User talk:Morbidthoughts

Sasha Knox

I'm aware that films can be delayed in release, however that isn't the case here. She's had 30+ films released since June, and most of them aren't flagged as compilations in IAFD. Porn companies aren't known for sitting on films for 10 months which would have to be the case for some of these release dates. Additionally, she's shown up on website press releases over 6 months after her stated retirement date and put her myspace back up. Horrorshowj 23:04, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar

		The Pornography Barnstar
		For not only demanding references on contentious information in countless articles on pornographic performers, but providing them in many cases. Thank you. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 16:53, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Aliciaalighatti-avn2006.jpg

Hi did you take this pic?Genisock2 19:40, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Yes, I did. Vinh1313 (talk) 21:20, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

thankyou for letting me know.Genisock2 (talk) 01:03, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion of Image:SG01.jpg

Actually, since the image is a Commons image and not a Wikipedia image, you should make your deletion request here. The page also has instructions for Commons speedy deletion procedures and copyvio reporting. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 16:55, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the list of OTRS folks can be found here - "permissions" is the list that would apply to photo copyrights. I personally have found User:Riana and User:Deskana to be very helpful. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 16:59, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks and done. I find the deletion request procedure to be overly complicated though. Vinh1313 (talk) 17:36, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No argument here, it can take a while to get images deleted on Commons. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 17:42, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do you know the copyright holder of the image? Any chance of his releasing it, or any of his other great photos, under a free license? Videmus Omnia ^Talk 17:53, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Leyden is my friend and colleague. I'll forward the request for you, but you can always ask him directly on flickr. I also have a substantial library myself beyond my flickr account. I am willing to donate images to fill any gaps in pornproject. However, I don't like to grant CC licenses through flickr itself and would rather upload the picture directly to wikipedia. All you have to do is ask. Vinh1313 (talk) 18:06, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I deleted the photo at Commons for now, if your friend would like to donate his photo a copy can be re-uploaded later. Sometime soon I'll look through his photos at Commons and put together a request. In the meantime, would you mind contributing a photo of Olivia O'Lovely? The current photo there is a possible copyvio. Take care... Videmus Omnia ^Talk 04:01, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

New Pic is up. Vinh1313 (talk) 04:16, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It looks great, thanks! I hope you don't mind - I copied that photo to the Commons, along with the other photos you uploaded. The Caylian Curtis photo, especially, was fantastic. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 05:19, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dana DeArmond

i have a written contract with dana dearmond. her official site is danadearmond.com where would you like me to send you a copy of our contract so that you may verify this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.225.230.183 (talk) 01:39, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your contract is simply irrelevant to whether we consider it official. Is she continuing to provide any new materials for it? Is she continuing to endorse it? She says no. If she says it's not official, then it's not official. Your contract is with her not us. If she's contracted to endorse your website, then enforce the contract with her. Wikipedia is not the forum to arbitrate these issues. Vinh1313 (talk) 04:48, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

bobbi starr

Vinh, commenting on your post at Bobbi's Myspace: I am not "pissed", heh. We just had a disagreement. I wanted there to be an article on Bobbi Starr because I like her video's and I wanted to do something back in return (unlike some other guys I am not a pathetic loser who adores pornstars seeing them as a sort of ideal, imaginary girlfriend, going to pornmeetings, corresponding and wanting to know all about their personal life, etc; there is not much to admire about having sex for money, let's be honest). The main point is that she has an article with good information. So my goal is achieved. It's up to others to expand it. In the discussion section I added some more missing but relevant information. For the present I think I have spend enough time on this.Cometappears (talk) 00:24, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ashlynn Brooke permission

Hey VinH1313...

I am trying to figure out how to respond to you. I apologize for the delay. I'm new to adding things here. So with these comments I hope they make it to you. I appreciate your comments. Uploading a photo is far more tougher than one would think. I do have permission to use the photo, and already sent the e-mail of agreement to Permissions [permissions-at-wikimedia-org]. I am not sure how to place a link with the pic, to the e-mail I received. Thanks for any help you might give.

From:

Ashlynn B.. myspace.com/ashlynn_brooke Date: Dec 31, 2007 7:50 PM Flag as Spam or Report Abuse [ ? ] Subject: RE: Hi again Body: yeah sure use any pic ya want!! thanks again.. and my bday is aug. 14 not 13! thanks hun! Ash

Ms. Ashlynn Brooke,

I found your MySpace page while doing research for the free online encyclopedia Wikipedia, and thought your a couple of your images might be appropriate for inclusion in our articles concerning your bio.

I am specifically seeking your permission to use this image: http://i131.photobucket.com/albums/p288/aallen77/picsfromcha d436.jpg

I would like to include your image in these articles: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ashlynn_Brooke

Wikipedia (http://www.wikipedia.org/) is a free encyclopedia that is collaboratively edited by volunteers from around the world. Our goal is to create a comprehensive knowledge base that may be freely distributed and available at no charge.

Normally we ask permission for material to be used under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License...... (presented he license text in full) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Michaeltm99 (talk • contribs) 01:17, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I put the picture back in and noted that you forwarded the permission to otrs. They may have some further instructions for you with the picture. Sorry for the mixup. Vinh1313 (talk) 01:20, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No problem... I don't want to mess with the system, and want to do it correct. Again, thanks for your help! MichaelTM99 (talk), 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Slow up

In regards to your mass "Speedy" and AfD nominations. Slow up. If you have legitimate concerns over each of these articles, you can submit them individually. By mass-nominating, you prevent concerned editors from giving each article due consideration, and you prevent concerned editors from having the time to sufficiently research and find sourcing for each article. Again, slow up. Regards. Dekkappai (talk) 17:37, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am reviewing and submitting the speedy and AfD nomination individually (on a case by case basis). If it's too fast for you, that's not my problem. What surprises me is that the notability of renominated articles still have not been established with proper sources after contentious discussion. Vinh1313 (talk) 17:45, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Given the sheer volume of material which you've put up, I'd say there is decent risk of you being in violation of WP:POINT. To reiterate, slow up. Please. Tabercil (talk) 18:14, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The only point I'm trying to make is that I don't think the articles I've nominated are notable for inclusion into Wikipedia. Some of the speedies that were defended, I didn't afd later because I hadn't recognised their proposed notability. The others I afd'd. So what's supposed to be the going rate for this process? 2 a day? 4 a day? Vinh1313 (talk) 18:18, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I noticed these AFDs because I've been editing some Japan-related pages and watching some Japanese Wikipedians talk pages. It seems apparent that you are missing a very important cultural detail. In Japan, AV stars often appear on mainstream Japanese television. This is quite different than in countries like the United States, where pornographic actors do not, except for some unusual reason. So it's pretty easy for me to believe that if your nominated actresses sell many videos, they would appear many times on mainstream Japanese TV. I don't know if the WP:Bio guideline needs to be changed to reflect this difference; however, as the guideline stands, these appearances would be enough. So what you are doing is somewhat unfair. Anybody with knowledge of Japan would know selling many videos means multiple appearance on mainstream Japanese TV. But to pinpoint these appearances (because there are so many by AV stars in general), one would need like a TV guide and be frequently watching Japanese TV, jotting down these details. I don't expect there are many such people doing this, especially not for the purpose of saving articles on English Wikipedia from deletion. --C S (talk) 12:31, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I realise some of those articles were written before the wp:bio were set as it is but I can't just presume that Japanese stars are on mainstream TV simply from the number of videos they did. If there was any mention of mainstreaming in article, I wouldn't have afd'd it. I looked at many Japanese articles from A-H and only felt the need to speedy/afd two of them so it's not that I'm unfairly targeting them based on flawed guidelines. Vinh1313 (talk) 14:20, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd just like to say that I totally agree with your recent AfD activity, but I wouldn't want to see something like this happen to you. Epbr123 (talk) 01:50, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Removing Self-Promotional Links and References

Please do not remove relevant citations for XC content. The links aren't spam, and not all of them have been placed by us. IE IB.Gkleinman (talk) 20:19, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm removing the ones you and your proxies placed in violation of wp:soap. Vinh1313 (talk) 20:21, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

They are legitimate citations! Gkleinman (talk) 21:07, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't matter. You can't be the one that's putting them in. Someone else (besides one of your proxies) has to put it in.Vinh1313 (talk) 21:08, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:Truce OK lets work together here so that legit citations exist where they should, ok? Gkleinman (talk) 21:54, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Truce will only be achieved when you stop inserting links and references to your websites directly into unrelated articles. If you feel they are legit, then you propose them indirectly through the article discussion page. Vinh1313 (talk) 21:59, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How about this. Rather than purge us from all the pages. I'll agree to propose future links through the discussion page. I feel this is a fare compromise here. Again my intent here is to have valid citations where appropriate. And I respect that you're trying to do the same. Are you agreeable to this? Gkleinman (talk) 22:01, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A true starting over requires a purge of any of your links that you inserted. Vinh1313 (talk) 22:10, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well i can't win either way. I added info into the Digital Playground talk page http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Digital_Playground&action=history

and it got removed by another editor. Gkleinman (talk) 22:13, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I put them back in the discussion. However, those blogs may be more appropriate in the performer's pages if they exist. Vinh1313 (talk) 22:19, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've let the reversions of Digital Playground and AVN Expo stand. I removed the link on IAFD and have apologized as I honestly didn't recall making that edit. I'm going to put suggested links on the talk pages going forward. I believe that's a very fair and reasonable way to proceed. OK? Gkleinman (talk) 22:21, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

comment Thank you for your constructive guidance and help. Again wasn't intending to sully WP. Will definitely add only to discussion any XC links. Appreciate your help. Gkleinman (talk) 00:46, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You may want to weigh in on this discussion as it's being proposed again that the XC WP be deleted. [1] as promised I've agreed not to make any edits to the article and only suggest contributions on talk pages Gkleinman (talk) 17:43, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Assume good faith

Regarding THIS EDIT, I believe that my edit history shows that I have shown far more interest in the quality of articles on the Japanese erotic cinema than yours has. You recently attempted to Speedy Delete THIS ARTICLE which had a "Best Actress" award plainly mentioned at the time. I have helped delete articles in this area in the past, and will continue to do so. Please assume good faith from others, and please be more careful in nominating for deletion articles on subjects about which you have demonstrated no knowledge or interest. Dekkappai (talk) 21:23, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am assuming good faith when talking about your guideline nullification defense. It's a comparison to the concept of jury nullification (made famous through johnny cochran and made fun of by south park). As for Hasegawa, the "Best Actress" award was not "plainly" mentioned when couched as Erotic Cinderella (especially when you clarified it in a later edit. I interpreted it as a role. Tell you what. Since you are the expert in Japanese porn, anytime I feel there's a notability issue in article, I'll just tag it with the notability tag, and then inform you in a message. That way you won't have to do the cultural bias guideline nullification when you have already shown that you can strengthen the article in a way that satisfy the guidelines (according to the past afds). Vinh1313 (talk) 09:34, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are not assuming good faith when you continue to call my defense a "guideline nullification defense." The guidelines clearly say, right at the top for added emphasis, that they are to be taken "with common sense and the occasional exception." I advocate following that statement and interpreting these rules which must be applied to a very diverse set of articles. The WP:PORNBIO rules in particular are very Anglo- and U.S.-centric, and probably inevitably so. Putting a special-exception clause for Japanese subjects into the rules seems rather absurd when all we have to do is follow the rules as they stand-- "with common sense and the occasional exception." These rules can be reasonably interpreted to accomodate a wide diversity of subjects, as long as the letter of the rule is not followed literally to the point of extremism. To interpret my advocating treating these rules with common sense, as stated in the guidelines themelves, as intentionally dazzling the jury with bullshit or advocating nullifying the guidelines is incorrect, and, I feel, an accusation of bad faith.

Given the linguistic, cultural, geographical, etc. difficulties in finding appropriate sourcing for these subjects, I think tagging for Notability is a much better and more honest approach to the problem. Certainly better than "Speedy"ing without notification. I do have other interests in life, and in editing here, and I do try to step away from the subject of Japanese porn occasionally. It seems that whenever I do, however, a new case of deletion-madness breaks out. A "Notability" tag will give me time to work on articles which are by no means easy subjects, and also give me time to determine which are not notable. I've voted to delete articles which my efforts to source have shown to be not notable, and I will continue to do this. But more often, I've strengthened the articles in the category, and I will continue trying to upgrade the others as well. Dekkappai (talk)

21:43, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I am assuming good faith on your part in that you don't think the guidelines apply in the scenario when you assert your defense. Jury nullification just means arguing for the jury to ignore the law in order to achieve a certain goal or end. Chewbacca defense was just a pop culture reference/joke for epbr123. Vinh1313 (talk) 00:03, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, this is getting absurd. I think the guidelines apply. The guidelines state that they "should be treated with common sense and the occasional exception." Dekkappai (talk) 00:10, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

P-star photos

Hello, I noticed that you have your own rights to the photos on flickr (you took them yourself), if so then could you upload the 'Rebeca Linares' one you have and the 'Nadia Styles' many thanks...i also noticed that some of the photos have been requested for deletion by other users thinking that you do not have the rights to the photos...in you have full rights then maybe it would be good to put alittle more info in self made line description section...thanks! Britannic1 (talk) 17:25, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm actually out taking pictures right now since it's AVN Expo week. I'll get back next week and will work on your request. You have to be more specific if you want a certain picture. Vinh1313 (talk) 07:12, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What is wrong with the current Rebeca Linares picture? Vinh1313 (talk) 17:32, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ohh..well its beens there for quite awhile and other photos are used in other wikiedia language versions. and wiki commons has many photos of the same peson eg: carmen Luvana etc...but to be honest ive had a flick through your photos and they all/are the best ive seen in terms of clarity! and are very professional which is why i thought the ones i chose were some of the best. Hope you agree to some of them.Britannic1 (talk) 20:34, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Would it possible to change and put some of these photo on wiki too?...the ones already up are cut amateur photos. Just click the links - "Rebeca Linares," "Lela star" and "Avy lee roth" 81.159.137.28 (talk) 10:19, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Britney Rears

I saw that you had participated in the discussion and argued for "Merge per Epbr123". I've been rewriting the article, and Epbr switched his position to "Weak Keep". If you have time, would you mind reviewing the article to see if you feel it has improved enough for an independent article? Horrorshowj (talk) 04:07, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is a bad week for me since it's AVN Expo week. Sorry. Vinh1313 (talk) 07:28, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. Hope the expo goes well for you. Horrorshowj (talk) 21:49, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Micky Yanai

Well, I promise not to get anywhere near as emotionally involved over a Micky Yanai speedy as a Shoko Goto speedy ;) Honestly, I don't know if I've never seen the guy. I've heard of him, he's probably one of the only one or two well-known male stars in the Japan AV industry. Because the Japanese industry is so female-centric (which is one reason I prefer it to the U.S.), all I could find are pictures of the women he's twirled. The only two pictures of the Helicopter Man himself I could find are: [2] and [3] Looks like the same guy to me. Who's this though? Looks like someone I know... Dekkappai (talk) 01:58, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know. She had a box cover of hers that identified her as just Junko. I also saw Mirai Haneda but didn't know if she was notable. There were five or six JAV girls running around but I haven't really hung out with one since Fujiko Kano. Vinh1313 (talk) 02:56, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]