User talk:Morbidthoughts/Archive 2

Suspected sock puppets/119.30.72.104
Thanks for your report. Please read my comment. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 05:17, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I closed the case. If you have more evidence please let me know. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 21:01, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Suspected sock puppets/Xenetic
I closed your report. Thank you for warning the users who were adding spam; that is enough. No blocks are needed unless they repeat the behavior. Yechiel (Shalom) 23:27, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Charlotte Stokely
I recently got a warning from you that I might be blocked from further edits, for doing original research.

Basically I did four things:

I said she performed in over 100 movies between 2005-2007, and sourced this to IAFD.

I said that she is now only available for softcore, and sourced this to her agency's website. (I could have pointed out that her AIDS test has expired.)

I said that she is modeling swimsuits, and sourced this to pictures of her in swimsuits.

I said that some of her fans think she is retiring. (I could have sourced this last statement to discussion at AdultDVDTalk.com, but I didn't.)

Would this have been acceptable if I had sourced the last statement?

How is Wikipedia even marginally improved by keeping people ignorant of these simple facts?

Pornfan (talk) 22:09, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

You have already been cautioned and warned by others for making unconstructive edits or not including reliable sources in other articles. The escalated warning over original research is because of the prior history. Basically you shouldn't include any personal analysis in an encyclopedia. You cited two primary sources for people to analyse to justify the conclusion that you want to reach which is prohibited by WP:SYN. Even if you had sourced the conclusion to a message board, it would not qualify as a WP:reliable source. If you want to include any analysis, it must be done by a reliable source. Leave any speculation out of it. Vinh1313 (talk) 22:18, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

First of all, I didn't include any analysis. I stated three facts:

1) Her agency says she is available only for softcore.

2) A girl who looks like her is modeling swimsuits.

3) Many of her fans think she has retired.

Do you contest any of these facts?

If, as you claim, I included analysis, can you please point me to the actual words that I wrote which were analytical in nature?

I ask again:

How is Wikipedia even marginally improved by keeping people ignorant of these simple facts? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pornfan (talk • contribs) 01:25, 16 June 2008 (UTC)


 * You used 1 and 2 to speculate number 3 using weasel words. Number 2 is an opinion. Number 3 can't be cited to a reliable source. It is improper to include rumours or gossip in an encyclopedia. You want to continue the argument, do it in the  article's talk page or at WP:BLPN to get other people's input. Vinh1313 (talk) 13:55, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Sativa Rose/Marinez
Thanks for the feedback. I've been a longtime fan of Sativa, all the way back from her early films were she went under her real name of Sativa Marinez. She was originally working for Hustler as an amateur, but since going pro she's worked for tons of studios. It was soon after going pro that she decided to change her name to "Sativa Rose", which was inspired by the rose tattoo she has on her lower back. Even though I can't get any online sources - info on her is generally pretty hard to come by, as I'm sure you know - I can fairly certain that is her real name. Whether you go ahead and amend the article is up to you. But it seems like the sort of thing that should be in the article. Atouraya (talk) 16:34, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Re:Raven Riley edit
Hello, i'd like to ask why you warned me there. I find that extremely rude, as it was a good faith edit to try and improve the article by deleting possible libious information from a biography page with a source that stated it was not official, i used an edit summary, and assumed it wouldn't be questioned as the source clearly states that it is not official. Unlike you, i wont slap you in the face for adding material that isn't properly sourced, because what has been added isn't. Please, try to think before you act. Whats the harm of leaving it off the page until, or if it does happen? And i quote from the first line of the talk page, This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Controversial material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted or if there are other concerns relative to this policy, report it on the living persons biographies noticeboard.

I believe this information is poorly sourced. Warning me i feel was incorrect, please retract it. Me ta gr aph comment 20:26, 24 June 2008 (UTC)


 * It's not a warning. Just a general note. At least that's how it shows up on Twinkle and I am not retracting it since you removed the content a second time without a clear edit summary or discussion. Vinh1313 (talk) 21:16, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I removed potentially libious material from a biography, and didn't expect it to be challanged. I saw no need for discussion. The edit summary could have been clearer, noted, but it was a reply to you. Me ta gr aph comment 21:35, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
 * The point is it was challenged and it wasn't clear from the edit summary why you considered it potentially libel, especially when the statement was adequately sourced to AVN, which is normally considered a reliable source for pornography articles. I only understood your argument when you discussed it in the talk page. Vinh1313 (talk) 21:56, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Images
Heya... if you check your watchlist you'll see that all the Luke Ford photos got pulled as an OTRS violation. I'm trying to find out what the hell is going on here... I'm praying it's just some simple misunderstanding somewhere. If that's not the case, do you have any objections if I were to ask you to try and fill in the gaps with your own photos? Tabercil (talk) 12:28, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Supposedly Luke resold his site. I don't know how he managed to sell the same thing twice (well technically more if you count lukeford.com). He might have tried to revoke the license or the new owners disputed it. Here's some legal mumbo jumbo: Even though the terms of the CC licenses state that they are perpetual, there's dispute whether they actually are. If the copyright owner never received valid consideration in return for granting a non-exclusive license, under American contract law, the license is revocable at will. Vinh1313 (talk) 15:36, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
 * That might be the case for lukeisback.com, but they also pulled out images from lukeford.net, which he still owns and contributes to. And I checked with Luke first thing this morning about the very possibility that he revoked his consent - he hasn't. There's an interesting debate on Commons over this issue, as seen here. Tabercil (talk) 22:18, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure how I was being uncivil or otherwise out of line
The article was a piece of junk. Completely unreferenced, about 90% from Lubben's websites, and more of the article was dedicated to uncritically restating her anti-porn positions than talking about Lubben herself. Looking for sources, it seemed like it was all regurgitated press releases coming up. Based on that and the subject having apparently created the article herself, I tagged for prod.

Leon stated in his edit summary when he removed the tag that he was doing so based on his status as a noted wikipedian. Since he also said sources should be readily available,I asked him to fix the article based on his claims. I could have taken it to AfD as soon as he removed it, but gave him three weeks before I'd revisit it.

I don't agree with the article being A7, I agree that former porn performer and anti-porn activist is an assertion of notability. However looking at the article, I still don't think she actually passes notability. She may have some name recognition in people that follow the industry, but what has she actually done that makes her notable under either of those claims? She appeared in 36 films, but only 12 scenes according to at least one version of her bio. No awards and no chance of meeting pornbio. As an activist, she hasn't done anything all that significant either. There were over 100 people who testified as the committee hearing. It's not enough by itself, especially since the result was the bill being shelved. Horrorshowj (talk) 23:36, 29 June 2008 (UTC)


 * To a third party observer, your tone towards Wikileon seemed condescending. I'm no fan of Lubben but I would vote to keep her if she were to be afd'd as I believe she is notable under the general criteria of WP:BIO. Vinh1313 (talk) 18:58, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Taylor Rain's name
Source was IMDb. Users like you are ruining Wikipedia. You feel like you have the right to police and enforce the rules everywhere, actually believing you are doing the right thing. It is no longer WIKI. - Untouchable777


 * IMDB biographies are not considered a reliable source. Just because that name is repeated over the internet does not make it true. Some people actually consider being labeled a porn star defamatory if it's not true. Vinh1313 (talk) 18:54, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Ok, then. But I searched for her name (Nicole Sabene) and a few sites came up. How do I know if they are reliable? - Untouchable777 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.87.135.90 (talk) 19:55, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I'd suggest checking the source against the examples given at Reliable source examples - for example, for IMDB it says: "Trivia on sites such as IMDb or FunTrivia should not be used as sources. These media do not have adequate levels of editorial oversight or author credibility and lack assured persistence." If you're still unsure after checking, post the link to either Vinh's talk page or my own and we can let you know. Tabercil (talk) 22:45, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

But it is said "Trivia on such sites". On IMDb, her birth name is not displayed as merely a "trivia". I don't think the person who wrote that meant that you can discard the entire site as "a trivia database". If IMDb, the internet's movie's core says something, I'm pretty sure it is reliable. You can google her name (Nicole Sabene) and pick one of the various sources, since you both know better about "reliable sources" than I do. Hey, I'm just a newbie. But you have the data, you can check and alter the page yourselves, and not wait for someone to do it, just so you can correct the person and leave it without the information. - Untouchable777 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Untouchable777 (talk • contribs) 06:11, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Sarah Jane Hamilton
I am amazed that porn has its own criteria. Where you can be "notable" for winning a single term in the Deleware legislature, 100+ films isn't notable enough. That doesn't seem balanced. I've seen your complaints about IMDB and disagree with part of it. If we were talking about using it as a source for trivia, then you might have a point. As for simply using it to verify film titles etc, they are as accurate as anything. However, the source from Excalibur films should be valid in this case since it's not "self-promoting" in the actresses sense, only of their own films. Listing what films they made, who was in them etc wouldn't seem to count as self-promotion in this case. I'm not even going to involve myself in a long debate over this because the notability requirement in porn actors/actresses case seems ridiculous and the topic isn't that important to me. Niteshift36 (talk) 23:35, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Notability
The criteria for the inclusion of actors in blue movies is far too loose. Andycjp (talk) 01:52, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Those are the guidelines. Discuss them at its talk page. Vinh1313 (talk) 01:53, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Are you in the employ of the adult movie industry? Why else are you on their side? Schoolchildren use this website as a work of reference. Have you no shame? Andycjp (talk) 04:06, 9 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I've already blocked Andycjp and pointed him to WP:NOTCENSOR. —C.Fred (talk) 04:19, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Adult Stars Magazine
Hi, just thought I'd let you know I've removed those links after Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam was filed. I saw you removed one and reformatted another. As they were added by an account with what appears a sole purpose they've been removed for safety until someone independent, such as yourself, can reinstate any that are valid. Caomhin (talk) 07:32, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Do not delete references when they are needed!
At the top of the artcle Shyla Stylez, it said the article was lacking valid citations and/or references, and that Wikipedia needed help adding some. So, I added 3 references, and you deleted every single one and added your own. Then, you said you simply deleted an image that I had added, because you listed it at Possibly unfree images, and you said that "its copyright status is unclear or disputed", and "the image's copyright status cannot be verified". This is untrue, especially when the image description page states that it is fair use as long as it is not used for profit. Wikipedia, though, is not-for-profit, unless I am somehow mistaken, as every tough-guy self-proclaimed Wikipedia "moderator" who views my participation in Wikipedia seems to want to think.


 * It is not clear whether you are the copyright owner of the image considering you listed aziani.com as the original owner of the image. Are you the owner of aziani.com? Second if you do own the image, if you place a non-commercial condition on the use of your image, then that conflicts with a releasing the image into the public domain. As for the citations, none of the "references" you provided verify her biography and you replaced 7 other legitimate citations in doing so. Morbidthoughts (talk) 05:07, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for removing the link that I asked about on the Kurt Lockwood article. I am trying to get a good image for that page. I will check your Flickr account for any also. Thanks again, Countrypaula (talk) 04:04, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Adminship
Hi. This is just a note to say that if you ever feel you'd like to be an admin, I'd be happy to nominate you, as you're clearly qualified. Regards. Epbr123 (talk) 16:31, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the compliment, but I think I need to diversify my editing portfolio before attempting adminship. Vinh1313 (talk) 17:06, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Just sing out if/when you do decide to go for it... I'll support you 100%. Tabercil (talk) 23:05, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

With both of your support and a year of experience behind me, I would be honoured to be nominated for adminship. Morbidthoughts (talk) 19:15, 28 August 2008 (UTC)  Epbr123 would like to nominate you to become an administrator. Please visit Requests for adminship to see what this process entails, and then contact Epbr123 to accept or decline the nomination. A page for your nomination at Requests for adminship/ . If you accept the nomination, you must state and sign your acceptance. You may also choose to make a statement and/or answer the optional questions to supplement the information your nominator has given. Once you are satisfied with the page, you may post your nomination for discussion, or request that your nominator do so. Hi. I've created your nomination page. The instructions on what to do after you've answered the questions are at Requests for adminship. Good luck. Epbr123 (talk) 19:04, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm surprised there is already discussion at the nomination page when it hasn't been published in the general Requests for adminship page. Morbidthoughts (talk) 03:27, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Joanna Angel
Birth name had already been removed per OTRS Ticket#: 2006111610017251 as a BLP issue. Birth names, real or alleged, for porn performers with stage names are always considered contentious unless the performer has publicly acknowledged that is accurate. This is due to potential for post-industry discrimination, embarrassment to their families and fears for their safety. I've seen OTRS types repeatedly remove the info when it's formally submitted.

The source you sited was apparently what initiated the OTRS complaint. Some IP address had put the information into the WP article with false attribution several months previously, and nobody ever checked it. She's never shown up with anything other than her stage name in any subsequent article, so it looks like wikipedia is the actual source for the information. Since the subject has said in interviews her family strongly disapproves of her career, I think it's a safe conclusion she hasn't publicly released her real name.

Reading through the edit history on the article, somebody apparently also uploaded her yearbook photos at one point. I'm really getting sick of stalkers, although I suppose I should be relieved it wasn't her driver's license this time. Horrorshowj (talk) 13:26, 26 August 2008 (UTC)


 * There's a ongoing heated discussion about porn birth names (and what to do with them) at WP:BLPN. You should give your input there. As for Joanna's last name, if a more reputable newssource publishes her name like the Associated Press or Reuters, it's going to be fair game. It's hard to prove it's due to a wikipedia feedback loop in these instances. Easy to speculate. Hard to prove. Morbidthoughts (talk) 14:43, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Jenna Haze's real name
According to imdb.com www.imdb.com/name/nm1040252/ Jenna haze's real name is *redacted*. Also in an interview with Luke Ford she says her name is Jennifer www.lukeisback.com/stars/stars/jenna_haze.htm  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tepiii3 (talk • contribs) 03:59, 30 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Neither of them are reliable sources. IMDB is a tertiary publication that relies on user contribution. Luke Ford is a self-published porn gossipist. Morbidthoughts (talk) 04:07, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

If you read the Article She is "quoted" as saying her name is Jennifer.


 * and that is all. Morbidthoughts (talk) 04:12, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

--Tepiii3 (talk) 04:41, 30 August 2008 (UTC)== Shyla Stylez's Real Name ==

www.ocweekly.com/2005-05-26/features/internal-affairs/  Did you even read the article. Right on the bottom of the first page it says "Amanda  Frieland is an internationally famous porn star. GRAND JURY records says Frieland uses the stage name Shyla Stylez"   What other reference do you need that that. Is the Grand Jury not credible? I mean this was a pretty public story. Do you need more reference than that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tepiii3 (talk • contribs) 04:27, 30 August 2008 (UTC)  Tepiii3 (talk) 04:36, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Apology
Didn't realize she changed her name after marrage. I see you point of no real reference of her birth name —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tepiii3 (talk • contribs) 04:33, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

--Tepiii3 (talk) 05:03, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Joanna Angels name
New York Observer wrote an article about Joanna in which she participated in. It states her name. Is this a credible source for you? www.observer.com/2007/she-s-no-angel-punk-princess-porn--Tepiii3 (talk) 05:05, 30 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I didn't have an issue about it but another user alerted me to a previous problem about that source. See two sections above this. Morbidthoughts (talk) 05:10, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

What does OTRS complaint and BLP issue mean?--Tepiii3 (talk) 05:18, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
 * WP:BLP and WP:OTRS Morbidthoughts (talk) 05:22, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Duplicate RfA question
Sorry about the duplicate question. I'm just really drowsy right now. XD  Autumn Fall   02:29, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
 * No problem. This entire process has been a learning experience for me and I take the underlying issue of your question as important to evaluate. Morbidthoughts (talk) 08:15, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Your RFA
Best wishes for your RFA --  Tinu  Cherian  - 12:01, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much. Morbidthoughts (talk) 04:01, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Re: Chewbacca
Thanks, Morbidthoughts. I do appreciate that note, and don't wish you ill in your career here. I probably over-reacted to the "Chewbacca" thing, and it's stuck in my craw for a long time. You couldn't have known that I loathe South Park... and, as if to rub salt in the wound, I learned the meaning and origin of the phrase by reading the phrase's own extensive Wikipedia article... while here I was, fighting tooth-and-nail for the existence of articles on major-- in their field-- Japanese subjects, and articles on award-winning, internationally-shown Korean and Hindi TV series were being put up on the AfD chopping-block.

I believe whole-heartedly in citing one's information. If you check my history, I think you'll notice that my contributions of text nearly always contain citations. I believe that any unsourced statement at a Wiki article is, at the very best, just useless hearsay. I am of the opinion, however, that the nature of the subject determines the nature of the sourcing. Authors of articles for peer-reviewed scholarly journals generally don't write about Japanese porn... or, if they do, they don't submit those articles for publication ;-)

Anyway, my retirement was probably inevitable due to basic philosophical differences I have with the Wikipedia structure, and had absolutely nothing to do with either you or Chewbacca. I've been butting my head against the "notability" brick wall, and a few others, ever since I came here-- as well as becoming more and more fed up with the needless bickering, power-gaming, politic-playing, rule-making, and other sorts of time-wasting drama... I was lured here by the "sum of all human knowledge" bluff. I came in thinking I could write an article on pretty much anything or anybody, as long as it was all sourced, public, not a hoax, not a vanity page... Instead I find Wikipedia wants to be sort of a free, anonymously-written Encyclopedia Brittanica, without the images, with every article starting "so-and-so is notable because...", and with lots of extra articles on current U.S. pop culture, because, well, that's what the editors here think is cool. I find working at a specialty Wiki suits my philosophy better. There we cover one topic just as thoroughly as we possibly can.

Anyway, as for your work here, the adult entertainment subject area is a challenging and difficult one, and needs good editors and Admins. First-time RfAs are typically learning experiences. If Adminship is what you're after, don't give up the ship if this one fails. Follow Epbr's example if you have to-- avoid anything controversial (and interesting) for a few months. Do Admin-ish things like mechanically copy-editing and reverting simple vandalism by the hundreds, nominate admins for a couple months, pal around with the right people, make sure you type "reply" in the edit summary, etc. It works ;-) Regards. Dekkappai (talk) 00:25, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm still amazed that the Japanese don't archive their news online like in America (or exclude all the sex stuff from the archives). I wish they made your endeavours easier. I thought that being admin would be good to support wikiproject porn and am more concerned about how my bumpy process may reflect badly on the people who nominated and supported me. Morbidthoughts (talk) 01:22, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Yep, I forgot to type "reply" again. Morbidthoughts (talk) 01:23, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
 * The Japanese thing-- it's partly "face-saving". I know from personal experience that South Korea has a healthy adult entertainment genre also, but you'll find no articles on it here, because it's such a closely-guarded secret. Anything I could add would be banned as "OR"... Your RfA really surprised me-- I fully expected you to pass, the only disagreements I've had with you have been over things with which I disagree with Wikipedia in general. The "cooldown block" opposes and especially the "anti-print-sourcing" opposes are just absurd. In the first one you didn't parrot Wiki-policy quite exactly, in the second one... well, you did nothing, but someone mis-read you, and a few lemmings jumped off that cliff with him... Oh well... Get more experience (particularly RfA, vandal-fighting, policy chit-chat, and other Admin-ish things) and you'll succeed easily next time. Regards. Dekkappai (talk) 18:24, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Chris Musni
Thanks for commenting on my article. Unfortunately, you suggested it to be deleted. You said that Chris does not have significant coverage in reliable sources. However, that is only the test for "presumed notability". The person can still be notable and fail that test under WP:BIO. Such as if the person has a cult following. Agree? Would you please reconsider your comment? Thanks Gchuva (talk) 23:25, 2 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree with your notability premise, but I would like a reliable source, even trivially, confirming that the person has a cult following. Morbidthoughts (talk) 23:32, 2 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I will see what I can do to find a source that shows he has a cult following. What about the unique contribution route to notability also mentioned in WP:BIO?  Would that be something you could consider?  I added another comment in response to your latest one.  Thanks again for the feedback.Gchuva (talk) 00:49, 3 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks again for your interest in my article. I have added one new statement to help establish notability.  Who knows if you will agree.  But I appreciate how much time you have spent discussing the article. Gchuva (talk) 23:15, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Cytherea
It's her. I watched the film. The sources only confirm. Why should we hide it? Arrentino (talk) 04:46, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I've already pointed you to the underlying policies why those sources can't be used. Please also review WP:V. As long as a reliable secondary source doesn't report on Cytherea's name, it shouldn't be in the article. You can't rely on the movie itself since it's a primary source. Morbidthoughts (talk) 04:50, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

stockley & wakelin article
hi Regarding deleteing this article as being not notable. Hi Regarding deleting this article as being not notable. the company was founded in 1824 and was an important ant horn comb manufacturer before the advent of plastics -- it exported combs from England to America and the company was then very well known an ordinary thing like a comb used to be expensive as it was made of horn. The company Stockley and Wakelin does not trade any more so there is no commercial pourpose. There is another delete tag that that the article violates copyright as the material is elsewhere on the net. There is no copyright violation as the text elsewhere on the internet is my own. I am selling a Comb from made by Stokely and Wakelin on e bay and decided to do a write-up on Stockely and wakely - The comb is being sold for six pounds - so my intention to write the article on the company could hardly be for the purpose of flogging the one ccomb. Rather a comb was and is an important article of everyday use. There are no articles on horn combs which were used before plastics on Wikipedia and I was only trying to fill a gap by writing a article and improving on horn combs about what we used before plastics. Any way the article can be undeleted so that I and other wikipedians may improve on it and contribute to the knowledge of horn combs. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jopling100 (talk • contribs) 05:18, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, you can ask one of these admins to see if he can save you a copy of the deleted article. Morbidthoughts (talk) 05:34, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Morbidthoughts

Jopling100 (talk) 05:53, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Old man willy of shepshed
Hi. Good work with the speedy tagging, but I'm just letting you know that hoax articles like this are better to be tagged as "vandalism" rather than "nonsense", as "nonsense" is only meant for unsalvageably incoherent content. This is something that sometimes comes up during RfAs. Regards. Epbr123 (talk) 15:29, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Understood. Morbidthoughts (talk) 16:17, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Clair Newell
Good call. What do you type in for an ADF? Czolgolz (talk) 20:44, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
 * WP:AFD Morbidthoughts (talk) 20:47, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Meetinghouse Partners
Sorry for any difficulties. I should have been in sand box while I was practicing building info boxes. I accidentally saved the page and caused all the trouble. THANK YOU FOR THE COOKIES!! Dunning22 (talk) 13:37, 10 September 2008 (UTC)Dunning22

whassup
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_SNES_Game_Maker —Preceding unsigned comment added by Roberttheman2008 (talk • contribs) 19:26, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

F1
Are u a Ferrari fan?Kakhuis (talk) 20:45, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

SNES Game Maker (To be deleted on Oct. 10 2008 @ 6pm EST)
That is how long we should wait for Jordan William Johnson to respond to the The SNES Game Maker Articale. Give him or her until 10/10 6pm EST for Johnson to show up and make himself known. Enough time to create a website to post updates and the current progress of the software. One month is more then enough time for him to respond, if you believe so then you should just go to the articale's page and post for the public to see that it is scheduled to be deleted on a certain day. Robert (talk —Preceding undated comment was added at 22:09, 10 September 2008 (UTC).

RfC on Roberttheman2008
I have opened a request for comment for user conduct on Roberttheman2008. Feel free to comment or provide any evidence you have in the case. I'm heading to work fairly soon, so I will be offline for a bit.

P.S. You should check out what the user left on my talk page. MuZemike (talk) 16:07, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Naomi Russell
The Porn Star's full name is Naomi Russell. What I did was not vandalism —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.66.21.238 (talk) 00:43, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
 * You want to explain the 46 inch butt? Morbidthoughts (talk) 03:58, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
 * please do not continue to Undo the page. if you do so, I'll make a report —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.66.21.238 (talk) 06:59, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
 * If you continue to insert incorrect information, I or someone else will continue to revert them. As I told you, Naomi Russell is not her "full" performing name nor does she have a 46 inch butt. Look at the sources in the article and see if any of them verify this. Morbidthoughts (talk) 14:28, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Mancini Records
Sorry about that I didn't realize what it was. I sent a message to the other admin reviewing the page and let him know what I was trying to accomplish was create a stub similar to Polyvinyl Records label stub. I work with a number of record labels in the area and a significant part of my job is research...wikipedia has proven very helpful so far. I'd just like to contribute other information I have to offer. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeremymancini (talk • contribs) 19:05, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Actually, you can delete the page. I'll consider adding content once I have a more thorough understanding of how wikipedia works lol. I'd rather not be the guy that does more damage and creates more work than good, nor the guy that is no longer allowed to offer content. Thanks! -J

AfD nomination of Antoinette (rapper)
An article that you have been involved in editing, Antoinette (rapper), has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Articles for deletion/Antoinette (rapper). Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice?

Alexnia (If you reply here, please leave me a message on my talk page.) @ 13:03, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Hey!
Im not yet finish creating the article Bartolome Ramos!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Secaundis (talk) 05:17, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Understood and removed. Morbidthoughts (talk) 05:25, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

New articles
Please use a bit of caution tagging new articles for speedy deletion. In particular, Karma Kamaleón was obviously an attempt by an inexperienced user at creating a redirect. Tagging it for deletion and posting the notice on the user's talk page is very discouraging to them - assisting them with the redirect syntax would have been much more helpful. Adding redirects is a valuable task, we should be encouraging the new editors who do it and not chasing them away. Orpheus (talk) 16:48, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
 * At the time, I didn't understand it was an attempt at a redirect. To me it was just repeating the phrase, giving the article no context and that's why I tagged it as such. Morbidthoughts (talk) 16:53, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Now that I see Karma Kamaleón. created by the same author, I don't think he was going for a redirect at all. Another person presumed that in a later edit. Morbidthoughts (talk) 16:56, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Well it was worth assuming it was a redirect, per WP:AGF and WP:BITE. On the other hand, Karma Kamaleón. is definitely worth a speedy tag :) My point remains though - it's good to tag completely unwanted articles, but please exercise a bit more discretion. It's not a race, after all, and the risk of putting off a potentially productive editor is quite high. See the section above this one, for instance. Orpheus (talk) 17:02, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Now that we know it's a cover album, I'm trying to figure out if the album article (with a period) can be moved over the redirect or if I should just copy and paste it onto Karma Kamaleón and redirect the other one. Morbidthoughts (talk) 17:08, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm curious
Someone has put a template about inline cites on Locko Park. It was in the first 5 minutes of its life, but that's not important right now. Seems to me that
 * 1) its important to put in in-line cites and it would take about a minute to add them ...
 * 2) you think the author doesnt want or doesnt know how to do it. Not sure the template adds very much. Seems to me that the skill of the article indicates he/she doesn't want to.

I have heard that some people add these templates to get their edit count up. I hope that's not the case here. I presume you don't mind if I ask you to add the refs to Locko Park withoit using a template the top of your talk page? Oh and yes this is just me, not policy. But I am curious as to your motive. Cheers Victuallers (talk) 18:48, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Well all information should be verifiable to a reliable reference. It's just clearer to the reader where a particular sentence comes from if the citations are sourced inline. I tagged it on that basis, and it requires someone who is familiar with the subject to correct that issue. It would take me more than "about a minute" to read the sources and figure out which sentence was sourced to where. By placing it in the the first 5 minutes of its life, I'm hoping the creator would notice and fix it. Morbidthoughts (talk) 19:36, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Notice: AN/I
To Andycjp and others who might be interested. This notice is being sent to inform you that Andycjp’s disruptive editing has been reported at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents (AN/I):.

-- Hordaland (talk) 20:21, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Starlet ID
Can you look at these three photos, see if you can identify who it is - Image:Jana Cova 1.JPG, Image:Jana Cova 2.JPG, Image:Jana Cova 3.JPG. Apparently it's not Jana... Thanks. Tabercil (talk) 12:41, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
 * They're all Brea Bennett. Morbidthoughts (talk) 14:20, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you.  Tabercil (talk) 21:43, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Re: Momo
Hi, Morbidthoughts. First off, I don't know Momo, so I'm not going to be much help, I'm afraid. As far as searching in Japanese, there are several ways to write "Momo". I'm assuming his name "Momo" means "Peach", though I've never heard that used as a man's name, but it's very common for a woman's. The Chinese character is "桃", and in the the two Japanese scripts it is written もも (hiragana) and モモ (katakana). "Photograph" (shashin) is "写真"... As might be expected, my first few Google searches on "写真" and "桃" are bringing up pictures of peach farms... quite luscious photos, but not in the way that your Momo's photos are, I assume ;-) User:Hoary is an admin who is proficient in Japanese and very active in editing articles on Japanese photography. If you drop him a line, I'm sure he could help more than I can. Good luck! Dekkappai (talk) 21:52, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Jana Bach
Jana Bach Dans tes rêves (talk) 03:06, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Morbidthoughts (talk) 03:55, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

RfA
Hi Morbidthoughts! Thank you very much for your support in my RfA, which passed yesterday. I hope not to let you and the others down, and use the tools for the benefit of the project. Cheers, Ynhockey (Talk) 22:41, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Re:Dana DeArmond
Yeah, I hit the wrong link and it got tagged as vandalism. It should have been an AGF rollback. I realized it just after I hit the vandal link. Dismas |(talk) 19:14, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Another ID
Got another item where the ID is contested: Image:Victoria Paris adjusted.jpg. To your knowledge, is this Victoria Paris? Tabercil (talk) 16:56, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Hard to say since I only remember her looks from the 80s and 90s but I doubt that's her now. Morbidthoughts (talk) 20:53, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Silvia Lancome
She is not a citizen or a native of Afghanistan. We are not trying to put her parent's ethnicity, we are just trying to add Silvia's ethnicity. Afghan applies to her parent but not to her. She is considered Solvakian, with Afghan heritage. Heritage is different from ethnicity, heritage usually refers to country of her parent's origin. Ethnicity refers to the ethnic background. Afghan today is not an ethnicity but nationality.

Brian Pumper
I received your flickr mail. Don't you wanna sahre your photo] to the Commons. We only have this one there =/ Mizunoryu 大熊猫❤小熊猫 (talk) 00:18, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
 * The Luke Ford contribution is adequate. Morbidthoughts (talk) 04:16, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Can I?
Can i have a copy of the deleted article Paperkids? Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hellookitty123 (talk • contribs) 18:33, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Please contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you. Morbidthoughts (talk) 18:36, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Regarding Cassia Riley
I personally know Cassia since High school and was updating her info to give the public more information about the girl behind he pictures. My info is legit. She was on the Tom Green Live web show in 2007 and has dated sporadically ever since. Was seen in the late 90's with Ryan Shuck of Orgy in Huntington Beach CA, was also out at Les Deax in Hollywood with MMA fighter Tiki Ghosn.. and was seen in Vegas and had an an article written about her and Joe Rogan, Jerem Piven is a given and has been with more than half of Hollywood and Cassia was also seen as recently as October canoodling with Mark McGrath at the Roxy in Los Angeles (I have seen pictures). This is all pretty common knowlege in Hollywood. I'm not trying to be rude I'm just speaking facts. Thanks! -Joe Campbell
 * Sorry. Wikipedia has a prohibition on original research or citing things to personal knowledge. If you want to divulge things about her personal life, find a reliable source that reports on it before putting it in. The source should be stronger than the gossip pages of a newspaper too. Morbidthoughts (talk) 00:04, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Apology for Splicing
Sorry about the splicing. I'm pretty sure I only did that once (unless it's something other than I think it is). I'm new, I'll try to watch my step. However, I don't mind saying that the first thing I find here is that a lot of human time and effort is being wasted on working out how to leave stuff out. Consensus is not scholarship.

On another point, how do I get one of those cool dodads that says "This person is going to live forever." Xophorus (talk) 03:57, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Userboxes Morbidthoughts (talk) 09:07, 21 November 2008 (UTC)