Can YOU Name That Porn?
You can still post as anon. Reload after login
@PREDADOR , to help you on your way as you are a new user, please remember to fully answer the original question(s) that were asked. Be sure to follow proper name tagging conventions as well. See here: https://namethatporn.com/help.html#answering
Please re-post your original answer in comment #909933, but instead of using the old source link, use the below ones instead. They are official and full sources to the exact video from which OP's image was taken. Once you do this, I will confirm your answer as correct. (I have intentionally not formatted them correctly so I don't receive credit. I want you to post them with the right formatting so that YOU receive credit).
Official Source:
K Klixen Productions - "K face finishing (PART B)"
HD Source (timestamp for image is t=9m36s):
https://hotmovs.com/videos/1038840/face-finishing-part-b/
Please re-post your original answer in comment #909933, but instead of using the old source link, use the below ones instead. They are official and full sources to the exact video from which OP's image was taken. Once you do this, I will confirm your answer as correct. (I have intentionally not formatted them correctly so I don't receive credit. I want you to post them with the right formatting so that YOU receive credit).
Official Source:
K Klixen Productions - "K face finishing (PART B)"
https://www.clips4sale.com/studio/7373/4144915/K+face+finishing+%28PART+B%2
9
9
HD Source (timestamp for image is t=9m36s):
https://hotmovs.com/videos/1038840/face-finishing-part-b/
Tl;dr: I ended up going through Klixen's entire Clips4sale studio and finding the official source along with a full streaming video. I am posting it above in a separate comment in an effort to help @PREDADOR receive credit while fully answering OP's request.
---
@Know-way - I'll address your points briefly and then delete my comments shortly afterwards to keep this thread clutter free:
1) "Did you check @xbackwardsmarathon 's source?"
Yes. I'm very thorough with my confirmations. xbackwards posted a confirmed name tag that clearly matches the likeness of the model to the one that OP posted. Furthermore, a video source was provided with a timestamp that directly matches OP's image. The model is quite well known, and it was immediately apparent to me who it was - hence why I was satisfied with the name tag alone.
2) "You will notice the questioner asked for the source in parentheses, signifying he was mainly concerned with the name. PREDADOR provided that all-important name, as well as the source. Not a satisfactory source, just as the other one was hardly a satisfactory source to verify the name, but a source."
Nowhere does OP ask for a source in parentheses. OP literally wrote: "Name of her? and source?" OP didn't use the word "or" — it was specifically "and" — or use parentheses, "(" or ")" anywhere in that phrase. This means a name AND source must be provided to satisfy OP's request.
Also, it seems we have differing understandings of the word "source". To me, a source is a direct link to a video/photoset/website which immediately answers OP's question. It should require minimal effort to confirm, in the case of searching through a video for a specific timestamp, or confirming the name via the credits listed on a website. Let me put it this way, if you saw a post asking for a source and the model was Adriana Chechik, would you accept a name tag and a link to her Pornhub page? There are hundreds of videos.
3) "It was your job as the confirmer to be fair... Maybe you have not had this happen to you, when you sometimes spend hours doing the work, and some insensitive wise guy comes in and steals your answer. If you don't like that happening to you, then you should do your utmost to make certain it does not happen to anyone else."
I concede that it's not the best etiquette to steal other's answers. I try to avoid it as much as possible, and definitely don't do it to newer members. However, I stick by my view that @xbackwardsmarathon still had the most complete answer to the question at the time. The end goal of the site is to have the highest quality answers to questions OPs have asked. If there is a clearly superior answer amongst others, I believe that is the one that should be confirmed — regardless of when it was posted.
If you look through my history, you'll see that I frequently help others by providing additional proof/supporting information — all while happily giving credit to the original answer's author. To ensure that I don't receive credit, I intentionally don't tag names and explicitly tell the original author to freely use my information in their answer. In the case of a lower level member (3 and below), I tell them to re-post their answer with my information and I'll confirm theirs. I don't confirm it immediately because like you saw below, answers that are partial or ones that use incorrect tags will get flagged by moderators and one's confirm score will be negatively affected.
By the way, I also provide extremely thorough answers myself to avoid having them stolen from me. If, for whatever reason, someone else posts a clearly superior answer to mine, I'd happily delete mine and confirm theirs.
Finally, to make some amends, I ended up going through Klixen's entire Clips4sale studio and found the official source along with a full streaming video. I am posting it above in a separate comment in an effort to help @PREDADOR receive credit while fully answering OP's request.
By the way, the original tag ("handjobs") that was provided in the link by @PREDADOR did not have the right video. I went through the entire 460 video catalogue returned under that tag to confirm it.
---
@Know-way - I'll address your points briefly and then delete my comments shortly afterwards to keep this thread clutter free:
1) "Did you check @xbackwardsmarathon 's source?"
Yes. I'm very thorough with my confirmations. xbackwards posted a confirmed name tag that clearly matches the likeness of the model to the one that OP posted. Furthermore, a video source was provided with a timestamp that directly matches OP's image. The model is quite well known, and it was immediately apparent to me who it was - hence why I was satisfied with the name tag alone.
2) "You will notice the questioner asked for the source in parentheses, signifying he was mainly concerned with the name. PREDADOR provided that all-important name, as well as the source. Not a satisfactory source, just as the other one was hardly a satisfactory source to verify the name, but a source."
Nowhere does OP ask for a source in parentheses. OP literally wrote: "Name of her? and source?" OP didn't use the word "or" — it was specifically "and" — or use parentheses, "(" or ")" anywhere in that phrase. This means a name AND source must be provided to satisfy OP's request.
Also, it seems we have differing understandings of the word "source". To me, a source is a direct link to a video/photoset/website which immediately answers OP's question. It should require minimal effort to confirm, in the case of searching through a video for a specific timestamp, or confirming the name via the credits listed on a website. Let me put it this way, if you saw a post asking for a source and the model was Adriana Chechik, would you accept a name tag and a link to her Pornhub page? There are hundreds of videos.
3) "It was your job as the confirmer to be fair... Maybe you have not had this happen to you, when you sometimes spend hours doing the work, and some insensitive wise guy comes in and steals your answer. If you don't like that happening to you, then you should do your utmost to make certain it does not happen to anyone else."
I concede that it's not the best etiquette to steal other's answers. I try to avoid it as much as possible, and definitely don't do it to newer members. However, I stick by my view that @xbackwardsmarathon still had the most complete answer to the question at the time. The end goal of the site is to have the highest quality answers to questions OPs have asked. If there is a clearly superior answer amongst others, I believe that is the one that should be confirmed — regardless of when it was posted.
If you look through my history, you'll see that I frequently help others by providing additional proof/supporting information — all while happily giving credit to the original answer's author. To ensure that I don't receive credit, I intentionally don't tag names and explicitly tell the original author to freely use my information in their answer. In the case of a lower level member (3 and below), I tell them to re-post their answer with my information and I'll confirm theirs. I don't confirm it immediately because like you saw below, answers that are partial or ones that use incorrect tags will get flagged by moderators and one's confirm score will be negatively affected.
By the way, I also provide extremely thorough answers myself to avoid having them stolen from me. If, for whatever reason, someone else posts a clearly superior answer to mine, I'd happily delete mine and confirm theirs.
Finally, to make some amends, I ended up going through Klixen's entire Clips4sale studio and found the official source along with a full streaming video. I am posting it above in a separate comment in an effort to help @PREDADOR receive credit while fully answering OP's request.
By the way, the original tag ("handjobs") that was provided in the link by @PREDADOR did not have the right video. I went through the entire 460 video catalogue returned under that tag to confirm it.
I’m not here for the points. I’m here to make sure people get the sauce they’re looking for. No need for drama ✌️
You are absolutely right that@PREDADOR 's source was not as direct,@FurryNordguard , Yet it was a source. Those of us who confirm have to take the trouble to verify the source, and sometimes the source is not always instantly convenient.
Did you check@xbackwardsmarathon 's source? The video's beginning "freeze frame" is a duplicate of the photo from above, which certainly serves as a direct connection, but did you verify whether the actress' name has been correctly assigned? I didn't see mention of "Klixen" anywhere on that compilation video, did you?
What xbackwardsmarathon probably did was take PREDADOR's answer, and write "Klixen." I was not satisfied with PREDADOR's "Clips4sale" source either, because "Klixen" was only mentioned as part of the company, "K Klixen."
Yet that was a gigantic clue. It wasn't as you wrote, "over 400 videos under the tag "Handjobs"; No one had to go through hundreds of videos. The connection was, okay, if the studio's name has "Klixen" in it, and if the puzzle-solver provided the name of "Klixen" for the actress, does that mean the actress' name really is "Klixen"?
The way I was satisfied the actress was indeed "Klixen" was when I clicked on the now clickable Klixen name, leading to Name That Porn's pornstar directory. Several entries bearing the actress' face was identified in the past as "Klixen."
You will notice the questioner asked for the source in a secondary manner, signifying he was mainly concerned with the name. The name was the most important element; the questioner asked for the source so that he could make sure the name was valid. (He did not need to ask for the source, technically, because those of us who responsibly provide answers feel the obligation to provide the source anyway.)
PREDADOR provided that all-important name, as well as the source. Not a satisfactory source, just as the other one was hardly a satisfactory source to verify the name, but a source.
I don't like our fellows here who hijack solutions; it is not good sportsmanship. When I see a solution that has not yet been marked as a solution, I take pains to tell readers to whom the credit belongs to. (I usually write, "Don't give me the credit.") This is when I notice something lacking in the solution, and I provide further verification. In this case for example, if I ran into a better source, I would have provided that source, and would have added, Yes, this is Klixen.
I'll give you an example of how I handled this type of situation only yesterday (and I'm pointing to it because it is recent; it is a flawed example):
(I just noticed the OP gave me the credit. I wish he would not have done that. Now I'm thinking, maybe it's not a good idea to add verifying information.)
That was what xbackwardsmarathon needed to do. He saw the name of "Klixen" was already provided, and he added a pictorial reference (that did not really connect with the name). He formatted the name of the actress, as though he deserved the credit for PREDADOR's research, without an attempt to make sure PREDADOR got the credit, since PREDADOR failed to add the name tags from the outset.
(PREDADOR is only at "Level 1" at the time of this writing, and hasn't learned the ropes yet. I formatted the name in my own example while specifying the solution has been provided, because the puzzle-solver appeared to have failed to do so. I thought if I did so that would help his answer to get accepted. Now I see that was a mistake.)
Since you are a confirmer, you know very well what the "Are you certain the answer is correct?" text box tells us: "If the answer lacks something, then notice the user with @ sign in front of the username. Like so: @exampleuser, I cannot confirm your answer because it lacks name-tags."
It was your job as the confirmer to be fair (as it was the job of@NinNin , who is an old hand around here and should know better by now), and to see who came up with the answer first. Both PREDADOR and xbackwardsmarathon supplied sources that were equally unclear, in terms of verifying the name. You needed to contact "@exampleuser," in case you felt there was anything that needed clarification.
(In retrospect, I should have done the same myself, in the example I provided above. Sometimes, though, there is only so much time to spend on these things. In my defense, I did CONFIRM the puzzle-solver's answer. That should have been a clear sign he deserved the credit, not me.)
Maybe you have not had this happen to you, when you sometimes spend hours doing the work, and some insensitive wise guy comes in and steals your answer. If you don't like that happening to you, then you should do your utmost to make certain it does not happen to anyone else.
P.S.:
Here is a better recent example of how I handled this sort of thing:
Notice in this case I refrained from formatting the actress' name, to decrease the odds of getting credit.
.
Did you check@xbackwardsmarathon 's source? The video's beginning "freeze frame" is a duplicate of the photo from above, which certainly serves as a direct connection, but did you verify whether the actress' name has been correctly assigned? I didn't see mention of "Klixen" anywhere on that compilation video, did you?
What xbackwardsmarathon probably did was take PREDADOR's answer, and write "Klixen." I was not satisfied with PREDADOR's "Clips4sale" source either, because "Klixen" was only mentioned as part of the company, "K Klixen."
Yet that was a gigantic clue. It wasn't as you wrote, "over 400 videos under the tag "Handjobs"; No one had to go through hundreds of videos. The connection was, okay, if the studio's name has "Klixen" in it, and if the puzzle-solver provided the name of "Klixen" for the actress, does that mean the actress' name really is "Klixen"?
The way I was satisfied the actress was indeed "Klixen" was when I clicked on the now clickable Klixen name, leading to Name That Porn's pornstar directory. Several entries bearing the actress' face was identified in the past as "Klixen."
You will notice the questioner asked for the source in a secondary manner, signifying he was mainly concerned with the name. The name was the most important element; the questioner asked for the source so that he could make sure the name was valid. (He did not need to ask for the source, technically, because those of us who responsibly provide answers feel the obligation to provide the source anyway.)
PREDADOR provided that all-important name, as well as the source. Not a satisfactory source, just as the other one was hardly a satisfactory source to verify the name, but a source.
I don't like our fellows here who hijack solutions; it is not good sportsmanship. When I see a solution that has not yet been marked as a solution, I take pains to tell readers to whom the credit belongs to. (I usually write, "Don't give me the credit.") This is when I notice something lacking in the solution, and I provide further verification. In this case for example, if I ran into a better source, I would have provided that source, and would have added, Yes, this is Klixen.
I'll give you an example of how I handled this type of situation only yesterday (and I'm pointing to it because it is recent; it is a flawed example):
where can i find this jav or id ?
685
5
2
5 years ago
Answered(I just noticed the OP gave me the credit. I wish he would not have done that. Now I'm thinking, maybe it's not a good idea to add verifying information.)
That was what xbackwardsmarathon needed to do. He saw the name of "Klixen" was already provided, and he added a pictorial reference (that did not really connect with the name). He formatted the name of the actress, as though he deserved the credit for PREDADOR's research, without an attempt to make sure PREDADOR got the credit, since PREDADOR failed to add the name tags from the outset.
(PREDADOR is only at "Level 1" at the time of this writing, and hasn't learned the ropes yet. I formatted the name in my own example while specifying the solution has been provided, because the puzzle-solver appeared to have failed to do so. I thought if I did so that would help his answer to get accepted. Now I see that was a mistake.)
Since you are a confirmer, you know very well what the "Are you certain the answer is correct?" text box tells us: "If the answer lacks something, then notice the user with @ sign in front of the username. Like so: @exampleuser, I cannot confirm your answer because it lacks name-tags."
It was your job as the confirmer to be fair (as it was the job of@NinNin , who is an old hand around here and should know better by now), and to see who came up with the answer first. Both PREDADOR and xbackwardsmarathon supplied sources that were equally unclear, in terms of verifying the name. You needed to contact "@exampleuser," in case you felt there was anything that needed clarification.
(In retrospect, I should have done the same myself, in the example I provided above. Sometimes, though, there is only so much time to spend on these things. In my defense, I did CONFIRM the puzzle-solver's answer. That should have been a clear sign he deserved the credit, not me.)
Maybe you have not had this happen to you, when you sometimes spend hours doing the work, and some insensitive wise guy comes in and steals your answer. If you don't like that happening to you, then you should do your utmost to make certain it does not happen to anyone else.
P.S.:
Here is a better recent example of how I handled this sort of thing:
What's the name of the female cop?
1,546
8
4
5 years ago
AnsweredNotice in this case I refrained from formatting the actress' name, to decrease the odds of getting credit.
.
@Know-way The question asks for a name and a source. @PREDADOR didn't link to a specific source, rather a Clips4sale studio with over 400 videos under the tag "Handjobs".
It's true that they got the name right, but @xbackwardsmarathon did (and still does) have the most complete answer earlier than anyone else.
It's true that they got the name right, but @xbackwardsmarathon did (and still does) have the most complete answer earlier than anyone else.
I am giving PREDADOR my "CONFIRM" because he came up with the solution first. He did not format the name properly, the reason why someone else jumped in.
Answer can’t be marked as correct to due missing or incorrectly used tags. Read more
SPONSORED
Other unsolved questions