Talk:Casey Calvert/Archive 1
 | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 |
(actress)/(pornographic actress) RfC
An RfC which may affect this article's title is currently taking place (Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Pornography#RfC: Should a person who has appeared in exclusively pornographic films be described as "(actor/-tress)" or "(pornographic actor/-tress)"?). Rebecca1990 (talk) 06:35, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on Casey Calvert (actress). Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:
- Attempted to fix sourcing for http://revelu.com/florida/2014/04/26/uf-student-turn-porn-star/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).
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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Offline 00:00, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
This is another draft for this article at User:Scalhotrod/UserSandbox/Casey Calvert. It was created in August 2014 prior to this creation. None of those sources there look appropriate to me at first glance but if anyone see anything worth merging here, just drop a comment at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Scalhotrod/UserSandbox/Casey Calvert and it'll be kept and/or redirected as needed. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:52, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Casey Calvert (actress). 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/20100304153045/http://avnawards.avn.com/nominees to http://avnawards.avn.com/nominees
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130101002204/http://xbizawards.xbiz.com/nominees.php to http://xbizawards.xbiz.com/nominees.php
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).
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) 14:10, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
Over use of citations
This article has a serious problem with WP:CITEKILL. For instances, there's no reason to have 3 citations just to say she identifies as a feminist. It's not helpful to anyone either. I think "It is possible that an editor who is trying to promote an article to GA-class (good article status) might add citations to basic facts such as "...the sky is blue..."[6]. While this might be a good thing in their eyes, the fact that the sky is blue does not usually require a citation" applies here. As well as most of it being WP:REFBOMBing for the purpose of the AfD. " The deceptive goal here is to boost the number of footnotes present in the article as high as possible, in the hope that it will fool other editors into accepting the topic's notability without properly vetting the degree to which any given source is or isn't actually substantive, reliable, and about the subject. Ultimately, it just makes the article harder to read and edit. A lot of the cruft sources should be removed and only ones that are actually substantive and reliable should be kept. Both criteria being as important. --Adamant1 (talk) 01:51, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
- Agreed. I'm not sure how much article would be left if the refs we held to BLP and NOT. All the refs, their repetition, and the content expansion looks like zone flooding. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 17:20, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
- I think I'd have to agree with the in-depth analysis by GuzzyG that it's not a good idea to hold female actresses in this industry to a different double standard on Wikipedia. Right cite (talk) 19:00, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
- That's a really bizarre take. Neither one of us said it had anything to do with her being a female. Nor do the guidelines about the proper use of references have anything to do with gender. Generally, if someone is going to drop the sexism card there should at least be a smidgen of truth behind it. Otherwise, it just looks ridiculous. --Adamant1 (talk) 19:21, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
- Not what I was saying. Just agree with the analysis by Godsy and GuzzyG about what has been going on here. Right cite (talk) 19:26, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
- I don't see there comments anywhere on this talk page. Let alone this particular section. So, whatever they said isn't relevant to this particular thing. General statements made in other, random forums rarely are though. Otherwise, what specifically did they say about this specific article being overcited? --Adamant1 (talk) 19:30, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
- Seems like WP:BATTLE, and a disruption of the purpose of this specific discussion away from content. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 01:13, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
- Exactly. --Adamant1 (talk) 01:45, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
- Nope. Was not the intent. Apologies it was perceived inappropriately by you two. Right cite (talk) 10:56, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
- That's just more of the same behavior. Please stop. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 15:37, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
- I'm sorry you feel that way, was not intended as such. Hope we can communicate going forwards in more good faith and with less terse language and command form grammar. Right cite (talk) 16:25, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
- That communication needs to based upon a good understanding of and adherence to policy. Sanctions are in effect here. If you are unable to learn and follow policy, you're at risk of a block or ban. That's why you're being told to stop your behavior. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 16:51, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
- Thank you. I agree with you on the policy. Thanks for explaining in in a good faith manner, here. I appreciate it! Right cite (talk) 16:54, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
- That communication needs to based upon a good understanding of and adherence to policy. Sanctions are in effect here. If you are unable to learn and follow policy, you're at risk of a block or ban. That's why you're being told to stop your behavior. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 16:51, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
- I'm sorry you feel that way, was not intended as such. Hope we can communicate going forwards in more good faith and with less terse language and command form grammar. Right cite (talk) 16:25, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
- That's just more of the same behavior. Please stop. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 15:37, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
- Nope. Was not the intent. Apologies it was perceived inappropriately by you two. Right cite (talk) 10:56, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
- Exactly. --Adamant1 (talk) 01:45, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
- Seems like WP:BATTLE, and a disruption of the purpose of this specific discussion away from content. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 01:13, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
- I don't see there comments anywhere on this talk page. Let alone this particular section. So, whatever they said isn't relevant to this particular thing. General statements made in other, random forums rarely are though. Otherwise, what specifically did they say about this specific article being overcited? --Adamant1 (talk) 19:30, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
- Not what I was saying. Just agree with the analysis by Godsy and GuzzyG about what has been going on here. Right cite (talk) 19:26, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
- That's a really bizarre take. Neither one of us said it had anything to do with her being a female. Nor do the guidelines about the proper use of references have anything to do with gender. Generally, if someone is going to drop the sexism card there should at least be a smidgen of truth behind it. Otherwise, it just looks ridiculous. --Adamant1 (talk) 19:21, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
- I think I'd have to agree with the in-depth analysis by GuzzyG that it's not a good idea to hold female actresses in this industry to a different double standard on Wikipedia. Right cite (talk) 19:00, 25 October 2020 (UTC)