User talk:Epbr123/Archive 6

User:164.116.126.140

You might want to keep an eye here - this school just came off a year long IP block of yours and has not been doing anything (positively) productive. (John User:Jwy talk) 19:58, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Playmates

In case you're interested, I have copies of all the American Playboys since roughly the late 80's. Before that it gets a bit spotty. Just in case you need something sourced or whatever. I realize you're going through all the Playmate articles for a reason and I'm sure I couldn't keep up with sourcing all of that but I just wanted to let you know... Anyway, sorry to bother you... Dismas|(talk) 21:53, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Savanna Samson

Just so you know, I reviewed the GAN for Savanna Samson and passed it. Congrats! — Hunter Kahn 04:05, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lisa Sparxxx

You seem to disagree with my edit on this page. I was hoping you might discuss it with me on the talk page of that article, where I already posted some thing. Thanks. 67.172.182.135 (talk) 12:12, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Did you even look at my sources? I didn't just point to her blog. Plus, if you cared to look at the talk page on Sparxxx and discuss it there you'd see I posted a lot more information there. First of all there's a video of the event and it's clearly her in it as she talks to the camera a couple times. Also, they talked about this event and Sparxxx on tv a couple weeks ago on a show called Manswers on the Spike channel. She was on the show talking about the event in an interview with Manswers. I will find more sources since you insist and I will post them on the SParxxx talk page and hopefully we can continue our conversation there. 67.172.182.135 (talk) 07:38, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

February GA Sweeps update

Progress as of January 2010

Thanks to everyone's efforts to the GA Sweeps process, we are currently over 95% done with around 130 articles left to be swept! Currently there are over 50 members participating in Sweeps, that averages out to about 3 articles per person! If each member reviews an article once a week this month (or several!), we'll be completely finished. At that point, awards will be handed out to reviewers. Per my message last month, although we did not review 100 articles last month, I still made a donation of $90 (we had 90 reviews completed/initiated) to Wikipedia Forever on behalf of all GA Sweeps reviewers. I would like to thank everyone's efforts for last month, and ask for additional effort this month so we can be finished. I know you have to be sick of seeing these updates (as well as Sweeps itself) by now, so please do consider reviewing a few articles if you haven't reviewed in a while. If you have any questions about reviews or Sweeps let me know and I'll be happy to get back to you. Again, thank you for taking the time to help with the process, I appreciate your efforts! --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 02:30, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nominating a page for deletion shortly after rework

Epbr123, I am curious as to why you nominated a page tagged with {{construction}} for deletion [1] a mere 7 minutes after it was revamped and moved by the editor that had worked on it back into mainspace from his userspace? As the page was tagged before your nomination with the {{construction}} tag, why did you not first consult with the editor that had added the {{construction}} tag to the page, and/or wait for that tag to be removed and allowing some time before nominating for AFD? Cirt (talk) 18:56, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • In my opinion, the article should have been speedy deleted as a recreation of deleted material. The nominations added don't add anything to his notability, based on guidelines. A construction tag doesn't make an article immune from deletion. Epbr123 (talk) 19:06, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Cirt (talk) 19:15, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Epbr123, in the future I would strongly recommend that you at the very least attempt to discuss a page with other editors on the talk page if it is tagged with {{construction}}, prior to nominating for AFD. And that you wait more than 7 minutes after a page has been worked on. Cheers, Cirt (talk) 19:45, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hrm, I do not think that is standard practice - which is to consult with the closing admin (which was done properly in this case by Ash). Also, I would advise you not to be the same person to re-nom these AFDs a second time, in relation to the above circumstances - I see others have commented that you seem to have some sort of focus on getting rid of these pages on this particular topic. Cirt (talk) 19:53, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If you're implying I have a bias against pornography article, I'll refer you to an above thread regarding Savanna Samson. I was also one of the main contributors to the PORNBIO guideline. Epbr123 (talk) 20:00, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps I was mistaken, as I see some excellent work on the article Savanna Samson, particularly with regard to the meticulous sourcing. My apologies about that, Cirt (talk) 20:01, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Editor's Barnstar

The Editor's Barnstar
I award Ebpr123 this barnstar for excellent work on the article Savanna Samson. Excellent job on the meticulous sourcing, and nice work getting the article up to WP:GA quality standards! Cheers, Cirt (talk) 20:14, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As am I. ;( I highly respect you as an editor and admin. Hopefully we will both emerge wiser from all of this. :P Cirt (talk) 20:21, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Civility Award

Civility Award
For working towards solutions to problems rather than creating them. -Stillwaterising (talk) 01:33, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your reversion and a possible "experimental breach"

The BLP Barnstar
The BLP Barnstar is for users who work to diligently source and maintain neutrality in biography articles, ensuring they adhere to the Biographies of Living Persons policy.

This barnstar is awarded to Epbr123, for vigorously cleaning up unreferenced articles. Wikipedia needs more editors like you. thank you. Okip BLP Contest 07:45, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Re: Your reversion of Chayse Evans

User:PeterbrownDancin is an indefinitely banned strawman sockpuppet, he may have been involved in yet another "experimental breach" of unreferenced biographies of living people. See: Wikipedia_talk:RFC/BLP#Moment_Please.21 Okip BLP Contest 07:45, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Carrigan

Now at DRV, see Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2010_February_15#Paul_Carrigan. Cheers, Cirt (talk) 14:21, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have worked to improve the page Paul Carrigan, in a separate page in my userspace. Please see User:Cirt/Paul Carrigan. Would you think it would be okay to move into mainspace with this improved version? Cirt (talk) 17:07, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I won't start another AfD if it's moved into mainspace, but he's still not notable in my opinion. I appreciate the work you've put into the article, but all of its content is derived from database entries, primary sources and trivial mentions in movie reviews. If that was enough to make someone notable, every porn star in the world would have an article. Also, statements such as "Carrigan started becoming active as an actor in the pornography industry in 1992" can't be verified by IAFD, as their database isn't comprehensive. Epbr123 (talk) 17:22, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Um, well seeing as how it is currently at DRV, is it okay for me to move it to mainspace? Should I wait? Cirt (talk) 17:23, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Unless you can improve it any further, you may as well move it now. Epbr123 (talk) 17:25, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As one of the staff members of IAFD, I can verify that our database is not comprehensive. We started including gay porn in our database in 2007, mostly from entries by only one volunteer staff person. Morbidthoughts (talk) 17:30, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Morbidthoughts, I can understand why such a database is unlikely to be comprehensive, however can one presume that if a video is listed on IAFD then it actually did or does exist? I note that the terms of reference states "every effort has been made to ensure the accuracy of the database" but as that is explained no further, such a presumption may be incorrect. Ash (talk) 19:13, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, you can presume a movie exists if it's in the database, but you can't draw conclusions like what year an actor first became active if there may be an earlier movie that is not in the database. Morbidthoughts (talk) 21:38, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Cool, well at least we have a reasonable source to demonstrate that Carrigan has been credited with acting in more than 250 films and directed 30. Ash (talk) 21:43, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Epbr123, suppose we take your word that you won't nominate it for deletion after it's moved to main space, what is to stop another editor from nominating it? As it stands, only a proper deletion review can determine the fate of Paul Carrigan. - 22:10, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
There's nothing to stop another editor from nominating it. Epbr123 (talk) 22:26, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alexandra Nice

Why did you think the BLP sources tag was inappropriate? IAFD and AVN News are only marginally reliable sources by BLP standards. Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 19:18, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This for example. Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 19:53, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In the discussions I've seen, there's been consensus that AVN is reliable, and it obviously is a reliable source for its own awards. I've started a discussion about IAFD at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Pornography#Reliability of IAFD. Epbr123 (talk) 20:14, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

IAFD

Why are you considering IAFD an unreliable source for some info? I remind you of what was said Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Pornography/Archive_4#Reliable_sources from Morbidthoughts:

"I help run IAFD so I won't offer an opinion on its reliability. People can submit additions and corrections (but it should be adequately sourced if there's a conflict) but we have to approve it and sometimes we go to 2257 information on hand to confirm things like birthdate and height." (emphasis mine)

And 2257 information is a legal document. Tabercil (talk) 23:02, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Final discussion for Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies of living people

Hello, I note that you have commented on the first phase of Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies of living people

As this RFC closes, there are two proposals being considered:

  1. Proposal to Close This RfC
  2. Alternate proposal to close this RFC: we don't need a whole new layer of bureaucracy

Your opinion on this is welcome. Okip 02:16, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

that thing I said

I saw the wording and just assumed you wrote it without reading more. I hope you can see my point and can see how contentious Afd nominations are best backed by detailed explanations initially and not argued after the fact. - Stillwaterising (talk) 16:23, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • I disagree. When making a nomination, there's no way to counter every possible argument beforehand, especially when arguments made by other's aren't backed by policies or guidelines, as in certain recent AfDs. Epbr123 (talk) 16:45, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
well, maybe. Saying "doesn't meet gng or pornbio" does cite guidelines however it says nothing as to why. I think it's been established that performers need only meet one additional criteria as well as basic criteria. No need to also meet pornbio and gng if so, right? I'm pretty sure you disagree with my literal interpretation of the 2nd paragraph of gng stating that either gng or bio needs to be met, not both. Is there a guideline, policy, or essay that clarifies this? - Thanks. Stillwaterising (talk) 22:29, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If someone meets WP:GNG, they are notable, except if it violates WP:NOT. If someone meets WP:BIO, they are likely to be notable, as they are likely to pass WP:GNG. Some users believe passing WP:BIO is enough to show notability, while others are stricter and believe it has to be proven that someone passes WP:GNG. Epbr123 (talk) 23:00, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Does policy trump guideline? - Stillwaterising (talk) 02:41, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it does, although guidelines shouldn't be written than conflict with policy. Epbr123 (talk) 12:24, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

GA Sweeps Completed!

Thanks to everyone's amazing efforts in February, we have reviewed all of the articles and are now finished with Sweeps! There are still about 30 articles currently on hold, and once those reviews are completed, I will send you a final message about Sweeps process stats including the total number of articles that were passed and failed. If you have one of these open reviews, be sure to update your count when the review is completed so I can compile the stats. You can except to receive your award for reviewing within the next week or two. Although the majority of the editors did not start Sweeps at the beginning in August 2007 (myself included), over 50 editors have all come together to complete a monumental task and improve many articles in the process. I commend you for sticking with this often challenging task and strengthening the integrity of the GA WikiProject as well as the GAs themselves. I invite you to take a break from reviewing (don't want you to burn out!) and then consider returning/starting to review GANs and/or contribute to GAR reviews. With your assistance, we can help bring the backlog down to a manageable level and help inspire more editors to improve articles to higher classes and consider reviewing themselves. Again, thank you for putting up with difficult reviews, unhappy editors, numerous spam messages from me, and taking the time to help with the process, I appreciate your efforts! --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 02:24, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

felkel77

AVN is a reliable source? This is used in every performers entries. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Felkel77 (talk • contribs) 21:48, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]


You removed a quoted article from: AINews.com [7] – Reliable source for adult industry news

Further modifications by you of sourced information will be escalated —Preceding unsigned comment added by Felkel77 (talk • contribs) 22:14, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • A press release isn't a reliable source for the statement that someone is "highly loving of her fans" and "known for making public appearances". Further copyright or WP:BLP violations will result in you being blocked. Epbr123 (talk) 22:33, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just a friendly note to both of you. You have both exceeded the 3RR rule. Please try to solve it in a different way. Thanks. Nymf hideliho! 22:37, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]


This individual has taken it upon themselves to strip the entire history of Bridgette Kerkove. The article has been repeatedly whittled down to nothing but a few minor sources. Unacceptable for one of porn's biggest actresses and the holder of the record for most adult films ever made. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Felkel77 (talk • contribs) 22:56, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Swift

Thanks for the update. - Stillwaterising (talk) 12:15, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Are we at a truce or what? Either I've come more to the center of the deletion issue or we both have because we have been agreeing on most afd's lately. I still find you generally unresponsive. - Stillwaterising (talk) 06:41, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Playmate RFC

Please see Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Pornography#Playboy_Playmates_per_RFC. Thanks, Dismas|(talk) 22:06, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Input requested

I invite you to comment on my suggestion at Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(people)#Proposed_clarification_of_WP:PORNBIO, which I think would help clear up a minor technical glitch in the wording of the current guideline. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 16:49, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A sincere thank you from Wikiproject Good Articles

On behalf of Wikiproject Good Articles, I would like to express our gratitude to you for your contributions to the Sweeps process, for which you completed 80 reviews. Completion of this monstrous task has proven to be a significant accomplishment not only for our project, but for Wikipedia. As a token of our sincere appreciation, please accept this ribbon. Lara 14:18, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Candy Manson

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Candy Manson. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Candy Manson (3rd nomination). Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:04, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Robby D. (director)

This fellow was sent to AFD. He has received multiple nominations of awards that would seem to pass WP:PORNBIO, but he's not a porn actor... being rather a porn director and editor. So does PORNBIO apply, or do we instead fall back to WP:ANYBIO for the nominations? Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 03:42, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Dick Nasty

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Dick Nasty. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dick Nasty. Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:05, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Articles for deletion nomination of Jamie Brooks (pornographic actress)

I have nominated Jamie Brooks (pornographic actress), an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jamie Brooks (pornographic actress). Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. EuroPride (talk) 19:12, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Articles for deletion nomination of Roxy Panther

I have nominated Roxy Panther, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Roxy Panther. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. EuroPride (talk) 12:45, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Cassie Young

A tag has been placed on Cassie Young, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G4 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a deletion debate, such as at articles for deletion. Under the specified criteria, where an article has substantially identical content to that of an article deleted after debate, and any changes in the content do not address the reasons for which the material was previously deleted, it may be deleted at any time.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 19:35, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:North East Kent.PNG listed for deletion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:North East Kent.PNG, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 05:24, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion of Nic Andrews

Hello Epbr123, this is a message from an automated bot to inform you that the page you created, Nic Andrews, has been marked for speedy deletion by User:Epbr123. This has been done because the page seems to be about a person, band, club, company, or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant (see CSD). If you think the tag was placed in error, please add "{{hangon}}" to the page text, and edit the talk page to explain why the page should not be deleted. If you have a question about this bot, please ask it at User talk:SDPatrolBot II. If you have a question for the user who tagged the article, see User talk:Epbr123. Thanks, - SDPatrolBot II (talk) on behalf of Epbr123 (talk · contribs) 02:28, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Roxy Panther

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Roxy Panther. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Roxy Panther. Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:05, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Image kerfluffle

Just giving you a heads-up that a large number of images have been pulled from Commons that are sexual in nature, and a number of them were later found to have been in use. I'm contacting you as you're one of the more active editors on the adult stuff here. If you could watch for red-links and give me a heads up on any that you see so I can see about restoring it, I'd appreciate it. Tabercil (talk) 23:13, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

BDSM Deletions

Hello, how have you been? Do you have any advice on how to best cleanup the BDSM project? - Stillwaterising (talk) 10:51, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, it's best to avoid nominating a lot of articles for deletion at once. I personally don't see a problem with it, but I know it bothers some people and it leads to a lot of keep votes being made for procedural reasons. Maybe leave a notability tag on the article for a while before nominating it. Epbr123 (talk) 11:22, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of File:KentDistricts.PNG

A tag has been placed on File:KentDistricts.PNG requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the image is an unused redundant copy (all pixels the same or scaled down) of an image in the same file format, which is on Wikipedia (not on Commons), and all inward links have been updated.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag - if no such tag exists then the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate and adding a hangon tag is unnecessary), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Tim1357 talk 05:00, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:KentDistrictsNumbered.PNG listed for deletion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:KentDistrictsNumbered.PNG, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you.

Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Sexuality and gender

Could you look at the two Afd's I started above and give an opinion. Thanks. - Stillwaterising (talk) 06:08, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ANI

Accident I guess? Ucucha 19:18, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, it happens. Though it's ironic that I was reporting a user who was inappropriately rollbacked an edit of mine. Ucucha 19:21, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Playmates

Could you please add your thoughts to this discussion? Dismas|(talk) 04:00, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Blondie - Maria.ogg

⚠
⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Blondie - Maria.ogg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image 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 images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

PLEASE NOTE:

  • I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions.
  • I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
  • If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
  • To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to your talk page.
  • If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.


Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 06:35, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

unreferencedBLP tag

Just so you know, the unreferenced BLP tag should have the date set to the current month when you make the change, don't simply change the name of the tag. Let me know if you have any questions.  --Joshua Scott (LiberalFascist) 00:25, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hi. Could you point me to the discussion where this was decided? Seeing as the unreferenced BLP tag was only created in late-2008, this clearly hasn't always been the case. What's the rationale behind placing a BLP that's been tagged as unreferenced for three years at the back of the queue? Thanks. Epbr123 (talk) 07:23, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
See for example [2],but the main reason is so the progress of referencing and tagging can be tracked. If you drop a bunch into non-existent or old categories, there's no way to tell how many are being tagged per month, which was a critical part of the tracking process. The expectation is that ~1000 additional are being found per month, so we need to know if there are more or less than that number to know if the referencing is proceeding fast enough, because we want to be able to ramp up sourcing/deletion efforts if the current focus is not adequate. If you ask this over at WT:URBLP, or WP:BLPN you'll get the same answer, I'm sure.  --Joshua Scott (LiberalFascist) 07:50, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, but I would have thought using the total number of unreferenced BLPs would be enough to judge whether the referencing is proceeding fast enough. Epbr123 (talk) 08:19, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It is, but we also want to know if (e.g.) someone finds and tags thousands of new articles in a month, rather than the expected 1,000. The eventual goal is to get to no BLPs tagged for more than a month, and the only way to determine that is if the date is set to the month in which it was applied. If you want, I can give you some regex to use that will replace the old date with the current date.  --Joshua Scott (LiberalFascist) 13:13, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Categories for discussion nomination of Category:Boroughs of New York City

Category:Boroughs of New York City, which you created, has been nominated for deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 17:33, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unreferenced BLPs

Hi there, I've noticed that you've been converting a bunch of articles from unreferenced to BLPunreferenced. Do you have any idea how many you have done, and how many you still have to do? I assume you've been working from a AWB list comparison, so even a rough number would be useful... as you've been totally destroying our stats! The-Pope (talk) 11:35, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks... despite my comment about the stats, I want to let you know that I think you are doing a good job - I see that this BLP issue as a three step problem
  1. tagging the article with the BLPunref or other tags
  2. tagging the talk page with a wikiProject or three to alert interested people
  3. referencing is done by those interested people
I basically did all the #3s that I could earlier this year... now I'm heavily into #2. Hopefully we can get enough other editors to pick up the slack on the referencing soon. Cheers, The-Pope (talk) 16:39, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi from me to. I'd also noticed that very useful tagging you've done and thought I'd pop by to say thanks. One of the questions that obviously interests some of us who are trying to clear the unreferenced BLP backlog is how many more are still out there waiting to be found. So could you tell us how you found those 1,400 articles? Also I noticed you've been using AWB to project tag, do you have any suggestions as to how we can chip away at this list of 7,000 unreferenced BLPs without project tags? We've been trying to work through the projects as one way to clear the backlog, and the unproject tagged need tagging to fit that model. ϢereSpielChequers 19:16, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. They were found by using AWB to search for evidence of references in each article, similar to how Larabot works. Until I found out about the 500 French Assembly members I somehow missed, I would have estimated that I had found about 80% of the remaining unsourced BLPs, as I had searched every page in the subcategories of Category:People by occupation and nationality, which was near to a million articles. I'll see if I can help with those unproject tagged articles. Epbr123 (talk) 20:02, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If it is not an advertisement then why does it say that at the top Off2riorob (talk) 00:49, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

http://business.avn.com/articles/Donny-Long-Launches-XXXFilmJobs-com-314042.html in the http business section Off2riorob (talk) 00:52, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you are a robot that has switched off, as you are unable to discuss I will replace advertisment as I have demonstrated it says advertisment on top of the article and actually it clearly is promotional in content. Off2riorob (talk) 00:58, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is not advertisement. This article was originally in the print version of AVN and there was an advertisement there. When the article is archived electronically to the web, "ADVERTISEMENT" is the placeholder. Morbidthoughts (talk) 01:26, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If it is not an advertisement is is a promotional fluff piece. Is this your robot? Off2riorob (talk) 01:29, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Robot? No. Do you always throw around baseless accusations assuming bad faith or delete evidence of an article meeting the notability guidelines before you attempt to afd it? Morbidthoughts (talk) 01:52, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Crissy Moran

I see you recently deleted a recreation of this article per G4. I've been noodling whether to take this to DRV, and had an extended discussion with the closing admin already.[3] Can you tell who recreated it? I didn't realize before that the subject has an article on at least 9 other language wikipedias, and got fairly massive page views, e.g., [4][5], so I was interested to know who tried to recreate it. cheers--Milowent (talk) 15:22, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, thanks. Hardly an opus, then.--Milowent (talk) 18:37, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of William G. Wells

An article that you have been involved in editing, William G. Wells, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/William G. Wells. Thank you.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. . Hallucegenia (talk) 10:08, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Amber Peach

An article that you have been involved in editing, Amber Peach, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Amber Peach (2nd nomination). Thank you.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 16:45, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

JEC

Hi, just a quick note to acknowledge and say thank you for all your work in adding the Porn Project listings to the Japanese Erotic Cinema talk pages. Cherryblossom1982 (talk) 16:17, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Raven Riley

An editor has nominated Raven Riley, an article which you have created or worked on, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Raven Riley (2nd nomination) and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to address the nominator's concerns but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 02:33, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Math rating

The math project uses the {{maths rating}} template a little differently than other wikiprojects. We already have a list of mathematics articles and list of mathematicians that are maintained by a bot without using talk page tags. So our talk page tags are only used for carrying article assessment information. Please do not use AWB to simply add {{maths rating}} to talk pages; this has been discussed and rejected by the math project. Instead, if you add a maths rating tag, please fill in the quality, priority, and field parameters for the article, as discussed in the template documentation. It is not necessary to tag articles simply to mark them as related to mathematics. Thanks, — Carl (CBM · talk) 11:13, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Understood. Sorry. Epbr123 (talk) 11:23, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's no problem; mathematicians are always a little idiosyncratic... — Carl (CBM · talk) 11:36, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Adult award winners and nominees

Is there a special reason why you keep this great and even well referenced list "secret"? Wouldn't it be much better to move it to a sub-page of WP:P*? Testales (talk) 19:36, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think several project members are already aware of it. I use it mainly to find out quickly whether a performer meets pornbio. Epbr123 (talk) 22:31, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Some are apparently not aware of it and it could have saved me quite some time of googling too. ;) As long as notability in that area (unfortunately) depends so very much on "awards" and nominations, it would be rather useful if somehow exposed on the project page like the MouSearch. I only found your list by accident. Testales (talk) 09:55, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've now added a link on the project page. To be fair to the user who prodded the article you mentioned, he is actually one of the projects most diligent members and I think it was just a rare mistake. Epbr123 (talk) 10:37, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I know that and it was not my intention to criticize him here. This article was just the perfect example for 1) even some very productive editors may not know of your list and 2) not every actor who won a prize or got nominated multiple times seems to be really THAT notable if nobody cares about him or her. There is even no article at all for Sharka Blue on the German Wikipedia although there is a red link with her name on the FICEB page, so I think it was planned but nobody didn't care there either. In contrast to the recently deleted article of Crissy Moran who had/has a rather comprehensive article on both Wikipedias. Testales (talk) 15:51, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Frankly, I don't make it a habit to search normally unreliable sources such as excalibur or imdb. The burden of proof of verifying things is on the editor who adds the item. Initiating a prod gives people enough time to verify notability and is easily removable even without a legitimate reason. Morbidthoughts (talk) 16:10, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ANI notice

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. You are involved at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Dekkappai_--_Repeated.2C_and_increasing.2C_campaign_of_incivility_and_personal_attacks only as a target of uncivil comments made by another editor, and may or may not wish to comment. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 20:05, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jack Offer

Please stop continually adding an irrelevant category to the page for Jack Offer. Why don't you take the trouble to read the edit history? David Biddulph (talk) 16:56, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you have a reliable source that he's died, please add this and the appropriate death category to the article. Thanks. Epbr123 (talk) 17:01, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Now done. David Biddulph (talk) 17:24, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Possibly living people

Can you please be more careful when adding the category "Possibly living people" to articles? I've already had to correct numerous mistakes where the individual's year or date of death was listed directly in the article but you added "Possibly living people" anyways. Thanks. Canadian Paul 19:08, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Understood. At least it's encouraged someone to move the death dates to more prominent positions. Epbr123 (talk) 20:20, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]