User talk:Luttycane

Your edits

So far I've reverted every one of your edits. This is because the web site that you are referencing does not appear to be a reliable source. It's just a video warehouse/production company and they may have gotten the names of those women from anywhere. Please stop using that site as a reference unless you have some way of proving that they are correct. Dismas|^(talk) 19:28, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So, are you saying that you've worked with these women and have their IDs on file? (also, you can sign your comments on talk pages with four tildes. It will look like ~~~~ but will automatically expand and change to your username when you hit "Save page") Dismas|^(talk) 19:36, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dismas -- sorry, I'm a newb. Yes, been in the business for several years and have corroborating photo IDs. ViceList is a blog that reviews adult DVDs and the porn stars.Luttycane (talk) 19:42, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Being a newb is fine. We all were at one point. At first glance, I thought that your info might be considered original research. I'm not a lawyer though, so I've asked for clarification of WP's policies at the help desk. Here is a direct link to my question there. Dismas|^(talk) 19:54, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So can I continue posting the factual info? I'll gladly provide you some sample IDs. As far as the Wiki legal...I couldn't find the linked question. Nevertheless, I'm not sure that many people listed in Wiki prefer that their real names not be used. But there is a precedent for it, and the quality of the resouce in my situation is far more reliable than you typically find amongst the adult industry reference fodder, ie. some guy/gal talking in an AVN article or a randmon blog posting. For instance, Audrey Hollander didn't attend Loyola in Chicago...it was New OrleansLuttycane (talk) 20:13, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I screwed up the link. Trying to do too many things at once. As far as posting the info... I'd hate for you to do a bunch of work just to have it removed. It might be best to find out more info first. I know what you mean about other sources though. At the pornography WikiProject here, we have a list of verified sources partially because it is so hard to find reputable sources. It's tough to find good ones sometimes. Dismas|^(talk) 20:30, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For what's it's worth...there's a ton of work that goes into the Viceography bios. It's not just same lazy cut and paste. Besides the factual info, there's an honest assessment of the star's work and personality. There's really nothing like it on the Internet. Anyway, ViceList has a lot of information that can add value to Wiki, and I'd rather be working WITH you than against you.Luttycane (talk) 20:38, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dismas - I have no idea of your or Help Desk's timezones/work schedule. I'm assuming you're a volunteer and do the Wiki stuff on off-hours. Anyway, any word or feedback at this point?Luttycane (talk) 13:59, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a volunteer. We all are. Wikipedia only has about 20 employees. My hours are strange and the Help Desk is "manned" by other volunteers who are from all different parts of the world. Back to the topic though, I've asked a couple of other people from the Pornography WikiProject to read this page and weigh in on the matter. Dismas|^(talk) 01:00, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see that vicelist has anything to offer. It has huge amounts of advertising, which are warned against, and it's information content is unsourced, extremely thin, and geared toward promoting sales, not providing information. See the first sentence of the "bio" on Eve Lawrence, for example. These so-called "bios" are simply the hook to catch interest in the products that take up the vast majority of every page on the site. This is nothing more than porn spam, which should be shunned as unacceptable. Valrith (talk) 01:31, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My opinion largely mirrors Valrith's... the site doesn't seem to qualify as a reliable source. Lemme moderate Valrith's comment by stating that the presence of advertising by itself is not a killer problem - the New York Times website has ads on it and that's considered one of the more reliable sources out there. But the information presented doesn't seem to have any basis by which it can be backed up. I mean, if you had interviews or such by which we can see how you got the information, it would stand a better chance of being added. For instance, on the Eve Laurence that Valrith links to, you have what you say is her "real" name and birth date. How did you get it? Without such back up, we can't use ViceList. And it's not just your site that has that problem... IMDB is also frowned upon as an information such on similar grounds. Tabercil (talk) 02:04, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is quite a remarkable "high road" that is being presented by Valrith, so I applaud the stance of Tabercil. The New York Times or even your approved external links for Excalibur Films bios are all commercial interests. The New York Times writes articles to sell papers and advertising. ViceList does movie reviews for the same commercial purpose. Anyway, the biographical information on ViceList is accurate. In fact, more accurate than many other adult resources utilized on Wiki. There are 2 forms of identification which are commonly utilized within the adult industry to comply with what's known as the 2257 requirements. And in fact, this information is more reliable than someone spouting off in LukeFord or AVN. And as I offered Dismas, I'd gladly share some evidence of these ID's within a different forum or via email.Luttycane (talk) 03:19, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate that you guys are all volunteers. And I'm not wanting to start some political brouhaha here on Wiki. Especially since that would go against the basic principles that Wiki espouses. There's plenty of adult boards for those kind of shenanigans. What I want to point out is that ViceList has over 1,800 DVD reviews compiled over the last 3 years. If you read the material, you will very quickly see, first and foremost, that we're porn fans. And with that common thread that we all share, I would hope that ViceList and the moderators herein can break bread and work together. We've already got a good relationship going with IAFD. Our approach from day one has been to bring as much integrity and honesty into our work. I hope that over time, you'll value ViceList as a trusted source. Please give us the chance to earn that respect.Luttycane (talk) 17:49, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you keep trying to out people without their consent using records you obtained as a secondary producer under 2257, you have no integrity and I promise you you're not going to continue to have a good relationship with IAFD. Morbidthoughts (talk) 16:10, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're inferring some attempt to "out" people. That's not the case. In nearly all the cases, these names are already floated around the Internet in many places. We just used the IDs to act as a verfiable source. We've also seen that some of the Wiki birthday's are off. As far as I know, producers (primary or secondary) are not bound by an sort of confidentiality provisions. When a guy/girl signs a model release and decides to have sex for money, I think they understand what they're signing up for. These performers have been in hundreds of videos, so let's not pretend that they're trying to keep family or others in the dark about their adult alter egos.Luttycane (talk) 16:41, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what the legality of publishing information from private contracts is, but it's certainly highly unethical no matter what its legal standing is. Valrith (talk) 00:14, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As I feared, you guys have turned Wiki into nothing more than a politicized fan board. There's zero objectivity as you guys are clearly infatuated with your porn star idols...because of which, your vision is clouded and you are making assumptions, conclusions and decisions about what you think is ethical, just and fair. Thus, you've marginalized everything that Wiki stands for. Bravo. As I'll say once again, all this information is already all over the Internet and in the public domain. These actors have filmed hundreds of movies for dozens of producers - yet you naive fans cling to some ridiculous notion that the actors are noble humanitarians (instead of glorified prostitutes) and that somehow, it's your obligation to protect their well-being. Objectively, you should be welcoming the fact that Wiki will be the source of accuracy. Instead, you're overwhelmed with personal beliefs and other nonsense, as well as threats of retaliatory action. It's really pitiful.Luttycane (talk) 00:58, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your motives are hardly altruistic or objective since every single contribution you have made to wikipedia under this account promotes vicelist in some manner. Morbidthoughts (talk) 01:21, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've just reviewed every single one of the approved External Links under the pornproject. I cannot find one non-for-profit. They are all commercial websites in the business of generating revenue streams. So once again, you're coloring this issue with naive nonsense. "Altruism" has no place in Wiki from what I can tell. This is not a fan board. This information is posted on ViceList. It is accurate. And it was linked and referenced in accordance with the Wiki specs. There are no other attempts for self-promotion as you are implying. And this continued banter back and forth looks and smells like something more appropriate for LukeIsBack or ADT. Should we start with the Jeremy Steele insults next? This is more like children squabbling over someone new playing in their sandbox. Why don't you guys remove Briana Banks real name? That came from a TV newstory where the investigator uncovered her name via a lawsuit she was involved in. How is that kosher or ethical unaccording to your standards?Luttycane (talk) 01:43, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reread the wikipedia guidelines on conflicts of interests (particularly the part about self-promotion) and then familiarise yourself with the policy on biographies of living people, particularly the part about the presumption of privacy to answer some of your purported rhetoric. Morbidthoughts (talk) 01:55, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

January 2009

If you have a close connection to some of the people, places or things you have written about in the article Aurora Snow, you may have a conflict of interest. In keeping with Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy, edits where there is a conflict of interest, or where such a conflict might reasonably be inferred from the tone of the edit and the proximity of the editor to the subject, are strongly discouraged. If you have a conflict of interest, you should avoid or exercise great caution when:

editing or creating articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with;
participating in deletion discussions about articles related to your organization or its competitors;
linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam); and,
avoid breaching relevant policies and guidelines, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, verifiability of information, and autobiographies.

For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have conflict of interest, please see our frequently asked questions for businesses. For more details about what, exactly, constitutes a conflict of interest, please see our conflict of interest guidelines. Thank you. Morbidthoughts (talk) 16:11, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop adding self-referenced controversial biographical content to articles or any other Wikipedia page, as you did at Audrey Hollander. Content of this nature could be regarded as defamatory and is in violation of Wikipedia policy. If you continue, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Also for the Allysin Chains, Aurora Snow, and Brittney Skye articles. Do not out people's private information and cite it to your website, ViceList. Morbidthoughts (talk) 16:30, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Articles for deletion nomination of American Vice

I have nominated American Vice, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/American Vice. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Morbidthoughts (talk) 03:58, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:American Vice Logo.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:American Vice Logo.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

PLEASE NOTE:

I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions.
I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to your talk page.
If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 03:01, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]