Jump to content

Talk:Amouranth

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Edit warring

[edit]

LRP19PT, you are currently edit warring over something as trivial as an infobox image, and you have just made the third revert to this page involving the same material within the past 24 hours. I invite you to read WP:EW thoroughly before you carry on with your tendentious editing. I should also point out that the burden is on your initiative to carry out your proposed edit, which is to crop an image from Wiki Common, you do not make demands of other editors to edit things your way. Haleth (talk) 13:55, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Haleth Ok but please can you just do a "cropped" to the photo, by just showing her face! We don't need to get a vision on her breasts and thong, because it as to be a portrait, and it's a infobox photo, so just the face is ok! LRP19PT (talk) 13:57, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'll repeat what I told you in one of my edit summaries. Wikipedia is not censored. That is a non-negotiable site policy. As for your proposal to modify the image to make it seemingly more "modest", do it yourself, or stop being disruptive and move on. Haleth (talk) 14:00, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 02:52, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Article photo

[edit]

Considering recent events, and her stating that she's "free" and "I don't have to wear cleavage anymore, I can wear clothes" now that she isn't being controlled by her husband, an effort should be made to find a more modest picture for the article (while still being generally representative and suitable for the article, of course). I'm really not sure how photo licensing works, but if someone can advise or suggest a photo, I think it would be good to do. WPscatter t/c 05:21, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Wpscatter Just cropping the image would be the simplest method in my opinion. Roostery123 (talk) 07:59, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As of 28/12/2022 she's still... how can I say it modestly.. 'out and proud' on fansly, so pearl clutching over modesty isn't one of HER concerns 🙄. (source: https://fansly.com/Amouranth/posts ...) 87.114.14.227 (talk) 12:10, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, that's totally fair. Strangely it seems like she went back to the softcore porn content a little while after the whole debacle. I retract the above, though I wouldn't object to changing or cropping the image either. WPscatter t/c 23:55, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Alleged" husband

[edit]

It doesn't seem like much of an "allegation", but they are married: [1] --causa sui (talk) 18:41, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed her husband's name because WP:BLPNAME requires stronger sources than heavy.com. Further her allegations trigger WP:NPF. Morbidthoughts (talk) 23:38, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Cross-over boxing

[edit]

Amouranth is scheduled to compete in cross-over boxing on July 1.


Details here: https://bloodyelbow.com/2023/05/31/amouranth-fight-la-velada-del-ano-3/ Timob85 (talk) 18:57, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Pornographic Actress

[edit]

Recently, Amouranth has begun creating pornographic content on jerkmate.com. This is in addition to other deals to create "softcore" porn content. I believe that characterizing her as such is not inappropriate. A quick Google search will reveal this. Must we add a source for such widely disseminated information? 174.70.32.232 (talk) 18:40, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There should not be any edit war over whether she is an unlinked "adult content creator" vs wikilinked pornographic film actress. A pornography film actor is anybody that performs sex acts in a pornography video. This includes streaming video like webcamming. She acknowledges working in the adult film industry.[2] Morbidthoughts (talk) 00:00, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support this change. Amouranth has referred to herself as a pornographic actress before, and the partnership with Jerkmate really makes that line less blurry.. GarlicBreadBen (talk) 03:14, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

kiCk

[edit]

Is somehow moving the activity to less restrictive streaming platform kiCk.com 88.80.224.229 (talk) 21:54, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Got a reliable source? –Novem Linguae (talk) 03:12, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Can write here link to her kiCk profile. 88.80.224.229 (talk) 00:18, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Date of birth

[edit]

On what grounds are we applying WP:BLPPRIVACY in this specific case? The hidden note doesn't give a rationale. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 22:55, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You should ask Sangdeboeuf[3]. However, the birth date should be widely published by RSes. I don't believe this is met by just a citation to a National World clickbait article. Morbidthoughts (talk) 23:10, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Granted. That's the answer I was after. I'll be more aware of it in future cases of semi-notable personalities. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 23:30, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that was essentially my reason for adding the note. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 01:20, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hiya Morbidthoughts, regarding the subject's date of birth (BLP violation removed), surely the following reference is suitable for a valid verification?: https://www.thesun.co.uk/tech/19915696/who-amouranth-net-worth-husband/ Diademchild (talk) 01:10, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
More of the same.WP:THESUN Morbidthoughts (talk) 01:16, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, how about the following article? https://www.hotnewhiphop.com/701744-who-is-amouranth-bio HotNewHipHop is known for covering the careers of multiple artists, and has been nominated multiple times for the BET Hip Hop Awards. Diademchild (talk) 01:19, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Another tabloid clickbait type source. Morbidthoughts (talk) 01:22, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
So what kind of source are you really looking for? Because at this rate, you might end up classifying every relevant source as "clickbait", when even she herself has confirmed that she's born on (BLP violation removed)?. At least, I've been able to finally get everyone to accept that her middle name is Michelle lol. Diademchild (talk) 01:31, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Find something green from WP:RSP. Morbidthoughts (talk) 01:41, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That’s fair enough, though could prove difficult or take time to find. But I have readily available sources from her own verified Twitter and Twitch pages of her celebrating her birthday on 2 December. She’s definitely not born in 1994, and she confirmed last month that she was already aged 31 on a popular online podcast, which I can provide a sourced link to if you want? Afterall, I would assume that even you would surely consider any verifiable written source, as a subservient source to hearing the information directly from the horse’s mouth? Diademchild (talk) 01:54, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Morbidthoughts, how about the following reference: https://www.dataconomy.com/2024/01/10/amouranth-ai-companion-onlyfans/ ?
For over a decade, Dataconomy has been dedicated to making sense of our rapidly changing world—sharing clear, compelling journalism at the intersection of data, technology, finance, and business. So that's by no means a tabloid clickbait type source. Diademchild (talk) 10:07, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
See what I wrote below: Combining one source for the subject's birthday with another source for the year of birth to arrive at the exact birth date is original research. This is not permitted anywhere on Wikipedia.
The Dataconomy article is somewhere between churnalism and content mill and reads as though it was written by ChatGPT. Instead of looking for any random website that contains the date you are trying to include, I suggest following Morbidthoughts' advice and starting with the highest quality sources that cover the subject in depth. See also WP:BESTSOURCES. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 15:43, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BLPPRIVACY

[edit]

Hiya, everyone. The subject of this article is/was born on (BLP violation removed). I don't know why anyone could be assuming she could be born in 1994, when that is clearly not the case. Google and her social media pages confirm her birthdate as (BLP violation removed) too, and she herself confirmed on a popular podcast this month that she was aged 31 as at February 2025, when her birthday is in December. The subject clearly didn't make her age private online, so there's no valid justification as to why we cannot confirm it on here. Likewise her middle name is Michelle as per her Internet Movie Database page. I'm very pedantic and I hate seeing inaccurate information on Wikipedia. So can we all respectfully, please leave her infobox's birth date as rightly (BLP violation removed). Many thanks. Diademchild (talk) 18:53, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Diademchild. 1) Please self-revert your controversial edits until you have an affirmative consensus on this talk page for the disputed edits. The page needs to return to the status quo ante. Your edits have been objected to by myself and another editor. 2) Please drop some links to pages displaying her birthdate and middle name so we can evaluate the quality of the sources. In general, we want to include information on Wikipedia, but the idea behind WP:BLP and WP:BLPPRIVACY is that sometimes it is unethical to include certain personal information about living persons, even if the information is true. In this case, because it would facilitate identity theft and violate the subject's privacy. I may change my mind if the sources you link show her not caring about hiding her birthdate and middle name, but you need to link to some sources. Thanks. –Novem Linguae (talk) 20:35, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your comment.
1.) So I see you're making the mistake of assuming that Sangdeboeuf outrightly objected to my initial edit. But it's clear that the editor only had an objection to the only provided citation of Amouranth's biological age, and not to the fact that she is/was indeed born in (BLP violation removed). So it's apparent that it's only you who has an objection to it for no reason. However, since Sangdeboeuf's initial comment, I have provided further references that substantiate that Amouranth was indeed born in (BLP violation removed), and only an ignorant editor would have to dispute the evidence provided.
2.) I have already provided some links to pages displaying her birthdate and birthday, directly from the subject's verfied twitter page herself. So I do not need to do this any further, though if you want I can tell you the podcast she confirmed her real age on. However, regarding the subject's middle name, there is a link to a page from Business Insider, that I can provide that clearly states that her full name is indeed "Kaitlyn Michelle Siragusa". And we all know that Business Insider is a reputable source in America, so then there's no argument that supporting information on Business Insider cannot be on Wikipedia. The other option would be deprecating all uses of such sources as tabloid or fake news, which is unthinkable. Regards. Diademchild (talk) 21:38, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
WP:IMDB is not a reliable source. Combining one source for the subject's birthday with another source for the year of birth to arrive at the exact birth date is original research. This is not permitted anywhere on Wikipedia, especially biographies of living persons, where reliable sourcing is a must. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 08:38, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hiya everyone, so as you can see/read here in the following two/three referenced links, indeed her middle name is Michelle. Do we all feel safe to include it, in her article page introduction as well?

Diademchild (talk) 17:07, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Business Insider story looks OK, but the YouTube interview is evidently self-published and not usable. (Even if it were a generally reliable source, an interviewer addressing a subject as XYZ is not enough to verify that their name is XYZ.) EssentiallySports looks like garden-variety clickbait, also not usable. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 21:12, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
So in that list, only the Business Insider article, supports her middle name being Michelle? But would verifiable social media pages of hers, also support that case? Diademchild (talk) 21:53, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
For basic claims such as a middle games, a source like an interview is fine, especially of backed up by another source. Cortador (talk) 13:55, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This was what I initially suspected/thought as well. Afterall, the middle name (Michelle) specified in that referenced interview, confirms what a reputable source like the Business Insider stated about/for her, as well. Diademchild (talk) 14:00, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Amouranth&oldid=1279617529"