User talk:Wikilister

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to the encyclopedia, one or more of the

--NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:07, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you may check the sidebar of any page there: "©Playboy.com".

http://www.playboywiki.com/

You may also check the member list (click on "Member since"):

http://www.playboywiki.com/wiki/members

which shows "Organizer and Creator" pb_paul aka Paul Thomas, then an administrator with PEI.

"Playboy _Official" is the liaison from Manwin/Playboy Plus, the new operators of Playboy.com.

Wikilister (talk) 21:38, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've undone the removal. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 23:24, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for trying to gain consensus for your proposed change to

regarding your edit here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_Playboy_Playmates_of_2013&diff=next&oldid=557830634 I added this site since the "Info Page" on each PMs site (for playmates 2012 and onwards) is more informative than other links on the wiki. Take for exaple this one: http://playboyplus.wikispaces.com/Audrey+Allen+Plus I think neither the official site nor the playboy wiki nor "we kingly pigs" has all that stuff compacted on one page. But feel free to point me to a better page! Also: Not everyone has access to the mag. Therefore I propose to re-add the link. Cheers! 84.175.209.115 (talk) 21:15, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

The main reason I deleted that link is described in the note to me from senior Wikipedia editor NeilN (see "May 2012" above). I was admonished that Wikipedia is not a "link farm", and that among the "links to be avoided" are blogs (except those controlled by recognized authorities) and open wikis (except those with a substantial history and number of editors). I was able to satisfy NeilN that Playboy Wiki, directly established under the auspices of PEI, active since February 2009, and with a significant number of active editors, meets all the criteria to be listed as an "official link". The site that I deleted meets none of those criteria. It is the private project of one individual.

I agree the Playboy.com site is not as helpful as it could be, and that is why its links are being replaced by those of Playboy Wiki. "We kingly pigs" is not "official", but it is the work of an active core of fans (essentially those behind the Playboy Mailing List on Yahoo!) and has served the Playboy fan community for longer than the Playboy Wiki. It has several related links on the Playboy Wiki home page. Every site must choose how it will focus, and another site can always focus on whatever the first does not. The site you listed was initially an attempt to clone Playboy Wiki but with one individual laying claim to the work of all. That individual has gradually shifted his focus, and now concentrates on details of the photoshoots more than the Playmates. Wikipedia's Playmate Lists are for listing Playmates, and Playboy Wiki presents their essential data, generous sample pictures, and direct links to all of their content available online at other Playboy sites. If you feel that Playboy Wiki is lacking something important, you can join it and help fill the gap.

Your comment that "not everyone has access to the mag" seems to refer to a comment I made on the talk page of List of Playmates of 2013 re "Crystal Balls". My point there regarding the magazine was not that everyone has a copy, but that it is the magazine itself that is the ultimate source of information about its contents, and not any particular blog or wiki (not even an "official" one). They can only report what anyone can check for themselves, and if they attempt to predict what is going to be in the magazine (like who the upcoming Playmate will be), then they are inappropriately using Wikipedia as a crystal ball. Wikilister (talk) 23:23, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again,

Thanks for taking the time to elaborate!

I had no idea who was behind PBwiki, PBplus, we kingly pigs or PBblog. The only thing which is rather obvious: PBblog is pretty unreliable as a source.

Since I don't buy the mag or have access to any official sources I wouldn't be able to contribute to any of the sites. So all I could do is copy paste the info from PBplus to PBwiki regarding natural breasts, tattoos or body jewelry (which I find interesting or good to know). What I have heard is that the mag makes up stories regarding the bio of the PMs. But I don't know if that's a fact or a thing of the past or whatever.

My comment was inspired by the edit note for this edit: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_Playboy_Playmates_of_2013&diff=556828463&oldid=556826231 , but the crystal ball thingie was a nice treatise. ;)

Cheers! 84.175.209.115 (talk) 22:05, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

PS: NeilN's post seems rather civilized to me. Especially compared to the autocratic arrogance other seniors sometimes display.

Hello! Since you seem rather knowledgable about these things: This "private project" page has been taken down a while back. But I personally found the info pages rather useful (for example the fake/natural breasts part). Do you have any clue where the info originated from? How to get to it easily? Cheers and thanks. 84.175.217.248 (talk) 17:22, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

You can use the Tagging system at the Playboy Wiki to sort models by many criteria including "real vs fake", tattoos, hair color, and many more.

http://www.playboywiki.com/Tagging

You can apply the filters sequentially to progressively narrow the list to just those who match all of the criteria you specify.

Disclaimer: the tags are only as reliable as the members who applied them to particular models. But on the whole, they seem pretty reliable.

Due credit: the PB Wiki's tagging system was initiated by the former member whose "private project" you mentioned. Other members continue

to use it, adding tags to new models. Wikilister (talk) 00:38, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nice! Thanks a lot. 84.175.217.248 (talk) 07:39, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion about the use of Playboy Wiki has been started here:

• RS/N:Playboy Wiki

I suggest you participate in the discussion if you wish your work to be preserved. If you ignore the discussion and continue to add links to the wiki, you risk getting blocked.

This discussion is important for the future use of the wiki, because decisions at RS/N carry more weight than discussions on individual user talk pages. I'm sure you have had this discussion with many editors, but we need your evidence collected at RS/N. If the decision goes in your favor, you can always end future discussions with editors by pointing to RS/N. That would make things much easier for you. If

Documenting "the official relationship between the wiki and Playboy.com" will not be hard at all. I hope it will be sufficient to produce the evidence in the RS/N discussion, as I don't currently feel competent to produce a new Wikipedia page. That would take some time to learn, and my plate is already full regarding the time I have to spend online. Wikilister (talk) 03:43, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am totally uninvolved-editor and usually avoid to the greatest degree any of these ridiculous battles at Wikipedia that are driving away countless good editors. However, I couldn't keep quiet when I saw the efforts being raised against you to delete those links which are quite clearly valuable and relevant, so I posted a message at the discussion place saying that I strongly objected to the removal of the links. I am not editing Wikipedia consistently at present so while you may reply to me at your convenience I may not see that response from you or be timely in replying to you myself. Cheers! Azx2 19:16, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

BTW: if you have a chance, would love your feedback on the article Bikini, which is up for GA-review now. Unfortunately one of the top-3 editors has left Wikipedia b/c he reached his breaking point w/r/t petty harassment and bureaucracy and foolishness (with which I'm sure you can sympathize), so his talent is no longer available to the effort going forward, yet we need good people who can add value by seeing through to GA-status the editing effort w/ Bikini... Cheers! Azx2 02:16, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think it would be best if you clearly and very succinctly restated your main points. Perhaps just start with the single point you feel best supports the links being included. --

This is a ridiculous charge. I have added NO external links to prompt your complaint here today. I have simply undone deletions by yourself and by Otr500 and restored links made by others. I am "spamming" nothing. You, however, are continuing to assault the Playmate Lists despite having lost your bid to have them deleted entirely. Incidentally, my argument in favor of the Playmate Lists, posted on your talk page and deleted by you without any answer either there or in other discussions—the argument you dismissed as one that would "find very little support"—is the same argument that defeated your proposal to delete those lists. If you want to constructively improve those pages, carry on—perhaps even with selective and well-justified deletions. But if you just want to continue your Quixotic assault, you and other deletionists should give it a rest. Wikilister (talk) 22:24, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

One problem at a time. We've been through this before. If you have a new case to make for inclusion of the links despite the consensus against them, make it at the ELN discussion.

Once that is settled, we can get a discussion started about your adding links to articles. --

talk) 22:43, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply

]