't think there'd be a problem with archiving sections of this talk page, but archiving does assume consensus about previous discussions. There was an SRL-related edit made just before the lock-down that I think still may be contentious, so this section, at least, is still ongoing. I'd like us to focus on moving the article forward instead of dredging through this old argument, but my vote is for this discussion to stay on the main page for now. KathrynA (talk) 22:27, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

The problem is that the wording "since 1996" implies "to present", which is obviously what's been under debate. Leaving it as "has been involved" neither includes nor excludes the present, so I'm satisfied leaving it without either of those enclosures, at least until sources emerge clarifying present involvement, although of course once that's documented it will have happened in the past.  :-) KathrynA 21:24, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Well I think that the entry should include something about the interval of involvement. How about "Beginning in 1996 she has participated in at least 19 events as a machine operator and performance artist with Survival Research Laboratories." I would also like to add additional secondary sources to her involvement. One of or more of the fallowing can be added: Make: Podcast - Survival Research Labs Walkthrough, Wired: Tech Heads Drop Trou for a Friend, SF Weekly: Normal Weekend Wikiwikimoore 22:53, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Wikiwikibabyhoneypie, your enthusiasm would so make our girl blush right now, were she to look at this page! The sentence KathrynA crafted is succinct and fabulous. Let's just leave it at that, and focus future additions and edits on Violet's writing and activism- which do seem to be the focus of her efforts these days, according to her blog. delbertpk

Survival Research Labs Alumna

I've started a new talk section due to the previous one being cluttered. I've updated the article to reflect Ms. Blue's Survivial Research Labs alumna status, citing this link: Ms. Blue writes "(the kind of details an SRL alumni like myself would want to know)." EscalanteXP 18:21, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

notability

Perhaps I'm missing something, but this person doesn't appear to meet WP:BIO. Dstanfor 04:17, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

For what it's worth, all the books mentioned are available on Amazon, and two of the books are ranked ~#1000 there, so she's certainly not unknown by any means. I only know her from her podcast though, maybe somebody else can expand on her notability. --Interiot 04:29, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I did see that two of her earliest books (the ultimate guide to oral sex ones) showed up if you did a deep search. How'd you find the approximate ranking on amazon? Dstanfor 04:32, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

The two books that ranked highly are her 2002 books. Right below where it mentions the ISBN and #pages and such, there's a "Amazon.com Sales Rank" field. *shrug*

Oh, also her podcast is listed #15 on Yahoo's most popular list (even though the episodes are released sporadically), and while it's not unimaginable that there's a war on podcasts, almost all of the top ~20 podcasts I listen to have an article. --Interiot 04:42, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

OK then. From that it sounds like she's on the edge of notability, but enough that it's worth keeping around. I'll remove the unencyclopedic tag. Dstanfor 04:57, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I think you are missing something. She has is often quoted by the press and reasontly was named in Forbs The Web Celeb 25. She has won a independ award for one of her books IPPY. Her pod cast is on the top of the Yahoo, as noted, and iTunes lists. Has a column in the San Francisco Chronicle's web site, Violet Blue Open Source Sex. Has seventeen books in print some as noted are best sellers. As well as many other accomplishments. Wikiwikimoore 06:05, 8 February 2007 (UTC).

Would any one object to me filling out more information about Violet Blue? Disclamer: I am close fried of hers. Wikiwikimoore

This article seems to be shaping up just to be a CV rather than a bio. I'm not sure this list of activities is really all that encylopedic or notable. Thoughts? Flowersprout 09:11, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. It would seem that Mr. Wiki Moore had an episode and set about over-zealously proving a point that was not being disputed. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by HackerToy (talk • contribs) 18:21, August 20, 2007 (UTC).

Personal Info

I intend to translate and transfer this article into the German language Wikipedia. Therefore it would be extremely helpful to get an official birthdate and -place. This shouldn't be to big a problem since a photo is already posted. Once this is done a short notice on my :en user page would be great.--Nemissimo 18:51, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Editing

[inappropriate discussion removed 11/1 by admin JzG and again 12/4 by KathrynA 18:53, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Hello KathrynA, jzg is not an admin, that is an account that was created just to edit this page. Please do not vandalize this talk page by removing a discussion that you deem "inappropriate". ChoochooBiz 19:13, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

DO NOT REMOVE OTHERS' COMMENTS from this section- WikiWikiMoore (who erased his name) and JzG (who erased the whole section), this means you. ChoochooBiz 18:42, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

ChoochooBiz, welcome to Wikipedia! I believe (but don't know) that the section was removed by a Wikipedia admin because of various WP:BLP issues. It's a big no-no here to post real names of users (unless they use their actual name, like I do) and it looks like an admin decided enough was enough with the bickering. Why don't we all just move forward with discussing ways to improve the article?

I don't know when the article is going to be unlocked, but I would like to add some information about her new digital publications program when it is, plus the link to the German version of the article. KathrynA 18:53, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

The page was protected to prevent edit warring. It looks like that's cooled off, so I'd be happy to remove the protection. If any edit warring flares up again, though, I'm going to lock it down again, so please discuss before reverting. Chunky Rice 19:02, 4 December 2007

Hello KathrynA, and welcome to Wikipedia! Please do not remove other users' comments in the talk section. The user JzG is not a wikipedia admin, I am not sure why you would post that when you could click on their user page and see that there have only been a few contribs. Are you trying to get this talk page locked, too? I think you'll see that when I restored the vandalism, I did not include Mr. Wikiwikimoore's "real name", so that's a bogus argument as well. ChoochooBiz 19:13, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

JzG is an admin [1], as am I. Attempting to reveal a Wikipedia's real life identity against their wishes (which that section certainly does, regardless of whether or not it inlcudes a name or not), is strictly prohibited and considered harassment. If you restore it again, you will be blocked. -Chunky Rice 19:43, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Hello Chunky Rice, please do not block me. Can you explain how JzG is an administrator with only 5 edits under their belt? What's up with that? I am operating in good faith, here. Mr. Moore posted to this talk page a disclaimer saying "I am a close friend of Ms. Blue", so I think it is in accordance with his wishes to discuss whether or not he should be editing this page. Please restore this dialog, this is not harassment, it is a discussion of Mr. Moore's appropriateness for editing this page (you yourself had joined this conversation, and are now removing many peoples' comments). ChoochooBiz 19:50, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

If you want to discuss a specific edit, feel free. There is no policy against someone with a conflict of interest editing a page. As you said, Wikiwikimoore has already disclosed his conflict. Your attempt to out the details of his personal identity beyond that have been entirely inappropriate. As far as JzG, I don't know what his edit count is, but it's well over 5 [2], so I'm not sure what you're going on about there. -Chunky Rice 19:56, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Interwikilink

Please add de:Violet Blue (Autorin). --Nemissimo (talk) 15:39, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

So could one of the admins watching this please add the interwikilink? Thanks.--Nemissimo 19:55, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Above is the new link, after the :de article was moved.--Nemissimo (talk) 21:39, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

I've added it. Further, I've unprotected the page, so feel free to make any future updates yourself. -Chunky Rice (talk) 22:12, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks.--Nemissimo (talk) 23:16, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Digita Publications

I doubt this is controversial, but I'll put it through this process anyway. I'd like to add some information about Digita Publications, VB's digital ebook/audiobook org. I don't know if it's a company; she refers to it as a "publishing venture" [3]. The publications are all DRM-free, which is especially interesting in light of the Kindle, and Yet Another Proprietary Format (AZW).

It's bare-bones, but how about this under "Other Notable Activities":

In October, 2007, Violet Blue launched the DRM-free publishing venture Digita Publications.

KathrynA (talk) 23:49, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually, now that I read that it does need more info to make sense. Revised:

In October, 2007, Violet Blue launched the DRM-free publishing venture Digita Publications, releasing audiobooks and ebooks in several open formats on a variety of sex-related subjects.

KathrynA (talk) 23:53, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

I added it using the 1st revision above. Please feel free to suggest improvements. I'm also going to add some of the ebooks and audiobooks released by Digta in the books section, or perhaps create a digital releases section. I don't think we necessarily need a comprehensive list of every single item, but as many of these are released through both Digta and Amazon, I think it's significant for now. KathrynA (talk) 19:58, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I added a "Digital Releases" section. At first I added ebook/audiobook/Kindle releases separately, using the ISBN linking and formatting as in the books section, but it was such a long list that it seemed to make more sense to condense it, but then we lost the ISBN number formatting. Any ideas? KathrynA (talk) 20:15, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Single Purpose Editor KathrynA

OrangeMike pointed out the nature of this person's edit history, or I never would have looked, but this article appears to be the single purpose of this account.

As this is an article on a living person, and as these edits seem to be rather of the character of publicity, and to track press on the subject, I have to bring up the notion that this editor edits as if she/he were the subject of this article.

I am going to recruit a wider group of people to keep watch on this article in the future as a result.

Wow, I was just planning to make a few minor changes to an article based on a press mention I read, but this is turning into a mess here. --BenBurch (talk) 17:43, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Notice board entry; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Violet_Blue_.28author.29

I was about to post this on your talk page, but I see that I need to address it here:

I'm definitely not the subject of the article, I use my real name in my Wikipedia account, and I'm not a single-purpose editor. I haven't had much time to deal with many other articles lately (though you'll see I have other interests), but I do follow Violet Blue, as you clearly do Ada Mae Johnson, the pornographic actress.

If you'll look through this discussion page (I realize it's long), I think you'll see that I make a pretty serious attempt at keeping things civil. I trust that you'll do the same.

That said, I have serious issues with your edits. I'll discuss them in the next section so anyone who likes can chime in. KathrynA (talk) 20:09, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Let's try to avoid another edit war, shall we?

I have serious issues with some of the most recent edits. The Lawsuit section seems notable, but it's tricky since it falls under the category of current events. I don't see why we need any specific information about Ada Mae Johnson, her marriage status, income, or even what name she goes by, in an article about the author. That seems more relevant to the article about her, yes?

The other issue I have is with the presumed quote from the lawsuit, from an anonymous editor. The entire edit is here. Along with the "transcript" is the addition "advocate for those with herpes". I'm not sure I have to say anything more.

I'd like to turn back both these edits. Please discuss. KathrynA (talk) 20:24, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I would have to agree that some of the information about the porn actress seems irrelevant and the general tone of the section seems a bit POV towards her. As far as the transcript goes, the citation isn't a proper cite, it gives no date or information as to what type of hearing or appearance it is a transcript of. I would endorse removing it unless a full cite can be produced. -Chunky Rice (talk) 21:27, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Also the biographical information (name, birthdate, etc.) needs to be cited. -Chunky Rice (talk) 21:57, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Age, location and name from whitepages.com. I've found several other cites for the name, too. --BenBurch (talk) 22:08, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't think we can use whitepages.com as a reliable source, but if you could go ahead and include the best citations for the info, I'd appreciate it. -Chunky Rice (talk) 22:15, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

There's absolutely no evidence, that I know of, of Violet Blue going by any other name than Violet Blue. Anyone who reads tinynibbles.com knows that she lives in the Castro district of San Francisco.

According to whitepages.com, Violet Blue lives in Sylacauga, AL, Costa Mesa, CA, Laguna Woods, CA, Morrison, CO, Princeton, NJ, Bethlehem, PA, Newtown, PA, etc, but not Berkeley, CA.

BunBurch, you obviously have some beef with the author Violet Blue. I suggest that you join me in discussing edits on the talk page before adding them to the article. KathrynA (talk) 22:25, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Please, let's try to assume good faith here. There's no reason we can't all work colaboratively to improve the article. Accusing each other of bias isn't going to get us anywhere. -Chunky Rice (talk) 22:30, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

You're right, I apologize. Based on his recent edits, though, I still suggest that he join in the conversation rather than add controversial material without discussion. The conversation will also draw more editors if we give them time to speak up. Not everyone uses RSS feeds. KathrynA (talk) 22:34, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

None whatsoever, I just want the article to conform to standards, and don't much care one way or the other... Never expected grief over these edits! Here are links;

http://smartpages.whitepages.com/search/FindPerson?extra_listing=mixed&form_mode=opt_b&post_back=1&firstname_begins_with=1&firstname=Wendi&name=Blue&street=&city_zip=Berkeley&state_id=CA&localtime=survey

http://preview.ussearch.com/preview/ala/newsearch?&searchLName=BLUE%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20&searchState=CA&searchCity=Berkeley%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20&searchFName=WENDI%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20&adID=619200D752&adsource=9&TID=0&cid=people&searchtab=people

http://www.zabasearch.com/query1_zaba.php?sname=WENDI%20SULLIVAN%20BLUE&state=CA&ref=&se=&doby=&city=&name_style=1&tm=

Source for name; http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/2007/10/sex-journo-viol.html

BTW, I will defend the AVN article as a source.— Preceding unsigned comment added by BenBurch (talk • contribs)

Maybe I'm missing something, but the source you cite for the name doesn't seem to mention the name anywhere in the article and the first three sources are not reliable sources. -Chunky Rice (talk) 22:48, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

That AVN article Violet Blue vs. Violet Blue seems like a sketchy source to use to say that the porn actress has been using the name longer, since it actually cites Wikipedia as the source of its information. -Chunky Rice (talk) 22:30, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

BLP/N response: The whitepages.com, ussearch.com, zabasearch.com, etc. cannot be used as that's original research. A RS needs to publish that information before it could be used (there's no "must" in that statement, because it might be inappropriate or fall under WP:UNDUE). The AVN citation needs to be removed because, as Chunky Rice points out, it uses Wikipedia as the source of information, making that a circular reference rather than a RS. --Faith (talk) 22:41, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

For reference, this is the (anonymous) comment on the Wired Blog that is being used to "source" her name.

[ Removed, per request ]

KathrynA (talk) 22:48, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Okay, an anonymous comment on a blog is entirely unacceptable as a source for biographical information. Or any information, for that matter. I'm removing the "real name" and birthday information until a reliable source turns up. -Chunky Rice (talk) 23:05, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

• KathrynA, would you mind, please, removing it from the talk page above as well? Thank you --Faith (talk) 23:29, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Could we revert the sex writing section to the form it was in yesterday. It seems that in the edit waring lots of good and sighted text was removed. Wikiwikimoore (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 01:12, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Comparing the older version to the current one, I have to say that I think the current one is better. The only things removed were some POV peacock langauge and external links. I think that we could put back a few of the external links in the external link section, but that's about it. I'll review them later to see which ones may be appropriate. -Chunky Rice (talk) 16:47, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the old one wasn't perfect (here's the diff), but there are a few things that were lost that were actually more accurate, and completely verifiable. The changes come down to this:

• "sex-positive" - this should come back. It defines her work, is backed up in any description of her, and it looks like it's even mentioned in the court document WikiWikiMoore links to. It's not a POV in any sense.
• "popular" - this was deleted, and I agree that it's a subjective word and doesn't belong here.
• blog links - someone deleted the three blog links, calling it linkspam. But if we're making a biography of a blogger, it makes sense to at least mention their blogs, especially their *primary* one (tinynibbles). I think these need to go back, though maybe with links below, not inline?
• iTunes rankings - this made more sense when iTunes podcast support was newly added and she was #1, but it's not necessary anymore, even though it is verifiable (the source for that is still listed as a reference in the section).
• lecturing - I think it's completely misleading to say that she *only* lectures at SFSI - the previous wording was more accurate. There's plenty of information about her lecturing and sitting on panels around the country. Link to the talk at Google, perhaps?
• bestselling - this is actually entirely verifiable. As far as I can glean, all her books are still in print, and a quick search shows that two of them are listed as bestselling on amazon under multiple categories (not just erotica or sex books).

KathrynA (talk) 17:07, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Here is a link to the injunction on the law suite. Dose this could as a source? It covers a lot of facts in the case: http://www.jurisnote.com/Cases/blue5370.htmWikiwikimoore (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 15:24, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure what facts we could source to it, other than the details of the PI or the court's opinion. -Chunky Rice (talk) 16:47, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

It may not fall under what wikipidea considers a refrencable source but the background section gives many dates with respect to when things happened have been disputed here.Wikiwikimoore (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 06:42, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Refactoring talk page?

Any objections to, or volunteers for, refactoring / archiving the talk page, especially if we're discussing edits more than actually making them? I'm thinking everything north of the Digita section, so that current discussions remain. Nothing will be gone, it'll just be on a separate page, linked to from this one. KathrynA (talk) 17:10, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Re: notability

As I'm not previously aware or interested in the subject of this article I will refrain from the revert war over the recent internet-culture event of her exclusion from BoingBoing. Suffice it to say I've been lead to the matter several times and arrived at severel discrete sources about the matter, and I'm not sure the exclusion of these references is going to last by your logic Has zero to do with her writing (as a syndicated internet figure who's presence seems to have been censored from a very notable blog, how isn't this related to her writing?). At any rate, I am curious, Ben Burch, what does your edit summary comment mean 'though it speaks volumes of her commitment to open ideas. What are these volumes?Yeago (talk) 06:46, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

First, COI tag placed by a admin as Wikiwikimoore is the subject's boyfriend and has been editing this article right along. I say it stays for a while.

See; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Norquist9

See; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Wikiwikimoore

The COI was added by you BenBurch? What are you talking about. It is also inappropriate to discus who I might or might not be on wikipedia. I have also not been shown to have made any inappropriate edits.Wikiwikimoore (talk)

If an editor has a conflict of interest, it is extremely appropriate to point that out. Questions have been raised about violation of neutral point of view, and about your failure to fully disclose your conflicts of interest. --Orange Mike | Talk 13:15, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Jonathan Moore, aka Wikiwikimoore, your identity is easily documentable, through reading through the lines of your own Wikipedia contributions (all or nearly all of which are on behalf of Violet Blue, about Violet Blue, with whom you've been romantically involved for more than a year, according to her own blog). You are knowingly violating Wikipedia standards and practices. A clear conflict of interest. To act like you don't know what that means, or who you are, is a disgrace and an insult to all of the editors here who play by the rules.Norquist9 (talk)

The subject is an author of books, and that is her notability. Her participation in a blog or not is not part of being an author of books, so is not relevant at all to the article. As for it speaking volumes, as far as I have been able to determine the move on Boing Boing's part was due to her recent trademark litigation and that offending the sensibilities of the open-source folks there; I am willing to be proven wrong on that, however! --BenBurch (talk) 02:47, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

It is clear even just from the other activities section in the aritcal that Violet is involved in may other topics besides writing books. She has a popular podcast, blog, and has even been labled by forbes as a web celeb. I see no reason to believe that this issue which has now apperared on outlets rangeing from the LA Times to Gawker can be said to be non revelent. Unless some one can come up with a proper reason to exclude the section I think we should add it back.Wikiwikimoore (talk)

see; http://gawker.com/tag/boing-boing/?i=397522&t=the-media-cool-kids-never-as-cool-as-you-think

see; http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/webscout/2008/06/violet-blue-scr.html

I'm pretty sure it follows that a notable subject with a blog = a notable blog, there are almost too many instances to count (Will Wheaton, are you there?). I hadn't heard that bit about trademark litigation—would like to know more. The only thing Wikiwikimoore didn't answer was why the content had been removed. Also, 'a while?'. That's incredibly vague, its much too strong a tag without some guidance here. Anyway, not my article. =).Yeago (talk) 03:19, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Not sure why I am being asked about deletes, which deletes are we talking about here? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikiwikimoore (talk • contribs) — Wikiwikimoore (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Undoing revision 215035272 by User:65.198.126.232, for example! --Orange Mike | Talk 13:15, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

As to that, as I said earlier, "the citation isn't a proper cite, it gives no date or information as to what type of hearing or appearance it is a transcript of. I would endorse removing it unless a full cite can be produced" I think it's very likely a false citation, but it can't be checked unless someone actually produces a complete citation. And given our BLP policy, if we can't verify a controversial and inflamatory comment like that, it definitely shouldn't be in the article. -Chunky Rice (talk) 16:44, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Unless someone can point to something in the article that's a POV problem, the tag should probably be removed. It exists to direct clean-up, not just to point out that someone might have a COI problem. Wikiwikimoore, you should probably stick to editing this talk page and let others edit the article, based on your COI. If you have a change you want made or a source/information that you think should be added, post it here, and let a non-partisan editor decide what to do with it. With specific regard to the Boingboing section, it looks like it's sourced to a blog? I'm not familiar with the source. If it's reported in a reliable source, then it probably bears mentioning. If it isn't, then it isn't. -Chunky Rice (talk) 16:31, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

I of corse have disclosed from the onset that am a close personal friend of the subject of this artical. That said I have been very carfull not to create any POV issues. I would be very happy to just participate thought this talk page but there seem to be very few editors actively watching this page and there is a high rate of vandalism. I also would ask that all the attacks aginst me, here, on my talk page, and on Norquist9's talk page be removed. As for the boingboing section. I personlay don't really care about it much I was just reverting what sure looked like vandalism by Norquist9 whos first two edits after account creation were to delete that section and a slimmer one on the boing boing page. There are huge number of blog references to this topic including one from the LA Times I linked abouve. And now even Boing Boing has posted about it directly.Wikiwikimoore (talk) 21:51, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Were I her main squeeze I would be reluctant to have any mention of this in her article given what I was told the reasons were for them deciding that she was not a nice enough person to be given creedence by Boing Boing! It absolutely will come out, you know, and its not flattering at all. --216.191.142.126 (talk) 23:28, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

If someone doesn't make a case for POV issues with the article, I'm going to remove the tag tomorrow. -Chunky Rice (talk) 18:00, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

You can try. Somebody will just put it back in until the article has been totally re-written by a disinterested third party. --BenBurch (talk) 18:04, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Don't be ridiculous. There's certainly no need for a re-write unless someone can point out a problem with the article. If you can point out a problem, we'll fix it. If you can't, then the tag gets removed. There's no prohibition on COI editing as long as the result is NPOV. -Chunky Rice (talk) 18:24, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

There's one active editor on this article who has an acknowledged COI; and another who has been accused of being the subject herself. That, to me, means the COI tag should stay as a warning to the reader. --Orange Mike | Talk 15:34, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

The tag isn't a warning. It's a clean-up tag. And unless you can point out something that needs cleaning up, I'm taking it off. -Chunky Rice (talk) 17:02, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

You can take it off. That's your right, but I know its going to go back on. Too many people think it belongs there. And, yes, admins, as Mike is, often place that as a warning. --BenBurch (talk) 17:06, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

My request is extremely simply. Indicate which part of the article is problematic so that it can be fixed. Neither you or Orange Mike have been willing to do this. It's a very short article, so it shouldn't be difficult to do. -Chunky Rice (talk) 17:08, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

The tainting of the process here by self-edits and outing of wiki editors in a public forum is not a bell that can easily be un-rung. --BenBurch (talk) 17:12, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm not even sure what you're talking about now. What are the problems with the artlce. This is a very straightforward question, to which you have not provided any answer. -Chunky Rice (talk) 17:15, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

See the section below this one for what I am talking about. I suggest you go off to Orange Mike's talk page and iron this out with him, please. --BenBurch (talk) 17:17, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

The tag is a clean-up tag. If someone doesn't get specific about what needs to be cleaned up, its getting removed.Yeago (talk) 17:55, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Go talk to Mike about that, please. He placed it. I think it needs to stay. --BenBurch (talk) 17:57, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

In that case, wasn't it shown that you considered yourself a 'friend' of Noname Jane whom Blue sued? Couldn't your continued hovering in this article constitute the same?Yeago (talk) 18:02, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Moreover, quit directing people to 'Go talk to mike'. His page is not the discussion thread for this article--this page is.Yeago (talk) 18:05, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Mike is the person who placed the tag. You want to remove it, you know where to reach him. I have no COI on this page beyond not liking wikipedia edited by the subjects of articles and those that conspire with them. I am not the subject of this article, and I am not in any way in contact with the subject of this article, or her boyfriend, and I dislike whitewashes. --BenBurch (talk) 19:42, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Please see

http://www.boingboing.net/2008/07/01/that-violet-blue-thi.html#comment-225685

Comment by "Nina" which is numbered #1260 in that thread. It is of relevance to the history of this article --BenBurch (talk) 15:27, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Outing another editor who has not already come out and stated who they are? Really? And in a live public venue? --BenBurch (talk) 15:31, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Well- from my end, the bigger issue is that I contributed *ONLY the 3 edits that I took great care to mention in my BB comment- no more- and the edits were clearly *not* vandalism. Violet made an emotional and factually-toned statement both on her SXSW panel, on her blog, and among social 'buzz,' that I have been "stalking" her for the last year, and that I've been behind all or most of the Wikipedia "vandalism." Both are factually untrue, and have been very, very damaging- both personally and professionally. This all aside- point being- a significant piece of slander was leveraged by this person in one professional conference that I know of (I have no idea what she's said at her Google and other industry lectures), and I can attest to this.

I agree with BenBurch, "outing" an anonymous editor is an ethical violation in and of it's own- but personally, as an industry professional who's always (perhaps naievely) trusted and admired speakers at panels and lectures that I've attended- I do think that utilizing a podium of prestige such as speaking on a conference panel, to spread personal ills that are also un-true, is a major professional ethics violation. --ninavizz (talk) 13:55, 3 July 2008 (PDT)

I would suggest that if you bring up this outing at WP:AN and ask where to proceed from there. However, seeking relief here might damage your case should you decide to bring legal process, so, of course, ask your lawyer first! --BenBurch (talk) 20:53, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Read the comment at BB. Certainly doesn't paint a flattering picture of Blue's demeanor. I found Blue's blog requesting Wikipedia edits to be pretty innocuous, however. She simply seemed disappointed in its development, not her portrayal within it.Yeago (talk) 01:18, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, you just simply DON'T request edits to your own page. Heck there are pages on her about projects I am deeply involved in that I won't touch and would never dream of asking anybody to do edits on them for me. Though I have asked that edits by associates of mine be removed exactly because they were self-edits and had a COI! --BenBurch (talk) 04:07, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, that's fair. But that's also your prerogative. Because we've got a pretty decent system here for balancing out contributions that may come from her blog request, I think the potential for damage is minimal. Anywho, article is looking good to me. Honestly, I'd like to see some specific claims for the COI. Somewhat difficult until Wikiwikimoore stops editing. Moore, if you're reading this, please stop editing the article and start requesting for others to make your edits here. If you do that, I don't see how anyone can keep the COI tag.Yeago (talk) 20:37, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

If you look at the edits I make you will see that they are all or nearly all reverts of edits that were made with no discussion and make inflammatory and unreferenced claims. You will also note that when I want to add content to the page I post here on the talk page first. You will also see that before I maid any edits to the page I tried to open a discussion about my relation ship with the subject of the page, this received no answer. I feel that I am very careful to avoid POV issues, I am not sure the same can be said for all editors here.Wikiwikimoore (talk) 22:13, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Jonathan (wikiwikimoore)- you, very clearly, have a COI with any Wikipedia anything, regarding Violet Blue (author). No details or citings need to be referenced: you are Violet's boyfriend, her Flickr stream and blog both assert this, and common sense simply dictates this. Not everything in life is binary: common-sense simply is what it is, and is universal in it's acceptance. Likewise, you were an accomplice to Violet in slandering me on the SXSW panel- which makes you equally guilty of a major ethical violation, right there. Please. Reversing edits on Wikipedia, is as much a contribution as making them. As careful as you might try to be about POV, you clearly have a COI with this entire subject- so please, just stop. It's like Laura Bush writing a biography of the George W Bush White House, with Lynn Cheney as her editor. Common sense COI: POV best-efforts, canceled-out. ninavizz (talk) 16:16, 4 July 2008 (PDT)

Name / Birthdate

Any info on her name prior to the official change and trademarking of Violet Blue? Also birthdate? 132.228.195.207 (talk) 17:38, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

The information is out there, but I will not repeat it here. --BenBurch (talk) 19:43, 3 July 2008 (UTC)