User talk:Keeper of Records

Please don't upload pornographic images. Rick K 06:44, Nov 29, 2004 (UTC)

I didn't. THere are no genitals, soft or hard, in that photo. These images are needed to increase our gay porn star coverage, recently despaired of as inadequate at votes for deletion. - Keeper of Records 06:53, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I have no problem with your addition of copyright-free photos which show the person's face and body. I have no problem with having articles on porn stars of any sexuality. But you cannot include a photograph which shows a naked rear end. Rick K 07:04, Nov 29, 2004 (UTC)

Also, could you tell us whether the information you put into the Jon King (porn star) article is your own work, or is it copied from another site? Copyright problems can get Wikipedia shut down. Rick K 07:06, Nov 29, 2004 (UTC)

Discussion on whether naked rear ends ought to be shown on gay porn stars such as Jon King, famed for his talents as an aggressive "superbottom", belongs on the article's discussion page. I suspect many will find it as pertinent an illustration as, say, a clitoris in a clitoris article. Of course, it may be moot since the syntax has been disrupted and it doesn't seem to be currently viewable. - Keeper of Records 07:11, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

And in answer to your latter question, the information is complied from various obituaries, filmographies, and articles, some of which may and some of which may not appear on "other sites" as well. This is not "copied" unattributed from any one source, but complied by me with suffient changes in wording that copyright considerations are obviated. - 07:11, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

You're not going to get agreement on showing a naked rear end. Discuss it in the article all you want. And please see Wikipedia:Manual of Style for how to clean up the article. Rick K 07:20, Nov 29, 2004 (UTC)

When you come back from your brief vacation, I hope you will reconsider your actions. Do not upload pornographic images. They WILL be deleted, and you WILL be blocked every time you do it. Rick K 07:25, Nov 29, 2004 (UTC)

I'm not taking a "vacation", you're making a snotty remark about your inappropriate block.

What I was saying before:

The addition of a "cleanup tag" fails to convey what your perception is of what exactly needs to be done, and is particularly annoying when you undo some cleaning when you add it. A note outlining what you think the articles deficiencies are would, on the other hand, be communicative and perhaps useful. - Keeper of Records 07:36, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

What I add now: You are far too hasty in using administrator powers to inforse your own personal views. Using these powers to cut off debate that could reach a concencus when it does not match your opinion is an especially eggregious abuse of administrative powers. My suggestion is that you stop instituting such blocks, and stop making false edit summaries when you do. You are not the arbitor of what is and what is not pornographic or even what is appropriate to Wikipedia: that is decided by consensus, not by your decree. Do not try to cut off that process with your administrative powers. - Keeper of Records

Use of fair use tags

Hi I was checking your contributions, in order to try and see what was going on with RickK and I came across Image:Jonbeautifulass.jpg. I see you've put a fair use tag on it. Could you go back and put where you got it from and a brief justification of why it's fair use. It looks like a publicity shot - in which case "publicity shot from offical web site [url]" should cover it I think. I can't tell you how many images we have that are incorrectly tagged, i'm trying to do my bit. Cheers. Theresa Knott (The snott rake) 19:52, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for your scrutiny. And thanks for using the magic words that make the picture smaller. I hope I passed muster. Another way to determine what-was-going-on would have been to ask me. In any case, I'll not ask you about any conclusions you may have come to as to whether RickK's behavior also passes muster, as it would serve no purpose: I have no intention of filing a grievance against him, though one is certainly merited. I have no hopes that such a grievance would be supported—as Wikipedia is a place ruled by men, not law—and frankly no desire to embroil a second endorser, could one even be found, in a nearly interminable process that would ultimately change nothing, least of all RickK's opinion that he is "right" and those he opposes are "trolls" to be "dealt with". So I expect nothing from the Wikipedia powers that be....and nothing from RickK, least of all an apology....and I trust I will not be disappointed. I have added the comments I imagine you are requesting on the image page. - Keeper of Records 10:02, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Thank you for tagging the image. You did far more than I was hoping for! As for the RickK business. I agree that our dispute resolution proceedures are slow and cumbersome, and you are very unlikely to get an apology, but I would like you to know that i feel you were not treated fairly. RickK should have discussed the image on the talk page of the article rather than unilaterally deciding that you must be a trouble maker and therfore OK to block. Theresa Knott (The snott rake) 23:51, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Many thanks for those very kind words. I appreciate them more than you know. I suspect RickK was probably just frustrated by whatever else was going on. - Keeper of Records 06:50, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

sorry

I am very sorry about the comments I made about you re ifd removal, I see this was an accident and I shoudl have looked at the history more clearly. I just saw a lack of ifd and a sequence of edits with people objecting to you, and stupidly assumed that (like someone I dealt with a few days ago on a far more serious matter of deliberate copyvio) you had been deleting the ifds. Grovel grovel grocel its late in my timezone. I absolutely agree that recategorising images on ifd, especially with detailed explanations is the correct thing to do, especially given the way the ifd process works compared to afd. Justinc 23:38, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

yeah but now I am drawn into a long argument defending you on Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion/2005 September 27 and you havent joined in yet. Justinc 00:39, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

sorry re vagina typo - not used to new Mac yet - cut and paste not like Linux - second time it [pastes in things I pasted in this case in other article - not intending this. Story of my life. Justinc 00:40, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I just noticed your comments on Image:Jonbeautifulass.jpg and these are pretty close to perfect justifications for fair use. Can you possibly find the magazine it was published for? I am hovering at 2-3 possible fair use pictures in wikipedia that I can really defend (and desperately searching for more), and I am trying to make up my mind whether I will just give up on fair use, but that one seems very reasonable. The yahoo group link alas now doesnt exists (curse of the web) which doesnt help. It might be on google/wayback - anything would help. Justinc 01:30, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sadly, yes, I can name that magazine :). It was Advocate Men, March 1985, Volume 1, #6. The photographer is the pseudonymous Fred Bisonnes. - Keeper of Records 03:25, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

surprised

I had two concerns when I listed the image. Firstly that it had no source/copyright information. If you claim that it's sorted by adding a {{fairuse}} then that is fine by me. I'm ain't gonna be the one getting in trouble if someone decides to sue wikipedia. My secondary concern was whether that kind of image was allowed or not. It was my understanding -- which of course may have been wrong and if so I appreciate being corrected -- that nudity was only allowed if it was for educational purposes. Now there's always going to be some prudish people (and I can assure you I'm not) that are going to object to any flesh whatsoever, but IMHO the image was more pornographic than educational. I meant no malice, and I would appreciate it if you could heed some of the advice that you handed out earlier and assume good faith. chowells 02:02, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I got involved in this by accident, and assume good faith all round. I believe that there is no restriction to educational purposes on nudity, and have never seen any reference to this. As far as I can see User talk:Keeper of Records was improving the situation of the image by at least attempting to justify fair use to the level of many other images under fair use. I think you were unjustified in deleting this from the image description, as this was at least trying to justify it. Mistakes made all around to some extent, I dont think there should be abad feeling. Justinc 02:20, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm very happy to get to know you, Chowells, and accept that you had no malice. I'm sorry for seeing malice in actions that weren't malicious. I've believe I've made my objections to mixing copyright issues with issues of taste clear, and I'm content to leave it there. - Keeper of Records 03:31, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It seems we have some disagreement regarding pornographic movie. I think you'll agree that my definition makes sense if we assume that the sexual acts in a movie are meant to appeal to those of the same persuasion watching it, and slightly less to those not of the pursuasion who can appreciate it. I realize that the stipulation is that men are fascinated with lesbians, and that women hate 'straight porn', but I would request that you provide a reference to a respectable survey before making this change. Until then, I have reverted it to the reasonable default I have presented. It is most sensible until there are informations and examples presented otherwise. I do think you're probably right, but presenting such things without source is wrong. Perhaps we can expand the article to say, as an example, 'heterosexual males are the main market of porn films (reference) and as such, most movies are made for them to enjoy, requiring the distinction of 'couples porn' for straight porn that people can enjoy'. Couples porn is still a subset of straight porn though, by the wording of it. Otherwise it just becomes slang. This isn't Urban Dictionary. Tyciol 19:00, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, I think you are the one who needs to provide a reference, since the definition you propose goes against the way things actually work. - Keeper of Records 23:23, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Replaceable fair use Image:Giorgio.jpg

Replaceable fair use

Thanks for uploading Image:Giorgio.jpg. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:

Go to the image description page and edit it to add {{di-replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.
On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace the fair use image by finding a freely licensed image of its subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or a similar) image under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that fair use images which could be replaced by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted 7 days after this notification, per our Fair Use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Rette tast 11:09, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Jonbeautifulass.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Jonbeautifulass.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 22:46, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Disruptive edits

Please do not continue to make disruptive edits that go against WP policy: [1]. If you continue to do so instead of using the talk page, an administrator will be notified. You have a history of copyright infringement, uploading pornographic pictures, and violating WP:3RR. Please stop. AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 06:45, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not mistake your preferences for WP policy. You might do well to stop your libels, as well. - Keeper of Records (talk) 02:12, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Taken directly from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Pornography#Filmographies:

"While it can be useful to have some indication what films the performer or filmmaker has worked on, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Any filmographies should be partial, not a complete listing of each and every film that person appeared in. Filmographies are to be limited to six films at most; any additional listings above that number must meet at least one of the following criteria:

Performer or filmmaker's first movie.
Movies that have garnered awards (for the entire movie, or the performer's work in the movie).
Movies that the performer has been in that have received mainstream news attention - e.g., films such as Deep Throat and Behind the Green Door.
Movies that themselves have individual entries in the Wikipedia.
Performer or filmmaker's last movie (of their career, not their latest film).

Providing links to the appropriate IMDB, IAFD, EGAFD, and/or BGAFD filmographies (in the infobox or under "External links") should allow readers access to complete filmographies of performers and filmmakers without unnecessary cluttering of Wikipedia articles."

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Jon King (porn star), did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 11:20, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Jon King (pornographic actor)

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Jon King (pornographic actor), suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process because of the following concern:

Entirely unsourced negative biography. Superficial search reveals nothing but Wikipedia mirrors.

All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because, even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. decltype (talk) 16:20, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Jon King (pornographic actor)

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Jon King (pornographic actor). We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jon King (pornographic actor). Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:30, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]