User talk:Morbidthoughts/Archive 5
 | This is an archive of past discussions about User:Morbidthoughts. 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 | ← | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | → | Archive 10 |
Holly Randall
I noticed your revert of the image placement in the Holly Randall article and it inspired a question. Shouldn't we put the most recent image in the infobox? Do you know of anything in the manual of style that deals with this? Dismas|(talk) 09:30, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
- Personally, I think it should be the image which is the clearest and most current for the subject. The only exception, in my mind, would be if the subject was most notable for events that happened some time ago, and thus a younger look for the subject is the one which most people recognize. For instance, take a look at Elizabeth Taylor... the image there dates to 1958, which is when she was at the height of her popularity. So if I had two equally clear images of, say Ginger Lynn, I'd go with the one that's closest to her 1980s heyday (we don't in this case). So in the case of Holly Randall, I'd say move ToGlenn's image into the image box. Tabercil (talk) 13:13, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
- The main exception I have to all of this was that the original image was provided by Holly Randall herself. I also think his image is not flattering to Holly. Also I have a problem with Glenn bumping other images in favour of his own in the infobox (which he didn't do with Holly) as that is a conflict of interest for him as an editor. Morbidthoughts (talk) 16:45, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
- I can see the COI angle but many times his photos are simply better (light years better in the case of Denise Richards: new and old) than what was there originally. Often he's able to get the subject straight on instead of some fan photo from an event where they were posing with someone else or talking to someone out of frame and therefore the subject is in profile, etc. As an example, Kimberly Kane's old photo and new. This isn't the best example but it serves my point. In the old photo there's a person's hand and tape recorder sticking in and it's not a very good photo.
- To Tabercil's point, I agree that Randall isn't really known for a look or a particular event that should be highlighted.
- So, to summarize: I don't really have an opinion either way on this one. Randall provided the image but Glenn's is more recent and, IMO, not unflattering. I was mostly wondering if there was some bit of guideline that might address this issue to file away in the back of my head. Thank you both for your input. Dismas|(talk) 21:29, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
- The main exception I have to all of this was that the original image was provided by Holly Randall herself. I also think his image is not flattering to Holly. Also I have a problem with Glenn bumping other images in favour of his own in the infobox (which he didn't do with Holly) as that is a conflict of interest for him as an editor. Morbidthoughts (talk) 16:45, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
Holly Sampson
Regarding your edit of my change to the Holly Sampson page; it's not promotional spam, as the comic is not selling anything, including itself. It is available for free on the internet only. The question of whether the comic is unnotable is your opinion only; there is a lot of content on Wikipedia which could be regarded as 'unnotable,' for instance.
Stevebag9999 (talk) 04:32, 21 January 2010 (UTC)Stevebag9999
- For what it's worth, I agree with Morbidthoughts' removal of the info. The comic doesn't seem to be notable per WP:WEB. Many times people will come here and place a bit of info in an article such as "The band Some-Guy's-Garage-Band wrote a tribute song about ....". Whether it's a garage band or a web comic, it's pointless to include all of these pieces of trivia. While 3rd Blade seems to have done quite a few comics, it doesn't seem to meet our notability standards and doesn't have an article here. Dismas|(talk) 05:04, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
- I disagree, I think that comic is unlike any other comic that has been made; I challenge you to find one that is comparable. It also broadens the public's idea of who Holly Sampson is; otherwise, she is just another porn star. That comic humanises her, and by extension her profession, enormously. Comparing all of that to a 'garage band doing a tribute' is not accurate at all. Stevebag9999 (talk) 07:59, 31 January 2010 (UTC)Stevebag9999
- Considering most of your contributions to wikipedia have been to promote 3rd Blade comics, I think you're biased about its importance or uniqueness. Morbidthoughts (talk) 17:38, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
- I disagree, I think that comic is unlike any other comic that has been made; I challenge you to find one that is comparable. It also broadens the public's idea of who Holly Sampson is; otherwise, she is just another porn star. That comic humanises her, and by extension her profession, enormously. Comparing all of that to a 'garage band doing a tribute' is not accurate at all. Stevebag9999 (talk) 07:59, 31 January 2010 (UTC)Stevebag9999
Miko Lee
I've declined the speedy because it is significantly different from the deleted version: among other things, it's far longer. Feel free to pursue deletion through a prod or through AFD. Nyttend (talk) 06:14, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
- It is also a copyvio of her boobpedia article considering it's not properly attributed as required by the CC license. The additional text do not comply with our BLP standards on verifiability, since the sources cited are not reliable even in the context of pornography. Morbidthoughts (talk) 06:18, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
- Very true; thanks. Deleted. Nyttend (talk) 06:26, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
Hello, I'm a new user (Agoodman61) and I posted an updated entry that was previously deleted twice, and as my revision apparently violated some of Wikipedia's guidelines it was deleted a third time and then protected for an indefinite amount of time. As I said, I'm a "newbie" and was not familiar with all of the ins and outs of Wikipedia's guidelines. I was trying to restore the posting for miss Miko Lee and this was my first attempt. I read that one of the reasons given was that it was a copyright violation of her Boobpedia article. I found that comment unusual as I actually thought that the Boopedia entry was lifted from her original Wikipedia entry. In my mind I was trying to restore and update her original Wikipedia entry. If I am incorrect and the Boopedia entry came before the Wikipedia entry (although that Wikipedia entry was up for a long time and was not previously contested by anyone as having been a Boobpedia entry), then I stand corrected. Also, it was INCORRECTLY stated that she had a "...finished career." NOT so. She was on a hiatus, but did release a movie late last year (Fornic-Asian), which again someone INCORRECTLY mentioned in the discussion to delete that implied that the only scene she appeared in the movie was "...an old scene that was released in Red Dragon." Furthermore, there was a comment made that "She has been retired for several years." Once again, BOTH statements are incorrect. In Fornic-Asian she did an ALL-NEW scene (scene 7 on the DVD) with Actor-Director Brad Armstrong (AVN's 2009 Director of the Year), and yes a scene from Red Dragon appears on the DVD, but only as an EXTRA. Miko is definitely NOT retired, will be shooting more in 2010, and will be returning in a major way. How do I proceed to see if her entry can be unprotected so that I may proceed to correct it and properly verify everything so that it may be submitted again for approval?
Agoodman61 (talk) 22:07, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
- It doesn't matter whether she is retired or not. As long as she doesn't satisfy WP:PORNBIO or the general notability guidelines, which is the original reason for her deletion, the article space will not be unprotected. Morbidthoughts (talk) 17:30, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
You deleted some completely uncontroversial and uncontested information there. I undid your edit. You can fact tag it if you wish, but the first knee-jerk reaction to uncontested info is not to delete. Power.corrupts (talk) 20:34, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
- They are not verified against a reliable source. I am contesting the information by deleting it so don't lecture me that it is completely uncontested especially when they are unverified claims of accomplishments (see WP:GRAPEVINE) and where there is presumption of privacy for BLPs to not disclose where she lives. If you feel like restoring the information, do it properly with the right sources rather than telling me to tag something with a fact tag. Morbidthoughts (talk) 20:38, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
IAFD
Heya, can you chime in over at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Pornography#Reliability of IAFD? There's a point there which really needs some inside info from someone at IAFD, namely what form the 2257 info typically takes. Tabercil (talk) 23:41, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
March 2010
Please do not assume ownership of articles such as Holly Sampson. If you aren't willing to allow your contributions to be edited extensively or be redistributed by others, please do not submit them. Thank you. Morbidthoughts (talk) 05:36, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/User_talk:Jrzyboy"
- I would suggest you do the same, and don't remove properly cited and referenced facts simply because you feel ownership of that article, such as you did with the edition regarding Holly Sampson's involvement in the Tiger Woods affair. Jrzyboy (talk) 13:27, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
- Did you bother reading the talk page and discussing before reinstating your edits like I had asked you? Your links cited to complete tabloid crap like Crimesider and a NY Post article that repeated what she told the Sun. That's what brought you your warning. Morbidthoughts (talk) 15:36, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
- My links were to the New York Post and CBS News, neither of which are "tabloid crap". Plus, you're a user, just like me, so who are you to issue "warnings" top anyone? Oh, and your last edit that claims and "affair" implies "extramarital" is wrong. Perhaps you should check out the Wikipedia entry on Affair. Jrzyboy (talk) 21:14, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
- Your links quotes tabloid crap, specifically NY Post reporting on what she told the English tabloid, The Sun, and Crimesider (not CBS News), a show on CBS that reviews "crimes" in a sensationalised format. Even legitimate news sources have sunk to reporting on tabloid matters. Again, I ask that you read the article's talk page and discuss the issues there. None of her claims can be verified, even Crimesider admits that, and she even changes up her story from tabloid to tabloid. FYI, warnings can be given by other users, not just by admins. Morbidthoughts (talk) 21:38, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
- So, if "even legitimate news sources have sunk to reporting on tabloid matters", why even bother using citations in articles at all? The New York post is a widely read, legitamate newspaper. The CBS link goes to "CBSNews.com". And, as far as her "claims being verified", the changes I made say that she has claimed to have engaged in an affair with Tiger Woods, and then I provide multiple cites to her claims. You need to stop acting like you own this article, and let other users make changes to it. I've noticed this isn't the first time this issue has come up with the article. Jrzyboy (talk) 15:50, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
- You're going to have to recognise and separate when a subject is tabloid gossip and when it's not. Just because some newspaper reports on gossip does not legitimise it. (See WP:RS: "While the reporting of rumors has a news value, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and should only include information verified by reliable sources. Wikipedia is not the place for passing along gossip and rumors.") Further, the wikipedia biographies of living people policy states, "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid paper; it is not our job to be sensationalist". Biographies are to be written conservatively. I changed your use of the word affair because it implies extramarital and more than once to many people. Even though her story changes from source to source, it seems like her main claim is that she slept with him once and described it on a porn website video. Wow, none of this seems like tabloid trash to you? If you can't make this distinction in your contributions, other people are going to keep reverting you. Morbidthoughts (talk) 18:26, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
- The entire Tiger Woods story is trashy and fodder for the tabloids, but it is enough of a story that he himself has had to take a break from playing golf and is has been forced to address the media about it, and the story has been reported on by outlets as far ranging as The Sun to CNN, ESPN, and the New York Times. Sampson herself admitted to having an affair with Woods, and that admission was reported on by several legitimate news organizations. Yes, she did it on a porn website, but guess what? She's a porn star! It's too bad she couldn't have booked time on "Meet the Press", but I guess you have to take what you can get. And, as far as your assertion that "affair implies extramarital", you are wrong. You need to read the Wikipedia entry for "affair". And, once again, you need to stop acting like the self appointed dean of the Holly Sampson article. You are not.Jrzyboy (talk) 13:35, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
- Not an admission but a claim since it can't be verified. Do you believe everything you see in a porn video? If you had labeled that as an admission in the article, I would have reverted it on sight on the grounds of enforcing policy. Morbidthoughts (talk) 23:06, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
- First, admitting to something does not require it to be verified by a third party. You need to read the Wikipedia definition for confession, which mentions nothing about third party verification. Second, there has been no independent verification for any of the women connected to Tiger Woods, and nor could there be, because the only two people in the room when any of the affairs took place were Woods and the woman who he was engaging in the affair with. Third, Holly Sampson's admission did not take place in a "porn video", but in an interview that was posted on a website. Once again, I point out that you are not the owner of the Holly Sampson entry on Wikipedia. Jrzyboy (talk) 23:44, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
- Yeah, whatever dude. Video with naked porn stars on porn website. Live or not. Porn video. Claim that has credibility issue. Not an admission just like a false confession is not a confession. Deal with it. You want to test the premise? Go on right ahead and I'll revert you. Morbidthoughts (talk) 06:30, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
- First, admitting to something does not require it to be verified by a third party. You need to read the Wikipedia definition for confession, which mentions nothing about third party verification. Second, there has been no independent verification for any of the women connected to Tiger Woods, and nor could there be, because the only two people in the room when any of the affairs took place were Woods and the woman who he was engaging in the affair with. Third, Holly Sampson's admission did not take place in a "porn video", but in an interview that was posted on a website. Once again, I point out that you are not the owner of the Holly Sampson entry on Wikipedia. Jrzyboy (talk) 23:44, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
- Not an admission but a claim since it can't be verified. Do you believe everything you see in a porn video? If you had labeled that as an admission in the article, I would have reverted it on sight on the grounds of enforcing policy. Morbidthoughts (talk) 23:06, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
- The entire Tiger Woods story is trashy and fodder for the tabloids, but it is enough of a story that he himself has had to take a break from playing golf and is has been forced to address the media about it, and the story has been reported on by outlets as far ranging as The Sun to CNN, ESPN, and the New York Times. Sampson herself admitted to having an affair with Woods, and that admission was reported on by several legitimate news organizations. Yes, she did it on a porn website, but guess what? She's a porn star! It's too bad she couldn't have booked time on "Meet the Press", but I guess you have to take what you can get. And, as far as your assertion that "affair implies extramarital", you are wrong. You need to read the Wikipedia entry for "affair". And, once again, you need to stop acting like the self appointed dean of the Holly Sampson article. You are not.Jrzyboy (talk) 13:35, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
- You're going to have to recognise and separate when a subject is tabloid gossip and when it's not. Just because some newspaper reports on gossip does not legitimise it. (See WP:RS: "While the reporting of rumors has a news value, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and should only include information verified by reliable sources. Wikipedia is not the place for passing along gossip and rumors.") Further, the wikipedia biographies of living people policy states, "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid paper; it is not our job to be sensationalist". Biographies are to be written conservatively. I changed your use of the word affair because it implies extramarital and more than once to many people. Even though her story changes from source to source, it seems like her main claim is that she slept with him once and described it on a porn website video. Wow, none of this seems like tabloid trash to you? If you can't make this distinction in your contributions, other people are going to keep reverting you. Morbidthoughts (talk) 18:26, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
- So, if "even legitimate news sources have sunk to reporting on tabloid matters", why even bother using citations in articles at all? The New York post is a widely read, legitamate newspaper. The CBS link goes to "CBSNews.com". And, as far as her "claims being verified", the changes I made say that she has claimed to have engaged in an affair with Tiger Woods, and then I provide multiple cites to her claims. You need to stop acting like you own this article, and let other users make changes to it. I've noticed this isn't the first time this issue has come up with the article. Jrzyboy (talk) 15:50, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
- Your links quotes tabloid crap, specifically NY Post reporting on what she told the English tabloid, The Sun, and Crimesider (not CBS News), a show on CBS that reviews "crimes" in a sensationalised format. Even legitimate news sources have sunk to reporting on tabloid matters. Again, I ask that you read the article's talk page and discuss the issues there. None of her claims can be verified, even Crimesider admits that, and she even changes up her story from tabloid to tabloid. FYI, warnings can be given by other users, not just by admins. Morbidthoughts (talk) 21:38, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
- My links were to the New York Post and CBS News, neither of which are "tabloid crap". Plus, you're a user, just like me, so who are you to issue "warnings" top anyone? Oh, and your last edit that claims and "affair" implies "extramarital" is wrong. Perhaps you should check out the Wikipedia entry on Affair. Jrzyboy (talk) 21:14, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
- Did you bother reading the talk page and discussing before reinstating your edits like I had asked you? Your links cited to complete tabloid crap like Crimesider and a NY Post article that repeated what she told the Sun. That's what brought you your warning. Morbidthoughts (talk) 15:36, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
Playmate RFC
Please see Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Pornography#Playboy_Playmates_per_RFC. Thanks, Dismas|(talk) 22:05, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
Input requested
I invite you to comment on my suggestion at Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(people)#Proposed_clarification_of_WP:PORNBIO, which I think would help clear up a minor technical glitch in the wording of the current guideline. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 16:50, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
Violet Blue
What type of proof on her age and her real name would you like to see? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.211.54.243 (talk) 06:31, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
- Please read the policy on biographies of living people carefully before considering posting any of her personal information again. Morbidthoughts (talk) 06:39, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
- Please also read Wikipedia:Oversight - Alison ❤ 06:41, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
Audrey Bitoni
My informations are perfectly reliable and verifiable. There are my sources :
- http://www.adultfilmdatabase.com/actor.cfm?actorid=43951 In this page read "ethnic origin". (This link is on the Audrey Bitoni's Wikipedia page too, the last under her description, so the one who made her page put a link with an information that says the contrary of what he wrote)
- http://www.brazzers.com/tour3/index.php?action=pornstar_inside&pornstar_id=747 Here, you just need to read the bio of Audrey.
- Here you are. Those links are my sources. So stop saying I haven't any source or anything else, because I have real sources. Thank you.Jayman1709 (talk) 17:33, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
- Those are neither reliable sources. The actress herself through her publicist says she's not Italian. Her publicist is personal friends with me and I also know the actress. Morbidthoughts (talk) 21:13, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
Howdy! Saw your PROD of the above-referenced, and I agree with removing the Google section (I indicated as such on the talk page, although I hesitated about doing it). I think you're probably as tempted to just nominate this for deletion as I frankly am, but there have been attempts to recognize the "most influential person" throughout history, and I think it's an interesting topic. Frankly, the original author inadvertently presents a very interesting side to the topic with his inclusion of one (rather bogus) Japanese source, given how it shows how completely subjective such a determination is.
My thinking against deleting this is that we do have articles that show scholarly rankings of U.S. Presidents and the like, so I think this article could have a home here with better sourcing, better research, and no obvious founding POV about making sure that Jesus always wins over Muhammad, hehe. Either way, I wonder if you might agree that we give this article a modicum of time to develop into something before trying any deletion-type action. Any thoughts? ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 20:32, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
- So far there is only one source in the article that attempts to rank the most influential in history and that is Hart's book. The Japanese article lists the Japanese's favourite historical figures which is not the same comparison. This subject seems too subjective even on what exactly is being compared. There should at least be two directly competing sources for there to be an article to write about. Morbidthoughts (talk) 20:41, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
- Hm. Yeah. Checked back in here while on a little GScholar search to try and find a competing source and am having some difficulty. Curious! ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 20:43, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
- Removed Japanese source. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 20:45, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
Just want to give you a heads-up as a frequent editor to the Sunny Leone article that it has been given a review to see if it could be called a good article. Unfortunately, it failed, but the feedback from the review is available at Talk:Sunny Leone/GA1, which gives concrete advice on how to improve the article. Tabercil (talk) 03:57, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Priya Rai. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").
Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Priya Rai (2nd nomination). Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).
You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.
Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:12, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
Names
After reading the historical conversations concerning naming pornstars original names, I do think it makes sense to allow them enough of a measure of privacy to not publicly state their birth names, if they have not publicly stated them personally. JackHarlequin
- Glad to see you understand. Morbidthoughts (talk) 22:14, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
Image kerfluffle
Just giving you a heads-up that a large number of images have been pulled from Commons that are sexual in nature, and a number of them were later found to have been in use. I'm contacting you as you're one of the more active editors on the adult stuff here. If you could watch for red-links and give me a heads up on any that you see so I can see about restoring it, I'd appreciate it. Tabercil (talk) 23:13, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
Playmates
Could you please add your thoughts to this discussion? Dismas|(talk) 04:00, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
Gina Austin pic
Hi, I took your photo and the deleted Gina Austin article and composed a German article out of them, here http://www.pluspedia.de/index.php/Gina_Austin. Thanks. Btw: Have you an idea, what has happened with the bomis link collection of her? Has Jimbo deleted them or will they come back in the next future? Regards Mutter Erde 78.55.116.151 (talk) 22:15, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
- Thank you for letting me know. Wikipedia considers a site with a lot of referral links to be spam so I doubt the link will return. Morbidthoughts (talk) 02:58, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
AfD nomination of Crissy Moran
An editor has nominated Crissy Moran, an article which you have created or worked on, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").
Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Crissy Moran and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).
You may also edit the article during the discussion to address the nominator's concerns but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 06:15, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
Ashley Blue
I'm at work and thus can't check questionable sources. You're usually on at this time, I think, so I'm just asking you to check on the edits being made to the Ashley Blue article tonight. Thanks, Dismas|(talk) 00:20, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
AfD nomination of Raven Riley
An editor has nominated Raven Riley, an article which you have created or worked on, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").
Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Raven Riley (2nd nomination) and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).
You may also edit the article during the discussion to address the nominator's concerns but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 02:29, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
Image discussion
Hi Morbid. I was out of town for a while, so didn't see your further image discussion at Nao Saejima. Probably wouldn't have responded anyway, because, as I've said, 2 or 3 years ago I gave up putting images on articles about living people. Such images have been routinely removed without incident during the last 2-3 years. This whole brouhaha was the result of the belligerent oafishness of the editor who put these particular images up for deletion. Dekkappai (talk) 00:33, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
Hello, there is currently a content dispute at this article and I'd like to see if an agreement can be reached. Since you are a recent contributor to the article, I'd like to ask if you wish to give your opinion on the matter. I'm not involved in the article myself, I'm only interested in trying to bring everyone to a discussion. If you're interested, please comment at this thread, thank you. -- Atama頭 06:13, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
Alireza Shahriari
Hi Morbid thoughts, as the person who unsuccessfully proposed in the recent RFC that we ignore Facebook "sources" for sticky prods I'm afraid that I didn't quite get consensus for that change. So I'm afraid Alireza Shahriari doesn't qualify for a sticky prod. ϢereSpielChequers 08:44, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
The 100
Hi
I'm fine with your reversion - I thought for a while before originally reinstating the link, but did, in the end, for the reasons in my edit summary. That's unusual for me, usually I'd be the one removing links. I generally am harsh with ELs, I've removed hundreds, and always consider WP:ELNO.
I ought to point out though, that EL#12 says: Links to open wikis, except those with a substantial history of stability and a substantial number of editors., and if I wanted to argue the point, (which I don't), I'd mention that this wiki has been available since 2006, and has over 1000 registered editors, so I don't think that's particularly clear cut.
As I say, though - not something I feel strongly about - just worth a mention. Begoontalk 15:12, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
- I looked at the individual article's history and wasn't comfortable with the number of editors that had worked on it. Mostly written by one guy since its creation in 2009. Morbidthoughts (talk) 15:40, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
- No problem at all. As I say, I ummed and ah-ed about reinstating it originally, so we have a mini consensus... thanks for the reply... Begoontalk 11:38, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
Please see Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Eva_Angelina. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 06:41, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
Case Keenum
Just wanted to give you a quick heads-up that I reverted your edit on Case Keenum. Believe it or not -- he hasn't decided yet whether or not he wants to return to Houston or leave for the NFL. He tore his ACL, and he could receive a medical redshirt apparently. Here's a link: http://sports.espn.go.com/ncf/news/story?id=5626424
Happy editing, Obamafan70 (talk) 02:58, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
- I understand but he's no longer the starting quarterback for Houston nor can he break the records in the 2010 season. Morbidthoughts (talk) 03:17, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
- I've made the clarification as per your comments. However, I think there is possibly an equivocation between my conceptual understanding of a 'starting QB' and the manner in which you think the term ought to be applied. Obamafan70 (talk) 04:01, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
Hullaballoo Wolfowitz
...blanks his talk page every time I try to talk to him, even when I'm polite. That's why I gave up on being polite to him ages ago. He also wikistalks me at AFD and votes speedy keep on everything I nominate. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 20:46, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
- There are better ways to address the alleged wikihounding like WP:AIN and WP:RFC than edit warring on his talk page out of all things. Morbidthoughts (talk) 22:03, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
Is that you?
Or is it only coincidence that the interviewer here seems to use the same nickname? Testales (talk) 18:03, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
- Yes. That is me. Didn't realise that was just published. Morbidthoughts (talk) 18:46, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
- Oh you working for IAFD and can do interviews?! That's great, next time you can ask her then a few things about her earlier carrier that are not well referenced so far. ;-) So please tell me if you prepare another interview with her. Testales (talk) 19:31, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
- Next time I see her, I'd rather have several more drinks with her rather than interview her for the purposes of improving the available references about her. Morbidthoughts (talk) 22:47, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
- Well the interview was for IFAD, not for Wikipedia, wasn't it? At least you are called "staff member" there and seem to do interviews regulary. So I don't see the problem to add like 2-3 questions which may help confirm certain facts if you are already in the lucky position to get such information directly from the source. Testales (talk) 11:51, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
- It actually would be a waste of time for IAFD and me to produce another interview of Breanne for the purposes of establishing more references over points I wasn't interested in asking the first time. That is the problem. I can be spending that time interviewing another girl, socialising, or taking photographs. Morbidthoughts (talk) 22:05, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
- I was simply suprised that you work for IAFD and so I was actually just asking if you could drop me a note when you prepare another interview with her in order to possibly verify some bio facts additionally. It's fairly obvious that this will not happen right in the next weeks and I also didn't mean to do such an interview just for Wikipedia. I wonder if my little request was really that ambiguous. Testales (talk) 21:18, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
- FYI, I was asked by a friend to meet up with her and Mrs. Benson on Thursday for an interview and photos for another publication. I turned it down. Morbidthoughts (talk) 23:02, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
- I see, is there a deeper meaning behind this information? Like you could but had no time or just don't see the point maybe because nothing special happenend since the last time? Was the publication intended for IAFD? Btw. Ms. Benson is going to be Penthouse Pet of the month soon, I hope that this is still notable enough for Wikipedia... Testales (talk) 15:46, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
- No deeper meaning other than I didn't have time. My friend did go meet her, and there should be an article published in Adult Quest Magazine next month. As for wikipedia notability, being Penthouse Pet is not enough. However, nominations for the 2011 AVN Awards should be released sometime this week so perhaps then. Morbidthoughts (talk) 18:39, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
- Speaking of, I restored Breanne Benson from your userfy talk page. Morbidthoughts (talk) 23:47, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
- I'd prefer to restrore it by moving it from there to main that's the reason why I have it there with full history. I'll ask tabercil to do so. Moreover she has a second nomination on the list which is more important as it is a scene with fewer actors. Testales (talk) 05:40, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
- You need to find better sources for her alleged early life. Hustler pictorials are often fictional and are not considered reliable.[1] Some of the other sources you use are blogs and other adult sites of unknown reliability. They can be challenged and removed at any time by a demanding editor. Morbidthoughts (talk) 07:17, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
- I'd prefer to restrore it by moving it from there to main that's the reason why I have it there with full history. I'll ask tabercil to do so. Moreover she has a second nomination on the list which is more important as it is a scene with fewer actors. Testales (talk) 05:40, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
- I see, is there a deeper meaning behind this information? Like you could but had no time or just don't see the point maybe because nothing special happenend since the last time? Was the publication intended for IAFD? Btw. Ms. Benson is going to be Penthouse Pet of the month soon, I hope that this is still notable enough for Wikipedia... Testales (talk) 15:46, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
- FYI, I was asked by a friend to meet up with her and Mrs. Benson on Thursday for an interview and photos for another publication. I turned it down. Morbidthoughts (talk) 23:02, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
- I was simply suprised that you work for IAFD and so I was actually just asking if you could drop me a note when you prepare another interview with her in order to possibly verify some bio facts additionally. It's fairly obvious that this will not happen right in the next weeks and I also didn't mean to do such an interview just for Wikipedia. I wonder if my little request was really that ambiguous. Testales (talk) 21:18, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
- It actually would be a waste of time for IAFD and me to produce another interview of Breanne for the purposes of establishing more references over points I wasn't interested in asking the first time. That is the problem. I can be spending that time interviewing another girl, socialising, or taking photographs. Morbidthoughts (talk) 22:05, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
- Well the interview was for IFAD, not for Wikipedia, wasn't it? At least you are called "staff member" there and seem to do interviews regulary. So I don't see the problem to add like 2-3 questions which may help confirm certain facts if you are already in the lucky position to get such information directly from the source. Testales (talk) 11:51, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
- Next time I see her, I'd rather have several more drinks with her rather than interview her for the purposes of improving the available references about her. Morbidthoughts (talk) 22:47, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
- Oh you working for IAFD and can do interviews?! That's great, next time you can ask her then a few things about her earlier carrier that are not well referenced so far. ;-) So please tell me if you prepare another interview with her. Testales (talk) 19:31, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
Your link is interessting, especially as it says that those magazines actually can be used as RS, unless the information in question is from a pure pictorial and it is already different if it is an article accompied with pictures, if I got that right. Just from the pure source given in our case, we can not conclude if it was pictorial or a whole article. Testales (talk) 10:00, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
- If you want to figure out the difference between the pictorials and articles, there's a simple test, does the text supplement the pictures or do the pictures supplement the text. Playboy is considered reliable in certain contexts like articles on politics, music, lifestyle, etc. Penthouse and Hustler journalism are regarded much lower in the eyes of their home country, with Flynt publications articles being seen as downright tabloid journalism. Morbidthoughts (talk) 15:35, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Breanne Benson, and it appears to include material copied directly from http://www.backdrop.net/sm-201/index.php?title=Breanne_Benson.
It is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article. The article will be reviewed to determine if there are any copyright issues.
If substantial content is duplicated and it is not public domain or available under a compatible license, it will be deleted. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material. You may use such publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details. (If you own the copyright to the previously published content and wish to donate it, see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for the procedure.) CorenSearchBot (talk) 23:42, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
+1 barnstar
|
The Tireless Contributor Barnstar | |
| For your unending contributions in various adult oriented articles, I award you this barnstar. AaronY (talk) 15:11, 27 November 2010 (UTC) |
- Thank you. Not sure how you came across my edits though. Morbidthoughts (talk) 02:24, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
I read on WP:PORN that opinion is split on whether biographical information on IAFD is reliable. So it's ok to remove that information. On the other side, eurobabeindex.com is reliable for list of films, so that could be added again. About the date of birth and place of birth, I found this site (NSFW). I don't know if it is reliable. I doesn't appear on the list in WP:PORN but I have seen it's being used on other articles. Should I add birth place, birth date and list of films again using this site as ref? (Reply on my talk page, thx)--Neo139 (talk) 02:27, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
- No, Freeones is not considered a reliable source and neither is IAFD for biographical information. I reinstated the name after reading some of your other sources. Morbidthoughts (talk) 03:49, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks. Hey, I found the birth date on the official site. here (NSFW). We could add that right? --Neo139 (talk) 03:59, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
- That's great. Feel free to add it back in. Morbidthoughts (talk) 04:00, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
- Added. Thanks for everything ^^ --Neo139 (talk) 04:55, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
- That's great. Feel free to add it back in. Morbidthoughts (talk) 04:00, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks. Hey, I found the birth date on the official site. here (NSFW). We could add that right? --Neo139 (talk) 03:59, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
IMDB
This is actually a required part of the informational database on these pages, so its legitimacy as a source is pretty well established. PAWiki (talk) 08:29, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
- No, read through the discussions. [2]. Morbidthoughts (talk) 08:38, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
Re: Rachel Roxxx
- notification of correcting minor typo User:Smith Jones 21:26, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
Removal of particular section
Hey, i just saw your work on mine edit on Danny mountain page, which you think comes under vandalism, but i gave the specific link to refer the identity of person and for your information i'm pretty sure about his (danny mountain) current relationship, for this i can't give any valid link as proof, but i'm friend of danny on Facebook. So, what proof i need?, also it's well known that her wife Eva Angela accused him for physical abuse, and you even deleted his daughter's name, what actually you want, no offence but at least you must think once before doing such act.Bill william compton (talk) 20:19, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
- Read Wikipedia's policy on biographies of living people carefully. Do not write anything in his article that you can not support with reliable sources, especially over private issues such as domestic life. Do not use gossip sites such as Darrah Ford for proof. Morbidthoughts (talk) 20:25, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
- I used the wrong warning template for vandalism and struck it out from your talk page and replaced it with the warning to use proper sources. Morbidthoughts (talk) 20:29, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
Danica Dillan
Hi Morbidthoughts. Please read my arguments and answer - http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Danica_Dillan Ths.Johnsmith877 (talk) 21:09, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
- It is really meant to be a discussion between several people. You should mark your view/vote as Keep. I already understand your arguments but I just don't agree with them. Morbidthoughts (talk) 21:55, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
- Well.You don't agree, with what?With that - wiki is the encyclopedia about all?
(talk) 22:19, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
- I don't agree with your WP:PAPER-based argument. Notability guidelines still apply in determining whether a person should have an article on Wikipedia. Morbidthoughts (talk) 22:19, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
Wikipedia Ambassador Program is looking for Campus Ambassadors in Houston
Hi! I'm leaving you this message because you are listed as a Wikipedian connected with the University of Houston. The Wikipedia Ambassador Program is currently looking for Campus Ambassadors to help with Wikipedia assignments at another Houston school, which will be participating in the Public Policy Initiative for the Spring 2011 semester. The role of Campus Ambassadors will be to provide face-to-face training and support for students on Wikipedia-related skills (how to edit articles, how to add references, etc.). This includes doing in-class presentations, running workshops and labs, possibly holding office hours, and in general providing in-person mentorship for students.
Prior Wikipedia skills are not required for the role, as training will be provided for all Campus Ambassadors (although, of course, being an experienced editor is a plus).
If you live in Houston and you are interested in being a Wikipedia Campus Ambassador, or know someone else from the area who might be, please email me or leave a message on my talk page.--Sage Ross - Online Facilitator, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 20:28, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
Victoria Silvstedt
Hi Morbidthoughts,
Thanks for having contributed to the moderation of the controversy about Silvstedt Ski past.
Actually I'm still upset with usurpated fame in the following sentence : "Silvstedt placed fourth at a youth championship in the giant slalom won by Pernilla Wiberg". Could we find an actual evidence for this assertion ? (actually the only source is based on an interview led by a showbiz "people magazine". A serious doubt about building some false allegation (as these kind of media are often familiar with) still exists.
The magazine in question is no able to provide me with any more details or evidence, reinforcing my opinion about a "showbiz hoax"
Usually, it's very easy to get a trace of past race (even minor races). For instance, as an amateur skier, I can still get details of some minor races (and the related list of winners). If that kind of assertion is founded, we should really get that evidence, unless wikipedia would simply act as an amplifier of show business rumors
Regards Jean --86.218.174.73 (talk) 10:07, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
Hi,
I've red your point about source on Silvedt article. In order to clarify definitively the true of the point I'm trying to reach Pernilla Wilberg (the Ski Champion mentioned ("Silvstedt placed fourth at a youth championship in the giant slalom won by Pernilla Wiberg.[9][10"). So, I suggest to maintain the potetial hoax tag on the sources so far under investigation--86.218.174.73 (talk) 15:02, 30 December 2010 (UTC) Jean
- Please discuss all issues about the article at the article talk page rather than have two lines of conversation. Morbidthoughts (talk) 15:31, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
I get it
Hey, i mentioned the name as to make page more informative but you're right it won't be good for mentioning the child's name on page. Another reason i did it because the name was also on Eva Angelina's page & no one had deleted it, so i thought there is no problem in mentioning it on danny mountain's page, but you did justice by removing it from both pages Bill william compton (talk) 17:08, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
Clear one thing
Hi, Morbidthoughts. as you told sources like imdb are not reliable, than can i use IAFD and Adultfilmdatabase (adult biography-infobox itself mention them as source of information)?, because i didn't get any other link on internet to prove statement which i wrote, also is there any procedure that the concern person(on which article is made) provide information about himself? Also, if we'll completely relay only on external links than how we'll make Wikipedia unique and better source of information, wouldn't it be copy-paste method like mug-up from everywhere, i know these type of things need proof but there must be some other way to prove the reliability of information. Explain me, so that i can take care in future, it will be very helpful for me, Thank you Bill william compton (talk) 20:27, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
- You may use the subjects themselves as sources but the information can not be about other people or self-serving (promotional). Morbidthoughts (talk) 20:30, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
Sexy Cora DYK
Hi, yesterday I nominated the Sexy Cora article for DYK, check out the DYK nomination page for January 21.--BabbaQ (talk) 15:41, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
The article Tim Von Swine has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
- not notable, awards listed are not notable, significant, or well known, no significant independent coverage
While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 20:55, 22 January 2011 (UTC)