User talk:NatNat

Cytherea link removal
Hi. I see we have a difference of opinion with regards to links within the Cytherea article. If we look at the Wikipedia policy on External links, we can see that the site you added falls into the category of Links to avoid for two reasons: In contrast, Cytherea's own website is valid because of the policy:
 * Links that are added to promote a site (External link spamming)
 * Sites that require payment to view the relevant content.
 * Articles about any organization, person, or other entity should link to their official site, if they have one.

No offense as the actions I've taken are not directed at you, nor are intended with any malice. It's just that Wikipedia is not intended to be Google - its not a link to all the world's information, just that which is directly relevant. Tabercil 01:11, 11 June 2006 (UTC)


 * If I might chime in here... First, NatNat, welcome to Wikipedia. I know that Wikipedia is a bit different from other sites, in that we are aiming more to be a tertiary reference, rather than a web-guide. Therefore, I understand both sides of the issue when it comes over the Cytherea article. However, I ask that you take the time to review some of our policies, so that things of this nature don't happen. Also, should you have any questions, please feel free to talk to myself or another Wikipedian. Thank you. -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. Think out loud — WP:PORN BIO? 03:36, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

--- "we can see that the site you added falls into the category of Links to avoid for two reasons: In contrast, Cytherea's own website is valid because of the policy:
 * Links that are added to promote a site (External link spamming)
 * Sites that require payment to view the relevant content.
 * Articles about any organization, person, or other entity should link to their official site, if they have one."

Joe,

If you read that, you see that her site although yes related to "the person", it clearly is a pay site to view any of it's relevent content and therefore easily violates the "*Sites that require payment to view the relevant content." issue. If she had a site that was her site that was all about her but did not require a pay fee then, perfect, it fits the TOS. But unfortunately her main site designated as by her as her site is actually a pay site and violates the TOS. Therefore if other links to pay sites cannot be added then hers should not be added either. Again, if her site was strictly informative with text about her like any website with relative content that anyone in the world could read.........no problem. But the links must pass "ALL" TOS to be valid, not just selectively SOME of the TOS. Her site clearly violates as it is a pay site and must be removed, that is cut and dry. Otherwise it is a clear method to put money in her pocket and nothing else as no information on that site is available without paying a fee. I get the impression someone is protecting this link as it benefits them as well. Please remove the link immediately or allow others to be added. Nat Nat 07:37, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

From User talk:Joe Beaudoin Jr....
I posted this in reply to your repost of comments on my talk page, so I thought that, in the interests of maintaining a flow, I'll repost my reply here:'

In this case, the official site can stay, because it is an official site. Yes, to see "pertinent content" (i.e. the videos and photos), you do need to be a member, but it is an official site for Cytherea and therefore it can stay linked. On the other hand, fan sites are rarely linked to, unless they have some sort of encyclopedic relevance (such as if they had an exclusive interview with Cytherea, or some other contact with her). -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. Think out loud — WP:PORN BIO? 15:36, 11 June 2006 (UTC)