This article was nominated for
deletion on 11 March 2011. The result of
the discussion was keep.
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or
poorly sourcedmust be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially
libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to
this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following
WikiProjects:
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to
join the project and
contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the
documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pornography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
pornography-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PornographyWikipedia:WikiProject PornographyTemplate:WikiProject PornographyPornography articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the
United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject St. Louis, a project to build and improve articles related to
St. Louis and the surrounding
metropolitan area. We invite you to
join the project and contribute to the
discussion.St. LouisWikipedia:WikiProject St. LouisTemplate:WikiProject St. LouisSt. Louis articles
The article using a quote from a porn source mistakenly uses 'consignment' instead of 'confinement' for the military prison at Ft. Lewis. It referenced on the Global Security site[
[1]] as the Ft. Lewis Regional Confinement Facility as run by the 704th MP BN and in Wikipedia's own list of military prisons[
[2]] as well as dozens of DOD documents in the .mil domain. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Virgil61 (
talk •
contribs) 20:25, April 18, 2007
Both Wikipedia and the US Army (for an Army facility!!) use "Confinement' not "Consignment", enough to justify the correction of consignment from any reasonable viewpoint. I'm not sure how much clearer it can be. If you were operating in 'good faith' you'd have just posted the sources I put above on the main page. Don't let your pride get the best of you when you're wrong.
Virgil6122:17, 18 April 2007 (UTC)reply
Actually they are now 'sources' since they're included at the bottom of the page to correct an error in the article. At this point I think you're acting in 'bad faith'. The correction of the terms puts facts into the person's bio that were mistaken in the source article. This is an encyclopedia, facts not mistakes should be its stock in trade. I'd assume you'd be all for it, apparently you aren't. I'm going to revert, hopefully some adult will mediate what I think are adolescent reactions and 'bad faith' on your part.
Virgil6121:38, 19 April 2007 (UTC)reply
For some reason you seem unwilling or unable to engage in dialog. Your narrow reading of 'sourcing' results in factually incorrect data being included in the encyclopedia; I'm not sure you seem to be able to understand that. At some point either discuss this at length or we'll go the next route.
Virgil6121:59, 19 April 2007 (UTC)reply
On second thought Valrith, do what you want. Life's too short to get into a spat over an obscure Wikipedia article over a porn star.
Virgil6101:56, 20 April 2007 (UTC)reply
It appears to be bad faith on valrith's part to call virgil's edits "vandalism". (as can be seen from this history you did many times)
MathmoTalk01:00, 22 July 2007 (UTC)reply
WikiProject class rating
This article was automatically assessed because at least one article was rated and this bot brought all the other ratings up to at least that level.
BetacommandBot03:45, 28 August 2007 (UTC)reply
How did she get outed as a porn star?
I wonder how it was that a kid found out that she was in porn. The movie would have been made before he (I presume it was a he) was even born. That's weird. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by RenamedUser5 23:35, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
It's even more disgusting that, after watching his teacher in porn, he has to go ask her about it and basically ruin her life—again. She has four kids; I really am sorry that they have to go through this for a second time. /
ƒETCHCOMMS/23:45, 8 March 2011 (UTC)reply
I do not think the kid would have thought that would be the case. If she had been smart she would have denied it and say he was mistaken. My dad showed me her video and she looks nothing like how she does now. RenamedUser5 04:19, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
It's kind of disturbing that your father is showing you pornography ... but whatever. I don't think she really could have denied it though—it would've caused a bigger scandal, and she already admitted her past on Dr. Phil in 2006, so she can't have changed that much. /
ƒETCHCOMMS/15:47, 10 March 2011 (UTC)reply
She is a teacher, let's put it that way. She devloped fame as a teacher, not as a porn actress. As a porn actress, she would not qualify for Wikipedia. So the intro should say taht she was a teacher. Only later should porno be mentioned. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Suzukix (
talk •
contribs)
18:42, 11 March 2011 (UTC)reply
You realize that she is established as both a teacher and an actress in the introduction? It is fine as-is; what you added made it redundant. /
ƒETCHCOMMS/22:22, 12 March 2011 (UTC)reply
Top of her Class?
The link/reference is a crappy and buggy webpage. MOST if not almost ALL colleges in America lack a numeric undergraduate ranking system. Instead they use honorifics such as Cum Laude, Magna Cum Laude, Summa Cum Laude, and so on. The reason being that it is hard to measure the difficulty of a degree vs. another, plus double degrees etc., and other considerations. In professional schools where class size is in the hundreds and very competitive then you see this. Even academic graduate school programs rarely use numeric rankings and more often than not refuse to confer honorifics. So to me that sentence is more hearsay than anything from a poorly written and researched article. She may have been the valedictorian speaker of some junior college or something, but that doesn't mean "top of her class" like it often does in High School.
99.38.147.123 (
talk)
22:32, 2 April 2011 (UTC)reply