Talk:Tony Eveready

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Biography Portal
Stub This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
This article has been automatically assessed as Stub-Class by WikiProject Biography because it uses a stub template.
  • If you agree with the assessment, please remove {{WPBiography}}'s auto=yes parameter from this talk page.
  • If you disagree with the assessment, please change it by editing the class parameter of the {{WPBiography}} template, removing {{WPBiography}}'s auto=yes parameter from this talk page, and removing the stub template from the article.
Pornography Portal
This article is part of WikiProject Pornography, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to pornography-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Stub This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Contents

[edit] older entries

Who is the girl that tone puts his balls into?

According to http://www.blacksonblondes.com/tourx/index.php?pg=14&nats=OTozOjM,0,0,0,0 it's Alisha Angel, and that page also hints that Tone is from South Central L.A. -Capt. Snuffy

I really think that they say "Crown on her," not clown. Can I get an Amen?

No amen. The behavior seen in this video is commonly known as "clowning."

[edit] Picture

Could maybe somebody upload a headshot of Tony? That would be nice.

Here is a headshot, I'm not sure how to do this though with Fair Use and whatnot: http://www.lukeisback.com/images/images/Img0158/DSC_0010.JPG

[edit] Content removal

What happened? most of the article has disappeared!! Can someone restore it? it was so awesome before.

It's all original research—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 03:17, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for reverting back to the full article guys! Jeffw245 02:11, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
Too bad the wikipolice finally found this article, it was pretty funny and informative while it lasted. Timan123 04:51, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
You're right. It's too bad those fascist administrators don't allow ”anything at all”, especially completely unreferenced information. After all, why have a reliable encyclopedia when we can be something so much more useful and important, like a wiki MySpace and GeoCities combined! 06:26, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
All of the information in this article IS referenced. Absolutely none of it is unverifiable. Granted, the information itself a bit absurd, but it is all referenced. So using the "original research" argument is fallacious, Ryulong. —unsigned by 216.159.75.112 00:03, 22 April 2007.

The following discussion is quoted from my discussion page.

Pathoschild,

You are preventing the Tony Eveready article from existing in its original form. This happened a few weeks ago, by Ryulong. I explained to him why the article was valid as it was, and he restored it. Now you have removed it again. This is getting ridiculous. The following is what I wrote to him. Also, if you still don't think you should revert the article to its original form, then please discuss that with Ryulong.

So you deleted most of this article because it was original research. I disagree with this because most of the information that was deleted is factual information. Here are some examples:

The entire section labeled The "Booyah" Video is all factual. It is a brief synopsis of one of Eveready's most famous films. Would this not count as original research if there was a citation to the video at the end of this section?

The section labeled Eveready's Technique merely explains the derivation and common use of a phrase that was invented largely due to the man that the article is about. This is both relevant and factual.

The section labeled Internet Meme and Beyond is very true. If you looks at popular internet sites that college students share information on, such as Facebook.com and Myspace.com, you will find that many students have joined groups that are based on Tony Eveready. Some examples are the groups "Dig tuh china then tone!", "Freak dat bitch out den tone!" and "Awww Tone." If these sources are cited, will this no longer be original research?

My most important point is that the parts of this article that were deleted are very similar to parts of other articles that are allowed to remain. My main example is the article about the recent film "Snakes on a Plane." The Snakes on a plane article has a section that is a synopsis of the movie, and a section entitled "Internet" which explains the online following that this movie developed. These are basically the same as the Tony Eveready article sections that were deleted. The Snakes on a Plane article even has a section about References in Popular Culture, which is also quite similar to the Internet Meme and Beyond section of the Tony Eveready article.

It seems to me that there is some kind of double standard here, and that you are being overly critical of the Tony Eveready article possibly for personal reasons (ie. you don't like the pornography industry). Are you still sure that you can delete the bulk of this article while leaving so many other articles that have the same 'violation' intact?

Sincerely,

Jeffw245 17:15, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Hello Jeffw242. I do still disagree. Your argument that one case should not be improved because another case is equivalent or worst implies that the worst standards should be applied everywhere, which leads to a constant drop in overall quality. Rather, every case should be improved on its own merits. Double-standards can be resolved by applying the higher standards to the lower, rather than the reverse. For example, unreferenced material can be removed from the article about Snakes on a Plane.
If you would like to add content to the article, please cite reliable sources such as news articles, studies, or the official website. However, websites such as personal blogs or popular free web hosts are not reliable. If there are no reliable sources for the content, you should consider whether it is noteworthy in a major encyclopedia. —{admin} Pathoschild 17:51:02, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
Everything in the 'The Booyah Video' section was properly cited, and is all factual. Everything in the 'Eveready's technique' section is properly cited, and factual, with the possible exception of the last sentence. Everything in the 'Internet Meme and Beyond section is factual, but not citable because there have been no scholarly aritcles written about it. However, I see no reason why you think it is not valid to cite things like Facebook and Myspace, since that is what the ection is about in the first place. The fact that all of these facebook and myspace groups exist in the first place, especially given the large numbers of members, also supports the validity of this section of the article.
Virtually the entirety of the article is cited as much as necessary and possible, and it is all pertinent information; anything that is not cited is easily verifiable through empirical observation. Thus, the article should be allowed to exist in its full form. —unsigned by Jeffw245 18:38, 23 April 2007.
Please see the policy concerning original research, which states that Wikipedia editors must not add content they researched themselves (through empirical observation or otherwise). Wikipedia is a tertiary source, meaning that it collects information published in reliable sources such as news articles or scholarly studies. Given that there seems to be no reliable sources, you should consider whether in-depth documentation of a single Internet video clip is appropriate, rather than a brief description of the clip (assuming it is noteworthy) and its significance. —{admin} Pathoschild 19:29:51, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
I will now browse through a few other recent movies' wikipedia articles to see how they compare with the Tony Eveready article. First, I have already described the Snakes on a Plane article above; Second, The Incredibles: There is a very long plot section (probably 4 pages long!), there is a vast trivia section (all unreferenced), a large section on Pixar inside jokes (all unreferenced, and quite similar to the humor surrounding Tony Eveready's film), etc; Third, the article about the character Austin Powers is completely unreferenced; Fourth, the Almost Heroes article has a section on quotes from the movie, in a similar fashion as the Tony Eveready article; ..... These are just the first 4 that I looked at. I'm sure I could go on all day with hundreds of movies. I agree with you on your argument that the worst standards should not be applied everywhere. However, When virtually all articles about movies have certain "low-standard" characteristics, it is not justifiable to select just one of those articles and force only that one to confine to the 'proper' standards. Either the standards need to change, and the Tony Eveready article should be allowed to remain in its original form, or you need to uphold that standard (which I believe to be an ill-conceived one when applied to articles about films) for all articles.
Jeffw245 01:13, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Please do not remove referenced plot summaries, which are not analogous to a direct transcript from the video; nobody is contesting a brief plot summary of the video clip, if it can be independently referenced. Otherwise, feel free to correct the articles as you've suggested. —{admin} Pathoschild 04:22:57, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

—{admin} Pathoschild 03:42:49, 01 May 2007 (UTC)

My personal opinion is that the moderators here need to drink a fucking beer and calm the fuck down. Is removing 20kb or so of text in this article going to somehow atone for the fact that there's a ten page article on LIGHTSABER COMBAT? -sl

That's an invalid argument because it's saying that WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS - if something else in Wikipedia exists that is poor, that needs to be removed too, and does not justify the inclusion of something being removed that was poor. I didn't even know about the existence of the lightsaber combat article anyway, and it has been nominated for deletion before.-h i s s p a c e

r e s e a r c h 15:34, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Wow, Great. I'm glad I had to dig through the history of this article to find the transcript of the scene, probably the only worthwhile piece of data worth compiling on this guy. Thanks for the totally unnecessary and utterly ridiculous over administration, "PathosChild". Ridiculous bullshit like this is why everyone hates the pathological OCD virgins who admin Wikipedia. Go outside and try to touch a woman, you fucking loser. —unsigned by 74.65.8.45 03:56, 2 April 2008.

You're welcome, despite your incorrect assumptions about my sex life. It's too bad that we make it so hard for you to find full transcripts of Internet-only pornographic video clips in our major encyclopedia. On the bright side, few other encyclopedis will have them at all, so I guess we have an edge over them in the competitive field of serious knowledgemongering. —{admin} Pathoschild 00:09:00, 04 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The only real source I can find for the "Booyah" thing is a porn site

Lots of forums and similar mention it, but nothing even remotely approaching reliability. Porn sites are not reliable sources, even for referencing things to do with themselves (especially not a racist porn site like blacksonblondes.com which says things along the lines of "these white sluts like black cock only - go home, whiteboy"). But still, would a citation to the video itself be possible? Even if we could cite the Booyah video, it'd be impossible to reliably source the fact that it became an internet meme as there is no news coverage or similar of the Booyah video.-h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 17:33, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Because news tends not to cover pornography. Ha.--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 22:03, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Admin abuse

I have to say the admin reverting here is pretty sad. You're the editors of a glorified web forum, not slavonic monks compiling the primary chronicle. This is my way of telling you that you are sad and smell of cheetos. 71.57.43.191 (talk) 23:14, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Admins have always been playing part in articles that interest them, it's part of wiki's NPOV (admiN's Point Of View.) If you don't agree with their pov, then you get banned. 67.160.164.94 (talk) 05:16, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
Okay seriously what is wrong with you, editors? You're not getting graded on this you know. Also, "I'm a highly respected editor of wikipedia" isn't going to work with the ladies if thats what you're hoping.
Revert the damn article. 24.13.194.218 (talk) 22:28, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
The removed content violates the policies on original research and plot summaries. You can discuss changes to policy on Wikipedia:Village pump (policy). It will not be re-added simply because you anonymously insult other editors or demand it be restored. —{admin} Pathoschild 23:25:44, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] New Entry

Okay so the old article was pretty excessive. But clearly the article should have a description of the incredible "Booyah" video where he sticks his testicles into a girl's anus. The problem is a lack of sources? So is the video itself not a sufficient source? Can there at least be a dialogue about this? It's my experience with Wikipedia that any time anyone with any sort of power makes a decision you might as well give up. Timan123 23:20, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

English Wikipedians generally favour community rule. There are many cases of influential or high-access users being chastised or losing access. (Whether any single editor has general power is arguable.)
There's nothing wrong with mentioning the video in an encyclopedic manner (its impact, its effects on Tony's career, awards won, and so on), but this information should be cited to reliable sources, and a full transcript is indeed pretty excessive. —{admin} Pathoschild 23:44:04, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Problem with penis size information

The information in this article is used as criterion for inclusion in the list at Human penis size#Men famous for their large penis as well as Category:Men with unusually large penis. Now, more than 50 names have been included, and there have been objections raised strong enough that both the list and the category are currently targeted for deletion. Placing this posting uniformly on the talk pages of the articles concerned, I would firstly encourage editors to make sure reliable sourcing is provided to support the claims regarding penis size. Secondly, editors might wish to involve themselves in the discussions taking place at Talk:Human penis size and Wikipedia:Categories for discussion. __meco 13:31, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WikiProject class rating

This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as stub, and the rating on other projects was brought up to Stub class. BetacommandBot 16:42, 28 August 2007 (UTC)