User talk:Dismas/archive9

For your information...

Not only I've finally discovered for over a month that that per MOS thing was a reference to the mandatory Manual of Style - it would be better if you explained things, people aren't obliged to know every abbreviation, I thought all those corrections were made just for a personal idea of style, as so many other editors insist in removing or readding things more than once without any rule as justification - but I've also corrected some of my previous mistakes, in good time!... If you've read my rant as you should and then you would've reached to that conclusion: that I was just justifying why I've never followed the rules before!... But apparently you have no time for reading, or correcting anything, the same reason why I had to correct some articles personally instead of just waiting for someone else to do it, some of the dits been done today!... PS: If films are "not notable" - as if!... - why do they have pages - not having a page doesn't make it "non notable" per se?... Or you prefer to have everything unlinked?... Actually I read the articles better with more links, and beside SOME common English words I've linked were mostly to illustrate the speech or some character appearance without a page. G.-M. Cupertino (talk) 19:00, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Because I was so sick and tired of seeing edits made by subjective reasons that I just assumed it was the case. Specially when I didn't know of all those rules: since no page had a complete or even an incomplete Filmography I assumed there weren't even rules for something so small in a whole Encyclopedia. And the only time I've seen someone say anything about the Manual of Style that was inteligeable that someone said or I've read on the top of it that it was "guiding lines", which I interpret as being mere abstract preferences, like, it is preferable to put filmographies from the oldest works to the newest ones. The rest, I have no time to talk or read editors' things, I have so many other things to do... You should've said that Dates are mandatorially deprecated by some recent decision and according to the mandatory Manual of Style, instead of that gibberish "date audit script assisted per MOS" (I've only open the link of the script and I assumed it was just a description of the alteration and the program that assisted it and I never read what the MOS was), I would've ran to the Administrators in the first place to know what was going on instead of debating the issue with just another editor!... When someone started taking dates out not only I didn't knew it was some new management's idiossincratic mandatory change, but I saw that it was a stupid one, since most people otherwise wouldn't even know that there are pages for years and for years in music and film and television, which by the way is the only reason I know they exist, because I've read them in some page. If you deprecate them all - and according to the Holy Manual of Style they're not even to be deprecated as I see so many doing - no one will even know they're there. My rant was the one that was here long enough to be read!... I was referring to your comment that I did links to so called non notable films. The rest, on Saturday I've corrected most of the Filmographies, and there are just about 30 left, which I expect to finish soon. G.-M. Cupertino (talk) 12:46, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

IMDb

I've changed the template because it was more simple, when I opened it from {{IMDb}} instead of {{IMDb name}} I got there directly without any redirect, the parte of the name is on "name="!... G.-M. Cupertino (talk) 13:23, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's corrected!

The IMDb name things, they're all right now, I've corrected them yesterday!... G.-M. Cupertino (talk) 13:26, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Articles for deletion/Stingray Sam

The Wikipedia article for the upcoming Cory McAbee's film Stingray Sam is nominated for deletion. Please contribute to the discussion.--DrWho42 (talk) 03:22, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ridge Landing Airpark

Just wanted to let you know that Ridge Landing Airpark doesn't qualify for G4 because it's content is not at all similar to the version that was deleted . imho, it is marginally notable, but if you think otherwise, feel free to list it for deletion again. Regards. Thingg⊕⊗ 02:20, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

date style - month/day vs. day-month

You cleaned up the dates in 2005 Southeast Asian Games, but in so doing, converted all from month-day (more or less) to day-month style. Shouldn't you keep the existing style unless the nationality of the article's subject clearly calls for the other style? Chris the speller (talk) 02:59, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK. For parts of Southeast Asia, you may be right (Hong Kong, for example). But the Philippines have had much more US influence, so the day-month assumption will often not work there. I also have a script for these conversions. If you see me mess up, or if you have any related questions, or end up in a tight place, please drop something on my talk page. Happy editing! Chris the speller (talk) 04:54, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Priscilla Taylor photo removal

Priscilla Taylor has asked me to remove the photo I posted of her. I removed it twice but it keeps re-appearing. You told me to contact OTR in regards to that. I did 3 days ago. I have not received a reply and her photo is still there. I told here I removed it and don't want here being mad a me because it's still there after i told her I removed it. How can i get it removed permanently?

Glenn Francis (talk) 03:37, 26 November 2008 (UTC) Glenn Francis[reply]

Filmography

Putting the last movie on top of the list is just the opposite of IMDB, eventhough Wikipedia WP:LOW says otherwise. Looking at the various actors, majority is the opposite. Savolya (talk) 13:48, 28 November 2008 (UTC)SavolyaSavolya (talk) 13:48, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see the dilema. There must be an easier way of enetering reverse data from IMDB.

Savolya (talk) 14:08, 28 November 2008 (UTC)SavolyaSavolya (talk) 14:08, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:EGG

I saw your comment on the Date linking RFC. Please note that WP:EGG explicitly exempts some piped links: "However, piped links may be useful: in places where compact presentation is important (some tables, infoboxes, and lists)." To hold otherwise would devastate many sports articles. See the infobox on any NFL player to see how many piped links there are to NFL seasons, Pro-Bowl years, and All-Pro years. See Jason Taylor for example.--2008Olympianchitchat 10:25, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Help with photographer's page?

Hi-

You were a HUGE help to Mason Marconi on her page with sorting copyright issues, and I was just reading a blog where an artist put out an open cry for help that I thought to pass along to you:

http://www.stevedietgoedde.com/bloggy/

MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 29, 2008

Wiki Trouble Are there any Wikipedia contributors/editors out there? I used to have an entry but it was deleted back in June. Several other colleagues had their profiles removed as well, namely Charles Gatewood and Christophe Mourthé among others.

The page for my entry is still there at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steve_Diet_Goedde

The deletion log says: 06:02, 10 June 2008 ESkog (Talk | contribs) deleted "Steve Diet Goedde" ‎ (G12: Blatant copyright infringement: no revisions had anything that wasn't ripped from the linked page)

I'm not sure what kind of copyright infringement was involved. I don't even understand that last sentence in the above quote. I had approved two of my images for use in the article and followed all their usage rules. That had been done a few years prior to the removal. So I have no idea what happened. So if anyone is interested in restoring my page, please let me know and I'll be happy to provide any biographical information.

(end blog)

Steve's email address is stevedg@gmail.com... I hope that you can help him- he's very nice and an important photographer!!!

99.141.74.72 (talk) 23:10, 5 December 2008 (UTC) Librarian2008[reply]

Cupertino

Thanks for letting me know that you've had problems with him in the past. As I'm bringing an arbitration case against him, it helps a lot. I'm not entirely sure how they work, but is it possible to bring you in to comment after I've already submitted it? Thanks again. Rwiggum (Talk/Contrib) 17:39, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I saw your question on the requests for arbitration page (I'm one of the arbitrators). Any user may offer his or her opinion on whether a request for arbitration should be accepted or not, so feel free to submit a short statement if you think it would help. Your statement will be most helpful if it discusses whether arbitration (as opposed to another means of dispute resolution) is the best dispute-resolution method to use, in addition to any other issues. Hope this helps. Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:48, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Maria Thayer

I've opened a request for arbitration and listed you as a named party. You may wish to make a statement. Best wishes, Rwiggum (Talk/Contrib) 22:22, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reference

IMDB was removed from Melissa Bellin page as a reference with the notation: "IMDb can be used as a reference for filmography items but not for biographical data, see WP:RS for more on that, standardize section headers, italicize magazine title".

The page has been deleted for "lack of notability" in the past, and is under the threat of it again for the same reason and for "lack of reference".

As for the "lack of notability" issue, I have no idea why she is less notable than any of the other Nitro Girls that have their own pages, but that is another issue.

The IMDB biography page is the only source of biographical information available, so I guess the page will be deleted again, due to "lack of reference".

Qzk1718 (talk) 12:16, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank You

That's the second bad external link call I've made this week. (The other one was less egregious and I reversed myself before anyone else had to.) Thank you for correcting my error so gently. Best, David in DC (talk) 16:28, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Humayun Saeed

Ok =] Thanks.(Rk12m (talk) 06:01, 24 December 2008 (UTC))[reply]

information

Alright, I got a little more information on the "one footed snorkel monster" question. Hope it helps!-Warriorscourge (talk) 00:16, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/G.-M. Cupertino

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/G.-M. Cupertino/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/G.-M. Cupertino/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, - Penwhale | Blast him / Follow his steps 16:45, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Account usurp

Trying to usurp an account on de. Hello, I confirm that I'd like to usurp de:User:Dismas and ru:User:Dismas. Dismas|(talk) 08:54, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

using sandbox

thanks for the tip! That was my very first Wikipedia page!

Glenn Francis (talk) 03:44, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Taya Parker Edit

Taya Parker and I began her wiki page long ago. I realize now there is all this sudden interest. Please do not remove accolades.

I have cited references for all of them. We are not sure if it's done the best way.. just the same.. please do not remove ALL the information for no reason. The information is extremely justifiable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.64.21.41 (talk) 01:15, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ida Ljungqvist (new information)

Hey there- Im a playboy fanatic and love researching all the playmates and I have a few blogs and the biggest question I get is: Who is Joshua R. Lang? (Ida's husband) well after searching forever and hours I discovered alot of crazy stuff and who he is and where he is from. Bt having this on here with Ida Ljungqvist, this will answer many peoples questions and give insight to who he is and the articles and news stories regarding them both. Thanks and great work. :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Greystone36 (talk • contribs)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ida_Ljungqvist&oldid=263556861 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Greystone36 (talk • contribs)

Ida Ljungqvist (reply)

I shall create a new one for both. Lang is more notable than Ljungqvist just to let you know. If I'm not mistaken he was in all the news articles and television more than her. Also I will use Ida's real name and information. thanks. :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Greystone36 (talk • contribs)

Ida Ljungqvist

While I agree that a redirect with a bad title shouldn't exist, such redirects are generally kept to retain the attribution of the edits. If you have included material from the deleted page, you should give credit to Greystone36 for adding it somewhere in the first place. If you have the intention to delete the page it came from, the best way to consolidate both things is to mention where it came from in the edit summary. Keep it in mind for the future, and perhaps do a null edit (adding a space or punctuation somewhere) and make such an edit summary now. - Mgm|(talk) 08:29, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Maybe I'm missing the obvious, but when you said done on my talk page, which edit were you referring to specifically? I've looked through your contributions and those to the article and I can't find it. - Mgm|(talk) 09:14, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • It worked this time. :) - Mgm|(talk) 09:25, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • If merged material comes from one single editor and there are calls to have the source article deleted, this is the easiest way to combine the conflicting moves. If more people contributed to merged material, a rename of the page might be in order before it's merged and redirected. - Mgm|(talk) 09:27, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Joshua R.

Hey Dismas- When doing reseacrch and putting together the Joshua Lang article. Many if not all use Joshua R Lang (the middle initial) typing in just Joshua Lang doesnt boost much stuff online or the news and gets it mixed up with some other random Joshua Lang's. From what I'm researching the R. is basically his trademark and the news and other information sites use this to seperate. Greystone36 (talk) 17:08, 14 January 2009 (UTC) hope all is well[reply]

Responded at Talk:Joshua Lang. Dismas|(talk) 19:49, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Award Nominations

Maybe the project should set some kind of guideline for listing awards and nominations. I prefer not listing any closed nominations if they have a win somewhere because wikipedia is not an indiscriminate list of information. Imagine if we listed all of Jenna Haze's nominations or Jenna Jameson's. For those subjects that don't have any wins, then I feel listing nominations is fine in order to verify their notability under WP:PORNBIO. Morbidthoughts (talk) 04:21, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/G.-M. Cupertino

The "G.-M. Cupertino" arbitration case has been closed, and the final decision is available at the link above.

G.-M. Cupertino is banned from Wikipedia for a period of one year. Should he return to editing following his ban, he is limited indefinitely to using one account to edit. He is to inform the Committee of the account he has selected, and must obtain the Committee's approval if he wishes to begin using a different account.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee,
Mailer Diablo 23:45, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Simpsons guest stars

Would you be OK if I speedily deleted the Simpsons guest star categories you've nominated? They've been deleted about 5 or 6 times, by my count. I can just delete them and close the discussion if it's OK with you. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:12, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, done; bot will remove the season 1 category from articles shortly. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:33, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What is linkspam?

Can I solicit your opinion on what constitutes linkspam, please?

See the recent edits to Silvia Saint by myself and JordanGekko and his lengthy set of statements in the Silvia Saint talk page.

In my opinion, a link to a site that is simply for the purpose of selling products is linkspam, whether the performer is associated with the link or not... Valrith (talk) 05:22, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Ignore the foregoing. I now think I've identified the issue. JordanGekko is claiming the pre-existing link to the official fan club is linkspam. The link he wants to replace it with is different than the "official website" link in the infobox, and leads to a different server, but shows (at least for now) the same content. Any thoughts on that? Valrith (talk) 05:36, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Script delinking dates

Hi, I'm assuming you're not yet aware of this temporary injunction, so it's probably a good idea to hold off doing this for the moment. Cheers. --Rodhullandemu 21:56, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just FYI, even though you are not a party named in the arbitration request, you may if you wish comment at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Date_delinking/Evidence and its associated Talk page.--Goodmorningworld (talk) 16:33, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dismas@ruwiki

The way is free now for SUL. --Obersachse (talk) 22:30, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actor names

Dismas -- trying to make revisions to porn star entries in good faith. Have proper documentation, including photo IDs of each actor. Please advise. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Luttycane (talk • contribs) 19:29, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dismas -- these folks over on the adult board are out of control. The inmates have taken over the asylum. A bunch of fanboys cannot see that I'm just trying to make a small factual footnote. Instead, I'm being charged with Conflicts of Interest, Self-promotion and whatever other silliness they can drum up to keep strangers out of their area. They've turned Wiki into a fanboard.Luttycane (talk) 02:19, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Carol Vitale

This is intended for Dismas ...

Although I don't know all the rules regarding Wikipedia, I tried to make a change to my cousin's information. Carol was born in 1946 not 1948. I know playboy had her listed as '48 and so did her own website, but it really was 1946.

I made the change and 5 minutes later it was reversed. This happened twice. I mean no disrespect to the author, but just tried to get the facts correct.

Just letting you know ...

Charles Idarola San Jose, CA

75.61.114.179 (talk) 07:18, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Charles, Thank you for contacting me. I mean no disrespect at all but Wikipedia has policies on where information comes from. We can't simply take your word for it that she was born in '46. We have a published source that says that she was born in '48. Your information is considered original research and is not allowed in articles unless your identity has been verified.
If you would like to verify your relationship to Ms. Vitale, you can email info-en@wikipedia.org and they will help you out. I would also suggest reading over Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Help which will explain more of the precautions that we take in making sure that information about people is correct. I realize that link says "living" whereas your cousin is deceased but we go to the same lengths to make sure that information about those people is verifiable and reliably sourced.
Additionally, let me tell you a couple things about the way articles are written. There is no "author" in the traditional sense of the word. Every article here is written by the community. Of course not every person reads and edits every article but the whole project is a community effort. You are as much the "author" as I am. I am the one who reverted the article to the previous state because you did not cite a source for your information.
And finally, I would encourage you to create an account here. It's free. Also, you will have your own "talk page" like this one, where people can leave you messages. Right now, you are editing as an anonymous IP number (75.61.114.179 to be exact) but that may change depending on your ISP. If I were to leave a message on that IP number's talk page, you may not get it the next time you visit because your IP address may be different next time.
So, please follow the links I've provided in this message and I hope that we can come to an amicable solution to the issue of Ms. Vitale's birth year. Dismas|(talk) 08:13, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I dug into this a bit more. I went looking for an article about her death to confirm that it was a suicide. I didn't find a good source for that but I did find an article by the Miami Herald which says she was 61 at the time of her death. This would corroborate the 1946 figure. So, I changed the date back to 1946. Playboy probably got Vitale's birth date from her. She may have been trying to appear younger and lied about her birth year. Not an uncommon thing for models and actresses. Or Playboy could have just mis-read something. But the Herald probably went to birth records, police records, etc for their figures which would be more reliable. My apologies for having to go back and forth over this. Dismas|(talk) 11:49, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Poll on Jessica Drake image

Since disagreement over the Jessica Drake image has been unsettled, I've decided to create a poll which will hopefully settle the issue and create a rough consensus. The poll is at Talk:Jessica_Drake#Poll:_Jessica_Drake_image. Valrith (talk) 05:30, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Laura Young

I tried to add an edit to the Laura Young posting. You have reverted it, saying it shouldn't be in "reference", and that reliable sources are needed. My name is Dale Young, was married to Laura (whose real first name was Roberta), and am the father of the children I named, Dana, Amanda, and Karen. I've never edited a Wikipedia article before, so please excuse my ignorance. How does someone prove his or her reliability as a source of information?---- d<email redacted> —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gallupaway (talk • contribs) 20:12, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Replied on your talk page. Dismas|(talk) 03:19, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Laura Young addendum

Sorry, I forgot to mention the user name I used for my edit was "Gallupaway".---- Dale Young —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gallupaway (talk • contribs) 20:18, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tocarra Jones arrest.

the arrest was made as well as the other charges. I placed the court website and case #. This is an actual arrest. I witnessed it —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.210.156.59 (talk) 04:28, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the info because I couldn't find a reference for it. Yes, you provided a web site and case number but using that case number didn't turn anything up for me when I went to the site. It had something about a bum being arrested for loitering. Dismas|(talk) 04:35, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I finally found the case. She was found not guilty. I don't see the point in making a point of adding it if she was found not guilty. This should be a direct link to the case: http://www.daytonwejis.com/PA/CaseSummary.cfm?cid=162677 Dismas|(talk) 04:57, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Laura Young

Thank you so much for the reply. I don't see an edit box in the main body of Laura Young's article, or anything labeled "personal life". Also, may I add a picture to the article. Of course, my interest in this is for her surviving children,loved ones, and many friends.----

Gallupaway —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gallupaway (talk • contribs) 18:40, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Crystal McCahill Playmate Listing

Ay man, actually she does have a source because I created the page the other day. I was trying to add her in and link her but Wiki kept sending her to some generic page. I'm going to try it again, if it doesn't work, can you help me? Hoang.pham19 (talk) 19:54, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Crystal McCahill article is showing conflicting information with the sources. The uchicago has her for May but the other three articles has her for August. Even her agency is reporting her to be miss august. Whoever controls the uchicago site is wrong on the month. Hoang.pham19 (talk) 06:12, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's possible. Though I've emailed the maintainer of the uChicago site before and have always considered them to be pretty reliable. It's possible that they're wrong though. We'll have to see I guess. Dismas|(talk) 06:47, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I find them reliable too but I'm going to email the maintainer because there is conflicting information on her and it doesn't seem right to have reliable sources that say May 2009 and August 2009. Hoang.pham19 (talk) 00:08, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was the one who initially discovered the change in her month from August to May. I posted it, uchicago saw it and made the change. As far as can be determined from all sources, May is the correct month. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vividere (talk • contribs) 18:07, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tamara Witmer

I recently attempted to remove the placeholder image and list-cruft filmography from this article. They were restored by another editor. Do you have any opinion on the subject? Valrith (talk) 11:13, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Renee Schuurman

This one's a bit afield, but what should one do when an editor keeps repeatedly inserting unsourced material (in this case birth/death dates)? Valrith (talk) 11:20, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tocara Jones Arrest

This is a valid entry. Why are you suppressing the facts? You verified this yourself and said you found her arrest through court records. "No source", not sure what that means, but if implied it did not happen or not fact, it is. If thats the case how do we know she was even born on Dayton or anyother item listed in her bio.

Please leave it in there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.210.156.59 (talk) 12:35, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I found it. Eventually. You still haven't cited it correctly. And after all, she was found not guilty. So, what's the point? It's a non-issue. There's nothing there worth saying. Dismas|(talk) 13:23, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Then why have anything in here at all. Its a truthful FACT. Just leave it in there. Why do you care? Is she a friend. Where the transparency in the website. It is Black History month. By the way, Kobe Bryant was arrested, found NOT GUILTY, but Wikipedia has that information in his bio. Sounds like Wikipedia may not be as accurate as potrayed if your supressing facts and truths. Or do you pick and choose who looks good or bad in this site.
Should I send this info along to the dispute resolution since you have failed to let me put factual information on this site. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.210.156.59 (talk) 22:46, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The Kobe Bryant issue made headlines throughout the country. It was notable due to the controversy that surrounded it. No, she's not a friend. I have no connection to her whatsoever. I'm not picking and choosing based on what looks good. I don't think that the event was notable enough for inclusion. It was a minor event which didn't lead to anything notable such as being found guilty, jail time, or even a fine.
If you'd like to take this to a third party, go ahead. But when you do so, you might want to watch your tone since you are being rather combative.
And lastly, if you're going to keep editing, please think about creating an account. It would make communications with you much easier if you had a talk page. Dismas|(talk) 22:56, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]


No tone, just reliable honest truth. I think its valuable information that is accurate and factual. If your going to be a second-hand journalistic dropout fine, but be honest. This is the problem we have with many events today. I cannot support or continue to view such entities such as Wikipedia so long as fails to include facts you feel unimportant. Your views appeantly lean a little to the left.
Good luck on your job interview at the school newspaper. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.210.156.59 (talk) 23:35, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You call me a "second-hand journalistic dropout" and there's no tone? You must have an interesting view from your ivory tower.
So, you're not going to get a third opinion? You're letting me call your bluff? Dismas|(talk) 01:45, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The third opinion is that wikipedia is not a tabloid and should not publish anything that can not be verifiable against a reliable source. The wikipedia policy on biographies of living people also demands that court records can not be used to verify assertions unless those records were reported by reliable secondary sources. Facts determined to be important and published by reliable secondary sources are what should be included in Wikipedia. Your tantrum over not having what you want in her article will not get you anywhere. Morbidthoughts (talk) 06:15, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
How do you know she was/is from Dayton, or anything else about her or anything else. This is so gay..............opps I said gay, I didn't mean to slander a word for happy. i have better things to do now than want to publish the truth. A verifiable third party source is what you need? Well I was there, heck I shot her with the taser, right in her giant boobies. She is a smokin little ho. I bet you watch CNBC and listen to Clay the gay Aiken. So long my little claymate cum dumpster. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.210.156.59 (talk) 13:18, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Wikipedia:Reference desk/Science#Euthanizing turtles

I've answered your question there to the best of my ability. Thanks! Queenie Talk 18:55, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Betty Blue 1956.jpg. You've indicated that the image is being used under a claim of fair use, but you have not provided an adequate explanation for why it meets Wikipedia's requirements for such images. In particular, for each page the image is used on, the image must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Can you please check

  • That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for each article the image is used in.
  • That every article it is used on is linked to from its description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --FairuseBot (talk) 04:41, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wicked Pictures spam?

The recent addition of Wicked Pictures links in various articles' External Links sections (eg. this one) feels a lot like spam to me... Do you agree? Valrith (talk) 00:17, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lisa De Leeuw

Someone recently added a large amount of badly sourced and unsourced information to the Lisa De Leeuw article, which I, naturally, removed. Now it's becoming an edit war. Can you take a look and tell me if you think my opinion of the sources offered is wrong? Thanks. Valrith (talk) 19:48, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User:Pophangover

What are you talking about? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pophangover (talk • contribs) 06:30, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oops

D'oh! GrizzledOldMan (talk) 13:36, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Anita Blond

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Anita Blond, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process because of the following concern:

No reliable sources. No Assertion of WP:Notability. Fails WP:PORNBIO.

All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because, even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. David in DC (talk) 15:45, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kelly Madison

You said I vandalized that page, and I'm sorry I thought my edit was improving the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.58.220.174 (talk) 22:36, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Dimas,

I want to take off the link to my arlenerayphotography.com I am not promoting that site and since I am going back to my maiden name for business. I hope I do it right I don't want to get in trouble;) I am going to be going with ArleneBaxterPhotography.com in the next month and would if you would assist me in posting that the correct way since you know what you are doing. Thanks, Arlene--Arlene Baxter (talk) 17:39, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Louise Glover edits

I'm writing to you as there a lot of untrue and misunderstood written words and links that are untrue and irrelevant in Louise Glovers life.

Some references are completely untrue. And there's too many references to unprofessional links and websites.

How can I take just those out and leave the relevant info on louise glover on that page. I'm sure all this unreal info will be affecting her modeling work and there;'s so much more information on loise glover thats not been added.

It badly needs an update and cretin things reducing to a min a least. Not everything is true thats been written, I'd like permission to re write and make sense also as theres a lot of repeats when you scroll down the page...

Regards, Lidia smith. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lidia smith (talk • contribs) 02:57, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"non-notable" awards

I notice you've been removing awards that you deem are non-notable. Remember WP:NNC though. I would normally keep any award that is reported by AVN or XBIZ as they deem it important enough to cover it and it satisfies WP:V being that they are third party reliable sources. Morbidthoughts (talk) 18:34, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

thanks.

thanks for fixing the picture on "Saint" page. I had some trouble on that one, wikipedia is weird on my new account.--Sophisticatedcat (talk) 09:27, 23 February 2009 (UTC)sophisticatedcat[reply]

re:

-yeah, I sort of noticed for a long time there was not a picture placed on there, I had a couple different types uploaded with different copyright infos, I think I used the one with the easiest title I made. Then that led to the soundtrack. The picture editing on wikipedia is very overwhelming, and i'm pretty experienced with code, its just this stuff is completely different. But yeah, If they get taken down I'll fix it later. No problem. --Sophisticatedcat (talk) 09:42, 23 February 2009 (UTC)sophisticatedcat[reply]

Orphaned non-free media (File:Dorothy Stratten 1979.jpg)

Thanks for uploading File:Dorothy Stratten 1979.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:13, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

bad edit

Your edit to the Dorothy Stratten article broke the infobox template. Dismas|(talk) 06:07, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I was running this script in manual mode but did not notice this error. I have just completed scanning all my edits and I didn't find any others. I shall have to be much more careful in the future. Thank you for notifying me. -J JMesserly (talk) 06:38, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Stephanie Adams Image

It would have been better if you airbrushed out the mustache :p Fasttimes68 (talk) 22:10, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:RD/E

I laughed so hard when I read your comment. :) Kurtelacić (talk) 15:05, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:American films TfD

I've replied to your comment at the Template:American films TfD. I think you misread the nomination, since it is not about Template:Americanfilmlist (the template used in the list-of-American-films articles), but about Template:American films (the template used in articles about American films), so a clarification would be much appreciated. :) --Conti|✉ 01:36, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jodie Foster

[1] Thanks. Every once in a while, this user pops up under one IP or another, sometimes with a different fairly new username, and tries to insert that photo of Foster, despite others having complained about it. I'm not saying the one that is in the infobox now is the greatest, but it certainly is more current than the one from 1989 that was in there. I guess people want her to be plain. That doesn't even begin to address other problems that come up on that page from time to time. Wildhartlivie (talk) 08:22, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The main problem is that the content is chopped up - adding bits of childhood roles just after things more recent, using POV words, really pushing Nim's Island and moved that film into a section just prior to "current projects", while leaving something from 2007 in "current projects". It's done all at once and there isn't a lot to do with it except revert. And then there's the shouting in the edit summary... Wildhartlivie (talk) 08:46, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Stacey Dash, IMDb

I replied on my talk page, of course. Flyer22 (talk) 19:40, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Anita Hudacsek

I redirected the article to Anita Blond. There is no BLP violation here, her own website lists this as her birth name. Keegantalk 05:53, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly, the link is at [2]. While that, IMDB, and the other hundred sources do not meet the WP:RS guidelines at face apiece, they add up to reasoning that that is the actress's real name. RS allows for the caveat that many many sources that are not usually considered (i.e. IMDB, blogs, etc) add up to reliability. I truly don't feel that there is a BLP violation here, as the reviewing administrator. You are welcome to seek other opinions. Keegantalk 07:16, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. I am assuming that you are referring to WP:RS#Wikipedia:Rs#Usage_by_other_sources:
How accepted, high-quality reliable sources use a given source provides evidence, positive or negative, for its reliability and reputation. The more widespread and consistent this use is, the stronger the evidence. For example, widespread citation without comment for facts is evidence of a source's reputation and reliability for similar facts, while widespread doubts about reliability weigh against it. If outside citation is the main indicator of reliability, particular care should be taken to adhere to other guidelines and policies, and to not represent unduly contentious or minority claims. The goal is to reflect established views of sources as far as we can determine them.
Just because something is repeated over and over on the internet does not make it true. The section referenced in WP:RS is discussing trying to determine the reliability of the source, not the content. For example, wikipedia and IMDB are widely cited but neither are reliable sources because there are widespread doubts against its reliability. There may be a BLP violation because there is no conclusive proof that anitablondxxx is self-published by the subject especially when adult webmasters routinely own and control the website of a subject even when it's purpoted to be official. Morbidthoughts (talk) 16:23, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I was finally able to review anitablondxxx.com. That blog is unacceptable as a source. It is a questionable source because we have no idea if it is the subject that published it and I truly doubt that it's her. I have reverted citing to it. Morbidthoughts (talk) 23:25, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration Enforcement

A discussion regarding your date delinking activities has been opened at WP:AN/AE, please see here. —Locke Cole • t • c 15:54, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]