Jump to content

Talk:1 Night in Paris

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Picture

[edit]

This article needs many! JimRaynor 15:12, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Settle down there James. --Lord Voldemort 13:17, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Don't get out of character. JimRaynor 16:50, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keeping you under control is all part of my evil plan. --Lord Voldemort 19:06, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
You should have apparated a nuclear bomb into the ministry of magic and then set it off. JimRaynor 19:11, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Well the reason I didn't was because... well, I never... well, I should have gotten... well, well, shut up. That simply would not have been evil enough. --Lord Voldemort 19:43, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I'll help you out here LV. There are two reasons he couldn't have done this. First, wizards don't use Muggle technology. Therefore, a nuke is out from the start. Second, Hogwarts was described (in one of the books) as a non-apparation zone. If these can be set up, surely the Ministry of Magic has one (or at least now that they're openly at war with He Who Has a Silly Name.
*giggle!* --^pirate 16:19, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
yeah, but that's the thing, with a nuke you don't need to be inside. Hell, you don't even need to be close. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.108.149.251 (talk) 22:54, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

the name

[edit]

What does the name of the movie mean? Is it "One night inside Paris Hilton" or "One night in Paris, France"?

It's a double meaning, since you could spend a night in Paris, but it's actually referring to Paris Hilton - 71.234.29.231 07:50, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, come on, get on with it! It's a pun, and means one night inside of her. One things for sure, she didn't come up with the title. It's too witty for the socialite. Aaрон Кинни (t) 17:51, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
i think it is technically a double entendre -matt
It's a double entendre, and that should be added to the article. --220.110.237.219 (talk) 05:26, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Authorized?

[edit]

I removed the word "authorized"--it's plainly clear she did not authorize the release.

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/P/PEOPLE_PARIS_HILTON?SITE=FLTAM&SECTION=HOME

She may not have authorised the release but she later settled her suit, as mentioned in the article, and at that point it became authorised. As to the claims made by Hilton in the link you give above, Hilton is hardly a reliable source. If she actually did not receive any of the money they agreed to, you can be sure she would have sued to collect. --Yamla 15:15, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This article needs more {{Fact}}s. A couple of sentences didn't have one --Angry mob mulls options 12:18, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

External Links addendum removed - Why?

[edit]

Hi,

I just added the link thehotelheiress.com which is the official 1 Night in Paris sex video site and it was removed again which makes no sense.

There is no need to classify it as spam at all since there is only one official download site for the tape. In my opinion you can start to delete all external links on all wiki pages since all links can - in any shape or form - be classified as spam or advertising.

In the case of 1 Night in Paris the link http://www.iafd.com/title.rme/title=1+Night+In+Paris/year=2004 contains advertising banners for other programs on the site which contain nudity - banners rotate so you have to refresh several times - and http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0412260/ has an amazon shopping box on the right side. These links are very commercial and actually shouldn't be mentioned at all, too, yet they are allowed to stay but the official sex tape site not.

Please consider re-instating the link to thehotelheiress.com as it is right on the topic (that's what the whole page is actually about or not?) and not any nonsense which has nothing to do with it. I took the slogan "This pornographic film-related article is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it" at the bottom serious and I think the link is quite a good supplement to the sparse link section and the article page in general. Consider it as an additional way for people visiting the wiki entries.

Thanks, James Weinstein 10:46, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The site has a single purpose - to flog this crap - and contributes nothing. Linking to it is clearly spam, as described here . But I don't care enough to engage in a edit war, and I don't know why anyone else would --Angry mob mulls options 02:45, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Once again: The link is an official link to the website and is 110% right on topic of the article!!

To some of you: You can't expect that others always have the same opinion like you and you should also start to accept and respect contributions from others.

The link will be put up again, I don't have to repeat that it is an OFFICIAL link to the video. The whole article is about a porn video, guys! I don't have to remind you that the 1 Night in Paris article is a *porn* stub and contributions are more welcome than on "normal" article pages.

Furthermore, I don't have to remind you, that the whole article is "pornographic"! Just read thru it, it even contains "porn" language. If you or anyone else feel offended by a link to its official site then please, please delete the whole pornographic article or stop this ridiculous hypocrisy!

Thanks!

James Weinstein 11:19, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]


addendum:

Please delete both links from the article: the one to the internet movie database contains an Amazon shopping cart and a large ad banner on their website. The other one linking to the adult film database contains ad banners at the top for buying adult movies etc. Those 2 links (and in general ALL links on wiki which lead to the IMDB and ALL movie articles on wiki have external links to them) are commercial and are of no encyclopedic value at all either.

Weinstein 11:44, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Spam#Common_spammer_strawmen


--> that's definitely not my company or link and I guarantee it :-) We are talking here about the official site to the article's subject.(which by the way is not an article by me even) You seem to either naively forget or deny it. A weak and futile counterargument... Again, if you feel offended by this article and topic's content then look for another hobby. You can't expect that everybody has the same opinion like you do.

But thanks for the link which proves that even commercial sites are allowed on wiki, quite contrary to what most wikipedians think or or think to know.

Quote from the site above: "Links to commercial sites are often appropriate"


Here are also another interesting links:

I'd like to politely remind that repeatedly deleting/reverting edits by other users is a breach of Template:3RR and WP:3RR respectively. James Weinstein 18:14, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Again, if you feel offended by this article and topic's content then look for another hobby lol it's strawman city. It's not about the subject matter of the article, but the link spam - which I see you've been warned about by an admin previously http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Weinstein&oldid=89685152, you're fortunate not to have been blocked by now.


How can an official link to the topic's article or matter be considered as link spam, please?? That shows that YOU ARE offended by it, else you would just accept it. Period. Thanks for admitting it. If this material is offending in your country doesn't mean it's in other countries.

If the official website doesn't belong to that article (which would be a new mile stone in wiki history) then please delete the whole article from wiki since your arguments are plain ridiculuos and I don't need you trying to make a fool out of me Mr. Anonymous! Weinstein 11:09, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How to identify spam and spammers

User has made multiple edits to related articles
The majority of user's edits are to external links sections
Link is trying to sell a product or service.

If you type paris hilton in google, you will find hundreds of so called OFFICIAL WEBSITES. That does not mean that all those should be added to wikipedia. stop spamming.


Dude, you are such a liar and fact twister, unbelievable! Google will NOT show you hundreds of official sites. There is only one official site of Paris Hilton and only one official site of the Paris Hilton sex tape which is thehotelheiress.com - We are talking here about the sex tape and not about Paris Hilton sites in general, but you know that...

And NO, not hundreds sites shall be added to the link section but only one which is the most appropriate and is 100% on the article's topic but which you cannot or don't want to see.

Now stop twisting facts and spreading lies. And next time sign your posts when you talk to someone! Weinstein 22:55, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Plot

[edit]

Is this for real? An entire section describing how the film goes, what he and she says, and what positions they try? There can be a plot, but this is... too much description and useless information. If no one give me a good reason why we should let that there, I'll clean it up and make the plot very brief. Kajito 16:45, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The plot section contains absolutely no plot and should be removed. The real plot is so short as to be given only a short mention. It goes something like this: Paris and Rick are bored and Rick convinces her to have sex on camera at his house, and again at a hotel. I consulted the first links at Google with the keywords "writing glossary plot" and "film glossary plot", and plot is about the organization of events and how they relate, not the details of the events in sequence; that is the story. There is nothing interesting or notable about the story. It's what you'd expect from amateur porno. So I'll take the initiative and remove it. 70.66.9.162 12:52, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Every film can have a plot and this is one of the biggetst selling fimm. A porn film article can also have a plot. see World's Biggest Gang Bang. We may edit it if we feel that it is too long but we should not remove it. 68.61.233.160 23:49, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
N/m I don't want to spend anymore time here. 70.66.9.162 11:26, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The "plot" is really unnecessary to detail as such. This is rediculous.

(MarkpianoKC 06:27, 3 January 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Good heavens. The only reason anyone would read this entry is to find out "what happens" in the video. Keep the "plot" in there.

--Andersonblog 22:31, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

thank you, andersonblog. jesus, i'm sick of this whole "Project: Make Wikipedia Boring". if i come upon wikipedia's article on "1 night in paris" and it doesn't tell me what occurs in the video, then what the hell is the point? -- monkeyboy —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.215.83.206 (talk) 01:55, 7 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]
A detailed, scene-by-scene summary of events for a homemade porno? Oh, you've got to be joking me. This is written almost as poorly as tabloid article... Part of me died when I read "(It is also discovered at this point that Hilton's pubic hair is shaved.)"... I was half expecting it the article to start with a spoiler warning. Sure, I'm all for porn, but this is Wikipedia, not Entertainment Tonight for horny 15-year-olds. That's just my opinion. --Zippo 22:12, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Totally agree with James above. The whole article is so of explicit language and the link fits. The reader shall decide if he wants to visit any of the links or not. This whole anti-behavior is sheer ridiculous and hypocritic. 198.175.230.96 18:55, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How to identify spam and spammers
User has made multiple edits to related articles
The majority of user's edits are to external links sections
Link is trying to sell a product or service.
If you type paris hilton in google, you will find hundreds of so called OFFICIAL WEBSITES of her sex tape. That does not mean that all those should be added to wikipedia. stop spamming. 68.61.233.160 20:38, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Didn't you put up that argument already up before, some lines up? You're repeating yourself and it's not helping, really. Just for the sake, I typed paris hilton into Google and there are not "hundreds of so called OFFICIAL WEBSITES of her sex tape", I don't know what you are talking about man. I agree with that guy, there's nothing against in putting that link up, since it is the only "real" official site to the tape in internet. I researched now myself since I read that on the article page and I quote from there:

"XPays is the internet company selling downloads of the video on the internet." And guess what? thehotelheiress.com is exactly the site/internet company for selling that tape, it's the only one officially doing it, that is XPays and that is their site.

So from the all arguing here, I think it is now clarified that the site is official and should be put there again. 69.74.164.10 21:27, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I get 1550000 (that is, over one and a half million) hits for paris hilton official sex tape. If you can find a reliable source (as per WP:RS) that indicates that xpays is the only official Internet company selling downloads of the video and that XPays runs thehotelheiress.com, we will certainly link to them. That you (or other anonymous users) have been attempting to bypass the restrictions using a redirector tends to indicate bad faith, though certainly with a reliable source, all that is irrelevant. --Yamla 21:34, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Come on guys, this debate is getting ridiculoue... you don't know how to search Google or have no clue. Sorry but I had to laugh a bit. When I type in "wikipedia" into Google it returns 280 million(!!) results. That's it, only results. But does that mean that all pages belong to Wikipedia or directly deal with Wikipedia? Sure no. So the 1550000 count is ridicule, websites which only might have the words paris hilton sex tape in them doesn't mean automaticaly they are all oficial paris hilton sex tape websites. A little logic sense here. There may be many sites with celeb sex tapes etc but there is only one oficialy doing it.

Now that is clear we can visit xpays.com and scroll down to bottom. It says "The Official Site of THE PARIS HILTON SEX VIDEO!" with their banner to there site. How many websites have you visited and seen this statement? The hotel heiress domain belongs to Xpays company as you can see here but scroll down page for to see Xpays Inc company informacion.

Hope that helps 61.6.54.11 23:58, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just because a site claims to be official does not mean it is. --Yamla 20:26, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]


lol at the sockpuppet agreeing with himself.


Wikipedia never provides external links to a website that jeopardizes the security and sanctity of wikipedian's computers and mailboxes even if they are Official. According to one of the biggest Antivirus and computer security company McAfee , your websites hotelheiress.com and xpays.com are Extremely Unsafe to visit. And they strongly advice against visiting your websites. See http://www.siteadvisor.com/sites/hotelheiress.com McAfee hotelheiress and http://www.siteadvisor.com/sites/xpays.com McAfee xpays. playboy.com is safe http://www.siteadvisor.com/sites/playboy.com?ref=safesearch&aff_id=0 McAfee playboy and we have an external link to that site in playboy article. In other words, until you fix your websites wikipedia is not going to provide links to your websites as wikipedia cares about the security of its users. AFTER you have fixed your websites, we can resume this discussion about their PLACEMENT in this article and their so called OFFICIAL status. 68.61.233.160 15:25, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
one more thing. Microsoft has also sued XPAYS for spam http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2003/06/18/MN309465.DTL 68.61.233.160 16:08, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]


No Spoiler Warning?

[edit]

Shouldn't the Plot section have a Spoiler Warning, as is usually the case with movies of any kind?--84.145.222.231 17:26, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

>>>OK....this may be the funniest wiki-thing I've ever read.

Yes, I want to be suprised when I first watch Paris' sex tape. What on earth could happen??? The globetrotter 11:19, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

are you mad? why do we need a Spoiler Warning?

Categories.

[edit]

Romance? Drama? WTF? Is this really necessary or is someone having a laugh? Sion 16:37, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stub tiem

[edit]

Is a line-by-line, unreferenced account of this video really necessary? Maybe the video can just be linked to or something... anyway, I took it out and as a result this is now a stub :( Milto LOL pia 07:15, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Parisdvd2.jpg

[edit]

Image:Parisdvd2.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 23:41, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Restored the 'night vision' paragraph

[edit]

The changelog message mentioned or which I assume stands for original research; but this was not. --Argav ۞ 12:06, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

merge to Paris Hilton discussion

[edit]

@Natg 19: let's discuss the merger here. Which WP:RS sources do you mean provide significant coverage as per the WP:GNG? Please list them below in your reply. AadaamS (talk) 05:33, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on 1 Night in Paris. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:15, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on 1 Night in Paris. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:04, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:1_Night_in_Paris&oldid=1196240749"