User talk:Jorgetadeu

Welcome!

Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on, or ask your question on this page and then place  before the question. Again, welcome!
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * Tutorial
 * How to edit a page
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

BLP
Per wp:blp I removed your comment to Talk:Sasha Grey. Please do not add it again. Also, the site you added clearly stated the name Sasha Muller, not Sasha grey. Garion96 (talk) 13:15, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I read your e-mail. As stated above, read Biographies of living persons. You might also want to read reliable sources and Verifiability.

Garion96 (talk) 19:13, 9 November 2008 (UTC) Garion96, thank you for your comment. I am familiar with the rules and cannot see anything that prevents an editor from linking to a prostitution website where a pornographic actress also seemingly renders her services.

Did you happen to take a look at the website as whole? What is the problem with it? Would it be ok to link to Wiked Pictures, if there was material about her there? Why is it not ok to link to the website being discussed? Is it because one is in Portuguese and the other is in English? What is a reliable source with regard to a pornographic actress? I could not find any rule about that in the links you have sent and the boundaries seem really quite fluid to me. This, in particular, considering the kind of industry we are in. Thresholds of formality seem to be lower, and I believe such understanding itself should be reflected on our interpretation of the rules. Otherwise, information on the prostitution industry would only be allowed once research was done about it. And observable and evidenced facts would not be able to be brought up to the public interest. The rules don't rule out primary sources, and primary sources seem particularly important in here.

Truly, I do not understand why the website in question cannot be considered to be a reliable source, as much as I do not understand why would it tarnish the reputation of an erotic actress to also render high paid services in a prostitution ring in Brazil -- particularly considering her own feminist ideology of liberation and her arguable Brazilian origins, which remain being debated in the discussions page, albeit only evidenced by an interview for a tier 2 erotic magazine in Brazil.

Lastly, we are in the discussions page, and I believe the public interested in learning about the ongoing debates should have the chance to do so. I invite you to engage with me there and not to use your powers as Janitor to act like a WikiWarrior. You have every right to be interested in Sasha Grey's work, and I also have every right to bring information i) to the attention of others who, like you, are interested in it, and ii) to the attention of Wikipedia's dispute resolution bodies, if your interest in her work seems to bias your view on the concepts being discussed.
 * Yes, I looked at the website. It is not a reliable source, which has nothing to do with the fact that it is in a language other than English. See also this discussion about reliable sources in the adult industry. Also, you don't understand why it would tarnish the reputation of a pornographic actress if it is stated that she works as a prostitute? You gotta be kidding me? To respond to your last point, Biographies of living persons applies to articles AND talk pages. Regarding my use or abuse of admin powers, feel free to start a topic on Administrators' noticeboard. I also added the welcome template to the top of this page with some helpful links. Garion96 (talk) 21:34, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Also, you don't have to use e-mail. I have this page on my watchlist and you are always welcome to leave me a message on my talk page. Garion96 (talk) 21:36, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. I am still eagerly looking forward to learning the specifics of why the website is not a reliable source. I am aware that the rules also apply to discussion pages. AND I recognize the wrong use of the term "particularly considering" with regard to actresses of the adult industry -- I should indeed have said "because of her own feminist ideology of liberation". In effect, nothing here invalidates the point with regard to Sasha Grey. Sasha Grey is a special case. She is not merely an actress. She is a theorist and practitioner with broad horizons. But turning back to the website, you should really do some empirical research by dialling the number there. You perhaps would be surprised...

Garion96, because of your patience and willingness to discuss, and also because I thought better and my time will actually be too scarce to commit to this venture, I will not take the matter further. I think this is a true defect of Wikipedia's edit wars: people get tired, and less often than would be desirable the truth prevails. This is particularly true with regard to the expedite and often arbitrary removal of information about living persons. I believe every learned person should be able to take matters cum grano salis whenever they are merely being argued in the discussions page. Unless it is a matter of privacy, of course -- for instance, the real name of actresses of the adult industry -- which is clearly not the case in here.

In sum, in spite of my perception that your attitude is unfair, and my first-hand information that your perception on the reliability of VIP-RJ is wrong, I will leave the matter as it is. Who looses? The public. But you won. All best in your future endeavours.
 * Despite the fact that I think I'm right, obviously of course:), I do hope you decide to stay here. Regarding why that site is not a reliable source, see the section here at No original research. For a statement like this, even on a talk page since it is BLP material, we need a secondary or tertiary source. The page on that website is a primary source and no way knowing if it is true. It might be a scam, false info or true but not verifiable. Calling it to confirm also wouldn't work, since that, again, is not verifiable. If the New York times (just a random reliable source) would mention it, it would be different. Garion96 (talk) 23:53, 9 November 2008 (UTC)