Joe Beaudoin Jr.

Archives
Archive as of: December 2, 2005 December 13, 2005 December 21, 2005 January 27, 2006 February 17, 2006 March 13, 2006 March 30, 2006 May 16, 2006 July 1, 2006 August 13, 2006 January 4, 2007 May 5, 2007 October 9, 2007

Please add all new discussions to the bottom of the page. All replies will be given here, so please place my talk page on your watchlist. Thank you.

STOP

Editing and Reverting pages simply because you disagree with wikipedia's rules.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Jewish2007or9 (talk • contribs) 19:16, November 14, 2007

BTW I already informed KhoiKhoi —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jewish2007or9 (talk • contribs) 00:18, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Who? Could you please tell me what this is all referring to? Thank you. -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. ^{Think out loud} 00:41, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Based on the edit history of Jewish2007or9, I believe the edit which he is objecting to is this one. Tabercil 05:23, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I made that after this message, not before. Check the time. -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. ^{Think out loud} 07:39, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

He might have been referring to your protection of Aylar Lie, since he specifically mentioned protections here. Most likely, though, he's been attempting to get you to flame him. --The Fifth Horseman 10:19, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

That's what I suspected too, but I wanted him to say that. Regardless, you're right, he/she's probably set out to start a flame war. -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. ^{Think out loud} 13:14, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Teagan Presley picture

I see no harm in changing pictures. I see nothing offensive in using that "unprofessional" photo. I think that other photo looks better. Unless you can tell me what is so bad about that photo, I see no harm in changing it. --Xraffle 02:15, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Frankly, since it seems there's some issue over it (because you're change has been reverted by more than two people), I would bring the topic up on the discussion page for the article. -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. ^{Think out loud} 04:49, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

May I ask, what exactly is the big issue? It's not like it's a pornagraphic picture. I've seen worse pictures here on Wikipedia than that. --Xraffle 05:22, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

The picture you've replaced is far more professional, in terms of lighting and the like. It also doesn't cut off the arms, like the picture you want to use. Secondly, the picture you want to use is diffused, slightly out of focus, and looks like something taking at a party. Which is why I labeled it as unprofessional, because it clearly is taken by an amateur photographer. Frankly, it's a style choice, and it seems to be that, between the three people presently commenting on this issue, it's really 2 to 1 for the original picture. -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. ^{Think out loud} 05:33, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

That picture on now, which is the "Island Fever 4 Party" looks far better than what was orginally used. I just didn't like that older picture because it focuses more on her boob job rather than solely on Teagan. As long as this picture stays, I guess we have all come to an agreement. --Xraffle 15:47, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, the Island Fever 4 Party picture is fine. I can somewhat see your point about the boob job being (somewhat) the focus of the original picture. However, I still believe that it wasn't enough justification to change it to the picture you did, given the intended replacement pic's quality. Regardless, I do wish you had explained your reasoning earlier on the talk page or even in your edit summaries, and you may want to heed that advice going forward to avoid any future issues. -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. ^{Think out loud} 18:49, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, it's not easy finding a good replacement. I could upload a nice photo, but unless I can prove that I have permission to use the photo, Wikipedia will delete it. Unfortunately, I can't prove it so I have to use whatever I can find on Wikipedia Commons. That one pic I used was all I could find. Had I found the Island Fever picture originally, I would have used that instead. --Xraffle 21:32, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

"Unreferenced" template change

Howdy, there is discussion of changing the "unreferenced" template a bit, and I proposed removing the description field. I noticed in the history that you added it originally (June 2006), and so thought I'd drop a note here, as you might be interested in the matter. People seem to use the description field almost exclusively to add the word "section," and we want to add a section parameter for that explicitly, which will categorize the article differently. That could be done while keeping the description field, but since it seems rarely used otherwise, and adds some compexity, it seems better to remove it altogether. I'll watch if you reply here, or you can add an opinion at Template_talk:Unreferenced#Section_parameter or Template_talk:Unreferenced#Section_parameter:_specific_proposal. Best regards, -Agyle 00:18, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Hmm... I could honestly care less, to be honest. I merely added it so that when people used the template to indicate an unreferenced section, they could modify the wording so it wasn't incorrect. -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. ^{Think out loud} 00:32, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. :-) -Agyle 00:36, 13 October 2007 (UTC) (Unwatching page)

My mass-stubbing spree

Hi, Joe. After gritting my teeth over the simultaneous mass-stubbing and mass-AfDing, I decided to join in the action this morning, and do a little mass-stubbing myself. So, all these film, director & actress articles I've had in mind for a while are all going up as stubs in one fell swoop! "I'll show 'em! I'll show 'em ALL! Wikipedia's servers will groan under the weight of dozens and dozens of unsourced, one-sentence stubs on Japanese erotic cinema!" I thought. So I rubbed my hands together, cackled like a mad scientist, and an hour later, here's the result: Shogun's Joys of Torture. And there's no stopping me now! I may even start ANOTHER ONE before the day is done!!! But seriously, next time I try to poke my nose into one of these arguments with some WP:POINT-warrior, someone do me a favor and just block me for a day or two... I'm just not up to it... Dekkappai 20:05, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Don't worry about it. It's just Wikipedia -- it's not the end of the world. ;-) -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. ^{Think out loud} 21:26, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Good advice. I managed to pound out one more stub, and I'm exhausted now. So much for my stubbing rampage... Dekkappai 21:31, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Stubs? They're stubs?!? They seem well on their way to article-hood, with references, a pic and everything. :D -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. ^{Think out loud} 21:34, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Joe. I like my stubs to have the seeds of expansion in them, and lots of sourcing always helps in that regard. I had to start just one more today, on the early Japanese sex queen Noriko Tatsumi... So many fascinating subjects need to be started in this field, though it is quite a challenge to find the sourcing and information... By the way, about Epbr123, I do think he has the makings of a good and valuable editor. His enthusiasm for the project is very admirable, and his hard work, when useful, is very much appreciated. Let's just hope that the RfC puts him on the right track to learning how to work better within the Wiki community. Epbr, wherever you are, chin up! We're all hoping for the best! Cheers! Dekkappai 02:01, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I always liked him. :-) Usually. :-) --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 22:50, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

You're one of the true saints of Wikipedia, Mouse. ;) Dekkappai 23:10, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Edit war protection

Thank you Sir! / edg ☺ ★ 05:52, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

No problem. :-) -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. ^{Think out loud} 06:07, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Tyra Banks early life section

Since u (or some1 else) locked hte page, pls go here and fix. Thx.

When will the page be opened? The vandal were in July (per what u posted) and this is Oct ending.

Thx. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.108.99.177 (talk • contribs)

It's an infinite protection, and, to be honest, I don't see any reason to overturn it. If you care to edit the article, then you can sign up for an account and wait four days before you can edit. It's harmless and for the best anyway. ;-) -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. ^{Think out loud} 05:42, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Jenna Haze

DVD box covers in Jenna Haze article

Hi, I've read your contributions and clarifications in the talk page of Jenna Haze related to DVD box covers in December 2005. I've mentioned and make a short list of movies post-Jenna Haze Darkside (movie also mentioned on the article) and I've also given some critical commentaries, even using articles for references and sources. Well, my question is if we can use thumbnails to put covert art images in the article for those movies. Could you help me on this, please? Purplehayes2006 14:06, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually, a lot of things have changed since I've made those comments. Wikipedia has really begun to crack down on what they call non-free images, which box covers are a part. Frankly, the only way you can (safely) use box covers is if you use them to showcase the movies themselves. -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. ^{Think out loud} 23:38, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

I'd say to be safe with regards to boxcovers, follow the same rules as found in WP:MUSTARD for images:

1. The {{album cover}} tag establishes fair use only in an article about the album in question.
2. Fair use images cannot be used purely for decoration.
3. Fair use images cannot be used in discography sections.
4. Fair use images should be used sparingly. Each image must contribute specifically, uniquely and irreplaceably to the article.

Yes I realize that MUSTARD is supposed to apply only to music articles and the rules do seem specifically tailored to it (especially rule #1), but underneath the specifics is a good general set of principles. Tabercil 02:47, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for both of you for the help in this question. I really want to know the policy about box covers. So the idea of put an image for every movie mentioned in Jenna Haze article seems to be barely possible. Well, I wrote something about every movie and put articles as reference and source... but of course those movies don't match MUSTARD's #1 rule, since they are mentioned inside Jenna Haze's article not in their own article. But well, there is another factor of consideration: these movies don't have they own articles, I didn't make just a list of movies, I offer some critic and articles as sources, and these critics and references I wrote in Jenna Haze's article is all what they have. Could be this consider to the safely use of an image box cover of the film?. Anyhow I would put images just for some of them. In any case, if I understood well, we can post an image of the box cover of Jenna Haze Darkside in the Pornographic film career section of Jenna Haze article, because this is the most important and successful film in her career to date, most important film for Jules Jordan Video, it's already a Top 50 All-time bestseller, etc... and also represents her come back to do boy-girl scenes and her first interracial scene. I mean an use like the box cover image of the movie Brianna Loves Jenna in the Jenna Jameson's article. What do you think? Purplehayes2006 15:26, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

External links (official website)

Hi, I see you reverted my edit related to the inclusion of Jenna Haze's official website link in her External link section. I know the link is already in the infobox, but if you read Wikipedia:External_links#What_to_link, under What should be linked the rule #1 says that the link to her official website must be in the External link section. I thought it is OK put the link in both places, because it is also a basic entry for the infobox as per Template:Female_adult_bio something like in the Jenna Jameson article, which is a Feature-Class article related to an adult film actress, so the mirror of how to do an article for an adult film actress. I think the link should be in both places. What do you think? 01:31, 30 October 2007 (UTC)Purplehayes2006

On a second look, the article is now large enough that it might warrant having the link located in the External links section. So I would go ahead and do that in this case. When it comes to shorter articles though, having the links duplicated in two places wouldn't be worth it, though. -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. ^{Think out loud} 06:10, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm yea that makes sense. So I'm going to add the link in the External section too. Thanks! Purplehayes2006 15:34, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I am sorry if this discussion caused any bad to you. That was not my intention. Purplehayes2006 20:18, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Don't worry about it. :-) -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. ^{Think out loud} 21:40, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Nikki Nova Part 2

A user by the name of Valrith keeps reverting Nikki Nova's profile back to an older, out of date version. I have told him that we had a lengthy discussion on the subject and that I provided you with valid references for those updated stats. I also told him to check out Nikki Nova's discussion page but still, he ignores the facts that you and I have established. Perhaps you can talk with him? Thank you. RageOfFury 14:59, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

CopyNight Orlando

Hi Joe Beaudoin Jr.! I see you're from Florida. If you're in the Orlando area, please check out this brief survey. I'm looking to start a meet-up of CopyNight, a monthly social discussion of copyright and related issues (like Wikipedia, Creative Commons, and open source). If that sounds neat, please answer this short survey to help with scheduling the event. Thanks! --Gavin Baker 08:56, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Aria Giovanni

I am curious to know why you redacted Aria Giovanni's real name? She is an adult with a pseudonym. Wikipedia lists the real name of Dear Abby, Yusuf Islam, Little Oral Annie and Foxy Brown. Why not Aria's real name? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kingturtle (talk • contribs) 20:50, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

It wasn't sourced. Per the biographies on living persons policy, we can't have unsourced personal information on pages. Therefore, it was removed. -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. ^{Think out loud} 04:33, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Request for unprotection – Aylar Lie

You have full-protected this article with an expiry time of 6 months. I urge you to reconsider this as,

1. The level of vandalism is low and sporadic. Had the article been requested for protection at WP:PROTECT the request would surely have been turned down.
2. Full-protection has been applied in a case where, had the level of abuse been significantly higher, only semi-protection would have been applied.
3. A very long expiration time (6 months) has been issued which does not adhere to protection practice for such situations as with this article.

__meco (talk) 09:33, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

• I agree with meco. The level of vandalism doesn't seem particularly high. Epbr123 (talk) 13:07, 25 November 2007 (UTC)