User talk:Joe Beaudoin Jr.

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive
Archives

Archive as of:

  1. December 2, 2005
  2. December 13, 2005
  3. December 21, 2005
  4. January 27, 2006
  5. February 17, 2006
  6. March 13, 2006
  7. March 30, 2006
  8. May 16, 2006
  9. July 1, 2006
  10. August 13, 2006
Please add all new discussions to the bottom of the page. All replies will be given here, so please place my talk page on your watchlist. Thank you.

Contents

[edit] Tiffany Holiday

Please restore it - I want to expand it, like we did Dora Venter, it's the same case (which was proded and deleted by survived 2 AFD's and expanded and now available in 3 languages).

Not just she add about 100 films and she is very active now, she considered the hottest thing in porn now and we can write about her alot. She is worth an article. By the way it was written twice (by someone else) after it was deleted by you - so it's another proof of notabilty. --Haham hanuka 16:35, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Monique Nobrega

... is listed as a task on WP:P* but she doesn't seem to be a porn star, just a model. Is it all right if she is removed from task list? It's long enough already with real porn stars; and the number of other glamour model articles that need work could swamp it. AnonEMouse (squeak) 20:09, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Sure. Feel free to remove it. (BTW, sorry for the delay, but I was down with a cold-flu and back pain for a week and a half.) -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. Think out loud — WP:PORN BIO? 00:19, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Eve Laurence tussle

Hey great to see that you're back. Can you help me out with a revert war that's occuring on the Eve Laurence page over the fanlisting page? There's been 6 additions and removals of the same info in the page 3 days and it's getting tiresome... Tabercil 14:10, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

I noticed that. If it happens again, I'll temporarily block the user, as the bulk of this user's contributions have been to Eve Laurence. -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. Think out loud — WP:PORN BIO? 23:33, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Kimberly Holland's implants

Joe Beaudoin Jr. removed a reference to Kimberly Holland's breast implants that seemed both true and relevant, for reasons that are not apparent. I'd like to see an explanation. My apologies if I'm missing something. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.136.230.142 (talk • contribs) 05:48, 13 August 2006.

While it may be true and relevant, there was no source for this information that we could cite. Therefore, uncited information can and is to be removed until we can cite it with a verifiable and reliable source. -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. Think out loud — WP:PORN BIO? 23:24, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Peer review/Vicca

Wow. Thanks. However, while it may be improved by a good review, I don't think it will make it to featured article, however. I've skimmed some FA reviews, and it seems to be missing printed citations (on dead trees), or even high quality citations (the ones I found were enough to get it to survive AFD, but FA status should be an example to others), and I'm not sure how to improve that, I don't really know where to go to look for more. Also it seems to have some problems with "uncontroversial", as you've found with our friendly anon. :-) As you properly suggested, Jenna Jameson is probably going to be our best shot for FA. She has been written up on dead trees. :-). The other "top 4" for the 1.0 project: Linda Lovelace, John Holmes, Traci Lords, and even Ron Jeremy are also possibilities. AnonEMouse (squeak) 12:55, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Oh, I do agree. It'll likely never make featured status, but I'm more interested in the "Good Article" status for Vicca. -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. Think out loud — WP:PORN BIO? 03:25, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cathi O'Malley

I removed the PROD on Cathi O'Malley, as I think the IMDb credits add up to notability. TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 08:57, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough. -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. Think out loud — WP:PORN BIO? 03:25, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Kobe Tai image

Hi, Joe Beaudoin Jr.. I notice the image Image:Kobe Tai.jpg listed as it source a site that didn't seemed the original source not the copyright holder for the image. The site vaguely implyies the images would belong do vivid.com, but to use the {{promophoto}} tag, we must be completly sure the image comes from a press kit. Do you know where we can find evidence that vivid released that image for as part of a press kit? Best regards, --Abu Badali 22:08, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

You can get rid of this. I've found an image of her from Lukeisback.com that I'll upload to the commons shortly. -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. Think out loud — WP:PORN BIO? 03:09, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
Scratch that, someone already found the image in question and uploaded it to commons, but never removed the "fair use" one. -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. Think out loud — WP:PORN BIO? 03:18, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
That's great. I've marked the unfree image as orphaned-replaced and it should be gone soon. Thanks, --Abu Badali 13:24, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
The thanks should go to you, sir. Had you not said something, we would neither know how long that unfree image would have stayed there nor known how long the commons image's existance would remain in the shadows, as it were. Kudos. -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. Think out loud — WP:PORN BIO? 14:32, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] {{no rationale}}

Just to let you know, {{no rationale}} can only be used on images uploaded after May 4, 2006. I removed it from Image:Gina Grotjohn.fobpro27.jpg. Regards, howcheng {chat} 23:57, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the catch! -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. Think out loud — WP:PORN BIO? 15:20, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Nici Sterling and Wylde Oscar.jpg

Hello Joe,

you took this picture from Luke Ford's website, probably assuming it was his. But at the top of the page you took it from, it says "The first 71pictures are courtesy of Jay Cummings." Your source is one of those pictures. So it actually isn't a picture of Luke Ford, he just uses it "courtesy of" someone. So he can't license it, and we can't use it. Right? Regards --Rosenzweig 16:06, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Good catch. If they're courtesy of someone else, then that someone else would hold the copyright, and as a result Luke can't license them as CC'd since they're not his own. So I think we do need to pull this particular image out. I wonder how many other pics we've taken from Luke's site that falls into this trap? Tabercil 22:28, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
Fine. Will Joe go ahead and request deletion, or should I do it? Regards --Rosenzweig 19:38, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Kaitlyn Ashley article

Can you do me a favour and check the deleted files archive to see if there is an article about Kaitlyn Ashley listed there? The name's on my watch list, yet there's no indication of an article presently existing and I'm wondering if someone speedy'd the article out of existance. Since Kaitlyn's a member of the AVN Hall of Fame, she would certainly qualify for notability. Tabercil 04:37, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Nevermind. I found what happened to it and got it restored myself. Tabercil 12:10, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] re. "porn star" info.

I HAD attempted to edit (correct or delete) much of your erroneous porn star information. It was simply too frustrating, even AFTER being informed of your second source rule. I am in the business and I know REAL facts, not "fan" adoration, or PR nonsense. Even AFTER I provided second source material, my edits were removed with nasty comments about me! I ask you, Joe, if I provided second source information (such as Angelica Sin being a prostitute, AKA "escort" verified from FOUR other sites, having verified STD, from an industry publication, even her weight is wrong, it's over 140 pounds, from a source quoted by your own site VS. other "porn stars" such as SaRenna Lee, Kianna Dior, etc, where I pointed out obvious inanities and 100% false and undocumented "information," i.e., accusations ... etc.) I gave up -- because 1) SOME girls seem to be "protected" or special, such as that Angela Oliver (AKA Angelica Sin) and any defamatory, albeit PROVEN material, is deleted and only wonderful fantasies are written and permitted to remain VS. 2) "The Others" who have absolutely NO controls about the spurious lies written, even after notifying your site ... ("drugs?" ""too old" "fat?" rambling inanities from obvious fans? etc.)

As you said, when you were nice enough to write back, some many months ago ... it MAY be too difficult to EVER get true facts in this Industry (especially since the PR is 90% false and disseminated to encourage a larger fan base and loyal lusty following).

I wish you and your site the best.

If things were TRULY consistent, fair and reliable, then perhaps I would further try to help you.

BTW. your regular area seems to be SO SO much better ... thus, I wonder why bother with the hassle and ubiquitous errors in a pornography section?? "The Truth" will NEVER be known (by your second source method). These "stars" and their production companies, PR people and distribution companies (even their fans) own many MANY sites & can "second source" ANYTHING!!

[edit] Wikipedia talk:Notability (pornographic actors)#Ready to become a notability criteria guideline

Sorry, Joe, I just realized that of all the people who really should be notified, you should have been the first, given that it is your brainchild. In case you haven't been following the blow-by-blow, two different experienced and respected admins expressed the strong opinion that this proposed guideline has been sitting around as a proposal long enough, and it's time to mark it a guideline, or mark it rejected or historical. I gathered some evidence that it has been used quite a bit during these 5 months, and made what I hope is a good case for marking it a full notability guideline. I have a vague memory that you really wanted it to be a proposal for 6 months, but then couldn't find where you actually wrote that, and between the admin pressure, and the fact that no one else said anything about it, and the vague impression that you've been much less active recently, I took it upon myself; I hope 5 months is close enough. Anyway, please state your opinion at the above link, and I hope I have not offended, taken your prerogative, or anything of the sort. So far I've notified the 2 admins, the Village Pump/proposals, and WP:P*, trying to achieve proper "advertisement" without verging into actual spamming. AnonEMouse (squeak) 05:23, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know AnonEMouse. :-) I don't recall myself where I said 6 months, but as of late, I've been more invested in working on Battlestar Wiki than working on WP. By no means have I been offended by your desire (or the desires of others) to continue on my work -- in fact, I relish in it, and I'm glad that things can go on regardless of whether or not I directly contribute to them. -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. Think out loud — WP:PORN BIO? 17:53, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Invitation to Boobpedia

hi Joe Beaudoin Jr.,

since you are an important contributor to porn related articles on wikipedia, i would like to send you an official invitation to a new wiki site dedicated to big boobs :) the address is http://www.boobpedia.com

if you are interested, please feel free to register and help out. it will be different from the porn-related pages on wikipedia for a few reasons (beside not having to worry about deletion :)

  1. it will be rated 18+ so it's possible to have nudity. i work in the industry and can get licensed pics for use.
  2. adult links to sites where the model/porn star can be found will be allowed, making the site useful for locating more content of anyone's favourite. boobpedia will also be useful for locating new models based on many criterion (so if someone wants to find a caucasian brunette with DD cup natural boobs he'll easily be able to)
  3. it encourages articles about any busty woman, even amateurs who give permission. there's no "noteworthy" test, just a boob size requirement :)

it would be great if you are willing to help out. also if you know anyone who may be interested please don't hesitate to invite him/her. boobpedia may be very small now, but it will become the best resource site for boob lovers! --Hexvoodoo 21:15, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jenna Jameson

By the way, Joe, you may be interested at looking at the status of your Talk:Jenna_Jameson#Feature_Article_checklist. I've been using that as a target, and I dare say, fixing most of the issues you listed. One left "good writing"/"flow", which is of course the hardest. Also we need a longer lead section, 2-3 paras for its length. However, when we do get that, we should put it up for normal review, with a view towards featured article. AnonEMouse (squeak) 05:50, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Made longer lead, a few more refs, better pictures ... in short, it's up for Wikipedia:Peer review/Jenna Jameson!
Unfortunately, no one is weighing in. Do you have any suggestions? AnonEMouse (squeak) 13:49, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Allie Sin article

I see a page has been put up for Allie Sin. If I remember correctly, this page got killed some time back but I can't see why. Can you the history to see if it was deleted and why, and if it needs to be killed again? Tabercil 15:05, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

  • Nevermind, figured it out myself. :) Tabercil 15:12, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Sandra Shine.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Sandra Shine.jpg. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:

  1. Go to the image description page and edit it to add {{Replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.
  2. On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace the fair use image by finding a freely licensed image of its subject or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that any fair use images which are replaceable by free-licensed alternatives 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. --Chowbok ☠ 18:42, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rebecca Cummings article

You have previously helped me with the Rebbeca Cummings article. I would like your unbiased input on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rebecca Cummings and Image:Rebecca_Cummings.jpg that has been put up for deletion. Along with the discussion on the deletion page you can find information and discussions on this at Talk:Rebecca Cummings and Image_talk:Rebecca_Cummings.jpg.

I feel like this is an unfair attack because she fits the notability criteria at Wikipedia:Notability (pornographic actors). This is listed in her article and restated at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rebecca Cummings. The reason I feel like this is an unfair attack by User:Chowbok. On November 4, Chowbak tagged image:Rebecca Cummings.jpg for deletion, we were having discussions on this and now 4 days later user:Chowbok lists the article for deletion.

Thanks for your input!--HeartThrobs 04:08, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Tatiana Zdrok.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Tatiana Zdrok.jpg. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:

  1. Go to the image description page and edit it to add {{Replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.
  2. On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace the fair use image by finding a freely licensed image of its subject or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that any fair use images which are replaceable by free-licensed alternatives 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. --Chowbok ☠ 21:40, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] De-vandalism

Thanks for reverting that weird edit to my user page. —tregoweth (talk) 03:14, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

No problem. -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. Think out loud — WP:PORN BIO? 03:14, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Alex Taylor.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Alex Taylor.jpg. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:

  1. Go to the image description page and edit it to add {{Replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.
  2. On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace the fair use image by finding a freely licensed image of its subject or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that any fair use images which are replaceable by free-licensed alternatives 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. --Rossrs 08:16, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Renee Pornero

  • Hi. I have noticed that Renee Pornero is being prodded. Since the guy who did that - whose only occupation here, btw, seems to be prodding articles - has not warned you, the creator of the article, I just wanted to warn you. Regards. Hektor 16:18, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
Thanks Hektor. I've removed the prod and am looking into the other article's the prodder has prodded. -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. Think out loud — WP:PORN BIO? 21:53, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
Hektor, seeing as the contributor in question has yet to reply to my question on his talk page, I would go ahead and remove the prod notices from articles as you or others deem fit. (Obviously, should he press the issue, he can go through the AfD process and it can be ironed out there.) -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. Think out loud — WP:PORN BIO? 03:54, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 21Sextury.com Productions

Hey Joe! Would you mind taking a look at the edit history of 21Sextury.com Productions? I created the article in October, but User:Centrx speedy-deleted (A7- non-notability) the article on Nov. 10 without any warning; I just noticed the deletion now when checking my complete watchlist. Centrx seems open to discussion about deleted articles; would you mind offering your opinion on how to better describe the subject's notability to alleviate his concerns? Olessi 09:01, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi Olessi! I checked out the content pre-deletion and it does, unfortunately, come off as a promotional piece -- not as much as other articles who have yet met their executioner. Not your fault, really, since I don't think it could have been avoided with the sources you've used in the article. It would be quite helpful if we had information from other sources regarding the company, other than primary (and, again, biased) informaton. Once those sources were collected, I'm sure that we (and other like minded Wikipedians) could present Centrx with a convincing reason to undelete the article. -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. Think out loud — WP:PORN BIO? 00:06, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, it is frustrating when such a large site does not have a lot of third-party sources. Would you consider this an acceptable source? Olessi 01:38, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
Understandable, though I believe we may be able to apply WP:WEB... As for the source, that's a great outside source, particularly since it notes that 21st Sextury's won some awards, which would bolster the article a bit. -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. Think out loud — WP:PORN BIO? 03:47, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Crissy Moran

Crissy M. on Cortinaland by Darren Hayman, it seems to be a fact. [1] --moyogo 12:57, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately, there is no other information to specify whether or not "Crissy M." is in honor of Crissy Moran. For all we are aware, Crissy M. could be Crissy Monroe or any other last name starting with the letter M. -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. Think out loud — WP:PORN BIO? 19:53, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
It could also be anything you want to hear: [2] --moyogo 23:12, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
Absolutely. Which is why it should not be added. -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. Think out loud 06:13, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
Sorry for my bad communication skill and bad sense of humour. I was being sarcastic. [3] does seem to be clearly about a Crissy Moran posing in front of a camera. Although, it's probably not very relevant to her article. The link should be made the other way around, from the album article to her article. --moyogo 21:04, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
No need to apologize. I completely agree. :-) -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. Think out loud 21:32, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Charmaine Sinclair

Joe, could you check out the page for Charmaine Sinclair. You're more familiar with the guidelines for filmographies and magazine appearances and how much of them should be listed. Also, I'm not going to be able to look into this for a couple days at least. Thanks, Dismas|(talk) 03:36, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Dismas! I'm looking into it right now. :-) -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. Think out loud 05:28, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
OK, I've revised the page. The body of the article was good, the rest was fat that needed to be cut. I've moved the lists to a subpage, the link to which is on Talk:Charmaine Sinclair, and have detailed what I did to the page for all the editors. -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. Think out loud 06:15, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
Joe, thanks for your help with the CS article. I think it's good to go, now. I don't believe that we need to list any magazine appearances or film credits at all, since the salient ones are already mentioned in the article. There's also some reaction to the fair use issue of the Fiesta cover in the talk page of the CS article and the image itself. Charmaine1997 04:01, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Best Buy intervention

I have noted your reasons for temporarily banning me. Please not that another more sensible admin blocked updates to the page as you should have done if you had carefully considered the true nature of what was going on. Due process I believe was lacking on your part but I do not hold it against you. You were surely pressured into taking action. I will come to you the next time said person makes threats against me. Hopefully you will see the need to invertervene there as well. I do not appreciate threats verbal or otherwise and I am sure you do not either.

Thanks --Momoj 04:12, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

In lieu of the above flamebait, and of the lies espoused by this user on Talk:Best Buy in terms of personal attacks and threats that did not occur, he has been indefinitely blocked from editing. -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. Think out loud 08:09, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../j/o/e/User_talk%7EJoe_Beaudoin_Jr._eb69.html"