Talk:Bobbi Eden

Design of the Page

I recently redesigned the page using an official Female Actress template, that is used on many pages. User:MutterErde has reverted it. I think that my design is MUCH better!

NewDesign: (By Indication) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bobbi_Eden&oldid=15202129

OldDesign: (By MutterErde) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bobbi_Eden&oldid=15308219

The design should be changed back to the NewDesign, so it meets more standards and looks much better. But i first want to get some comments from you! What do you prefer?

Greetings User:Indication

• Hi ,

1. i guess you have a bigger screen than me or you might have changed your configuration.So you might have a different view than me. I have a 17' screen , 800 X 600 pixel - all normal standard .i haven´t changed anything and therefore i see a clear design in my version and some unsorted pics in yours.

2. I think , it´s not a good idea to start your wikipedia-carreer with "complete redesignings".Better you find new facts or start new articles and all will be glad. Look at the red names [1] and let´s talk about redesigning in some years , when all these women have their own article.

btw: only for these one-phrase-girls ( + measurements + pic) like Tiffany_Fallon (:kiss:) that huge - in my opinion too huge - infobox might make any sense. Greetings MutterErde 23:20, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Uhh, his redesign made it more coherent... and not just an amalgam of porn pictures (it gave purpose to the full frontal thing)... Although, it's a bad idea that her main picture is nude.... errh or maybe that's her identity ~_~... I think a box like they have for presidents is fine and you should make his that size if you think it was too large. gren 01:53, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Brianna Banks is a similiar case. Why people should change the standard configuration ? Just to enjoy Indication´s art work for one moment ?

And after enjoying back to 800 X 600 ? :-)

Revision as of 22:08, 10 Jun 2005

Indication (Talk | contribs)

optimized for 1024 * x [2]

Greetings MutterErde 09:01, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Bandwidth

is free, and whitespace is ugly. The version with photos is better than the version with whitespace. Hipocrite - «Talk» 04:35, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

The article isn't encyclopedic, the images act as advertising and having this garbage makes Wikipedia become nothing more than a porn emporium.--MONGO 04:38, September 2, 2005 (UTC)

So you think a more dated picture is better than a more recent picture because the more recent picture has breasts? Hipocrite - «Talk» 04:42, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

I'm less concerned about breasts than I am about peddling pornography in Wikipedia. Box covers of pornographic videos come close to violating WP:POINT anyway.--MONGO 04:47, September 2, 2005 (UTC)

The edits trying to put every stupid looking box cover that has any nudity at all on it in this article says more about the editor than the subject of this article. The edits are unnecessary unencyclopedic and teenagerish. --Noitall 04:53, September 2, 2005 (UTC)

Look Hipocrite. I love boobies, MONGO and Noitall, I am sure, love boobies too. Everyone loves boobies. But Wikipedia shouldn't have boobies unless they add to the article. Why? Because Wikipedia, unlike your local bar, is not a boobie repository. It's an encyclopedia. The boobies you keep adding make it look like a store. We don't need three fregging box covers. Heck, we don't even need one. More appropriate are media stills released for information. Not for sales. Agriculture 05:02, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I love them :) Not to mention, the main picture already has boobies, just more tasteful (I know, POV, but it is unencyclopedic). And a bunch of boxcovers with nothing notable on them just looks like a rack in one of those porn video stores, sort of sad (I was only doing research :) ) --Noitall 05:12, September 2, 2005 (UTC)

You guys need to get your stories straight. Like I said on my talk page - I would have supported removing all of the stupid box covered, but that's not what got done - specifically, what got done was that all of the stupid box covers with nipples got removed. Then, just as a little violation of WP:POINT (here come the RFAr threats, I can feel em!), I swapped the box cover with nipples for the one without, and that got reverted! You can see why I think the editing that you guys are doing here isn't really for style, or merit, or whatever you want to call it today, but rather against nipples. But I'm happy to be proven wrong. The best edit for this article, and all the others, has no stupid box coveres unless they are incredibly revelent boxes, and, if you get me on board with that, we can solve that problem. The only thing is, I can't get on board with it if it's the first step down the slippery slope - the slippery slope that I assume you all watched collapse, as an entire gallery of nude images was IFDed - images including pictures of a statues ass. Hipocrite - «Talk» 05:18, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Never happened Hipocrite, the deletion you're talking about was done by a troll. As far as box covers, I and others were just reverting to be sure there weren't excessive numbers, we didn't look at which ones, I agree. No box covers = da best. I'll change it to reflect that now as per consensus. BTW, I love nipples just as much as boobies in general. Agriculture 05:24, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Please vote keep on IFD then, please. Hipocrite - «Talk» 05:33, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Linky? Agriculture 05:42, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

As far as these box covers go, there is nothing notable about them because they are made in 3 hours in a day, thousands or tens of thousands per year. There is nothing big budget or selective about them. Since there already is a pic up, I am not opposed to deleting all 3. But, yes, I believe that the one up there is more tasteful, and my assessment is more in line with that poll that was done in which many agreed that, for an actress, a picture that made the actress look better was preferrable than one that made her look uglier or less tasteful. If I objected to pics with nipples or breasts, I would object to the main pic there and many others, but I haven't and have even uploaded many pics here. --Noitall 05:56, September 2, 2005 (UTC)

You perverted scumbag:)!--MONGO 07:28, September 2, 2005 (UTC)

Yup :) --Noitall 10:25, September 2, 2005 (UTC)

[3]

What I am going to do is suggest the nomination to relist the images, but instead of making it a mass listing, just list each image one at a time. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 04:23, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

Eden's Filme

Make please a list with her Films. And make a german acticel please ... ^^ my english sucks^^ thanks --German283 (talk) 17:20, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

The BJ promise

I don't think sweet Ms Eden has really thought through her promise to give all of followers on Twitter a blow-job if the Dutch win the World Cup. As she now has 100,000+ followers on Twitter if the Dutch do win and she keeps her promise she's going to be an exceptionally busy woman over the next few weeks. :-)  SmokeyTheCat  •TALK• 19:18, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

I'd say the next few years! --Againme (talk) 14:15, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Bobbi Eden. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100310122331/http://www.german-adult-news.com/erotik/artikel/669-festival-de-lerotisme-und-european-x-awards-2004.html to http://www.german-adult-news.com/erotik/artikel/669-festival-de-lerotisme-und-european-x-awards-2004.html

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 02:22, 5 November 2016 (UTC)