Talk:Anna Polina

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Restore biography[edit]

I've restored the massive removal of referenced material by User:OrenBochman.
He deleted:
A reference of La República that, in disagreement with the Wikipedia article, he defines a non-RS source.
A reference of Hot Vidéo he defines "of poor quality".

not a notable publication by english wikipedia's standards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by OrenBochman (talkcontribs)
The fact it has or not an article on English Wikipedia has nothing to do with its reliability. Anyway it is notable by English wikipedia's standards, it is sufficient making a quick search to see it passes WP:GNG. -Cavarrone (talk) 14:38, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

A reference of Premiere, a well-know cinema magazine, he defines "promotional link spam".

since 2007 this is a an website not a magazine. The cancelation section explains the promotional aspect of this publication..— Preceding unsigned comment added by OrenBochman (talkcontribs)
Lol, False. This is the last number, April 2012... maybe you are referring to the English edition. We're talking about the French website related to the French edition of the magazine. Cavarrone (talk) 14:38, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

A reference of Huffington Post he defines "Affiliate links".

the Huffington Post - your best source is a blog and content aggragater. Since when is a blog subject to fact checking? Can you demonstrate that it is an aggregator of WP:RS? Since you cannot - I rest my case. <span class="fn"BO; talk 18:41, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
Indeed it is not used as a "subject to fact checking". It hosts an interview and it is offered as external link. That's different. Cavarrone (talk) 14:38, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

He deleted the AVN nomination as Female Foreign Performer of the Year, clearly significant in relation to the notability of the subject, with the rationale that it is "of a promotional nature".
He removed the sentence "She is also testimonial of Hugo Payen's Yamaha 450WRF in the 2012 Dakar Rally.", referenced by three RS, as it is "patent nonsense".
Finally, he added a spam tag with the rationale that "this article is prone to link spam by editors represnting the interests if the the pronography industry!"
It seems he prefers an article poorly referenced and in which the notability of the subject remains hidden. Anyway, being notability and verifiability based on sources, I've restored the main part of these deletions.Cavarrone (talk) 06:31, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

IN a WP:BLP verifablity is the overriding concern. I have carefuly removed and explained the most unreliable statement and the most unrealiable sources - so that this could be a better article according to the criteria of Wikipedia. Your edit have not adressed any of the actual concerns raised. If you refuse to comply with the established norms of policy I will be forced to renominate this article for deletion. I also request you keep a civil tounge and refrain from attcking me here, in your edit summaries, or in other pages where we collaborate. BO; talk 11:58, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Yes, I agree, "verifablity" is the concern, but in which manner a mass-removing of material referenced by reliable sources is connected to problems of verifiability? Sorry if my tone could sound aggressive, but what have you done I call it disruptive editing, plain and simple. Or maybe for you in good faith every source that deals with pornography is automatically unreliable and "spam"...
    Anyway, let's see in details, about the reliability of the newspapers/magazines La República, Hot Vidéo, Premiere, Huffington Post, La Gaceta the relative multiple-lenguage Wikipedia articles speak for themselves. AVN Award is the most important award in this field, removing a nomination in a major category with the only rationale that "it is promotional" results in limiting the notability of the subject. Removing a well-sourced information with the rationale that it is in your eyes a "patent nonsense" (what?!) appears disruptive too.
    If you want renominate the article just because you don't like it after that a discussion of a few days ago established the current article passes GNG and PORNBIO requirements, you are free to do it. I doubt you will obtain a different outcome.
    About the spam tag, no prejudice against it, so every reader can judge by himself. I will not remove it. Cavarrone (talk) 13:02, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
  • The AVN Award is an industry award - most if not all of its categories tainted with commercial intersts. It is significant (for Wikipedia) if it is the only award an actress gets. In this case the actress had got other more significant awards. If you want to list all the awards she did not get - go ahead.
  • I have excised the nomination entry as it in this case it does more credit to the Adult Video News than to the actress. This nomination does not help to establish WP:N according to WP:PRONBIO. Other wikipedias you mentioned also ommit it.
The sources I removed are categorically unreliable and do not support the facts which reference them.
  • A blog full of interviews is not serious journalism. It is not par the standards of as WP:RS as it does no fact checking.
  • An article whose subject is a product releases - not the actors involved is advertising - and accordingly unsanctioned and unreliable.
  • The online edition or the above publication contain advertising and promotional material which is omitted from their print editions. If you can provide a citation to a print version of these publication we can consider the online version once you prove that this is not a commercial, endorsement or other forms of advertising. And since this is the English wikipedia you will get more good will if you provide some english language WP:RS.
THe criteria for their removal is simple - if they consitetly link to pages endorsing the same products (say a Marc Dorcel brand, movie or etc) then they have no place in Wikipedia.
  • A sentence that does not make any grammatical sense - is the very definition of patent nonsense. It was removed and has now been replaced by a much better one. Yet you accuse me of disruptive editing... I think that a user who cannot construct proper english sentences should contribute to Wikipedia in his native language.
  • Amongst the inaccuracies you have reintroduced - was tagging of broken links. Either restore the tag or correct the link. Though a reference that disappears a month or two after being added is an indication of it being a fad - another indicator of commensalism and link spam.
To sum up - having recently passes a notability consensus does not provide an article creator carte blanche to ignore all the other core policies of Wikipedia - quite the opposite - it indicates that you must now demonstrate that you follow the more stringent criteria of WP:BLP. Unless you remove the link spam you have reintroduced as well as the unsupported facts this article will be nominated for removal under a completely new criteria - not because of liking or disking it but because it is written to unacceptably low standard for this catagory.
If you continue to make personal accusation in each response you may very soon lose the right to respond on Wikipedia. BO; talk 16:54, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
"The AVN Award is an industry award - most if not all of its categories tainted with commercial intersts. It is significant (for Wikipedia) if it is the only award an actress gets." Could me indicate in which policy Wikipedia established this rule?
"I have excised the nomination entry as it in this case it does more credit to the Adult Video News than to the actress. This nomination does not help to establish WP:N according to WP:PRONBIO." Take a further look to PRONBIO (lol!), it counts.
"The sources I removed are categorically unreliable and do not support the facts which reference them." Could you specifically name which source is unreliable and above all which source do not support the facts which reference it? Being vague is not a convincing defense.
"An article whose subject is a product releases - not the actors involved is advertising - and accordingly unsanctioned and unreliable." Not clear which publication are you referring, and sincerely, not clear what you want to say...a patent nonsense?
"The online edition or the above publication contain advertising and promotional material which is omitted from their print editions. If you can provide a citation to a print version of these publication we can consider the online version once you prove that this is not a commercial, endorsement or other forms of advertising.", as above, which publications do you refer? Could you indicate them one by one? And that said, could me indicate which policy or guideline points that a printed source recognized as reliable, instead become unreliable in the relative online version?
"THe criteria for their removal is simple - if they consitetly link to pages endorsing the same products (say a Marc Dorcel brand, movie or etc) then they have no place in Wikipedia." which specific sources are you referring to?
"A sentence that does not make any grammatical sense - is the very definition of patent nonsense. It was removed and has now been replaced by a much better one." Kudos, but you are talking about the replacing of a single word.
"Amongst the inaccuracies you have reintroduced - was tagging of broken links. Either restore the tag or correct the link." Sorry, I will provide.
"To sum up - having recently passes a notability consensus does not provide an article creator carte blanche to ignore all the other core policies of Wikipedia - quite the opposite - it indicates that you must now demonstrate that you follow the more stringent criteria of WP:BLP." 1) I am not the creator of the article 2) I still fail to see which BLP criteria this article infringe. Cavarrone (talk) 18:19, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
I have already indicated the problems with the sources - and you have already ignored it once - however both are a matter of public record - the edit history contains the diffs as well as the reason for each action.
Also not all changes an editor makes require policy to justify them - those explanation you don't understand - consider them mere courtesy on my part. BO; talk 18:37, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
Yes, you have expressed the problems with the sources in the edit history and I replied to them here... if you are not interested on making a deeper and specific analysis of these sources, so be it.Cavarrone (talk) 18:45, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
A deeper anlysis will be made if necessary in the deletion discussion - unless you make a serious effort to fix the issues raised instead of trivializing them as you have done since the start of this discussion. BO; talk 19:03, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
I found hard fix an issue such as ""An article whose subject is a product releases - not the actors involved is advertising - and accordingly unsanctioned and unreliable.", if you do not rewrite this sentence in a more intelligible manner and if you fail to indicate to which specific articles are you referring to. It is also hard identifying which sources "consitetly (?) link to pages endorsing the same products" without any further indication. I doubt we should fix an "issue" as the fact that "AVN award is significant (for Wikipedia) if it is the only award an actress gets" if you fail to indicate on which policy or guideline you have based this rule. I found hard fix an issue about the unreliability of online editions opposite to the reliabily of their printed publications when it appears to be based just on a personal opinion and not supported by any policy or guideline. Cavarrone (talk) 20:05, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Language Issues[edit]

It looks like this article is very important for you. As you mentionsed above non english sources are fine with wikipedia as long as they are not disputed. Since you have restored disputed non english language links - you now have tp furnish translations so the articles and their verifiability can be established. This is explained at WP:NONENG. Until these sources are translated the sources will be commented and the material they support must be immediatly removed as per requirements of WP:BLP.

In case scopre is unclear, all the non english sources are now indispute, so provide translation for all the non english ones sources.BO; talk 09:56, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

  • Pay attention, WP:NONENG is part of the verifiability policy, and as far as I can see, you have not disputed the content of the sources but (trivially) their reliability, and that has nothing to do with its verifiability and subsequently with WP:NONENG. Therefore, as I asked before without any response, please could you indicate which non-English souces are, according you, not supporting in their text the contents which reference them? I will rapidly provide the relative translation of the relative text passages... I will demonstrate, even in this case, your concerns are wrong.
I have no special connection with this article and with its subject, properly I have something against edits like yours that, as I have established in this page, one by one, are in the main part pointy and disruptive.Cavarrone (talk) 12:06, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Fine I will remove all the facts I dispute and think are unverifiable based on the current non English sources accordig to my interpretation of the norms outlined in WP:N, wP:NOR, WP:V as well as WP:BLP. If you choose to reintroduce these - please provide the transaltion WP:NONENG. Thanks BO; talk 13:29, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Fine enough... but this does not mean you can use the WP:NONENG policy as an excuse for disruptions like in this edit: [1]... you are showing one time more your bad faith. Cavarrone (talk) 13:41, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
Is trying to reach consensus is disruptive? I have in good faith provided you every opportunity to comply with the required policies. BO; talk
Removing the leading sentence of an article, referenced by English sources, using the WP:NONENG rationale ([2]) is bad faith... Cavarrone (talk)
Links to a machine tranlation do not fulfil the needs of WP:NONENG. I used the Google translation serveral days back when I first did maintainence on this page to evaluate the sources but in practice none of the sentences make any sense in english and so they cannot be used to review facts here. But you could provide translations if the article contain quality facts and you know both languages -- otherwise they should be removed.
If you want a "cut and copy" translation, so be it.Cavarrone (talk) 15:24, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
disputed Sources 4,5,8,10,11 are still lacking in translations

About the concerns[edit]

Summarizing the above discussion and the recent edits to the article:

  • The reliability of the disputed sources, as discussed in the first section, result addressed. The previously-removed sources La República, Hot Vidéo, Premiere, La Gaceta, SportTune and Inline Performance Magazine are reliable published sources according WP:RS requirements.
  • The verifiability of the above sources result established. The concerns related to some language issues result addressed through provided translations in English. Specific minor concerns result addressed through uncontested editing. (ie see here).
  • The removal of a whole sentence for a grammatical issue was finally addressed by User:Hipocrite who replaced the improper word with a more appropriate one (see [3]).
  • A minor issue related to a dead link was addressed fixing the link (it lacked a slash).
  • The removal of the AVN nominee remains disputed by User:OrenBochman who argued "AVN nomination are not considered un-notable - they are however of a promotional nature and should be lest out if there are more significant items" and "It is significant (for Wikipedia) if it is the only award an actress gets". Anyway I still fail to find a policy or a guideline in support of this assumption. The next removal of the relative primary source was anyway reverted, as it is allowed by WP:PRIMARY.
  • The external link to personal twitter page, in absence of official websites, is allowed per WP:ELOFFICIAL.
That's all?Cavarrone (talk) 15:24, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
  • There are still many serious problems in this article. However now that you have provided translations, which will need some more proof reading -- I think that I can continue with the maintenance drive and - complete the fact checking process. As soon as I have a bit of time I'll annotate the most serious remaining issues. However in the mean time you might want to consider a couple of issues:
  1. The further reading section which is of no use readers of the english edition Wikipedia. They would best be replaced by links to english language pages. However the current links cannot be allowed to stay any longer due to a serious breach of WP:SPAMLINK policy which says -- "Adding external links to an article or user page for the purpose of promoting a website or a product is not allowed". Since these articles are with a clear promoting the Marc Dorcel brand they are not suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia and create a WP:COI. However I have refrained from name calling since I assume that after I removed them previously you reintroduced them you in good faith and not out of a will to promote this brand.
  2. The sentence "She appeared in advertisements of Yamaha number 69 driven by Hugo Payen in the 2012 Dakar Rally" is inaccurate and needs to be rewritten to comply with WP:NOTPROMOTION. As is stands it misinform readers that Anna Polina appeared in adverts for the Yamaha brand - when the sources say she was advertising the Marc Dorcel brand. The sentence should be corrected - but again without introducing Marc Dorcel promotion into the article. That would create a WP:COI and violate WP:NOTPROMOTION and require removing the whole statement as well as create many other problems down the line..BO; talk 21:26, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
  • About point 2, I see your point, probably the more accurate sentence would be "She appeared in advertisements of Yamaha number 69 driven by Hugo Payen in the 2012 Dakar Rally in representation of Marc Dorcel Productions which sponsored the team". If we want avoid to name the specific brand, we could maybe say "She appeared in advertisements of Yamaha number 69 driven by Hugo Payen in the 2012 Dakar Rally in representation of the company which sponsored the team", or something like that. Cavarrone (talk) 22:04, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
second format is fine - but changing of to on would be even clearer BO; talk 23:14, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
changing "of" to "on" would be semantically problematic and ambiguous, as appearing in "advertisements on Yamaha number 69" could be interpreted and understood as "her image was phisically dispayed on the Yamaha motorcycle, in the space reserved for sponsors logos and advertisements", and it is not true (or at least I see no evidence of this). Cavarrone (talk) 11:30, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
At least one of the pictures in the supplied sources - when enlarged shows her physical likness attached onto the plates the motor cycle - which I dont think is particularly interesting accoplishment - but that's what I've suggested. BO; talk 20:04, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
I have not checked the pictures but, being so, the "on" could work. Cavarrone (talk) 14:17, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
If you work on a PornBio you need to look at the pictures as well. BO; talk 19:15, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Anna Polina. 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}}).

YesY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:09, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

French or Russian?[edit]

The opening sentence says "Anna Polina (born 11 September 1989) is a French pornographic actress and model." but she was born in Russia. Should this be changed? TrogWoolley (talk) 11:49, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

I was wondering the same, when reading the page, so I checked: all sources give French-Russian (born in Saint-Petersburg, 1989, that is, in former USSR). I'll change categories and lead section according to that.dARTHBUNK Pkt Dft (t) 20:09, 18 December 2016 (UTC)