User talk:Juniorthegreat

Juniorthegreat: Any revisions to the Flava Works article are certainly welcome, by my impression is that you have replaced a carefully researched and balanced article with a piece that represents that company's own point of view. The Wikipedia is not a place for one-sidedness of this sort. GBataille (talk) 23:07, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. I removed some of the more advertising aspects, but imo the whole article is worse than it was. If reverting to keep the company POV continues, it can be templated and all the non-cited info removed - this would take us back to start class, but would be preferable than using wikipedia as free advertising hosting.Yob Mod 16:09, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree and believe that the article I submitted was clear, concise and provided a positive as well as negitive reflection of FlavaWorks. The article written currently portrays it to be such a foul and nasty company, which in some opinions is not. It does appear that the author has a grudge against them and you can clearly see how they feel about the company. It still contained all sources and references. Just presented the information in a more professional and editorial style and manor. Juniorthegreat (talk) 01:13, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The current "edit war" over the Flava Works article is really not helpful. I am surprised that you regard my edits as biased. I have made a good-faith effort to include positive as well as negative aspects about Flava Works: for example, I have represented different viewpoints on the Chicago controversy. I have also explained in great detail that Flava Works has won its legal battle with the City of Miami. Finally, in my last edits, I included the GAYVN Award nominations. I have absolutely no grudge against Flava Works. What I resist is the attempt to make the article into an advertising piece, with long quotations by CEO Bleicher, etc. As far as the "bareback" issue is concerned, it is true, isn't it, that Flava Works has produced, and continues to produce, no-condom videos—like other gay pornography companies. I don't see why Bleicher feels the need to deny this fact. Finally, I am not happy that the version to which you are reverting contains linguistic mistakes.

Here's a suggestion: tell me in detail where you believe the article is biased. We can then work out more neutral ways of presenting the facts. GBataille (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:30, 10 April 2009 (UTC).[reply]

I only regard your article as biased due to it being so. I applaud you on your efforts to supply the Wikipedia audience with a sound article, but I do think that you have yet to achieve this goal. I believe that it is your style of writing, language and tone that depicts your views regarding the company. As you requested, I will carefully review the article and point out reasons, in my opinions, where I believe bias is present.(Juniorthegreat (talk) 21:13, 27 April 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Thank you for these constructive remarks. They may help us stop the current battle over this article. Please do what you have promised: make a list where you feel the text that I wrote is biased. We can then rewrite the passages in question, perhaps in such a way that the new article will gain everyone's support. Thanks.GBataille (talk) 21:41, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]