Talk:Laura Angel

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Portal:Biography
 Biography Portal
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article. [FAQ]

Contents

[edit] Citations required

Aside from the POV stuff I went through and removed, the article looks good, but it has no references. I've also removed the video cover, since we're not offering critical commentary on the work itself, per Wikipedia's fair use policy. When going through to cite the work, note that it should be cited with reliable sources. -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. Think out loud — 00:27, 13 July 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Current edit status

(The following comment was originally posted to User:Jaiwills's talk page and is being reprinted here for completeness as I suspect the pair of us will end up in a revert war on this article):

I see when you reverted my last set of edits back, you said: "here is no reason to keep vandalizing this page!" How can what was done be considered vandalism? Lets look at what the core set of edits done by User:J_mirwais were:

  1. Replaced the pic called Laura Angel head shot.jpg with the one called Brussels_fan_picture_pd. This is a good edit since WIkipedia's preference is to use public-domain or equivalent images. The Laura Angel pic was present under a fair use argument, whereas the Brussels_fan_pic one is one which is tagged as being in the public domain.
  2. Reduced the height. Upon checking with the value present on IAFD, this is an edit which should not have been allowed through, and I've since reverted it back to the IAFD values. The weight difference was all of 1 kilogram, which is minor but for the sakes of completeness I'll revert as well.
  3. Changed the order of the aliases. Trivial, nothing added, nothing removed.
  4. Homepage removed. Debatable but since the page currently consists of naught but a "coming soon" page, I'll say the edit is valid.
  5. Some text pulled out of the main body. Offhand, I would say nothing of note was lost. The birthdate and location were pulled out and that I restored.
  6. Hells_belles image pulled out. I don't understand why that image was there in the first place.
  7. One category pulled out. I've restored it.
  8. Two links to pages in other languages pulled out, which I've restored.

Eight changes were made, of which three were reverted. However, none of what was done was what I would consider vandalism. Remember, vandalism is defined as "any addition, deletion, or change of content made in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia." Was there a deliberate attempt to compromise the article? No. J_mirwais may have been over-enthusiastic in his edits, but on the whole I believe his edits were for the better. Tabercil 05:32, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Hey, I am sorry my edits caused such an uproar?
1. Restored public domain image. Everthing that needed to be said on this topic was already said by wikipedian User:Tabercil, besides in my humble opinion the picture is lovely and I am a bit baffled about it not being original ;)
2. fixed mutilated link to Dorcel Media, I am not all that happy about linking to an online retailer, so in absence of an english wiki entry about Marc Dorcel I linked to the french one. Should this be considered bad style, feel free to restore the working old link but don't just mess it up. I also debolded Private Media.
3. Hells Belles DVD cover. We respect that user Jaiwills is into bondage hoods however neither is the dvd cover fair use nor is this outfit characteristic for Laura's work. I left it in as it seems of such an importance for him, after all Hells Belles is mentioned in the text.
4. Removed some text of the main body. This dvd-backcover-wanker-babble just had to go. EOD
5. I am sorry for accidential stripping the two links to foreign ;) pages, thank you for restoring it.
6. This ones my favorite ;) I won't touch height and weight anymore, I really don't know what devil rid me that I dared to change it *sfg* Just imagine each of us had an IAFD entry, we would'nt need any weighing-machines anymore, just look it up on the internet... Oh, and I wish we had an IKFD database so we could track our kids height as they grow, now that would be something eh?
mirwais
It's not your edits, it's Jaiwills. I fully support your edits, and it was only after I decided to go over point by point and argue with Jaiwills that your edits were valid that I spotted the bits which I reverted back (missing links, height, etc.). Unfortunately, I think he's taken ownership of the article and refuses to allow anyone to change it beyond what he envisions it to be. I even went and held to a very small singular edit (changing the lead pic) and kept trying to keep that in - he reverted in every instance. In any case, Jaiwill's sitting out a 3 day chill period for violating the three revert rule with his edits to List of sex positions. So we'll have to wait until Monday to see if he continues to revert blindly back. Tabercil 11:47, 22 September 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Non fair use image removed

I've taken out the DVD cover because it is currently not fair use. If supporting text indicating why this is important enough to be expounded upon in the article is added (with reliable third party support of course) it can go back in. - brenneman {L} 14:27, 26 September 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Fair use images and original article

I don't understand this neurotic compulsion that people seem to have to scrap all of my contributions to this article. The fourth paragraph that was previously removed ("On camera, she specializes in..."), and which I have now reinstated, contains relevant description for this article. Similar descriptions appear in other porn-related articles on wikipedia. As for the pictures, the lead image is a promotional photo head shot and it is a much better representation of the subject than an amateur fan pic. The "Helles Belles" image illustrates relevant text in the article. In fact, fair use rationales and appropriate licensing tags have been provided for both of these images. I don't understand what the problem is since both images are regularly used for promotional purposes by the copyright holder to market Laura Angel and products related to her. Thus, the appearance of these same images on wikipedia is altogether fair and appropriate as an accurate visual representation of the subject. Also, both of the images I have added to this article are much more characteristic of Laura's professional appearance than the Brussels fan pic. If someone wants to expand the article and add the fan pic somewhere alongside further text down below they are free to do so. However, I request that people refrain from taking out perfectly legitimate and accurate contributions that have already been made to this article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jaiwills (talk • contribs) 00:15, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

-> see topic "Lead Image" PartySan CZ 22:04, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Enough!

I have restored and incorporated PartySan's contributions into the article as well as my own, so there should be no further cause for complaint. I still don't like the b/w snapshot, as it is not particularly relevant or visually appealing within the body of the text, so I have relegated it to the photo gallery. What I don't appreciate is people taking shots at me on the discussion board just because I object to their actions of junking my valid contributions for silly, petty reasons and asking how to get me banned. I don't like personal comments behind my back and users making fun of me just because I contribute to certain articles. If you check all of my contributions, you will see that I have an interest in a whole range of subjects. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jaiwills (talk • contribs) 01:03, 01 October 2006 (UTC)


[edit] on (fair use) DVD covers

Since the most succesful film for Laura was Harcèlement au féminin, where she was awarded the Hot d'Or as best European acctress, this has to be the cover of choice. (in case ANY cover display is fair use of course). So farewell Hells Belles, welcome Harcèlement au féminin. I DO like this snapshot PartySan CZ posted , yes I REALLY do  ;) J mirwais 09:59, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

With regret, I've removed all the copyrighted images from this gallery. I also took out the brussel's image. But only because it's now the lead image. For a cover image to be fair use, it has to have a section demonstrating how it's relevant to an entry. This doesn't mean just the one that they were most famous for, either. The Jessica Alba playboy shot is a good example, the cover represents a notable event with third party sources. Write a nice chunk of prose first then it becomes fair use. - brenneman {L} 11:54, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Headshot

The headshot is copyright, the fan-pic is not. There is really no room for discussion on this. We always use free images where there is one available.

  • If there is a free image available, then there is no fair use to be had.
  • Thus replacing a public domain image with a copyright one constitutes copyright infringement.

Clearly as I edit this article I would be loathe to use any adminstrative rights, but a notice to the adminstrator's notice board would take all of thirty seconds to draw a response. Does everyone understand this?
brenneman {L} 11:48, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

The head shot is compliant with the Fair Use Policy as it represents her professional appearance and no such free image could be created or acquired. The fan pics are amateurish-looking and are not representative of what makes the subject of this article a person of interest. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jaiwills (talk • contribs) .
That is a pretty poor fair use claim. Galleries of "fair use" images are never acceptable. - Geni 13:38, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Lead image

The head shot is a perfectly reasonable fair-use image with licensing tags and a fair-use rationale to support it. Even that other guy, PartySanz, preferred the head shot as the lead image for this article. I have used similar fair-use images (head shots) for other articles and there have been no complaints from any editors about it. The other b/w pic is poor quality and not an accurate visual representation of the subject insofar as she is a person of interest. I really don't understand this. This is a really dumb and illogical argument. I don't understand why we can't just leave the article the way it is now. Please don't message me back saying that Wikipedia is going to get sued if the head shot is the lead image because that is total nonsense. The way some of you people keep insisting that head shots in some articles are OK and others must be removed is totally arbitrary, inconsistent and silly. The use of the image is most certainly in compliance with the fair use policy as a simple visual representation of the subject. --Jaiwills

  • hello Jaiwills,
All "fair use" images were removed in my last edit (consequently I had to remove the small award picture too *sigh*). I wasn't aware fair use tags are a no go for galleries and was already happy sorting out the numerous tags and how to upload stuff. I do like this old headshot picture too, but it's not gonna happen until the conditions described by User:Aaron Brenneman are met. (However you might want to try to contact the German company Goldlight to ask for a promotional license.)
In my humble opinion the "brussels fan picture" is just as nice as the other one, on second thought I like it even better, but it was removed so that there is only one free picture left and that's the snapshot you hate so much for reasons beyond me. I uploaded it now in a bigger version for the box on the left and I luv it.
By the way it's PartySan not Partysanz or Party San, it's a wordplay derrived from partisan :) So i'm no San more of a Jeanne d'Arc and most certainly nuts but very rarely unfriendly ;) *kicking back with a smile* PartySan CZ 15:53, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
The fact is, we choose free images over non-free images, because Wikipedia is a free encyclopedia. The policy is "always use a more free alternative if one is available." I suggest you comply with that policy if you wish to continue editing here. — Matt Crypto 19:10, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] on retirement

...completely retired from the adult industry. Her last movie was Antonio Adamo's Cleopatra.

quote
someone wrote: "(Her Imdb Bio page states otherwise, along with the list of movies she starred in until 2005)"
quote end

...Oh. My. GOD! ;) I really hate to tell but many American labels just redistribute often years old European productions and vice versa. Sometimes the title is changed most often not (it requires a certain degree of creativity, I guess), also there can be a huge delay between production and release date and there are always those "brandnew" compilations in need for a headliner. ;) On a sidenote, though these release dates are of no relevance, a lot of things on this Imdb page are plain wrong and fictitious (I know, unbelievable, isn't it?) Whoever thought out this Imdb bio was certainly meshugge. PartySan CZ 10:09, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../l/a/u/Talk%7ELaura_Angel_c41b.html"