Talk:Alexis Texas

Date of birth
Source citation No. 3 in article says " I am 23" This article was publishes in 2009. Therefore shes born in 1986, not as in the text above the main article "1985". Can someone review and confirm it? And change the mistake. --78.51.71.244 (talk) 09:24, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

German wiki also says she was born in 1986! --85.180.231.126 (talk) 14:11, 19 September 2009 (UTC)


 * For one, the German version of the article isn't referenced. For two, she said she was 23 in that interview which was done in March.  Her birthday was in May and this is now September and that would make her 24.  2009 - 24 makes 1985 and not 1986.  Dismas |(talk) 21:49, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

The interview was removed as an inappropriate source. I'm not easily finding a replacement that meets BLP criteria. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 21:33, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
 * And why would it be an ureliable source? Heiko Gerber (talk) 21:41, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't understand. Did you read the edit summary? --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 21:48, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
 * what about this source? official myspace profile (archived) http://archive.wikiwix.com/cache/index2.php?rev_t=1205276400&url=http://profile.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=user.viewprofile%26friendID=218884569 Heiko Gerber (talk) 22:11, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
 * better one: https://web.archive.org/web/20120215082147/http://www.alexistexas.com/alexistexasbio.php Heiko Gerber (talk) 22:21, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm ok with that if no one objects. It establishes that she's not concerned about protecting her own privacy regarding her dob. It places her birthplace in dispute, listing two different locations. It's written in third-person, suggesting someone else wrote it. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 22:39, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

Expansion of lede (and recent expansion in general)

 * I don't understand why there's now a massive lede that obscures whatever notability she has. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 20:26, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Happy to help improve it, please be more specific? Right cite (talk) 20:28, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Are you familiar with WP:LEDE? --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 21:20, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
 * "The lead should stand on its own as a concise overview of the article's topic. It should identify the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points" -- sounds like this lede accomplishes LEDE per WP:LEDE pretty well. Right cite (talk) 21:22, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure if you're kidding. Apologies if you are. Have you ever looked at the lede of GA articles of a BLP with similarly thin notability? You probably won't find any awards, certainly no minor ones. Nor birthplace. Nor education. Nor any other minor bits of information not directly related to notability. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 21:40, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
 * What would you suggest? Right cite (talk) 21:43, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Revert to last good version, then expand only from references that are of the high-quality that BLP requires. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 21:50, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Article is perfectly fine, no need for this at all. Alternatively, you can go ahead an replace the sources with more "high quality" ones Heiko Gerber (talk) 21:52, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
 * That would be a violation of BLP. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 21:54, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
 * That seems quite extreme. The article is obviously higher quality than it was before. Talking about "good version" and "revert" seems to be a case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Right cite (talk) 22:00, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Not at all. Please WP:FOC. BLP articles are under sanctions. It's an extreme measure for extreme problems. There's nothing extreme about following policy.
 * The second paragraph of WP:BLP states, We must get the article right. Be very firm about the use of high-quality sources. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be supported by an inline citation to a reliable, published source. Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion.[1] Users who persistently or egregiously violate this policy may be blocked from editing. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 22:14, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Agree with you on policy. Disagree on solving complaining by reverting. Right cite (talk) 22:28, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Policy states to revert. You disagree with following policy? --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 22:31, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Would prefer to work with what we have, and improve that even further. Right cite (talk) 22:46, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Then I suggest making it a priority to remove all poor and unreliable sources. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 22:49, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
 * How about we start with the initial reason you started this subsection, your complaints about the expansion of the lede? Right cite (talk) 22:52, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
 * If you want to work on the lede first, go right ahead. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 22:59, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you could give some more specific suggestions here? It sounds like you feel the lede should show right away how the topic is notable? Right cite (talk) 23:06, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

WP:LEDE begins, The lead section (also known as the lead or introduction) of a Wikipedia article is the section before the table of contents and the first heading. The lead serves as an introduction to the article and a summary of its most important contents. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 23:14, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I can agree with that. What do you suggest? Right cite (talk) 23:26, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

Removal of expansion of lede section
This was inappropriate.

Please do not remove the entire lede section.

Please instead discuss how to improve it. Thanks! Right cite (talk) 16:28, 23 October 2020 (UTC)


 * WP:IDHT. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 16:31, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Please explain what you didn't hear? Right cite (talk) 16:34, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Please don't misrepresent others, nor ignore others, nor ignore policy. Continuing to do so could result in a block or ban. WP:AE applies. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 16:39, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Happy to improve with better sources. I agree with you. But it would be more helpful were you to be more specific with your suggestions. We both want to improve the article. We both want to improve the quality of the references used. Help me. Right cite (talk) 16:44, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Reread what I wrote. Demonstrate that you have. Explain why you simply aren't following that I've already brought up. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 16:58, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I am working on improving the sources in the lede. I am following your suggestions. I am asking to confirm which are acceptable sources to use for reliable sources. Right cite (talk) 17:00, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Update: Sources in this version of the lede are higher quality now -- thank you for your patience with the improvement efforts. Right cite (talk) 17:04, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
 * It's not clear how they are better, let along good enough to meet BLP criteria. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 17:12, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Which specific sources are you complaining about? Right cite (talk) 17:14, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
 * All of them. If you think there are any that are unquestionably high-quality, point them out. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 17:18, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
 * We can use the cited 2 sources Las Vegas Weekly and Uproxx to confirm she hosted the 2015 AVN Awards. Right cite (talk) 17:19, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Notability
She's notable for her adult film acting, and the continuing fame around that career. I think that's clear. From my reading of the now closed AfD, it's WP:ENT criteria. As I wrote when I started this section, I'm concerned that her notability was obscured by the expansion of the lede. I'm still going through all the references, but I think we have enough that the current qualification of her notability to a single source should be unnecessary. We should be using Wikipedia's voice instead for her basic notability. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 15:19, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
 * WP:NPOV says, under Handling neutrality disputes, best to use direct quotations, per WP:SUBSTANTIATE. This appears to be an ongoing neutrality dispute  , per the edit history regarding the lede. Per WP:NPOV and per WP:SUBSTANTIATE, perhaps we may wish to continue to maintain qualification of her notability to the individual sources. Right cite (talk) 15:48, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
 * You don't appear to understand. She has notability of some sort, but it was so unclear the article was brought to AfD. It passed AfD, with what I see as WP:ENT criteria. Some part of that notability should be in Wikipedia's voice. If we don't have the references to do so, then this article is at risk of deletion again. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 16:01, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
 * You wrote, above, I think we have enough that the current qualification of her notability to a single source should be unnecessary. We should be using Wikipedia's voice instead for her basic notability. What do you suggest to change? How would you recommend to phrase it, in Wikipedia's voice instead? Right cite (talk) 17:21, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm opening the discussion to focus on notability, hoping others will summarize what they see as her notability and identify sources supporting it. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 18:34, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Promo advert tags
Please explain what specifically feels "promo" and "advert", so we can improve the article.

Happy to work together to improve the page. Right cite (talk) 16:46, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't know what you mean by "feels", but it suggests you are taking this personally while ignoring policy.
 * The main policies are WP:BLP, WP:NOT, WP:POV. They all stress the importance (requirement for BLP) of high-quality sources, and source independence especially for NOT.
 * The sources are poor and promotional, little removed from the public relations promoting Texas and her works.
 * I hope this expansion on what I'd already written, which seems to be ignored. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 16:54, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree with you. I don't want the article to be promotional. I've started to improve the sources to the lede. I am not ignoring you. I want us to work together to both improve the quality of the article, and the quality of the sources used. I agree with the policy you cited. Please work together with me to help me. Right cite (talk) 16:57, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
 * The article is being considered for deletion. Do you understand why? Do you understand what is needed to prevent deletion?
 * If I were trying to salvage this article I'd strip away the fluff (poorly referenced information of questionable encyclopedic value) in order to emphasize the high-quality references and the content based upon them. The remaining references should establish clear notability. The article should be built upon those sources, and BLP requires it. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 17:07, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree with you. Right cite (talk) 17:12, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
 * If that's the case, I can only assume that we completely disagree on what are appropriate references. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 17:16, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Which one are you referring to? Right cite (talk) 17:18, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Examining references
Our two discussions have converged. Let's discuss specific references here. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 17:19, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
 * We can use the cited 2 sources Las Vegas Weekly and Uproxx to confirm she co-hosted the 2015 AVN Awards. Right cite (talk) 17:20, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Please copy the full reference. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 17:21, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Already cited in the lede. Right cite (talk) 17:23, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
 * You're not being cooperative. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 17:27, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what you mean. I want to be cooperative with you. Can you not see the full cited sources, with the relevant quotations added, to confirm the information, from Las Vegas Weekly and Uproxx? Right cite (talk) 17:29, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Please copy the full reference here. I'm requesting this for easy accessibility but also if they are poor, they should be removed from the article per BLP. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 17:35, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Okay. I agree with you about policy. Thank you. Will copy here. Please standby. Right cite (talk) 17:36, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

These are the sources Las Vegas Weekly and Uproxx we can use to confirm Alexis Texas co-hosted the 2015 AVN Awards. Thank you, Right cite (talk) 17:37, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you.
 * The first is a promotional piece. It demonstrates little if any weight or encyclopedic value. It's an announcement that encourages voting for the award. It provides no depth on Texas or why she was picked to be a cohost.
 * The second is an interview. The interview portion demonstrates no weight or encyclopedic value. The other problem with such interviews is that the introduction is often provided by the interviewee or someone working for them. In this case it actually quotes the press release, so I think it safe to say that this is a promotional piece and demonstrates little if any weight or encyclopedic value. The interview was conducted on the exhibition floor, demonstrating this is a puff piece. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 18:03, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Okay. I don't disagree with you about the interview portion. Merely the fact, the headline of the Las Vegas weekly article, that she did indeed co-host the 2015 AVN Awards. We can use them for that fact. That is not promotional to state. It is a statement of fact. Right cite (talk) 18:05, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I think they're reliable that she was co-host, but they don't demonstrate it deserves any mention at all in an encyclopedia article about her, much less in the lede. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 18:09, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
 * You don't think co-hosting the 2015 AVN Awards deserves any mention in the intro or the body of the article, at all? Right cite (talk) 18:11, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
 * With those two sources, it's promotional trivia. No one seems to care other than those promoting it. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 18:13, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
 * So are you asserting those two sources, Las Vegas Weekly and Uproxx, are ... somehow promoting ... themselves ... as news publications, by reporting on this fact? Right cite (talk) 18:14, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Good faith attempt at compromise = removed 2015 AVN Awards co-host from lede, keep in body of article = . Right cite (talk) 18:22, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I've not commented on the publishers, and don't think it would matter. These specific articles are promotional pieces, as I've pointed out. It's eye-catching entertainment.
 * Briefest mention in the article body might be ok. It's irrelevant to the AfD. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 18:25, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Okay done, glad we could come to a good faith compromise together, thank you! Right cite (talk) 18:28, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

When you start a discussion about this article elsewhere (Reliable_sources/Noticeboard), you should indicate you've done so. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 01:40, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Sure thing, thanks! Right cite (talk) 01:51, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Bandz a Make Her Dance
I improved the citations for the fact that she was in the music video for Bandz a Make Her Dance, to Miami New Times, and GQ Italia:



Can we keep in the lede that she was in the music video Bandz a Make Her Dance? Right cite (talk) 18:32, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
 * The first is a local newspaper covering how members of their high school band were in the video, and the backlash around it. They don't even give Texas a full sentence. While it verifies she appeared in the video, it demonstrates little weight and no encyclopedic value. It doesn't belong in the lede based upon this.
 * The second is a puff piece, likely scraping the information from somewhere else. Such articles should not be used in BLPs. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 18:41, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
 * 2nd good faith attempt at compromise = removed from lede . Right cite (talk) 18:43, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

"one of the most successful porn stars of the last decade"
Author Camille Nurka wrote in 2018 that Texas was, "one of the most successful porn stars of the last decade". (Nurka 2008)



This is noteworthy mention in a published book from 2018. It shows lasting notability of the subject. Right cite (talk) 18:45, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
 * (I've yet to look to see if I can access the book)
 * Do you have information on the author and publisher? In what context is Texas mentioned, and what depth is given to her? --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 18:50, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Publisher is Palgrave Macmillan. Camille Nurka, PhD, is a gender studies scholar. I quoted a portion in the citation. Right cite (talk) 18:53, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Not a bad ref overall, though it has only a single sentence about her from what I can tell, which you quoted the first half. That doesn't give much weight. The reference used within the book is to a Reddit thread, which may invalidate it's reliability. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 19:11, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
 * The book is a reliable source itself as published. Thank you for saying it is "not a bad ref overall". It shows the notability and noteworthiness of the subject of this article. It should remain in the lede. Right cite (talk) 19:14, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
 * No. It's based upon information from a Reddit thread, so might not even meet BLP quality criteria. The sentence uses the bit about her popularity only to introduce her, while the context is her physical appearance. Taking information out of context, especially when there's so little of it, is problematic at best. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 19:18, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Don't you think it's noteworthy she made it into this printed book by a gender studies scholar? We should ignore it? How do you know it's based on a Reddit thread? How do you know Nurka didn't confirm the info before publication with Palgrave Macmillan? Right cite (talk) 19:33, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, you are wrong. The "Reddit thread" info is about the next sentence in the book. Not about Alexis Texas. Right cite (talk) 19:36, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm assuming that the Reddit thread, the only reference near the sentence, is the source for the information.
 * WP:BLPN would be a good venue to get others' viewpoints on this: Is it reliable, given the Reddit ref? How much weight should it be given? --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 20:08, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
 * 3rd good faith attempt at compromise = removed from the lede, "one of the most successful porn stars of the last decade". . Right cite (talk) 20:10, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I'd like to run it past BLPN at some point. Perhaps if we have more like it. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 22:06, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you can dig in and do some research and find some sources you would feel comfortable including in the lede, and suggest them? Right cite (talk) 01:58, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
 * WP:NOTCOMPULSORY says, Focus on improving the encyclopedia itself, rather than demanding more from other Wikipedians. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 02:28, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
 * But perhaps you might wish to go above and beyond expectations, and do some research yourself? Right cite (talk) 14:06, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Ignoring behavioral policy is not the way forward. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 15:30, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Agreeing with policy. Also was making a suggestion in good faith. It's okay if you don't want to do research. Right cite (talk) 15:33, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid that's not remotely good faith. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 15:39, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry you feel that way. Apologies, didn't mean to cause any stress. Consider my suggestion withdrawn. I'll stop bringing it up. Thank you! Right cite (talk) 18:17, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
 * This seems like a nitpicking of sources to a standard that other articles are not held to. By that measure The Accolade (Leighton) can't have "as been described as among Leighton's best known works and one of the most recognizable paintings of the period" in it's lede, as the Art Renewal Center would be considered a industry publication in which it's main reason is to advocate for Academic art specifically and not being a independent source for it's subject. The only other source is a auction listing by definition a unreliable source. Edmund Leighton has the same issues, with not a single indepth source listed, just passing mentions on galleries and auction sites, all unreliable primary sources and than a profile by a advocacy organization. Yes, "other stuff exists", but it begs to reason why are we nitpicking this article, but not every article on this site. Being held in art galleries is not evidence of independent indepth sources existing and passing mentions in galleries and auctions would not be enough, should we start reexamining these articles? Why is there a difference, why specifically is an academic source less important than a advocacy org and auctions? The Accolade (Leighton) should have a deletion discussion and be held to the same standard that we are establishing here. GuzzyG (talk) 13:45, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
 * You are correct that other stuff exist. If it's not a GA article, or there's no discussion, then it doesn't matter.
 * BLP requres "nitpicking".
 * Because of the AfD, this article clearly needs work.
 * In my experience, entertainment articles are likely to have these problems because WP:N gives such leeway, because we have fans and coi-editors pushing hard to make articles suit their needs, and because WP:NOT is not well-enforced. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 15:54, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
 * "Because of the AfD, this article clearly needs work" is a non sequitor. Frankly, all the AfD demonstrated is potential bias in certain corners of the community against the taboo of performers in this field. The discussion was a determination of whether or not this particular subject was fit to exist as a standalone page. It was deemed so. To imply the article is in a dire or poor state because of the deletion discussion does not follow. If everyone were magically compelled to avoid masked notions of liking it or not then that might be a reasonable presumption. That aside, perhaps some of the recent "proponents" of the article enjoy the work of this prolific subject (myself discluded; I merely recognize her vast popularity), but there has been no warning signs displayed of a likely conflict of interest from anyone (as far as I have seen). — Godsy (TALK CONT ) 16:55, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
 * "Other stuff" is irrelevant when i linked a example of your own userpage. You subtly suggest that right cite is a "fan" or "coi editor", yet you seemingly have no issue with that same wording used on the article you present on your own userpage being sourced to a advocacy organization of it's subject, it's only fair to ask how that differs here. You're suggesting a editor is editing in bad faith via fan or coi editing claims so defend it. The lede was fine and normal. Cristiano Ronaldo has "Often considered the best player in the world and widely regarded as one of the greatest players of all time" and there's hundreds more articles with similar claims. the only bad things were the home town/university. The lede was butchered for no reason. The "popular" claim is sourced to academics. I want Hipal to clarify why a editor using a acadmic source makes them a fan or coi editor exactly - that's the type of thing that would get a user banned - it's not a accusation to be thrown around lightly. GuzzyG (talk) 17:19, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm not a "fan". I don't have coi. I don't care much about the particular individual, or topic for that matter. I first came to the page from the deletion discussion . I then afterwards did research. I then improved the page. The next day, I then notified the deletion discussion that I improved the page . Thank you, Right cite (talk) 17:24, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Reading my comments as implying something about the editors here is simply WP:BATTLE. Please withdraw the assumptions and accusations. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 19:39, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
 * When you continuously readd that tag that implies a editors work is non-neutral, i think it's fair to request a explanation, which you seemingly avoid. Especially when the wording that you have a problem with is sourced to a academic source and common in wikipedia ledes to the point that it was used on the article you used to have on your userpage and seemingly did not have a problem with there. I think it's fair and non battleground to ask you how is that "fans point of view" tag justified, which immediately is discouraging for the single editor trying to improve this page. To continuously tag this article without discussing that tag and discussing your reasoning why it is needed is bully behavior and discouraging for any editor to healthily edit this website. GuzzyG (talk) 10:15, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Tags are to inform editors that there are problems that need addressing. This talk page identifies many such problems.
 * Could you please WP:FOC? --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 17:10, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Could you focus on WP:FOC? "Wikipedia is written through collaboration, and assuming that the efforts of others are in good faith", thus until you explain exactly your problem with academic sourcing on things common to wikipedia ledes, would you please stop spamming a tag which implies a editors bias to this article- in which a single editor is working on - implying that editor is bias and creating a hostile and discouraging environment to edit, which does not appear to be very civil. GuzzyG (talk) 19:30, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
 * So how is anything you're doing "collaboration"? --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 21:15, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
 * By trying to see your point of view on why academic sourcing is bad and why you are implying a editor who is clearly trying to genuinely improve this article is a fan or a person with a COI with that tag. Even if it was poor sourcing that does not automatically make the article fan written. This type of thing discourages editors who are genuinely trying to improve articles as it diminishes thier good faith work. I'm just asking for a answer and all you do is seemingly skip discussion to keep tagging the article. It's not exactly clear to me how you are being collaborative. GuzzyG (talk) 21:32, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
 * You're misrepresenting my concerns at very best; but it looks like harassment, disruption, and a battlefield mentality to getting your way. That's the very opposite of collaboration. So how about you FOC instead?--Hipal/Ronz (talk) 22:01, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I am not misrepresenting your concerns. You consistently ignore every attempt at discussion to only continuously cite wikipedia policy over and over and stubbornly keep placing a decisive tag on the article that i challanged, only for you to ignore discussion to cite the same thing over and over. A "Fan/COI" tag is only used in clear examples of COI not genuine editors trying to improve a article that was just at AFD. I was only trying to understand your reasoning, in which you refuse to say. You seem to miss that "bad sources" or w/e does not automatically make someone a fan or have a COI? how is this not clear? I have no opinion in this other than that tag is certainly not the right one, so again - how is that tag justified? It IS a focus on content to ask you that question, why it is so hard for you to answer i do not know considering how much you want it on the article. Again, the article having "sourcing problems" does not mean it automatically has that tag, to any person on Wikipedia that should be obvious. It's only for cases of clear paid for editing or clear fan accounts - anything else is just a distraction and discouragement of the work that right cite has put into it. It's a fair question to ask and if you're set on not answering, let's have a dicussion on it. Start a ANI. I strongly believe it is a bad faith assumption that someone messing up with one or two sources means their work is a fan or COI and should be dismissed. GuzzyG (talk) 22:20, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Now that the correct tag is used, i no longer have any issue with it. GuzzyG (talk) 22:25, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
 * We disagree. Glad you're dropping it. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 22:30, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

Infobox listing notable work
This removal (removal and edit summary shown here) is inappropriate. Per Template:Infobox person, it is acceptable to list notable works in the field for notable works. Further, the assertion that it "detracts" from notability is false. It does detract from notability to remove things that are notable from the lede or the intro or the infobox. It makes it harder for future readers or future editors to find in a future potential deletion discussion, therefore making it "detract" from notability to remove them. It adds to notability, to keep them. It is the very purpose of fields "Notable works" or "Notable credits" in the Template:Infobox person. They should remain in the infobox. Thank you, Right cite (talk) 17:59, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Just because a template allows something, doesn't mean it belongs. The documentation for a template should not be taken as content policy, or used as an excuse to ignore such policy. This is such a massive problem that there are multiple RfCs, long-term edit-wars, and sanctions related to infoboxes. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 21:23, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
 * So what are your thoughts on a compromise solution? Right cite (talk) 21:30, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
 * You've asked this question a few times now, right? I believe my responses have been to not compromise on content policy, to work from BLP-quality references, etc. Nothing's changed. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 21:52, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you might be able to give a suggestion on a good faith compromise here, in the spirit of mutual collaboration together? Right cite (talk) 21:54, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
 * To give a helpful answer and actually contribute to the discussion on content - it's generally discouraged to use this section and these two films are not really what she's notable for. Alexis Texas is Buttwoman was her industry defining work, but there's no article. I'd leave this section out - it's just not worth it. GuzzyG (talk) 22:51, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Alright sounds good, I agree it's not worth it as well with regards to attempting to show my willingness for good faith here for all parties involved. Thank you, Right cite (talk) 23:03, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

I added her starring role in Superman vs. Spider-Man XXX: An Axel Braun Parody. Unfortunately, it was reverted a few hours later with Undid revision 987137551. This behavior pattern of Undid revision..., multiple times per day on the same pages over and over again, is getting tedious and disruptive. Right cite (talk) 16:35, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
 * It's the same problem, only a different work was used, correct? --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 17:05, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Can you explain what is the problem? Right cite (talk) 17:12, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
 * it's generally discouraged to use this section and these two films are not really what she's notable for--Hipal/Ronz (talk) 17:24, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
 * They are notable films and she had a starring role. Right cite (talk) 17:28, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
 * We're taking about her notability, not that of the film. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 18:49, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Her notability has already been established by the multiple failed attempts at deletion. Right cite (talk) 18:50, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

POV tag
POV tag added with no explanation DIFF. Would like to know specific explanation for the tag, here on the talk page. Thanks, Right cite (talk) 16:53, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
 * The explanation in the edit summary is edit-war against BLP requirements to get consensus for inclusion. What part of that needs clarification? There's definitely edit-warring going on. It's being done against consensus. BLP requires consensus for inclusion. Every discussion on this page concerns at least in part POV problems. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 17:08, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
 * The consensus on the talk page is against you. Right cite (talk) 17:12, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Is this about me personally then? If not, refactor, and explain in detail. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 17:25, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Your position rather. Right cite (talk) 17:27, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks. So how is consensus against me when you've agreed to the many POV problems I've pointed out, or the very latest bit? --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 17:34, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Not sure what I've agreed to. I have, however, made multiple attempts at shows of good faith through offers of compromise and mutual collaboration. How many have you made? Right cite (talk) 17:42, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
 * So this is about me personally after all? --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 18:47, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
 * No. But it would be nice if I was not the only one making good faith attempts at compromise. Some collaboration would be nice. Right cite (talk) 18:49, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
 * You say it's not about me, but continue to make it about me. That's not collaboration. Sorry. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 18:50, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
 * What, in your opinion, is collaboration? Can you please be a model for collaboration for us? How would we both be interacting, in an ideal world, that would be your view of collaboration? Right cite (talk) 18:52, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I explained that in my welcome message to you . I tried to discuss this with you.
 * I don't think your revert was helpful. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 19:02, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
 * You revert sometimes upwards of ten (10) times per day across multiple pages, multiple times per page. I ask you again, please give me a model of better behavior, please, How would we both be interacting, in an ideal world, that would be your view of collaboration? I truly want to know. What is collaboration for you? How would we both be interacting differently on this talk page, if we were collaborating nicely? Right cite (talk) 19:04, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
 * You've been pointed to WP:BRD multiple times now, and the welcome that I left you says The rare disputes are resolved quickly and easily in collaboration., my talk page header (which you have quoted from) says In order to make conversations go smoothly, please follow WP:TALK and WP:AGF. I'm unclear if you read any of those. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 19:12, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
 * How would we both be behaving differently in your view if we were both collaborating better together? Right cite (talk) 19:14, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Collaboration starts by following the relevant policies and guidelines, while there's certainly more that can be done, we need to start from a shared understanding. Wikipedia's policies and guidelines are there to give us a starting point from where to work. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 19:33, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
 * , in a world where we were both collaborating better, is it possible we would both be acting differently, here on this talk page? Right cite (talk) 19:35, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I've commented at length on the topic. Editors should demonstrate understanding and adherence to policies and guidelines, especially when sanctions apply. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 19:40, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
 * , Agreed. Right cite (talk) 19:41, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
 * There was no consensus for this tag - we settled on the "This article may rely excessively on sources too closely associated with the subject" tag. Where is your evidence that there is a agenda going on? At this point - consistently ignoring discussion to repeatedly place negative tags on this article implying one editor has an agenda without seeking consensus is unacceptable, to repeatedly do it we can only assume bad faith. Drop the stick. GuzzyG (talk) 20:59, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Please refactor. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 21:07, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I believe the tag is not appropriate due to number of the multiple reliable sources that are independent from Alexis Texas herself in the reference list. Morbidthoughts (talk) 23:23, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
 * We already agree that the sources are poor overall, and that doesn't address any of the recent problems. Simply having sources doesn't mean anything. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 23:31, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Who are you agreeing with or vice versa? Morbidthoughts (talk) 00:18, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
 * There is agreement for the "third-party" tag because of the sources (Talk:Alexis_Texas). --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 00:28, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't see any agreement in that thread, only a bunch of disagreement. Morbidthoughts (talk) 00:42, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
 * --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 00:53, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Followed up by . Hence the confusion. Morbidthoughts (talk) 01:01, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
 * And here we are. I let it go, until edit-warring against BLP picked up. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 01:07, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
 * To be fair i only supported this tag because i wanted to be cooperative and for Hipal to drop the battleground mentality and to stop spamming the article with contentious tags during a discussion, but he added another one anyway. Either way, not a strong supporter of it. If other people object - i'll agree too. GuzzyG (talk) 01:14, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
 * And I appreciate it. The "third-party" tag is a fair assessment of the sources, and it does link to POV. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 01:34, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 March 2021
"Persian" is a proper noun, so it needs to be capitalized. 2607:9880:2410:84:B9FF:4E73:47BE:B1C8 (talk) 12:40, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
 * All set. Thanks! ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:07, 4 March 2021 (UTC)