User talk:151.203.18.206

Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent contribution removed content from Fred T. Goldberg, Jr.. Please be more careful when editing articles and do not remove content from Wikipedia without a good reason, which should be specified in the edit summary. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. If you would like to experiment again, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Smee 06:19, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not delete content from articles on Wikipedia, as you did to Fred T. Goldberg, Jr.. Your edits do not appear to be constructive and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use Wikipedia:Sandbox for test edits. Thank you. Smee 06:26, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Smee. My deletions were clearly tagged. Wikipedia is not the place to report unsourced, libelous rumors. Please refrain from employing a supercilious tone, particularly when I've made my intentions quite clear. I would suggest you reread the official policy regarding potential libel of living people. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 151.203.18.206 (talk • contribs).

You had (twice) Diff, Diff removed entire paragraphs, including citations from multiple reputable secondary sourced references, from an article. This was reverted by two separate editors Diff, Diff. In this situation it is commonly accepted to place these warnings on a user's talk page. Smee 06:58, 4 June 2007 (UTC).[reply]

I quote from wikipedia:libel: "It is Wikipedia policy to delete libellous material when it has been identified." Very little room for ambiguity there. 151.203.18.206 07:03, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The DIFFs, and the fact that your edits were reverted by two different editors, speak for themselves. Smee 07:04, 4 June 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Porn Star articles

I see you tagged a number of articles with the "unencyclopedic" tag and wish to make two comments. The first is you may wish to keep in mind that Wikipedia has an official policy of civility and leaving comments such as "The existence of garbage on wikipedia is not justification for other garbage on wikipedia. That is circular and specious reasoning." in my opinion is needlessly inflammatory. Second, I wish to point out to you that if you feel the articles should not belong on Wikipedia, there is a procedure by which you can nominate a given article for deletion yourself, rather than wait for some other editor to do it. Tabercil 22:37, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct. I was needlessly inflammatory. My apologies. I have nominated many article for deletion. However, I am interested in a larger issue. There are almost no biographies of pornography actors here that pass the criteria laid out in WP:BIO. I can't understand why they are here. Just as the vast majority of university professors are not on wikipedia, one has to wonder why unimportant pornography actors would be. 151.203.18.206 22:42, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps, but I do wish to make sure you are aware of WP:PORNBIO... that provides a more specific set of criteria for what is considered to be notable. Tabercil 23:10, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And Wikipedians scratch their heads wondering why the academic world refuses to allow citations here. Few of these articles have any long term encyclopedic value, but my talk page is likely not the best venue for this discussion... 151.203.18.206 23:15, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And one last item to keep in mind: you might want to read WP:NOT#CENSOR. Tabercil 00:04, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is absolutely nothing to do with censorship. That is a complete red herring, raised whenever content here is criticized. I am objecting to articles that are not worthy of being included in an encyclopedia, period. For reference, look at the other articles I've proposed for deletion that have no pornographic content. 151.203.18.206 01:07, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What other articles? From your edit history I can see only two non-porn star articles which you've tagged as prod or unencyclopedic, versus 30+ porn stars. Tabercil 04:38, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As you mention, there are other articles -- just as I said. By the way, the ones that have already been deleted are no longer listed or didn't you know that? If you're making a point, I'm missing it. 151.203.18.206 05:20, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As regards the above discussion. Without commenting on the other articles that you have prodded, please note that it has been discussed in the past and decided that Playboy US Centerfolds are notable and each and every one has an article. They are not likely to be deleted even via AFD, let alone PROD. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 05:29, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the information. For whatever it's worth, perhaps the first playboy centerfold might have been notable. I can't imagine how being one today has any meaning. 151.203.18.206 05:36, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is the discussion page for an IP user, identified by the user's IP address. Many IP addresses change periodically, and are often shared by several users. If you are an IP user, you may create an account or log in to avoid future confusion with other IP users. Registering also hides your IP address.