Talk:Violet Blue/Archive 1

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://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)

That's not how it works. If Mike wants to discuss the tag he can do it here. I've removed it, again, due to the complete lack of justification by you or Mike. Please don't put it back until you can point to a specific problem that can be fixed. -76.103.104.106 (talk) 07:51, 5 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)

Moore (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 then simply resolves any ambiguity therein. 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. I have no interest in smearing you as you've smeared me- I just want you to please, stop, your COI having been more than clearly established. ninavizz (talk) 16:16, 4 July 2008 (PDT)

ninavizz if you are going to charge we with slander please substantiate your claims. I beleive the only thing I accused you of is editing this article which you admitted to here: http://www.boingboing.net/2008/07/01/that-violet-blue-thi.html#comment-225685 For your and everyone elses' perusal, here are the edits that are clearly attributable to you, and the ones I assume you are admiting to: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?limit=50&title=Special%3AContributions&contribs=user&target=67.188.110.143&namespace=&year=&month=-1 As you can see they are all POV pushing about SRL. Having a COI dose not preclude your or I from editing this article, but it means that we should be careful with our edits.Wikiwikimoore (talk) 03:22, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

I honestly don't see the big deal. Reading through this article, there are no statements being made that leave any room for favoritism. Also, there are plenty of articles on Wikipedia that are regularly edited by the subject or someone related to the subject without a COI. I don't really think it will last long. Waiting to hear back from Mike.Yeago (talk) 02:06, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Moore- SXSW 2008. Slander. I am not a stalker, and my 3 page edits were not trolling, nor stalking; your (inaccurate, I might add) summary of how IP addresses work, followed by a reference to the screenshot slide and forensics pointing to sent emails from me in your InBox: *that* in and of itself, was not slander- however, your support of Violet's claims that the aforementioned slide was proof that I was stalking her, are/were nothing less than slander- and slander, at a professional conference, from a speaker's seat on a panel.

Next subject: my edits were not POV pushing about SRL: they were and continue to be, fact, and a fact that I could at the time (and can still) personally substantiate through my direct involvement with SRL. Your claim is like saying that one person within a company confirming that somebody else is no longer with the company, is POV pushing.

Bottom line with the SRL stuff: she is at present referenced in the wikipedia article about her as an "alumna," which is past-tense; and so your claim that I was POV pushing, versus stating plain fact, I think finds itself invalidated, there. Please just stop contributing to her page edits. ninavizz (talk) 21:43, 4 July 2008 (PDT)

Sorry, but he seems to have a grasp of the greater tenants which lead the community here. Suffice it to say he's open about who he is, I think pushing further is an article of bad faith, especially given that he openly seeks feedback about the direction of the article. I am not sure what other problems you have with this contributer, but honestly it sounds like a personal dispute and not one that relates to either of your activities at Wikipedia. Could you please take it to another channel?Yeago (talk) 06:14, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Violet was informed?

Yeago. If a cite was provided one could assert it is not hearsay that Teresa claimed that Violet was informed when the deletions happened; but that is not what the edit stated. The edit stated that Violet was informed about the deletion at the time of the action, which is hearsay. What if we changed it to read:

Boing Boing's comment editor Teresa commented that the posts were removed over a year prior and claimed that Violet Blue had been informed of the removal at that time.

Even for this we need a cite. Further I removed "The clarification was met with both criticism of Boing Boing's removal and many comments attacking the credibility of Violet Blue." as there is little chance that we can find a cite for the claim and it constitutes unreferenced original research.Wikiwikimoore (talk) 03:48, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

I dig it. I agree with removals. Forgive me I didn't read Theresa's statement long enough to catch she claimed she informed Blue. If you add the above material, also add something to underline its inconsistency with blue's version of events.Yeago (talk) 06:10, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Made the change. --BenBurch (talk) 06:38, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

you left in the "The posting by Nielsen was met with both criticism of Boing Boing's removal and many comments attacking the credibility of Violet Blue." wich seems to me to be orignal research. Lets remove that too unless we can find a cite.Wikiwikimoore (talk) 06:43, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

More than original research, its content boils down to "people had differences of opinion about [Nielson's posting]." Extraneous. Delete.Yeago (talk) 06:45, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Not what is meant by OR; You are absolutely ALLOWED to summarize as this is an encyclopedia, not a primary source. It stays in my opinion. --BenBurch (talk) 06:50, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

If you want it to stay please come up with a cite. You are aloud to summarize a RS but not to do research about how many comments were for or against any one. See WP:OR if you are still unsure.Wikiwikimoore (talk) 06:55, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

No, "many" is not a count. Many means "large but indefinite." However, I will change it to "including" just to make you happy. --BenBurch (talk) 07:30, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

This is WP:OR still. If you are so attached to the section please find a secondary source to site. Trough be told if you look at the way this story has developed in the press the story really has little to do with violet. It more has to do with boingboing and it's readers. Maybe we should just remove it from here entirely and leave it to the boingboing page to cover it.Wikiwikimoore (talk) 09:35, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Nope. I'm gonna dig in my heels on this one because I am right here. You do not WP:OWN this or any other article on Wikipedia. The person who wrote this made a reasonable summary. Now, if you want, we can expand the selection to have a representative comment from both sides of the argument, but really that would get very long as there were so very many sides. I suspect that we will see this covered in AVN or similar quite soon... --BenBurch (talk) 15:53, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

The summery is exactly the kind of "analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative" claims disallowed when using a WP:PSTS. It is not like there is even a cite give for us to look at but I assume you think the is a summery of the comments at: http://boingboing.net/2008/07/01/that-violet-blue-thi.htmlWikiwikimoore (talk) 18:09, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Ben, once again I find your understanding and application of WP tenants flimsy. You nor me nor anyone else is able to give any summary of those comments.Yeago (talk) 23:49, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

SRL question

It might be good if we could document the reason for separation from SRL. --BenBurch (talk) 06:38, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't think there is any. Also can we please reverse that last edit on the section? It seems to serve no purpose other then to remove good content and was preformed by a brand new account with that single edit. I would say it looks like POV pushing.Wikiwikimoore (talk) 06:47, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Organizations don't typically issue statements listing people they've fired. Crew documentation on the SRL site and personal testimony such as from Violet herself are good sources. See [4]. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brazensunseeker (talk • contribs) 15:55, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

I think that edit was an appropriate level of simplicity for the actual importance of her contributions. Loadout and fabrication crew just isn't a stellar level of involvement in a theater company. If it were, heck, I'd have my own entry just for that! --BenBurch (talk) 16:03, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

benburch not sure where you get that she was just did fabrication and load. The edit mostly servers to remove a referance to a RS to support the statement. As for the end date I don't know where the may 2007 comes from.Wikiwikimoore (talk) 18:47, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

May 2007 is based on crew documentation on the SRL site. She is not mentioned in other performances since then. Those, and in light of quotes from Violet's blog (see link above) she wrote herself indicate that for whatever reason she is no longer a member of SRL: "Last year, my hero and mentor Mark Pauline abandoned me" and "... many conversations about my ostracizing from SRL ...". She writes that she was excluded after an event that occured in May 2007. Other neutral editors and admins can decide. The start of 1996 actually come from your link spam on this page even though all links dated 1996 you provided make no mention of her at all. 1997 seems to be the earliest instance that mentions Violet. I thought you should be given the benefit of the doubt but there's a lot of evidence regarding her last involvement which was in May 2007 whether she resigned, was 'ostracized', or whatnot. Brazensunseeker (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 19:29, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

May 2007 sounds like a great date if you can provide the site you are referring to. As is obvious the SRL stuff has been quite contentious (for no apparent reason) and I think we need to cite every fact about it.Wikiwikimoore (talk) 21:26, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

tinynibbles.com is the site that Brazensunseeker is referencing; which is Violet's own blog. My sense is that Brazensunseeker is a regular reader of Vilolet's blog, and I do recall Violet mentioning this stuff in her blog, as well. Many are just as ehtnusiastic as are you, wikiwikimoore, to see this article edited as accurately as possible- but few have the time to vest in the "zealous" editing and sourcing, that you seem capable of. As an aside- SRL is incredibly minor and perripheral, to her writing career and her activism in the sex-positive community, both of which are what made her "notable" enough to have an article in wikipedia about her, in the first place. So why vest so much energy in non-notable activities for a person who is deemed "notewrothy" for other things? While I don't have the hours to scour tinynibbles.com for the exact links, how about you provide links confirming SRL contributions after and before the dates you contest? Otherwise, we leave as-is, and move on to vest energies into more noteworthy work of Violet Blue's? Too much time seems to have been wasted on this one subject, as it is. kombatstilettos (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 22:53, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Hay wow look it is another account, kombatstilettos, created just to push the SRL is irreverent POV on this page. Feels like August 07 all over agin.Wikiwikimoore (talk) 23:59, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Hay (sic) wow look it is Jonathan Moore, aka Wikiwikimoore, aka Violet Blue's boyfriend of more than a year, whose sole purpose here is to push edits Violet Blue wants on "her" Wikipedia page. Only, Wikipedia isn't her vanity project, it's an online encyclopedia that is not supposed to be a promotional device for people who use boyfriends, fake accounts, or sock puppets to push an agenda. Jonathan, you really should abstain from editing this entry and pushing your and Violet's agenda on this. Norquist9 (talk) 00:05, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Quoting wikiwikimoore, here, from an un-related entry of his on this page: "Over all I don't really see how this hole section is relevant to the article. It dose not seem like it has that much to do with violets work and is of only passing interest." Violet Blue is notable per. WikiPedia's notability reqs, not because she is one of many in a collective art organization, but because of her activism, her blogging, and her writing. Wikiwikimoore's sarcasm in his above comment also has less of a place here, than SRL content does. If you're a contributor with a sincere interest, please act like one. kombatstilettos(talk) 10:50, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

The real test I suppose would be whether this reference to VB would stand at the SRL page?Yeago (talk) 23:51, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Books

I assume no one will complain if I update the list of publications to be more current. Here is what I suggest we update it to this list ( I still need to find cites or the IPPY stuff):

Books (Author)

• The Adventurous Couple's Guide to Strap-On Sex, Cleis Press, 2007, ISBN 157344278X
• The Smart Girl's Guide to the G-Spot, Cleis Press, 2007, ISBN 1573442739
• Fetish Sex: An Erotic Guide for Couples, Daedalus Publishing Company, 2006, ISBN 1881943232 - with Thomas Roche
• The Adventurous Couple's Guide to Sex Toys, Cleis Press, 2006, ISBN 1573442542
• The Smart Girl's Guide to Porn, Cleis Press, 2006, ISBN 157344247X (IPPY Bronze award winner for erotica)
• The Ultimate Guide to Sexual Fantasy: How to Turn Your Fantasies into Reality, Cleis Press, 2004, ISBN 1573441902
• The Ultimate Guide to Adult Videos: How to Watch Adult Videos and Make Your Sex Life Sizzle, Cleis Press, 2003, ISBN 1573441724
• The Ultimate Guide to Cunnilingus: How to Go Down on a Woman and Give Her Exquisite Pleasure, Cleis Press, 2002 ISBN 1573441449
• The Ultimate Guide to Fellatio: How to Go Down on a Man and Give Him Mind-Blowing Pleasure, Cleis Press, 2002, ISBN 1573441511

Books (Editor)

• Best Women's Erotica 2008, Cleis Press, 2007, ISBN 1573442992
• Best Women's Erotica 2007, Cleis Press, 2006, ISBN 1573442585 (IPPY winner for Erotica)
• Best Women's Erotica 2006 , Cleis Press, 2005, ISBN 1573442232 (IPPY winner for Erotica)
• Lust: Erotic Fantasies for Women, Cleis Press, 2007, ISBN 1573442801
• Lips Like Sugar: Women's Erotic Fantasies, Cleis Press, 2007, ISBN 1573442321
• Best Sex Writing 2005, Cleis Press, 2005, ISBN 1573442178
• Taboo: Forbidden Fantasies for Couples, Cleis Press, 2004, ISBN 1573441864
• Sweet Life: Erotic Fantasies for Couples, Cleis Press, 2001, ISBN 1573441333
• Sweet Life 2: Erotic Fantasies for Couples, Cleis Press, 2003, ISBN 1573441678

Books (Contributor)

• Naughty Spanking Stories from A to Z edited by Rachel Kramer Bussel, Pretty Things Press, 2004, ISBN 1576122190 (introduction)
• Naked Ambition edited by Carly Milne, Seal Press, 2005, ISBN 0786715901 (essay)
• Everything You Know About Sex is Wrong edited by Russ Kick, The Disinformation Company, 2005, ISBN 1932857176 (essay)
• Whipped: 20 Erotic Stories of Female Dominance edited by Carol Queen, Chamberlain Bros., 2005, ISBN 1596090464 (essay)
• She's Such A Geek: Women Write About Science, Technology, and Other Nerdy Stuff edited by Annalee Newitz and Charlie Anders, Seal Press, 2006, ISBN 1580051901 (essay)

Film and Video Work

• SRL Contemplates: A Million Inconsiderate Experiments in Phoenix Arizona, 27 January, 1996, VHS (crew)
• SRL: Crimewave, 30 October 1996, VHS (crew, machine operator)
• SRL: The Unexpected Destruction of Elaborately Engineered Artifacts, 27 March, 1997, VHS (crew, machine operator)
• SRL: The Arbitrary Calculation of Pathological Amusements, 23 December 1999, VHS and DVD (crew, machine operator)
• SRL Berkeley Show At The Shipyard, 15 December 2001, DVD (crew, machine operator)
• SRL In Downtown LA, 5 July 2002, DVD (crew, machine operator)
• Geek Entertainment TV (GETV), December 2005-present, show host

I don't think it's appropriate to list SRL films here. According to SRL tenet on their website "Humans are present only as audience or operators". Since the artist's aesthetic is to minimize humans and the videos are not 'the making off' documentaries, it would be inappropriate to highlight individuals except for Mark Pauline. Also, it's not common practice to enumerate stage crew. Only the machines themselves should be listed as Cast. Brazensunseeker (talk)

There is no rational in your logic here. Violet is listed in the credits for every one of these films. Where do you get this deep incite it to what should or should not be done with respect to SRL? These films should be included as part of her body of work.Wikiwikimoore (talk) 17:25, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

One would think the rational is obvious. I'm not sure how much clearer the explanation above could get. SRL videos document machine performances with humans only present as audience or operators. Including the videos because she was listed in the credits is a stretch unless she is building a career around being stage crew or audience. She likely doesn't appear on even 1% of total footage.Brazensunseeker (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 18:37, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

By that logic should we remove all references to films where people merely worked on the film and did not appear in them? Is is wrong to list directors, editors, costumers, writers? You seem to think Mark Pauline should be referenced but how often dose he appear in these films? These films include the creative work of Violet and are part of the documentation of the work she has done in the machine arts world.Wikiwikimoore (talk) 18:57, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

I think your arguments are increasingly pedantic. Directors, costumers, writers would include them as it is pertinent to their career. As a viewer of numerous SRL videos over the years, I can assure you there is no creative work that can be attributed to stage hands and machine operators as this can only be attributed to Mark Pauline. In any case, I leave it to the other editors here to decide. I'm not overly vested in this. I think enumerating such minutae just makes the article seem desperate and flags the NPOV and COI issues others have already mentioned regarding you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brazensunseeker (talk • contribs) 19:11, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Somewhat agree, but I'm a bit ignorant about what all this is about. I must say I think introducing new content at this time, before this whole COI dispute is out there, is rather compounding the complications of anything. Why now?Yeago (talk) 23:46, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

I saw no harm in discussing the issue here on the talk page. Honestly I just wanted to try and improve the article a bit instead of just fighting off POV pushing. As for the relevance I am not convinced that it needs to be here I just have not bought the arguments so far. I am trying to do research to document Violets other robotics/machine art work so that we can expand the SRL section to a more general section.Wikiwikimoore (talk) 00:31, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I think spending over 11 years working in a field constitute significant work even if she is also known for other things. I wonder how you know that all the creativity in the videos you saw was solely the work of Mark Pauline. Given that your account, as of this time, has only made SRL edits ( all but one about violet ) I find it hard to believe that you are not invested in this issue.Wikiwikimoore (talk) 21:34, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

No. Sorry, being a costumer only rises to includable when you have won a major theater or film award for that costuming. Merely doing a job day-to-day is not enough. Now, if you ask your friends at SRL to put on their web site a thank you essay saying how very significant to the whole project she was, then I think we can do something here, but as it is she was just one of a mass working on a large project no matter how justifiably proud she is of her work. Do you understand now? This is not to be spiteful, this is because this is an encyclopedia. You have your own outlet for saying those things and that that outlet is even linked in to this article. --BenBurch (talk) 03:57, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Digital Releases

• Sweet Heat (erotica), Digita Publications, 2008, (audiobook), ISBN: 978-0-9799019-6-6
• Erotic Role Play: A Guide For Couples, Digita Publications, 2007, (audiobook, ebook), ISBN: 978-0-9799019-5-9
• How To Kiss, Digita Publications, 2007, (audiobook, ebook, and Amazon Kindle versions), ISBN: 978-0-9799019-2-8
• The Modern Safer Sex Guide, Digita Publications, 2007, (ebook and Amazon Kindle versions), ISBN: 978-0-9799019-4-2
• Creatures of the Night (erotica), Digita Publications, 2007, (audiobook and ebook and Amazon Kindle versions), ISBN: 978-0-9799019-3-5
• Pleasure Zone Basics, Digita Publications, 2007, (audiobook), ISBN: 978-0-9799019-1-1

Wikiwikimoore (talk) 07:12, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes I object. DO NOT EDIT THIS ARTICLE. Let somebody else do it. --BenBurch (talk) 16:22, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

You are being unreasonable. I don't see how there can be any POV issue with the suggested change. WP:COI dose not restrict either of us from editing, but you too should be careful about your edits given that you first change was in support of Ada Jonson:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Violet_Blue_(author)&diff=215734701&oldid=215094651

and that you have publicly stated that you are a friend of hers more then once:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=105&topic_id=4566955&mesg_id=4566965

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=1830639&mesg_id=1830672

I think you too might have a WP:COI given the you friend is in a law suit with the subject of this article. That said we can still both edit; but we need to be careful about what we add and use the talk page before adding new content.Wikiwikimoore (talk) 17:07, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

benburch I see that you have added most of the content but why not the books she contributed to? They are also her writing. Also why not add the SRL work. I think you really need to spend more time on the talk page about edits instead of just making them.Wikiwikimoore (talk) 17:30, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

I need to see if there is any precedent with other authors having single essays in an anthology first. Second, its embarrassing to admit, but I call everybody I have ever met and who hasn't done me wrong a "friend" when acquaintance would be far more honest. I know a LOT of people in and around the adult video industry and the sex radical community, and I can't think of one I would not refer to that way. --BenBurch (talk) 17:40, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't think that you can explain away your WP:COI by saying you call every one a friend. How about we both just make judicious use of the talk page. We are both making good edits I see no reason to push this COI issue any further. Wikiwikimoore (talk) 18:01, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

I have no COI here. I am not in contact with the other Violet Blue nor have I been in MANY years. So you can just drop that idea right now! I am not the one who is fucking the subject of this article on a daily basis, YOU are. My whole contact with the other Violet Blue was on a mailing list we were both briefly on, so you just don't have a leg to stand on here, Jonathan. I'm here on this article to stay at LEAST as long as you and your IP sockpuppets are. YOUR COI is obvious and unseemly and I object strongly to it. --BenBurch (talk) 03:47, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

There is evidence that you have a COI. Even if you have not talked to Ada recently that dose not free you from your COI issues. Please don't accuse me of sock puppetry with out evidence. I can tell you that I have not engaged in such actions. I have at no point denied having a COI. You seem to miss the bit where edits by people with a WP:COI are allowed. It is right on the page. The "avoiding COI edits" section starts with "Wikipedia is "the encyclopedia that anyone can edit," but if you have a conflict of interest avoid, or exercise great caution when...". I would say I exercise quite a bit of caution. ( Thou I am sure you disagree. ) You can object to my edits all you want but they are not disallowed and your objection to me dose not erase your COI. Wikiwikimoore (talk) 06:37, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Wikiwikimoore aka Jonathan Moore aka "hacker boy" (Violet Blue's term for you on her blog), your COI is well documented on your girlfriend Ms. Blue's blog and Flickr stream, and correlating this with your statements here on Wikipedia is a trivial task. Even your constant spelling errors betray you; your girlfriend has revealed the fact that you have dyslexia in previous public statements. You are obviously her current sexual partner, have been for about a year, and you had no business creating, editing, or pushing so aggressively now on the talk page for favorable or flattering edits. You and your sock puppets have no business here, or in the Boing Boing entry where you're also editing and commenting on Ms. Blue's behalf, and violating the rules of Wikipedia about NPOV and conflicted parties. Norquist9 (talk) 07:29, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

This list of works is there to let the reader know where Violet has published. I don't see how it could be a bad thing to list the works she has contributed to. It would not degrade the article in any way as far as I can tell. I think we should just add the section.Wikiwikimoore (talk) 18:26, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

No the bibliographies of other authors seem to list only the most significant works of those authors. I looked at several SciFi authors I know of who were in major anthologies, and I do not see the anthologies listed in their bibliography. NOR do I see each and every publication that they ever had under their own names. Generally, and there was one exception, what was there was a selected bibliography. Now, I am being charitable here and assuming all of VBs works are significant, but I just can't justify that for an anthology in which she has only one essay. I am willing to let another editor (not you) tell me I am wrong here, but I just don't think its appropriate. However, I absolutely will put in any book or collection which she has a cover byline in now and in the future. Just let me know what it is and I will put it in here. --BenBurch (talk) 03:52, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

wikiwikimoore, why do you wish to remove or diminish a controversial lawsuit that the subject was in, but do want to add/edit as much career-boosting and "flattering" content, as possible?! The lawsuit is significant; most noteworthy individuals also have such controversies detailed in articles about them. This to me is clear POV pushing, which is why COI's are undesirable. --kombatstilettos (talk) 06:28, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

No amount of praise and ego-boo will ever be enough here. --BenBurch (talk) 20:53, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Place of residence

I just noticed that the place of residence has been set back to Berkley? Why she clearly lives in SF. Here is a cite that refers her as a SF podcaster.

http://www.sfbg.com/40/08/art_music_pod.html

Not the best cite but I think we can use it. There is also no RS that puts her in Berkly.Wikiwikimoore (talk) 17:52, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Done. I thought it had been changed long ago. --BenBurch (talk) 04:00, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Lawsuit

This section needs a lot of work. First is seems to be full of hearsay and conjecture. For instance what dose the text "but had neglected to trademark it while it was available" even mean? The application was granted, how could it not be available? The actual trademark can be found here (the "Registration Certificate" link):

http://tmportal.uspto.gov/external/portal/tow?SRCH=Y&isSubmitted=true&details=&SELECT=US+Serial+No&TEXT=77121570#

If it needs to be included on this article the notable dates form that document are, first use 5-1-1999, first commercial use 5-1-1999, date of filing 3-2-2007, date granted 3-4-2008.

Over all I don't really see how this hole section is relevant to the article. It dose not seem like it has that much to do with violets work and is of only passing interest.Wikiwikimoore (talk) 07:18, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, you are the only one who does not see it. COI again. --BenBurch (talk) 14:36, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

The dates of the PTO registration are immaterial. Registering something with the USPTO is not neccessary in the event of a trademark, it simply affords you protections in the event of a dispute. All one needs to do is prove a 'prior art'. Please keep in mind I am not a lawyer, but I did find it odd that this was in the article. If this information isn't sourced, it is indeed hearsay and original research, seemingly done by someone ignorant to the trademark process, and needs to be removed pronto.Yeago (talk) 23:38, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Is there any reason that this section should not just read: "In 2007 Violet Blue filed a trademark suit against Ada Mae Johnson over Johnson's use of the name Viole Blue in the adult entrainment industry." We can cite the wired article which I think it the best RS available to us.Wikiwikimoore (talk) 23:57, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

I think it might be a good idea to just create a section about controversies. At this point one could consider them to be part of her notoriety. There has been, arguably, controversy over the law suit (Thou, other then AVN, only wired thought it worth mention.), her post about Steve Jobs being rude to her[5], the current BoingBoing thing[6], and potentially her post about Tomo Foote-Lennox, Secure Computing's, producers of "net nanny", head censor [7]. Not sure if we really want to add all this stuff or not but having a single page for it all would clean things up a bit.Wikiwikimoore (talk) 00:15, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I find the Steve Jobs tidbit anecdotal. The fetish thing is also somewhat anecdotal and, as long as its attention is restricted to wired, I'm not sure Wikipedia is the place to publish it as it is potentially damaging. I thought the article already had a section 'controversies' per BenBurch?Yeago (talk) 00:27, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

So you are right, I forgot that the section had been renamed 'controversies', The Steve Jobs thing did cause a bit of a stir at the time, there are more references, but I am not lobbying for it's inclusion. There was also more writing on "cyber nanny" thing but I am not sure how much was from a RS. Like I said not sure what if any of this we should add. I was just trying to add to the discussion. Do you think that the law suit should be part of the 'controversies'? I don't think it needs it's own section; but I will not push that if you think it dose.Wikiwikimoore (talk) 00:41, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't think there is anything wrong with the current format, overall. The jobs and cybernanny thing got scant attention, but, we must ask ourselves what ultimately these events mean, what story do they tell? And, of course, is it worth chronicling? Her career is young. =)Yeago (talk) 00:58, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Ok if you are happy with the structure then so be it. The story that these things seem to tell (with the exception of the law suit ) is that Violet seems to not shy away from, calling people out, or controversies I guess. True about here carer. I am sure how this stuff fits in the the story about her will become more clear over time.

I am still looking for a opinion on my suggested changes to the lawsuit section. Right now it seems kinda long and includes hearsay like "Johnson, whose only income was from her web site". Also I wonder if AVN really is a RS.

I guess it would be more convenient if we could have this COI issue resolved before proceeding with this work but I wanted to make some progress on this article as I find my self unusually free this weekend.Wikiwikimoore (talk) 01:19, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

You've done plenty of legwork above which is by no means throw-away. I agreed myself with that line before reading your complaints about it here. I think that perhaps your decision to accuse Norquist of sockpuppetry was ill-timed. I don't really see him/her as being a particular obstruction to your contributions here. More of a dead-horse beater, really.Yeago (talk) 02:22, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Well Norquist9 may have been a bad call by me but what happened is that there haze been lots of sock puppetry on this page over the last year, and when, yesterday, I found two separate admissions by Ninavizz that some of the POV pushing pupets hers, and there were new single issue account attacking me with the same language they have been using for the last year I got fed up. It is always possible that there is more then one editor participating here. The way I decided which users to add to the sock puppet report was by looking which accounts were single issue accounts. Norquist9 fit that pattern so I added it. Again I might have caught up more then one editor in that list but it is not clear what else I could have done. I really just want to make this a great page.Wikiwikimoore (talk) 03:48, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, you called in 'unarguable' at the sock puppet page but, that's certainly arguable. =)Yeago (talk) 04:28, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

What I was trying to say was 'unarguable' was that Ninavizz had used sock puppets. I still believe this to be true given her own admission to the fact. I only said that there was strong evidence that other accounts were involved in sock puppetry. This argument was based on the fact that they were all single purpose accounts which were all pushing a single, or small number of POVs. I am sorry if the text in the report was not clear. If you think I need to modify it for clarity I would be happy to. Wikiwikimoore (talk) 05:05, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, that was not too clear either. Short version, there are two account Ninavizz admits are sock puppets. There are many single issue accounts which all have the same POV as Ninavizz which look strongly like sock puppets to me.Wikiwikimoore (talk) 05:08, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

What is with the bit about Noname Jane's only source of income being her website? Seems like a POV plea for sympathy and I don't see what bearing it has on the lawsuit. Further, it doesn't even seem to be accurate. I've taken it out.-Chunky Rice (talk) 17:14, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

It was in the article referenced, http://avn.com/law/articles/558.html, and I have now included a direct quote. Relevance? It seemed relevant to an editor of an RS journal, so it is relevant here.

This fact has no relevance to Violet Blue, the subject of the article, or the lawsuit. It may be relevant to Noname Jane, but she has her own article. It's getting really hard to AGF here. -Chunky Rice (talk) 18:12, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

WP:COIN

I logged an entry at WP:COIN and the COI folks should be here presently to sort this out in a fair manner. --BenBurch (talk) 15:01, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. I hope this can resolve our current disagreement about COI issues.Wikiwikimoore (talk) 18:14, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Ninavizz sock puppetry

I have reported Ninavizz for apparent sock puppetry actions with regard to this page. Report here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets/Ninavizz Wikiwikimoore (talk) 21:20, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

You are acting in bad faith here, and I have so-commented the entry. --BenBurch (talk) 21:40, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Have you actual read the report? I document two cases of Ninavizz self disclosing sock puppetry. Given that how could I be acting in bad faith? Wikiwikimoore (talk) 21:51, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

I commented in the process page. I am not going to respond to you any more as you have really utterly lost my respect here. I will deal with this only through process as long as you are here POV-pushing this article. --BenBurch (talk) 22:08, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Who knows.Yeago (talk) 23:36, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

In any case I checked history, and socking, if it is socking, where you make NO main-space edits is just not actionable at all. And in Wiki, you are only really an actionable sock if;

1. You do it to evade a block or ban.

2. You do it to vandalize main-space

3. You do it to avoid 3RRV

Nothing to see here except the whinging. Move along. --BenBurch (talk) 14:45, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

You're forgetting attempting to create a false consensus and just general disruption. -Chunky Rice (talk) 16:14, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Nope, I'm not. No such attempt there. And its clear that most of these could not have been socks. --BenBurch (talk) 16:36, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm not saying that there was such an attempt (though there may be), but rather those are also things that we block socks for. Not just the three you listed. Are you suggesting otherwise? -Chunky Rice (talk) 16:43, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Also, why don't just let some impartial party decide whether or not these accounts are socks and if any inappropriate behavior occurred. That's what the report is for. You've clearly got a vested interest here. -Chunky Rice (talk) 16:45, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh, my say and 80 cents still won't get you a cheezburger. --BenBurch (talk) 17:01, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

You often resort to these vagaries. Everything Chunky Rice explained was right—your list of 3 was far from complete. Thankfully, you're not an admin, where your persistent abortive applications of WP tenants actually matter.Yeago (talk) 00:25, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

My opinion here is that flinging around accusations of sockpuppetry is unhelpful without solid evidence of malfeasance or at least a strong case for it. My initial take on this report is that it doesn't show that, even if the accusations are all true. I'll comment more at the case page later. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 17:07, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Furthermore, given that the subject (Violet Blue) seems to attract strong feelings either positively or negatively among many, it's pushing credibility to insist that every single-purpose account editing here must be Ninavizz. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 18:28, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I accept that I might have maid some mistakes with this report. It is the first time that I have filed one. Give what you said it might have been better to just list the accounts which are connected with the SRL POV pushing and ignore the BoingBong stuff that seems connected to it. I am happy to accept this criticism so that I can become a better citizen at wikipidea. ( I will also point out that I did not add all of the sock new sock puppet ip's most or all of which can be found in lists of anon proxys)Wikiwikimoore (talk) 18:40, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Jon, the best thing you can do to be a good Wikizen is to leave this article ENTIRELY to others and go edit elsewhere. You have a lot to contribute. Go make those contributions. --BenBurch (talk) 18:59, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

We've heard this suggestion about 3 times per day (counting). We hear you. Please respect the remains of the horse.Yeago (talk) 00:25, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

And you'll KEEP hearing it until he does recuse himself. --BenBurch (talk) 00:51, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Recuse himself from editing this article? In that case, what on earth did you start the COI discussion for?Yeago (talk) 01:27, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Ahem?Yeago (talk) 17:21, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

You heard me. He has no place anywhere near this page. 206.225.90.71 (talk) 23:39, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I know that Morven cautioned us against throwing around sock accusations, but BenBurch, is this your IP? What's with the edit putting in information that you know was not okay and then reverted yourself with your main account? -Chunky Rice (talk) 23:53, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

That's interesting. What's more funny is he put a dispute tag on my talk page warning me of 3RR because I was engaged in an edit war. He didn't mention I was in an edit war with him. *chuckles*.Yeago (talk) 00:03, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Feel free to checkuser it if you like. I already submitted it to proxy check, and Cluebot says no open ports. That one is in San Diego at http://private.dnsstuff.com/tools/ipall.ch?ip=206.225.90.71 and I am in Chicago. --BenBurch (talk) 00:08, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Whatever the case, can you please answer my question? Why did you start the COIN discussion if you're just going to keep hardlining about Moore not editing despite the arbitrators comments?Yeago (talk) 00:13, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Sure, I started a COIN discussion because I think that a person's lover never has any business editing their article except in the most trivial of ways. And I think that Wikiwikimoore's edits have never been NPOV in the main and that others can do a better job. Once he recuses himself I can go get back to other projects. --BenBurch (talk) 00:16, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Translation: "I started the COIN discussion to see if a neutral admin agreed with me, but they don't so now I'm going to ignore it."Yeago (talk) 00:18, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

No, I read that response as agreeing with me. "Be very careful" is just what Wikiwikimoore is not doing. You read it as you like, obviously. --BenBurch (talk) 00:22, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Unindenting from above thread for readability.

Your interpretation of 'be very careful' is to stop editing the article entirely. Can you please give me a 'yes' or 'no' about the accuracy of that statement?Yeago (talk) 00:25, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes since he won't be. --BenBurch (talk) 00:27, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

• OK then if everybody else here thinks Wikiwikimoore will refrain from all COI on this article, I'll reserve my objections until he shows otherwise. --BenBurch (talk) 00:40, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Wikiwikimoore, I hope you respect the hard-fought-for consensus we (unless there are further objections) have arrived at. Burch believes you have sought to remove potentially harmful facts about the lawsuit and other topics. If anyone digs up any bad edits on your part a rather nasty shit-storm could be kicked up and rain--not this time on BoingBoing, but on your girlfriend. There are plenty of articles that have been edited by their subjects and Wikipedia is better off for it, as there is sometimes nothing better than going to the horses mouth for verification. If your efforts here are in this spirit, nobody can disagree with your presence. Yeago (talk) 00:56, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I am right on board. Most of my actual edits to the main page have been reverts, if you look, and reverts of un or incorrectly sourced edits. How do you think we should handle those with respect to me. I would be happy to try just pointing them out here on the talk page but under normal circumstances, when there is no waring on the talk page my attempts to engage other others just get ignored. Yeago what process would recommend so that bad edits can be removed with out people accusing me of POV pushing.Wikiwikimoore (talk) 06:15, 9 July 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikiwikimoore (talk • contribs)

Same processes that everyone else here follows, with extra special care and Talk page verification in potentially controversial cases. Removals, as we all just learned with BoingBoing's 'unpublishing' scandal, can be far more volatile actions than insertions. Also, be thorough in your edit summaries.Yeago (talk) 15:07, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Source for birth date?

Do we have a source for this? -Chunky Rice (talk) 18:09, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I believe it was from her blog. It pre-dates my time on this article. --BenBurch (talk) 18:58, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

It is also found on an image of her actual passport given on her flickr (the year is blocked). -DougCube (talk) 06:20, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Now, if Wikiwikimoore really wants to help...

OK, here are some things missing from the article;

1. What was the first publication by Violet Blue as Violet Blue? I have my librarian friend checking Books In Print but are there things like magazine articles like Sandmutopia Guardian or some such? References that can be verified for that are essential here. Do you have any of her early reviews?

2. When did tinynibbles.com start up? I have November 23rd, 2001 as the first date in the Wayback Machine, but the domain name record was first created on 6-1-2001. So when was the first publication of the site? What was subject the first essay?

3. When did her first podcast appear? What was the subject?

THIS is how you can help with this article rather than editing it yourself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by BenBurch (talk • contribs)

Valleywag

I don't see how the "soured relationship with Xeni" speculation is any more or less in violation of BLP than the "punitive lawsuit" speculation. However, proceeding on the assumption that BenBurch's deletion of the former was made purely in the interest of improving the article, I'm sure they'll have no objection to the restoration of my other, badly-needed rewrites of the section's run-on sentences. Ribonucleic (talk) 18:19, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

BLP rules out that sort of speculation as I see it. Sorry. --BenBurch (talk) 18:54, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

To clarify; We can prove there is a lawsuit. We cannot prove there was an affair or a triangle or a breakup. There are no source documents except rumor mills. --BenBurch (talk) 18:58, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Excellent point. Thank you for showing me the distinction. Ribonucleic (talk) 19:08, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Fired reporter fired

I read somewhere that Violet Blue made some posts that got a reporter fired from ABC and that this might be the reason for the BB affair. Is there any truth to the speculation that she got the reporter fired? If yes, it should probably be included.(Although not necessarily as a motivation for the BB thing). http://www.adrants.com/2008/07/violet-blue-purged-from-boing-boing.php http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/g/a/2007/04/05/violetblue.DTL The reporter's name was Amanda Congdon 76.91.90.112 (talk) 10:30, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, this theory cannot 'break' at Wikipedia, but if it catches wind elsewhere, we can certainly cover it. Also, the sfgate material is useful in the Violet Blue article. You can put it there.Yeago (talk) 14:08, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

No, it's nonsense. Violet Blue didn't say anything in that column that wasn't being said by many other people. And I've never seen her mentioned in connection with the reporter being fired until now. Plus that column is too early to be the cause. It was just a blogger speculating, there's no evidence for it. -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 16:17, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but what is "too early"? I believe you and all, but logic indicates that too late rules out a cause, but I do not see how too early does? --Betta Splendens (talk) 23:28, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, that can't be proven absolutely. But the above column was April 5. The "unpublishing" seems to occur somewhere in the late July - August timeframe. The reporter is fired in late September. It simply doesn't seem that an ordinary column in early April would likely be causally connected to those later events. Note it wasn't as if it were a story-breaking column, only commentary. So it just doesn't work as a reasonable cause. -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 02:53, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

• Not supported by reliable primary or secondary sources. Just speculation. I have not even seen this stated as a fact anywhere. Its not ruled out by what we know, but also not supported by what we know, and does not belong in the article. --BenBurch (talk) 16:40, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

What Wikiwikimoore has been up to...

Some discussion of note:

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Good editor being forced away by legal threats?

And yes, he's blocked. --Calton | Talk 14:02, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Interesting.Yeago (talk) 16:19, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

While informative, I don't really think this is appropriate for inclusion in the article. Valleywag is a gossip blog, not really a reliable source, and WP:SELF both seem to argue for leaving it out for now. -Chunky Rice (talk) 22:22, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Valleywag has copy of lawsuit, proving reliability. Violet Blue has also confirmed lawsuit by comment on Valleywag page. WP:SELF has an exception for "Articles where Wikipedia played a major role in the subject of the article." In this case, you have a strange and important lawsuit where Violet Blue is trying to prevent, using the court system, a person from editing wikipedia, not because of libel but because she is claiming such editing of wikipedia constitutes a "credible threat of violence." Such an abuse of the court system could, if successful, shut wikipedia down. Even though Violet Blue's lawsuit seems destined for certain failure, the fact that Violet Blue would take such extreme anti-free speech action is, I think, important to any article about her. Thus, I think it is a valid exception to the WP:Self rule.True 12345 (talk) 04:11, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I'm very sure wikipedia is going to be shut down. That would be pretty damned notable.Yeago (talk) 04:13, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

No, wikipedia is not going to be shut down. That would only be if Blue won her lawsuit Clearly the court felt her lawsuit was a joke and dismissed it. I just think it's notable that she tried to shut wikipedia down, even though I knew she would have no chance of success. It shows what a mentally unstable person she is (with a crackpot lawyer).68.83.208.91 (talk) 19:45, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

This is a discussion page. Please keep comments civil otherwise risk them being removed and your IP blocked from editing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.46.125.33 (talk) 00:56, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia-mentioning summons for court hearing

(sorry, I couldn't think of a better accurate locution) I have a copy of the court material, obtained directly from Burch's lawyer. I can confirm the existence of the action. I'll see if I can distribute it, or I assume someone else will. But I'd say there's no need to jump to add this topic to article. Better coverage will virtually certainly appear in due course. Note Wikipedia itself is NOT A PARTY TO THE DISPUTE. It's just woven into the various party's disputes between themselves. -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 05:30, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Look, if the Times picks up on it, neato. Notable. You seem to have the right idea mister Finkelstein. Mister 'True' is a babbling ... babbler.Yeago (talk) 06:18, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I found the court document published online: http://www.docstoc.com/docs/973123/Violet-Blue-Restraining-Order-Against-Ben-Burch 76.91.90.112 (talk) 08:08, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Should some mention be made of the parallel case against Wikipedia editor Nina Alter? ( [8] ) See "Please See" above. Ms. Alter would be User:ninavizz --Betta Splendens (talk) 14:17, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Hilarious and yes.Yeago (talk) 15:58, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Cool, I'll work something up later. --Betta Splendens (talk) 22:18, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Very well. It would be nice if someone could scour around for (possibly-breaking) sources for this second lawsuit. Its a hazy inclusion, I must say.Yeago (talk) 00:46, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

I shall look around late tomorrow. It was mentioned in the Valleywag comments, I noticed. I suspect that there will be more press coming on this in the near future given the Blue's apparent desire for attention. --Betta Splendens (talk) 00:51, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

It's on the SF court website. Do a name search for "Blue, Violet" -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 00:54, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, yeah, but I meant actual press mentions. Like if Salon covered it, or a newspaper or some such. Those stories, if they are coming, might take a few days to develop. Certainly any author is going to have his "i"s dotted and his "t"s crossed for fear of also ending up in the dock. --Betta Splendens (talk) 01:26, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

I have to ask, would we be mentioning this lawsuit if it didn't involve Wikipedia? Notable people are often involved in various kinds of litigation, but we generally don't talk about them because they aren't particularly relevant unless they get a lot of third party coverage. -Chunky Rice (talk) 01:08, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Not sure. Given that the subject of the article is supposedly a free speech advocate, an attempt to get prior restraint of speech does seem at least marginally notable. --Betta Splendens (talk) 01:22, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

I suppose when it comes to Wikivanity, I'd be careful not to overcorrect. Valleywag, while they spout about a lot, is somewhat notable, especially relative to the blogosphere spat we're chronicling here.Yeago (talk) 03:54, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

• This just showed up in my watch list; User:BenBurch I suggest ppl read it. --Betta Splendens (talk) 22:43, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks!Yeago (talk) 01:17, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome!  :-D Wow, people get passionate about stuff. --Betta Splendens (talk) 02:33, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

• More at valleywag; http://valleywag.com/5032995/violet-blue-cant-convince-court-to-restrain-wikipedia-editors --Betta Splendens (talk) 03:23, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

• For those who care to here more then one side of a story, here is what Violet has to say about the restraining order issue:

http://www.tinynibbles.com/blogarchives/2008/08/about-those-restraining-orders.html

Wikiwikimoore (talk) 04:58, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Hey, look! I'm famous! -Chunky Rice (talk) 16:38, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

OK I know it was a mistake that you reverted stuff on the talk page but why Betta Splendens would it be inappropriate to link to violet's account of what happened but it is ok to link to ben's? That seems a bit like people are failing NPOV. Wikiwikimoore (talk) 05:04, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Yeago, maybe all this stuff should just be pulled off the article. I suggest the ratio of personal pain to any encyclopedic value is becoming excessive. Wikipedia is effectively now fueling the flames. -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 05:40, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I would support removing links to both of BB's and VB's personal accounts from this article. BB's has as at least been through scrutiny as to factuality and fairness (viz the edit history of BB's user page). VB's blog version and the presentation on this article page present a reverse-BLP issue which should be addressed. The Wikipedia issue can be described without direct links to personal accounts from either side. Franamax (talk) 05:56, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Like I said earlier, I'm not sure this belongs in the article until there is a mention of it in real press. So, I'm going to be bold and remove it. --Betta Splendens (talk) 07:42, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

My concern is about the chilling effect this has had on a long-time competent Wikipedia editor. I feel there should be some way to prevent that being swept under the rug. (Full disclosure: I've know Ben for years, and find the idea of him as a threat to this woman totally absurd.) --Orange Mike | Talk 13:27, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I well-understand the issue. But I don't think it's being "swept under the rug", more like de-escalated. The problem is that the article will forever be doomed to be even more of a battleground, and that may make things even worse. Amidst all the mudslinging, there's some significant legal stuff stemming from the trademark case, so I tend to think some restraint would be a good idea. -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 13:48, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

We at Wikipedia are not going to forget this. Neither should we immediately or ever seek revenge of any kind. We can mention the facts of the case and reference the primary sources (especially the log of documents, which is a secondary synthesis of a sort). If and when the final judgement is delivered, it should be linked with a neutral presentation. I do believe our policies allow us to reference primary sources when secondary sources don't exist - providing the primary sources are reliable and verifiable and presented in a neutral fashion. The court-generated entries and records of decision seem to fit those criteria, so I think complete suppression is not appropriate here. Franamax (talk) 14:23, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Exactly my thinking, thank you for expressing it so well. And I suspect that a case like this; "Litigious sex crank tries to step on first amendment, is slapped down by court, and then claims victimhood" is just the sort of stuff somebody will write about in the real press, we just have to be patient and wait for things to develop. Because Wikipedia is not a newspaper and wikipedia is not a battleground and wikipedia is not a PR machine. All things come in the fullness of time.  :-D --Betta Splendens (talk) 14:41, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you're arguing for. If you're arguing against placement of Blue's response to the issue, we're going to go through the NPOV process as its simply not fair. Also, while I don't understand your reasoning in excluding Primary sources without Secondary sources, even if I follow that logic it leads to the inclusion of Blue's blog response, as those documents are in no-wise specific secondary sources for only by Burche's statement--they apply equally to Blue's material.

I agree wholeheartedly with the original commenter, Finkelstein. If this debate opens another chapter I'm up for removing the material entirely until its finished. While I agree with the sentiment that Wikipedia won't forget this, its not our job to be a medium of breaking conflict, only a guage of lasting conflict.Yeago (talk) 15:55, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Of course, we can reference reliable primary documents. As I said before, I think the question is whether this little spat is notable to the general public. There are tons of primary documents that we can reference for any article, but we generally rely on third party sources to help us determine what is important and what is not. Obviously, this proceeding is very important to us, as Wikipedia editors, but until and unless it gets mentioned by third party (non-self published) sources, I honestly don't think it merits inclusion.

As to the "chilling effect" of the suit, the truth is that I don't think that most of Ben's edits on this article were very good and he was pursuing an anti-Violet Blue POV. So, we shouldn't let a threat of suit stop us from following all of our policies and wriitng what we think is right, but we also shouldn't assume that the edits that it was trying to stop were inherently good, either. I'm recusing myself from editing this article because I think I've gotten too involved, but I just wanted to put that out there. -Chunky Rice (talk) 16:38, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Where is the notable source that this story broke at? If we can't answer this question, it must be removed (of course this doesn't apply to Burche's user page).Yeago (talk) 17:53, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

There does not even seem to be a source for Burch's stuff, except for the police reports and court filings. We're taking his word on some of the interpretation, though, and that is why we usually want a secondary source, right? I'm going to ask a friend at the ACLU to investigate and write on this story, and then we'll have something that does not come from one of the two litigants. On its face this is a first amendment story, and it appears to me that everything I am aware of Burch put into the article was literally true, so my take on it is that is NPOV - truth does not have a POV, but the words one uses to speak about truth can be. BTW, I think we could include her birth date now, because that was in her police report. It is unlikely that a detail like that would ever be in a secondary source unless somebody writes her biography. --Betta Splendens (talk) 18:34, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't have a big objection to including the birthdate, though I think that, due to her marginal notability, WP:BLP#Privacy_of_personal_information would argue against it. -Chunky Rice (talk) 18:54, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) The problem is that this is becoming a "K-thy Sierra" type situation, where very complex and sensitive issues are fought out as public character-assassination. Wikipedia does very poorly in that sort of argument, as it ends up being a vehicle for smears in the guise of neutrality. Plus, again, there's ongoing legal issues regarding the trademark case. I'm not inclined to get into an edit-war myself over it. But I strongly urge erring on the side of do-no-harm as much as possible. -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 22:31, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Looks like there's finally a reliable source for all of this: http://www.sfweekly.com/2008-08-20/news/sex-columnist-violet-blue-tries-to-restrain-online-foes/ Onewayfar (talk) 02:13, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

See last section on my Talk page. Green light.Yeago (talk) 03:43, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid that scandal rag is not a RS in the slightest... Do we use it as a source anywhere else on Wikipedia? --Betta Splendens (talk) 04:42, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Looks like we do... a check at the External Links shows (as I write this) 475 links to sfweekly.com. Tabercil (talk) 05:31, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I'll recommend, just leave it be. There's already been two court cases connected to this Wikipedia BLP. Putting in mentions may just start the fighting all over again. -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 06:26, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Unindenting. Any editor interested may bring the citation up at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard (not me =).Yeago (talk) 07:28, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I made a post to the RS noticeboard several months ago and it seems that sfweekly is a reliable source for this topic. Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_21#sfweekly C4VC3 (talk) 02:53, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Sparks

OK, so its nice that she has a friend who made good. But, first, we have only her word for it - a biographer saying it or Ms. Sparks saying in a Reliable Source it would be needed. Second, I just can't see how one's friends have a lot to do with one's writing? If we can show that she would not be writing any other way or that Ms. Sparks bankrolled then it MIGHT be significant to the article, but otherwise its sort of the definition of how I interpret Undue Weight which is why I first reverted it. But I don't HATE the inclusion, I just think its not proper for an article. If we listed everybody's friends based on who they say those friends are, biographical articles would be dreary laundry lists, wouldn't they? Please discuss. --Betta Splendens (talk) 09:57, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

1) Why is Violet Blue herself an unreliable source? The need for multiple sources is absurd as Blue herself mentions it in many places. 2) The sentence is not a list of all of Violet Blue's friends. It is the singular friend that she refers to as her "adopted mother," which is significant considering the absence of parental figures in Blue's adolescence and adulthood. Queerudite (talk) 13:01, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, because people name-drop all the time. I want to see this from a third party. Find that, and I have no further objections. --Betta Splendens (talk) 15:22, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

It does open the door for any ol' (notable) Joe or Jane (or in this case Joe-Jane) for being mentioned. Perhaps they have collaborated in some documented respect? Yeago (talk) 16:12, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, that was why I reverted it in the first place. I mean, I'm glad she has somebody to look up to and all, but I fail to see how it is encyclopedic as it stands. And Google does not help me find any other connection to use to justify it. Heck I even tried dogpile. --Betta Splendens (talk) 16:30, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was no consensus to support mvoe. JPG-GR (talk) 18:26, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

I suggest this article be moved to 'Violet Blue'. The subject is arguably the most well known person using that name by far, and since the other 'Violet Blue' no longer uses that name, it seems to me there is no need for a disambiguation page any more. Violet Blue was turned into a redirect to this page by User:DougCube earlier today; I simply suggest moving the page to that name, to remove the superfluous '(author)' brackets. Please comment on this proposed move below. Terraxos (talk) 15:29, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Be bold!Yeago (talk) 15:51, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

We can always move it back when and if she loses the trademark suit, but keep the disambig on the top of this one essentially forever. --Betta Splendens (talk) 15:56, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Be bold? Um, I can't - this article is move-protected. (So we need an admin to do it.) And I'm not proposing removing the disambiguation link at the top of this article, only changing its name. Terraxos (talk) 16:24, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Since you mentioned me... I am all for the redirect, but utterly and completely AGAINST the rename/move. The '(author)' is not at all superfluous (although I might have picked something else - like writer or even blogger). The reason I am for the redirect is because of the overwhelming popularity of this over the other VB. I thought she did win the trademark suit. Although personally, from the evidence I read about the case, they either both deserve rights to the name (because it's ended up causing much more problems for the pornstar than it fixes for the author) or the pornstar deserves it more for having it longer... tho perhaps not quite as widely known, but personal feelings aside my opinion stands. -DougCube (talk) 17:35, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

My understanding based on reading the AVN articles is that all that has been "won" at this point is a restraining order on Johnson to not use the name. Which means that there is still going to be a trial some day, at which evidence is presented and the case rises or falls on the preponderance of evidence as determined by a judge or jury. And were the name to be untrademarked by that decision, it seems to be likely she would immediately return to using it. Typical in these cases would be a survey conducted of the public at large to determine which of the two has the greater name recognition, and I can't even guess who that might be, but I think it likely that the actresses videos have sold (and had pirated) more copies than the writer's books given the literacy gap in the USA. --Betta Splendens (talk) 18:25, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

I think such a move could be construed as taking sides in the trademark dispute, so I suggest not doing it unless and until that trademark case is definitively resolved. -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 23:54, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Oppose the move per Doug's argument above. Kelly ^hi! 03:30, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

I oppose the move also. There is still some recent discussion re which Violet Blue is which, so i think it reasonable to leave the disambiguation in place. Kevin (talk) 04:12, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

External link to Noname Jane site

Why is this link here? I don't see how it fits under our WP:EL guideline. It's not a reference, it doesn't provide any information that isn't already in the article, it's not even about the subject. -Chunky Rice (talk) 16:37, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

agreed.Yeago (talk) 17:35, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

AVN as a RS

In what way is AVN a RS. They are a industry rag that has a built in bias, have a complete lack of fact checking as far as I can tell, and the articles they rote about violet are rater one sided. ( Something that should be obvious given that they only tell Ada's side of the story ) Wikiwikimoore (talk) 20:25, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, its been accepted as an RS here on Wikipedia for ages. If you think it should not be, there is a notice board to bring up that question on. WP:RSN --Betta Splendens (talk) 01:56, 23 August 2008 (UTC)