Talk:Fleshbot

Still owned by Gawker Media?

I noticed that the Gawker Media article lists this blog as "formerly owned by", in addition to noticing its omission from being linked/connected to the other Gawker blogs. So the question is, which article is current in the information? --99.186.111.95 (talk) 03:25, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

The whois info for Fleshbot.com is the same as that of other Gawker sites, and no official statements about a sale have been made. On Boinkology, the editor of Fleshbot still lists Fleshbot as "Gawker Media's blog about sex, porn, and the web". Plus, the "advertising" link at the bottom of Fleshbot goes to advertising.gawker.com. Basically, it seems Gawker Media still owns Fleshbot, but doesn't like to talk about it. 82.73.154.190 (talk) 11:01, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

WHOIS record

The source for the statement about the WHOIS record appears to be dynamic. Is there a way to archive it? Wank Hilliams (talk) 00:50, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Fleshbot. 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://archive.is/20130412041321/http://www.webstatzone.com/whois/fleshbot.com.htm to http://www.webstatzone.com/whois/fleshbot.com.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:25, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Updating entry

This entry sorely needs updating. The site has changed significantly,not least of which is that it's a pale version of itself and almost completely composed of advertising masked as "articles." It's terrible. 150.135.165.33 (talk) 17:24, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. You can locate your hook here. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by HurricaneZeta (talk) 20:31, 18 January 2026 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that sex-oriented blog Fleshbot generated over one million views on its launching week?

• Source: In its first week, Fleshbot recorded more than one million page views

• • ALT1: ... that Fleshbot posted stills and free links to Paris Hilton's sex tape during its launch week? Source: Already on the site are three stills for view of the alleged tape of the floozy hotel heiress and then boy toy Rick Solomon. On Nov. 10, 2003, Gawker Media unveiled Fleshbot, its own alternative porn blog, and hours later, a tipster sent along a just-leaked home video of hotel heiress Paris Hilton
  • Reviewed: Ballard Link Extension

5x expanded by Damian Vo (talk). Number of QPQs required: 1. Nominator has 22 past nominations.

Damian Vo (talk) 16:39, 27 December 2025 (UTC).

• Article recently expanded and is long enough. Referencing is adequate, with no copyvio detected (Earwig flagged a couple clearly marked quotes and a few 4/5-word phrases). Hooks are interesting, prefer ALT0 but either is fine. Both are cited inline and mentioned, verified in the sources. QPQ provided, so good to go. Juxlos (talk) 12:21, 29 December 2025 (UTC)

GA review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This review is transcluded from Talk:Fleshbot/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: Damian Vo (talk · contribs) 16:30, 27 December 2025 (UTC)

Reviewer: H2so4aq (talk · contribs) 07:23, 17 August 2026 (UTC)

I can review this article; should be able to finish this week. H2so4aq (talk) 07:23, 17 August 2026 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

---

A well-written and well-sourced article. Some minor issues still remain; article will be placed on hold for 7 days to allow for corrections.Y

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, spelling, grammar, and understandability): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   Well-written and understandable. 1) Unclear why colwidth for Female Performer of the Year is different from the other sections (suggestion, consider fixing).Y 2) "Unlike many contemporary adult outlets..." may require additional sources in the body to verify that Fleshbot is still unique in this aspect.Y 3) Also needs work on WP:Words to watch: "witty and sophisticated" should be removed; the sourced quotes speak for themselves here. Same goes with "witty and journalistic" in the lead, and with describing the "Morph" and "CGI" sections as "unique".Y

Fixed and removed the questionable bits. Damian Vo (talk) 16:47, 19 August 2026 (UTC)

1. It is factually accurate and verifiable, as shown by a source spot-check.

   a (reference section): b (inline citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):

   Spot checked sources; material appears quite well-sourced and no copyvio detected. 1) Replace source [90], as it is (almost) unreadable on archive.org and the original url is dead.Y 2) commentary from Dean in Wired saying commentaries, "...bridge the gap between technology, pop culture, and adult imagery" seems to be editorializing what the article said. Rework to make it more neutral and closer to the source's text.Y 3) Source [34] ("Fleshbot.com Sold to Site’s Editor Lux Alptraum", AVN) does not appear to mention Alptraum reinstating the Fleshbot Awards following a hiatus after 2011, where it is the only attached source.Y

I replaced the [90] link with another archive in 2009, which is readable without the noisy background. There are no other sources for this award season, sadly :( I also removed Dean's comment and the Alptraum bit. Damian Vo (talk) 16:47, 19 August 2026 (UTC)

1. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   Article appears to cover the major aspects of the site; the checked references do not reveal any major untouched facets.

2. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   Article appears to be neutral, but has some issues with WP:IMPARTIAL as detailed in point (1).Y

3. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

   Article is stable; only recent edits are copyedits or small WP:GF changes.

4. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   The Fleshbot logo's license claims it is a simple geometric image, while it is clearly the site's logo. Either a free version should be used, or the license should be clarified to indicate (and justify) non-free use per WP:LOGO.Y

5. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

H2so4aq (talk) 07:05, 18 August 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for taking this up for review. It's been a while! I've addressed your comments above :D Damian Vo (talk) 16:47, 19 August 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing the identified issues. Congratulations on a successful GA! H2so4aq (talk) 04:54, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.