Talk:Tericka Dye

Confinement vs. Consignment
The article using a quote from a porn source mistakenly uses 'consignment' instead of 'confinement' for the military prison at Ft. Lewis. It referenced on the Global Security site[] as the Ft. Lewis Regional Confinement Facility as run by the 704th MP BN and in Wikipedia's own list of military prisons[] as well as dozens of DOD documents in the .mil domain. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Virgil61 (talk • contribs) 20:25, April 18, 2007
 * Cited sources say 'consignment'. What any other site has to say is irrelevant. Valrith 21:17, 18 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Both Wikipedia and the US Army (for an Army facility!!) use "Confinement' not "Consignment", enough to justify the correction of consignment from any reasonable viewpoint. I'm not sure how much clearer it can be. If you were operating in 'good faith' you'd have just posted the sources I put above on the main page. Don't let your pride get the best of you when you're wrong. Virgil61 22:17, 18 April 2007 (UTC)


 * The above are not sources. Valrith 17:39, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually they are now 'sources' since they're included at the bottom of the page to correct an error in the article. At this point I think you're acting in 'bad faith'. The correction of the terms puts facts into the person's bio that were mistaken in the source article. This is an encyclopedia, facts not mistakes should be its stock in trade. I'd assume you'd be all for it, apparently you aren't. I'm going to revert, hopefully some adult will mediate what I think are adolescent reactions and 'bad faith' on your part. Virgil61 21:38, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
 * For some reason you seem unwilling or unable to engage in dialog. Your narrow reading of 'sourcing' results in factually incorrect data being included in the encyclopedia; I'm not sure you seem to be able to understand that. At some point either discuss this at length or we'll go the next route. Virgil61 21:59, 19 April 2007 (UTC)


 * On second thought Valrith, do what you want. Life's too short to get into a spat over an obscure Wikipedia article over a porn star.Virgil61 01:56, 20 April 2007 (UTC)


 * It appears to be bad faith on valrith's part to call virgil's edits "vandalism". (as can be seen from this history you did many times) Mathmo Talk 01:00, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject class rating
This article was automatically assessed because at least one article was rated and this bot brought all the other ratings up to at least that level. BetacommandBot 03:45, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

How did she get outed as a porn star?
I wonder how it was that a kid found out that she was in porn. The movie would have been made before he (I presume it was a he) was even born. That's weird. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RenamedUser5 23:35, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
 * It's even more disgusting that, after watching his teacher in porn, he has to go ask her about it and basically ruin her life—again. She has four kids; I really am sorry that they have to go through this for a second time. / ƒETCH COMMS  /  23:45, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I do not think the kid would have thought that would be the case. If she had been smart she would have denied it and say he was mistaken.  My dad showed me her video and she looks nothing like how she does now. RenamedUser5 04:19, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
 * It's kind of disturbing that your father is showing you pornography ... but whatever. I don't think she really could have denied it though—it would've caused a bigger scandal, and she already admitted her past on Dr. Phil in 2006, so she can't have changed that much. / ƒETCH COMMS  /  15:47, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Why would it be disturbing? I am an adult and so is he.  It's not like I have never seen that kind of stuff before.  Besides, I was the one who showed him this article and asked him about this.  He just helped me find her video on the internet and we watched it together.  The reason why i think she could have denied it is because she was using a completely different name now, "Tera Myers" and not her porn name or the name she used when teaching before.  If you will look at a picture of what she looks like now and how she looked in that porn movie u will see she looks totally different.  Picture now: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1364352/Tera-Myers-Teacher-quits-porn-star-past-exposed-student-St-Louis-Missouri.html     Picture then:  http://bossip.com/353866/teacher-takes-leave-after-student-discovers-porn-past30346/alg_nikki-andersin/  RenamedUser5 16:26, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
 * However, she didn't look so different on Dr. Phil and in 2006 news stories, I'm sure. / ƒETCH COMMS  /  18:10, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Let's not be sensational
She is a teacher, let's put it that way. She devloped fame as a teacher, not as a porn actress. As a porn actress, she would not qualify for Wikipedia. So the intro should say taht she was a teacher. Only later should porno be mentioned. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Suzukix (talk • contribs) 18:42, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
 * You realize that she is established as both a teacher and an actress in the introduction? It is fine as-is; what you added made it redundant. / ƒETCH COMMS  /  22:22, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Top of her Class?
The link/reference is a crappy and buggy webpage. MOST if not almost ALL colleges in America lack a numeric undergraduate ranking system. Instead they use honorifics such as Cum Laude, Magna Cum Laude, Summa Cum Laude, and so on. The reason being that it is hard to measure the difficulty of a degree vs. another, plus double degrees etc., and other considerations. In professional schools where class size is in the hundreds and very competitive then you see this. Even academic graduate school programs rarely use numeric rankings and more often than not refuse to confer honorifics. So to me that sentence is more hearsay than anything from a poorly written and researched article. She may have been the valedictorian speaker of some junior college or something, but that doesn't mean "top of her class" like it often does in High School.99.38.147.123 (talk) 22:32, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I've removed that bit accordingly. / ƒETCH COMMS  /  20:56, 3 April 2011 (UTC)