User talk:AnonEMouse/Archive 17

Archive 10

←

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

Archive 18

Wise advice

I just saw your edit note. Well spoken. I'm not offended in the least. Grateful, actually. Durova^Charge! 03:05, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I hoped you would see it that way, but unasked for advice does run the risk of being more offensive than helpful, I'm glad I got lucky. :-) You know, a bit over a week ago, I thought I'd be supporting you for arbcom; I looked around your user space and was very impressed with the idea of giving awards to reformed vandals, I thought that was exactly the kind of attitude we didn't have enough of. We have plenty of "indefinite block and throw away the key" hard liner admins, plenty of "let's give then yet another and another and another chance" softy admins (I'm one of those, I think :-) ), but the "tough but appreciative" combination was very rare. Ah well. Stick around. As I think I wrote already, if you just keep doing the good things you do regularly, not only I, but most of your current critics will probably support you for a return RFA in three or four months. If you want the buttons back, of course, it's not a low-stress job at any time. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 03:23, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Disruptive "editor"

Hey, AnonEMouse. We have talked before, about Susan Lucci. I'm not visiting you this time about that, however. There's a very disruptive "editor" named Bosharivale who keeps injecting all kinds of POV into the Rape article, and I was wondering if you would help all the other editors (including me) having trouble with this user out on this matter. I usually come to administrators I am familiar with or somewhat familiar with, and that is why I have specifically come to you about this. His edits are against consensus, as witnessed on the talk page of that article, and he refuses to stop making big changes that are not supported by most or any other editors, and marks all of his edits as minor...when they are not minor. His edits are mostly inaccurate, redefining the definition of rape. The user has also been warned on his talk page about this. Any help you can provide on this matter will be greatly appreciated. I still have your talk page on my watchlist, so if you respond here rather than on my talk page, I'll know. Flyer22 06:16, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Ah, nevermind. I see that he is a sockpuppet and has been blocked indefinitely. Anyway, see you around, AnonEMouse. Flyer22 06:20, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Barnstar

Hi Thank you for the barnstar. It was very kind of you to give it to me. It is the kind acts like this that make me proud to be a Wikipedian. Take care, FloNight♥♥♥ 18:56, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Off-wiki discussion

...regarding a certain WikiProject that you should probably be aware of, if you aren't already. Spotted the mention of this at Talk:Kylie Ireland. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 00:35, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Also, you have mail. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 00:36, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Oh my. Thanks very much for pointing that out; no, I wasn't aware of it. I think I've "met" morbidthoughts (he had some nice Flickr photos that I asked if we could use, and got turned down because we couldn't accept the "no modifications" clause), and he mentioned he was a Wikipedia editor. I guess I should log in there and say something, especially as some noted figures seem to be participating. Unfortunately I'll have to be very careful what I write, not to offend people, and will probably still be roasted over an open fire for my troubles. Let me take a deep breath and look into other things first, as this won't be easy. (And you sent me two emails to look into... thanks... I think...)--AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 15:33, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

The e-mail from Naked News was just FYI - I'll work that one. The babes.net is more involved than I have time for right now, I'm afraid, though I can spend some time on it in a couple of weeks. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 15:48, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Whew. I made an account, wrote a reply, User:AnonEMouse/AdultDVDTalk, and linked to it in the thread. I hope this helps more than it hurts. For revenge ;-) I dropped your user name in that doc as well. May you be swamped with freely released images! --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 22:11, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Your reply was great...hopefully they take the time to read it. I'm happy to help with images as they come in - as a matter of fact, I just got a huge zip file with photos of all the female anchors on Naked News licensed as GFDL - will upload ASAP. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 23:34, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Moneybomb et al.

Thank you so much for intervening so considerately at Talk:Moneybomb! While it seems like you, Orangemike, and I achieved consensus rapidly on the two questions you raised, discussion with Elonka and third opinion HelloAnnyong is still ongoing. I appear also to have walked into a veritable mousemaze with most doors closed, except yours. I would so greatly appreciate it if you could devote some more time either to ombudsmousing me through my first major eruption of tempers, or to introducing me to some admin who can. I certainly understand if you would like to stick to one page at a time-- I would so much like to also, but I'm not in position to!

At Talk:Moneybomb, my biggest issue is that Elonka has provided no rationale for my sources being unreliable, while I have repeatedly provided point-by-point rationales for their reliability (or usability as questionable or self-published for the facts cited); while she is the one threatening that my source-based research "is just going to get deleted again" (a clear sign of edit warring), I am the one who is having to play the most defense. Of course I stopped trying to insert my edits, but my tactical choice of retaining the Elonka-favoring present text did not have its intended effect of demonstrating my neutrality and encouraging others to consult the vindicating edit history.

At WP:COIN#Moneybomb, my biggest issue is that I am now running the gauntlet of knee-jerk reaction that "a Ron Paul supporter can't edit Ron Paul articles". I have been editing these articles nearly three months with general respect from the other interested editors, and have been careful to balance material (e.g., criticisms of Paul, straw poll victories by Romney and Thompson, and non-Paul moneybombs). If I joined any other "club" and neutrally edited articles about the club due to my much vaster experience with it as a member, there would be no automatic conflict; this is simply not a "close personal or business connection" contemplated by WP:COI. But one which is claimed, perhaps vindictively, arising from difference of opinion over reliable sources, might furnish much invalid prima facie evidence and waste much time.

At WT:V#Proposed amendment to prevent overdeletion, my biggest issue is that my good-faith attempt to demonstrate and address a gap in policy (which permitted the above edit war of course) is being run roughshod on casuistry and pedantry and its merits are being ignored (due to my openly disclosing the above edit war).

There are other issues (e.g., Elonka followed me to Ron Paul and made some edits to article and talk against prior consensus) and I am really in need of a supermouse. Please let me know what guidance you can give! John J. Bulten 01:03, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Importance controversy

I figured something like this would come up eventually... Since it is probably the most respected and famous of a 17-year series of mainstream theatrical pornographic releases, I gave Wife to be Sacrificed a top rating of importance on the rating scale. Anyone at all familiar with Japanese exploitation cinema will know the title and the star, and relate the two... Anyway, someone has taken exception with no reason except "No reason for it to be top." Who is right? And, really, does it matter? Dekkappai 00:37, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, the Wikipedia:WikiProject_Pornography/Assessment#Importance_scale says Top should be "subjects famous within pornography and indisputably notable even outside pornography. In other words, they have many in depth articles, documentaries, films, or books from both mainstream and porn sources devoted to them." Examples include Linda Lovelace, Ron Jeremy, Hugh Hefner, Playboy, names that even many people not familiar with pornography specifically will know. For US films, that would probably be Deep Throat, maybe Debbie Does Dallas, and possibly that's it. For Japan, you'll have to be the judge. I know that if an American late night comedian can name either of those two movie titles in the punchline of a joke and not have any worry about most of his audience recognizing them. Would that be true about Wife to be Sacrificed? If only people familiar with Japanese exploitation cinema would know the title (but all of those would), then High would be about right. If you don't know what the Japanese man-on-the-street knows about the movie, you can look at the in depth sources on the film. I see it has several indepth articles devoted to it in Asian Cult Cinema, but that's really in genre. Are there any indepth mainstream books or articles about it? There are loads on Playboy, for example, and our article on Deep Throat has articles in the New York Times and the Guardian, not even counting Lovelace's autobiographies; Debbie Does Dallas doesn't have those, but does have a documentary and a Broadway show... Does it matter one way or the other? Well, no. Not really. :-) These are internal-only markings, they're meant to be there because some editors like to be able to find a list of "important" subjects that could use a bit more editor effort, and because the "important" subjects probably have more sources to be expanded. But they're not part of our product, the articles themselves. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 16:37, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, note that, by pure coincidence, every "Top" subject you list is American. Note also, that in many English-language sources, Japan is called the largest porn market in the world. The Roman Porno series is something without anything even close to equivalent in the U.S. How many American porn series have won Academy Awards? Yes, Nikkatsu Roman Porno and Ikenie Fujin are common knowledge in Japan. Hideo Nakata made a mainstream documentary on the director which I haven't seen yet-- give me a couple weeks-- but I'd be very, very surprised if Wife to be Sacrificed is not a major focal point of that documentary. As far as sourcing, as is the policy here, I try to avoid the Japanese-language whenever possible. But if you want evidence of coverage in mainstream Japanese media on the film, it's certainly there for this one, and, no doubt, for many other films in the series... So, does it really come down to what is known in the English-speaking world? U.S. specifically? And even if so, yes, even some English books on general Japanese cinema do mention the genre and the film. (But there I am limiting again, with "Japanese cinema"... I suppose the film needs to be covered in an English-language book on cinema in general, 99.9% of which cover nothing but-- surprise!-- U.S. films.) But, like you say, it really doesn't matter. As long as the Gods of Deletionism allowed us to cover the subject I'm more interested in writing the articles than in the bureaucracy... Dekkappai 17:10, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

That's why I say I'm leaving it up to you as the subject expert - I do the best I can, I'm not the fount of all knowledge on everything. In general, when a genre expert comes to me and says "X is more notable than you think", I generally say "OK". Besides you on Japan, there have been a couple of people who didn't think I knew enough about French stars, and of course they were right, I don't. There was also a happy few months when we had a gay porn expert contributing that I could ask similar questions of - "do you know who Y is?" and he could say - "yes, he won the following 3 prizes" or "no, wouldn't know him from Adam ... or Steve ..." It doesn't have to be an English language book; that is preferable for easier verifiability, but it's not required, if there is only a Japanese language book, that would do.--AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 17:42, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

OK-- I'm pretty sure I could dig through some Japanese sources to prove the film is a "Top" rather than a "High", but I'm also pretty sure that would be research and editing time wasted splitting hairs. As long as the article can stand, and be improved, "High" is just fine with me. I'd like to point out, though, that I'm not saying these subjects are notable only within the area of Japanese porn, but in the general popular culture, in a way that even the American subjects you mention do not compare. I'd like to start articles on the Korean erotic cinema, with which I also have some familiarity, but, unlike Japan, proof of notability in the society at large, and sourcing (that I am able to locate, anyway) is just not there. Like Japan they do have a healthy erotic streak in their culture. But with the stronger Confucian and Christian influence, except for a few notable mainstream, very soft exceptions like Ppong, the erotic cinema is kept pretty hush-hush, especially to outsiders. Dekkappai 18:32, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

By the way-- Take a look at what's on the front-page today. Branded to Kill-- Just a stone's throw from my main editing area! Dekkappai 18:56, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I was wondering if I should point that out to you if you hadn't seen it yourself. That is very relevant. You can use it as a model, but also take a look at the Peer Review and Featured Article Discussion for that article, (linked to from the article talk page, a drop down list at the top) and see if you can apply it to your candidates before your reviewers do. :-) --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 19:04, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Will do. I blue-linked at least one name at that article. Several people who worked on that film went on from Suzuki's stable of co-workers to work in my genre. And there are other names on the article in dire need of blue-linking, such as the wild & wacky Atsushi Yamatoya, who went on to write & direct the immortal classic Inflatable Sex Doll of the Wastelands (1967)... Can't wait to get that article started! Dekkappai 19:21, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Louise Glover

Mouse, I know I've been throwing some thorny stuff your way the past couple of days, but please check your mail regarding the above, thanks. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 16:10, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Well-stated argument

Thanks. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 05:45, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Socratic Barnstar
		To AnonEMouse for taking the time to clarify the purpose and guidelines of Wikipedia on adultdvdtalk. Your arguments are much more elegant/eloquent than mine. Vinh1313 (talk) 18:59, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Another one

		The Biography Barnstar
		For the excellent work in bringing balance and neutrality to the Louise Glover biography. Videmus Omnia Talk 20:30, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Gee, thanks, guys, you're both really too kind! --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 20:45, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Moneybomb

I undeleted it. --Coredesat 22:02, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

No problem and thanks for the barnstar. Also, thanks for not being offended by the quick manual archive, I try to keep my user talk page manageable. :) --Coredesat 22:13, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Barnstar

Thank you again for being considerate. I hope this doesn't come across the wrong way, but as a veteran I'm having second thoughts. My grandfather earned a purple heart - a real one - and I don't want to cheapen the honor that attaches to the actual medal. Sticks and stones may break my bones, you know? Could we change this to a resilient barnstar? Your thoughtfulness has me very obliged. Durova^Charge! 22:56, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

We can if you like, but it's not a purple heart, you know, it's a purple barnstar. It's for virtual damage. The only thing being shot up is your reputation - though, since you have been a public speaker about the WP, that's a painful target, and The Guardian is fairly large caliber weaponry. But it's your award, I'll change it to what you like. (PS: I've never attended your presentations, but from reading them, you said good things. I would absolutely hate to lose you. Illegitimi non carborundum.) --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 23:53, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm trying very hard these days to avoid giving inadvertent offense. Earned a few small medals of my own while I was in the Navy; I know what a big deal the important ones are. Hm, maybe I'll write up the ones I have. It's something I thought of doing a long time ago. Cheers, Durova^Charge! 00:00, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Not that it matters

Medals are all right for impressing civilians and recruits (I've got 7 rows of them myself, most of them simply for going where I was told to go, and doing what I was told to do, like a good little boy), but really they're just bits of metal and cloth, and it's never wise to take them too seriously. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 00:32, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

OK, I'm impressed, I'm impressed. Both of you. :-) But frankly, you both had already impressed me, what with the speeches and detective work and crowns from one, and the amazing image proliferation and article subject contacts from the other. What do you want, a medal... er, let me rephrase that... :-) Stop before Tony the Marine feels he needs to show up and list his real life badges as well! :-) --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 00:46, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Gah - you didn't get the point - don't be impressed by medals! 99% of military medals that people earn are just "gimmes" - campaign medals, unit awards, completing a tour of duty without getting in trouble, B.S. like that. For example, I got an Aerial Achievement Medal for every 20 recon missions I flew, even when the missions were as routine as could be. I got a Combat Readiness Medal for every two years I collected flight pay. Medals mostly just indicate how good your supervisor is at writing up a citation. I've known chiefs and generals with chestfuls of fruit salad, up to and including the Bronze Star and Legion of Merit, who were absolutely freaking worthless and couldn't lead sailors into a whorehouse. I've also known people who accomplished amazing, courageous things who got jack because nobody important happened to be looking. Medal of Honor? Impressive. Same goes for the Silver Star and the Distinguished Service Cross. But even Purple Hearts and Bronze Stars are sometimes gimmes now - those medals has been frequently degraded at least since Vietnam (given out for scratches, sometimes), so don't be impressed unless you see the citation. Sorry, didn't mean to rant, but GIs bragging about their medals sometimes makes me want to bring out the smackdown. Durova, this isn't directed at you, but at the creeping careerism in American military culture. :) Videmus Omnia ^Talk 01:02, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

(ec) You're quite right, Videmus omnia. My ribbons and medals aren't special. They give me respect for the real awards. World War I, France: a shell landed in my grandfather's trench. Ripped his right leg, lodged some fragments in his back. Everyone else was hit even worse. Nobody came to help them and nobody else could stand up. So my grandfather started making his way toward the nearest field hospital. On the way there an ambulance met him and he directed them to his trench, telling them he'd keep walking. They went, but by then it was too late for the rest of his unit: all dead or dying On the trip back the ambulance driver offered him a ride, and when he declined a second time they ordered him into the ambulance. Just as he stepped into it a second shell landed, killing everyone else in the ambulance. By some miracle my grandfather wasn't touched. So he walked the rest of the two miles to the field hospital. When a doctor finally saw him the doc asked how he had gotten there and thought it was a lie when my grandfather told the truth. Not because so many other people had died around him that day, but because he shouldn't have been able to take ten steps on that leg. Durova^Charge! 01:10, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Impressive...my grandfather was 101st Airborne in the Big War, parachuted into Normandy, did Market Garden, was in Bastogne during the Bulge, and was in one of the first groups into the Eagle's Nest. But the only medal he came out of that war with was the WWII Victory Medal and the ruptured duck. (Luckily he wasn't wounded.) My Dad got his Heart at the Battle of Hue after taking four rounds from a LMG, but he never bragged about it. You're right, it's the deeds that count. But calling attention to your medals is gauche. (Sorry, Mouse, for chatting on your talk page.) Videmus Omnia ^Talk 01:17, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

That's why I just linked to the image files, but you're right. Blanking. Durova^Charge!

Thanks, Durova. I just realized that I am an irredeemable crusty old sergeant. And I used to swear I wouldn't be one of those guys. :) I didn't mean to jump on you about it. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 01:25, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Everyone's a bit stressed lately. And you're right about getting squat for some of the important stuff. My unit saved 113 civilian lives. I survived on four hours' sleep for a week helping save 112 of them. Got zero for that; not a single news source even picked up the ship's press release. Durova^Charge! 01:31, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Heh - you'll die of old age waiting for the American press to report positively on the military. If you want to be in the papers, you need to force prisoners to wear panties on their heads. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 01:59, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Not funny. The next summer I was toting an M14 at oh-dark-thirty while moored to the pier of a Muslim country and Abu Ghraib made worldwide headlines. A small boy gets one topside rover. If someone had targeted us the way they hit the Cole, it would have been my job to stop them. And if they had small arms then taking me out would have been top priority. I volunteered to stand double my normal rotation of armed watches during that time. And I'm very grateful I never needed to use that weapon. Durova^Charge! 02:21, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

We've all done time in the sandland and we've all taken risks, it comes with the oath and the suit. I've had my hairy moments too, and we've always joked and laughed about it in the squadron or at the club later - it helps. Dwelling on that stuff and taking it too seriously is a sure route to the bottle and the divorce lawyer. Lighten up. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 02:28, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I joined for a different reason from most of the crew. My family was almost killed on 9/11. User:Durova/Recusal - It's just not the same for me. Durova^Charge! 02:45, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm - I joined to fight the Evil Empire and have stuck around an extra couple of decades. Are you still in uniform? Videmus Omnia ^Talk 02:50, 7 December 2007 (UTC) I'm grateful for anyone's service, whether it's for one year or thirty, whatever the reason. If you want to continue the conversation, we should take it to e-mail or something rather than bothering AnonEMouse and taking up space on the Foundation's servers. With respect - Videmus Omnia ^Talk 02:58, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Bringing the conversation full circle

Speaking of models, and the military being in the press, I got some complaints from this article subject. Just wanted to give you a heads-up, I'll fix up the article - there are quite a few good sources out there and she just wants some balance. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 02:04, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

...and thought you should know about this, it unfortunately looks like all the work was for naught - no front page for Michele. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 02:06, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I see I edited Michelle Manhart once, but I can't remember it. Not on my watchlist. Kimberly Hampton is my only real lady warrior article; though that one does have a picture, it's a completely different "theme". Not a BLP violation at all; the exact opposite, unfortunately. But that one brings it back to the medal theme, and I guess one of you might be able to know, though she was Army, not Navy or Air Force. What could the Associated Press mean when they wrote she got a "Bronze medal"? It would be nice if I could make that into an explanatory link... --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 02:27, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Bronze Star (most likely with valor device), can't imagine it being anything else. No other medal has "bronze" in its title. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 02:37, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll go with that. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 02:43, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Great article, by the way - thanks for pointing it out! I can't believe somebody tried to have it deleted. :( Videmus Omnia ^Talk 02:56, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Not that unbelievable; when they did, it looked like this. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 03:00, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Cheese

To a kind and patient mouse. I'll try to stop filling up your talk page now. Durova^Charge! 03:03, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Image

Hello AnonEMouse. Do you remember me? I have a problem. How can I download an image on Wikipedia? Let's say I want to download an image of a sociology professor. How can I do that? Please reply on my talk page. Regards, Masterpiece2000 (talk) 13:02, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the reply. Regards, Masterpiece2000 (talk) 02:45, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Monica Mayhem

The article subject is apparently disputing the given birthdate. I've sent her an e-mail (and requested a temp username block until I can confirm that's really her, though I'm pretty sure it is). What do you think, should we just remove the birthdate altogether? Videmus Omnia ^Talk 15:07, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't call it a dispute, it's one edit. Neither 1976 or 1978 is that well sourced IAFD says 1978, http://www.iafd.com/person.rme/perfid=MMayhem/gender=f AFDB says 1976 http://www.adultfilmdatabase.com/actor.cfm?actorid=23542, IMDB says 1978 http://www.imdb.com/name/nm1018466/bio and claims to be edited by Monica Mayhem herself, so I guess that "wins". If it becomes a matter of real controversy with edits going back and forth, we can remove it altogether until Ms. Mayhem writes the real date on her web site or an interview or other real article shows up. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 15:27, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good, you're the expert. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 15:30, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

If you're in touch with her personally, you may want to ask how she feels about her birth name being in the article. It is on the IMDB profile she allegedly wrote, and it is what her web site is registered under, which implies she doesn't mind it being public that much. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 15:32, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Will do - I'll ask her when she responds to my latest e-mail. Not sure what time it is in Australia, but for some reason almost all people in this industry respond to e-mails in the early a.m. hours in their local time. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 15:39, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Violetta Blue

Regarding the order of the names, MOSBIO states that "For people who are best known by a pseudonym, the legal name should usually appear first in the article, followed closely by the pseudonym. Follow this practice even if the article itself is titled with the pseudonym...". I think it should be left as it is now. Photouploaded (talk) 16:31, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

It actually then goes on to say the other way around is also acceptable. But not a big deal. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 16:47, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Your GA Review

Thanks for your detailed points in your GA Review. Thanks for also stating "In short, this is a good article..". Though you do not think it yet fits WP:GA status, that was nice to hear some acknowledgment of the hard work put into the article recently. I will to my best to address the points you have brought up, in order to improve the quality of the article going forward. Cheers, Cirt (talk) 17:46, 12 December 2007 (UTC).

You're welcome; thank you for doing a good job writing it. It really is much better than the average article we have, and if you fix those points you may want to nom it for FA. Personally, I would have written the same criticism if it had been nominated for FA - I find it difficult to differentiate between the two levels of quality many times. The main differences between GA and FA as far as I can tell are that for GA you need to satisfy one reviewer, and for FA, many, who will look at different issues. Best of luck. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 17:51, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, I will do my best to fix the points you brought up, but I think that it would be prudent not to nom it straight to FA, but to get some more feedback through the processes first. But we shall see. Thanks again for saying I did a good job writing it, that means a lot and I appreciate it, especially after your GA Review. Cirt (talk) 17:53, 12 December 2007 (UTC).

Sourcing question

Hi, AnonEMouse. There's a little controversy brewing on my talk page involving an editor who is removing some sourcing of mine... You may have noticed, I often add sources to articles, even ones I don't edit, when I come across a good source on some relatively obscure subject. Once in a while someone objects to this, and I have to admit, I am totally flabbergasted by it. "Hey! Stop sourcing my article!" Especially on poorly- or completly non-sourced articles? WTF? Am I wrong? Dekkappai (talk) 18:18, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Ah, I think I see the problem. June Wilkinson? I think the issue is that the article doesn't actually use that interview to back any facts, so it's not really a Source as such. It would still be a fine External link, except it's not actually a link. It seems to be a note as to where to look for further reading. Let's what WP:MOS says - ah, here. WP:MOS#Section management. You can call it Further reading (or Bibliography) and it should be fine until you have the time to turn it into a reference. If it comes up again, drop me a line. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 18:38, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Ah, pronoun trouble... I took "Sources" to mean "Sources for information" "Sources on the subject" rather than simply "Sources used in putting this article together." OK-- Bibliography works fine. Probably the main reason I do this, anyway, is to show coverage of a relatively obscure subject which may later come up for deletion because of lack of sourcing. One would think the writers of these articles would be grateful for this... But then it seems that the "Delete as unsourced" rule is rather unevenly enforced... Grumble... Dekkappai (talk) 18:44, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Another potential problem...

As my policy expert of choice ;), perhaps you can give advice on another potential controversy. I've just discovered, to my delight, that the 1960 Korean film, The Housemaid is one of the 1001 Movies You Must See Before You Die. Unfortunately, they grossly misspell the Korean Hanyeo as Hayno. Though no form of Romanizing Korean that I know of would transliterate the title as "Hayno", anticipating that someone may search on that word, I've created it as a re-direct. Am I being a trouble-maker again? Dekkappai (talk) 01:55, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

No, that's a perfectly reasonable action. Please don't get your hackles up about that silly pronoun trouble incident, it's not worth it. Keep working to help, it's a good idea, honest. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 13:56, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Whew! Dekkappai (talk) 17:20, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

You're right

What you wrote on Mercury's talk page is 100% true. Shutting down the RFC/recall is one of the worst lapses of judgment that Mercury has done. The ironic thing is he/she would have won it.

Martha Stewart had a bad lapse of judgment. If she would have said "yeah, the stockbroker gave me a tip and I sold the stock" instead of trying to lie and control the process, she would not have gone to jail.Miesbu (talk) 23:34, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Lo Piccolo images

The images Image:Lo_Piccolo_photofit.jpg and Image:Lo_Piccolo_arrest.jpg have been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. - Mafia Expert (talk) 13:38, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Er ... thanks, but I'm not sure why you think I'd be interested, I don't recall ever editing either image, or any related article. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 16:22, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Julie Winchester

I notice the above article was speedily deleted. I'm afraid I don't remember much about her article, except that I corresponded with her about a photo, and I renamed her article based on her request. Could you take a look at the deleted material to see if she's notable per WP:P*? Videmus Omnia ^Talk 16:40, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Ehh. Very iffy. The article said this (plus your picture and some IMDB/IAFD/AFDB links):

Julie Winchester (born October 5, 1963), also commonly known as Gina Carrera, is an American pornographic actress and bondage model. She began in mainstream adult films in 1983. Winchester apparently never altered her body with surgery. She continues to work, primarily in female wrestling productions.

• Official website
• Interview at PornStarClassics.co.uk

I searched around a bit, and found this wonderful sentence "Carrera's early work displays an utter lack of acting talent that is rarely seen even in porn" which is not something I want to use as a claim of notability... If you can find the "Adult Cinema Review" article from http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0140207/publicity and see if it says something interesting, more than just a pictorial, maybe ... --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 18:43, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Jeanna Fine pictures -- new versus previous poor quality photo.

Regarding Jeanna Fine pictures. . . I think my two pictures with the awards are "better" because the they are sharp, clear scans from my original photos. The photo from "dirtybob" is of poor quality -- fuzzy and hard to look at.

I'm not trying to make trouble or keep redoing my pics -- I just appreciate pictures that are professional looking and clear to display. If he had a better picture to start, I would not have bothered to upload mine.

Note: I put a fuller body shot at the top -- with no people in it other than her. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mcbane700 (talk • contribs) 00:02, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Tabercil" —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mcbane700 (talk • contribs) 22:56, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Would you take a look?

An image used in the article on the first Bangladeshi pornstar Jazmin, Image:WorshipThisBitch3.jpg, the cover of the DVD that made her the selling point, a first for a Bangladeshi, is up for deletion here. You may be interested to take a look. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 21:18, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

RfA

Thanks for the congratulations, and I will definitely keep all your advice in mind.  :) --Elonka 07:49, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Mysore is FA

Mysore has been promoted to FA status. Thanks for your comments in its FAC -- ¿Amar៛^{Talk to me/My edits} 04:22, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

My question for the day

Hi, Anon. What would a day at Wiki be without me asking for advice? Today the question is on: Korean erotic cinema. Articles such as Mulberry and the brand new Madame Aema-- They're definitely erotic film, but they're probably not pornographic. They did clearly exploited their sexual content for success. My question: Would it be appropriate to slap a "Project Pornography" tag on this sort of erotic cinema? Thanks. Dekkappai (talk) 00:52, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Grr. You don't ask the easy questions, do you? :-) I'd say no, but I wish the articles described just how explicitly erotic these films were. Pornography is defined in our article as "the explicit representation of the human body or sexual activity with the goal of sexual arousal and/or sexual relief." If the nudity or sex isn't explicitly presented on the screen, but just hinted at, it's not pornography by that definition, no matter how erotic it is. I haven't seen either of those two films so will have to use a different one for an example: have you seen Tampopo? There is a scene there where a couple kiss to pass a raw egg back and forth until it breaks. Or if you haven't seen that, you've surely seen at least one of any number of videos of girls suggestively eating lollipops or bananas. That's all pretty clearly sexy, but all implicit, not explicit. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 16:15, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

On the other hand, of course being marked as of interest to the Wikiproject doesn't mean it is pornographic in itself - for example, several pornography-related supreme court cases aren't pornographic in themselves, yet highly important to the study of pornography. If Mme Aena opened the door to films that clearly were pornographic, it would probably be of interest... Sigh. Can I cop out to "use your best judgment"? :-P --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 18:10, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the discussion, AnonEMouse, and welcome back. I hope you had a nice break. The Pornography issue probably eats at me more because, dealing with the Japanese & Korean areas, I'm dealing a lot more with "erotic cinema" rather than outright pornography... If there were an "Erotic film project" most of the articles I work on would probably fit in there more than the Porn project-- though some do, certainly, qualify as porn... Does the U.S. make erotic films? High-class, well-made softcore porn? If so, I'm not aware of it. So maybe the unavoidably Anglo-US-centric nature of writing in English has something to do with it... I keep hoping someone will start articles on the old U.S. softcore porn forms made before the high-profile availability of hardcore, like the early works of Russ Meyers, the "nudie-cuties" and "roughies". If these are put in the Project Porn, then these Japanese & Korean films should have no trouble fitting in there as well.

Obviously, the Tampopo example is not porn. The scene you mention is erotic, certainly, though in no way pornographic. But I wouldn't even think about calling it an erotic film, much less porn. That would be like calling King Lear a comedy because the Fool cracks a few jokes. Anyway, I worked out a solution with a Korean editor-- We've decided Madame Aema is soft porn, Ppong is not. They both do show nudity and sexual activity, on screen. We've decided that since Madame Aema was made only to capitalize on the nudity and sexual activity, it fits in the project. Ppong is a literary adaptation of some artistic quality, and, basically, a sex-farce. (I'm still a little uncomfortable with the subjectivity of this decision, but so it goes...) Both get the "Erotic film" category though. Am I the only one who has difficulty with the Pornography label? It does seem a bit of a value-judgment, at least in my thinking... If something with nudity & strong sexuality is done very well, then it's not porn, it's erotic cinema. On the other hand, porn is porn and there's no mistaking it, if you get my drift. Dekkappai (talk) 18:44, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia Weekly Episode 39

Wikipedia Weekly Episode 39 has been released!

.mp3 and .ogg versions can be found at http://wikipediaweekly.org/2007/12/18/episode-39-knol-pointer/, and, as always, you can download past episodes and leave comments at http://wikipediaweekly.com/.

For Wikipedia Weekly — WODUP 06:16, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

You are receiving this message because you are listed on Wikipedia:WikiProject WikipediaWeekly/delivery.
If you do not wish to receive such notifications, please remove yourself from the list.

Kylie Ireland

I just wanted to congratulate you on the impressive work you made to the Kylie Ireland article. You improved and expanded the article greatly. Brilliant work! :) Acalamari 22:45, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Louise Glover

I nominated Louise Glover for GA, as you and other editors had IMO made it a high-quality article. I'd like your help in addressing the reviewer's concerns; see Talk:Louise Glover#GA Review. :) —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 23:08, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! I'm honored and unworthy! :-) I responded on/in the article and talk page. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 22:28, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

A former state senator may be editing wiki from behind bars.

And pissing a lot of editors off in the process. His name is John Celona and the evidence is here. I am passing this information along to you because you may find it of interest. The senator seems to be heeding the warnings he has been receiving from various admins but some of the folks at talk Peter Yarrow are getting fed up with him. Perhaps a pep talk and some info on wiki categories would help calm things down a bit. The argument seem to be over addinng a category that some find offensive. Happy Holiday's and feel free to not respond if you do not feel like it Albion moonlight (talk) 10:46, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Seasons Greetings

	<font=3> Wishing you a "Feliz Navidad and a Happy new Year" Tony the Marine (talk)

Flickr photos

Mouse, check out this Flickr user - what's your gut feeling on the free license for the photos? Videmus Omnia ^Talk 04:29, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I checked again and am pretty suspicious. No camera metadata in most cases, the "taken" date is the same as the upload date, and pictures that are stated to be taken on the same date despite different appearances by the same model. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 18:11, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Ahem. The infamous Kamui/Kamui99/Kamui Sendoh was my inspiration for creating Commons:Commons:Questionable Flickr images, and bears a prominent role therein, no less than three links discussing him. Please take a look at that page, that's what it's for, and add any others there as well. In short - yes, it's highly questionable he owns the copyright to all of "his" images, enough so that I would recommend considering any of his images suspect. His heart is probably in the right place, as he has contributed to Wikipedia personally, but his stand on copyright is rather questionable. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 15:32, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Merry Christmas

Wishing you the very best for the season - Guettarda 05:58, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Karen McDougal

I have reviewed the article that you nominated for Good Article status, Karen McDougal, and placed it on hold. You may view my comments and concerns on the article's talk page. Also, I notice that two articles that you have reviewed, Jaime King and Reel Affirmations, have had their holds expired for some time now. Might I suggest passing, failing or extending the holds of the articles? Cheers, CP 08:12, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Will do soon (prob. tomorrow), a lot of work has been done. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 22:30, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

I have assisted in adopting some of the edits recommended by CP, but I need your help on points 1, 5 & 7. I personally believe the Playboy Cover and the XFL commercial cap should stay as the cover is her "pinnacle of career" and XFL commercial is still her only mainstream TV commercial appearance and most controversial work to date. I have been working on this article on and off, here and there for the past 1+ year and I think it needs a new perspective. Any help you can offer is much appreciated. I am a fan of her and I certainly hope her article can become the first Playmate GA. Thanks for nominating. 76.199.65.126 (talk) 16:06, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

No, thank you; I noticed the excellent job someone who hasn't been logging in has been doing on the article. I think it's clearly better than the one of mine Disavian nominated above, for example. Give me a bit of time to do some cleanup, I've not edited in a while, and a lot of tasks have piled up in just a couple of weeks, but then I will certainly jump in and help. By the way, have you thought about getting a user account? It only has benefits, really. For one thing, I will be able to somehow think of you as other than strange string of numbers. :-) --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 16:41, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for all the help so far. I went back and tweak the personal paragraph a little bit more trying to make it tighter. Please take a look. I am also okay with deleting the line with the painted swimsuit but I haven't deleted it yet.76.199.65.126 (talk) 20:33, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

You're welcome. I noticed you sort of stuck all three "Personal life" paragraphs together. I thought that keeping them the way they were would be better, since that way, each had sort of a theme, while still being over the two sentences that CP doesn't seem to like for paragraphs: one was about her and her family, one was about her and motorcycles, and one was about her exercising and hobbies. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 20:38, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

No, thank YOU. I have unbundled the family portion of the paragraph. So now it talks about her first, then her family. I have also cited the calendar itself for the "painted on" issue. I am not sure if that would work, but I would at least try it before removing the line. 76.199.65.126 (talk) 22:58, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

I noticed you are taking care of the GA part 2 comments. Thanks, but I think I may be in a better position to address the comment on the mature content references. Let me know when you are done and I will jump in. Again, many thanks!76.199.65.126 (talk) 22:09, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Done - in fact I'm not sure I understood the mature content issue, so if I did that wrong, feel free to undo it. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 22:18, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

It's Reference #26. It only points to the mature content section. I'll change it to point to each individual link. I need a little bit of time to take care of that. Give me a few hours to take care of a few things, then I'll be back. As for a user account, hmmm...I had one before but had some bad experiences with it. I tend to find that people appears to be nicer to a string of numbers. I dunno, the wiki world maybe different now than it was, I have to think about it. Again, thanks for the appreciation and encouragement. 76.199.65.126 (talk) 22:37, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

image

Hi there Anon, I just cropped an image that you uploaded a few months ago to Commons. The description stated that the photographer requested that the image not be cropped, so I thought I should let you know. I'm all for honoring requests where possible, but in this case, I think having an appropriate photo of a prominent celebrity is important. The license explicitly allows modification; and the request to link back to the blog is still honored. If you feel that I'm in error, please let me know. -Pete (talk) 02:55, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I think you're in error. It's certainly allowed that we crop the image, but it's, well, rude. The contributor asked nicely that we not crop the image, and if possible, we should respect his wishes. It's as if he gave us an artwork as a present; it's certainly allowed that we mutilate the artwork, it's ours, but it clearly hurts the feelings of the giver. If we can avoid it, we should. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 14:18, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

In addition, I see you cropped the image without renaming it. It's now called "Michael G. Halle and Tonya Harding.jpg" but only shows Harding. That's clearly wrong. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 16:38, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. What should have been done was the cropped image should have been uploaded under a different name, with a back-link to the original image of the two of them. Tabercil (talk) 17:14, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Let me explain my thinking a little more carefully. If the image were copyright, it would be possible to crop just Harding from the image, under fair use, to use at the top of her article. To my knowledge, there is no good free image of Harding available to use on her article, so I thought using an image that's licensed under CC would be the best option, since there are no legal problems.

As for "being nice," I agree with what you are saying, but I feel that there are a number of parties we could try to "be nice" to. We could also try to be nice to Harding. But in building an encyclopedia, the primary people I think we're trying to be nice to are the readers. Using an image that depicts a non-notable and irrelevant person as the main identifying image on the Harding article strikes me as a significant disservice to anyone trying to use that article. Of course, there are a number of ways to address that, and I'm happy to consider using alternate photos instead.

I don't know the details of your communication with the photographer and/or subject. If you feel it would be appropriate, I'd be happy to get in touch with him or her and discuss this. Or you could.

I agree that it would probably be better to re-upload the photo under a different title, if we stick with the cropped version. I didn't do that initially, because I wanted to be sure this was the right way to go first; among other things, the original image would become orphaned, and could become a candidate for deletion. I didn't want to take that step without a bit of discussion first.

Also, I just found your earlier discussion on the talk page, and want to point out that I don't agree with the original objector; I don't see any problem whatsoever with linking to the guy's blog from the image page, which is common Wikipedia practice. (I'll link to this discussion from there too.) -Pete (talk) 20:07, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

I found Mr. Halle through a Flickr search for images of Tonya Harding that looked like they were actually owned by the Flickr user and not just stolen from a magazine. I think his email is prominently available at his personal page somewhere. You can certainly email him, he's quite nice. I didn't actually promise him we wouldn't crop his photo, because I know I can't promise that, but I think it comes under general "not biting" the new contributors; I would hate if he would think he was deceived. I don't think this image is in any way not nice to Harding, it's a good photo, she looks nice, she's smiling, posing with a fan. I do agree that if we find an image that is of Harding alone that would be better, but, frankly, it's a bit like looking a gift horse in the mouth. If we do end up using a cropped version in the article (hopefully with the photographer's consent), we should probably hold on to the larger version as well, as it is the sort of photo that can't avoid losing something from cropping. That way the larger image won't be orphaned, the smaller image will be a reference to it. That's not always true, by the way, for example these two most recent images I got by asking nicely from Flickr this way lost nothing from being cropped (from a single image, in fact; they might even usefully lose another row or column of pixels at the edges)

• 
• 

--AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 20:25, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I'll get in touch with him. Sorry if my initial approach was "too bold." I'm happy to take it slow. And no, I didn't mean to imply the photo is unflattering to Harding, I was just stating an example…somewhat sloppily, I guuss! -Pete (talk) 20:40, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Anon, I just had an email exchange with Michael, and posted it -- and my thoughts -- on the Talk:Tonya Harding page. Let's continue the discussion over there, where others (like User:VanTucky) are more likely to see it. -Pete (talk) 00:19, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Looks like the image is going to end up deleted. No one benefits, everyone loses. Oh well, at least it was up for several months. :-( --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 15:02, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

A request for your consideration regarding CAT:AOTR

The guinea pigs having said this is good enough, I'm working my way through the A's ++Lar: t/c 21:42, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

If I hadn't already supported you for stewardship, I'd be wishing I had. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 15:04, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks very much! Note alsos... 1) since the table page has been moved from a cat to a non cat, the edit history has been lost. You may want to re-edit your entry in the table to validate that it was you that added it. 2) Since you're using mine, you may want to give a link to a specific history entry version of the page, heck I may change mine to say that admins that start with A only need 1 petitioner to get recalled or something :) Cacharoth's entry is an example of how that was done ++Larbot - run by User:Lar - t/c 23:08, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Re: Ef: A Fairy Tale of the Two. GA review

I replied to a few of your points, and would like you to reply to my points.--十八 01:26, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank You

Just want to say thank you for all your help in making Karen McDougal a Good Article. The first Playmate article to achieve such status. Wouldn't be able to do it without you. I have learned a lot from this experience. I just might give the user account another shot in the near future...who knows? See you outthere!

"I have been and always shall be, your friend." - Spock, Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan

76.199.65.126 (talk) 15:40, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Hurrah! It couldn't happen to a nicer article. :-) --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 23:03, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Nice photo of Julie McCullough! Any objection if I move it up into the infobox at the top of the article, so it gets more attention? --AnonEMouse (squeak) 00:10, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, you have my permission. Besides, I made it public domain. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Philkon (talk • contribs) 19:05, 30 December 2007 (UTC)