User talk:Dismas/archive15

Why is Kelly shore up for deletion?

She is a huge pornstar and famous for her activism and more?? I don't get it..it's all true about her..just read all the links and articles.(Desertrose1982 (talk) 01:45, 23 May 2012 (UTC))[reply]

You keep saying "people"

Kelly is a transsexual star. It's a small niche - people googling her will be people into transsexuals. She is one of the most recognized faces not only for her porn work, but for her activism. People in our community look to her voice. You keep saying people, when she can't be compared to a female pornstar or a male pornstar. She is a transsexual pornstar. Winnin an award doesn't make you noteable either at least not in transsexual genre. There are one or two girls that won the award that had a PR team or were their own pr team and they won due to it. So what you don't grasp is that the transsexual community is small and out of the small community she is one of the leading faces in her community! This is why she deserves a wiki! Not just for her porn work, but for her mainstream role. (Desertrose1982 (talk) 23:04, 23 May 2012 (UTC))[reply]

Lela Star

I know for fact the info I wrote about Lela Dtar is accurate. I am her newborns father. Nothin to lie about — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tattler sleeps with Lela (talk • contribs) 00:20, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is "Frederic Marcotte". Thank you.

Don't you think birth place is important ? Why not help ? I needed Facebook and Soundcloud links to my pages. Also my Infobox needs details. Thanks. FM — Preceding unsigned comment added by Supergirl36 (talk • contribs) 21:58, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Porn Star Edits.

I've added a couple of AVN nominations for 2012 to Faye Reagan, and was wondering why they were deleted. Johnmccormick10 (talk) 02:17, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jenny McCarthy.

The Jenny McCarthy page I linked (rather than insert into the article) is extremely well-sourced, if critical. The BLP policy says: "Contentious material about living persons (or recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable" may be removed, but it does NOT say that such that has many reputable and comprehensive sources should be banned. Note also that Jenny McCarthy would not HAVE a WIkipedia page were it not for the controversy that she furthers at every opportunity. Kcmurphy88 (talk) 20:20, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And yes, I had accepted the LINKFARM reason, so I put up a short sentence pointing at the _underlying_ information on the referenced site. And got a quick BLP from someone else who objected to the site's URL and said he would not ever review the source. OF course, that's not you but I feel tag teamed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kcmurphy88 (talk • contribs) 01:33, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry :/

Sorry, thought I had put in the quotes and stuff.

Thanks for the reminder! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Persingern (talk • contribs) 00:13, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

page ovidie

Hi, may I ask you why you erased all new informations I brought to this page ? As being Ovidie myself, I suppose I know better than you my life. So please, before erasing all new informations I bring (like new books etc), please contact me.

Frenchlovertv (talk) 10:10, 1 June 2012 (UTC)Ovidie[reply]

The use of english wikipedia is quite diffrent from the french one. All right, many new references added on Ovidie page. But now you know where to contact me, for I created this english account. So please don't erase before talking to me ! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Frenchlovertv (talk • contribs) 10:47, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nikki Nova Year of Birth

Hey, just wanted to share what I did in the talk section over in the article itself. I tried to come up with a source that was readily available, published, unimpeachable, public, and that would not unduly reveal anything that is or should remain private (it doesn't include any addresses or anything, and she has moved since then anyway). The source that I used was merely a speeding ticket that was later dismissed....so there really wasn't an expectation of privacy as court records have always been public records unless ordered otherwise by a judge. Furthermore, she already has film credits under her real name (although it was her married name at the time -Zaza), and that information is already included in the article citing IMDB and the additional names she has used professionally), and there have been published articles regarding her problems with mortgage lenders that have been published & that she totally co-operated with and gave her blessing on that also use her real name.....so IMHO using the one piece of irrefutable evidence at our disposal does not "out her" in anyway that she didn't already do herself by choosing to use her real name in some of her earlier film work, unless one would argue that pointing out that she got a speeding ticket that was later dismissed unduly besmirches her in some way. Like I said, the court record I cited really was no big deal as it was merely a speeding ticket and it was dismissed anyway......so her name remains in good standing even after citing the court record and she is harmed in no way shape or form (unless one would argue that pointing out that she really is 40 and not 34 hurts her professionally in some way.....but then again, we are here to deal in facts, or we should be anyway, and not to assist someone in extending their career in the adult entertainment industry). If I am really wrong in that belief, I'm open to any input that you might have. Like I said before, I really don't want to get into an editing war, but I can be really stubborn as Hell sometimes....especially when it deals with what is and what is not accurate & I actually know the truth....and I really want to do what I can to see that the article is as inclusive in breadth and accurate as possible. The article is already a tiny stub, so I believe it can use as much accurate information as possible. If we don't use what is readily available and is right before our faces, we basically handcuff ourselves and have to rely on the subject herself to go against what is seemingly in her own professional/financial self-interests and once again publish her real birth year.....and even then, since it would have gone from 1972, to 1978, and back to 1972 again, anything that she would publish on the subject will always be unreliable and suspect unless she publishes a copy of her birth certificate....and even then, when looking at the whole Barack Obama "issue," you could always have someone refute that.

Anyway, in the eyes of the State of Arizona and their DMV specifically, Nikki was born on January 5th 1972, and if it is good enough for them, I feel it only logical that it be good enough for us. I'm open to using another source of information since the 1972 birth year has now been independently verified using an unimpeachable source and then removing as a source the public record that verified it (if anyone, such as yourself, believes that it unduly exposes private and not readily available public information....though, like I said, I would argue to the contrary), but I don't know how to go about that, if it's "doable," or even if everyone would be open that compromise to begin with. Jbs173 (talk) 00:21, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]


I really do feel strongly that we include her date of birth and that we include the irrefutable and accurate date of January 5, 1972.....but........ Upon reflection, and in an effort to be both cool and fair about it, I MANUALLY reverted the article to it's state before I added the correct birth information again so that everyone can chime in for a few days at least in the talk section of the article. Like I said in the article's talk section, this whole matter is rather difficult for me because I have to weigh inclusion of correct data concerning something as basic as her date of birth with protecting her and her privacy (which I have my own reasons for not wanting to "out" or "expose" her to any potential harm in any way that could result from "outing" someone in her line of work. Like I said earlier, I don't believe anything is really revealed in that source that wasn't already revealed by Nikki herself in published articles, television and radio interviews, that she actively participated in (including her picture/images/herself) in which both her real name and professional names were used in the same piece, and the fact that she actually used her real name (at the time anyway) in some of her earlier work....other than the fact that she got a speeding ticket a couple of years ago, and it was later dismissed (as evidenced by the source that I included to corroborate the FACT that she was indeed born on January 5, 1972 and not 1978).


I've already chimed in and then some, so I opened it up for input and discussion from everyone else who might have an opinion. So, I welcome you to chime in (in the talk section of the article) if you wish to do so. Jbs173 (talk) 02:06, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

jessica drake wikipedia page

Hi - wanted to know why the addition of jessica drake's guide to wicked sex win at xbiz was deleted. I'm new to this so any help you can offer would be greatly appreciated. Thank you BeeDazzle (talk) 20:15, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I put my reason in the edit summary here. You can also find this by clicking on the "View history" tab at the top of the article. The info that you added was not cited to a reliable source. Also, your grammar could use some work. Hope this helps, Dismas|(talk) 20:23, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I was visiting this page on an unrelated matter, and I saw this, and although porn & porn stars is not actually my area of expertise, I was bored and decided to get a little experience with citations on Wikipedia. So, I went ahead and found the best possible reliable and verifiable source for the piece of data that BeeDazzle had inserted sans a source, and then I went and re-inserted his little factoid (though re-worded), though sourced this time. It was a pain in the butt because I screwed it up a few times at 1st....but I got it done. Jbs173 (talk) 10:21, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I put the title in italics as film and book titles should be but otherwise, it looks good. Thanks again, Dismas|(talk) 10:32, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Courteney Cox

In your zeal to revert, you restored a number of uncited claims in violation of WP:BLP and removed citation requests from the filmography. These are both pretty serious things to do. I don't believe you intended to do them, so I can only suggest you not revert without looking at everything that you're reverting. --Tenebrae (talk) 19:53, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your comment, and you may be right. I find that, too often, contributors who edit celebrity biographies are prone to believe unsubstantiated things written in gossip sites and to not be aware of WP:BLP. As I mentioned, I don't believe that to be the case with you. I'm sure you can understand how blindly reverting another editor's time-consuming work in a way that reintroduces policy / guideline violations can provoke a response, and I apologize if mine was too strong.--Tenebrae (talk) 19:57, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't have any zeal. I made what I thought was going to be a simple edit. Next time you're making several edits to a page, please use the {{inuse}} template so that others wouldn't trip over your multiple edits. Dismas|(talk) 19:59, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I beg your pardon: You blanket-reverted multiple edits without looking. I thought I was being very gracious in my reply, but blaming me because you did not exercise proper care is completely uncalled for. Perhaps my sharp tone was exactly right. --Tenebrae (talk) 22:31, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I guess you are looking for a fight. Okay then, here's the sequence of events. I saw on my watchlist your snarky comment about using IMDB as a source. Checked the diff and saw what you had done. Opened another tab and got a source for the birth date. Went back to the diff page and clicked edit on the version that didn't have the birth date commented out. Added my source and hit save. In the meantime, you had made another edit. That's where the other info that needed a citation crept in. Now, if you had put an in use template at the top of the page before you started making your 14 edits then this whole matter could have been avoided. So, since you seem to want to make this into a fight, why not go call that admin that you threatened everyone with in your edit summary. Or you can just chalk this up to you being an inconsiderate jerk and move on. Dismas|(talk) 23:41, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia Help Survey

Hi there, my name's Peter Coombe and I'm a Wikimedia Community Fellow working on a project to improve Wikipedia's help system. At the moment I'm trying to learn more about how people use and find the current help pages. If you could help by filling out this brief survey about your experiences, I'd be very grateful. It should take less than 10 minutes, and your responses will not be tied to your username in any way.

Thank you for your time,
the wub (talk) 18:10, 14 June 2012 (UTC) (Delivered using Global message delivery)[reply]

Re: Lexi Love

Hello, Dismas. You have new messages at Dru of Id's talk page.
Message added 11:27, 15 June 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Ken N. Gidge

http://s1159.photobucket.com/albums/p637/leeguerette/All%20Press/


Dear Disma,

Cool name by the way. I have citations... news articles. See the above link. I am new and don't know how to do citations well ... but am getting help. Please don't delete... we are working on this. If you would like to take a sample of the news and show me the proper way to write a citation, I would appreciate it.


Thanks,

Gracie in nh — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gracieinnh (talk • contribs) 12:10, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Gracie, thanks. Photos of newspaper clippings don't really count as sources. You would need to cite the actual newspapers. Those photos don't tell me what newspaper that they are from, so I couldn't begin to cite anything from them.
Really, the whole article could really use a re-write. If you look at other biography articles here, you'll see that it looks nothing like them. Take, for example, a small biography like one I recently created for Miro Weinberger. You'll notice it starts with a brief clear description of who he is and what makes him notable, it has sections for his work and personal life, etc.
What I highly suggest is for you to go to Wikipedia:Article wizard and go through the process there. Another link that will be valuable to you is Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners.
And finally, since you say "we are working on this", I'm a bit concerned. Who is "we"? If you are working with Gidge, then you should familiarize yourself with Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. Dismas|(talk) 19:09, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brynn Tyler

Thanks for your comment; I take it that there is discussion of WP:PORNBIO going on somewhere. Another comment in this section refers to the standard having been "recently tightened". I wonder if I could trouble you to point me in the direction of any discussion that you think is useful in order to better understand the issues that seem to be in flux? Thanks in advance for any direction you would care to offer. Ubelowme (talk) 19:44, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's on the talk page for WP:PORNBIO]], specifically at Wikipedia talk:Notability (people). It's the first discussion at the top of the page. Dismas|(talk) 21:42, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Much obliged for the pointer. I'll have a look through this. I gather it would not be popular (or really very useful) to reopen the discussion so soon, but I was impressed by an argument I saw recently in an AfD about how the standard should be revised with respect to gay awards, which don't go back as far as their straight counterparts. Perhaps I'll just bide my time until this discussion re-starts. Thanks for your trouble. Ubelowme (talk) 21:50, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Messed up Afd

OK, I'm supposed to know what I'm doing, nut I clearly do not. I decided to create an Afd, tried using the template, wasn't sure whether than worked, then tried using twinkle, which also didn't work. As you seem to know what you are doing, can you help me clean up?--SPhilbrick(Talk) 23:51, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My first attempt created Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Convexity risk, but that didn't add it to the list, nor notify the creator, so I tried Twinkle, which created a second nomination, but the substitution didn't work right.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 23:55, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I'm not sure what happened but I think with the CSD that I just created for the second nomination, things should be sorted out as far as the AFD process goes. I did not check to see if the page creator had been notified. In general, I just used the Twinkle gadget in the pull down menu. It's been a while since I went through the process the old way. Dismas|(talk) 01:05, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I probably should have just used Twinkle, but I once intended to nominate something for deletion and I deleted it - I know I can, but I like the fours eyes concept, so I usually prefer not to do a straight deletion of something I've found. That left me gun-shy, but I now see what I did wrong, so I'll use Twinkle next time.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 02:46, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Registration

I have still to see anything that answers my question, which is - That I have registered and had confirmation of doing so, but when I try to upload the information, it says that I am not registered. What is the problem. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 27.252.64.136 (talk) 03:57, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What are you trying to upload? What information? Are you trying to edit an article or upload an image? What does the error specifically say? Are you logged in when you try? You're not logged in right now. Dismas|(talk) 04:19, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

photo of tatjana

Dismas - Can this photo be added to her page? http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-68Kgu7ADT8I/T_FQfOYmW6I/AAAAAAAANDw/982GguB6kss/s1600/1024-TATJANA-june+93+mcuk.jpg Tatjana Patitz?

Looking forward, Vittori — Preceding unsigned comment added by LaVicente (talk • contribs) 07:54, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No. The copyright of that photo is owned by someone and it is very unlikely that they have licensed it freely. Either the photographer or the company that is using it for their advertising (catalog, whatever that image is from) owns the copyright to the photo. Dismas|(talk) 10:06, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nikki's Age Redux

Hey, I'm sorry for admittedly being a bit prissy about that issue again...I got all worked up and didn't even accurately read what you had written about it until after I responded. Anyway, I'm at a marked disadvantage concerning using sources to verify that the 1972 year is in fact correct (as has been established clearly even if you only look at the court records that can't be used actually...though it can't be used as a source in the article, it can't be ignored or dismissed as actually proving that it is a fact), in that I actually am/was in a position where I have 1st hand knowledge that she was in fact born in 1972....so that leads to me getting irritated over what I see as being a disingenuous dispute. The big problem for me is the fact that, and you would have to admit I am sure, if the dispute is basically that her official site says one thing (not that women in general, or women who work in the adult entertainment industry specifically lie about their age or anything), and every other site that didn't take it's information from the misinformation that was on here (taken from her site) for a spell when someone mysteriously changed the date of birth (citing her site as the source) after years where it accurately was listed as 1972.

The dilemma for me is that, given that I do have 1st hand knowledge, virtually everything (Hell everything really) I could present that is IRREFUTABLE would be inappropriate for the article. I mean I could provide a copy of her Driver's License, interview her mother (I mean she should know), provide personal correspondence between Nikki and myself where she came clean to me (early on when we were still friends), her SAG info, probably even get a copy of her birth certificate.......of course I am not about to do any of those things for several reasons....many of which should be obvious....regardless of what Wikipedia's policy is on any of that....it simply would not be appropriate, it would be highly an invasion of her privacy, and it would actually be violating the trust she and I had for each other at one time. Hell I never should have used the court records that irrefutably proved it, and though it was the tamest thing that I had that proved it, I didn't even know what Wikipedia's policy was on using court records, and admittedly I went there out of frustration, I still shouldn't have. So there you go, the stuff I have that I could use to verify that she was in fact born in 1972, I can't and wouldn't for the reasons I mentioned and some that I didn't. So basically we are supposed to ignore the facts in the issue because of the sensitive nature of the corroborating evidence & the fact that we can't actually cite it in the article, and pretend there is a dispute based on her lying about her age for professional/financial reasons on her website? The thing that really irritates me is the fact that several other sites lift their info directly from the article on here, and since someone inexplicably changed it to 1978 a few years back, this site has been directly used to spread the propaganda & lie of 1978.

Anyway, I have a newspaper article that lists her as a candidate for graduation from high school in 1990 and an article concerning her foreclosure (that uses her professional and real names) that mentions that she was 33 at the time of her horse riding accident in 2005. Other than that, all of the other evidence I have is too sensitive to use, or anyone who wants to dispute it will continue to do so....I mean if someone wants to make irrational disputes, they could dispute anything that was published simply by mentioning "well Nikki states 1978 on her official site." I mean if we really don't care about the truth, and that would seem to be the case and/or some choose to arbitrarily handcuff the article from presenting the truth anyway, I don't really know how to proceed, much less if it's even worth it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jbs173 (talk • contribs) 02:00, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Roman Polanski article

Wikipedia says the Roman Polanski article is semi-protected. How long do I have to wait before I can edit it? --RomanPolanski39 (talk) 19:55, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you click on the lock in the upper right of the article, it takes you to an explanation of the protection level. In this case, you must be (auto)confirmed which means having at least 10 edits (which you have done) and been a registered member for four days. If you'd like to skip those four days and feel that you've shown yourself to be a well intentioned member, you can ask to have your account confirmed at the help desk. I've seen others make similar requests and an admin often sees what is posted there and could do this for you. Dismas|(talk) 20:00, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Brittany Binger

Thanks for helping out with the problematic editing of the Binger article (apparently by its subject). I noticed you have been involved in restoring the statement regarding Binger's engagement. I thought you should know that there's a discussion going on about it at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard § Alternative reliable sources for personal info in an article, in case you wanted to add your two cents. TimofKingsland (talk) 08:00, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Invite to Research Survey

Hello Dismas,

I'm part of a team that is researching ways to help Wikipedia editors find interesting content to contribute to Wikipedia. More specifically, we are investigating whether content from news sources can be used to enhance Wikipedia editing. We are creating a tool, called wikiFeed, that will help Wikipedia editors make connections between content from Twitter or RSS news feeds and Wikipedia articles. We are currently gathering data which will help us in the development process and would love to learn about how you consume news content and how it relates to your Wikipedia editing. If you would like to help, follow this link to complete a brief survey. Your feedback will help us create a better tool.

For more information about wikiFeed, visit our project page. If you have any questions, please feel free to ask via my talk page, or by email at wikifeedcc@gmail.com. Thanks for your time! WorldsApart (talk) 15:56, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your free 1-year HighBeam Research account is ready

Good news! You are approved for access to 80 million articles in 6500 publications through HighBeam Research. Check your Wikipedia email:

  • The 1-year, free period begins when you enter the code.
  • To activate your account: 1) Go to http://www.highbeam.com/prof1
  • If you need assistance, email "help at highbeam dot com", and include "HighBeam/Wikipedia" in the subject line. Or go to WP:HighBeam/Support, or ask User:Ocaasi. Please, per HighBeam's request, do not call the toll-free number for assistance with registration.
  • A quick reminder about using the account: 1) try it out; 2) provide original citation information, in addition to linking to a HighBeam article; 3) avoid bare links to non-free HighBeam pages; 4) note "(subscription required)" in the citation, where appropriate. Examples are at WP:HighBeam/Citations.
  • HighBeam would love to hear feedback at WP:HighBeam/Experiences
  • Show off your HighBeam access by placing {{User:Ocaasi/highbeam_userbox}} on your userpage
  • When the 1-year period is up, check applications page to see if renewal is possible. We hope it will be.

Thanks for helping make Wikipedia better. Enjoy your research! Cheers, Ocaasi 00:45, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lonny Chin

You're right, those aren't good references. A better one would be the copy I still have of the issue in which Playboy announces that there will now be a video version of the magazine available (it was on VHS, but I never bought it, so I'm a bit lacking in the knowledge there), and that Lonny Chin had been selected as the first Video Playmate. Normally, the gold standard for such information would be Playboy's website itself. However, HH has a proclivity for 1984ing Playmates who stray outside of what he deems acceptable behaviour, be it by going into hardcore porn, or, in the case of Lonny Chin, getting a felony conviction on drug charges. If you look her up on the website, it does acknowledge that there was such a Playmate, but amazingly, there are no photos of her. But thousands of men remember her place in Playboy history, and you can find dozens of websites that acknowledge the same. Thanks for allowing the fact to stay, despite the relative weakness of the sources. 76.106.149.108 (talk) 21:34, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Citing the issue you mention would be fine. I'd do it myself but my collection doesn't reach that far back. And I agree about Hefner's treatment of Playmates who don't tow the company line. It shows in the weak coverage they pay to any Playmate that is more than a few months out of publication. It's one reason I tend to use WeKinglyPigs for a reference when I can instead of the Playboy web site itself. Dismas|(talk) 23:08, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Paulina Porizkova

Hello. But why did you linkfarm and revert the FAMAMOCA link for Paulina? For anyone who wants to research Paulina's modelling career, I think FAMAMOCA is a valid and very useful resource. You can use that site to find articles written about Paulina. You can find out what photo editorials she was in, which advertisers used her and when the dates were, you can find if she worked with this or that photographer like Glaviano or Avedon, and when. And if you don't think that's a valid resource, how is FMD or even IMDB any different? You left those. ????? Thank you. Sjunk071407 (talk) 01:26, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

FMD and IMDb are established sources for information and recognized in their fields. Famamoca isn't. We don't even have an article on Famamoca or FAMAMOCA. So if it's not notable enough for an article (or for someone to have bothered writing one) yet, then why should it be in the links section? It might be a perfectly good resource but right now, it's WP:TOOSOON. Dismas|(talk) 05:55, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the reply. But I don't agree with your reasoning. You ask me why the link I gave to the page before, then why should it be in the links section? Okay, here is why. The FAMAMOCA link gives facts for Paulina and her career. It does not give opinions, only facts. So it doesn't matter if the FAMAMOCA site is established and recognized in their fields, because it doesn't give opinions. So we don't have to know whether the opinions are very knowledgeable. That is important, yes I agree. I also don't know how you decided it is not recognized in its field. How did you decide that? But I also don't think it matters very much because it gives only information, like for when, and who she worked with. And it gives a lot of information, not just a little bit. And those facts are not on another site, which is important. Can you recommend any site that gives the same information that way? I don't think so, there are no links like that in the Wikipedia article for Paulina. I want to do some research about Paulina's career. I want to know if she ever worked with Marco Glaviano or Richard Avedon. I want you to tell me when it was too. I want to know what book or what magazine and when it was. Will the links in the article for Wikipedia for Paulina tell me that? Yes, the FAMAMOCA link. How about for other links? No, I don't think so. Maybe you think this information is not very interesting, so you decided that it doesn't matter for everyone else. I think it's important to discuss her career with facts. Also I think you say that the FAMAMOCA site is not popular enough, so your opinion is for other people shouldn't be able to see in the links section that they could use it as a resource. You say it might be a good resource right now, but it's too soon. Too soon for what? It only has facts. It is too soon for more facts? And the rule you give is Wikipedia for itself! You say, if it's not notable enough for an article in Wikipedia yet, so it's not notable enough for other people to use yet. That seems a little arrogant and rude. If you are not important enough to have an article in Wikipedia, everyone should ignore you? And why is my giving a link not the same for my writing an article? I thought it's a very good resource. I thought so, so I gave it for a link. First it was a linkfarm, now it is too soon. I read the Wikipedia guide, and it talks about "focus on content" and "trying to win". I ask you, are you trying to win? I think the link I gave from before is very useful, and it gives a lot of facts and information that the Wikipedia users who want to learn more about Paulina can't get from the other sites. I am not trying to be insulting, though maybe you think so. But I don't agree with your reasoning. I think the link gives a lot of facts to someone doing some research, and they can't get these facts with the other links. So I think we should include the link. I like Paulina too and I thank you for caring so much for her Wikipedia page. Thank you and regards to you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sjunk071407 (talk • contribs) 09:25, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry but it's a bit hard to follow your train of thought through that block of rambling text. I'll try to reply and explain my side in a few paragraphs and concentrate on one point at a time.
First let me clear up some confusion that you may have with my use of WP:LINKFARM and WP:TOOSOON. I removed the link from PP's article due to LINKFARM because of the first point of that guideline "Mere collections of external links or Internet directories." We already have a link to the Fashion Model Directory, so I don't see how another directory link regarding her fashion work adds that much value.
As for the WP:TOOSOON reference, that was in regards to Famamoca having its own article here. After re-reading that, I see how I might have been unclear. I think it's too soon for Famamoca to have an article. I don't think that the site has the notability per WP:CORP or WP:WEB.
I didn't say that if something is unknown to most people that it shouldn't be mentioned, have an article, etc. What I was getting at is that IMDb and FMD are more well known and more established in their industries and therefore we provide a link to them in the links section. And that leads me to some facts and figures about how unknown Famamoca is.
  • Google hits: Not a precise measure but it provides a general idea of how notable or influential a site is. Famamoca has only ~9,000 Ghits. Meanwhile, a site such as Fashion Model Directory has ~750,000 Ghits.
  • Of those ~9,000 hits, the first several pages are all 1) the site itself, 2) business listings, 3) forum posts, Twitter tweets, Facebook posts, etc from Famamoca themselves or someone posting to forums under the user name Famamoca.
  • Google news: No mention of Famamoca at all.
  • According to Alexa.com: Famamoca doesn't even have a traffic rank and it only has 14 sites linking to it. Meanwhile, the site for a local club that I belong to with less than 75 members has a traffic ranking and more sites linking into it. Also, FMD has a little over 2,800 sites linking in to it. There are thousands of models. So why are only 14 sites linking into Famamoca?
  • According to a WHOIS lookup, Famamoca.com has only been around for a little over two years. Meanwhile, FMD has been around for 12 years.
So, why should we link to a site that has even less traffic than many fan sites? You say it doesn't give opinions and only provides facts. But we already have a well recognized and well established directory of much the same information that is already linked... Fashion Model Directory.
Now, is that more clear? Dismas|(talk) 10:38, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your file mover request

Hi Dismas, there is further discussion on your file mover request and I have asked you a question to help with explaining your knowledge of file moving. Best. Acalamari 17:47, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I'd been checking back every day or so but I appreciate the heads up. I'll do the research that you asked for (file names) and get back to you when I have a bit more time. I generally do most of my editing from work and just started my weekend (odd schedule, I know). Dismas|(talk) 17:54, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Fine with me; there's no rush. :) Best. Acalamari 18:56, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Dismas. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/File mover.
Message added 18:11, 1 August 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

"Dismas, can you point to some files you think need moving over here and recommend better names for them?" Cheers, Riley Huntley talk No talkback needed; I'll temporarily watch here. 18:11, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Given

I have granted file mover rights to your account following either a request for those rights or a clear need for the ability to move files. For information on the file mover rights and under what circumstances it is okay to move files, see Wikipedia:File mover. If you do not want file mover rights anymore, just let me know, and I'll remove it. Good luck and thanks. --Guerillero | My Talk 20:05, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Dismas. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Help desk.
Message added 03:26, 7 August 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Thank you. TBrandley 03:26, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lenny Williams

I reverted your revert, as the album cover is available under a free license. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 08:31, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:April O'neil.jpg

About this picture, I was sorry about that. My account has been hacked and someone has uploaded the picture with my account. I hope you can understand the situation. Thank you, MTN1996 (talk) 20:07, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Then you might want to have the other O'Neil picture deleted as well. Dismas|(talk) 20:09, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Savannah Stern

I am trying to prevent its deletion. In my last edit I provided a summary explaining my edits. I even linked her official facebook. Her info is also on Brazzers and freeones just so you know. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.116.58.74 (talk) 09:49, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fine, i'll just have to work on the citations. But as for the Facebook profile, look through all the photos and read the captions. It is obviously her. Some even match her twitter photos. IMDB also has her birth name as Kristen Grinnell, but I know everyone discredits imdb on here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.116.58.74 (talk) 11:06, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File move

Hi Dismas. I'm 777, and I just want to inform you about moving a particular file (:File:New Doctor Who Titles (2012).png) [for a more suitable name - It's not the only titlecard for 2012, it's only one of them], as I've seen you are a file mover: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Movepage/File:New_Doctor_Who_Titles_(2012).png?wpNewTitle=File%3ADW+Asylum+of+the+Daleks+titlecard+%282012%29.png&wpReason=More+suitable+name

Thanks a lot. 777 — 20:30, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's OK now, it's changed. 777 — 11:44, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Claudia Jennings, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Pacific Coast Highway (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:57, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of Playboy Playmates of 1983

You undid my revert of an edit here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_Playboy_Playmates_of_1983&diff=next&oldid=511211577

My concern was not to "sanitize" the record of a Playmate; some of their foibles are noted in passing in many of the entries in these lists. Maybe my revert lacked finesse, and I should have made a more limited edit of the edit. My concerns are two: first, the report by user 70.120.91.236 contains serious charges (drugs, prostitution, incarceration) about a living person, and if it were appropriate at all to report, at the very least he should be required to cite reliable references.

Second is the matter of appropriate proportion of space and weight of the "headline" given to this matter on a page whose purpose is to "list the Playmates of 1983". On that page, there are 12 major headings, one for each monthly Playmate. He gave "Legal Troubles" for just one of them a 13th heading, equal to all the ones that naturally "belong" on the page. Your restoration makes it a bold heading equal to "External Links". And there is the matter of its proportional length. His note on her misfortunes is as extensive as her basic model-oriented biographical notes. Is this page a list of the year's Playmates, with a few interesting notes about them, or is it a rap sheet? If this is considered an appropriate addition to Lonny Chin's entry as Miss January, then it should be just a sad note incorporated within her biographical paragraph and not a given a full-blown headline of its own. And of course it should cite references. Wikilister (talk) 22:11, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of User talk:Whosyodaddyyy

Please do not make articles about a living person that are entirely negative in tone and unsourced. Wikipedia has a policy of verifiability and any negative information we use must be reliably sourced, and our articles must be balanced. Negative unreferenced biographies of living people are not tolerated by Wikipedia and are speedily deleted. Users who continue to create or repost such pages and images in violation of our biographies of living persons policy will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Thank you.

If you think that the page was nominated in error, contest the nomination by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion" in the speedy deletion tag. Doing so will take you to the talk page where you can explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but do not hesitate to add information that is consistent with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Dismas|(talk) 13:31, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your note re "negative unsourced articles" vs your action re Lonny Chin

Dismas, forgive me if I'm confused about your note just above. You seem to be admonishing "Whosyodaddyyy" although the note is here on your own talk page. More confusing to me is that you warn him not to "make articles about a living person that are entirely negative in tone and unsourced". I agree wholeheartedly, and that falls right in line with my objections to the edit of "List of Playboy Playmates of 1983" by user 70.120.91.236. Yet you yourself restored his negative unsourced article. I also still object to its disproportionate length and its having an inappropriate separate heading rather than being added (if at all) to the existing biographical paragraph. Wikilister (talk) 23:40, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The story behind the warning above is a bit more involved than I think you're aware of, so let me explain. Whos', as I'll call him, made an edit to an article about a porn star. I forget which right now and it's irrelevant anyway. Their edit consisted mainly of adding a birth name to the article which they did not support with a reliable source. When I warned them about needing a source for a birth name, I had to create their talk page. They then decided to create their own biography about the porn star and use their talk page as a sort of sandbox for it. They replaced my warning to them with the content of the biography. I saw that they had done that and added a speedy deletion notice to the page. When I did that, I chose the most appropriate template (in my opinion) even though it might not have fit the situation exactly. A consequence of having added the template is that the page creator is notified when the tag is added. In this case, it was ironically me that had created the page! So, really, Whos' is best ignored. They're likely someone who doesn't know better than to post unsupported info here on Wikipedia and they would likely fit in better over at Boobipedia (not sure if I'm spelling that right and I'm not about to search for the correct spelling from here at work).
As for the Lonny Chin matter... I've gone ahead and reverted myself. I see now that there are no references for the material. I don't know why but I thought there were when I initially reinstated it the other day. I'm sorry for that. Maybe I had too many tabs open or something. Again, my apologies, Dismas|(talk) 01:19, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]