Talk:Felix Vicious

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Biography Portal
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
This article is supported by the Arts and Entertainment work group.
Pornography Portal
This article is part of WikiProject Pornography, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to pornography-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Articles for deletion This article was nominated for deletion on February 9, 2007. The result of the discussion was keep.

[edit] Japanese Films

I know she appeared in several Japanese films but I'm unsure of their titles (in English). If anyone knows perhaps they can update it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.248.80.40 (talk) 23:29, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Deletion

This article does not meet the guidelines for notability for porn actors? According to that guideline it doesn't. But it seems that guideline is disputed but my head hurts from trying to follow the discussion page about it. Too much txt. If it doesn't meet the current guideline and that guideline is in effect I suppose it should be deleted. If that guideline is rubbish and has no consensus I suppose it should stay. Dissolva 04:37, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

The discussion page for the guideline talks about previous issues regarding the guideline prior to it's current state. On the whole, the guideline is used consistently and has been pretty well perfected by now, with the exception of covering AV idols. -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. Think out loud 00:49, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] External link

I've added a link to the interview Felix Vicious: Forever in Porn[1] posted by the filmmaker to YouTube. According to Wikipedia:External links#What should be linked: 4. "Sites with other meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article, such as reviews and interviews".. Am I missing something here? Admittedly, I don't have the time to make 50 edits a day to Wikipedia and as such, haven't read 30 pages of guidelines, but labelling my good faith edit as vandalism is bullshit. Dissolva 21:02, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

  • Rich media should not be linked to (Wikipedia:External links#Links normally to be avoided 1, 5, 7, 8 10, etc.). Pay particular attention to bullet 1: Any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a Featured article. Also look at WP:EL#Restrictions on linking bullet 1. Valrith 10:41, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
    • There appears to be no copyright violation whatsoever, so I've restored it as there is nothing wrong with it and it improves the quality of the article. Secondly I agree it was out of line to label Dissolva's edit as vandalism, it is not even close. Mathmo Talk 00:56, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
  • As usual, you've failed to comprehend. Try reading the bullets in WP:EL mentioned above. Valrith 20:05, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
  • This external links fulls under: "Sites with other meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article" (obviously video can not be included into an article....) and it does not full under any of those that you mentioned because it is not a copyright violation. Mathmo Talk 03:31, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I've got to admit, it appears that the isn't a copyright violation and is published by the director. As the case might be, I don't think that posting this link is vandalism, and the piece does contain meaningful content that could (and should) probably be used as a reference in the article. Moreover, I am a bit appalled by the lack of assumption of good faith and civility on both Valrith and Dissolva. -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. Think out loud 21:52, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

  • Where do you find the facts that this is published to YouTube by the director? I don't see it, so it must therefore be presumed to be stolen content. Moreover, there is nothing in the video that is of any note, and therefore adds nothing to the article. Valrith 22:04, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
    • The name of the producer is at the end of the video, and jives with the user's username. Not utterly definitive evidence, but a reasonable indicator that the producer and the user are the same person. Of course, were there are additional doubts about the user's identity, a simple message to the user via YouTube would probably settle the issue definitively without the bad faith tirade evidenced on this user page. As for your view that the video doesn't add anything of note, I must respectfully disagree. I think it does further explain some of her motivations for entering porn, which can be worked into the article in an encyclopedic manner. -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. Think out loud 22:18, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
      • It's entirely unreasonable to accept a username as proof of identity. The same goes for email correspondence. YouTube in particular is a cesspool that should never be linked to. Valrith 22:21, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
        • Hmm... Clearly we have an assumption of faith issue here. Regardless, you clearly have your own opinions on YouTube that are influencing your actions, and I understand that YouTube is often misused, though with no less merit than Wikipedia. As I said, an e-mail could clear up the issue, or at least be a step to clearing up the issue. However, we can debate this ad nauseum, and I would prefer to have additional people discuss the merits of this content, and not the personalities surrounding the issue. -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. Think out loud 22:33, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Joe Beaudoin Jr., valrith is assuming bad faith here. You can not go around doubting every little piece, you might as well carry on and doubt if The Times got it right or not... after all they have been known to make many mistakes before in the past. And so on and so on, etc etc.... We are meant to assume good faith. (doesn't exactly apply here.... but the concept is important) Mathmo Talk 11:09, 22 August 2007 (UTC)