User talk:Purplehayes2006

Welcome!

Hello, Purplehayes2006, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Again, welcome!

Jenna Haze

Your recent contribution(s) to the Wikipedia article Jenna Haze are very much appreciated. However, you did not provide references or sources for your information. Keeping Wikipedia accurate and verifiable is very important, and as you might be aware there is currently a drive to improve the quality of Wikipedia by encouraging editors to cite the sources they used when adding content. If sources are left unreferenced, it may count as original research, which is not allowed. Can you provide in the article specific references to any books, articles, websites or other reliable sources that will allow people to verify the content in the article? You can use a citation method listed at How to cite sources. Thanks! Valrith 22:04, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding your edit to Jenna Haze:

Your recent edit to Jenna Haze (diff) was reverted by automated bot. You have been identified as a new user or a logged out editor using a hosting or shared IP address to add email addresses, phone numbers, YouTube, Geocities, Myspace, Facebook, blog, forum, or other such free-hosting website links to a page. Please note that such links are generally to be avoided. You can restore any other content by editing the page and re-adding that content. The links can be reviewed and restored by established users. Thank you for contributing! // VoABot II 16:11, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see that you've added back a couple links to the Jenna Haze article. I've removed the official site link since that's already in her infobox. I've also removed the Yahoo site address since it requires membership to view it. Just letting you know. If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to ask either on my talk page or at the article's talk page. Dismas|^(talk) 15:10, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize, I didn't realize that the Yahoo group was already discussed on the talk page. I still think the official site shouldn't be at the bottom if it's already in the infobox though. I just feel it's redundant. I guess I'll look into that more as well as seeing what other editors feel is best. Dismas|^(talk) 01:00, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like it's unfortunately time for admin action to enforce the guideline and consensus decision on Jenna Haze#External links. Please see Talk:Jenna_Haze#Ending_external_link_edit_war. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 12:51, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jenna Haze (Sept 2007)

If you check the Wikipedia entry for OC Weekly which is the source for her name, you'll see that it is a weekly published paper. Tabercil 15:15, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jenna Haze image

Hi, why did you revert the image on the page to the lower-quality one? Just curious. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 16:04, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:3RR

I just noticed you seem to be edit-warring on Jenna Haze. Please be aware of the WP:3RR policy, and discuss your concerns on the article's talk page to achieve consensus. It looks like you've already reverted three times in 24 hours, so if you revert again it could result in a block. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 16:22, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ownership of articles

Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to Wikipedia. However, please know that editors do not own articles and should respect the work of their fellow contributors. If you create or edit an article, know that others are free to change its content. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. - ∅ (∅), 01:50, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Of course I don't owe any article in wikipedia, and in this case it is my work and contributions on Jenna Haze article what is not being respected. Purplehayes2006 02:06, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Your contributions aren't being respected? I'm sorry to say this, but that's just the way of the wiki, and if you don't like it you can always post your work on Angelfire. If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly, do not submit it. - ∅ (∅), 04:36, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Oh I am sorry to say this too, but don't you think that "editors do not own articles and should respect the work of their fellow contributors" should work for every one?. Respect for all, don't think so?. About my writings,I don't care who is the writer, if you have a little look to the talk page in Jenna Haze article you easily will see that I am always open to talk and discuss subjects related to the article and reach a consensus. I really want to improve the article and I am more than glad to welcome any contributions in that way. In the same line of thought, if I see an unfair edit I will go to remove it and discuss the subject with the editor/s in question. BTW, feel free to visit Jenna Haze talk page and discuss and state your points and reasons there. About your "Angelfire advise", well, no thanks. :-) Purplehayes2006 14:54, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have to agree with the above. Every single one of your edits is to Jenna Haze. You do realize that there are more articles on Wikipedia don't you? --71.118.4.76 02:46, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And? what is your point? I have interest in that article. There is nothing wrong in edit in only one article. There is also users that never edited in wikipedia. And of course there is nothing obliguing anyone to edit in different articles. Purplehayes2006 14:24, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Want your talk page semi-protected for a bit?

I can, if you like, to avoid the IP editor editing. The IP made a point, you responded to it, so you clearly got the message; if you don't want it on your talk page that's your right. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 20:30, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yea thanks, semi-protect my talk page. From what you are saying... can I delete a section or messages in my own page? Is that right? I don't know anything about that kind of policy...

I get what the IP is talking about. I just asked him/her for a fair supporting evidence to state his/her words and "point". Then he/she showed the trollish face. Bah, forget it, just I don't get why people have to be rude/mean. Purplehayes2006 21:05, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You can. Wikipedia:User_page#Ownership_and_editing_of_pages_in_the_user_space Some don't -- I don't think I've ever removed anything from mine, but then again, I have never been hit with really persistent criticism. Your user talk page is meant for communicating with you - someone writes a message, you respond, so forth. It's not meant for continued harassment once you've responded and made your view on the issue clear. I'll start with a couple of days, and extend the period as necessary. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 21:12, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for all!. Purplehayes2006 21:46, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

XRCO

I'm a member of the XRCO but I have no idea why the award years are done retroactively. I know Dirty Bob (the head organizer) distinctly refers to the awards according to the calendar year of eligibility instead of the year it's given out. Did you confirm with Jenna what her award says? Even then, it's probably more correct to go with what AVN or XBIZ reports on. Vinh1313 (talk) 17:03, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah Jenna told me that her awards say: for this year says "2008" and for last year (Best On-Screen Chemistry and Best Gonzo Release) say "2007". I can show pics if it is necessary.

In AVN they refer to last year XRCO (the 23rd) as 2007 XRCO Award: http://www.avn.com/video/articles/8131.html

I was reading XRCO.com and I find these interesting points:

-If you go to the 2008 winners the headline says: "XRCO 2008 AWARD CATEGORIES AND WINNERS for year 2007 releases"

-In the "YEARLY WINNERS & NOMS" section says "The Best of 2006"... what just does a reference that the 2007 XRCO is for releases in 2006.

-If you go to the "AWARDS SHOW PHOTOS" you can clearly see "2007 XRCO AWARDS" (the 23rd XRCO) for the XRCO Awards celebrated in 2007 for releases in 2006.

I think we should use the article from AVN as source and change the 2006 awards to 2007 in the Awards section of Jenna's article. Purplehayes2006 (talk) 00:43, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jenna Haze

Hi, please look over our external links guidelines, particularly the section on links to avoid. On Wikipedia we don't link to fansites unless the article is specifically about that fan site. Also, we don't link to myspace and twitter blogs unless there is no better official site to link to. If you think this particular article warrants an exception to our standing consensus, you can bring up a discussion about the links at the external links noticeboard and other editors will decide if the links are appropriate. Thanks, Them From Space 14:38, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As the title of the section (and this was already discussed on Jenna Haze talk page in the past...) says, those are links normally to be avoided. Their inclusion are not prohibited. They can be used under certain conditions. Officialness is the key. People can have more than one official site as it is explained on guidelines for external links. Those are her official MySpace and Twitter, and there is proof of it as stated on the talk page. And they meet the "Official links" conditions. As noted on Jenna Haze talk page, that Yahoo Group is her Official Fan Club. It is that way since 2002. Don't look at the word "fan". I mean, she posts there and moderates the group. It is an official page of hers. I also read on the guidelines: "If the subject of the article has more than one official website, then more than one link may be appropriate." and "More than one official link should be provided only when the additional links provide the reader with unique content and are not prominently linked from other official websites. For example, if the main page of the official website for an author contains a link to the author's blog and Twitter feed, then it is not appropriate to provide links to all three. Instead, provide only the main page of the official website in this situation.". Those official sites provide unique info about the subject of the article that can't be find or hardly can be find in any other site, and there is no link to any of them on her main official site. The MySpace and the Yahoo Group Official Fan Site links were long discussed in the past on Jenna Haze talk page and moderated and finished by an Admin, keeping both links. If you want to open this discussion again, I would suggest to you to read everything on Jenna Haze talk page first, and if even then you still want to delete these links open the discussion again over Jenna Haze talk page before go and edit. Thank you. Purplehayes2006 (talk) 16:10, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok then. I've brought up this article's links section at the external links noticeboard for more eyes to see. You're welcome to give your side of the story there. The link is Wikipedia:External_links/Noticeboard#Jenna_Haze. Them From Space 16:24, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hullaballoo Wolfowitz

Is it me or is it this individual seeming to running amok with inaccurate interpretations? Seems you have had a run in and so have I with his continued UNDOs without any forewarning or discussion.

who is this nutcase and how do we stop him? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Db54 (talk • contribs) 22:39, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]