Talk:List of actors in gay pornographic films/Archive 6
 | 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 1 | ← | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 |
Inclusion of František Huf
František Huf is included in this list and featured in one of the images. The main article František Huf makes no mention of a gay porn career. The three sources used in this list are a Czech-language site that really doesn't give the impression that it would be a reliable source, an apparently outdated link, and the IMDB entry for someone named "Boris Tomek". Source or remove? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 12:30, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
- This article uses his real name and appears to address him being a (not particularly notable) porn star. Ash (talk) 14:56, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
- That is the first source, which I linked above. I am unable to read it and unable to adequately judge if it is a reliable source, but my impression from looking a the site is that is not. It appears to be some kind of tabloid newspaper, although I don't know if there is an actual newspaper associated with it. Can you supply any information? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 17:22, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
- Sorry I overlooked your original link. Actually it is a real tabloid newspaper with the highest circulation in that country, some information at Blesk. I am also reluctant to judge it's adequacy as a source though the date of the article leads me to believe the reference is not circular. Perhaps a notice at WP:RSN might help clarify quality before dismissing it as a link? Ash (talk) 17:31, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
- Just to be clear, are you suggesting that it is in any way acceptable under WP:BLP to include someone on this list based the sourcing of IMDB, a non-working link, and a tabloid? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 18:09, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
- No. However, appropriately quoting a sourced statement from a national newspaper does not sound like an urgent BLP violation. You appear to judging the quality of the newspaper in question without knowing much about it. In this case the newspaper has printed a direct interview with Huf where he talks about earning money in the gay porn industry for the previous three years in order to fund his body-building career; this appears an entirely credible story rather than a second-hand speculative mention in a gossip column or reprinting a fan site or blog. RSN exists to help judge quality of sources, it should be used here rather than your best guess. As for the dead links, perhaps you should try a web archive before assuming they are useless. Ash (talk) 18:59, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
- I've taken your suggestion and checked the page at archive.org - here is the archived page. So now we have two foreign language sources of questionable reliability and IMDB. I'm not sure how you can divide BLP violations into "urgent" and non-urgent. If it's a BLP violation it gets removed, hopefully as soon as it is noticed. I am removing the entry from this list. If you want to follow up on the reliability of the foreign-language sources or find new sources, you are welcome to do so. At any rate, this discussion suggests that the image is not of a particularly remarkable porn performer and should removed even if their entry is re-added. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 19:27, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
- The only comment I would add is that unless the information is significant and well sourced enough to be added to the article on him, it shouldn't be added to this list. People most definitely shouldn't be linking to articles on people when the article makes no mention of the person being a male performer in gay porn films no matter how impecable the sources are nor how notable their involvement is (they should demonstrate that in the article if necessary first) Nil Einne (talk) 18:46, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
- Information is routinely deleted from articles of this nature, editors working on the list are not required to also maintain every article it links to. -- Banjeboi 23:30, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
- I think you're missing the point. Editors here don't have to maintain other articles, but they should check them before adding things to this list. If the information is missing from the article on the person, then they should add it and ensure there is consensus that it belongs. And if the information is deleted from the article on the person, then it's entirely resonable for someone to delete it from here, and if an editor wants to justify it's inclusion here, then they do need to add it back to the article on the person and ensure there is consensus it belongs, before trying to add it back here. If there is no consensus it belongs in the article on the person, then it doesn't belong here. Nil Einne (talk) 16:22, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
- Actually that's part of my point. In this particular case the sources were deemed not reliable enough for the claims made, not that the information was untrue, mind you. In this case I think we made the right decision. If the information is notable enough it will present itself in more reliable sources. However the editors on any list are not obligated to add content on each article encapsulated within the list and maintain that information as your statement suggests. It would be nice that uncomfortable information wasn't removed but the history in the particular subject area shows that's unrealistic, Information is routinely removed wholesale or incrementally. Regardless of sourcing. This is not new, I've seen it happen for years by editors who know better. The answer is to restore it with sourcing if needed and if an issue remains try to sort out what that could be and what's the best way forward. -- Banjeboi 14:18, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
- I think you're missing the point. Editors here don't have to maintain other articles, but they should check them before adding things to this list. If the information is missing from the article on the person, then they should add it and ensure there is consensus that it belongs. And if the information is deleted from the article on the person, then it's entirely resonable for someone to delete it from here, and if an editor wants to justify it's inclusion here, then they do need to add it back to the article on the person and ensure there is consensus it belongs, before trying to add it back here. If there is no consensus it belongs in the article on the person, then it doesn't belong here. Nil Einne (talk) 16:22, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
- Information is routinely deleted from articles of this nature, editors working on the list are not required to also maintain every article it links to. -- Banjeboi 23:30, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
- The only comment I would add is that unless the information is significant and well sourced enough to be added to the article on him, it shouldn't be added to this list. People most definitely shouldn't be linking to articles on people when the article makes no mention of the person being a male performer in gay porn films no matter how impecable the sources are nor how notable their involvement is (they should demonstrate that in the article if necessary first) Nil Einne (talk) 18:46, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
- I've taken your suggestion and checked the page at archive.org - here is the archived page. So now we have two foreign language sources of questionable reliability and IMDB. I'm not sure how you can divide BLP violations into "urgent" and non-urgent. If it's a BLP violation it gets removed, hopefully as soon as it is noticed. I am removing the entry from this list. If you want to follow up on the reliability of the foreign-language sources or find new sources, you are welcome to do so. At any rate, this discussion suggests that the image is not of a particularly remarkable porn performer and should removed even if their entry is re-added. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 19:27, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
- No. However, appropriately quoting a sourced statement from a national newspaper does not sound like an urgent BLP violation. You appear to judging the quality of the newspaper in question without knowing much about it. In this case the newspaper has printed a direct interview with Huf where he talks about earning money in the gay porn industry for the previous three years in order to fund his body-building career; this appears an entirely credible story rather than a second-hand speculative mention in a gossip column or reprinting a fan site or blog. RSN exists to help judge quality of sources, it should be used here rather than your best guess. As for the dead links, perhaps you should try a web archive before assuming they are useless. Ash (talk) 18:59, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
- Just to be clear, are you suggesting that it is in any way acceptable under WP:BLP to include someone on this list based the sourcing of IMDB, a non-working link, and a tabloid? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 18:09, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
- Sorry I overlooked your original link. Actually it is a real tabloid newspaper with the highest circulation in that country, some information at Blesk. I am also reluctant to judge it's adequacy as a source though the date of the article leads me to believe the reference is not circular. Perhaps a notice at WP:RSN might help clarify quality before dismissing it as a link? Ash (talk) 17:31, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
- That is the first source, which I linked above. I am unable to read it and unable to adequately judge if it is a reliable source, but my impression from looking a the site is that is not. It appears to be some kind of tabloid newspaper, although I don't know if there is an actual newspaper associated with it. Can you supply any information? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 17:22, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
Deletion of all IMDB links
I just cut http://www.missonline.cz/model.php?id=7164 as it redirects to the site-root and added {{citation needed}}. <rote>imdb is not a reliable source and should never be used; a mere extern with no weight re notability and verifiability is all that is reasonable.</rote> The use of ibdb imdb on this list in refs is inappropriate and they should be cut, too. Jack Merridew 19:10, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
- I disagree in regard to IBDB, which is an official project of the Broadway League, the producers' organization for Broadway shows. Information in IBDB is based on their records and program listings, which, by union rules, are official and approved by the participants before being published. The same goes for IOBDB, which is run by the non-profit Lortel Foundation. Neither IBDB or IOBDB will accept user-generated corrections or information without documentation and/or verifying it against the available records.
One should not be misled by the similarity in names, these two projects are entirely different from IMDB, which is a commercial operation owned by Amazon.com. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:04, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
- I disagree in regard to IBDB, which is an official project of the Broadway League, the producers' organization for Broadway shows. Information in IBDB is based on their records and program listings, which, by union rules, are official and approved by the participants before being published. The same goes for IOBDB, which is run by the non-profit Lortel Foundation. Neither IBDB or IOBDB will accept user-generated corrections or information without documentation and/or verifying it against the available records.
- That was a typo, above; I meant imdb as in the section header. I am familiar with IBDB and IOBDB and have little issue with them. For the most part I consider them reliable (TBD are sites like AFDB). If there are IBDB/IOBDB links in here, I didn't notice them (or cut them). Sorry for the confusion. Cheers, Jack Merridew 06:07, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks for the clarification. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:23, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
- ;) Jack Merridew 06:36, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks for the clarification. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:23, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
- See Talk:List of male performers in gay porn films/Archive 2#How should IMDB links be handled for this list?. Ash (talk) 00:43, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
- I did. My view is that an imdb link is marginally appropriate for an externs section on an article, in this case about an individual. This will allow someone to go read whatever for themselves. imdb links are not appropriate for use in <ref></ref> tags where they will appear in the references section and the ones on this list should be cut. In short, imdb is not a reliable source (project wide consensus) and they may, and should, be removed from use as refs on sight by any editor. Jack Merridew 04:12, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
- Disagree with another blanket change taken, particularly when prior consensus here was to keep these links. WP:RSN shows a general consensus that it is acceptable to include IMDB links for some basic facts. In this case IMDB is being used for nothing more than to show that credits for films exist, there is no particular reason to think that IMDB gets this wrong. Provide one example otherwise. As this does not seem particularly urgent, why not wait until the RfC on red-links completes before winding everyone up with another blanket-change discussion? Ash (talk) 05:32, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
- I've removed them, again; no local consensus is required in the face of the BLP concerns when a source long established as unreliable is involved. I did not remove any entries, yet, but agree with Lar that any now unsourced should go. Jack Merridew 06:00, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
- What concerns? Please point out the cases where a specific BLP concern exists. At the moment you appear to be making blanket non-consensus changes for the sake of it rather than following BRD. Your rationale sounds like a default stance to delete absolutely any sexual or gay related biography on Wikipedia as I can imagine any possible source could be considered suspect by someone, particularly if they do not have to be specific about the issue and they use it as an excuse to ignore BRD. Ash (talk) 06:14, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
- Anyone can write any damn thing they want on imdb. We've no business using them as a source for boo. There's a new pot of coffee brewing on this project; inhale deeply. BLPs, and this covers lists of living people, must be reliably sourced and unreliable sources are for the highway.
- I am certainly not anti-gay. I have lived with, worked with, and count many gay people as friends. I am not particularly anti-porn, either; the Hispanic list was enjoyable to tidy-up. So, I've no issue with genuinely notable and reliably sourced content from these domains being present on this project and I've cleaned up and clarified the referencing on a bunch of these lists and articles.
- The afdb links are problematic, too; I just cleaned-up Billy Brandt and am looking at this source and note that it says that if I log in, I can write a review. Another unreliable source. Our new brew is centered around the ideal of a higher standard of sourcing for content. These days, you can dredge up ghits on absolutely anything; most are worthless and many poor sources will be cut. Any articles that have nothing but junk sources (or none;) will be easy picking. Content must be "this tall" to be included on this site.
- Jack Merridew 06:43, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
- I have no intention of implying that any editor here was anti-gay (or anti-sex). I referred to sexual and gay classifications as statements of this nature are most frequently challenged as possible BLP violations.
- For the most part IMDB is being used for the sort of information that can be seen in film credits (such as names of the cast) or read on the back of a DVD cover or found on a publisher's website. This information is not contentious and there seems little reason to reject IMDB as a convenient consistent source of this information. In this scenario IMDB seems sufficient as it is not being used for any potentially contentious biographical data such as sexual orientation, names of children etc. Ash (talk) 06:57, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
- An unreliable source is equivalent to no source. In the big picture, it's actually worse than no source, as it presents a false façade; the appearance of being sourced, but not the reality of being sourced. If anything is to be include on this site, especially content concerning living people, it must be properly sourced. If something/someone is genuinely notable there will be good, solid, and reliable sources other than junk like imdb.
- I see you're edit waring with me. I'm not going to revert you but do hope someone will chip-in here, and restore my improvement to this list. You would be well served by reverting it yourself. Your appeal to BRD and a need for consensus on this talk page holds no water. In such cases as this, the onus is on those who seek to include, not on those critical of the use of a source long established as unreliable. Please note that on Billy Brandt, that while I cut the use of imdb as a ref, I moved it to the extern section and left it in the infobox. imdb in ref-tags will not fly. Enjoy your coffee. Jack Merridew 07:17, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
- Edit warring accusation Please raise the matter at WP:ANI. You have made blanket deletions twice and I have reverted you twice, attempted to discuss these non-consensus changes in-between and encouraged you to follow BRD. As you have resorted to making serious allegations against me, there seems little point in discussing further here until you have raised the matter at a proper dispute resolution forum. Ash (talk) 07:45, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
- ANI is not the first step in dispute resolution; talk is, which I'm doing with you in spite of your being totally off base here. Note also that I let your inappropriate version stand, for the moment. Isn't there a link to The Wrong Version on this pages, already? BRD, is an essay; BLP is a policy with consensus. Coffee's ready. Jack Merridew 08:04, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
- I would suggest Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard as a good venue to debate this, but IMDb has pretty much been rejected as a reliable source. AniMate 19:28, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
- ANI is not the first step in dispute resolution; talk is, which I'm doing with you in spite of your being totally off base here. Note also that I let your inappropriate version stand, for the moment. Isn't there a link to The Wrong Version on this pages, already? BRD, is an essay; BLP is a policy with consensus. Coffee's ready. Jack Merridew 08:04, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
RFC Proposal to drop footnotes for unambiguous articles
For this list, do you agree that where an article exists for actors with the title suffixed by "(pornographic actor)" or "(porn star)" such as Aaron James (pornographic actor), a link to the complete article name is included but the convention for in-line citations be dropped as there are no tangible BLP concerns? The fact that the person is a pornographic actor is already as explicit and unambiguous as possible if suffixed in this way and the fact that the article exists is sufficient demonstration of notability. The only risk is for an error where a notable actor in pornography is temporarily listed on a list of notable actors in gay pornography, in such a case visiting the article should make the distinction obvious and there is no real risk of a claim of defamation, in particular inclusion on this list does not imply that any actor is gay, only credited with acting in gay pornography (for which they may not have even taken part in homosexual scenes). Ash (talk) 17:01, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
- Yes - Such a change meets the requirements of SAL with no risk of identifying someone not notable for acting in pornography on the list of actors with credits in gay pornography. Ash (talk) 17:01, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
- Support - Footnotes should not be necessary for any entries in this list anymore than they are in the analogous list List of female porn stars by decade. If the list is properly maintained (i.e. editors being careful when adding links and admins removing backlinks to articles if they are deleted) there should be almost no chance that entries will point to the wrong article. I note that despite a months-long "clean-up" of this list, there were many links that pointed to the wrong articles, but I am hopeful that the situation is now better understood and will not recur. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 18:09, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
Weak Support I don't think there's any harm in dropping the special suffix, although I also note that the list includes other suffixes as well, such as with Jan_Novak_(director), Jan_Fischer_(entertainer), or Jonathan Morgan (director), or Aaron_Lawrence_(entrepreneur). These "directors", "entertainers', and "entrepreneurs" might be (appropriately) included in the List of male performers in gay porn films but might not actually perform in gay porn films. Please also note my comment here. Either way, I hope the decision reached here also extends to the Category:People_appearing_in_gay_porn. 38.109.88.196 (talk) 19:31, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
- You appear to have misunderstood the proposal. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 20:52, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
*** How so, Delicious? (You've voted to Support and so have I, but thanks for "keeping an eye" on my edits.) 38.109.88.196 (talk) 21:36, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
- This is the second time you've used that phrase "keeping an eye" with scare quotes - what are you trying to imply with it? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 19:03, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
- You have accused 38.109.88.196 at least three times of being a Troll, on this occasion by misuse of the edit comment. Please use a recommended dispute resolution process to pursue a claim of attack by this user or desist with the passive aggressive accusations. Ash (talk) 19:31, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
- Ash, please don't involve yourself in this, it has nothing to do with you and you are well advised to avoid finding reasons to attack me. I'm not interested in participating in yet another drawn out discussion here, so please don't respond to this comment unless there is something constructive that you personally need to add. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 20:48, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
- You repeatedly called an IP contributor a troll and now you claim I am attacking you for pointing this fact out. Please read the guidance of personal attacks before making serious accusations. Defaming other editors and then claiming to be a victim when this is pointed out is not appropriate behaviour. If you have a problem with another editor use a dispute resolution process. Ash (talk) 21:16, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
- Ash, please don't involve yourself in this, it has nothing to do with you and you are well advised to avoid finding reasons to attack me. I'm not interested in participating in yet another drawn out discussion here, so please don't respond to this comment unless there is something constructive that you personally need to add. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 21:22, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
- You repeated your accusation against me of making personal attacks. The fact that you copied your reply does not stop this being a second serious accusation against me. Please take time to consider the nature and impact of these unsubstantiated accusations before making any further comments. Ash (talk) 21:40, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
- Ash, please don't involve yourself in this, it has nothing to do with you and you are well advised to avoid finding reasons to attack me. I'm not interested in participating in yet another drawn out discussion here, so please don't respond to this comment unless there is something constructive that you personally need to add. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 21:47, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
- Three accusations of personal attack against me. Serious accusations should not be left unchallenged. You are deliberately baiting and abusively disrupting the RFC consensus process. Thank you for making it abundantly clear to everyone that your intention is to disrupt and create drama rather than collaborate. Ash (talk) 22:08, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
- Ash, please don't involve yourself in this, it has nothing to do with you and you are well advised to avoid finding reasons to attack me. I'm not interested in participating in yet another drawn out discussion here, so please don't respond to this comment unless there is something constructive that you personally need to add. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 22:12, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
- Actually you are again publicly making comments that others find objectionable revealing a pattern of problems. That you choose to ignore constructive criticism is your right but when you are tenditiously editing against consensus and in a subject area you seem to have a strong emotional bias against, it's not uncommon for these issues to arise. Perhaps you could spell out clearly what exactly your interest in this topic area is? You have insinuated and accused others of being involved in the gay porn industry, could you enlighten all concerned why you are so passionately targeting this content area and the editors who have worked to to treat it encyclopedically? -- Banjeboi 13:41, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
- Ash, please don't involve yourself in this, it has nothing to do with you and you are well advised to avoid finding reasons to attack me. I'm not interested in participating in yet another drawn out discussion here, so please don't respond to this comment unless there is something constructive that you personally need to add. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 22:12, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
- Three accusations of personal attack against me. Serious accusations should not be left unchallenged. You are deliberately baiting and abusively disrupting the RFC consensus process. Thank you for making it abundantly clear to everyone that your intention is to disrupt and create drama rather than collaborate. Ash (talk) 22:08, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
- Ash, please don't involve yourself in this, it has nothing to do with you and you are well advised to avoid finding reasons to attack me. I'm not interested in participating in yet another drawn out discussion here, so please don't respond to this comment unless there is something constructive that you personally need to add. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 21:47, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
- You repeated your accusation against me of making personal attacks. The fact that you copied your reply does not stop this being a second serious accusation against me. Please take time to consider the nature and impact of these unsubstantiated accusations before making any further comments. Ash (talk) 21:40, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
- Ash, please don't involve yourself in this, it has nothing to do with you and you are well advised to avoid finding reasons to attack me. I'm not interested in participating in yet another drawn out discussion here, so please don't respond to this comment unless there is something constructive that you personally need to add. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 21:22, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
- You repeatedly called an IP contributor a troll and now you claim I am attacking you for pointing this fact out. Please read the guidance of personal attacks before making serious accusations. Defaming other editors and then claiming to be a victim when this is pointed out is not appropriate behaviour. If you have a problem with another editor use a dispute resolution process. Ash (talk) 21:16, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
- Ash, please don't involve yourself in this, it has nothing to do with you and you are well advised to avoid finding reasons to attack me. I'm not interested in participating in yet another drawn out discussion here, so please don't respond to this comment unless there is something constructive that you personally need to add. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 20:48, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
- I used the quotes appropriately. Perhaps read the lede of scare quotes. But since their usage bothers you, and since there was nothing clandestinely implied with my use of them (as you should know from your WP:AGF of my edits, correct?), I will say without the quotes to make you less uncomfortable: thank you for keeping an eye on my edits. And thank you to Ash for doing the same. 38.109.88.196 (talk) 19:44, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
- There was no need for quotes of any kind and no need to repeat the comment (and quotes) in two places. I think it is obvious that you were attempting to insinuate that I am wikistalking you. I am not. "As you should know from your WP:AGF of my edits, correct?" is nothing more or less than the same type of trolling you've been demonstrating since you became involved in with my edits. No doubt your intention is to point to a recent discussion on my talk page and distort it to mean something of your own definition, right? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 20:48, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
- You are in no way WP:AGF here, and your insistence in referring to me as a "troll" over and over from our very first interaction is only evidence of that. I'm not accusing you of wikistalking, and I'm not even insinuating that. I think you're reading more into what is written. If you'd like to MEDCAB, we can go that route, but I'd much prefer our interactions to remain civil and avoid pulling our focus from the articles themselves. Please advice.38.109.88.196 (talk) 21:30, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
- I've already given you my advice - stop trying to troll me. It won't work. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 21:45, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
- You said: "I'll keep looking" at my edits. Should I get upset at that, or be gracious? I'm being gracious and thanking you, even after you've referred to me as a "troll" for the 5th time since our first interaction. That's called WP:AGF. (And now I'm going to WP:COOL myself to get some perspective. Keep looking, though. 38.109.88.196 (talk) 21:55, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
- Again, you're twisting my words to make it seem like I've said something I haven't. The quoted portion does not refer to your edits, but why would you get upset if it did? I think you're a troll. I think your actions here only serve to reinforce that impression. If you don't like being called a troll, you're free to pursue any remedy you think is appropriate, but it won't change my opinion. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 13:53, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
- You said: "I'll keep looking" at my edits. Should I get upset at that, or be gracious? I'm being gracious and thanking you, even after you've referred to me as a "troll" for the 5th time since our first interaction. That's called WP:AGF. (And now I'm going to WP:COOL myself to get some perspective. Keep looking, though. 38.109.88.196 (talk) 21:55, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
- I've already given you my advice - stop trying to troll me. It won't work. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 21:45, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
- You are in no way WP:AGF here, and your insistence in referring to me as a "troll" over and over from our very first interaction is only evidence of that. I'm not accusing you of wikistalking, and I'm not even insinuating that. I think you're reading more into what is written. If you'd like to MEDCAB, we can go that route, but I'd much prefer our interactions to remain civil and avoid pulling our focus from the articles themselves. Please advice.38.109.88.196 (talk) 21:30, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
- There was no need for quotes of any kind and no need to repeat the comment (and quotes) in two places. I think it is obvious that you were attempting to insinuate that I am wikistalking you. I am not. "As you should know from your WP:AGF of my edits, correct?" is nothing more or less than the same type of trolling you've been demonstrating since you became involved in with my edits. No doubt your intention is to point to a recent discussion on my talk page and distort it to mean something of your own definition, right? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 20:48, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
- You have accused 38.109.88.196 at least three times of being a Troll, on this occasion by misuse of the edit comment. Please use a recommended dispute resolution process to pursue a claim of attack by this user or desist with the passive aggressive accusations. Ash (talk) 19:31, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
- This is the second time you've used that phrase "keeping an eye" with scare quotes - what are you trying to imply with it? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 19:03, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
- Oppose Sorry to change my vote, but since it was clarified how I misunderstood the proposal, I have to disagree. The list includes notables (one example being) Lady Bunny, who might be a "male performer in gay porn film" but IS NOT "a pornographic actor" in the conventional sense...which leads me to Comment that I think the naming of this list is somewhat broad...perhaps separate lists of "male performers in gay porn films (sexual roles)" and " "male performers in gay porn films (non-sexual roles)" would help to assist in resolving three of the outstanding items on this discussion page. 38.109.88.196 (talk) 20:33, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
- Opposed. Well-intended but unneeded. References and footnotes aren't here to serve our needs for ease of editing or conform to stylistic concerns or size issues. They serve our readers who want to see for themselves what sourcing supports any given statement. Before this list found other unneeded "help" from Delicious carbuncle it was in the midst of a massive and lengthy overhaul/clean-up. They have derailed much of that process descending this talkpage into one needless squabble after the next. Once this ongoing disruption has been eliminated i have little doubt all regular editing concerns can be thoroughly and thoughtfully addressed. As part of this we need to comply with wikilinking which includes presenting wikilinks without the disambiguations visible in the text. It's unneeded and only serving to clutter up the text IMHO. -- Banjeboi 13:41, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
- As far as I can recall, disambiguation tags are hidden in link text as a matter of course, across the project; I'm not sure why this page would be an exception to that practice. – Luna Santin (talk) 15:40, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
- I agree, but I don't think that's part of the proposal, which deals with requiring references to be added to this article for inclusion in the list. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 16:24, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
- Ah, sounds like I misread things. ;) I should think BLP would pretty stringently demand references. – Luna Santin (talk) 01:51, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
- I agree, but I don't think that's part of the proposal, which deals with requiring references to be added to this article for inclusion in the list. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 16:24, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
Edit request
J
124.247.7.249 (talk) 00:00, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
- The second line from your request is already in the article, so I assume you are requesting that we add the picture and the caption. Unfortunately, the source you have stated [1] does not verify the fact that he has signed such a deal, nor that he is the first.
- We need reliable sources to add information - even in a photo caption. Chzz ► 01:03, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
Not done