User talk:Guy1890/Archive 9
 | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 5 | ← | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | Archive 11 | → | Archive 15 |
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation, and please do get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 11:35, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
Porn BLP guidelines
Hey guy, I'm inviting Rebecca1990 to this discussion so that hopefully we can be in agreement on something. I know that Rebecca wants porn BLP articles to be basically like any other BLP article and I'm in agreement with that. I've tried to reflect this in my editing and, for example, with the suggested structure/outline that I've linked to on the Project page.
Guy, I think you generally agree with this, but I'd thought I'd bring the topic up for the sake of discussion.
Why I bring this up is edits like this one where the section title was changed to "mainstream appearances" versus just appearances. I have avoided Sections titles like this simply because it seems IMO to emphasize that porn is something other than mainstream. I'm not trying to suggest that it is, but if we all agree that BLP articles should roughly be alike, porn or otherwise, shouldn't we avoid the emphasis?
On the other hand, if using a term like this is for the purpose of highlighting crossover work, I completely understand. This was the idea behind sections "Other ventures", "Writing", "Advocacy", and just plain "Mainstream" to highlight ANY non-porn work.
In other words, in the "Career" section for a porn BLP article its assumed that most of the content there is adult related. The other section titles are to other unique, different, and/or non-porn work for a typical adult performer.
Do my questions make sense or am I making an issue out of nothing? --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 17:56, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
- In the article in question here, which just showed up in the "SuggestBot" section immediately above this one, I don't think that I made many edits to that particular section of the article, which mentioned "mainstream productions" right off the bat...so I eventually changed the section header to match better with what was already written in that section there. One of the sections of PORNBIO mentions being "featured multiple times in notable mainstream media", which may apply (in addition to the obvious Hall of Fame membership) in this case to this subject. Due the the deletionist attention that the Pornography Project has attracted over the long-term, I wouldn't expect the PORNBIO standard to remain status-quo forever, so it seems best to make sure that as many articles qualify under multiple notability standards as possible. This might not always be possible though. If someone else would like to change the section header to something better, I have no problem with that. Guy1890 (talk) 19:31, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
- Personally, I'm OK either way, but since the 3 of us seem to make a significant contribution in this area I thought it worthwhile to discuss it. Your reasoning makes sense to me. Becs, any thoughts? --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 00:04, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
September 2014
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Cunt may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.
- List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
- <ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.cockneyrhymingslang.co.uk/slang/gareth_hunt|title=Gareth Hunt is [[rhyming slang|publisher=|accessdate=27 September 2014}}</ref><ref>Anonymous ''Dirty Cockney Rhyming
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 08:28, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
Request for mediation rejected
The request for formal mediation concerning Porn and BLP, to which you were listed as a party, has been declined. To read an explanation by the Mediation Committee for the rejection of this request, see the mediation request page, which will be deleted by an administrator after a reasonable time. Please direct questions relating to this request to the Chairman of the Committee, or to the mailing list. For more information on forms of dispute resolution, other than formal mediation, that are available, see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution.
For the Mediation Committee, User:TransporterMan (talk) 16:24, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
(Delivered by MediationBot, on behalf of the Mediation Committee.)
Do you think the proposed deletion can be removed now? SummerFunandSun (talk) 20:30, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
- Also any suggestions on how to expand it? SummerFunandSun (talk) 20:32, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
- You've apparently already removed the PROD tag yourself. I don't know a whole lot about gay pornography. Without any personal inspection by myself, I would expect that some editors would have a problem with some of the sources (blogs, possible "fan sites", etc.) that you are using in the article right now. It would also be optimal to have a source for where this person was born, if one isn't already available in the article. If you haven't already, I would familiarize yourself with the PORNBIO & GNG inclusion standards. It doesn't appear to me that the "Raven's Eden Awards" would meet the PORNBIO standard of "a well-known and significant (adult) industry award." The awards in question almost always have to at least have their own Wikipedia article in order to be considered. Good luck... Guy1890 (talk) 19:52, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
- I tried using the same sources that are on Matthew Rush's page here on Wikipedia. As far as the blog that is his he advertises it on his Facebook page all the time so it is as reliable as he makes it. And I think he passes the PORNBIO as he has #3 "Has been featured multiple times in notable mainstream media" as he did a lot of porn for Raging Studios before his contract expired and now he just freelances. SummerFunandSun (talk) 20:34, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
- That Matthew Rush article (that I just recently edited) isn't the best article here on Wikipedia. There are some types of info that can be cited using a self-published source (like a performer's website), but it's mostly info that is non-controversial or info that only the person in question would truly know about. Performing in adult videos isn't going to satisfy PORNBIO #3...only being featured in notable mainstream media at least twice will do it. Guy1890 (talk) 22:21, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
- Like Grunts and To the Last Man, both of which he was featured in? SummerFunandSun (talk) 23:36, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
- No, those are both adult films, not mainstream media at all. Guy1890 (talk) 04:23, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
- Like Grunts and To the Last Man, both of which he was featured in? SummerFunandSun (talk) 23:36, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
- That Matthew Rush article (that I just recently edited) isn't the best article here on Wikipedia. There are some types of info that can be cited using a self-published source (like a performer's website), but it's mostly info that is non-controversial or info that only the person in question would truly know about. Performing in adult videos isn't going to satisfy PORNBIO #3...only being featured in notable mainstream media at least twice will do it. Guy1890 (talk) 22:21, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
- I tried using the same sources that are on Matthew Rush's page here on Wikipedia. As far as the blog that is his he advertises it on his Facebook page all the time so it is as reliable as he makes it. And I think he passes the PORNBIO as he has #3 "Has been featured multiple times in notable mainstream media" as he did a lot of porn for Raging Studios before his contract expired and now he just freelances. SummerFunandSun (talk) 20:34, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
- You've apparently already removed the PROD tag yourself. I don't know a whole lot about gay pornography. Without any personal inspection by myself, I would expect that some editors would have a problem with some of the sources (blogs, possible "fan sites", etc.) that you are using in the article right now. It would also be optimal to have a source for where this person was born, if one isn't already available in the article. If you haven't already, I would familiarize yourself with the PORNBIO & GNG inclusion standards. It doesn't appear to me that the "Raven's Eden Awards" would meet the PORNBIO standard of "a well-known and significant (adult) industry award." The awards in question almost always have to at least have their own Wikipedia article in order to be considered. Good luck... Guy1890 (talk) 19:52, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation, and please do get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 01:40, 14 October 2014 (UTC)