User talk:Jodyw1/Archive 1

Brent Corrigan

Hey, By any chance are you the jody he mentions on his blog?/The one that has been commenting?

Reedy Boy 16:49, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's the mysteries of Life that make the adventure fun. :-)

--Jodyw1 01:10, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Haha, i think i know what that means... I think he's great, i was in email contact with him near the start of the year, but havent heard anything for the last few months... He must be very busy ;).. Good to see the articles actually going somewhere... Even if it has his real name in it... *sighs*

--Reedy Boy 08:46, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, because of all the crap Brent's been through, with the legal proceedings and stories being written about him, his birth-name is a matter of public record and something that can be put up here. From what I could tell though, the first mention of his name on Wikipedia was done before any of that took place. His name was mentioned out of spite, not for "information."

The best that can be done now is to just make sure that his page is kept as accurate and as impartial as it can be. I've read the change log for his Wiki page. Many folks were using it as a place to vent, condemn and humiliate, which is pretty sad when you think about it.

--Jodyw1 04:09, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, there's been edit wars, full article locking, partial locking, Deletion requests.... God its madness! Reedy Boy 11:10, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And now Mr. Anonymous has returned, though now sporting a name, and continuing to slip his opinions and sexual fascinations into the article...Jodyw1 04:07, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I know most of us would love to 'get' with brent... but no need to go spouting it in the article... Wikipedia's a great place, its just things like that - *sighs* ARRGH! Reedy Boy 19:23, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Aint it fun how the article discussion is now a bitching ground... lol Reedy Boy 08:13, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still waiting for those citations to show up!Jodyw1 10:19, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Brent Corrigan 2

Julien, me and Jody were discussing this, so i hope jody doesn't mind, but im going to move it to its own section Reedy Boy 21:08, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I really hope that you're not thinking I am the "anonymous" person, Jody. I'm not, I'm a person who does website design for many gay porn sites and have worked with Cobra Video extensively in the past. I am aware of many aspects of this drama that I have no real way of citing. So what am I supposed to do? I can certainly start my own website and include ALL the contact I've had with them as well as proof that they are threatening to sue GayTorrents.net And as far as "not needing" to spout things in an article, ReedyBoy, may I suggest that you relax a little bit? In reality the whole reason people were blocking his name was exactly for that reason. The points brought up in the past that people who are newsworthy have no right to filter the content that gets talked about (especially if its the truth) holds true whether you want to sleep with the person or not. Brent is a newsworthy topic, and the topic is controversial.

There are those of us who believe that Brent entrapped Cobra Video into thinking he was not underage--therefore Cobra isn't at fault and that Brent is making a killing off the hard work of another studio. also, there are those of us who believe that child pornography is wrong and that the adult in the situation is still ultimately repsonsible for their own conduct whether they "knew" there was an issue or not. and then There are those who think that since Brent is attractive to us, that anything he says is gospel and that everything should be made to make him as comfortable as possible. (hrm, sound familiar?) So I'm more than happy to have an intellectual conversation with you about this but I would really respect some dialogue rather than an edit-war! ----Julien Deveraux 20:16, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Great, Julien. I've interviewed Corrigan for publication, worked with him on non-porn projects, hung out with him socially, and heard a good deal of stuff about what went on behind the scenes that I also can't site. If we're comparing metaphorical cocks, yours isn't any bigger than mine.

Julien you ask what you can do. Simply put, provide links to your sources as I've done with mine. I've put "citation needed" by most of your information. I too have -heard of- the stuff you are talking about. I don't know if it's first hand information or gossipy chatter from disgruntled fans. You deserve the chance to -link- to your sources. If you can't do than, then your information don't belong in the entry.

You can believe that Brent entrapped Cobra. You can believe that Brent is prospering off the hard work of Cobra. You can believe tea cups orbit Charon. What matters though is what you can _source_. So far, you haven't sourced anything. I've added "citations needed" to your information or have linked it to a known reference (in the case of the XXX) website. Other's have linked your material to the listservs you've said you've seen information on.

I'm a pretty fair person. I've got experience in publishing referenced reports. Add citations like everyone else on Wikipedia has to or quit complaining when you get edited. Jodyw1 23:17, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Give me a god damned break Jody, you've hung out with him socially? Hrm that sounds like you're a little too close to the story to be able to comment or simply too delusional. Gaywebmonkey is not a valid source, whether you cite it or not. I have a blog in which I've published this stuff in the past, should i cite that too? think long and hard about it before you respond. This isn't a cock contest, but I appreciate that as another homo, that is the first thing that comes to your mind when having an intellectual dispute with someone about the facts.

how about this, the Brent Corrigan article is crap because all the information is coming from him and no one else and anyone with an anti-Brent or pro-neutrality point of view is reverted? again, i invite you to think. --Julien Deveraux 23:27, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Julien, I wasn't aware we were having an intellectual dispute, especially if you are claiming my social interaction with Corrigan compromises my objectivity. Intellectually, you'd realize that by those standards, your prior business relationship with Cobra would render you unable to comment. Or delusional. Or jealous. Or (insert whatever erroneous and asinine comment you wish here.)

Regarding GayWebMonkey, you are going to have provide evidence that it isn't a valid source. (Hint: your opinion doesn't count.) They're owned by a large company (here! Network / Regent Entertainment), publish a bi-monthly magazine, solicit work, pay for that work, have advertisers,an editorial staff and make editorial changes to articles. What of that does your personal webpage have? I'll leave it to the Wiki editors to decide if it counts as a legit source.

Again, you haven't provided a citable, contrary point of view. Find one. Cite one. There's then nothing I can do -- honestly -- to change it. You'll find this tough to believe, but I want you to provide the contrary point of view. I want you to provide a *referenced* contrary point of view. That's in the best interest of the article, the public readership, and the reputation of Wikipedia.

In short, reference your damn work or shut-up.

Jodyw1 23:55, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay now i'm really confused--in order for there to even EXIST a contrary point of view, it now has to be citeable? That's a little bit of a stretch don't you think? how about this, Gaywebmonkey should reference their damn work or shut up too. Honestly, they print whatever the damn kid says and its suddenly fact. I actually appreciate your most recent edit of the article and the invitations to cite--the flow is nicer I will admit, however; the article is still too biased. Many different times, when I've correctly stated that "Brent states" or "Corrigan claims' you always seem to erase that. Since he is "stating" and "claiming" these facts and positing them as truth, wouldn't informing others of such be correct in that form?

There are some subjects on which it is impossible to cite and I don't understand why everyone is jumping on this "cite your source" bandwagon when this particular subject is going to have a lot of original research in it. --Julien Deveraux 00:09, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Julien, there always exist contrary points of view. People still take issue with the Earth being round. But while one can have a contrary opinion, that doesn't make said opinion a fact.

Gaywebmonkey has cited its sources -- an interview with Corrigan, published comments by Cobra's attorney's, email correspondence between Corrigan and an unnamed producer, and statements by various anti-child porn groups. The issue isn't those sources. It's the fact that you haven't provided one source for anything you've contributed to the article.

I've changed your "claiming" comments to "stating." "Claiming" is far less neutral than "stating." You are arguing the article was biased. I was rectifying that situation. None of which prohibits another party with knowledge of the issues in question from stating the opposite -- as Cobra's attorneys have done. But just changing "stated" to "claims" doesn't make something "more" neutral.

Lastly, the reason why citation is so important here is to allow anyone else to backtrack and read for themselves about the issues in question. It brings a measure more of impartiality to the proceedings. The rules here are the same for you as they are for me: cite your sources.

Jodyw1 01:12, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Claims" and "states," well, whatever, Frankly, this article isn't worth the time, its just another example of fags trying to be "the one" who explain something --its just a shame that the article clearly only leads in one direction. --Julien Deveraux 06:17, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Julien, still waiting for you to provide links to your sources, babe.

Jodyw1 16:50, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Since the moderator threw out your gaywebmonkey source (and it has since been returned) I will have to assume that neither one of us will be able to cite a "valid" source and that this "contest" (if that is what this is) is a draw with no winners --Julien Deveraux 22:55, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Julien, there was no controversy around the sourced claims, merely the unsourced ones. Since most of the unsourced claims were inserted by you, provide the sources when you put them back in.

Jodyw, the "links" about the legal articles---meaning links to actual filings at state government websites. Where were lawsuits filed? What is the status of lawsuits? Those are public records. Where are they? --Julien Deveraux 08:49, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jodyw1 01:21, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Archiving

Done

Dunno if you were gonna keep a check on my page :D

Reedy Boy 17:27, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV for BC

Agreed!

Reedy Boy 10:03, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Usual Suspects

As per my Talk Page (dunno if your watching it!)

Yeah, but as i've said before im a bit biased... But i suppose im more neutral... Will have a look tonight for you and do some work on it

I think brent owes us ;) Heh

Reedy Boy 09:21, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was just thinkign, im already on his 'special' list wooo xD Reedy Boy 20:52, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Biography Newsletter September 2006

The September 2006 issue of the Biography WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. plange 00:07, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome!

Welcome!

Hi, and welcome to the Biography WikiProject! We're a group of editors working to improve Wikipedia's coverage of biographies.

A few features that you might find helpful:

The project has a monthly newsletter; it will normally be delivered as a link, but several other formats are available.

There are a variety of interesting things to do within the project; you're free to participate however much—or little—you like:

Starting some new articles? Our article structure tips outlines some things to include.
Want to know how good our articles are? The assessment department is working on rating the quality of every biography article in Wikipedia.

If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to ask another fellow member, and we'll be happy to help you. Again, welcome! We look forward to seeing you around! plange 01:35, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Contact Address

Hey Do you use any IM's such as msn?

As it would be good to talk to you about the BC article.

If you do, and want to talk, can you email me your msn addy on

Cheers

Reedy Boy 19:07, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with Image:James-01.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:James-01.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 19:09, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Brent2006.jpg

You have uploaded this image with the claim that the copyright owner, presumably the image subject, has provided permission for use. Wikipedia policy on fair use requires that images used solely to identify an article subject must be free to use; not just by Wikipedia, but by anyone, anywhere, at any time. If the copyright holder does give up all rights (or has already), please send proof to permissions(at)wikimedia(dot)org; otherwise, the image will be deleted as "replaceable fair use". Sorry for any inconvenience. RadioKirk (u|t|c) 21:48, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RK, my understanding is that's already been done. Would you confirm, please? If there's a problem, I'll see what I can do to get it fixed. Jodyw1 05:50, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You'd need to send another e-mail to see why that information has yet to be added to the image page, unless you (or whoever) sent it so recently that it has yet to be processed. You might want to add something like "Proof of permission sent to permissions(at)wikimedia(dot)org" or something similar to the image page. RadioKirk (u|t|c) 13:52, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Let me see what happened from the source's side. I will double check to make sure they sent authorization, and then confirm with Wiki from there. Jodyw1 14:58, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good, thanks. :) RadioKirk (u|t|c) 20:19, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Helping out with the Unassessed Wikipedia Biographies

Seeing that you are an active member of the WikiBiography Project, I was wondering if you would help lend a hand in helping us clear out the amount of unassessed articles tagged with {{WPBiography}}. Many of them are of stub and start class, but a few are of B or A caliber. Getting a simple assessment rating can help us start moving many of these biographies to a higher quality article. Thank you! --Ozgod 20:54, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Conservapedia / Cthulhu

Oh, there's no question in my mind that that piece was almost brilliant and very likely would have stayed almost idefinitely if I hadn't done something about it. However, a number of Christian groups are actually worried about Cthulhu. This seems to be fueled by people who were gullible satanists or gullible demon worshippers and then decided to join equally gullible forms of Christianity. See for example [1]. All of that said, there's no good reason to vandalize someone else's Wiki- Golden Rule and simple pragmatism argue for this pretty strongly. Furthermore, the more succesful the Wiki is, the less POV pushing we will have to deal with here because we will be able to direct people over there. Dkos now has their own Wiki as well where we might be able to send POV pushers in the other direction. As of yet the Dkos project looks like it is far more connected to reality and in general less extreme. Indeed, many of their articles on even political topics could plausibly pass for Wikipedia stubs. (I can think of at least 4 possible explanations for that). Finally, if Conservapedia has fewer attempts at satire then one will be able to enjoy far more amusement by a really off-the-wall article (or I don't know, maybe just be scared by it). JoshuaZ 04:48, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

J, I did debate...honestly, it was a brief debate...with myself about "Golden Rule" and all that, before finally deciding to post the Cthulhu entry on their page. I was quite shocked that no one took it down immediately. Even though I went to some lengths to root it in reality... the Witch Hammer stuff and the Islam bits... I was certain that someone would jump in and alter it, at least a bit. I thought I was being ridiculous, that no one would take the entry seriously. And then you go and show me that link to the Anti D&D screed.

I have to disagree with you that it's a good idea to have a "Conservapedia" and a "DKosApedia." I tend to see such things as proofs against reality, rather than mechanisms for understanding it better. True NPOV is a impossible. Walls are solid, water freezes at 32 degrees Centigrade and Evolution is a fact -- no matter what your political philosophy happens to be. For things that are more nebulous than that though, where the information is far more provisional and can be seen different ways depending on your point of view, in my opinion its valuable to have people on the Left, Right and Center arguing and debating, in the same place, at the same time, about the same article, to tease out the firmer facts from the more nebulous ones. If all the Liberals leave and all the Conservatives attempt to create their own definitions, our communal understanding of reality suffers.

It doesn't really matter though. When Cthulhu returns we'll all go mad anyway as reality is torn to shreds... Jodyw1 05:46, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think if someone has strong enough POV outside the mainstream then rational dialogue is more or less impossible. So we don't lose anything by having them pontificate about their version of reality somewhere else. JoshuaZ 05:52, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikiproject Biography March 2007 Newsletter

The March 2007 issue of the Biography WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. Mocko13 22:24, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

James

I was wondering about the spouse bit :P

Wasnt sure if you were still alive!!

How are you??

Reedy Boy 18:10, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Brent2006.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Brent2006.jpg. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:

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

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

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that fair use images which could be replaced by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted 48 hours after this notification, per our Fair Use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. —An gr 14:07, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Angr, please see your talk page. I am referencing several conversations I've had with Wiki over this issue. Appropriate information has been submitted to Wikimedia(dot)org. Jodyw1 04:39, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The WikiProject Biography Newsletter: Issue II - April 2007

The April 2007 issue of the WikiProject Biography newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you BetacommandBot 18:52, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

BC Main Picture

We cant have that as the main picture....

No way

Reedy Boy 10:21, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Corrigan

See Discussion page. Birth year is very much in dispute. Please don't start an edit war. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.192.21.77 (talk) 19:08, 30 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Nice sly editing jody, not even including your reasoning, just still attempting to use hacking sites and blogs to "cite" --67.171.203.224 08:38, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]