Hi Jameslovebirch, thanks for uploading these. You feel sure they are public domain? --Spankart (talk) 18:03, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
- Yes, vintage stag films of this era were largely illegal and done by anonymous makers with no company name, copyright claim or ownership of any kind. These films are re-released on numerous public domain collection discs. Something Weird Video, for example, has a Bizarro Sex Loops series and their DVDs only list copyright for the graphics artwork they created for the packaging. -- Jameslovebirch (talk) 15:53, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
Jameslovebirch, thanks for identifying de-stub-worthy articles. It's a wiki, so feel free to remove any "stub" templates based on your judgement. --Spankart (talk) 18:58, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
Problems with site
This entire website refuses to save any of my changes. They appear in the "show preview", but won't save. What to do? -- Jameslovebirch (talk) 22:38, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
- Hi Jameslovebirch, I am also encountering problems since my login today: first I had to change my password. Then the wiki's skin was changed to Vector and I tried to set it back to what it was (I think Monobook) in my personal preferences, but that does not work. The editor has changed too. It looks like we were perhaps upgraded to a new MediaWiki version. Special:Version now says "MediaWiki 1.31.1". I will let you know when I find out more. Your problems with saving pages remind me of the problems some other users had a year or two ago. --Spankart (talk) 19:05, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
Simplicity isn't the goal
What you come across an aquaward passage don't think how can I make this is simpler; think how can I make this more elegant. The point is It's easy to make something simple but that comes at the cost of nuance. and We want more nauce not less. Yes the lemma should be as simple as possible, but the rest making it more elegant should be you goal, in "how can say the same thing so it easier to understand without losing nuance or possible adds the missing nuaces that making it confusing. and making the lemma is made simpler make sure the nuance that being removed is described in the body of the article [move don't just cut in other words] — Roguebfl talk contribs email 14:29, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
- You may have a point (an incredibly small, unimportant point) on that particular statement in the article, but the sentence structure is so clumsy it's like watching a drunk fall down a flight of stairs. That is, the journey from A to B is achieved, but in the worst possible way.
- Moreover, there IS elegance in the simplicity that comes from precision -- as any real writer knows. In fact, the first rule of editing a draft is to cut out the excess and boil it down using fewer words that carry the most impact. Being repetitious, rambling, indirect or confusing is not adding elegance or nuance -- or doing the reader any favors. Orwell said writing should be clear, like a pane of glass. And all too often I find hopelessly murky passages (woefully bereft of elegance and nuance) on this site that appear to come from some alternate dimension where the basic rules of English don't exist.
- In short, let's face it, some people can't write for sour owl poop and would do better switching to a different (non-verbal) form of expression. I've worked for many years as a copy editor and currently write for 2 national magazines in the U.S. and U.K. and don't need any amateur editorial tips.
- -- Jameslovebirch (talk) 22:29, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
- I'm not saying to edit for more clarity, which is why I said go for the more elegant edit. but no simplicity isn't the same as clearity. case is point "Spanking is hitting" is simple and direct; But down right misleading because it lack nuance. — Roguebfl talk contribs email 03:04, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
First, I've never contributed to or edited the "Bottom" or "Art" pages -- as the Revision History clearly shows. Why you associate those sites with me and assume they are somehow my problem or my concern makes no sense. I don't own or manage this site.
Second, Bottom appears to have been replaced by the page Bottom (BDSM), and there are several Art pages that may have made the old site redundant. Those decisions are made by Spankart, the system manager/owner. Please direct any future inquiries or concerns about the management of this site to him. -- Jameslovebirch (talk) 17:28, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
- I apologise, but I found no indication on the site of who to contact in case of technical difficulties. I noticed from the Recent Changes page that you are the only active user here at the moment, so I contacted you. --Issue fixer (talk) 14:04, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
Default skin: should we keep or change it?
Hello Jameslovebirch, I'd like to ask your opinion. In this wiki we still use the old MediaWiki skin "Monobook" from 2004 as the default. Logged-in users can change the skin in their settings while not-logged-in users will always see the default skin. Should we keep Monobook as the default, or should we switch to "Vector" (2022) or "Vector legacy" (2010)? Big wikis like Wikipedia typically upgrade to the latest skin. Here is a preview of the same sample page in the three skins:
- Bare bottom in Vector (2022)
- Bare bottom in Vector legacy (2010)
- Bare bottom in Monobook (2004)
What would you advise? --Spankart (talk) 19:46, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
- I would use either Monobook or Vector (2010), which look the same to me. The 2022 version looks like crap. -- Jameslovebirch (talk) 12:17, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
- I agree, i hate the wasted space and "white out" look of Vector legacy (2010) which became even worse in Vector (2022). However I think it's probably good if we switched the latest skin as a default. Users like you and I can keep using Monobook via Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-rendering, while for the majority of read-only users, especially on mobile devices, Vector (2022) is probably better optimized. --Spankart (talk) 13:47, 22 May 2023 (UTC)