User talk:Bryanbybee

Notability
The author of the page, User:Bryanbybee, removed the prod tag, stating the following (in two edits): "(This entry references a magazine that has been part of Portland's nightlife & culture since 1993. You will find a similar (MUCH less detailed entry) about 'The Portland Mercury' - is that non-notable?) (...) (This article is also referenced by the 'Portland, Oregon' article under the 'Media' sub-section. Please use common sense before calling an article non-notable!!!)"

First, as WP:OSE states, comparing articles is not a great way to go about things.

Second, being cited on another wikipedia page isn't an indicator of notability: being discussed in verifiable and reliable sources can help meet the notability guidelines at WP:GNG and WP:N.

I suspect this article is going to AFD soon, but it was worth having a centralized discussion first. tedder (talk) 05:18, 31 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Exotic has also been reviewed by Playboy TV (during a piece they did about the Portland Adult Nightlife Scene) but we wanted to seek approval before referencing the video link here on Wikipedia because of the subject matter it deals with. You can view that video review at:    PlayBoy TV Video Review of Exotic


 * Some MACs have a problem with that URL and can alternatively use:  Direct link to video


 * Other video coverage includes a piece from SeXTV, available here:  SeXTV Video


 * Jim Goad was the editor of Exotic for over 5 years and also had his own articles and features published in Exotic. His book Gigantic Book of Sex consists of exclusive Exotic Magazine material.


 * Portland has a huge subculture built on the stripper industry created by Oregon's unique freedom of expression clause in its constitution and Exotic has helped form this subculture that is quite unique to Oregon.


 * Frank Miller and Darkhorse Comics has collaborated with Exotic to create cover art for the June 1996 issue. This can be seen here:   Frank Miller Exotic Cover


 * It's hard not to think that these "non-notable" guidelines are more strictly imposed when dealing with subject matter such as this. Censorship hides in many forms...


 * In regards to comparing articles, I agree that it's not a great way to make the point of notability but it also goes a long way to expose the inconsistent enforcement of non-notability. One must ask where the extra "attention" comes from.


 * Bryanbybee (talk) 05:51, 31 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Since Wikipedia is not censored, accusations of bias don't usually go over very well here. Please assume good faith. See our extensive list of detailed, illustrated and well-researched articles on porn stars, sex positions, slang terms and body parts if you need proof.


 * I can't speak for, but I think this magazine is probably notable. The problem is, although the article asserts notability, it does not supply reliable third-party sources to back up that assertion. Currently the article also reads like an advertisement. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, so the wording should be more neutral and less geared toward "selling" the magazine. It's especially hard to write in a neutral manner if you have a conflict of interest but it can be done. The kind of citations this article needs would be, rather than the "Reviews" section, a quote, such as "A review in Details magazine said that Exotic was 'extremely informative'." Then we need a link to the quote and/or a fully filled out citation. On the other hand, I don't know if Boing Boing would be considered a reliable source.


 * I'm going to do a little work on the lead paragraph of the article to get it closer to an encyclopedic style. Please click on the blue links in this post to read more about notability, how to find reliable sources, how to format citations, etc. Don't worry too much if you try to improve the article and you get the format wrong, we can help you fix that.


 * P.S. I think links to the videos might not work, not because of the subject matter, but because of external link policy. I know that links to Youtube are discouraged. But if the link is to a video that is being used as a reference it might be OK. I'm not an expert on such matters. Check out our external links guidelines to learn more.


 * Cheers, Katr67 (talk) 16:31, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Tagging
I tagged the article as an advertisement and as needing primary sources. The article's tone/POV is not neutral at this point; it can be rewritten to be so, but that still needs to be done. In other words, the article shouldn't be a brochure/advert for the magazine, but should present the information in an objective manner. The "needs primary sources" tag is fairly self-documenting. tedder (talk) 01:31, 1 August 2009 (UTC)


 * It appears the original tagger RHaworth has added an AfD tag (most likely without reading this Talk page and the national references (including videos) above. Since he's done so in haste, can it be removed? Here is the page:  AfD for Exotic entry Bryanbybee (talk) 10:56, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Copyright problems with Exotic Magazine
Hello. Concerning your contribution, Exotic Magazine, please note that Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted text or images obtained from other web sites or printed material, without the permission of the author(s). As a copyright violation, Exotic Magazine appears to qualify for deletion under the speedy deletion criteria. Exotic Magazine has been tagged for deletion, and may have been deleted by the time you see this message. If you believe that the article or image is not a copyright violation, or if you have permission from the copyright holder to release the content freely under the Creative Commons Attribution/Share-Alike License (CC-BY-SA) then you should do one of the following:


 * If you have permission from the author, leave a message explaining the details at and send an email with the message to "permissions-en (at) wikimedia (dot) org". See Requesting copyright permission for instructions.
 * If a note on the original website states that re-use is permitted under the GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL) and CC-BY-SA, under CC-BY-SA, or released into the public domain leave a note at with a link to where we can find that note.
 * If you hold the copyright to the material: send an e-mail from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en(at)wikimedia(dot)org or a postal message to the Wikimedia Foundation permitting re-use under the CC-BY-SA and GFDL, and note that you have done so on.

However, for textual content, you may simply consider rewriting the content in your own words. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with our copyright policy. Wikipedia takes copyright concerns very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. Thank you. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 18:07, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

COI Notice
If you have a close connection to some of the people, places or things you have written about, you may have a conflict of interest. In keeping with Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy, edits where there is a conflict of interest, or where such a conflict might reasonably be inferred from the tone of the edit and the proximity of the editor to the subject, are strongly discouraged. If you have a conflict of interest, you should avoid or exercise great caution when:
 * 1) editing or creating articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with;
 * 2) participating in deletion discussions about articles related to your organization or its competitors; and
 * 3) linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Spam).

Please familiarize yourself with relevant policies and guidelines, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, verifiability of information, and autobiographies.

For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have conflict of interest, please see our frequently asked questions for organizations. For more details about what, exactly, constitutes a conflict of interest, please see our conflict of interest guidelines. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 18:13, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image (File:Exotic march 2005.jpg)
 Thanks for uploading File:Exotic march 2005.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. FileBot (talk) 20:47, 21 August 2009 (UTC)