Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 19:09, 11 August 2008

Click here to leave me a public message

Shankblog: In this blog post I give advice on how to do similar work that I do on Misplaced Pages.

Photo

Hi David, I don't suppose you have access to any photographs of Michael Jackson? The article is really lacking any images of him in the 1990's or live performances. I know you usually take your own photo's, thus it is unlikely that you have photographed one of the worlds most elusive pop stars, but I'm really desperate for help on this one. — Realist (Speak) 22:57, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't know if Mr. Shankbone is still around, but if he ever photographed Jackson, I'm sure he had uploaded it. Also, are you sure you need even more pictures of Jackson? There are already quiet some in the article, including this recent one, although I indeed see no picture of him doing a live performance. Cheers, Face 07:54, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

My concern is over live performances and the lack of pictures for the 1990's. That recent picture is a real Gem though. — Realist (Speak) 14:10, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

That's quite a coup to have that one photo. Unfortunately, Face is right - I would have uploaded an MJ photo by now. Hopefully I will have an opportunity at some point, but he's a difficult one to find to photograph. --David Shankbone 14:35, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Cheers for replying, it's something to look out for I guess. — Realist (Speak) 14:59, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Mmmmm - a cookie!

Misplaced Pages is much better for having editors and contributors such as yourself. I hope things stay peaceful and productive for you! Banjeboi has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy munching!

Spread the goodness of cookies by adding {{subst:Cookie}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

A photo request

Hi David, I have been an admirer of your architectural photography since I first saw your uploads. I was wondering if you take photo requests in Manhattan. I am looking for pictures to illustrate the Ely Jacques Kahn article and was wondering if you have or can take any photos of his work or work in the firms Buchman & Kahn, or Kahn & Jacobs. Some buildings mentioned in the article are the Squibb building, Universal Pictures Building, Film Center Building, but there are many more including the Bricken-Casino Building, 1400 Broadway, the Continental Building, and others. Let me know what you think.

Regards, dvdrw 22:40, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

• Hi dvdrw. I take requests - I'll try and cook you up some good photos. --David Shankbone 22:41, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Pornography Article

David: Welcome back, even if only for a bit.

Sorry to have stepped on your toes (again). We had discussed this a bit in the talk page, of course, you weren't around at that time, and are seeing it when you see it.

My view is that the photo shows a sex shop. I haven't been in that sex shop, but there are many like it where I live. Long ago those kind of shops did have pornpgraphy. Nowadays, they don't. They sell sex toys and clothing, condoms lube, and a variety of things like that. The closest they have to pornography seems to be DVD's for rent or purchase. Alot of shops aren't carrying so much of that any more either. Anyway, even if that shop is somewhat different, no one (not many) goes to a sex shop to get porngraphy anymore with it so available on the Internet. I looked at the picture closely, and it seems to be a sex shop that sell sex toys. It advertises a peep show, but that is pretty indirect, at least I think so. It doesn't bring to mind the topic of pornpgraphy at any rate.

I've been defending your photo on the hard core pornography article as a variety of homophobic or censors oriented folk. So, I have no problems with your photos, or the hard work that you've done to get them. I'm pretty sure you went out of your way just to get the sex shop photo. I think it is great for the sex shop article, or maybe the peep show article (although I am not sure an advert for a peep show is really on topic).

Anyway, that's my view. Atom (talk) 00:16, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

• Hey, thanks for the note. I shouldn't have reverted you, but approached you (old habits die hard!) so thanks for making the civil move. I would not have reverted again. I noticed your defense on the other porn topics - thanks for the back. I think the issue is "What is pornography?" and those kinds of shops are definitely in the business of providing it. I think these are the reasons I support the photo:

1. The prominence of "Peep Show", which is definitely pornographic entertainment, and I have a friend who goes to one and he said they are still quite popular. God knows why with the Internet. But they also call back to one of the first widely available forms of pornography.

2. The videos in the window, though not vivid, are still obvious.

3. That it *is* a store that sells pornography. There are still quite a few specialty areas of porn that are served by magazines, and also deliver news to specific pornographic interests. Just like Newsweek still sells, albeit fewer, there is still a market for magazines and the like. There's quite a few, and I don't see them going out of business. The East Village has three or four alone.

4. I guess last would just be the general feel. The redness. The lubes, dihldoes (sic?), blow up dolls, etc. The entire display is meant to call arousal, to beckon passers-by, making it a form of pornography as well (I think). There aren't many places where stores advertise so brazenly.

I dunno - do any of those reasons hold water? You're better than I am on this topic, to be honest, so I'll defer to your judgment. --David Shankbone 00:28, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, you've won me over. If you say there is pornography there, then I believe it. I don't think that just a sign that says "Peep Show" is really enough to make the image qualify in my mind. If it were in the lede position, I would probably make the argument that it was not very illustrative of the topic. But -- your placement later in the article, along with the other aspects you mention, seems resaonable to me. Atom (talk) 01:58, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

In the hardcore pornpgraphy page I simplified the caption on your photo. I made it "Filming a gay hardcore scene". I did this for several reasons. In order to keep the image that keeps getting removed I have said that the image is not hardcore pornography, but it is pertinent to the article because it is the filming of hardcore movie, which is sufficiently on topic. Some object to the content, and I point out that there seems to be nothing to object to in the image. (No genital parts showing, nothing that anyone would consider obscene) One person said that an image of anilingus was offensive. I responded that there was no way to tell what exactly they were doing from the image, that saying they were performing anilingus in the image was his own imagination. Some would like to say they are offended because two men seem to be having sex in the image, but I don't think anyone has done that yet. People who object on those grounds seem to just remove the image without comment.

Anyway, I feel that the simplified title can help to avoid some of those obstacles without compromising the integrity of the image by saying that it is something that it is not. Also, very nice blog -- instructive. Atom (talk) 13:13, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Welcome back

Becksguy has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy munching! — I guess the Wiki addiction didn't surrender to a higher power (the Cookie Monster, perhaps). Welcome back David. — Becks 00:57, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Spread the goodness of cookies by adding {{subst:Cookie}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

NYC Gay Pride images?

Hi, David. You wouldn't happen to have any images in your bag of fun there that shows NYC Gay Pride, would you? I think one that shows throngs of people would illustrate the Stonewall riots Legacy section well. --Moni3 (talk) 17:15, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

ANI

Just letting you know someone's posted about you at ANI here. Thanks, D.M.N. (talk) 18:28, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Please, however, avoid personally attacking other users as you have done here. D.M.N. (talk) 18:45, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm being personally attacked myself, so fuck that. --David Shankbone 18:46, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

How exactly? Other users were raising concerns about a blog post - that doesn't constitute a personal attack. Even if someone did personally attack you, that doesn't give you the right to attack someone else in return. D.M.N. (talk) 18:48, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) David, please. I know you're angry about this, and I know you mean well but I do know from speaking with Jeff in person that he wanted to keep his RL name private where he could. Please respect that, and can you please change the image in that blog entry; that's a picture of his husband, Isaac - Alison 18:49, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I'm very angry about this right now, and I find the way it is being dealt with, and Sandy Georgia's ridiculous assumption of bad faith, to be beyond any reason. I also know you don't think particularly highly of me, either Alison, and that's fine. But Jeff released his name on wiki multiple times, and I happen to know he didn't care. Jeff wasn't the sort who hid himself. At all. --David Shankbone 18:55, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I do, David. Or at least, I did. Things have been going downhill of late, I'm afraid & I'm less than impressed with one of your blog entries, but you know that already. You're a phenomenal artist and you do amazing work for the project - you know that - but you've also stepped over the line yourself more than once. Please let's leave it at that; this issue is not about you and me - Alison 19:00, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Look, Alison, I don't write, exist, create or blog with anyone's approval in mind. Regardless, I liked Jeff; we had a falling out over Santa, but I had no ill will toward him in the least and we were quite close for awhile. Regardless, to have someone like Sandy Georgia, who Jeff didn't like for a very long time on this project, now go around and act as if I'm trying to get in some post-mortem pot shots at him is beyond offensive, and beyond a personal attack. Seriously. That goes too far, and I'm very angry about it. And I'm angry about you supporting it, especially since Jeff was up front about who he is, and what he went through in life. Clearly, those of us who knew him best understood he had no shame in foibles and efforts to understand life. That I'm being painted in this light by someone he couldn't stand (anyone can find those diffs) for most of his time, until he decided to forgive her, is far worse than wanting to photograph someone who visually assaults you by changing their tampon on the street. Get real. --David Shankbone 19:05, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Oh good grief. Jeff's name was released publically on Misplaced Pages on several instances, and David had the great nerve to write a very nice blog entry on Facebook regarding Jeff. He may have had his differences with Jeff in the past, but David has respect for the guy. To come off as anything less is assuming some of the shittest faith I have ever seen -- and that is saying it lightly. seicer | talk | contribs 19:09, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

About Jeff

I hope you don't think I am attacking you or criticizing you. However, I want you to know that a lot of people are very emotional right now, and that I hope you understand that. I find the fighting very upsetting and I don't think it is good for the community to have this happen right now. I'm not telling you specifics on how to act, or advising you on any of those. I just want you to know how I and others feel right now and that I hope you take this into consideration. I don't want to fight, and I probably won't respond to this anymore because of how I feel at the moment. I'm sorry if I have wasted your time. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:51, 11 August 2008 (UTC)