User talk:Jayman1709

Audrey Bitoni
Please stop changing Audrey Bitoni's heritage. What is there now is reliably sourced whereas what you keep putting in is not sourced at all. Dismas |(talk) 13:06, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
 * First, Wikipedias of any language are not considered reliable sources since anyone can edit them with incorrect info. Second, I can't find what Brazzers page your talking about because, again, you didn't provide a source but it would likely not be considered reliable either since they aren't known for fact checking their info.  They provide photos but the biographies could have been pulled from anywhere.  And third, I don't care if you know you're right.  WP:V specifically says right at the top of the page:

"The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—what counts is whether readers can verify that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source (see below), not whether editors think it is true."
 * So, until you can find a reliable and verifiable source, stop changing her heritage. Dismas |(talk) 20:52, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for suppling the links but again, those aren't reliable. There's no telling where Brazzers gets their info.  And according to WP:P*, Adult Film Db isn't a reliable source for biographical info.  Dismas |(talk) 20:28, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't have any sources except for the one that is already there. And I don't need any more.  I'm fine with what's there.  You're the one with the burden of proof since you want to change what's there.  And please stop creating a new section every time you leave a comment on my talk page which is just a continuation of the same conversation.  You can just go whichever section that you want to add to and hit the "edit" link to the right of it.  Dismas |(talk) 22:55, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I didn't say that you don't have a source. I said you don't have a reliable one and I've shown you why.  You're the one who needs a reliable source since you're trying to change what is already reliably sourced.  Anyway, you're acting like a child now, so I'm done with you and this conversation.   Dismas |(talk) 03:29, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
 * What are you talking about? The source for the article is the one you keep changing such as in this edit!  It's listed as source number two but due to you putting your username there, it breaks that reference.  Go to the article now and you'll see it listed in the references section properly.
 * Furthermore, almost every porn star's article has a link to their IAFD profile since it's a standard part of the infobox template. It's not being used as a source, it's just a link in the infobox.  And as I pointed out to you already, IAFD is listed as an unreliable source (except for filmography info) at the WikiProject for Pornography.  It's used as just a link, not a source!  Dismas |(talk) 01:57, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Okay, I'm going to try and explain this to you again. There are a few points which you don't seem to be understanding, so I'm going to number them.


 * 1) Infoboxes contain links to various sites which contain information. For instance, an actor's infobox will often contain a link to their official web site as well as a link to their IMDb profile.  These are not meant as sources or references.  They are simply links to other reference type sites which are well known for their content as it relates to actors.  The reason that they are included is summed up on WP:EL which states in part "... information that could not be added to the article for reasons such as copyright or amount of detail, or other meaningful, relevant content..."  IMDb and IAFD go into a great amount of detail which we don't include.  This is why they are linked in the infobox.
 * 2) IMDb, much like IAFD, cannot be used as a source for biographical information. This is because there is little, if any, fact checking done for that information.  For instance, for my IMDb profile (yes, I have one and no, I will not share it with you since it has my real name), I could supply IMDb with a date of birth, ethnicity, and so on and claim to be me but they don't actually know that I am who I say I am.  The filmography on my profile though is supplied by the directors, production companies, etc. which have had me work for them on their films.  Filmographies come to IMDb from official sources.  IAFD works much the same.  Biographical information is not very well fact checked and comes from the average user/reader/whatever you want to call them.  Filmography info comes from the production companies.
 * 3) You keep asking me for a source. I don't have any other source than what is already supplied in the article.  If you go to Bitoni's article and look at the ethnicity in the infobox, you'll see a little number "2" next to it.  That number refers to a reference in the references section of the article.  When you look there, you'll see that all the references are numbered.  Click on the second reference and that is the page that is being used as a reference for her ethnicity.  The "a, b, c" that you see there means that the same source is being used for two other facts within the article.
 * 4) That source is from Bitoni's publicist. It's as credible as can be and is trusted.
 * There, now that I've explained all of this, do you have any questions? If so, please explain which point you don't understand.  Dismas |(talk) 14:32, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

March 2010
Please stop. If you continue to vandalize pages by deliberately introducing incorrect information, as you did to Audrey Bitoni, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. ''You have been warned several times about changing her heritage. Bitoni is just a stage name. Read the talk page of her article. Her publicist says she has no Italian background.'' Morbidthoughts (talk) 22:00, 24 March 2010 (UTC)