User talk:Biguns

About the change in the Orit Fux article.

Hi Biguns!, well with regard to change done in the article about Orit Fux, really there is not sense, only i believed would be just that being I the article creator, I would have the right to elect the photo, in fact, I almost don't make changes in articles that I did not write, only to correct some erroneous data, style or format, i expect your comprehension, and i don't want to enter in conflict with anybody for anything, I'm here only to share our great passion for the BIG BOOBS.

Greetings and Blessings. Kamui99 03:33, 22 January 2008 (EST)

Diana / disambiguation

I've been thinking about how disambiguation should be handled here. For women with the same first name, but different full names (like the Diana page), not having a Diana page at all is probably best. That way, someone searching for Diana will get the search results for "Diana." For women with the same name (like Samantha Fox), I think a disambiguation page should be used.

If you have any other ideas or thoughts on this, by all means let me know. :) The Honorable 12:43, 7 March 2008 (EST)

I actually think you're right. But since the Diana article already existed, I thought I might as well do something with it and let you decide if you want to delete it or not.

Nevertheless, what about a category for disambiguation pages? -Biguns 12:46, 7 March 2008 (EST)

Good idea. I've made Category:Disambiguation and put the ones I could find in it. The Honorable 00:25, 8 March 2008 (EST)

The "Big tit movies / pictures of..."

Re: your note on Alessandra Derya: the affiliate links section isn't really for admins-only section. If you know someone has been in, say, Score, and {{scoreland}} hasn't been added, you (or anyone) is welcome to add it. :) The Honorable 13:23, 16 March 2008 (EDT)

"Vandalism"

Just a note -- "vandalism" should only be used to describe an article being deliberately defaced, not well-intentioned fixes that you may disagree with. :) The Honorable 20:43, 24 March 2008 (EDT)

Like deliberately removing a main image without even bothering to explain? -Biguns 09:00, 25 March 2008 (EDT)

I hadn't noticed that when I posted my original message. I still wouldn't call it vandalism, but, yeah, that's not cool. The Honorable 20:55, 25 March 2008 (EDT)

Well, there's vandalism by addition and vandalism by subtraction. The former may stick out more (because it uses curse words and such), but in essence their affects are really the same. They're both vandalism. -Biguns 05:43, 26 March 2008 (EDT)

Markéta Pechová / Marketa Pechova

I've moved Markéta Pechová back to Marketa Pechova -- Hexvoodoo has said that he prefers no special characters in article titles. (Unfortunately, I can't remember where he said it... :) The Honorable 17:43, 30 March 2008 (EDT)

Sure. If I had known about this rule (although it has no need in Mediawiki), I wouldn't have done the move. -Biguns 18:37, 30 March 2008 (EDT)

No problem; even though you didn't know, your intentions were obviously good. I think it's mainly for the benefit of search engines, and because we've had a few pages that were difficult to move/delete because of unusual characters. The Honorable 18:49, 1 April 2008 (EDT)

Spam

Biguns, please learn the meaning of the term "Spam" before applying it to inter-BP links. The links you removed from Rumi Akutsu were to potential, and planned BP articles. Thank you. Dekkappai 12:58, 8 April 2008 (EDT)

If that is not spam (plus vandalism by omission), I don't know what is. It's just a random link to one of her videos, that gives you % for each sale that comes through this link. If I wanted to, don't you think I could add such links to each and every article in this site with my seller's ID in them? -Biguns 14:03, 8 April 2008 (EDT)

A couple of points, Biguns

1. If you are seriously calling THIS edit "Vandalism by omission" [sic], take a look at how many inter-BP links have been restored after you removed them. I count 15 intentional "Vandalism by omission"s [sic] by you to my accidental two, which occurred while reverting yours. ("Topless=yes", "large areolas" Gee, I think we could have figured this out without even translation from the Japanese.)
2. I don't for a minute believe you seriously do consider my reversion "Vanadlism by omission" [sic], but rather that you wanted to "get back" at me for taking exception to your removal of red links, and so you went whining to the Admin-on-duty. In other words, you were being an asshole, and, with all due respect, for the sake of BP and good will among your fellow editors, I recommend that you not continue to behave in an asshole-like manner.
3. Both The Honorable and Hexvoodoo have encouraged the uploading of video/DVD covers to add information and images to articles. This makes perfect sense in the format of a filmography, which can provide information such as date of release, etc., instead of bare images. Filmographies need sourcing which can provide verification-- how else do we know if anonymous editors are just pulling titles and dates out their arses? Sourcing is good, it is not Spam. If you are against providing filmographies/video covers, and links to their verification here at BP, may I ask-- what are you doing here? If you prefer to remove information that has been contributed by others, perhaps Wikipedia is where you belong.
4. You accuse me of getting a percentage of sales that come through this site. To my knowledge, most Japanese online sites, dmm.co.jp included, do not take foreign orders. And regardless, if you were around when BP was starting up, you might have seen Hexvoodoo actually encourage commercial links.
5. What you call a "random link to one of her videos" is a link to dmm.co.jp, a Japanese consortium of adult-video companies. The links to this site provide catalogue numbers and other information on the video which is supplied by the makers of the videos themselves, not by a "random" retail site.
6. Because these subjects are in Japanese, searching for information will be difficult for most users of Boobpedia, that is why links to the specific video page is valuable. Not only can the data be confirmed, and further information/review/description be obtained (if one reads Japanese), screen-caps of the video itself are provided.
7. Finally, and most importantly, until you become an Admin-- and I don't see that happening soon-- I encourage you strongly to focus more on your own contributions than on wasting the time of other editors by pestering them over the minutiae of editing-style and false accusations of bad-faith editing.

Regards, Dekkappai 19:15, 8 April 2008 (EDT)

It's funny the only one here who has to resort to curses is the one who blames others of personal agendas. Besides, you're a demagogue. Vandalism by omission is just that (e.g. removing stats and categories without even bothering to mention why). Also, I removed your sales' link, not your covers. What does it have to do with covers? Maybe Wikipedia's rules bother you, but you do realize this site has rules too (that were not set by yours truly), right? Have you read the help and FAQ pages? -Biguns 20:23, 8 April 2008 (EDT)

Publicity photos/paparazzi photos

When you say "publicity photos," I think you mean "paparazzi photos." Publicity photos usually refers to posed studio photos, not photos taken outside movie premieres and events. The Honorable 20:36, 1 May 2008 (EDT)

Premires and events are anything but paparazzi. The only reason celebrities go there in the first place is to get publicity. Paparazzi is when the celebrities are unaware (at least supposedly) of being photographed. Thus you get to see them without makeup, without underwear (a-la Britney Spears), naked (a-la Lisa Marie), etc. Also, publicity photos belong to major corporations who have the power and will to go after those who steal them. -Biguns 07:04, 2 May 2008 (EDT)

Naughty Alysha

Hi Biguns,

thanks for your feedback. I disagree about your changes. When IAFD is not a reliable source, why is it possible to add it to the biobox? And even if it is - now we have no references at all in the article, and no one knows where we got the measurements from. I think it is better to at least mention where we got the measurements, and everyone can decide if the source is reliable or not, because they know where the data comes from.

That's something I often noticed on Boobpedia: There are measurements given, but no one knows where they come from. That makes Boobpedia less reliable. Every data not proved by citations is useless in my opinion. Besides, I was about to write more in her article, there will be more citations soon. :-) So I think it is sometimes necessary to have sources mentioned double, because

• in the biobox there is a simple field that is made for IAFD for example
• the data in an article may come from different sources so that it is necessary to add references to each peace of data.

In this article, as it was only in the beginning, IAFD was the only source so far, and you are right that it might look strange to see it mentionend double. You are also right that IAFD may not be so reliable (actually it was the first time I cited it, because I could not find other data at once).

Please have a look at the article when I continue it and let me know what you think. I guess, if I do not find other sources for her measurements, I'll restore the IAFD citations so that there is at least a source, but only when I continue the article.

Looking forward to your suggestions

Prophecy 07:00, 3 May 2008 (EDT)

Hi, Biguns. Regarding your Naughty Alysha changes: Including the sources of our information is a Good Thing and should be encouraged. If IAFD is "not a reliable reference," then the information should just be removed. Also, having manual links in the biobox isn't a big deal. Otherwise, you're doing a fine job. Rock on. :) The Honorable 08:43, 3 May 2008 (EDT)

Just because something is not a reliable source doesn't mean it can't be linked. Those are two separate things. As for measurements, I've already discussed this gray area in the past. Almost only Playboy Playmates have a reliable source for their measurements. The solution is to either remove measurements altogether or have IAFD/AFDB/IMDb references all over the place. I think people realize that unreferenced measurements means they came from one of these 3 links.

Also note that IAFD/AFDB/IMDb references are manual, which ruins the whole advantage of having a template that accepts just IDs. If IAFD/AFDB/IMDb ever change their links, all of those references would be dead links. -Biguns 09:45, 3 May 2008 (EDT)

Natalia Mühlhausen

Sorry, I wanted to reinstall your [[Category:Large areolas]] after the undo, but was then busy reinstalling her name in the Scoreland link so that I forgot it. :-)

About the reference next to "No": As I already mentionend, there's more to come, but I did not have the time to write the reference at that time. I agree that a reference should be added, so we can just let it without a "No" until I write the rest of the article.

BUT: Please see The Honorable's explanations in Template:Biobox. He explicitly says: Write Yes/No for every of these fields. So I would have appreciated if you sent a short message before deleting the "No"s as I did what's given in The Honorable's instructions.

Regards

Prophecy 12:57, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

Angelique

Hi Biguns,

please see my message and Honorable's reply.

I think it's better to put the old photo back in her biobox. Do you agree?

Regards

Prophecy 15:11, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

Where should I reply about this? :-) Anyway, the reason I did the change was because I always prefer images that prove why the article's subject belongs in this site, over anything else (especially publicity images, although this one isn't a classic one). Have you thought about that angle? -Biguns 20:00, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

I'm afraid I did not quite understand you, please excuse me, I'm not a native speaker. Do you think the latex picture is better because it shows more of her big boobs? And you do not like publicity images and think the old one is one? Sorry if I confused something, please explain. Prophecy 20:16, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

Replace the phrase "shows more" with "actually shows" and you got my point. I see no point for non nude images (unless that's all the article's subject has got). If one wants non nude images, all they need to do is go to Google Images. -Biguns 20:21, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

Aaah, now that's clear. You are right there. What use has an article about tits and all that if one does not see them in the main picture. especially if we talk about a porn star. Well, there are a lot of better pics out there, I'll look for one that represents her better (with naked boobs, of course), replace the old one, and put the latex pic to the side, because it is more of an additional character.

Regards

Prophecy 08:05, 8 May 2008 (EDT)

Nothing special about porn stars. It should be "especially if she actually has a nude image". Anyway, saw the new image. Now that's what I'm talking about! Thanks. I've added a deletion request to the old image. -Biguns 10:16, 8 May 2008 (EDT)

34D in measurements

Hi Biguns,

I saw that you generally remove the cup size from the measurements field. Please note that if a model provides 34D-24-35 as her measurements, 34 is not her bust measurement (she would have AA tits if it was). It would be 38 in this case. But as we do not have a source for 38, please leave the cup size in the measurements fields. Many American models only provide their bra size instead of their real overall bust measurement, so that's all we have, and deleting the cup size would give a false bust measurement.

Regards

Prophecy 05:46, 16 June 2008 (EDT)

Areaolas

I will. It seems that we have fundamentally different opinions about what makes large areolas. Some time ago other editors went through all of your large areola edits and reverted them where they thought the category was inappropriate.

The problem is: Boobpedia has a category for large areolas, but unlike "Big boobs" (at least C cup), the term "Large areolas" has never been defined. Perhaps we should introduce a clear definition. May I ask if you are of Asian origin? From my observations, areaolas of Asian women are significantly smaller than those of caucasian women, so that an individual from an Asian country must consider most European and American areolas as large.

Also, the same areola size on a small breast appears to be larger than the same areola on a large breasted woman - in relation to the whole breasts, the areola becomes smaller. So, as long as we do not have a clear definition on Boobpedia, we have to judge from our own eyes and experiences.

Please compare the following two pictures (the first one showing average breasts on Wikipedia:

The areola sizes are nearly the same, although Lily's breasts are significantly bigger.

• Based on this fact, I think it cannot be justified to call Lily's areolas large. They even look smaller than on the Wikipedia picture due to the relative effect described above.
• The standard for "normal" areolas should be the average areola size like on the pictures above (let's say a radius of around one to one and a half finger's width), not small areolas. Small areolas may be nice to look at, but they are neither standard nor statistically average among caucasian women.
• Every areola smaller than on the pictures above should be considered as "small" and not as standard, normal or average.
• Every areola larger than on the pictures above can be considered as "large". Compare Angelique, for example. The radius of her areolas looks like nearly three fingers.

Otherwise, Category:Large areolas would become useless if we found women like Lily Anderson among really big areolas like Angelique's. Or we'd have to introduce a category like "Gigantesque areolas", which would make it even more difficult for editors to classify.

Regards

Prophecy 23:06, 9 August 2008 (EDT)

I'll look through some pages if I find examples of what you asked for. I was away a few days, sorry for my late reply. Prophecy 11:46, 13 August 2008 (EDT)

IMDb / "cleaning up" / providing image descriptions, etc.

Thanks for attempting to work on the Chesty Morgan articles, Biguns, however you made some changes I disagree with.

1. Naming any reference "unreliable" is obvious POV comment, and completely inappropriate here. This is Boobpedia, not Wikipedia. I've seen completely unsourced statements and listings everywhere... In fact the cast listing to the other Chesty Morgan film was unsourced and you provided no comment to that. Instead you labeled the sourced one as "Unreliable". We're not relying only on peer-reviewed academic papers here. IMDb's reliability is in question, but all sources on these topics are of questionable reliability, because these subjects have not traditionally come up for academic scholarship. I sourced a Russ Meyer cast listing with the AFI Catalog, and another user has pointed out it was in error. What do you want to do? Name every reference "Unreliable-1" "Unreliable-2"... If label every source that Wiki-editors look down on as "unreliable" then "unreliable" tags will be as overused here as... the "large areola" category. Even Wikipedia sources infoboxes and cast-listings with IMDb, constantly, and does not name the source "unreliable". Again, as with your past editing, I have a very hard time believing you felt you were being constructive with this edit.
2. Please, if you're going to "clean up" other people's work, at least seek to make it look a little better
3. Please provide some sort of image description for your uploads. I was able to determin the Deadly Weapons DVD cover you uploaded was the "Something Weird Video" release, and I labled it so at the article and on the image. Your upload of the Double Agent 73 DVD differs from the "Something Weird Video" release displayed at Amazon. Can you provide some description?

Regards. Dekkappai 13:11, 10 August 2008 (EDT)

1. That's exactly it. You can't eat one's cake and have it too. Wikipedia items that rely on IMDb don't reference IMDb for these items. If they do, those references are bound to be removed. You assume the lack of references is equal to "verified", but it's just the opposite. If something does not have a reference, then you let the reader know it's not 100% verified without pretending otherwise. If referencing academic sources is one extreme, referencing publically editable sources is the other extreme.
2. ?
3. I just found those images and uploaded them. Feel welcome to add info if you have it. -Biguns 18:57, 10 August 2008 (EDT)

1. Biguns, as time progresses you appear more and more like a troll. Totally unreferenced material is spread all over BP, I don't see you tagging it. Rather than leave my information unsourced, I gave the source-- IMDb. The reader can note the source and judge for his or herself how "reliable" that is. Believe me, I search out more "reliable" sourcing, and replace less "reliable" sourcing with better sourcing whenever I can. I have worked long and hard at Wikipedia and have had an FA on the mainpage there, and I can tell you with certainty that IMDb is used as a source for infoboxes and cast listings at Wikipedia-- constantly. It is marked as "unreliable" for biographical information. For you, unilaterally, to demand that our sourcing here, at this Wiki on a fringe topic, must pass stricter "reliability" standards than Wikipedia is nonsensical. Please cease doing it. Dekkappai 20:05, 10 August 2008 (EDT)

Please calm down. I don't go around here removing sources. If edit such stuff, it's because I already edit said article. In any case, neither you nor I have the right to "demand" stuff, so some admin should decide about this once and for all. -Biguns 06:26, 11 August 2008 (EDT)

Also, instead of waging personal attacks, keep in mind you can't click "save page" without agreeing to "if you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly...then don't submit it here." -Biguns 06:33, 11 August 2008 (EDT)

Do NOT tag other editors' work for deletion without discussion

Concerning this edit, Biguns, until now, your constant picking away at the work of others has been merely annoying. Changing "Notes" to "References", "Partial filmography" to "Selected filmography", labeling every actress article with "large areolae", etc. and marking all this stylistic nit-picking as "fixing", "improving" or "cleaning up" manages to be simultaneously stupid and condescending. These sorts of antics are barely excusable, but I assume the community tolerates them because most of us are busy with far more constructive forms of editing. However your recent tagging of other people's work for "Deletion" without consulting or notifying them goes far beyond your usual childish stunts. It is completely intolerable, and I strongly advise that you NEVER do anything so destructive here again. I consider what you did-- the removal of other editors good-faith and valuable work-- to be vandalism, pure and simple. Dekkappai 22:54, 20 August 2008 (EDT)

First of all, thar article had someone else's pic. Secondly, it takes seconds to undelete an article, a fact which ruins your all arguement. Nothing is irreversible. Thirdly, you don't own this site. You can't order and bully people around. I'll tag what I want and it's up to the admin to decide what to do with it. I refuse to talk with you until you stop your personal attacks. You are phoney because I try to improve stuff while you are busy insulting others. -Biguns 03:57, 21 August 2008 (EDT)

Re: Your comment

No point in possibly annoying a high-ranking government official who also has a military background. :) The Honorable (talk)