This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
I have nominated Merle Michaels, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Merle Michaels. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.
Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Epbr123 (talk) 14:38, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated articles are Lucy Lee, Mason Marconi. 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").
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) 01:19, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
Sir, I need your Help over this issue, As per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mason Moore for Mason Moore , the reason stated "No significant coverage" and non compliance with WP:PORNBIO, but i would like to express my view over the issue, That i had gone through the Actress profile well, Though she is new to this genre,but still She has been covered significant under what exactly we call for Porn actress, she is not an actress from Hollywood, so we might call for significant status for her. As stated in WP:PORNBIO, Though she had not won a well-known award, such as those listed in Category:Pornographic film awards or Category:Film awards.
but she had been covered & nominated in AVN Awards like that of AVN Hall of Fame. & she had contributed a lot in Porn Industry at such a little time.
Well the aforementioned details are formalised, & the informal one is that, i am new to wikipedia, & would to like contribute for my lifetime, so i am looking for your positive response over this issue, Please assist me. Thanks. ( Abu Torsam 12:04, 13 December 2009 (UTC))
Well looking over the article, I'm having to agree with the nomination - at this point she's not what I'd call notable. Just because the article gets deleted doesn't mean it's permanently deleted - we've created articles on porn stars that were once deleted but since we found to be notable (e.g., Monique DeMoan) Tabercil (talk) 17:17, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
Hello Tabercil! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot alerting you that 8 of the articles that you created are Unreferenced Biographies of Living Persons. Please note that all biographies of living persons must be sourced. If you were to add reliable, secondarysources to these articles, it would greatly help us with the current 939 article backlog. Once the articles are adequately referenced, please remove the {{unreferencedBLP}} tag. Here is the list:
Just wanted to say "thanks" for checking my edit, i have done a few as anon but it's good to know that when you join, there are people looking over your shoulder. I'm not sure if this is the right place to post this but if not, you know my talk page :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by SoWhatIsThis (talk • contribs) 04:52, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
That's fine, but where does it say the attacker was white? Tabercil (talk) 13:25, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Maya Gold. 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/Maya Gold. 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) 01:11, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
File:Arabscover.jpg
Hi,
I've recently recieved a message regarding the above file that may well be deleted. This picture is a cover of the album cover of the Jamming Arabs first album. This album is no longer in print and as far as I know the copyright for it expired many, many years ago. As such, I don't think there are any license agreements relating to this image. I'm not entirely sure how I can prove this to be honest! The record label no longer exists (Alopecia! Records) and I seem to remember that the contracts that we signed for the record label only related to the music and not the art work. Sadly, these contracts were signed more than 10 years ago and none of the band members had the brains (myself included) to keep the contracts.
If you could advice what to do I would be more than appreciative.
Cheers,
Russell
--152.105.140.92 (talk) 13:18, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
oops - didn't notice I wasn't signed in! user account: tikirussy
I worked hard on that page. the new information was referenced below. If possible I can forward the new links to you for review. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tx12581223 (talk • contribs) 13:57, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Aylar Lie. 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/Aylar Lie. 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) 01:08, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Kaila Yu. 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/Kaila Yu. 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) 01:09, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
I don't know if you have all the Playmate articles on your watchlist, so excuse me if you've seen this already. User:Angusmclellan has deleted several of the Playmate articles as "attack pages". I left a note on his talk page but I don't know how receptive he'll be to replacing articles that he's deleted. Could you, as an admin who can get the old articles back, please replace them? Thanks, Dismas|(talk) 20:24, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
PS From what I can tell, the deleted articles are:
Thanks, Dismas|(talk) 20:40, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
Actually, I think it was more on the "unsourced BLP" grounds that he deleted them. In any case, I think deleting was a definite overreach and have restored them. Tabercil (talk) 23:39, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
Thanks! He seems to have copy/pasted his "attack page" comment, so your hypothesis is possible. Would it be easier for you to resurrect the talk pages as well (to get the project tags and such back) or just put all the tags back from scratch? Dismas|(talk) 22:54, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
Ooops. <G> I'll fix, but this is just the tip of the iceberg in terms of the problem - given the comments found here I expect there'll be more such PRODs and speedy's... we probably should try and do a once over of the key articles to see what we have for unreferenced biographies. Tabercil (talk) 23:07, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
I guess I'll have to start devoting some time every week to going through wekinglypigs.com and my back issues to source the Playmate articles. With over 500, that could take some real time. Dismas|(talk) 23:27, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
Yah. What I'm planning on doing is pick up a book on DIY Python and see if I can learn enough to figure out how to write a script to run on a local copy of Wikipedia to try and figure out how many articles in pornproject would count as "unsourced" (i.e., less than 2 references), among other bits. Tabercil (talk) 23:32, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
As you're up-to-date on bringing articles to AfD debate, please consider nominating Dvdisaster for deletion on the basis of no notability indicated. --208.59.93.238 (talk) 17:55, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
Umm... software's a lil' outside of my area of focus. I'll pass. Tabercil (talk) 22:51, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
Jennifer Lyn Jackson
While I'm thinking about it, could you check the permissions at File:Jennifer Lyn Jackson.jpg? She died today and I added the photo from the article. I'm horrible at licensing images correctly, so if you could just verify it all, I'd appreciate it. Thanks, Dismas|(talk) 00:04, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
Looked good. Only change I made was to state that there was no known free use image. Thus, that allows for future changes, such as one being located. Tabercil (talk) 01:39, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
I used the same permissions and licensing on three other images and another editor put them up for deletion discussions! I don't understand how one person can say the images are fine and another put them up for deletion. This is why I stopped uploading images for a long time. I can't seem to get one to stick without some sort of problem. Could you tell me what's wrong with them so that I can fix it? The images are File:Willy rey.jpg, File:Carol vitale.jpg, and File:Merle pertile.jpg. Thanks, Dismas|(talk) 08:54, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
Welcome to the semi-anarchy that's Wikipedia. I've chimed in, and it seems like Jheald's made some decent arguments already. I'll keep an eye on the debate. Tabercil (talk) 12:37, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
I know it's here but it still annoys me from time to time. Especially when I try to upload an image. Thanks, Dismas|(talk) 13:42, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
I deleted the picture because it does not add to the article. There already is a portrait photo of her. There is a link to Wikimedia Commons for other photos, and that's where your photo belongs. If this were a longer, more detailed article, and your photo dealt with a specific issue in the article, it would be acceptable, otherwise it is just "eye candy" and doesn't aid in explaining anything in the article. Not a bad photo though.--Abebenjoe (talk) 14:32, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
You can add me to your Flickr list if you want, I seem to run into politically famous//infamous people all the time around Toronto, and sometimes in Nova Scotia. The address is http://www.flickr.com/photos/joebenbram/ --Abebenjoe (talk) 18:32, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
Tylyn John
I emailed the webmaster of Tylyn John's web site asking for a photo. They sent me one. Due to my frustration with the red tape surrounding images here, do you mind if I email you what they had to say? I'd like it if I had a second opinion on what I need as far as permission goes to have the pic here. Dismas|(talk) 23:15, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
You have reinstated a picture of Eileen Daly from Commons after I made several attempts to substitute the picture posted of Eileen (topless) with a picture supplied by Eileen herself explicitly for use in Wikepedia free of all restrictions.
The image that I attempted to add was supplied by Eileen daly herself, was taken by and is owned by Eileen Daly and is her preferred image for Wikipedia and the article about her.
The other image of a topless Eileen is one that she herself wishes to be deleted from Wikipedia and Wikipedia commons.
The image you have provided does not have any form of permission statement provided to back up the license. As such, we cannot make use of it. Now, I've since cropped the other image to remove the nudity and have used that edited version. And as for her wishes, its fine and we acknowledge them, but it's not about to be deleted. Tabercil (talk) 14:32, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
Can you provide an e-mail address for Eileen to send her explicit permission ?
Dean-Geoghegan (talk) 16:42, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
I note that the image of Eileen "Topless/Partially Nude" was added to her Wikipedia article by you from commons and was originally posted sans edit to remove nudity.
the addition of a Topless picture from Wikipedia Commons I am sure has caused her some concern.
You quote "And as for her wishes, its fine and we acknowledge them, but it's not about to be deleted."
I take it that you did not examine the picture before posting it to her page and that any embarrasment or inconvienience caused to Eileen was unintentional.
I would be surprised if it Wikipedia policy to promote the publication of nude/partially nude pictures of living people when alternative images are available.
Of course you have the advantage in this matter as I have only been using Wikipedia for 8 days.
Regarding permission;-
The following e-mail has been sent to EILEEN DALY;-
Hi Eileen,
I have had a couple of goes adding your picture to Wikipedia and it seems that as the owner of the image you need to give express permission.
You need to send an e-mail to Wikipedia to confirm that you are the owner of the image submitted and that
you consent to having it as your image on the Wikipedia article.
This e-mail should be sent to...
permissions-commons@wikimedia.org
You must have a look at Wikepedia and choose one of the free licenses suggested and replace the text where indicated.
I asked about removal of the "topless" picture and Wikipedia have cropped the image so that the nudity is hidden, it would seem that somebody can upload topless images of you and that they will remain on Wikipedia in a "cropped" format..
The reply is as follows..
"I saw the pic you uploaded to Commons of Eileen. As the warning placed on the picture says, we'll need proof that Eileen has consented to its use on Wikipedia. Tabercil (talk) 13:02, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
The image you have provided does not have any form of permission statement provided to back up the license. As such, we cannot make use of it. Now, I've since cropped the other image to remove the nudity and have used that edited version. And as for her wishes, its fine and we acknowledge them, but it's not about to be deleted. Tabercil (talk) 14:32, 15 February 2010 (UTC)"
All the very best.
Dean.
X
The suggested text from Wikipedia which should be included in your permission is as follows....
Re - Image
Eileen-Daly.jpg
I hereby assert that I am the creator and/or sole owner of the exclusive copyright of WORK .
I acknowledge that I grant anyone the right to use the work in a commercial product, and to modify it according to their needs, as long as they abide by the terms of the license and any other applicable laws.
I am aware that I always retain copyright of my work, and retain the right to be attributed in accordance with the license chosen. Modifications others make to the work will not be attributed to me.
I am aware that the free license only concerns copyright, and I reserve the option to take action against anyone who uses this work in a libelous way, or in violation of personality rights, trademark restrictions, etc.
I acknowledge that I cannot withdraw this agreement, and that the work may or may not be kept permanently on a Wikimedia project.
Actually I hadn't noticed the nip slip until this morning - that's when I created the crop version and uploaded it. As for Eileen's consent email (if you have one - I can't tell from what you posted above), it should be forwarded to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org and drop me a note here that you've done so. I can see one possible issue early with the permissions: the picture you currently have up (where she is looking down) you originally noted as being "Publicirty (sic) materials for RAZOR BLADE SMILE" - typically publicity images for films have the copyright on them held by the studio and not by the person in them. So unless Eileen is one of the producers, I doubt she can give consent. The other one (where she is looking ahead) should be less of a problem as that appears to be a casual image. You would need to make sure which image Eileen was giving consent to. If you have further questions, drop me a line via the "Email this user" link.
As for nudity, personally I try to select images that avoid it if we can help it. If need be, I'll crop the image down. But we do have images that have been submitted by the users that do have nudity (e.g., take a look at the category for Keanna Lei on Commons). Tabercil (talk) 22:01, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for your suggestion that I look up Keanna Lei on Commons - I would rather not.Dean-Geoghegan (talk) 11:45, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
E-mail sent to Wikipedia forwarded on from Eileen Daly direct.
permissions-commons@wikimedia.org
All the best.
Dean-Geoghegan (talk) 13:24, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
I see that you have again added the picture of the topless model to the article on Eileen Daly - do you have a personal grudge against this lady ? Dean-Geoghegan (talk) 10:32, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
Take another look - the version that I put up is the cropped version. And I do wish to point out a policy on Wikipedia - assume good faith. Tabercil (talk) 13:17, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
Opening ceremony images
Thanks for all your work in adding those images! — Andrwsc (talk·contribs) 03:52, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
Thank you! But I'm nowhere near done - I still have a ton of photos to upload from the Flickr account of subactive_photo (I'm working backwards from Z and have only gotten partway to M right now), then I have another chap who's agreed to contribute photos of it as well... he was at a different location in the stadium so it's a different perspective. But when all is said & done, we should have a very good resource to draw upon. Tabercil (talk) 03:58, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
The dispute seems to have ended three years ago, and this stub has been semi protected indefinitely for over three years now. Dispute seems to have ended, discussion page hasn't even been edited in about a year, it seems it is time for this article to be unprotected. 112.203.129.140 (talk) 00:45, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
Well, it's more like 2+ years ago, but you are right. Let's see what happens if it's unprotected - though if you're looking for it to be unprotected just to restart the BLP issues, you're probably gonna get blocked for a nice long time. Tabercil (talk) 00:49, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
Actually no, the one who put the Semi Protection down a notch said that the BLP issues are done, and if the do restart, I didn't mean it. 112.203.129.140 (talk) 00:55, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
Hi Tabercil, I just wanted to let you know that the mad Heather Locklear fan IP user who we have both sent several prior warnings to about the Heather Locklear article page is back up to their old tricks again. They are once again reverting the page to a fancruft-filled version that removes various pieces of sourced information simply because it is unflattering about the subject. The IP user's address has once again changed slightly but it still the same ISP (SBC Global in Los Angeles). This has been going on for a few months now, but they refuse to take the warnings given to them seriously (and have even said they ignore them in their edit summaries on the article page). As an admin, could you perhaps deal with them so that they stop doing this? Thanks. 80.47.171.163 (talk) 21:56, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
Hi, thanks for making the image brighter. No I don't have a larger version of the picture, that is all I have. Speedboy Salesman (talk) 16:34, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
Hallo Tabercil. Thanks for the information concerning reliable sources, I'm always willing to learn.
I actually know that imdb is not quite a reliable source, I only used it for the article because there already was a reference from this site (No. 14).
If that shouldn't be the case at all, probably every information provided by that trivia should be taken down or get replaced with other sources. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.250.128.162 (talk) 15:16, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
Little Oral Annie
One of the references was to a site called littleoralannieonline.com and apparently owned by VCX, the studio that released most of her films (at least it has ads for VCX and no other ads on the site). It is as reliable a source as one can find for a 70s era porn star. It's not as if "Who's Who" had listings for porn stars. Please re-instate it. Thank you. K8 fan (talk) 16:54, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
Sorry, it's not a reliable source at all. The presense of advertising by VCX does not mean that the host site is reliable. In fact a quick check at the whois listing at the registrar reveals the website is owned by "Incoming America LLC". Tabercil (talk) 21:42, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
Are you able to locate a source that meets your standards?K8 fan (talk) 04:23, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
I've not looked, but the onus is not on me with regards to sourcing - from Wikipedia:Verifiability: "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material." Offhand have you tried AVN? Tabercil (talk) 12:48, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
The thing is, you deleted all of the references, including one to lukeisback.com. Luke Ford is one of the two most reliable historians of porn (the other is Bill Margold). If you're going to delete references, please do so carefully, looking at each reference. K8 fan (talk) 16:21, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
The Wikipedia consensus, reinforced by no less than Jimbo Wales, is that Ford's work fails WP:RS. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 16:50, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
Bill probably would count as a decent source, as he's been stated as being a porn historian by several reliable sources including AVN (IIRC). Luke Ford proper is a blogger and a gossip; as Hullaballoo points out, he doesn't really count as a source (which is a pity as I would love to be able to use his interviews...). Now the new owner of lukeisback.com (Cindi Loftus) is a different person altogether and her stuff I would be count as being reliable. Tabercil (talk) 18:18, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
Nothing Cindi or Bill self-publishes is appropriate for biographies of other people. Morbidthoughts (talk) 19:06, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
You're right of course, especially regarding living people. For folks who've moved on... it may be a different story and would have to be tackled if/when it arises. Tabercil (talk) 22:16, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
A little help?
Could you use your admin powers to look at the article for Dolores Del Monte which was deleted in the Playmate Purge? I had a {{main}} template in my list but what I have in my list is rather small. I just want to be sure I didn't lose anything. Thanks, Dismas|(talk) 07:15, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
Nope, you caught it all. Tabercil (talk) 15:14, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
Thanks! I just moved that article into article space. Only 55 years to go... Dismas|(talk) 02:04, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
A photograph of an Eileen Daly (according to the lady herself NOT her) but possibly another Eileen Daly has been reinstated on the Eileen Daly article and a photograph supplied by Eileen Daly, totally the work of Eileen Daly (the actress) and which she was happy to have used for Wikipedia and about which she had sent several E-MAILS giving both it's provenance and full permission for it's addition to Wikipedia and free usage thereof has been deleted.
The photograph that she dislikes, for both reasons of nudity and because as stated she states is not the same Eileen Daly, appears to be credited to a photographer that does not exist and searching through the supposed author's FLICKR account does not show this image.
I would argue that the red-headed woman with the bare breasts is not only not of Eileen Daly (actress) but seems to have a false source.
If you could provide explicit instructions for the necessary permissions or re-instate the Eileen Daly approved image of herself it would be very much appreciated.
I'm not the one who deleted the image you uploaded, that was Polarlys on Commons. I'll get in touch with him to see if I find out why he deleted it, but ultimately I think this'll come down to you and/or Eileen providing additional information.
It would seem that your belief is enough despite (1) protestations from the subject that it is not her (I should point out that from 1990-2005(or so) she had black hair and did not go red till after the completion of ALL ABOUT ANNA and (2) distress caused to the subject directly.
Please feel free to contact her directly to explain why you insist on posting this picture.
As you state there was some concern about the photograph that Eileen Supplied herself what copyright permission was given by derable to use the topless picture ?
I do not have a FLICKR account and thus am unable to readily find any images.
I also found it odd that you referred me to pictures of PORN STARS the last time I brought that picture up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.172.25.247 (talk) 23:38, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
The image in question is from before 1990 - the photographer says is dates to 1984. Tabercil (talk) 23:40, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
Eileen had black hair from the age of 16, I used 1990 as it marked the start of her film career, prior to dying her hair black it was originally a darkish brown.
The question remains why do you personally insist on using this photograph from a selection of obviously nude photographs when there are other images that are Eileen Daly and are clothed on FLICKR ?
Regardless of semantics and technicalities why are you personally championing the inclusion of this one particular image ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.172.25.247 (talk) 23:57, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
That one image is used as it's the one image which we currently have that is licensed for use on Wikipedia - there are currently no other images period that we can use. As for the other images on Flickr, none of them have Wikipedia-friendly licenses - here is a list of all such images. If you take a look, there are but two images: the one of Eileen Daly that we're arguing over, and someone who clearly not Eileen Daly the actress. Given that situation, the choices are clear. And I am currently attempting to confirm through the photographer about the ID of the person in the picture. Tabercil (talk) 00:18, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
Regardless of anything else the subject of the article would not like this image on Wikipedia you have not addressed that question at all.
Could you perhaps suspend the Image whilst you seek confirmation ?
94.172.25.247 (talk) 06:00, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
Okay, I've heard back from folks on the image. The photographer couldn't remember the details about the model, but he was able to point me to the person who had arranged the shoot (it was arranged as part of the F8 Glamour Club. The co-ordinator has written back saying:
"Yes I did know a Eileen Daly, way way back as you say 25 years ago, I still think she is doing some sort of film work and was last know to be living in Soho area. She was great model to work with."
So, it quite possible that the Eileen in the photo is Eileen the actress, maybe even probable. Tabercil (talk) 12:24, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
Eileen Daly herself states that she only had black hair from the age of 16 till the completion of filming of ALL ABOUT ANNA when she went red-headed.
I will guarantee that the photograph currently on the page is an image of the "Eileen Daly" the subject of the article photographed November 2009 by me at the Comedy Pub, London.
Thank you for sorting out the link for me.
The photographer cannot recall the identity of the model.
The person who arranged the shoot says he knew an Eileen Daly but has NOT confirmed that the subject of the photograph is her.
Again thank you for sorting out the link to the 2009 of Eileen fronting her band.
Any other images I may have uploaded can be deleted from commons if they are not automatically deleted anyway.
Words like "Probably" and "Possible" are not the same as Definitively - the image supplied by me can be compared to contemporary images on her Facebook page.
I like that you have taken so very much time to ensure that an image disliked by the subject is displayed and have sought to prove that one image is possibly of her.
You could just have easily e-mailed Eileen Daly direct and asked for some photographs which I am sure she would have supplied by return.
See the answer above. Tabercil (talk) 21:52, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
Can you tell me why you answer every question with evasion and reference to porn images ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.172.25.247 (talk) 06:01, 30 March 2010 (UTC)193.36.20.132 (talk) 08:25, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
Again - Do you bear her personal malice ?
193.36.20.132 (talk) 08:27, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
No, I do not bear her any personal malice, and you would be well advised to assume good faith on my part. Tabercil (talk) 11:42, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
Okay, I checked with a couple of coworkers on this by showing them the pictures and their opinion is they're close lookalikes but it is possible it's not the same person. Now I do have an email out to the photographer trying to confirm the ID of the Eileen Daly he shot to see if it is the same person as Eileen Daly the actress. Until then, I will remove the image. Tabercil (talk) 13:34, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
I cannot assume good faith when you continue to attempt to cause distress to a living person and are adamant that a 26 year old topless photograph of a model (which I now note you have circulated to co-workers) is of a living person despite her protestations that it is not.
I would like to know what firm it is that allows you to circulate topless pictures of models from 1984 to co-workers during the working day.
I am also puzzled still as to why when I complained about the topless picture you suggested I look at images of porn stars.
Again you could have just asked Eileen (whose e-mail address is available) to provide another image - which would have consumed less time than seeking confirmation on a 26 year old possible image.
Anyway thanks again for sorting out the link for the picture of Eileen in concert in 2009.
The article Sunny Leone you nominated as a good article has failed , see Talk:Sunny Leone for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of said article. If you oppose this decision, you may ask for a reassessment. CanadianPaul 02:50, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
Fair enough. You've pointed out a lot and it gives me a target towards which I can work. Tabercil (talk) 03:34, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
Gianna Michaels image
Since you're an admin on Commons as well, I just thought I'd ask you about this edit. Is it just me or does it seem a little odd that the photographer would take this picture, print/develop it, and then get it signed? It doesn't exactly seem like an 8x10 that a feature dancer would sign and hand out at a club but at the same time, the alternative seems a bit strange to me. Or am I just paranoid? Dismas|(talk) 12:55, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
Y'know, if I saw this, I'd be thinking it was a Polaroid that Gianna had signed... As it stands, there's a tag on it that calls for more information and the other image this guy uploaded to Commons I just trashed as a copyvio from Wenn. In all likelihood I'm gonna say his Gianna pic will be deleted in 7 days, so it'd be best to switch images back. Tabercil (talk) 13:48, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
It's gone now, so I can't remind myself of what it looked like but I thought the photo quality a bit too good to be a Polaroid. It didn't have that characteristic blown flash look to it that I've come so accustomed to with Polaroids. Well, it's gone now. No point in dwelling. Thanks, Dismas|(talk) 21:32, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
Nah, I don't think it was cleared away as it specifically was a copyvio. The uploader kept trying to put up that Shyla Stylez image which I was able to prove was a copyvio. After they were blocked for essentially repeated stupidty, I imagine the other images said user had uploaded were deleted as a precautionary move. Tabercil (talk) 23:00, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Kelle Marie. 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/Kelle Marie. 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) 01:09, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
Hi, I've reverted your revert there because I don't think the edit was vandalism. I considered whacking "rollback" myself, but the information was quite negative for a BLP. My inclination is to leave it as the IP left it and then I'll try and merge the entire criticism section into the body, thus removing the problem, though I'd appreciate your input. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:43, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
Well there were two paragraphs that got knocked out by the IP and it's the second that's the reason I reverted. The one about Jonathan Shalit is pretty close to an attack statement and if you want to deep-six it I won't spend much time mourning it. But the second one, especially with the "being diplomatic was not in her nature" comment, I think is quite useful as it gives genuine insight into Charlotte's nature. Tabercil (talk) 00:51, 16 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) 01:09, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
Re: Monica Foster - I declined the PROD
This pornstar may be notable as per sentence three because of her unique website about getting into or out of porn. If you feel differently, please send this to WP:AFD. --Morenooso (talk) 02:27, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
I'm not sure but I have a feeling that the main contributor to this article may be its subject as well. You don't see too many women putting up articles about pornstars unless they are WP:DUCK. --Morenooso (talk) 18:27, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
I pretty much confirmed the previous COI post inthisdiff. However, I still feel she may be notable. --Morenooso (talk) 18:50, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
Well, as you suggested on the article's talk page, it's now up for AFD. Tabercil (talk) 23:16, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
I did not like that she is editting the article also as the anonymous IP. When the anon IP made its "non-neutral" diatribe on the article talkpage, it forgot to mention the elephant in the room, i.e., COI edits have create a self-serving interest to have an article on Wikipedia. --Morenooso (talk) 05:49, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
Looks like you made a good call. --Morenooso (talk) 20:27, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
Wow, I didn't know you were an Admin. I try not to look a gift horse in the mouth or to slap it either. Ponies have a way of biting if they so desired. To tell you the truth, I am really sorry now that I declined the PROD. Still, the AfD showed WP:CONSENSUS. --Morenooso (talk) 04:00, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
Something I've noticed about the topics and articles you "monitor".
You clearly have an agenda (and possibly and obsession) against adult entertainers, not just myself but well, just look at your "talk" page. I will be filing a formal email and written complaint in regards to your actions to multiple individuals within Wikimedia as suggested by many from this site - so will quite a few other adult industry professionals that you have targeted.
My deletion (Monica Foster - and yes, my real name IS Alexandra Mayers - creator of GettingIntoPorn.com) may have been semi-valid due to the "neutral point of view" clause - however other "edits" of yours are not.
If you have an agenda and/or an issue with adult entertainment and those who ARE notable and who work very hard to better the industry - deal with it offline in your biased mind - not online. AlexandraMayers (talk) 02:04, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
Look to your own talk page for my reply on this. Tabercil (talk) 03:41, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
No worries, laughing on this end as well.
You clearly do have an agenda and are biased in your edits, so laugh all you like and submit as many references as you like that you are "neutral", however 7 people who are adult entertainment professionals as of current will be sending in a few letters of complaint and concern in regards to what you're doing. I know I will be monitoring to see who else you target for deletion...should be interesting. Considering how quickly you targeted myself and Priya Rai, I wonder which adult industry professional with a brown or darker complexion will be next - the trend is clear.AlexandraMayers (talk) 03:48, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
Huh? I've not said word one at the current AFD for Priya Rai, though I am watching the debate. The reason why I've not said anything is that the consensus to date is running in favour of keeping it. Tabercil (talk) 03:59, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
Recent reverts regarding AWMDB external links
Hi, just thought I'd clarify why I see it as a good external link to include. As far as I'm aware it is the only regularly updated source that holds information on the individual website appearances, number of scenes, details of those individual scenes and scene pairings in regards to online-only scenes. Since I can find no other source with the regularly updated information that covers this unique area regarding these performers I believe it is a good external source of information worth linking to but not to the point that it requires inclusion in the main article body.
It's the closest thing to what IAFD does for DVD performances and I don't know of any other source that tracks and updates this kind of information. Obviously it's not solely down to me and if there is a better alternative source then so be it but I wouldn't say it's a "spam link" as it's been tabbed. These sites typically have extrenal links that provide them with revenue, two of the main sources in the bio box have these IAFD has third-party revenue generating banners and many external links to pay site galleries and online DVD shops to purchase videos and more. EBI has links to purchase DVDs, affiliate links to websites and third-party banners for pay sites. There's no avoiding this but, in my personal opinion, the information that can be gained on the website makes it a valuable source.
It would be good to get a further discussion as to other people's opinions and possible alternative sources but as far as I'm aware nowhere else provides this kind of information, particularly for North American performers.
My biggest concern about the site is that I'm not sure how much effort is put into keeping it current. Of the page links I reverted, the most recent update for any of them was made in early February and some dated back to last year. Unless/until that can be resolved as an issue, I honestly don't see how AWMDB can be considered a reliable source. Tabercil (talk) 03:35, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
True but if I look at some of the page links some of the performers are now either contract stars or inactive which could account for a lack of updates on their pages. I would imagine the fact there are 100s of new scenes released every week has an impact. I don't think you could ever find a fully up to date source for this data as there are new scenes released every day. I can see what you mean by the updates but I honestley don't know of any other source that contains a fraction of this information, particularly for non-European performers. EBI is good for Eastern European performers but that too isn't fully up to date, you can find more up to date info in their forum than on their page and I'm sure with IAFD there is missing info for some stars, looking at Priya Rai they have only 3 DVD releases for her in 2010 yet a look online shows me 9 releases for her in 2010. For Sasha Grey IAFD has only four 2010 titles listed yet a quick search shows me almost two dozen new releases in 2010 for her. I'm not sure you will ever have fully up-to-date information from these sources but they do provide relevant additional info for the subjects. NathyWashington (talk) 10:42, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
What do you think then? In my opinion it's worth adding at the very bottom of the page as an addition source of information since this information isn't avaiable elsewhere and isn't really required as part of the main article but like links to IAFD, EBI, adultfilmdatabase it does provide information and in this case information that is not provided by any other source apart from EBI (which only covers Eastern European performers and itself isn't fully up-to-date). NathyWashington (talk) 22:13, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
Meh... I don't at this point think it's worth doing. I'm still not convinced it's a worthwhile resource to add to the articles. You might want to bring the issue up at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Pornography though, in order to get feedback from others who are part of [[WP:P*]. Tabercil (talk) 00:08, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
There has been no input either way since I posted it on there. Personally I think it is worth including because when you dig deeper into the information the site provides it holds specific details of the content of individual scenes, scene pairings, number of scenes on individual sites etc. It's a source of info not covered elsewhere so the only alternative I can see would be to include a full webography within the article and that doesn't seem to me to be the best option. What is it that you think makes it not worthwhile? The reason I see it as worthwhile is because web content in this area is now a more important and more regularly updated source of content than DVD/Blu-Ray so it would be worth including a source that tracks this information. I understand you're not really fond of this source for whatever reason but this information is very relevant to this field as it is now the major source of content that the performers take part in. An alternative would be to include something within the article in regards to their online work and citing it as a source instead of a direct external link. I just think it's a major gap in the articles due to the fact that online content is the major part of this industry nowadays. I did a search for alternative sources but there isn't really anything that compares in scale to this one, there are some which cover certain areas (i.e. EBI for Eastern European peformers) and some that are well out of date (SearchExtreme & Pornstarwebography that doesn't even have Sasha Grey) so this appears to be the most complete source for this information NathyWashington (talk) 15:15, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
The AfD nomination of Playboy Playmates is out of control
Wait a minute, I like them brothers and I'm not laughing. He's on this mission. --Morenooso (talk) 03:19, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
Well in any case, I've let a message asking him to slow down. Now, let's see what can be done about the situation... Tabercil (talk) 03:25, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
... (ec)I'm laughing, but it's a gallows humor laugh... One would hope Jimbo himself would step in at some point and say 'enough is enough'-- he's the guy that said every little high school could have its own article... But he seems all for the bastardization of the project these days... I've just resigned myself to the fact that WP will eventually be an anonymously-written imitation of Encyclopedia Britannica, without some of the smaller articles... And pardon me for butting in on your page to spread my blasphemous propaganda, Tabercil... Dekkappai (talk) 03:29, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
He needs to check the IMDb entries prior to nomination. Any playmate with over three acting credits should fit the mainstream criteria. In one case, a playmate had 15 credits. Granted, we aren't talking rocket scientist or Oscar winning performances but acting is acting. --Morenooso (talk) 08:39, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
A walk on un credited role is clearly not a notable part as an actor, please be honest about some of these people. It is a list situation, if someone wants to be honest and go through them yourselves and delete and listify that would save me a job. Many of them clearly are not notable now the PORN BIO clause has gone, why not just honestly go through them, you already have them in lists so it is not like any information is going to be lost and that will save you scouring the world for some minor claim to fame and further weakening the policies and guidelines by attempting to assert that some of these people are notable when they clearly are not. I was intending to go back over the AFDs I have already created and investigate how policy is being applied, for the time being I will not nominate more as it would seem some discussion is in order. With a quick look I see a couple of users are voting keep and claiming that being a playmate is notable, this is against policy and previous discussion, later today I will collect all the details from the AFDs and see what is going on. Off2riorob (talk) 10:30, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
Huh. "If someone wants to be honest and go through them yourselves and delete and listify that would save me a job." You're asking us to your dirty work? And creating twenty-nine AFDs about Playmates (full list seeable at User talk:Off2riorob/Playboy playmate AFD results) I believe is a gross violation of WP:POINT. Tabercil (talk) 12:53, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
Well, I would call it clean up work after the removal of the clause from porn bio, It is very clear to me that there is many not notable stubs about playmates, I see no reason to keep them all imo they make good lists. Nominating uncited stub that the reason for notability has been removed is not a gross violation of anything. After four or five years a one or two line uncited stub with no assertion of notability or only cited to playboy is the gross violation. Off2riorob (talk) 13:12, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
Is there a board where we can discuss all these pointless AfDs and its nominator?--Morenooso (talk) 13:13, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
I will consider it. Another editor, who recently stalked me, dared me to show my face there because he hangs out there. Maybe it's time for an appearance but from another perspective. Unfortunately, I just did some work on another AfD that most likely will go down to delete and my time is limited today. I will have to look at the page and familiarize myself with its procedure. --Morenooso (talk) 14:32, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
And here's a lil' experiment I just ran. Hit Google News and did a search there for current news reports on Carmella DeCesare, former Playmate. Searching for the phrase "Carmella DeCesare" comes back with 236 results ([1]). Searching for the same phrase and adding the word Playmate comes back with 165 results ([2]). So given the high correlation of hits, it does look like the mainstream media does feel that being a Playmate is notable. Tabercil (talk) 13:43, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
It seems like the over-riding or repetive comment is "this is why Playboy Playmates are considered notable so Wikipedians don't have to go through this process." What a pain in the butt to have so many AfDs. I have had proctologists with fat fingers who felt way better and were necessary for annual physicals. This feels like the old question: would you rather be the pin or the pin cushion and having your butt buddy decide he's going to have you bend over. --Morenooso (talk) 15:24, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
Hmm... when you mention it, it might be worthwhile to kind of consolidate all the arguments for general Playmate notability into one spot as an essay. That way in the future, we can just point to it... Tabercil (talk) 16:18, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
(ec) Without probing your painful analogies, Morenooso... By WP's own criteria, and even based on the arguments of many of the Delete !votes, Playmates are notable, and should have stand-alone articles. Most the Delete !votes say that these articles should be moved to a List. Well, what does Wikipedia:Lists_(stand-alone_lists)#Lead_and_selection_criteria say? "Each entry on a list should have its own non-redirect article in English Wikipedia." So are they proposing we exclude certain 3 or 4 months per year from the lists? That would just show how random and biased this "Notability" game is... Or are they saying Playboy Playmate and lists thereof are all non-notable and should be deleted? (Good luck with those AfDs!). Dekkappai (talk) 16:22, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
Read down in that same paragraph: "The one exception is for list articles that are created explicitly because the listed items do not warrant independent articles: for example List of minor characters in Dilbert." That's the reason for folks saying "list 'em". Tabercil (talk) 18:35, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
Ah, good old Wiki-nonsense. "Every item in a list must have its own article, unless it doesn't." Now I remember why the only two policies I pay attention to are IAR and HOTTIE... Thanks for the clarification ;-) Dekkappai (talk) 18:47, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
This needs to go the board. I'm trying to save a Disney CD and the AfDs are piling up faster than I can type. I gotta run but death by buggery would be better than all these AfDs. --Morenooso (talk) 22:47, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
Wait, hold the presses. I just realized that the ititials AfD also stand for something else: A$$ f------ Death. --Morenooso (talk) 22:53, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
I've just now read over this conversation having been (and continuing to be) quite busy for days which has taken my focus away from WP. That said, I'd like to respond to Off2RobRio's point of "you already have them in lists". No, we don't have all this information in lists. I started creating the "List of Playboy Playmates of XXXX" lists when the Playmate clause was removed from PORNBIO. Right now there are maybe ten such lists because, as I've said, I've been busy IRL and I seem to be the only one working on them. (Not going for pity, it's just a fact and I don't mind) Again though, we don't have all the info in those articles in list form. We have the woman's name, year, and month at List of Playboy Playmates of the Month. That's it. The rest of the info is lost when the articles get deleted. And I don't know if you realize this but the Playmates' dimensions/stats/etc have been used before in scientific studies:http://www.fitcommerce.com/Blueprint/WebControls/Announcements/ViewAnnouncement.aspx?ItemID=252&mid=112&portalId=2&cid=112], [3],
Now I'm, unavoidably, going offline for the next few days... Dismas|(talk) 14:00, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
Well, this might be as good a time and place as any to bring up the problem I have with Project P* (and WikiProjects in general): Its main purpose seems to be to identify what to exclude, and then go around deleting stuff. Maybe a few guidelines on whether to use a dash or a hyphen, but other than that, what? Why not actually organize the members to ah... work on the subject? (I realize I'm over-generalizing, of course.) A threat to one's area of interest would seem a golden oppurtunity to organize the troops and get to work. Dismas is doing a great job, but he's just one guy and it's a huge project. Why not make up a list of the lists that need to be done and ask the members of the project to pick ones to work on? I'm not a member of the project anymore, but I'd certainly be willing to chip in on a year or two. I'll look in this weekend and see what I can do, but in the meantime, a note to the troops wouldn't be a bad idea, would it? Dekkappai (talk) 16:22, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
Hmmm... have you ever been tested for psychic ability Dekkappai? That's something that's been kicking about in the back of my mind as one of two "to-do / wish list" bits: a regular WP:P* newsletter, same as the Wikipedia Signpost. Maybe produce on a biweekly or monthly basis?? (The other is some kind of article/essay to do up to explain Wikipedia process & such with porn industry-specific references & advice, with publication on AdultFYI, lukeisback.com or such.) Tabercil (talk) 20:25, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, I know I get pretty cranky about deletions, but it seems to me that the main purpose of a project should be to organize work on its subject of interest, and their are so many places within the project's reach that need lots of work. A newsletter would be a good idea for that-- keep people informed on what needs to be done, ideas on where to work/improve, etc. Not to be overly-critical, but it seems like these Playmate articles would be "core" articles for the project, and thorough searching for sourcing/article work should have been done before these 7-day deadlines have been imposed. Another big gap (which I'd be willing to work on) is softcore/grindhouse/drive-in films & their personnel, from the '60s-'70s. Dekkappai (talk) 20:38, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
Hello Tabercil! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot alerting you that 8 of the articles that you created are Unreferenced Biographies of Living Persons. Please note that all biographies of living persons must be sourced. If you were to add reliable, secondary sources to these articles, it would greatly help us with the current 939 article backlog. Once the articles are adequately referenced, please remove the {{unreferencedBLP}} tag. Here is the list:
, see Talk:Sunny Leone for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of said article. If you oppose this decision, you may ask for a reassessment. Canadian Paul 02:50, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
