You might want to keep an eye here - this school just came off a year long IP block of yours and has not been doing anything (positively) productive. (John User:Jwytalk) 19:58, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Playmates
In case you're interested, I have copies of all the American Playboys since roughly the late 80's. Before that it gets a bit spotty. Just in case you need something sourced or whatever. I realize you're going through all the Playmate articles for a reason and I'm sure I couldn't keep up with sourcing all of that but I just wanted to let you know... Anyway, sorry to bother you... Dismas|(talk) 21:53, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to disagree with my edit on this page. I was hoping you might discuss it with me on the talk page of that article, where I already posted some thing. Thanks. 67.172.182.135 (talk) 12:12, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Did you even look at my sources? I didn't just point to her blog. Plus, if you cared to look at the talk page on Sparxxx and discuss it there you'd see I posted a lot more information there. First of all there's a video of the event and it's clearly her in it as she talks to the camera a couple times. Also, they talked about this event and Sparxxx on tv a couple weeks ago on a show called Manswers on the Spike channel. She was on the show talking about the event in an interview with Manswers. I will find more sources since you insist and I will post them on the SParxxx talk page and hopefully we can continue our conversation there. 67.172.182.135 (talk) 07:38, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
February GA Sweeps update
Thanks to everyone's efforts to the GA Sweeps process, we are currently over 95% done with around 130 articles left to be swept! Currently there are over 50 members participating in Sweeps, that averages out to about 3 articles per person! If each member reviews an article once a week this month (or several!), we'll be completely finished. At that point, awards will be handed out to reviewers. Per my message last month, although we did not review 100 articles last month, I still made a donation of $90 (we had 90 reviews completed/initiated) to Wikipedia Forever on behalf of all GA Sweeps reviewers. I would like to thank everyone's efforts for last month, and ask for additional effort this month so we can be finished. I know you have to be sick of seeing these updates (as well as Sweeps itself) by now, so please do consider reviewing a few articles if you haven't reviewed in a while. If you have any questions about reviews or Sweeps let me know and I'll be happy to get back to you. Again, thank you for taking the time to help with the process, I appreciate your efforts! --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 02:30, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nominating a page for deletion shortly after rework
Epbr123, I am curious as to why you nominated a page tagged with {{
construction}} tag to the page, and/or wait for that tag to be removed and allowing some time before nominating for AFD? Cirt (talk) 18:56, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply
]
In my opinion, the article should have been speedy deleted as a recreation of deleted material. The nominations added don't add anything to his notability, based on guidelines. A construction tag doesn't make an article immune from deletion. Epbr123 (talk) 19:06, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Cirt (talk) 19:15, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Epbr123, in the future I would strongly recommend that you at the very least attempt to discuss a page with other editors on the talk page if it is tagged with {{
construction}}, prior to nominating for AFD. And that you wait more than 7 minutes after a page has been worked on. Cheers, Cirt (talk) 19:45, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply
]
Ok, but maybe you should have discussed with the previous AfD nominator before allowing an article to be recreated. Epbr123 (talk) 19:47, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hrm, I do not think that is standard practice - which is to consult with the closing admin (which was done properly in this case by Ash). Also, I would advise you not to be the same person to re-nom these AFDs a second time, in relation to the above circumstances - I see others have commented that you seem to have some sort of focus on getting rid of these pages on this particular topic. Cirt (talk) 19:53, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If you're implying I have a bias against pornography article, I'll refer you to an above thread regarding Savanna Samson. I was also one of the main contributors to the PORNBIO guideline. Epbr123 (talk) 20:00, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps I was mistaken, as I see some excellent work on the article Savanna Samson, particularly with regard to the meticulous sourcing. My apologies about that, Cirt (talk) 20:01, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The Editor's Barnstar
The Editor's Barnstar
I award Ebpr123 this barnstar for excellent work on the article
Thank you. I'm sorry about our disagreement. Epbr123 (talk) 20:17, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As am I. ;( I highly respect you as an editor and admin. Hopefully we will both emerge wiser from all of this. :P Cirt (talk) 20:21, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Civility Award
Civility Award
For working towards solutions to problems rather than creating them. -Stillwaterising (talk) 01:33, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Your reversion and a possible "experimental breach"
The BLP Barnstar
The BLP Barnstar is for users who work to diligently source and maintain neutrality in biography articles, ensuring they adhere to the Biographies of Living Persons policy.
This barnstar is awarded to Epbr123, for vigorously cleaning up unreferenced articles. Wikipedia needs more editors like you. thank you. Okip BLP Contest 07:45, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have worked to improve the page Paul Carrigan, in a separate page in my userspace. Please see User:Cirt/Paul Carrigan. Would you think it would be okay to move into mainspace with this improved version? Cirt (talk) 17:07, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I won't start another AfD if it's moved into mainspace, but he's still not notable in my opinion. I appreciate the work you've put into the article, but all of its content is derived from database entries, primary sources and trivial mentions in movie reviews. If that was enough to make someone notable, every porn star in the world would have an article. Also, statements such as "Carrigan started becoming active as an actor in the pornography industry in 1992" can't be verified by IAFD, as their database isn't comprehensive. Epbr123 (talk) 17:22, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Um, well seeing as how it is currently at DRV, is it okay for me to move it to mainspace? Should I wait? Cirt (talk) 17:23, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Unless you can improve it any further, you may as well move it now. Epbr123 (talk) 17:25, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As one of the staff members of IAFD, I can verify that our database is not comprehensive. We started including gay porn in our database in 2007, mostly from entries by only one volunteer staff person. Morbidthoughts (talk) 17:30, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Morbidthoughts, I can understand why such a database is unlikely to be comprehensive, however can one presume that if a video is listed on IAFD then it actually did or does exist? I note that the terms of reference states "every effort has been made to ensure the accuracy of the database" but as that is explained no further, such a presumption may be incorrect. Ash (talk) 19:13, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, you can presume a movie exists if it's in the database, but you can't draw conclusions like what year an actor first became active if there may be an earlier movie that is not in the database. Morbidthoughts (talk) 21:38, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Cool, well at least we have a reasonable source to demonstrate that Carrigan has been credited with acting in more than 250 films and directed 30. Ash (talk) 21:43, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Epbr123, suppose we take your word that you won't nominate it for deletion after it's moved to main space, what is to stop another editor from nominating it? As it stands, only a proper deletion review can determine the fate of Paul Carrigan. - 22:10, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
There's nothing to stop another editor from nominating it. Epbr123 (talk) 22:26, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Why did you think the BLP sources tag was inappropriate? IAFD and AVN News are only marginally reliable sources by BLP standards. Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 19:18, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Why do you think that? Epbr123 (talk) 19:23, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"I help run IAFD so I won't offer an opinion on its reliability. People can submit additions and corrections (but it should be adequately sourced if there's a conflict) but we have to approve it and sometimes we go to 2257 information on hand to confirm things like birthdate and height." (emphasis mine)
And 2257 information is a legal document. Tabercil (talk) 23:02, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Your opinion on this is welcome. Okip 02:16, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
that thing I said
I saw the wording and just assumed you wrote it without reading more. I hope you can see my point and can see how contentious Afd nominations are best backed by detailed explanations initially and not argued after the fact. - Stillwaterising (talk) 16:23, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. When making a nomination, there's no way to counter every possible argument beforehand, especially when arguments made by other's aren't backed by policies or guidelines, as in certain recent AfDs. Epbr123 (talk) 16:45, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
well, maybe. Saying "doesn't meet gng or pornbio" does cite guidelines however it says nothing as to why. I think it's been established that performers need only meet one additional criteria as well as basic criteria. No need to also meet pornbio and gng if so, right? I'm pretty sure you disagree with my literal interpretation of the 2nd paragraph of gng stating that either gng or bio needs to be met, not both. Is there a guideline, policy, or essay that clarifies this? - Thanks. Stillwaterising (talk) 22:29, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If someone meets
WP:BIO, they are likely to be notable, as they are likely to pass WP:GNG. Some users believe passing WP:BIO is enough to show notability, while others are stricter and believe it has to be proven that someone passes WP:GNG. Epbr123 (talk) 23:00, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply
Yes, it does, although guidelines shouldn't be written than conflict with policy. Epbr123 (talk) 12:24, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
GA Sweeps Completed!
Thanks to everyone's amazing efforts in February, we have reviewed all of the articles and are now finished with Sweeps! There are still about 30 articles currently on hold, and once those reviews are completed, I will send you a final message about Sweeps process stats including the total number of articles that were passed and failed. If you have one of these open reviews, be sure to update your count when the review is completed so I can compile the stats. You can except to receive your award for reviewing within the next week or two. Although the majority of the editors did not start Sweeps at the beginning in August 2007 (myself included), over 50 editors have all come together to complete a monumental task and improve many articles in the process. I commend you for sticking with this often challenging task and strengthening the integrity of the GA WikiProject as well as the GAs themselves. I invite you to take a break from reviewing (don't want you to burn out!) and then consider returning/starting to review GANs and/or contribute to GAR reviews. With your assistance, we can help bring the backlog down to a manageable level and help inspire more editors to improve articles to higher classes and consider reviewing themselves. Again, thank you for putting up with difficult reviews, unhappy editors, numerous spam messages from me, and taking the time to help with the process, I appreciate your efforts! --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 02:24, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
felkel77
AVN is a reliable source? This is used in every performers entries. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Felkel77 (talk • contribs) 21:48, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's possible for people to lie during interviews, so they are unreliable sources for promotional claims such as winning awards. The statements about the number of films she did in 2000 and her enjoying a certain scene is just unnecessary trivia. Epbr123 (talk) 21:52, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Also, please read
WP:PORN#External links. Epbr123 (talk) 22:05, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply
]
You removed a quoted article from: AINews.com [7] – Reliable source for adult industry news
Further modifications by you of sourced information will be escalated —Preceding unsigned comment added by Felkel77 (talk • contribs) 22:14, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A press release isn't a reliable source for the statement that someone is "highly loving of her fans" and "known for making public appearances". Further copyright or
WP:BLP violations will result in you being blocked. Epbr123 (talk) 22:33, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply
]
Just a friendly note to both of you. You have both exceeded the 3RR rule. Please try to solve it in a different way. Thanks. Nymfhideliho! 22:37, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This individual has taken it upon themselves to strip the entire history of Bridgette Kerkove. The article has been repeatedly whittled down to nothing but a few minor sources. Unacceptable for one of porn's biggest actresses and the holder of the record for most adult films ever made. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Felkel77 (talk • contribs) 22:56, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Being one of porn's biggest actresses doesn't make her article exempt from Wikipedia's sourcing policies. Epbr123 (talk) 23:03, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Are we at a truce or what? Either I've come more to the center of the deletion issue or we both have because we have been agreeing on most afd's lately. I still find you generally unresponsive. - Stillwaterising (talk) 06:41, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]