Jane/JeniferSun/JessicaDoll Retired Camgirl

Kapi

She was a camgirl from 2007 to 2016, and worked under 16 different nicknames on 13 different camsites
Name	Jane/Jeniffer
Age	41 years old
Country	Czech Republic
Model page	/models/206

Kapi

aka Jenniferxxx @bongacams.com

Lucky_lonelydragon

I used to see her on Streamates as Jane, and then noticed she was on Livejasmin as well. She is not much of a talker, she has sound, and I think the new account of Janestar is actually her. She is a pretty good action model, and she is pretty attractive as well.

MyCamgirl

TLDR; The model named Jane that you find now on LiveJasmin is NOT the Jane from this discussion. It shouldn't happen, but well...

According to someone from LiveJasmin's team, the glamourification process does not reuse names. But I found an exception to the rule: Jane.

This model (the one this discussion is about) was one of the few to use a short and regular name a long time ago, when 90% models were using names like 000Megan, H0llyH0le, YourSlutt, or 00000000SEXBOM. She was Jane on LiveJasmin between 2009 and 2012, and she was kinda popular. She was also one of the few to try the stupid 3D video feature LiveJasmin introduced in 2009.

Somehow, this name was returned to the pool, and a different model, following the current naming rules on LiveJasmin, claimed it.

Why am I talking about this? Because it is creating a conflict. The CWSW page for the original Jane shows this name, and the link to the stats page leads to the new Jane. Someone submitted a revision to remove this name from that page. But I decided the name will stay there. The new Jane, who was previously known as JaneHart and JaneHaart on LiveJasmin, has a CWSW page. I also added the name Jane to that page. However, this means that nobody can edit any of these pages now, as they will fail validation due to the name being linked to two models.

Since someone has already noticed the problem, it is better to explain it in case someone else notices it as well and reports it as a bug or wrong information. The information is not wrong, and it is not a bug. It is an exception to the rule that shouldn't exist.