68.173.43.58 (talk) re. "porn star" info. |
AnonEMouse (talk | contribs) |
||
Line 98: | Line 98: | ||
BTW. your regular area seems to be SO SO much better ... thus, I wonder why bother with the hassle and ubiquitous errors in a pornography section?? "The Truth" will NEVER be known (by your second source method). These "stars" and their production companies, PR people and distribution companies (even their fans) own many MANY sites & can "second source" ANYTHING!! |
BTW. your regular area seems to be SO SO much better ... thus, I wonder why bother with the hassle and ubiquitous errors in a pornography section?? "The Truth" will NEVER be known (by your second source method). These "stars" and their production companies, PR people and distribution companies (even their fans) own many MANY sites & can "second source" ANYTHING!! |
||
== [[Wikipedia talk:Notability (pornographic actors)#Ready to become a notability criteria guideline]] == |
|||
Sorry, Joe, I just realized that of all the people who really should be notified, you should have been the first, given that it is your brainchild. In case you haven't been following the blow-by-blow, two different experienced and respected admins expressed the strong opinion that this proposed guideline has been sitting around as a proposal long enough, and it's time to mark it a guideline, or mark it rejected or historical. I gathered some evidence that it has been used quite a bit during these 5 months, and made what I hope is a good case for marking it a full notability guideline. I have a vague memory that you really wanted it to be a proposal for 6 months, but then couldn't find where you actually wrote that, and between the admin pressure, and the fact that no one else said anything about it, and the vague impression that you've been much less active recently, I took it upon myself; I hope 5 months is close enough. Anyway, please state your opinion at the above link, and I hope I have not offended, taken your prerogative, or anything of the sort. So far I've notified the 2 admins, the Village Pump/proposals, and [[WP:P*]], trying to achieve proper "advertisement" without verging into actual spamming. [[User:AnonEMouse|AnonEMouse]] <sup>[[User_talk:AnonEMouse|(squeak)]]</sup> 05:23, 22 October 2006 (UTC) |
Revision as of 05:23, 22 October 2006
Archives |
---|
Archive as of: |
Please restore it - I want to expand it, like we did Dora Venter, it's the same case (which was proded and deleted by survived 2 AFD's and expanded and now available in 3 languages).
Not just she add about 100 films and she is very active now, she considered the hottest thing in porn now and we can write about her alot. She is worth an article. By the way it was written twice (by someone else) after it was deleted by you - so it's another proof of notabilty. --Haham hanuka 16:35, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
... is listed as a task on WP:P* but she doesn't seem to be a porn star, just a model. Is it all right if she is removed from task list? It's long enough already with real porn stars; and the number of other glamour model articles that need work could swamp it. AnonEMouse (squeak) 20:09, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
- Sure. Feel free to remove it. (BTW, sorry for the delay, but I was down with a cold-flu and back pain for a week and a half.) -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. Think out loud — WP:PORN BIO? 00:19, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
Eve Laurence tussle
Hey great to see that you're back. Can you help me out with a revert war that's occuring on the Eve Laurence page over the fanlisting page? There's been 6 additions and removals of the same info in the page 3 days and it's getting tiresome... Tabercil 14:10, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
- I noticed that. If it happens again, I'll temporarily block the user, as the bulk of this user's contributions have been to Eve Laurence. -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. Think out loud — WP:PORN BIO? 23:33, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
Kimberly Holland's implants
Joe Beaudoin Jr. removed a reference to Kimberly Holland's breast implants that seemed both true and relevant, for reasons that are not apparent. I'd like to see an explanation. My apologies if I'm missing something. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.136.230.142 (talk • contribs) 05:48, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
- While it may be true and relevant, there was no source for this information that we could cite. Therefore, uncited information can and is to be removed until we can cite it with a verifiable and reliable source. -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. Think out loud — WP:PORN BIO? 23:24, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
Wow. Thanks. However, while it may be improved by a good review, I don't think it will make it to featured article, however. I've skimmed some FA reviews, and it seems to be missing printed citations (on dead trees), or even high quality citations (the ones I found were enough to get it to survive AFD, but FA status should be an example to others), and I'm not sure how to improve that, I don't really know where to go to look for more. Also it seems to have some problems with "uncontroversial", as you've found with our friendly anon. :-) As you properly suggested, Jenna Jameson is probably going to be our best shot for FA. She has been written up on dead trees. :-). The other "top 4" for the 1.0 project: Linda Lovelace, John Holmes, Traci Lords, and even Ron Jeremy are also possibilities. AnonEMouse (squeak) 12:55, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
- Oh, I do agree. It'll likely never make featured status, but I'm more interested in the "Good Article" status for Vicca. -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. Think out loud — WP:PORN BIO? 03:25, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
I removed the PROD on Cathi O'Malley, as I think the IMDb credits add up to notability. TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 08:57, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
- Fair enough. -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. Think out loud — WP:PORN BIO? 03:25, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
Kobe Tai image
Hi, Joe Beaudoin Jr.. I notice the image Image:Kobe Tai.jpg listed as it source a site that didn't seemed the original source not the copyright holder for the image. The site vaguely implyies the images would belong do vivid.com, but to use the {{promophoto}} tag, we must be completly sure the image comes from a press kit. Do you know where we can find evidence that vivid released that image for as part of a press kit? Best regards, --Abu Badali 22:08, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
- You can get rid of this. I've found an image of her from Lukeisback.com that I'll upload to the commons shortly. -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. Think out loud — WP:PORN BIO? 03:09, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
- Scratch that, someone already found the image in question and uploaded it to commons, but never removed the "fair use" one. -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. Think out loud — WP:PORN BIO? 03:18, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
- That's great. I've marked the unfree image as orphaned-replaced and it should be gone soon. Thanks, --Abu Badali 13:24, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
- The thanks should go to you, sir. Had you not said something, we would neither know how long that unfree image would have stayed there nor known how long the commons image's existance would remain in the shadows, as it were. Kudos. -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. Think out loud — WP:PORN BIO? 14:32, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
- That's great. I've marked the unfree image as orphaned-replaced and it should be gone soon. Thanks, --Abu Badali 13:24, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
- Scratch that, someone already found the image in question and uploaded it to commons, but never removed the "fair use" one. -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. Think out loud — WP:PORN BIO? 03:18, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
{{no rationale}}
Just to let you know, {{no rationale}} can only be used on images uploaded after May 4, 2006. I removed it from Image:Gina Grotjohn.fobpro27.jpg. Regards, howcheng {chat} 23:57, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
- Thanks for the catch! -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. Think out loud — WP:PORN BIO? 15:20, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
Hello Joe,
you took this picture from Luke Ford's website, probably assuming it was his. But at the top of the page you took it from, it says "The first 71pictures are courtesy of Jay Cummings." Your source is one of those pictures. So it actually isn't a picture of Luke Ford, he just uses it "courtesy of" someone. So he can't license it, and we can't use it. Right? Regards --Rosenzweig 16:06, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
- Good catch. If they're courtesy of someone else, then that someone else would hold the copyright, and as a result Luke can't license them as CC'd since they're not his own. So I think we do need to pull this particular image out. I wonder how many other pics we've taken from Luke's site that falls into this trap? Tabercil 22:28, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
- Fine. Will Joe go ahead and request deletion, or should I do it? Regards --Rosenzweig 19:38, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
Kaitlyn Ashley article
Can you do me a favour and check the deleted files archive to see if there is an article about Kaitlyn Ashley listed there? The name's on my watch list, yet there's no indication of an article presently existing and I'm wondering if someone speedy'd the article out of existance. Since Kaitlyn's a member of the AVN Hall of Fame, she would certainly qualify for notability. Tabercil 04:37, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
- Nevermind. I found what happened to it and got it restored myself. Tabercil 12:10, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
re. "porn star" info.
I HAD attempted to edit (correct or delete) much of your erroneous porn star information. It was simply too frustrating, even AFTER being informed of your second source rule. I am in the business and I know REAL facts, not "fan" adoration, or PR nonsense. Even AFTER I provided second source material, my edits were removed with nasty comments about me! I ask you, Joe, if I provided second source information (such as Angelica Sin being a prostitute, AKA "escort" verified from FOUR other sites, having verified STD, from an industry publication, even her weight is wrong, it's over 140 pounds, from a source quoted by your own site VS. other "porn stars" such as SaRenna Lee, Kianna Dior, etc, where I pointed out obvious inanities and 100% false and undocumented "information," i.e., accusations ... etc.) I gave up -- because 1) SOME girls seem to be "protected" or special, such as that Angela Oliver (AKA Angelica Sin) and any defamatory, albeit PROVEN material, is deleted and only wonderful fantasies are written and permitted to remain VS. 2) "The Others" who have absolutely NO controls about the spurious lies written, even after notifying your site ... ("drugs?" ""too old" "fat?" rambling inanities from obvious fans? etc.)
As you said, when you were nice enough to write back, some many months ago ... it MAY be too difficult to EVER get true facts in this Industry (especially since the PR is 90% false and disseminated to encourage a larger fan base and loyal lusty following).
I wish you and your site the best.
If things were TRULY consistent, fair and reliable, then perhaps I would further try to help you.
BTW. your regular area seems to be SO SO much better ... thus, I wonder why bother with the hassle and ubiquitous errors in a pornography section?? "The Truth" will NEVER be known (by your second source method). These "stars" and their production companies, PR people and distribution companies (even their fans) own many MANY sites & can "second source" ANYTHING!!
Sorry, Joe, I just realized that of all the people who really should be notified, you should have been the first, given that it is your brainchild. In case you haven't been following the blow-by-blow, two different experienced and respected admins expressed the strong opinion that this proposed guideline has been sitting around as a proposal long enough, and it's time to mark it a guideline, or mark it rejected or historical. I gathered some evidence that it has been used quite a bit during these 5 months, and made what I hope is a good case for marking it a full notability guideline. I have a vague memory that you really wanted it to be a proposal for 6 months, but then couldn't find where you actually wrote that, and between the admin pressure, and the fact that no one else said anything about it, and the vague impression that you've been much less active recently, I took it upon myself; I hope 5 months is close enough. Anyway, please state your opinion at the above link, and I hope I have not offended, taken your prerogative, or anything of the sort. So far I've notified the 2 admins, the Village Pump/proposals, and WP:P*, trying to achieve proper "advertisement" without verging into actual spamming. AnonEMouse (squeak) 05:23, 22 October 2006 (UTC)