Talk:Linsey Dawn McKenzie

Is this true?

I've signed up in Leeds and don't see any mention of this?

The photographs and videos that were taken of Linsey when she was 15, 16 and 18 are available at Linsey's UK website but not her US one.

Hi! I'm looking at the UK site and don't see them. Where are they on the site??

Are there any early pictures available?

I'm more than a little curious to see what she looked like in her earliest shots. Are any of the photos that didn't make it to the U.S. (between the ages of 15 and 18) available?

You'd have to look on e-bay for any copies of the Daily/Sunday Sport from 1994-96. Given her 'celebrity' status nowadays they'd probably go for a small fortune, though back in the day, thousands of them would have just been chucked away the day after they had been published. As has been stated elsewhere the only pictures of her when she was 15 were in the days leading up to her 16th birthday, when she appeared topless for the first time. It is doubtful whether any websites nowadays would publish scanned copies of these pictures, knowing that she was under 18 at the time, unless of course they are added without being dated (or inaccurately dated as being from sometime after her 18th birthday).Silver Barnet (talk) 06:51, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Does anyone have a picture of her that they took themselves?

I would love to replace the current image (which is a box cover with a flakey fair use rationale) with a photo of her that a user took themselves, and would like to license it under GFDL or CC. If anyone is interested in giving us a picture, please feel free to spark the discussion here. -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. ^{Think out loud} 04:29, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

I would love to supply the article with a picture of Linsey, but I don't have any. I think that the box cover photo used is just about the best we are going to get at this stage, and I take minor umbrage at its "fair use" usage being refered to as "flakey". The whole WP picture sourcing intricacies are starting to get my goat, if you ask me :( but one must play with the cards one has been dealt. -- Jalabi99 01:23, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

The rumor is true!

People, I would like to offer an apology for not believing the rumour. Seems I was wrong and I lose heavily! Anyways, wish they would say that in SCORE. Shame... still, don't believe everything you read in the Sunday Sport! - QwentyJ

Yeah, well, what can I say...as for SCORE, they are still saying that her boobs are 38HH, they haven't even acknowledged on her official US site that the photos they are displaying are from before her breast reduction, so what do you expect? -- Jalabi99 08:58, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Sport countdown

The newspaper ran a controversial countdown to McKenzie's sixteenth birthday

I don't recall the countdown being particularly controversial, in the sense of negative press and TV coverage, moral panics, questions raised in Parliament, etc. Back in 1994, teen toplessness was very much off the moral radar - the politicians and newspapers were far too worked up about gays and video nasties to worry about some teenage girl getting her baps out. I'm not entirely convinced that it would be seen as a big issue even today. 217.34.39.123 14:42, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Sixteenth birthday pics?

If the Sport photos appeared on LDM's 16th birthday, then given that papers go to press the night before, surely they must have been taken before her 16th birthday. How was that legal if so? 86.136.255.179 22:34, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

https://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=7+August+1996 tells us that her 16-th birthday was on a Sunday. I assume that the Sunday Sport was published on a Sunday. Usually, morning papers are off the presses late the previous day when she was 15. Also, for those seeking photographs of her age 16 or under exposing her breasts, the possession or reproduction of such photos is now probably illegal in the UK, indeed it's probably illegal if she's under 18. "probably" because (of course) a court would have to determine the matter. 81.141.208.164 (talk) 15:29, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

To circumvent the legality issue, I believe they took the photos shortly after midnight on her birthday, still giving them time to print them for the following day's edition. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Carton828 (talk • contribs) 01:17, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Hmm.. I think they have fudged this after the fact - IIRC a whole set of pics culminating in the final topless ones were taken in the form of a strip tease, with one pic being shown per day in the run up to the big unveiling. Is there any source to say pictures were taken just after midnight? It sounds bogus to me. DavidFarmbrough (talk) 14:12, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

As there is no source for "Shortly after midnight on her birthday, McKenzie posed topless for photos that appeared in the following morning's Sunday Sport." I do not see that there is any basis for inserting this in the article. I have removed it until it can be sourced. DavidFarmbrough (talk) 11:04, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Linsey's age?

I remember seeing photos of her when she first came out in the mid 90's in the uk papers. She was 2-3 years older than me then. So why is she suddenly the same age as me now.

I remember reading a quote in one of the papers about her when she was 24. The quote ended with the phraze "Perpetual 24 year old". Why can't she just say her real age. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.145.82.148 (talk) 09:51, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Waist

Her waist is to wide to be 22 inches!

Official website

Okay.. I'm going to set the official website as being LinseysWorld.com as we know that's a site which she's plugged on Stern - see http://www.marksfriggin.com/news03/1-20.htm for this - and I'm gonna defend it. If you want to change the link to something else, then back it up as being her official site. Tabercil (talk) 23:01, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Regarding the "Fleshbot article" the IP address makes mention of, I assume he's referring to http://fleshbot.com/234015/flesh-flicks-deep-inside-linsey-dawn-mckenzie. Problem is the article does not make any indication that they've had any form of direct discussion with Linsey, and it's obvious they're taking their information from Wikipedia ("According to Wikipedia"). So that's not a valid source. Tabercil (talk) 12:44, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Saw the Twitter account that got posted... will try and contact after work; until then I'm reverting to the linseysworld site. The primary reason I'm so mistrustful of the co.uk site is the statement by the editor which kicked off everything: "I edited an existing link which claimed to be to her official site but is in fact a scam site with only stolen content. I replaced with a link to her actual official site." And looking at the co.uk site as it stands now does seem to back up the claim that it is a scam site as there is very little actual content on the public side of the site dealing with Linsey. Tabercil (talk) 17:09, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Dude, Linseysworld.com is over 4 years out of date. I'm a member of Linsey's new .co.uk site and that is the only one that has the latest stuff. I tried to edit the article but it says it's locked. What's up with that? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.107.196.247 (talk) 19:20, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Dude, read above. There was a claim by someone that .co.uk was a scam site; further arguments were left at User talk:88.107.187.93, which I'll copy below:

"I've gotten an email about this, but from someone else. He (or maybe she... dunno) also claims to be in touch with Linsay and states that linseydawnmckenzie.co.uk is a scam site not affiliated with Linsay, and also states that the Twitter account is not Linsay either. So as you can see here I now have two competing claims... Tabercil (talk) 15:03, 2 June 2009 (UTC)"

"...We need one thing: proof. Looking at the email from the other chap, he says the same thing as you - the linseysworld site is out of date. He also says the linseydawnmckenzie.co.uk contains content owned by TV X and is "a straight up scam". The proper site is supposedly linseydawnofficial.net, which I must admit does look more like what an official site is supposed to look like, with a biography, shop and other sections. But, lets get back to the co.uk site. The Twitter account was started the same day that you added the link to the site, which makes it clear to me that you are the person behind co.uk. So here's a simple challenge: provide evidence that proves conclusively that you are indeed affiliated with Linsey Dawn. Tabercil (talk) 22:44, 2 June 2009 (UTC)"

And on checking further, I find that the Twitter account given doesn't provide any additional proof. After all, all it indicates is that someone created an account in Linsey Dawn's name. Hey, anyone can sign up using a name... I mean, look at Kayne West. There are a number of accounts there which purport to be him; problem is Kayne doesn't have a Twitter account and there was a Rolling Stone article to that very nature (see here). Tabercil (talk) 22:53, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

I only edited the page yesterday, I'm not the person you banned (otherwise why would I have been able to edit it?)

It's obvious that you're a shill for Linseysworld - the content is five years old now and yet you still push it. This is unacceptable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.107.196.247 (talk) 07:41, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm not a shill and I'm not associated in any way with Score group. It's just that linseysworld is the most recent website I can prove is Linsey's official website. I cannot say the same for linseydawnmckenzie.co.uk or linseydawnofficial.net. Tabercil (talk) 11:27, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I've gone a lil' bit further and done some digging behind the scenes via WHOIS. The WHOIS information for linseysworld come back as being registered to the Score group - no surprise there. Doing a whois for linseydawnmckenzie.co.uk comes back as registered to Net Collex, while linseydawnofficial.net comes back as pointing to lunarpages. So there's no help there, and I'm quite curious as to why Net Collex is the name behind .co.uk <G> I've also made mention of an email from someone else who states that .co.uk is a scam site. Just so everything's in the open, I'm posting the relevant portion of the email below:

I noticed your edits on the Linsey Dawn Mckenzie page so thought I would get in touch. I never anticipated this edit would be disputed but will briefly explain below to hopefully clarify for you.

My company has recently purchased Linsey Dawn's official website and I am now in charge or running it. There have been many fan sites and fake sites over the years and, as Linsey is not particularly tech savvy she has never done anything about it. We are now actively working with her to improve the existing site by adding lots of new content as the site under the previous owner hasn't, we feel, hit its full potential.

One thing we suffer from is not ranking very highly on google hence everyone assumes our site is a fake. The reality is the Score site linseysworld.com is a real site but all the content is old and she no longer has any involvelment with the Score Group. There's nothing she can do to get the site taken down as they do own the contnet but it is no longer her official site by any stretch, but they make it look like it is.

The Linseydawnmckenzie.co.uk is, as far as we know, a straight up scam as is the twitter account someone posted. The .co.uk site contains content which is owned by TV X and even has the cheek to suggest the TV X version is in some way inferior to the version they claim to have. If you attempt to sign up as encouraged you will notice there is one pre-checked cross-sell to pornkings.com and another cross-sell from which you can't even opt-out. So what you actually get for free is 2 three day trials of totally different sites which are not in the least bit obvious you're signing up for. I have no idea if they do supply Linsey content as I have not signed up as I don't want to give these people my card. What I do know is, even to someone not that familiar with this, you can easily see it is dodgy.

I had a quick look at the Fleshbot site too but, from my experience, they just add these links themselves and don't research them.

I have emailed Linsey now to confirm that she has nothing to do with this site and will await her reply.

To date, I have not heard anything more from this individual. Tabercil (talk) 11:40, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Then surely the most sensible thing to do is to either list no site at all. You think the.co.uk is a scam, you know that Score is nothing to do with Linsey anymore, and the .net seems to have changed hands from Linsey to someone else.

Three sites, none of which appear to have anything to do with Linsey! So why are you linking to any of them? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.107.196.247 (talk) 18:07, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Good point... I'll pull the link in the infobox out altogether. Tabercil (talk) 20:18, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Can we talk / email privately? I have some information for you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.107.196.247 (talk) 20:56, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Sure. You should be able to email me from here. Tabercil (talk) 21:26, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

The so called official website is nothing of the sort. It's owned by the Sunday Sport and contains various trojans and auto diallers. Upon joining the site you get bombarded with all sorts of junk. Furthermore there is no new Linsey Dawn McKenzie content available in the members area that isn't already freely available elsewhere. It's a scam. Why do you keep linking to scams? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.107.186.114 (talk) 07:48, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

And just to put in my $0.02, I have a discussion on my Talk page explicitly about this from someone who is apparently associated with linseydawnofficial.net, who points out there that they are encountering significant difficulties from someone who presumably associated with the old co.uk site (which can be seen at User talk:Tabercil#Linsey Dawn McKenzie Website). As for the allegations of 88.107.186.114 (and whatever other IPs he's coming in through), I've seen no credible evidence yet. Tabercil (talk) 23:03, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

This matter is now fully resolved. The official website is linseydawnofficial.com. The previous linseydawnmckenzie.co.uk that used to redirect to linseysworld.com is being transferred to the owners of linseydawnofficial.com (the sunday sport) and currently redirects to it pending a full transfer.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.107.185.201 (talk • contribs)

That's as maybe pal but it's still a massive scam. The sunday sport own Linsey's stuff now and they will flood your computer with autodiallers and all kinds of crap. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.107.188.93 (talk) 13:50, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

This matter is now fully resolved. The official website is linseydawnofficial.com. The previous linseydawnmckenzie.co.uk that used to redirect to linseysworld.com is being transferred to the owners of linseydawnofficial.com (the sunday sport) and currently redirects to it pending a full transfer.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.107.185.201 (talk • contribs)

This matter is FULLY RESOLVED. Why can't you just put linseydawnofficial.com as the main website?

I have edited the Official website once again to Linseydawnofficial.com which links to her only current official site. We actually now own the Linseydawnmckenzie.co.uk domain having reached agreement with the previous owner.

To once and for all clear up the issue of which is her official site we filmed an interview with her on Monday 20th of July where she holds a copy of that day's newspaper and states the name of her official site. We are just waiting for the footage to come back from the editors and as soon as it is ready I'll place it on YouTube and link to it from here.

Further to the abusive comments re: Sunday Sport above. I have no idea what you problem is and why you continue to repeat false and defamatory statements about the site. The site contains no viruses, trojans or anything of the kind and if you find that stuff on your computer it has nothing whatsoever to do with us. If you joined the old linseydawnmckenzie.co.uk site it is very possible you encountered problems but this site was nothing to do with us, we only took over the name on 30/6/2009. If you joined that site before that date you weren't dealing with us.

If you have geneuine concerns about our site please feel free to email guy@netcollex.net and he will answer any of your questions and help in any way possible. If however you continue to write malicious comments about the site or Linsey we will have no alternative but to take legal action against you Michaela888 (talk) 10:33, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

What about linseysworld.com - that claims to be the official site and has the hardcore video, the lesbian video etc. etc. as well as millions of high quality photos of linsey. What's the deal with that?

Babestation

Hullaballoo Wolfowitz & Dismas, she IS now a regular on Babestation, what reference WOULD be OK, and not 'spammy' or vandalism? Sir Oki (talk) 16:57, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Linsey Dawn McKenzie/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

I do not think that it is correct to describe the Linsey & Alison (her sister) as lesbian or incestuous. There is virtually no erotic interaction between the girls, no fondling or kissing, let alone anything stronger. Linsey only touches Alison to sneer at her small breasts; whereas Alison usually touches Linsey out of sheer disbelief.

Last edited at 16:50, 26 November 2006 (UTC). Substituted at 22:04, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Official Website Backlink

Hi, I am Linsey Dawn Mckenzie's brother, she has asked me to contact you today regarding the backlink on her page. The backlink that sits at the moment points to a japenese site, that Linsey has no idea who they are http://www.linseydawnofficial.com Please could someone change it to her official website linseydawnmckenzie.co.uk.

Thank you

Kind Regards

Scott Mckenzie — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chottymck (talk • contribs) 20:39, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

@Chottymck: Her official website, with the .CO.UK domain, is on Wikipedia's blacklist (as you might have noticed when you tried to save your comment). The blacklist notification says Blacklisting indicates past problems with the link, so any requests should clearly demonstrate how inclusion would benefit Wikipedia. Since the website is primarily promotional, it probably does not adhere to Wikipedia's external links guideline, so I have removed the URL of mystery and commented in the right one. —EncMstr (talk) 22:56, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Linsey Dawn McKenzie. 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/20120125095253/http://www.bbfc.co.uk/website/Classified.nsf/0/031B606A902913E48025694A002732DE?OpenDocument to http://www.bbfc.co.uk/website/Classified.nsf/0/031B606A902913E48025694A002732DE?OpenDocument
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101225033028/http://www.livingtv.co.uk/shows/four-weddings/ to http://www.livingtv.co.uk/shows/four-weddings/

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: 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) 12:55, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Linsey Dawn McKenzie. 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/20101221225558/http://www.unrealitytv.co.uk/reality-tv/four-weddings-paul-daniels-debbie-mcgee-spencer-smith-tina-malone-and-lyndsey-dawn-mackenzie/ to http://www.unrealitytv.co.uk/reality-tv/four-weddings-paul-daniels-debbie-mcgee-spencer-smith-tina-malone-and-lyndsey-dawn-mackenzie/

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: 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) 09:25, 20 December 2017 (UTC)