Ditto on the removing unencyclopedic spam not equaling prudishness  I have controbuted to articles on porn stars in the past provided links there to appropriate sites that may have nudity but served an encyclopedic purpose of some sort These are just sites distributing amateur porn by violating the copyrights of the people who took the photos for commercial purposes andor amateruish blog chat from just some guy There is absolutelt no reason to link to any of these sites Wikipedia is not a collection of links we dont just link willy nilly there has to be a real encyclopedic purpose and the source has to make sense