Talk:Chesty Morgan

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

birth name probably wrong[edit]

as she is born in Poland and her name is polish her birth-name was probably not Wilczkowsky but Wilczkowska. I found actually only one online-source for that: [1] -Sicherlich Post 08:37, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. -88.154.133.164 14:12, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, "Wilczkowska" is the feminine form of "Wilczkowski" and would be traditionally used by the wife of a man born "Wilczkowski". So it's likely that people have mistaken "Wilczkowska" as her birth name, because it is different from her husband's name. IMDB gives "Wilczkowska", but the newspaper references don't mention her birth name. DWorley (talk) 02:15, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Trivia[edit]

Chesty Morgan has a natural WHR of 0.89 (ranking her at the top region) Source: Glamour Dictionary -Simon de Danser 02:48, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. -88.154.133.164 14:12, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

CHESTY MORGAN born in 1929 - http://www.lanasbigboobs.com/models/c/chesty_morgan/index.html -—Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.52.150.24 (talk) 02:36, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Filmography[edit]

One film was called 'Deadly Weapons' I recall. Autochthony [an old far#] writes. 2011 12 13 2245 Z 109.154.0.195 (talk) 22:41, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright problem[edit]

I'm afraid that material cannot be imported from boobpedia directly, as their license is incompatible with Wikipedia. Wikipedia only accepts material that is compatible with CC-By-SA, which includes commercial reproduction. Unless boobpedia requires contributors to surrender copyright to their material, it may be possible for the contributor of that content to boobpedia to license it also to Wikipedia under the requisite CC-By-SA and GFDL, but this will require verification of identity. In the meantime, text previously published there cannot be published here. See Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:27, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I wrote both articles, you can check at the original Boobpedia article. My understanding is that this permits me to share my own material between both projects. I'll ask for further input. Dekkappai (talk) 20:29, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've just left you a note at your userpage about this. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:31, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry. WP:C is Foundation mandated policy. If you're not willing to go through the process, then I'm afraid that we can't use the material. It wasn't created simply to inconvenience you. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:50, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what it means, but the text below the edit box on Boobpedia states "Please note that all contributions to Boobpedia are considered to be released under the Boobpedia Copyright (see Project:Copyright for details)." Epbr123 (talk) 20:56, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what that means either, but it may be helpful. Thanks. Even though I'm unsure from his subsequent actions if Dekkappai has interest in verifying permission, I was still just about to see what I could find out about whether he retains the right to his material as he would on Wikipedia or not. Clear statements are very helpful, but understandably a lot of wikis don't have them. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 21:01, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Your actions were to slap a big, ugly bit of graffiti on an article, and then to vaguely accuse me of "violating copyright" to other of my work at the other project. Why would I clearly and honestly identify what I did at this article, and then sneak around about it at others? I put in a significant amount of work and research on a very difficult subject at BP, and thought I would share it with WP. I'm not here to figure out rules and procedures which mean different things to different Admins, and which change rapidly. I'm here to contribute content. Some of us are here to build up an encyclopedia, and some are here to make that difficult by playing power games. Since the power goes to the latter group, the article as it stands is probably the one Wikipedia deserves. Hey-- maybe we can AfD it, Epbr-- I see no good sourcing here now. I wouldn't object ;) Dekkappai (talk) 21:16, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This article was listed for administrator evaluation at the copyright problems board. I'm an administrator who works at the copyright problems board. Policy calls for immediate removal of copied content that is unverified. The template is standard. Had I not found your statement plausible, I would have reverted it myself and given you a copyright violation warning. I've written for clarification on whether we can accept a release of content you've previously published at "boobpedia". If you don't care to go through the policy mandated procedure of verifying, then the material can't be used. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 21:23, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

←All right. Evidently, in the absence of a clear indication otherwise, you retain your copyright. Their licensing information is a bit vague, but I don't see any clear indication otherwise. The process I mentioned at your talk page should be sufficient to verify your connection to the Boobpedia account, if you should decide to do so. Attribution would not be given in the manner it previously was, however. You are attributed in the edit history just all other contributors, and we would not be reusing Boobpedia's content, but yours. Please remember that you can't incorporate any creative content that was placed on Boobpedia by any other contributor there, since Boobpedia's license is incompatible. Boobpedia loads so slowly for me that I haven't looked closely, but it seems like you did a fairly total overhaul. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 00:31, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The only way Dekkappai would be forbidden to re-release his content under our license was if he expressly gave up his copyright claim. Considering boobpedia operates under the "Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 3.0 Unported License" that is clearly not the case. Of course he is not free to re-license anyone else's contributions. Thus the question is: does the current version of the article retain any copyrightable information (exact sentences or close paraphrases) from the last version prior to Dekkappai's improvements? I don't have the time to check at the moment, but any such information will have to be removed from the Wikipedia version of the article. However, everything else can stay. --ThaddeusB (talk) 03:07, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
After it is verified. As per WP:C, "If the material, text or media, has been previously published and you wish to donate it to Wikipedia under appropriate license, you will need to verify copyright permission through one of our established procedures." I explained a pretty simple process at his talk page, but given his removal summary I'm uncertain if he's interested in following it. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:41, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think it is clear & obvious that both editors are the same person. The copyright policy is obviously written for the normal "we copied this text from our website" case where there is no reason to believe it to be true. I see no reason not to believe that our Dekkappai copied boobpedia's Dekkappai edits without actually being the same person. That said, I encourage Dekkappai to simply verify his identity rather than argue about it. The method suggested - logging in to boobpedia & posting "yes I am the same as Wikipedia's Dekkappai" - certainly should be no big deal. --ThaddeusB (talk) 18:58, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I should think it would be no big deal; I certainly didn't anticipate one. :) We have contributors who have to go through quite a more complex procedure to donate their copyrighted materials. When it comes to copyright, we have specific mandated procedures to follow. These aren't personal; every contributor to Wikipedia must follow them. There are legal reasons for these requirements. It isn't to do with doubting the veracity of Dekkappai or anyone else who asserts ownership. It's just to protect the project. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 19:28, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

New Article[edit]

The St. Petersburg Times has published a piece[2] that's a remarkble rediscovery of Morgan, until now a more or less "lost star" - with a wealth of biodata and insight into her life. Obviously, the material can be incorporated into this article (a process I'd start if I had the time), but it should not be simply cut and pasted over the existing text. Robertissimo (talk) 18:36, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Another Chesty Morgan Oddity[edit]

Her mother and father were killed. Her first husband was killed. Her second husband and daughter died in auto accidents. What are the odds of all these people linked to Chesty dying by violence? -— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:2D80:8821:0:4CCF:439B:D346:A65D (talk) 06:54, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Chesty_Morgan&oldid=1207931337"