User talk:Jadzia daxxx

Welcome!
Hello, Jadzia daxxx, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of your recent edits have not conformed to Wikipedia's verifiability policy, and has been or will be removed. Wikipedia articles should refer only to facts and interpretations that have been stated in print or on reputable websites or in other media. Always remember to provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is likely to be challenged, or it may be removed. Wikipedia also has a related policy against including original research in articles. Additionally, all new biographies of living people must contain at least one reliable source.

If you are stuck and looking for help, please see the guide for citing sources or come to the new contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Here are a few other good links for newcomers:
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * Contributing to Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Simplified Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or. Again, welcome. —C.Fred (talk) 15:18, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

December 2016
Hello, I'm DVdm. I noticed that you made a change to an article, Amateur pornography, but you didn't provide a source. I’ve removed it for now, but if you’d like to include a citation to a reliable source and re-add it, please do so! If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. DVdm (talk) 15:35, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

December 2016
Your recent editing history at Amateur pornography shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing&mdash;especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring&mdash;even if you don't violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.''Please also review the guidelines on reliable sources. An actor's profile is not a reliable source for a genre of pornography. Further, given your insistence upon referring to this one actor, it raises the question of whether you are trying to promote that actor.'' —C.Fred (talk) 16:43, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Dear C.Fred''' (talk)

With reference to this quotation of yours from above:

Further, given your insistence upon referring to this one actor, it raises the question of whether you are trying to promote that actor.

I have no connection to the Big Doc Ralphino character or actor. I merely came across this blog entry about him, found it interesting and then checked out his videos on xHamster to confirm what was claimed in the blog about them. I found the information to be true. Then I came to the Wikipedia article on amateur pornography and found it didn't mention anything about this seemingly new category of amateur porn. I searched online for "more reliable" sources but didn't find any so I linked to what I could find but apparently even that isn't enough for Wikipedia's "Start-Class" article on the topic of amateur pornography. Seeing how so many claims in said article have no citations at all, I find the insistence by the mods for "reliable sources" on this actor or the new category of porn to be inconsistent, to say the least. Perhaps you (and the other mods) have something against this actor or the women in his movies? I have no idea. At the very least, you should edit or remove all the sentences and claims without "reliable sources" on the Wikipedia article on amateur pornography as well to prove you are not biased against this actor or the content of his movies.