User talk:Tabercil/archive2

This is an archive of past discussions with User:Tabercil. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

You mentioned two birthdates of Kinzie Kenner (july 22 and in infobox, june 22). Place the appropriate birhtdate. Thank you NAHID 19:16, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

*Edits with summary "rv vandalism by Aaron Brenneman": [1][2][3][4][5][6]

Goodness gracious. First I'd refer you to WP:VANDAL to have you look up the definition of "vandalism" then I'd direct you to WP:EL and ask what "unique resources" these links provide. Finally, I'd mention WP:CIV and suggest that a quick note on my talk page would have been a a more appropiate response. - brenneman ^{L} 01:18, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Tabercil, please kindly refrain from removing pictures from the Monique Covét article. They are perfectly valid fair-use images which serve as relevant and necessary illustrations of text.

I can see your point about removing the filmography as unnecessary, but the pictures should stay. Anybody searching for the information contained in this article already has an idea as to the adult nature of the subject matter.

You might not know this but many other wikipedia articles on sex- and pornography-related topics feature illustrations containing nudity. Therefore, such pictures are not improper for an article on Monique Covét.

Sorry... that don't wash. Take a look at the WikiProject Porn Stars' Structure section. It clearly says "images should not be explicit in nature", and gives a valid reason why: to avoid problems vis-a-vis 18 U.S.C. 2257. If we can illustrate the issue with a non-nude image, we should. Unless and until it can be shown beyond a doubt that we can't do so, the image within the info box goes. As for the use of nudity elsewhere, they'll have to be judged by the same criteria above, and I suspect a lot of those other images will go as well.

As for the DVD box cover, look further down at the Fair use segment. DVD box covers are only acceptable "if giving critical commentary to the movie itself, and not the performer" (emphasis mine), so that goes as well. Tabercil 20:37, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm relatively new at this so I want to make sure that what I am doing is correct, I've made some changes to some of the Pornstar articles. Most recently I did some clean up on the April Flowers article could you please take a look at it and critique it. Thanks in advance for you time. Dx316dd 23:50, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

• First up, welcome to Wikipedia! Hope you have fun! Now as to the edits you've been doing, I've noticed a fair number of them already. So far it looks good. Specifically commenting about the April Flowers article, I don't really see anything which I'd've done differently - maybe left something in there stating that to date she has not signed with any company but only if you can track that back to a statement by her expressing her preference for freelance work... but that's nitpicking :) Tabercil 00:54, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

This file may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:Pjsparxx.jpg. I notice the 'image' page currently specifies that the image can be used under a fair use license. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Abu Badali 00:35, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Hey, you uploaded the image yourself, and now you are removing it? I put it back in because I thought the page had been vandalised by Abu Dhabi and an anonymous user (see Lara/Laura). "Covers (such as magazine and video box covers) can only be used if giving critical commentary to the movie itself, and not the performer" it says in the link you gave me, but have you read the cover? The DVD is not just a film, it includes her biography, a photo gallery and what not. As an alternative, one line of critical commentary on the movie in her bio would be enough, wouldnt it? I'm not going to revert this again because I don't want to cause or get into any trouble but I dont understand this- any of it. Wikikiwi 19:52, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Yup. As the saying goes, "I brought you into this world and I can take out of it". Because back when when I uploaded the image in the first place, I was going by a statement made elsewhere on Wikipedia that such a use of the DVD cover was fair use. That erroneous assertion later on got firmly shot down, and I've been slowly pulling out those covers as I come across them again. Tabercil 20:00, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

THAT picture on the Misty Rain wikipedia site - isn't Misty Rain - it's Draghixia. Misty Rain has natrual breasts and were B cups - not like the ones that this frizzy haired model on the bike is sporting. Misty Rain is my favorite adult film actress - i've "studied" her for over a decade - THAT AIN'T HER! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.171.234.174 (talk • contribs) 16:56, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

• Easily fixed, especially since DVD covers were clarified as not being fair use to illustrate the actress. :) Tabercil 21:49, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

hello, i have been helping wikipedia users about adult models, but whenever i type a link you remove them immediately, i dont understand why you do this... i want to add some biographies about models but again you dont let me to do this...

i wanna be a moderator or whatever you call, because i am in the adult business and have a lot of information about adult stars...

you are saying they are paysite but people looking for content about their favorite models, so you should let them to see their models fanclubs...

what can i do for this?

do you offer any concessionairies who donate wikipedia?

dimitri —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.76.183.129 (talk • contribs) 22:55, 6 September 2006

• I try to look at the external links in light of the official policy laid down at WP:EL, and specifically those that seem to fall under the Links normally to be avoided section. The links you keep adding in my opinion violate clause 4: "Links that are added to promote a site...", but also clause 1 ("Any site that does not provide a unique resource...") and possibly clause 3 ("A website that you own or maintain..."). If you have information about the various stars, my advice would be to add the information directly into the article about the star in question.

Now to clear up a couple of other points in your reply Dimitri. First, I am *not* affiliated in any fashion with Wikipedia, being a mere busy volunteer editor. All I do is add the odd tidbit to some articles that catch my fancy and watch/edit a number of additional articles for problems. And as for you statement about "any concessionairies who donate wikipedia?", I don't know about that, but I doubt it. You'd be best advised to use try one of the link found at the Contact Us page. Tabercil 03:38, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your tremendous effort on that. Now I know what questions to ask if I across a good photo and the webmaster/photographer might be cool about it. TransUtopian 04:17, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Hi Tabercil, I am uploading some bio images for the classic stars but running into some issues. The images are copyrighted by VCX and should not be used commercially, but we want them to be able to be used here on Wikipedia. The images (as you have seen) are edited to reflect this. When I upload them and select the 'Owner gave me permission to use on Wikipedia' I get a speedy deletion notice and I read that it's pretty much not allowed anymore. What copyright mode should I use -- Should I use the screenshot mode?

Also, what amount of nudity is allowed in the images I upload? Is frontal nudity ok? My images for Georgina Spelvin, Brooke West and Desireé Cousteau were deleted either due to the Copyright issue or due to nudity, not sure which. I want to contribute to Wikipedia but not sure how to handle these images & the guy deleting my images isn't leaving me any useful info. —Preceding unsigned comment added by VCXHomeOfTheClassics (talk • contribs) 14:38, 2 October 2006

Glad to be be help here. Let's tackle the questions in reverse order: nudity is kinda discouraged for the adult star bios. From the Wikipedia:WikiProject Porn stars guidelines: "images should not be explicit in nature...(t)he point of a picture is to put a face to a name", and they mention why they're choosing this route: "to avoid any legal entanglements due to the 18 U.S.C. 2257". So if the images you're uploading are full frontals, that's one reason why they're being killed. You might want to thing about cropping the photo to get around the nudity.

As for copyright, that's stickier. Wikipedia has a natural preference for pictures that are Public Domain (or equivalent), so if there's any way you as the copyright holder can put a picture into one of those categories, that would be ideal. For instance, take a look at the Creative Commons and Creative Commons License articles. Note that while there are four subtags to the CC licenses, two of them (Noncommercial and No derivitive works) are not usable on Wikipedia, due to this message from Wikipedia head honcho Jimbo Wales.

If you feel you cannot put the photo up as Creaive Commons, then I would suggest using the {{Promophoto}} tag, which lets you retain copyright but still lets it be used on Wikipedia. When you go to upload the photo, leave the box regarding License as "None selected", but put {{Promophoto}} in the summary box, brackets and all.

Hopefully, this'll help you get your contributions to stay here. If you have further problems, don't hesitate to drop me an e-mail. Tabercil 19:37, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Just wanted to thank you for the clarifications! --VCX Ltd Inc 20:58, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading Image:Tory Lane DSC 0089.JPG. I notice the 'image' page currently specifies that the image is unlicensed for use on Wikipedia and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful.

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Gay Cdn (talk) (email) (Contr.) 15:38, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

When placing a tag on someone's talk page (like {{npa}} or {{test}} for example) if you use "subst:" is turns the template into code. Ironiclly, there is a template message that explains this: {{Subst}}
Cheers,<br./>brenneman ^{L} 02:15, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your efforts to combat the link spam that has continued to dog the porn star and Playmate articles for months, if not years. I wish that there were a bot or something that could make this effortless for users to free up our time for more constructive tasks. Dismas|^(talk) 12:24, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

• Heh. Don't worry... I'm about to escalate things a bit. I've been spending the past week documenting this idiot's work, going through the list of IP address from which he comes from, noting which articles he spammed and when he spammed it. Now I have a nice Excel spreadsheet of the stuff going back to early September which you can see part of in the User:Tabercil\Porn Linkspam section. Now what I'll do is complete it by adding the actual spammed URLS and drop the whole shebang off at the m:Talk:Spam blacklist page to see if I can't get those URLs blocked. With luck I'll ruin this idiot's weekend.  :) Tabercil 13:56, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

I see you speedy deleted this article as being a copyvio to another page. From what I remember (since I'm not an admin and as a result I can't take a look at the article as it stood before deletion) the Azlea article had seen a large number of edits... Are you sure the Wiki page is a copy of the gallery-porn-star page and not the other way around?? Tabercil 00:47, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Hmm... a fair point. I'll have a look at some of the previous revisions when I get a chance later, you may have a point... _└ ^UkPaolo/_talk^┐ 07:40, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

DVD covers are used throughout Wikipedia as illustrations for the person who is the subject of the article, as there is usually no other available source, which is what fair use is about.—Chidom ^talk  22:30, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

• From Wikipedia:Fair use#Counterexamples:

An image of a magazine cover, used only to illustrate the article on the person whose photograph is on the cover.

Seems clear enough to me. And there is no effective difference between a magazine cover and a DVD cover from a fair use perspective. Tabercil 22:33, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

From Wikipedia:Fair use#Policy:

1. No free equivalent is available.

2. Material does not replace original market role.

3. Amount of work is as little as possible.

4. Material has been previously published.

5. Material is encyclopedic.

6. Meets media-specific policy requirements.

7. Must be used in one article.

8. Must contribute... (i.e., identify the subject of an article...)

9. Only used in article namespace.

10. Image description page contains required content.

DVD covers are treated much like magazine covers, in that they serve to illustrate the article on the person whose photograph is on the cover of the DVD.

The remainder of the example you cited is "However, if that magazine issue itself is notable enough to be a topic within the article, then fair use may apply." The DVD in question is mentioned in the article as a film for which she is best known. This was argued ad infinitum some while back, I'll try and find the discussion.—Chidom ^talk  22:42, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Please. I'd love to see the discussion... try and get sense of what the larger consensus is since some of my "fair use" contributions have been pulled out. Tabercil 02:08, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Bet you thought I forgot about this, huh? Nope. From Template talk:Albumcover.

"User:JYolkowski: If you want to use album covers in the artist's or single's page, write a paragraph about the album, and use the cover to illustrate that paragraph. There's probably no valid fair use rationale we could make to use the images for decorative purposes."

This seems reasonable and would, I think, meet the fair use policy requirements. A more appopriate image for the article (or perhaps an additional image) might be that of the cover of the DVD "Pretty Peaches" since that is the film for which she won the ADFA award. It's a horrible-looking illustration of her rather than a photograph, but since ostensibly the main purpose of the image is to illustrate the DVD, I don't know of a work-around. I've uploaded the Pretty Peaches image and added it to the article, feel free to remove it. Image:Desireé Cousteau on Pretty Peaches DVD cover.jpg. If you think it's too icky to use, or do wind up removing it from the article, just let me know and I'll put a speedy delete tag on it as the uploader.

I've expanded the information about both DVDs given the limited information in the plot summaries I found (and referenced); I think this bolsters the case to be made for fair use. (You may or may not have figured out that straight porn isn't my area of expertise, but I do know how to go hunting!)

I also added a videography. It's nine films rather than six; she worked for 10 years and released films in only 9 of them. The two that are mentioned in the article are repeated in the videography solely to list the distributor and, in the case of Inside..., the director.

Additionally, I think DVD covers really are different than magazine covers. Think of the variety of topics and subjects in a magazine vs. the limited subjects of a DVD, recording, etc. With a much narrower focus, DVDs and other recordings aren't as related to magazines as I also assumed. (I was using the magazine cover rationale as well, and then really thought about it; I think there's a difference between recordings and publications in the way subject matter meets fair use, but it's just an opinion.) You may want to kick this information around on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Porn stars, it seems the use of DVD covers hasn't been decided there, either. Thanks.—Chidom ^talk  21:50, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

• • Thanks. If you don't mind I'll just cut & paste your comments to the Talk page at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Porn stars. Tabercil 23:43, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

You have violated the three-revert rule, desist now. Mactabbed 19:34, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

• Wrong. Read the comment I left in the Talk section of the Courtney Cummz article before you accuse me of violating WP:3RR... I have a valid reason for reducing the filmography! Tabercil 21:21, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Hey Tabercil! Could you keep an eye out for an acceptable image of Penny Flame? The current infobox pic, Image:Penny Flame cropped.jpg, is being questioned for fair use rationale. Olessi 03:53, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

• Heh. Done - found one on Luke's site. Tabercil 05:17, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick find and replacement! Olessi 19:03, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading Image:Valerie landsburg 10f.jpg. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:

1. Go to the image description page and edit it to add {{Replaceable fair use disputed}}
2. On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that any fair use images which are replaceable by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. -- Rossrs 14:31, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Hey, I thought as you are one of the best editors on Wikipedia for the adult stars section I would draw your attention to the Raven Riley article. It seems to have unofficial links listed as the official site, as well as a user (the same who appears to have added the unofficial links) who reverts references without explanation, despite them originally being listed as needing citation. I didn't want to break the three revert rule in order to try and correct the article, so I thought I would ask for advice. Steve355 21:12, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

• I've seen the damn mess over the links and I've been trying not to involve myself in the kerfluffle. But I think it's time someone tried to bring some sense into things. Tabercil 21:22, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Thankyou, the input was much appreciated, however from looking at the history of the page I doubt this will be the last time this issue will come up. In reference to your battle against linkspam - it seems very much like something that will be hard to detect and prevent due to the fact that each spam is obviously for Search Engine Optimisation purposes and will come from different IPs most of the time (probably proxies) which means that as long as whoever is doing it has the incentive to, they will keep editing as they create new pages. I think the only possible thing to do is look at the page structure as you suggested, which is practically indentical for each different page (along with a link to others from the same network at the bottom for more indentification). I wish you the best of luck in trying to deal with that problem and I will endeavour to help out if I see it happen while I am expanding articles.Steve355 21:55, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

• If you see one of those spammed links, let me know via email. I've been keeping a list of the various pages affected for reference, and while I do aggressively look for new additions by scanning through the changes from the known URLs this guy uses, I'm always worried I'll miss one. Tabercil 22:38, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Ironic that only hours after we discussed this I was writing you new email regarding linkspam :). I also made some changes to the Raven Riley page that was in dispute as it seemed there were some minor errors and other issues (notes that went nowhere due to the dispute, Italian heritage was interlinked to Mexican, presumably vandalism was the cause, added citation on the revenue estimate information due to information like that being removed frequently if not cited and added lesbian to the scenes that she performs online). Hopefully that should have cleaned it up a bit more, the only thing I could ask for is more information on the "awards" she has recieved, as I do not think she has won anything major so far (Xbiz, AVN etc). Steve355 12:53, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading Image:Sarah vaillancourt cbc.jpg. I notice the 'image' page currently specifies that the image is unlicensed for use on Wikipedia and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Chowbok ☠ 19:56, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading Image:Shanna Moakler IMDB.jpg. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:

1. Go to the image description page and edit it to add {{Replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.
2. On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace the fair use image by finding a freely licensed image of its subject or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that any fair use images which are replaceable by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. --Chowbok ☠ 15:44, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Just please leave the page alone, do you have nothing better to do than revert edits less than an hour after they were made? How many pages are you constantly patrolling? Mactabbed 22:17, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

• My watchlist? Over 1300 pages and growing... the bulk of which are in the porn stars section. Tabercil 22:19, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

In your attempt to follow the rules of wikipedia, I think you have lost sight of the goal of wikipedia, to be constantly expanding and improving in quality. Now my efforts of replacing low quality, unattractive images with better, more flattering images and to improve wikipedia are being hindered by your groundless reverts. Just for a minute, stop thinking about the technicalities and the rules, and concern yourself with the quality and welfare of wikipedia. No harm is done by me uploading images, so stop worrying about whether or not they are "free use" or "fair ues", and let wikipedia grow. Mactabbed 01:23, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

• Sorry... but Wikipedia has lately been cracking down on "fair use" pictures, and this is largely dictated by the head dude himself, Jimbo Wales. See his comment on Wikipedia talk:Publicity photos#This page is dangerous, which makes his preference most clear on the matter: "But an ordinary photo of a random celebrity? We are much better off to have no photo than to have a fair use or even "wikipedia only" photo" (emphasis mine}. Believe me, if you can convincingly argue otherwise there that fair use pics such as your deserve to be there, you have my complete support on the matter as a number of images which I had uploaded for actresses got killed. Until then Tabercil 01:31, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Then why would you revert my contributions if you do not truly believe in the rule. A rule is only as strong as it can be enforced. You have the choice to enforce it or not. Don't worry about whether or not the images are fair use or free use, and just go with the better image (the ones I have hand picked.) No one is harmed with my efforts to expand wikipedia's level of quality. The rule favoring free use images likely originated because of copyright disputes over images that were once uploaded to wikipedia. There will be no copyright disputes over screenshots from cheap, forgotten porn films. Mactabbed 01:36, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

My personal belief is that "fair use" pics should be allowed to remain, but only if there are no suitable free use ones immediately available, and if a free use pic becomes available, then the fair use pic goes. In the case of these two actresses, there are free use images available so by my thinking your pics go (irregardless of what Jimbo believes).

Now the current thinking from on-high is that how I view the fair use policy is not the Wikipedia policy should be. Trust me, I am following the arguments on the Wikipedia talk:Publicity photos page in (faint) hope that people can be convinced that fair use pics deserve to stay. After all, IMDB has tons of photos there clearly tagged as "publicity" which I would love to use - for instance, I'd like to use this image on the Valerie Landsburgh page, especially since the text accompanying it clearly states that it is intended to be a publicity photo.

In the interim, I am currently editing with an eye towards bringing all the material on the porn star articles into compliance with the fair use provisions eventually, by finding sources for fair use images (see the Photographs section of WP:P* for what we've found so far; two of those sources listed are ones which I've done the legwork in getting blanket consent from). I know there are people and bots who are currently going through the images to see how they are all tagged and are tagging for deletion images that are not fair use - for example, the two warnings on my talk page immediately above your Alexis Malone statement were about images that were tagged as "replaceable fair use disputed" - meaning "No free equivalent is available or could be created that would adequately give the same information". So your "screenshots from cheap, forgotten porn films" will eventually be tagged and killed.

Lastly, your civil disobedience idea is not a good idea... I should warn that repeated violations of Wikipedia policy inevitably ends up getting that person banned, since blatantly going against policy usually gets viewed by others as being vandalism. Don't think they ban? Take a look at the Wikipedia:Vandalism page and subpages. Tabercil 02:13, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

That's true but I argue that they are not replacement and do not give the same information. The pictures I upload are much better. This puts them on a separate level than the free use alternatives, and thus their fair use is justified. Mactabbed 04:40, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Please stop reverting my edits and please stop Wikipedia:wikilawyering and impeding the expansion and improvement of wikipedia.Mactabbed 03:56, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

This is harassment and you're really starting to annoy me, just leave the edits as they and stop trying to rever them to statisfy your ego. You longer care about improving wikipedia, you only care about Wikipedia:wikilawyering to enforce meaningless rules and regulations. Mactabbed 23:24, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Why did you remove the link to http://www.boobpedia.com/boobs/Laura_Lion on the Laura Lion page? The article is a stub, and the Boobpedia article has lots more info plus a photo. On what basis do you consider it linkspam? --24.84.12.73 05:38, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Well I only took a fast look at the Boobpedia article and saw that it looked similar enough to the Wiki article to think "they're the same", so that's why the linkspam tag. But lets take a closer look...

The Boobpedia article pretty much started out as the Wikipedia article - see the earliest revisions of their article. The massive filmography on the Boobpedia article is largely redundant given the presense of IMDB, IAFD and AFDB in the linkbox and I'm willing to bet it will duplicate their combined lists. The additional fields in the Boobpedia article (body type, anal, lesbian, etc.) are not found on the Wikipedia equivalent and are non-encyclopedic. So all we're left with is the pic and that second paragraph. For what there is, I'm thinking "meh". If you want to add the link back in I personally don't see any immediate objection - but better I think would be to lift what's left from the Boobpedia entry and fold it into the Wikipedia entry. :) Tabercil 05:51, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick response. You probably see lots of spam so I don't blame you for having a quick revert finger - I just thought that the Boobpedia Laura Lion article contained a lot more info compared to the one on Wikipedia, which is in pretty bad shape. A lot of porn star articles here have filmography, in addition to IAFD or AFDB links, and I think having it in one place is never a bad thing. The Boobpedia article also has more stage names and info on her German movie and breast surgery, so I think it has value. --24.84.12.73 06:19, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Could you please find a free use alternative because I'd like to see an image up for Mena Suvari (there wasn't one previously) but can't find a free use or at least fair use. I just want an attractive image put up. Mactabbed 00:03, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

• Image:Vicky sunohara.jpg

—Chowbok ☠ 01:42, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading Image:ElkeJeinsenIMDB.jpg. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:

1. Go to the image description page and edit it to add {{Replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.
2. On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace the fair use image by finding a freely licensed image of its subject or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that any fair use images which are replaceable by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. --Abu Badali 06:57, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading Image:Jillian Grace IMDB.jpg. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:

1. Go to the image description page and edit it to add {{Replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.
2. On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace the fair use image by finding a freely licensed image of its subject or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that any fair use images which are replaceable by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. --Abu Badali 06:57, 23 November 2006 (UTC)