This is an archive of past discussions with 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.

What do you mean citations? The guy is all over gay porn and always been active in it. I provided one of hundreds of links showing the release dates within the last 2 months of his gay porn so whats your problem. Why are you undoing it?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Frankynbell (talk • contribs) 11:07, February 3, 2011

That vendor link you provided me does not demonstrate anything. All I see is just a list of recent gay movies. Why are you focusing on his gay work? The intro just said he was known in gay porn as Maxx Diesel at the beginning of his career. It doesn't really suggest that he stopped doing gay work. Morbidthoughts (talk) 16:22, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Additionally, just because a movie has been released recently does not mean that the performer is currently active. Let's take Linda Lovelace for example. She died in 2002 but if you look on her IAFD entry you'll see she's listed as being in a film released in 2010 called "Vintage Erotica 1". Yes it's a compilation (and states that in her entry) but the point is we can't use information about video release dates to infer any information about when the performer was actually in it. Tabercil (talk) 23:31, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

User Георги Тодор Hello Morbidthoughts Thanks for upload Madison Ivy Thanks 94.236.128.47 (talk) 18:38, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

I have seen that you have partcipated in the article for deletion for Techna Dye. Perhaps this AFD could be of interest to you? Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jay Marvin --Tyw7  (☎ Contact me! • Contributions)   Changing the world one edit at a time! 14:29, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

User Guz23456 Hi Morbidthoughts Please upload file DSC05039.jpg pls Guz23456 16:56, 10 April 2011 (UTC) 16:54, 10 April 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Guz23456 (talk • contribs)

If you are talking about the Mary Carey picture, the existing photo on wikipedia is more than adequate to enable a person to identify her. Morbidthoughts (talk) 05:12, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Her name was properly sourced with a link to the juvenile prison she is currently serving time. She is found in the immate list under Carla Rushing, her picture is provided there which matches with her myspace profile. --Camilo Sanchez (talk) 15:44, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Read WP:BLPPRIMARY very carefully about using public records to add things to her biography. Further you can not use original research to identify her as Carla Rushing. Morbidthoughts (talk) 15:53, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Looks as if it's been redeleted. I was trying to AGF but it appears that I may have goofed. Thanks for setting me straight. PMDrive1061 (talk) 16:04, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

It was moved to Cody Lane and is now undergoing an AfD review (with all the BLP issues stripped out). Morbidthoughts (talk) 16:06, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

And there's utterly no content. I moved to have it speedied; I'm reluctant to do it myself since I was involved in the initial fracas. PMDrive1061 (talk) 16:16, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Hi there, I wanted to assure you I am only me. Please contact me anytime for verification and friendship. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Solidcontrib (talk • contribs) 01:44, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

I wanted to ask you what are your thoughts about the ongoing nonsense towards porn notability. I keep hearing that PORNBIO is weak, but the truth is that at the moment is there and it shall function as the main criteria to set notability standards. Shouldn't a pornstar be notable in porn? What is all this hysteria about a pornstar not being notable is she wasn't featured on the frontpage of The Wall Street Journal? To see peformers of the caliber of Rachel Starr, Sara Jay and Sabrina Deep, just to name the latest cases, to be deleted for lack of notability makes me smile bitterly. Do anybody ever read Don't demolish the house while it's still being built, apart from you and few others? What do you think it can be done to stop this and especially, do you agree that something shall be done? Thanks foryour time and keep up the great work. Engenius(talk) —Preceding undated comment added 23:54, 9 June 2011 (UTC).

Hey. I wonder if you can change the license for this image [1] to add more content about Krissy Lynn. if you change, please change the Creative Commons ShareAlike 3.0 thanks... It would be great if you change the licensing of all pictures of Krissy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Killingme (talk • contribs) 01:46, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

What's the point? Isn't the current photo in the article adequate? Morbidthoughts (talk) 06:24, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

I think we've got a major issue between one another over the issue of the inclusion of the Tanner Mayes controversy on the JM Productions article, and I think this needs some resolving, since I think the sources I provide do fit into the burden of proof, and the language I provided into the article never cites the accusations as fact and were of interviews concerning what the person said and what someone else did to them. This post is an attempt to get a discussion going that could provide some insights as to how to resolve this.

To review: the section that is in question is when Tanner broke a computer monitor during a rage-filled tirade in the front offices of JM (at least it looked like it was). It was caught on camera, and JM took it upon themselves to post it to several viral porn video sites. In response to what happened (and how JM made it look like), Tanner agreed to do an interview (forget who conducted it), which the video of it is posted on YouTube in four parts, where she tells her side of the story (and gets emotional about the ordeal). The sources (the videos I mentioned) are what are in question, since they are questionable as a "burden of proof" issue about defamatory comments in the source. In no way during my posting of the section to the JM page did I ever write of what Tanner or JM said as absolute fact (which would be defamatory and would also be non-NPOV). Also, there are SEVERAL articles that point to news articles, interviews, and other things that could be considered just as defamatory as what these videos have been claimed to be.

However, threatening to have me blocked and deleting the entire section should NOT be the way to resolve this issue, since JM has been accused of editing the video of the tirade in such a way that it made them out to be complete victims and for Mayes' tirade to be completely unprovoked. Since JM made it a point to get this video out there, they wanted someone to take notice of it. It is because of this that I believed (might still believe) that the deletion is out of trying protect JM (don't want to think that, though). EA and Fox News have been accused of scrubbing Wiki articles of negative press about them in the past, so forgive me for being suspicious about such tactics about this when JM is accused of having something to hide about the incident. My solution is to re-add the section, but put the appropriate tags onto the section and article (there are several), and to invite people to go to the talk page to discuss what they could do to expand the section. This could lead to a discussion as to what others think about the sources in question, and it could lead to someone having an additional source with more information that they could add. Outright deleting the section is not the way to go, I think. I'm hoping you agree.

By the way, I saw your Admin requests (I'm guessing that what that was, since I never saw your name in any of the Admin lists). Based on your behavior towards me about this issue, you wouldn't get my vote for Administrator! Darkpower (talk) 09:09, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

As I've noted on the article talk page, it is unacceptable for you to rely on gossip sites as your sources when writing about people and it is also equally unacceptable to interpret a copy of the original video to assert there is a controversial topic. Like I said, if you continue to add the items back without using proper sources, you will be blocked. As an aside, the Request for Admin section on my user page is just a quick way for me to review people who apply to become an administrator. It is not an application in itself. Morbidthoughts (talk) 15:39, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

How is YouTube a "gossip site"? I fail to see that. We're crossed on what we consider a gossip site. The video in question is an interview that she granted someone else to talk about the incident, which I personally see as viable because it's a person's response to a controversy about the company in .which the page is about. It would be gossip if it was a third party such as TMZ that reported the incident. However, this was someone who was employed by the company, in which the company themselves shot that video and proceeded to spread it themselves in such a manner that it created a firestorm about both her and the company. I don't see how clearer this can be made: if it came from the person's own damn mouth, then it deserves at least a mention as to what she said, regardless of if it's true of what she said or not. She was the one involved in the incident, and she was the one that responded in the video, talking about her side of things. How in the hell is that gossip, and how is that not a viable source if the source is her actually saying the quotes herself? How much more proof do you need that it was Tanner herself that discussed JM and that incident? Do you not believe that the incident happened? Sounds more to me like you don't believe Tanner to be telling the truth about JM (it was a pretty major incident), which makes me think you have a bias concerning it. Also sounds like your problem is with Tanner and not me (which you should go e-mail Tanner at this point if you really have that much of a problem with something that came directly from one of the two parties responsible for the incident even happening). You continuing to threaten to invoke administrative action when there's no proof that you have any power to do such (I haven't seen it) further tells me that you're just trying to protect someone. You've also completely ignored my suggestion and went right for the jugular again (you don't even mention that I brought up possible tags you could use to open up discussion about the inclusion and instead think that you're opinion is gospel? Really?). I fail to see how you are even invoking such claims unless you have a bias about what happened that day, and/or if you have an issue with Tanner personally.Darkpower (talk) 01:09, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

I've told you several times now. Information about Tanner should not be based on gossip sites or interpretations of videos. Youtube is only acceptable as a source if the video was uploaded by a reliable source like NBC or such. You overrate the controversy and its importance if the only people reporting this incident are adult gossip sites. You have to stop your conspiracy stories. You don't see me removing the other JM criticisms do you? That's because they were supported by reliable sources such as a notable academic, The Age, and XBIZ. When you find sources of a similar quality, then you can add the material. Morbidthoughts (talk) 01:59, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Sunny Leone's real name is Karenjit Kaur Vohra as is confirmed by IMDB which is considered an authoratative source. There are Sikh fundamentalist who consider that information to reflect badly on the religion. They have attempted to spread disinformation. If you look up Karenjit Kaur Vohra in government record you find that an individual of that name owns the copyright on "Sunny Leone". RichardBond (talk) 01:05, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Did you not read the link I sent you about IMDB? Using reliable references is one of the tenets of Wikipedia. Morbidthoughts (talk) 01:12, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

The name birth name of an actor isnot considered to be an inappropriate use of IMDB by WikipediaRichardBond (talk) 02:05, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Can you provide evidence for that weasel statement? You can't. Morbidthoughts (talk) 07:34, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

The claim that Karenjit Kaur Vohra is a different person than Sunny Leone is facetious. The Sikh purists claim that she is non Sikh. However the legal paperwork for her business is still filed in her birth name. Therefore if the Sikh purists are correct that she is entirely non Sikh it makes it hard to explain why the paperwork is in filed under a name much more common among Sikhs than among Hindus. In fact there are individual Hindus, Muslims, Parsis as well as Sikhs have become porn stars. An individual doing that however does not dishonor the whole religionRichardBond (talk) 23:31, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

I have reverted your edits to the article. The removal of content you are referring to needs to be taken up on the talk page; your edit also, unfortunately, reintroduced a set of unacceptable links (per WP:EL--twitter, myspace, etc) and some promotional language. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 17:09, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

I still don't see which links are unacceptable. Can you be more specific? The external link that you took out was an interview. [2]. You also took out content that was cited to reliable sources. Morbidthoughts (talk) 00:03, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Never mind. I now see that you took out more than just that interview from the external links. Morbidthoughts (talk) 00:11, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

I didn't want to get involved in that content discussion--I hope you don't have an edit war on your hands there. I don't see enough yet for me to apply semi-protection, but you can probably make a case for that if you like. Good luck, Drmies (talk) 15:22, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

I've just suggested a "formal" community survey on your suggestion that the nominations criterion be removed from the SNG. I assume you'll want to comment, since my analysis/reasons for support likely vary from yours. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 18:03, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

This is your last warning. The next time you violate Wikipedia's biographies of living persons policy by removing verifiable materials from an article or any other Wikipedia page, as you did at Stormy Daniels, you may be blocked from editing without further notice.

TMZ is a perfectly acceptable source. Other then use of your own personal opinion, you have not shown how TMZ unsourced or poorly sourced. "Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for checking the facts, or which lack meaningful editorial oversight. Such sources include websites and publications expressing views that are widely acknowledged as extremist, or promotional, or which rely heavily on rumor and personal opinion." ^[1] Neither of these apply to TMZ. What counts as a reliable source? "The appropriateness of any source depends on the context. In general, the best sources have a professional structure in place for checking or analyzing facts, legal issues, evidence, and arguments; as a rule of thumb, the greater the degree of scrutiny given to these issues, the more reliable the source." ibid. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.243.5.146 (talk) 04:30, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Your warning's not exactly valid under the biographies of living people policy. Enjoy getting yourself blocked there? You should reread WP:GRAPEVINE Morbidthoughts (talk) 05:56, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

If I was one of those fools who lives for wikipedia and wanting to run things, I suppose a block would have bothered me. I have a life and other things to do besides Wikipedia. I had forgotten all about the block until today when I was looking something up and noticed a typo, which I fixed. This stuff here is not that big of a deal and your attitude just reinforces the perception that wikipedia is not a legitimate source for information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.243.5.146 (talk) 16:02, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Ooooh. You had forgotten the block after your multiple attempts to get unblocked got denied and remembered right after the block lapsed. Welcome back! Morbidthoughts (talk) 16:20, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

If you don't understand what the issue is, read the BLPN discussion [3]. The sentiment in that discussion runs against including the awards, and if it's not quite enough to establish a consensus supporting my view, it's certainly insufficient to carry satisfy the burden of proof that WP:BLP requires. To ensure that material about living people is written neutrally to a high standard, and based on high-quality reliable sources, the burden of proof is on those who wish to retain, restore, or undelete the disputed material. The users involved in this dispute insist that consensus is required to remove disputed content, which quite plainly contradicts the EXPRESS language of the BLP policy. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 04:18, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Disputed material must be supported by high quality reliable sources and I went and got another one for you. I'm not concerned about their "consensus". I am wondering what is it about something that is reported by reliable sources is so controversial that it must be removed? Yeah, it's negative but it's relevant in that paragraph that describes the group's criticism of him which was cited to the same pinknews source that you left in. I believe that removing this content and pointing to a tangent BLPN discussion without explaining what specific wikipedia policy that BLP is stringent about whether it be WP:V, WP:NPOV including UNDUE, or WP:OR is specifically violated was unproductive since it didn't allow other people to properly address your concerns. Morbidthoughts (talk) 04:37, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

It's not a "tangent" BLPN discussion. It's a centralized discussion about the general issue affecting multiple articles. What's not appropriate is to discount the outcome of that discussion and insist on rearguing the point, article by article, in order to exhaust the patience of the editors on the other side of the dispute. The editors on the other side of the dispute participated actively in that discussion, and are being less than candid in indicating otherwise. They know perfectly well the nature and context of my points. It should be a red flag, indicating a failure of good faith, when they claim that consensus supports their position, when the central discussion so plainly demonstrates a lack of consensus support. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 13:21, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

I read the discussion. I didn't find any settled outcome from that discussion. As such, I just apply the basic tenets of BLP on the case by case basis. Morbidthoughts (talk) 13:59, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

But absent any "settled outcome," those who want to retain the material haven't sustained the burden of proof that the BLP policy requires they meet. Forking the discussion and ignoring the broader context doesn't justify the reinsertion of the material. It's just deliberate disruption. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 17:21, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Your recent editing history at Bree Olson shows that you are in danger of breaking the three-revert rule, or that you may have already broken it. An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Breaking the three-revert rule often leads to a block.

If you wish to avoid being blocked, instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to discuss the changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. You may still be blocked for edit warring even if you do not exceed the technical limit of the three-revert rule if your behavior indicates that you intend to continue to revert repeatedly.--TheBigNatural (talk) 18:42, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

You can't count? How many reverts do you actually see? Morbidthoughts (talk) 18:44, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

You are "in danger", which does not mean you have actually broken it. Please stop edit warring and gaming the system. You do not own all the articles on your watchlist. Thank you!--TheBigNatural (talk) 18:47, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

You should take your own advice. Morbidthoughts (talk) 18:48, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Your aggressive behavior is not conductive to a harmonious collaborative atmosphere. Please CALM DOWN and assume good faith. Thank you :)--TheBigNatural (talk) 18:54, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Again, take your own advice. You have shown a pattern of behavior across several articles that shows that I don't have to assume any good faith on your end. Morbidthoughts (talk) 19:12, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

The user is question already apologized to me on my talkpage [4]. He acted out due to mental health issues and decided to take a wikibreak. Either way, my interaction with other users has no bearings whatsoever to the issue at hand.--TheBigNatural (talk) 19:28, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

I was actually referring to the fact that the image lacks an NFCC rationale for Sunny Leone. It would also fail paragraph 8 of the NFCC policy. Nymf _hideliho! 16:33, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Oh okay. Be my guest then. I didn't know or think NFCC was that strict. Morbidthoughts (talk) 16:39, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

They are generally pretty adamant about it. Good job on the Jessie Andrews article, by the way. 'twas a nice surprise to see that one popup. Such a good picture, too! Nymf _hideliho! 16:51, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm not much of a fan of that picture because of the neck crook but she wanted that one after objecting to a perfectly fine headshot image[5]. This was after she also objected to the initial image [6]. Now she tells me that Asa Akira is her best friend since the article says Selena Rose is her best friend. Morbidthoughts (talk) 17:48, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi. When you recently edited Jessica Biel, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Chris Evans (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 20:02, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Since you're the one that originally put Capri Anderson up for AFD, I thought I'd point this out to you. Someone has recreated the article at Capri Anderson (pornographic actress) complete with image. I don't feel comfortable checking into whether or not she is yet notable enough for an article since I'm at work and would rather not keep pulling up a page that has "pornographic" in the title. Prying eyes and all that. Care to take a look? Dismas|^(talk) 01:01, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

It was a BLP1E deletion before. It looks legitimate as she has become independently notable aside from Charlie Sheen. Morbidthoughts (talk) 01:23, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! It should probably be moved to a non-disambiguated title then. Dismas|^(talk) 01:26, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

I asked Tabercil to move it since the original space was salted. Morbidthoughts (talk) 01:28, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Great edit Morbid, but since that one article mentions her "claim" and isn't a proven fact, shouldn't it be removed? It's more pretentious bragging than a verified truth. Any type of sensationalism or non-neutral jibber is really not helpful in a biography, in my humble opinion. Cheers! 74.101.6.29 (talk) 14:45, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm going to give that source the benefit of the doubt that she did say/brag those things. I would let the reader figure out if it's bragging, lying, or whatever. Morbidthoughts (talk) 14:48, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Nice rescue. Thanks! Fasttimes68 (talk) 00:24, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

A point of clarification: at the DRV, you mention "Especially one that was restored with censorship requested by the subject". I can see two ways of reading that: that the article was restored despite its deletion being requested by the subject, or that the article was restored without certain material that the subject had objected to (ie. the sex tape stuff). Which meaning did you intend? Nikkimaria (talk) 21:00, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

The latter. Morbidthoughts (talk) 22:31, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Hey there. I agree with the points you made at the article talk page (see also my reponse there). Could check this edit of mine? I believe it's completely neutral, the source is an interview with Jiz Lee themselves, and in the context of their gender preferences, their biological sex is clearly a relevant fact imho. --213.168.73.216 (talk) 17:56, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

You participated in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bridgette B (2nd nomination) so you should know it is now up for deletion review at Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2012_April_12. Dream Focus 20:37, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Good news! You now have access to 80 million articles in 6500 publications through HighBeam Research. Here's what you need to know:

• Your account activation code has been emailed to your Wikipedia email address.
  • Only 407 of 444 codes were successfully delivered; most failed because email was simply not set up (You can set it in Special:Preferences).
  • If you did not receive a code but were on the approved list, add your name to this section and we'll try again.
• The 1-year, free period begins when you enter the code.
• To activate your account: 1) Go to http://www.highbeam.com/prof1; 2) You’ll see the first page of a two-page registration. 3) Put in an email address and set up a password. (Use a different email address if you signed up for a free trial previously); 4) Click “Continue” to reach the second page of registration; 5) Input your basic information; 6) Input the activation code; 7) Click “Finish”. Note that the activation codes are one-time use only and are case-sensitive.
• If you need assistance, email "help at highbeam dot com", and include "HighBeam/Wikipedia" in the subject line. Or go to WP:HighBeam/Support, or ask User:Ocaasi. Please, per HighBeam's request, do not call the toll-free number for assistance with registration.
• A quick reminder about using the account: 1) try it out; 2) provide original citation information, in addition to linking to a HighBeam article; 3) avoid bare links to non-free HighBeam pages; 4) note "(subscription required)" in the citation, where appropriate
• HighBeam would love to hear feedback at WP:HighBeam/Experiences
• Show off your HighBeam access by placing {{User:Ocaasi/highbeam_userbox}} on your userpage
• When the 1-year period is up, check applications page to see if renewal is possible. We hope it will be.

Thanks for helping make Wikipedia better. Enjoy your research! Cheers, Ocaasi ^{t | c} 20:53, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

You have 4+ real reverts on Wikipedia:Notability (people). I'm loathe to go to WP:3rrn, but you have to stop, now. Hipocrite (talk) 20:07, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Refinement of the details should have been hammered out on the talk page instead of the constant refining on the project page. You called 3RR after you ask me to keep refining on the page. Talk about gaming the system. Morbidthoughts (talk) 20:12, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Did I revert your most recent, 5th revert? Did I report you to 3rrn? That's what I'd do if I were gaming the system. I know how to game the system. Did I start a section on the talk page? This is not that. I am constantly dismayed at the pornography-related editors constant willingness to take offense at the drop of a hat. Hipocrite (talk) 20:22, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Did you count the full tightening of PORNBIO at 21:03, 1 May 2012[7] after the invitation as the first revert in a 24hr period? You get dismayed too easily on porn relations. Morbidthoughts (talk) 20:32, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Do you really doubt you are well over 3rr? How about this - I open a report on 3rrn, and if an admin comes along and says "yup, he's over 3rr, but the page is protected, so I'm not blocking him," or blocks you, you are then banned from editing the page for a month, but if they say "that's not 3rr," then I am? Hipocrite (talk) 20:45, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm right at 3 reverts over a 24hr period - invitation or no invitation because I can count. It's going to stay at 3 with the page protection. I don't see how you are in danger of being banned for miscounting. Were you trying to make a deal or a bet here? Morbidthoughts (talk) 20:51, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Bet. Hipocrite (talk) 20:58, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

A pointy bet? Maybe we should check with someone whether this is kosher. Morbidthoughts (talk) 21:01, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Ty Russell is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ty Russell (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 06:42, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Care to join in the conversation at Talk:Nikki Nova? Dismas|^(talk) 14:52, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

I noticed that you deleted my adds of porn stars top films because SlurpyGirl.com is not considered a reliable source, but can I reference them to Adult DVD empire (using my virtual store on there) and direct them to the stars page of the DVD listings as a reliable reference? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnmccormick10 (talk • contribs) 06:30, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Vendor sources are just not acceptable and the picking and choosing of specific titles without independent support is just seen as promotional spam. Morbidthoughts (talk) 06:52, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

The titles are their best selling DVDs, according to them. I didn't choose the titles myself, they did. Are they not an independent support of their top sellers since they are the ones that sell them and are one of the largest DVD on-line vendors??? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnmccormick10 (talk • contribs) 09:34, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

No, the vendor is not independent. They make money promoting these titles and increasing their sales. It's circular. Wikipedia would also be in effect promoting this store by using their list. Morbidthoughts (talk) 14:14, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Are you joking? AVN, XBIZ, AEBN, etc... get multiple reference links from here and they are vendors as well. They post info on your site that is posted on their site (circular, isn't it). Must depend on who donates the most money to wiki before considering them a reliable reference. My best guess? I added something that people maybe interested in knowing, factual and followed the rules regarding limiting filmography to no more that six films and they were removed. I bet if AVN posted the exact same info, it would stick. Correct? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnmccormick10 (talk • contribs) 06:00, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

AVN and XBIZ, probably if it's not a press release. AEBN, no. Morbidthoughts (talk) 06:07, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

What if I added a porn star's first film and release date (as in when their porn career started) in their career section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnmccormick10 (talk • contribs) 07:20, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

This would be difficult without proper sources. A person's first film is not always the one that is released first. Morbidthoughts (talk) 18:46, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Look i added it to talk... with the refences two of those references are adds that she has put up with her own contact information. i don't see what the problem is its not controversial about 50% of pornstars escort on the side. And why would you delete the sentence saying what her tattoo is of.. i added a refence of her in an interview that has her tattoo info. Also you can see her tattoo in hundreds of pictures and videos. I just don't get it the article was 3 sentences, I'm trying to help out by adding content nothing i said was untrue. She's a pornstar its not like your going to find peer review articles or information in an encyclopedia about her. Why don't you trying adding stuff instead of deleting everything. Her page in different languages have over 20 times the information on then compared to her english page, because of people being reference nazis, whats the point of even having her page if its 3 sentences long. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robwsc56 (talk • contribs) 19:06, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

The problem is that most of the popular sources that people use for porn biographies are considered unreliable including adultfyi, imdb, and famouswhy. The content on those sites are not vetted or fact-checked and rely on user contributions like wikipedia. It's okay if a biography is sparse if there is little out there that's reliable. The purpose of wikipedia is not to reveal everything there is available about a subject especially if the information can't properly be verified. Morbidthoughts (talk) 23:04, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Come on, everyone reference imdb, its probably the most referenced sit on wiki. that still does't explain why your delete things that are referenced in her interviews.

WP:RS/IMDB. Morbidthoughts (talk) 03:37, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

I think Sara Jay qualifies for an article now she received 5 Urban X Nominations in 2010 and won a 2009 Urbaan X award and a Hall of Fame Urban X Award.[8][9] and was nominated for the 2011 Best Pornstar Website. [10]. Sara Jay also got nominated for the 2011 Best Pornstar Website.[11] Dwanyewest (talk) 21:31, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

How do you know she hates the photo? teammathi 10:55, 8 July 2012 (CET)

Because she told me. Morbidthoughts (talk) 18:30, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Hi, I've seen that you have quite a few pictures of porn stars uploaded on your flickr account. Don't you want to upload them wo Wikipedia Commons? teammathi 16:55, 8 July 2012 (CET)

Hey, first I'm sorry for admittedly being a bit prissy about that issue again...I got all worked up over being handcuffed and got frustrated over something that is admittedly rather silly. Anyway, I'm at a marked disadvantage concerning using sources to verify that the 1972 year is in fact correct (as has been established clearly even if you only look at the court records that can't be used actually...though it can't be used as a source in the article, it can't be ignored or dismissed as actually proving that it is a fact), in that I actually am/was in a position where I have 1st hand knowledge that she was in fact born in 1972....so that leads to me getting irritated over what I see as being a disingenuous dispute. The big problem for me is the fact that, and you would have to admit I am sure, if the dispute is basically that her official site says one thing (not that women in general, or women who work in the adult entertainment industry specifically lie about their age or anything), and every other site that didn't take it's information from the misinformation that was on here (taken from her site) for a spell when someone mysteriously changed the date of birth (citing her site as the source) after years where it accurately was listed as 1972.

The dilemma for me is that, given that I do have 1st hand knowledge, virtually everything (Hell everything really) I could present that is IRREFUTABLE would be inappropriate for the article. I mean I could provide a copy of her Driver's License, interview her mother (I mean she should know), provide personal correspondence between Nikki and myself where she came clean to me (early on when we were still friends), her SAG info, probably even get a copy of her birth certificate.......of course I am not about to do any of those things for several reasons....many of which should be obvious....regardless of what Wikipedia's policy is on any of that....it simply would not be appropriate, it would be highly an invasion of her privacy, and it would actually be violating the trust she and I had for each other at one time. Hell I never should have used the court records that irrefutably proved it, and though it was the tamest thing that I had that proved it, I didn't even know what Wikipedia's policy was on using court records, and admittedly I went there out of frustration, I still shouldn't have. So there you go, the stuff I have that I could use to verify that she was in fact born in 1972, I can't and wouldn't for the reasons I mentioned and some that I didn't. So basically we are supposed to ignore the facts in the issue because of the sensitive nature of the corroborating evidence & the fact that we can't actually cite it in the article, and pretend there is a dispute based on her lying about her age for professional/financial reasons on her website? The thing that really irritates me is the fact that several other sites lift their info directly from the article on here, and

Since someone inexplicably changed it to 1978 a few years back, this site has been directly used to spread the propaganda & lie of 1978. I do have a newspaper article that lists her as a candidate for graduation from high school in 1990 (of course she could have been 12 at the time....Ummmm yeah...ha ha ha!) and an article concerning her foreclosure (that uses her professional and real names) that mentions that she was 33 at the time of her horse riding accident in 2005. Other than that, all of the other evidence I have is too sensitive to use, or anyone who wants to dispute it will continue to do so....I mean if someone wants to make irrational disputes, they could dispute anything that was published simply by mentioning "well Nikki states 1978 on her official site." I mean if we really don't care about the truth, and that would seem to be the case and/or some choose to arbitrarily handcuff the article from presenting the truth anyway, I don't really know how to proceed, much less if it's even worth it.

Anyway, like I said, you tell me.....I actually have 1st hand knowledge and know the truth from her directly, so though that should be an advantage, it's actually anything but obviously. I know if you were serious about the inference about drawing conclusions that might be in error & original research, etc. or not, but I assure you that it is anything but. Hell, I heard the truth directly from her at a time when we were actually friends & anything else (the IRREFUTABLE sources) only verifies what she told me and refutes what she lists on her site. It's like everything I could use that is IRREFUTABLE I can't and WON'T for obvious reasons, and anything else could easily be disputed by simply using the only thing that those who want to dispute it can....and that is what she strategically posted (for professional and financial reasons) on her official site.....so we are supposed to PRETEND there is a genuine dispute!?!?!? I mean you said about using a book or magazine article....how is that any more valid than IMDB? Contrary to what has been said about IMDB, they actually review all edits and have to approve them....like I already mentioned. I don't know if you actually know Nikki personally or not (I mean I saw you are a lawyer and you have a "healthy" interest in pornography....which gives me reason to question if I actually know who you are or not to be honest...not to mention to question why you took an interest in it all of a sudden after it seemed to be settled for a month now), but if you did know Nikki personally, you would know with 100% certainty that she would have contacted IMDB, IAFD, etc. and threatened them with legal action by now if they had inaccurate information about her...certainly something as sensitive to her career as her actual age. I know she basically has a lawyer that takes advantage of her and is more than willing to take her money, so you can bet your bottom dollar that if she contacted them and they refused to change it & she had the means to prove that she was in fact born in 1978 (just playing devil's advocate here...like I stated and established, I have 1st hand knowledge and actually KNOW the truth), she would have sicked her lawyer on them age ago. Nikki doesn't have a lot of money, but she has shown the ability to waste it on her "porn lawyer" for as long as I've known her, and of course he has been more than willing to take it from her. Granted she doesn't have anything to show for the wasted money really, and it's not like he is really a results kind of guy, but I'm sure even he could have gotten that taken care of for her by now. (Let's just say that it's actually really sad how this guy has basically taken advantage of her fragile mindset really)

Anyway, I mean she works in the adult entertainment industry.....so who would be writing about her anyway...it's not like any reputable writers would have a reason to be writing about her, aside from the few articles that were written concerning the foreclosure of her house, and only one of those actually mentioned her age...and that was her age at the time of her accident (so math would have to be used to figure if she was 33 in 2005, she is 40 now and that would mean she was born in 1972). Anyway, given who would be writing about someone who works in the adult entertainment industry, and the potential argument that they could be being loose with the truth isn't out of the question, and what about their sources? Bottom line, if people want to dispute it they will continue to do so regardless, and anything that is truly IRREFUTABLE can't be used (nor would I use them to be perfectly honest).

So basically we have an unnecessary stalemate....and it's not like the damage to integrity hasn't already been done in that other sites lifted verbatim the misinformation that Wikipedia hosted for over a year anyway. I guess the question is what the purpose of the article really is. Is it to be as factual as possible, or is it simply an advertisement? I mean, the argument could be made that the whole article could/should be deleted based on notoriety issues. I mean she briefly hosted a Playboy TV show (as a replacement), she was a popular nude model like 10 years ago, and she appeared in a few b-movies....and the article is little more than a stub that a substantial amount of the information, a little as there is, is 7+ years old with regard to the newest info....and she is still very much active in the industry? Like I said, I'm a bit perplexed as to what the actual purpose of the article is or should be, and if we don't actually care about the truth and we are willing to SOLELY refer to intentional misinformation that she provides on her official PORN site AND ignore IRREFUTABLE evidence (some I presented already...much I did not of course for obvious reasons) & pretend that it is potentially "defaming" to include something that may be "inconvenient" to Nikki's career, yet is 100% accurate & demonstrated as being so (come on, we can say we can't use the court record because of Wikipedia's policy if we want.....but dude, we all know what the court record states, that the court record is hers, and that the State that she lives in and has her Driver's License in CERTAINLY knows what year she was born in, and if they say 1972...she WAS born in 1972....Following 9/11, they don't play around anymore, and you're not going to bs them...especially not the State that she lives in....ya know!)....and it is seemingly obvious that certain people do not want the FAKE "dispute" resolved (relying on technicalities, and a sole source that is both highly suspicious and highly refutable...heck already rebuked actually...to do so).....Heck I almost feel like throwing in the towel and reverting the article to the 1978 info that we all know is INACCURATE if for no other reason than to give Nikki what she clearly wants her fans to think so she can extend her career as long as she can (though to believe that someone who is as health conscious as she is would look like that at 34 as opposed to 40 would have to be smoking crack....oops I forgot it IS the world of porn...common sense doesn't come in to play...ha ha ha!), and to show demonstrate once again just how unreliable Wikipedia is as a reference source (especially when the accurate info would have been fought tooth and nail by some....and what we know isn't true would be acceptable). The irony of that would be that I would probably get warned about using unreliable sources in the case of a dispute for using the very source that was used to change it from 1972 to 1978 a few years ago when the article read 1972 for several years before that. To be honest, like I already admitted, I am too close to the situation and I am getting a bit pissy over nothing really. And at the end of the day, I actually want to be nice about everything, and when I really stop to think about it, to be perfectly honest, and though this will sound contradictory since I am really big on promoting the truth....but I almost really don't care about just changing it back to 1978 since I know that would make at least one person in particular very happy (even though it would mean intentionally promoting something that I know not to be true) since I KNOW they view things like this as a tool to promote their BUSINESS.

Anyway, like I said I have 1st hand knowledge, and I have found that is a marked disadvantage when the opposite should be true. So, I invite you to give me some CONSTRUCTIVE input that is DIRECTLY related to the issue at hand (instead of generalities which are meaningless to me) if you actually have any. I mean what would ever be acceptable to anyone who wants to continue to deny the truth by disputing it. I mean how can we HONESTLY ever resolve the so-called dispute? What would REALLY ever be acceptable to that regard? It would seem to me that nothing would ever satisfy the seemingly ridiculously high standards when virtually anything short of a video of her being born could be disputed...and even then we wouldn't use the video anyway. So, I ask how do we proceed? Do we just from here on out and forever omit her (actual) date of birth? Would including the date as being 1978, when we know that not to be true, be ironically acceptable (funny how I suspect that it would be)? I just don't want to continue to waste my time on some silly crap, especially if it is likely not to be remotely productive in the end. Anyway, like I said, if you have any constructive input that is directly related to the case at hand....I welcome it. Jbs173 (talk) 03:34, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

It's disputed simply because people are entering in different dates based on contradicting sources. None of the sources used so far are reliable enough to include a date in the encyclopedia. It's not appropriate to include the information by relying on first hand knowledge, nor invade her privacy, nor do our own research based on inference. Leave her birthdate false or true out of the article until better independent sources pop up. Morbidthoughts (talk) 04:02, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

I hear you...I think I was guilty of making something personal out of something that never was in that I took it as if people were trying to say I was wrong when I knew I was right...but in reality it wasn't like that at all. Heck I can't win actually...though I actually know the truth, I find myself questioning my motivation and the value of my challenging the 1978 date (which I knew to be false of course) in the 1st place since it wasn't actually hurting anyone in the whole grand scheme of things (other than pseudo-hurting Wikipedia's integrity). The "big guns" that I referenced earlier (tongue in cheek out of frustration really) are things that based on their nature, how I came to be aware of them, etc. would have prohibited me from using them anyway because I wouldn't betray the trust of someone who considered me a friend like that....and Wikipedia policy is just the icing on the cake really. The only thing I was hoping to accomplish was to get people to accept the IMDB source since I could easily prove that it is indeed accurate. Anyway, as Nikki really isn't that big a celebrity, there really isn't that much out there about her from reputable sources...and most of the porn related sources simply lift their info from the Wikipedia article obviously....so, coupled with the fact that I know the reasoning behind the whole 1978 thing from Nikki's standpoint, I question the sense in addressing the matter anymore from my standpoint since at the end of the day I'm not actually all that passionate about it, and all that would really be accomplished by succeeding in uncovering an acceptable source would be to add a birth date to a stub that probably doesn't get much traffic and would hurting someone and the agenda of someone I used to actually be friends with. Sometimes, at the end of the day, getting a piece of factual information out there simply isn't worth (at least from my perspective anyway)...then throw all the aggro into the equation, and that is even more so the case. Anyway, based on my feelings on the subject, I suspect I will just leave it as it currently is indefinitely....if not longer. See what I was saying about being too close to the situation? Sometimes you can actually know too much if that makes sense. Ugh!!!!! Jbs173 (talk) 08:04, 11 July 2012 (UTC)