User talk:SavvyCat

If you will not remove this page, you must at least allow me to control the content. As the subject of the article, I have the right of publicity and object to the private information it reveals.

Umm... you sure you're talking about the right of publicity as opposed to the right of privacy? According to the article listed here, it says the right of publicity means the "individual's right to control and profit from the commercial use of his/her name, likeness and persona" (emphasis added by me). Since Wikipedia is noted as being "the free encyclopedia", I cannot see where the commercial aspect of your claim lies... Tabercil 19:54, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed...you created a trademark for pete's sake. http://www.trademarken.com/trademark/75765441#.Uk92poasghU

--Survivalist9 (talk) 02:20, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Brandy Alexandre (porn star) and 3RR

My last edit was my 3rd revert - the rules allows for a maximum of 3 reverts in a 24 hour period. I clearedly stated in my edit summary (which your subsequent edit summary indicated you read) that if either of us reverted again, we would each be in violation of the three revert rule, and stated that I would not revert again. You then proceeded to make your 4th revert. --Krich (talk) 01:06, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

3RR

Savvy, you've been reported for a 3RR violation at Brandy Alexandre. The three revert rule says we're not allowed to revert to a previous version of an article, in whole or in part, more than three times in 24 hours, and if we do, we may be blocked for 24 hours. Perhaps you could explain why you object to the edit on the talk page and try to reach a compromise with the other editors on the page. In the meantime, I've reverted back to the pre-3RR version. Please see WP:3RR for more details. Cheers, SlimVirgin ^(talk) 04:32, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:BA-DEBL-1989.jpg

Hi. Could I ask you to add the appropriate licence tag to Image:BA-DEBL-1989.jpg, which you uploaded a few days ago. Right now it doesn't have a licence tag, which unfortunately means it will (at some point) be deleted by our nice-but-strict image-tag-checking people. If you're the owner of the copyright of the image, our policies require that it be licenced under the GFDL (in which case you'd add the markup {{GFDL-self}} to the image description page) or placed into the public domain (in which case the appropriate markup would be {{PD-self}}). If, however, you aren't the copyright owner, some case for fair use would have to be made (again on the image page) - see our headache-inducing notes at WP:FAIR in that regard. Thanks for your help, and for uploading such a nice photo. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 19:59, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately the least liberal licence we permit is GFDL which, as you say, allows for global use (on Wikipedia mirrors, derived content such as wikireaders, and in unrelated works). We deliberately don't allow images (or any other content) with wikipedia-only, by-permission, education-only, web-only, non-commercial, or similar (more restrictive) licences, as we feel this conflicts with our goal of disseminating encyclopedic (whateverthatmeans) information as widely as possible. You're certainly not the first person who has wanted to licence content under a Wikipedia-only licence, whether for commercial reasons, privacy concerns, or just to prevent their being inadvertently associated with some of the weirder Wikipedia mirrors. The Wikpedia community has, however, rejected such licences, and content licenced under those terms has invariably been removed from Wikipedia. I see that the image in question has already been removed from the article (by an automated checker-program); if you don't feel able to licence your photo under the GFDL (and I entirely understand why you might not) then I think it'll be deleted altogether in a day or two. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 17:05, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding your edit to {{female adult bio}}

Would you care to comment on your reasoning for removing the birthname field on the {{female adult bio}} template? Right now, I've reverted the edit -- as by your actions in removing that field, you broke its usage on other articles -- but would like to hear why you removed the field without so much as first discussing it? (Obviously, I am aware of your feelings to having your true name out there, but there are other porn stars that do not feel as you do -- and whose names are public knowledge.) I look forward to hearing from you. Thank you for your time. -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. ^{Think out loud} 22:15, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Name and Amazon page

You seem to have responded, though not in words. I have to say, your comment while deleting my note here hurt my feelings a bit -- I thought I had never been other than courteous. But the Amazon page no longer claims to be Brandy Alexandre. I guess you didn't realize that writing there had made it public? In any case, it seems it is at least no longer voluntarily publically revealed, so after thinking about it, I will not put the name back in the article. People seem to have been careful not to repeat it in other posts, so those should be safe. Good bye and good luck. AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 14:29, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep spinning it. Your info was bogus and you got caught with your pants down. There was an impersonator trying to get wish list items saying she was me. You said it yourself that the name has to match a credit card. Well the name is Kelly. Nice try, loser. --SavvyCat 18:41, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ethnicity in info box

I think the "ethnicity" line in the info box is supposed to be there to denote ethnic group, and its purpose is there because there are groups of fans who are mainly or only interested in black stars or asian stars or whatever. So I suspect the best possible entry for that box would be something like African American, American Indian, Irish Canadian, something as specific as that. Lacking information on something that specific, I made it Caucasian American, which is correct and still more specific than just American. It's not a big deal; if you still don't agree, I will leave it alone. AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 14:18, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oversight

Have you considered Wikipedia:Requests for oversight to have this edit removed? I was considering doing it myself but it seems as if you're the best person for it Nil Einne 13:01, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Issue you might be interested in

Given your interest in Brandy Alexandre you might be interested in a question I have raised here Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons#Names - an interesting issue. This is a general issue which has occured to me based on some issues in the Brandy Alexandre case in particular. Cheers Nil Einne 13:23, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Biography from Kamikaze.org

Several sites maintain copies of your biography from Kamikaze.org.[1] [2] [3] possibly others.

Would it be all right with you if we cited it as such on the article? --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 13:50, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No. Because as much as you appear to want to be the guy in the know about Brandy Alexandre, you're still trying to cite from "sources" that have only stolen from another web site, that took from another web site, that borrowed from yet another. If you want to suggest that any of these web sites have consulted with me or anyone I know beyond the superficial, or has done any in-depth research, then why can you not find a complete biography or filmography collectively among them? Why do these sites often misspell hers and other stars' names? I have even admitted quoting the party line, which is nothing but hyperbole and falsehoods for image and marketing. There is nothing you're going to find scouring the web that can or will ever meet the standards required by Wikipedia to call it a reliable source. Most of what is in the Brandy Alexandre article is pure garbage and the rest unverifiable. And no one even knows which is which. So, no, it's not all right. It's just more junk. PLUS, even if it were true, kamikaze.org content was protected by copyright and I assure you that no one has ever been given permission to reprint any portion of it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by SavvyCat (talk • contribs) 22:34:18, August 19, 2007 (UTC).