User talk:Morbidthoughts/Archive 7

Blue Angel
If you take issue with my edit, please take it up on the talk page of the article. I have made my points defending the edit, if you think they are invalid, please give your reasons there. Asarelah (talk) 00:13, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Old redirect
Hi Morbidthoughts, in August of 2009 you redirected Christine Kerr to Naked News with the summary "unnotable; bold redirect to naked news". At that time there may have been a perfectly good reason, but now Kerr is nowhere to be found in the latter article. Do you mind if I nominate Christine Kerr for deletion? I'm in the process of cleaning up the page Kerr (surname), and will remove the name from there for now, but it can be put back if there is a justification for it. Thanks, Hamamelis (talk) 23:38, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't mind. She was an anchor for naked news and that was the extent of the previous article. Morbidthoughts (talk) 04:41, 15 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I thought it might have been something like that, thanks! Hamamelis (talk) 06:22, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Your free 1-year Questia online library account is approved and ready
Good news! You are approved for access to 77,000 full-text books and 4 million journal, magazine, newspaper articles, and encyclopedia entries. Check your Wikipedia email! Thanks for helping make Wikipedia better. Enjoy your research! Cheers, Ocaasi 18:28, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Then go to https://www.questia.com/specialoffer
 * Input your unique Offer ID and Promotional code. Click Continue. (Note that the activation codes are one-time use only and are case-sensitive).
 * Create your account by entering the requested information. (This is private and no one from Wikipedia will see it).
 * You'll then see the welcome page with your Login ID. (Your account is now active for 1 year!).
 * If you need help, please first ask Ocaasi at wikiocaasi@yahoo.com and, second, email QuestiaHelp@undefinedcengage.com along with your Offer ID and Promotional Code (subject: Wikipedia).
 * A quick reminder about using the account: 1) try it out; 2) provide original citation information, in addition to linking to a Questia article; 3) avoid bare links to non-free Questia pages; 4) note "(subscription required)" in the citation, where appropriate. Examples are at WP:Questia/Citations.
 * Questia would love to hear feedback at WP:Questia/Experiences
 * Show off your Questia access by placing on your userpage
 * When the 1-year period is up, check the applications page to see if renewal is possible. We hope it will be.

Questia email failure: Will resend codes
Sorry for the disruption but apparently the email bot failed. We'll resend the codes this week. (note: If you were notified directly that your email preferences were not enabled, you still need to contact Ocaasi). Cheers, User:Ocaasi 21:18, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Questia email success: Codes resent
Check your email. Enjoy! Ocaasit &#124; c 21:43, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

How do I get added to the Wikproject_pornography?
Hi there, I figured you would be a great person to ask as I would like to continue to help on pages that relate to this genre, (regardless of the outcome of the Nikki Phoenix issue) and have no experience in working within project groups. Can you steer me in the right direction? thanks! Art javier (talk) 01:21, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
 * There are no requirements. You can just add yourself to the wikiproject by editing that page directly. Morbidthoughts (talk) 02:40, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! will do... and thanks for the guidance! Art javier (talk) 23:34, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Ok, so I added to MyFreeCams.com a source
for the proposition that porn stars are camming. Can we work something out to put back the specific list of them? I don't see how it's spammy to simply point out that the named porn stars (who themselves are already individually in here) have MFC pages (which is instantly verifiable, and is mentioned in MFC's own wiki as well). DeistCosmos (talk) 21:54, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
 * It's an example of WP:SPAMBAIT. Specifically, "Examples should only be given if they are highly relevant to the article topic, and should always be sourced with independent, reliable sources." If an independent source like XBIZ mentioned someone was on MFC, then sure. However, it can't be from a press release. Morbidthoughts (talk) 00:23, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Madison Ivy
Hi! There's currently a discussion at Articles for deletion/Madison Ivy (2nd nomination) in which you may be interested to participate. Cheers! --Sundostund (talk) 22:57, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Thank you
for resolving this. We rarely interact directly, but I've had occasion to see your work, over a number of years now. In my view, en.wikipedia is fortunate to have you. Thank you for all you do here. David in DC (talk) 20:34, 24 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks for giving your opinion in the talk page here. --Oz Steps (talk) 22:33, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Chelsie Rae


The article Chelsie Rae has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * fails PORNBIO, all but one award/nom are scene- or ensemble-related, no RS bio content

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 16:04, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Taryn Thomas
Hi there, I see you reverted my edit of Ms. Thomas and her home town of Jersey City. Do you have any reliable source to prove she was born in New Jersey? Or in the USA? Thanks. Richard Apple (talk) 11:45, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
 * The only thing I found was in Spanish. It's now up there. Morbidthoughts (talk) 20:02, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Celeste
So, now what's wrong with it?

cyan 19:03, 27 September 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cyan.aqua (talk • contribs)
 * You need a stronger source than IMDB since it's a user contributed site. Morbidthoughts (talk) 23:13, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Check some edits?
I'm going to be gone most of the day, otherwise I'd check this myself but a user by the name of Hada Poka has been making a few edits in the last day or two. Would you mind checking them out? Dismas |(talk) 11:35, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Okay. I hadn't seen him pop up on my watchlist. Morbidthoughts (talk) 12:38, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Books and Bytes: The Wikipedia Library Newsletter
Books and Bytes Volume 1, Issue 1, October 2013 by , Greetings Wikipedia Library members! Welcome to the inaugural edition of Books and Bytes, TWL’s monthly newsletter. We're sending you the first edition of this opt-in newsletter, because you signed up, or applied for a free research account: HighBeam, Credo, Questia, JSTOR, or Cochrane. To receive future updates of Books and Bytes, please add your name to the subscriber's list. There's lots of news this month for the Wikipedia Library, including new accounts, upcoming events, and new ways to get involved... New positions: Sign up to be a Wikipedia Visiting Scholar, or a Volunteer Wikipedia Librarian Wikipedia Loves Libraries: Off to a roaring start this fall in the United States: 29 events are planned or have been hosted. New subscription donations: Cochrane round 2; HighBeam round 8; Questia round 4... Can we partner with NY Times and Lexis-Nexis?? New ideas: OCLC innovations in the works; VisualEditor Reference Dialog Workshop; a photo contest idea emerges News from the library world: Wikipedian joins the National Archives full time; the Getty Museum releases 4,500 images; CERN goes CC-BY Announcing WikiProject Open: WikiProject Open kicked off in October, with several brainstorming and co-working sessions New ways to get involved: Visiting scholar requirements; subject guides; room for library expansion and exploration Read the full newsletter ''Thanks for reading! All future newsletters will be opt-in only. Have an item for the next issue? Leave a note for the editor on the Suggestions page. --The Interior 20:34, 27 October 2013 (UTC)''

Pictures
Hey, some porn actress from Europe do not have pictures (eg Aleska Diamond). Can you upload a photo with Aleska Diamond or other adult star.--Hillary Scott`love (talk) 18:45, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Library Survey
As a subscriber to one of The Wikipedia Library's programs, we'd like to hear your thoughts about future donations and project activities in this brief survey. Thanks and cheers, Ocaasit &#124; c 15:09, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Woodwards
Thanks for saving Woodward brothers from deletion back in 2008. Now I think we have a reasonable article about them, despite the facts being hard to come by. JMK (talk) 19:01, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

3RR
I don't quite understand why you are being pig headed but you are now at 3RR, I suggest you disengage and let the discussion continue. Spartaz Humbug! 06:14, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I am not against your position but I do have a serious problem with your being the arbiter of consensus on a disputed matter. None of the people that have taken positions should be determining consensus just like an admin who participates in an AFD is disqualified from determining its outcome. Morbidthoughts (talk) 06:20, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Hmmm, we seem to have a condensus now. Spartaz Humbug! 05:38, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

COI
Do you have a conflict of interest between pornperformer articles and Wikipedia? Spartaz Humbug! 05:37, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Not really. I've met many performers at numerous events but don't edit on their behalf. What prompted the question? Morbidthoughts (talk) 05:55, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
 * A little bird suggested you were connected to IAFD and if so it struck me as rather inappropriate for you to be edit warring to maintain a guideline that would permit a higher number of porn articles to be retained that would link to the site. Spartaz Humbug! 05:59, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I am one of the editors of IAFD. I reverted you because I believed your actions were inappropriate as an active participant in the dispute, not on favouring the past guidelines. You should look at my participation in prior AFDs and the prior PORNBIO discussions before trying to determine my position on porn articles. Morbidthoughts (talk) 06:09, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
 * A review of your contributions is why we are discussing this here and not at COIN or AN. The point is that you made a big deal about my inappropriateness in closing the discussion when you have a wacking great interest in wikipedia covering as much porn content as possible and your edit warring was promoting the version of PORNBIO that permits the most content. Trully inconsistant and I do hope that you reflect on this and avoid such behavior in the future. Spartaz Humbug! 22:39, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm just going to deny your accusations as your assuming bad faith. I have no interest in increasing the porn content on wikipedia to the maximum extent possible. Your behavior was wrong, you were corrected, and you can reflect on that. Morbidthoughts (talk) 23:59, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Strong words but now we have some transparency, I do hope that any future ventures into content policy reflect the reality of the perception of your COI even if you don't believe that you have one. Spartaz Humbug! 00:03, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
 * "Blah Blah Blah" Morbidthoughts (talk) 00:08, 3 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Ugh, look...I have had what I would characterize as some minor past disagreements with "Morbidthoughts" over the inclusion of material on Wikipedia. To put it bluntly, we're not buddies at all, not that that is a good or a bad thing. Having watched a large chunk of his behavior in many pornography-related AfD discussions over the last year or so, it's certainly not true at all that "Morbidthoughts" feels that Wikipedia should cover "as much porn content as possible". I consider the dispute over PORNBIO to be over & done with at this point. I think it's time to move on... Guy1890 (talk) 05:18, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

A cheeseburger for you!

 * I'm actually not sure what you are referring to that makes me a luminary. Morbidthoughts (talk) 08:30, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Dani Jensen


The article Dani Jensen has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * Fails WP:PORNBIO and the GNG. No independent reliable sourcing. No reliably sourced biographical content.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 03:13, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Mikayla Mendez, conversation...
I realize that its closed and the article is gone for now, but we were having a conversation that I'd like to continue. I was wondering what you thought of my last comment. Best regards, --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 17:46, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
 * The conversation is moot. The only exception to PORNBIO for these articles that I consider is the amount of reliable sources that can support that article. Morbidthoughts (talk) 14:51, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
 * In regards to Mendez, I agree. I'm just inquiring about what I consider your informed opinion in the matter. As someone affiliated with IAFD, I feel that you have a better understanding of these things and that Editors can and should learn from your experience. I appreciate your response. Best regards, --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 17:20, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't have any better insight of how things work around here based on my experience with IAFD. I started volunteering there at the same time I joined wikipedia, and I spend much more time on wikipedia than on IAFD. If anything, I took what I learned here and applied it over there. Morbidthoughts (talk) 00:08, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Ah, fair enough. Well, regardless, I'm glad that you're part of this project. I feel that we can benefit from Users with more direct experience with the subject matter that we are editing. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 03:21, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Just for fun...
is what porn stars looked like in the '70s??? Sheesh...
 * Sorry if I bothered you. Have a good day.  Erpert  blah, blah, blah... 07:19, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

UserGogo212121 hello Morbidthoughts when you upload new photos of porn actresses --Gogo212121 (talk) 16:21, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

How interesting and coincidental that I am attempting something you may have tried
My natural proclivity is toward inclusionism. I believe Wikipedia should remain an unbiased source of information that is reliable and notable. The genre regarding pornographic performers is an area where tremendous bias exists. Moralists will always have a conflict of interest and it shows in the blatantly unfair requirements for notability. As it stands this is the current policy:


 * The following criteria should be brought up in a Articles for deletion discussion only in relation to subjects who are or have been involved in the pornography industry.
 * Has won a well-known and significant industry award. Awards in scene-related and ensemble categories are excluded from consideration.
 * Has made unique contributions to a specific pornographic genre, such as beginning a trend in pornography; starred in an iconic, groundbreaking or blockbuster feature; or is a member of an industry Hall of Fame such as the AVN Hall of Fame, XRCO Hall of Fame or equivalent.
 * Has been featured multiple times in notable mainstream media.

These guidelines set an exponentially higher requirement for pornographic performers to be listed on Wikipedia when compared to the requirements set by WP:GNG. It is absurd to say that a performer must have groundbreaking contributions or win awards to be listed. In no other genre is the bar set so high. WP:GNG only requires multiple reliable sources and because of these guidelines, a constant bickering of notability exists.

I am proposing the guidelines be amended to the following:


 * Has won a well-known and significant industry award. Awards in scene-related and ensemble categories are excluded from consideration.
 * Has made unique contributions to a specific pornographic genre, such as beginning a trend in pornography; starred in an iconic, groundbreaking or blockbuster feature; or is a member of an industry Hall of Fame such as the AVN Hall of Fame, XRCO Hall of Fame or equivalent.
 * Has been featured multiple times in notable mainstream media.
 * Has been nominated for multiple significant industry awards. Awards in scene-related and ensemble categories are excluded from consideration.
 * Is currently or formerly signed with a major production studio and has been featured in multiple major productions.

This amendment should be uncontroversial. No other genre requires its subjects to have won an award and this would set the bar right where it should be. If you agree with this please let me know how to start this process I will support it. Valoem  talk   contrib  00:36, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Your proposed amendment would be heavily disputed by the wikicommunity. It was only several months ago when nominations were removed from the criteria based on a lengthy discussion that reflected consensus. I also don't believe that being a contract girl and appearing in major productions makes a person notable. Morbidthoughts (talk) 00:58, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Do you have a link to the initial discussion regarding the change or was initial guideline amendment bold? Valoem   talk   contrib  14:05, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Nvm, I found it. Valoem   talk   contrib  14:24, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

AFD discussion you may be interested in
Care to weigh in at Articles for deletion/List of Playboy Playmates of 2014? Dismas |(talk) 07:31, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 7
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Lupe Fuentes, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page El Dia. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:00, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Porn Project RfC
I have started an RfC on the Project Talk page and invite you to comment here. Thank you, --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 20:48, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Erika Lust
If Erika Lust is not on your watch list, could you add it? There have been some changes which I believe are COI changes made in the last few days. I have been the only one reverting the article and I'd like some more eyes on it. Thanks, Dismas |(talk) 12:05, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
 * It is. I guess I'm not active enough right now to catch it before you guys do. Morbidthoughts (talk) 23:29, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Holly Sampson
Hey MB, I added appropriate explanatory text to the See also entries I added to Sampson's article per WP:MOS. Why do you think that Kelli McCarty and Kira Reed are not related to the subject matter? --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 06:30, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
 * There are many people who have done both mainstream and pornographic work. Not sure why you decided to highlight those two when they appear to have no relationship other than being in the same category you want to put them into. Morbidthoughts (talk) 06:38, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
 * OK, fair enough, so you'd prefer this... List of mainstream actors who have appeared in pornographic films? Feel free to add entries. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 07:04, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

CAVR
Hey MT, since I consider you more "in the know" than most regarding the Industry, what's your take on the award? Is it worth porting over the article from the French language WP? Since the guy has passed away, its a finite list and will only apply to a handful of performer articles and hopefully put the content issue to rest.

What makes me ask is a quote like "The number of adult movies Den reviewed will likely never be exceeded by another critic. Pipe is the second most prolific online adult reviewer with some 7,000 reviews to his credit. 'I'm at about a quarter of what he did and third place is far behind me.'" from XBIZ. I'm not saying the "guy" is notable, but his efforts seem to make the Award notable. Your thoughts? --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 20:01, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't think the prolificness of the reviewer makes his awards any more significant or well known. His awards are not notable enough for people to spend time on this. Morbidthoughts (talk) 01:30, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, yes and no, his prolificness makes Den an "expert" by WP standards and its acknowledged by a 3rd party source. The award becomes notable because its the work of an expert in the subject matter and one that is not connected to a commercial entity such as AVN. Yet another perennial gripe against the porn articles that its all promotional. And again, I don't think that Den needs an article, but what harm would having a single article with a table of the award categories and the recipients do? --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 19:29, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm going to disagree. He was only an expert at what he liked, and his awards factored in who liked him back. His awards were not covered consistently by independent reliable sources to justify tabling its recipients on wikipedia. People can go to his archive to view them. Morbidthoughts (talk) 01:56, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Ah, OK, got it. I'm officially dropping this. The "what he liked... liked him back" is enough to discredit his efforts in my opinion. Thanks for the input! --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 23:29, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Mia Khalifa
Check my latest comment on your. If you have any specific proof that the Mia Khalifa image does not belong to the Flickr uploader then provide it there. KahnJohn27 (talk) 04:14, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Uhhh dude, the image was first posted at: http://www.diggita.it/story.php?title=Mia_Khalifa_la_pornostar_che_ha_sconvolto_il_Medio_Oriente_FOTO which the flickr user acknowleges as the "source". You keep putting that image in, you will be banned. Morbidthoughts (talk) 06:50, 20 January 2015 (UTC)


 * That user is actually the Flickr account of the Digita website that you mentioned. The user says it here at https://www.flickr.com/people/hotgossipitalia/ where they mention their website is www.digita.it This proves they are copyright holders. KahnJohn27 (talk) 14:04, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
 * No, it doesn't prove that the website owns the copyrights of the gallery they posted of her. Morbidthoughts (talk) 15:08, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
 * So now you are confused yourself and confusing others. If a website owns a copyright then it can paste and upload it anywhere it wants, as simple as that. End of debate. Now that you have been proven wrong unless you can prove me otherwise wrong, cancel your deletion nomination. KahnJohn27 (talk) 15:32, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
 * In clearer words the user is actually the source if you didn't understand it or should I say the user in question is actually the Flickr account created by the source. KahnJohn27 (talk) 15:35, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
 * No, you don't understand U.S. copyright law. Just because a website reposts a photo does not mean it owns the copyright to that photo. The owner of the copyright is the photographer or the employer of the photographer. Wikipedia policy demands that the owner of the copyright gives permission to use the photo. That flickr account and that gossip web site reposts other peoples photos. I find it ridiculous that you think that website is the original source of all those images. Morbidthoughts (talk) 16:23, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Do you have proof? Unless you do your words are just empty words. They won't help your case until you prove that the specific image is taken from someone else. If the employer of the photographer is the owner then he has the right to let one of his employee post the photo on their behalf and give permissions on their behalf as instructed. Do I even have to tell you this? Are you so uniformed? It's not like the boss of the company is going to upload every photo. That's what employees are for. And once the company or website's employee has posted after the company's orders you can use it commercially if they allow it. Now do you have a proof that the gossip site is not the owner of that "specific Mia Khalifa photo"? If yes then provide it. KahnJohn27 (talk) 16:50, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
 * That gossip website and its flickr account is full of images that they did not photograph. I'll let the administrator decide this. The nomination stays. Morbidthoughts (talk) 16:57, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
 * You don't have any proof do you? Thought so. Meanwhile I'll paste this whole talk on the nomination page. KahnJohn27 (talk) 17:35, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Doesn't matter. I found out that they really do not own it. It's Mia's own image from her Vine profile. Sorry I did not notice this. I'll try to have it removed as quick as possible. Thank you and sorry again. KahnJohn27 (talk) 17:40, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I will look for her tomorrow and try to photograph her so we can put the lack of image to rest. Morbidthoughts (talk) 18:01, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
 * She lives in Miami. How are you going to get her photographed? One more thing can a selfie be used here? Because you've uploaded one 103 days ago. KahnJohn27 (talk) 18:20, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
 * She should be coming to Vegas tomorrow for the AVNs. . Taryn Thomas emailed me her selfie and then sent a copy to wikimedia to acknowledge her permission in licensing the photo. Morbidthoughts (talk) 18:23, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Really? Well it doesn't compare to mine. Moses emailed me his selfie along with a Rabbi and gave me his permission to use it along with a caption Jesus and Muhammad aren't real. What a liar. Your image is likely a ripped off image from some another site. KahnJohn27 (talk) 18:29, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Umm, Taryn is a long time friend of mine, and you can look up the OTRS system for her permission before you attack me again. Talk about sour grapes.  Morbidthoughts (talk) 18:35, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I made an edit where I "fixed a typo". The edit summary did say that all of it (even the typo fixing) was sarcastic and intentional. I wasn't attacking you or anyone else or for that matter anyone's faith. I was just joking and being sarcastic. What happened to freedom of speech? Lol! KahnJohn27 (talk) 18:40, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

So hey any chance of taking her photo yet? KahnJohn27 (talk) 13:24, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I have not seen her yet. Morbidthoughts (talk) 06:01, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Doesn't matter. Thank you anyways. KahnJohn27 (talk) 14:49, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Japanese AV idols
Just curious if you watch pages for some of the Japanese AV idols as well. Dismas |(talk) 15:28, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
 * No, I wouldn't even know where to start beyond Marica Hase and Maria Ozawa. Morbidthoughts (talk) 08:56, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

List of pornographic film studios
Hey MB, I'm trying to shore up the references in this article. Any ideas on good sources or how to get a fixed link on IAFD to use? Thanks, --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 08:47, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Angela Devi
If you have the time, could you look at the edits that an IP has been making lately to the article? I've got a pretty full workload for the next couple days and don't want this distraction. Their tirades can also be seen on my talk page. If you don't have time, let me know. Thanks in advance, Dismas |(talk) 08:02, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Holly Weber
Are you familiar at all with Holly Weber? There has been an official site added to the article but after looking at that site it seems a bit strange for an official site. It says it's official but seems borderline antagonistic towards the subject. The FB and Twitter links are dead because the accounts at those sites have been suspended. And the calendars advertised on the site are 2-3 years old. Care to take a look and see what you think? Dismas |(talk) 20:51, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Seems like either a webmaster with a grudge (maybe even the guy that has been bankrolling her) or a bizarre confessional. Without knowing the circumstances, removal seems appropriate. Morbidthoughts (talk) 23:30, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Library needs you!
We hope The Wikipedia Library has been a useful resource for your work. TWL is expanding rapidly and we need your help!

With only a couple hours per week, you can make a big difference for sharing knowledge. Please sign up and help us in one of these ways: Sign up now Send on behalf of The Wikipedia Library using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:31, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Account coordinators: help distribute free research access
 * Partner coordinators: seek new donations from partners
 * Communications coordinators: share updates in blogs, social media, newsletters and notices
 * Technical coordinators: advise on building tools to support the library's work
 * Outreach coordinators: connect to university libraries, archives, and other GLAMs
 * Research coordinators: run reference services

ArbCom elections are now open!
Hi, You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:34, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Jillian Janson
Hi Morbidthoughts I put a Picture because my friend Jillian Janson want it I put the reference https://twitter.com/xojillianjanson/status/673251621124501504 I am a novice. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Khaoc (talk • contribs) 02:59, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia does not allow pictures to be used without permission of the copyright owner, who is the photographer in this case. Morbidthoughts (talk) 05:01, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Amber Rayne
What's wrong with the source? It's written by a journalist (Cathy Young) who, judging by her resume (written for many reliable sources for decades), is obviously a credible source. Identifying_reliable_sources states that "Reliable sources may be published materials with a reliable publication process, authors who are regarded as authoritative in relation to the subject, or both." The "or both" at the end indicates that either an author or a publication can be a reliable source and that it doesn't necessarily have to be both. According to Young's WP article she is "is known for her writing on the topics of rape and feminism." That would make her "authoritative in relation to the subject" of the Deen rape accusations. Rebecca1990 (talk) 02:32, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
 * No editorial oversight. "Such material, although written by an established author, likely lacks the fact checking that publishers provide." Also, Deen is still alive which triggers "Self-published information should never be used as a third-party source about another living person, even if the author is a well-known professional researcher or writer". Morbidthoughts (talk) 04:51, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Pornography, genres of pdf
Hi, I can send you a full text pdf of:



to complete your request at WikiProject Resource Exchange/Resource Request/Archive_27. Please use Special:EmailUser to email me so that I can reply with the pdf as an attachment. Regards, Worldbruce (talk) 16:22, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Email sent. Thanks! Morbidthoughts (talk) 15:11, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Mormon pornography
I don't see that you are an Admin, so I am not sure you are authorized to remove the Speedy Delete tag. If you don't agree with it you are allowed to leave a comment on the talk page of the article. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 06:53, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't need to be an admin to remove a speedy. Read Criteria_for_speedy_deletion and review "The creator of a page may not remove a speedy deletion tag from it. Only an editor who is not the creator of a page may do so." You have a poor understanding of policy overall and are extrapolating rules that do not exist. Morbidthoughts (talk) 07:00, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm not extrapolating anything. Please stop reverting my edit. The source is an unreliable source. There are no other sources that support the content or the title of this article. It is inflammatory and that is what you are supporting. Nice job! --- Steve Quinn (talk) 07:06, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Address what I have posted in the AfD. Your blanking of the article is inappropriate and does not fall under WP:ATTACK. Morbidthoughts (talk) 07:09, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Belle Knox AFD #2
The second AFD for Belle Knox has been overturned and relisted. As you commented on the original AFD, you may wish to comment on this one as well. As there have been developments and sources created since the time of the original AFD, please review to see if your comments/!vote are the same or may have changed. Gaijin42 (talk)
 * Time stamping. Morbidthoughts (talk) 01:27, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Cathy Barry
Hi. A few months ago, an article on the famous UK porn star Cathy Barry was deleted with only 3 votes in favour - evidently very few editors noticed. Would appreciate it if you could help, as it seems bizarre that an article on a clearly notable figure can just be deleted on the say so of so few editors?!

92.18.55.1 (talk) 11:58, 10 August 2017 (UTC)