Wikipedia

Talk:JM Productions

Latest comment: 6 years ago by InternetArchiveBot in topic External links modified
Learn more about this page

Tanner Mayes

edit
Latest comment: 13 years ago8 comments3 people in discussion

JM Productions is at the moment trying to discredit and threaten the porn model/actress Tanner Mayes. Apparently they've edited material from a ruined shooting to show her in the most unfavorable light. Although she has withdrawn her OK for publication, they've leaked the material out on several porn sharing sites and other public video clip places. While the leaking in itself probably isn't provable, the whole thing still is obvious and disgusting. Haven't checked for secondary sources yet, just wanted to have this as a starting point.

Cf. the first discrediting web log, her MySpace reply, and her AdultDVDTalk reply. 212.202.199.190 (talk) 01:01, 15 August 2009 (UTC)Reply

There is an in-depth interview concerning this issue, so the two sides are somewhat source-able. Such, I've added a section concerning the scandal.Darkpower (talk) 19:55, 12 July 2010 (UTC)Reply

And apparently someone thought that it wasn't sourced correctly. In reality, when you want to hide that something actually DID happen that you don't want to get out, you
1. Cover your tracks.
2. Make sure you don't get anything on Wiki saying anything about it
Fox News and EA Games were accused of sabotaging Wikipedia to keep their image clean, and now we could add JM to this list (or whoever is saying it wasn't sourced correctly, assuming whoever did so was not affiliated with JM in some way). Why can't the person who called it unsourced FIND whatever would satisfy them that such an incident actually did happen or add a Wiki tag to the top of the section, thereby opening up discussion instead of completely deleting it? Would look less like a cover-up. There was nothing in the write up that suggested that what was pointed out was absolute fact, everything that should've been sourced was so, and everything that was said that Tanner mentioned within the video was actually mentioned in the video. The statements came out of her own mouth, so why shouldn't they be mentioned (as it's also probably one of the bigger issues JM has had in its lifespan). As such, I reversed this edit, so the section is back up. If anyone wants to dispute the section, they should do it the right way instead of acting as though you or JM is trying to hide something (after all, I would think that JM would have something to lose from what Tanner said about them, so they would have something to gain from not letting her side of things or any way for anyone to see something they don't want you to see, which makes this removal, and reason, even MORE suspicious). Darkpower (talk) 10:09, 6 July 2011 (UTC)Reply
Actually, the burden of proof is on the person adding the materials to wikipedia to make sure that edits comply with wikipedia policy and guidelines. You can not add material based on your interpretation of a video on a pirate site or some porn gossip site. Wikipedia is not a tabloid. Continuing to do so will get you blocked. Morbidthoughts (talk) 12:42, 6 July 2011 (UTC)Reply
Which I had done on all of the instances where I was supposed to. If you would shut up, stop trying to act like some moderator of YouTube, stop trying to scare me into not posting that, and read what I posted, you would see that it never said that it was proven one way or another, and it was more of a "he said, she said" thing. There's no doubt that something happened there, and there's no doubt that someone is lying about what went on, and there is no doubt that it was one of the bigger controversies that JM has had in its recent memory that should be discussed in some way. You trying to scare me with this is not going to do you any favors (and by the way, I WILL be asking someone else what actions are necessary here since I don't see any moderator tag on you in any way, so it's not your place to decide THAT, anyway). You haven't answered the question of if you're trying to cover JMP's tracks here because of whatever reason or not. In my mind, I provided the burden of proof that an interview DID take place, and they were her words (regardless of what you thought of the source; there's no denying that was Tanner in any of the vids). Why you are choosing this one thing as the battleground about burden of proof, I will never understand.Darkpower (talk) 08:29, 28 July 2011 (UTC)Reply
By the way, I want to add this, as well: there are other ways you can go about this rather than just outright deleting the entire section right away, as well. If you knew that much about Wikipedia, you would know that there are tags you can use to mark certain articles and/or sections as "questionable sources" or "cite the sources" or the "citation needed" tags that are alternatives, and would make it clearer that the article or section would be under question for whatever reason. It would be far more productive, since you would
1. Stop us saying that you are in on some conspiracy theory of trying to cover for JMP.
2. Would get more of a discussion going about the inclusion in the article, and see who might agree with who.
3. Might hit someone who has an additional source that they could have, or might have found additional information.
This would be far more productive if the tags were used, because doing this back and forth is not mature in any way. I'll see if you agree with this.Darkpower (talk) 08:43, 28 July 2011 (UTC)Reply
Actually, wikipedia policy (WP:GRAPEVINE) clearly states: "Remove immediately any contentious material about a living person that is unsourced or poorly sourced; that is a conjectural interpretation of a source (see No original research); that relies on self-published sources, unless written by the subject of the BLP (see below); or that relies on sources that fail in some other way to meet Verifiability standards." Morbidthoughts (talk) 15:42, 28 July 2011 (UTC)Reply
Oh and if you want to ask someone else whether your edits are appropriate, you can do so at the biographies of living people noticeboard. Morbidthoughts (talk) 15:59, 28 July 2011 (UTC)Reply
edit
Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on JM Productions. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 11:04, 3 July 2016 (UTC)Reply

edit
Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on JM Productions. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:14, 16 April 2017 (UTC)Reply

edit
Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on JM Productions. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:14, 18 September 2017 (UTC)Reply

edit
Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on JM Productions. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:01, 18 November 2017 (UTC)Reply

Add topic
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:JM_Productions&oldid=1207829973"