Talk:Andrew Blake (director)

message: == Origin of the "Andrew Blake" Pseudonym ==
The 1967 "hippy Science Fiction novel" The Butterfly Kid by Chester Anderson includes in its cast of characters (several of whom were based on real people) an unashamed pornographer with artistic pretentions named "Andrew Blake".  Since I first discovered the "real" Andrew Blake and his work some ten or fifteen years ago, I couldn't help but wonder if there were some connection between the director and the fictional character.  Does anyone have any idea if Paul Nevitt took his pseudonym from the character in the novel?  Or if he were actually present in Greenwich Village in 1967 and using the "Andrew Blake" name already, and thus influenced Anderson?  -- Random Browser
== "See also" Section OK - or Not? ==
FWIW - seems that the "See also" section is not ok by one editor - however, others may disagree - After all, according to "WP:OWN", "All Wikipedia content ... is edited collaboratively" - Further, according to "WP:ALSO" => "The links in the "See also" section might be only indirectly related to the topic of the article because one purpose of "See also" links is to enable readers to explore tangentially related topics." - Nonetheless, the following listing was deleted, without discussion, by  "User:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz":
Copied from the March 12, 2015 version of  "Andrew Blake (director)#See also:
See also
The following listing includes directors also known for adult erotic films:
Is the edit deletion *entirely* OK - or Not? - Comments Welcome - in any case - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 13:55, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course the removal is OK. As I pointed out, inclusion of such a list is clearly contrary to consensus practice. The "see also" sections in Robert Altman and Frank Capra don't include links to selected other directors. The "see also" sections in Peyton Manning and Joe Montana don't include links to selected other quarterbacks. The "see also" sections in Gabriel Garcia Marquez and John Steinbeck don't include links to selected other writers. If you want to promote your favorite porn directors (and there's no other evident inclusion criterion here), then clutter up your userspace. It's certainly not appropriate in a BLP. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 15:01, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thank you for your comments - and considered opinion - others may (or may not) agree with you - the issue is the article content - and worthy related articles in a "See also" section - and not otherwise - in any case - Thanks again for your comments - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 17:56, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discussion 

message: FWIW - seems that the "See also" section is not ok by one editor - however, others may disagree - After all, according to "WP:OWN", "All Wikipedia content ... is edited collaboratively" - Further, according to "WP:ALSO" => "The links in the "See also" section might be only indirectly related to the topic of the article because one purpose of "See also" links is to enable readers to explore tangentially related topics." - Nonetheless, the following listing was deleted, without discussion, by  "User:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz":
Copied from the March 12, 2015 version of  "Andrew Blake (director)#See also:
See also
The following listing includes directors also known for adult erotic films:
Is the edit deletion *entirely* OK - or Not? - Comments Welcome - in any case - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 13:55, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course the removal is OK. As I pointed out, inclusion of such a list is clearly contrary to consensus practice. The "see also" sections in Robert Altman and Frank Capra don't include links to selected other directors. The "see also" sections in Peyton Manning and Joe Montana don't include links to selected other quarterbacks. The "see also" sections in Gabriel Garcia Marquez and John Steinbeck don't include links to selected other writers. If you want to promote your favorite porn directors (and there's no other evident inclusion criterion here), then clutter up your userspace. It's certainly not appropriate in a BLP. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 15:01, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thank you for your comments - and considered opinion - others may (or may not) agree with you - the issue is the article content - and worthy related articles in a "See also" section - and not otherwise - in any case - Thanks again for your comments - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 17:56, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  "See also" Section OK - or Not? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Andrew Blake (director). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090614145047/http://store2.andrewblake.com:80/static/xcart/home.php?cat=250 to http://store2.andrewblake.com/static/xcart/home.php?cat=250
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:22, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified