User talk:Tabercil/Archive 13

This is an archive of past discussions with User:Tabercil. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Regarding this edit of yours, is "thumb" really the best option we have? It throws off the centering of the image in the infobox and creates yet another box around the image. Dismas|^(talk) 03:39, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Personally, I think the ideal solution would probably be what Infobox Actor used to use before this edit changed it. That set the image size to what the account had set for the default for the image by using an frameless image. So if someone has their default size set larger (ahem) due to, say, having a nice widescreen monitor (ahem, ahem) then the image will appear at a decent size and not look like a postage stamp. That, in part, is why the manual of style discourages setting images to a fixed size. Only reason why I haven't arbitrarily dropped that bunch of code into Female Adult Bio is that it changes the image format by removing the [[Image:]] from around the text, so I'd be breaking every Female Adult Bio box out there, which is over 1000+ boxes, and I really don't care to manually go through and fix them all. Tabercil (talk) 15:37, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Sounds like a perfect job for a WP:BOT. Dismas|^(talk) 17:24, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Hmm... good idea. <G> Tabercil (talk) 17:27, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Hello, I see you've been looking at the files uploaded by Facha93. Mind taking a look at this one? It appears to be an exact copy of an AP photo. Thanks! Vicenarian ^{(T · C)} 22:29, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Of interest? Power.corrupts (talk) 16:18, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Yup. Thanks for the heads-up. Tabercil (talk) 21:27, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi Tabercil, just found two more of your great photos from the Friendship Festival. Could I use these two for my NtS Facebook Group page please? (I think that fans would really like seeing them). Or, failing that, is it OK if I link to them from my Nash fansite please? Poppet34 (talk) 21:27, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

You can do what you want... just follow the requirements of the license. Tabercil (talk) 02:43, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi Tabercil

Further to my recent disputed update to Linsey's official site external links I have added the link once again. Further to the threat fo legal action Linseydawnmckenzie.co.uk has been taken down and replaced with a third party blog. We are still in dispute with the owner but you will see the site is either offline or does not claim to be her official site any longer.

If you would like further clarification that our site is actually the legitimate one please click on this page http://www.linseydawnofficial.net/home.php and you'll see an introductory video by Linsey confirming this is the case.

Thanks

Michaela888 (talk) 17:20, 22 June 2009 (UTC) Michael

Heh. I'd say that works. <G> I trust you've also been in touch with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center to win back the domain name? (see here for a recent report of a cybersquatter losing in this venue). Tabercil (talk) 21:22, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi Tabercil

Thanks for the tip, I wasn't aware of that case. We're trying to resolve it amicably but we're not sure it will be possible. Thanks for your help and for taking the time to check out the background.

All the best,

Michaela888 (talk) 09:34, 23 June 2009 (UTC) Michael

Hi Tabercil

It seems the battle rages on. I'm not sure if we're dealing with a crazy fan or if this guy is malicious. We are having real problems with the previous owner of Linseydawnmckenzie.co.uk and I suspect this is the same person.

The guy is correct in that the site is part-owned by the Sport but it is also part-owned by Linsey and it is the only site she is involved with. I don't really want to get into a long-running war over this but at the same time we don't want people to keep being ripped off. The same people who ran the Linseydawnmckenzie.co.uk site were also running scam twitter and facebook sites to drive traffic to their scam site.

Can you advise what I can do to put an end to this? Is there a process to deal with this definitively? I don't know wikipedia as well as you but would really appreciate any help to stop people writing lies which could harm her site and mislead her fans.

Thanks in advance

94.193.99.46 (talk) 15:46, 29 June 2009 (UTC) Michael

All I can say is cut the guy off at the source. You should contact the folks at Twitter and Facebook and point out that the account in question is fraudulently infringing on Linsey, and that you would like them to hand the accounts over. You might need to give them proof that you are speaking on Linsey's behalf. See this page for contact information for Twitter, and here for Facebook... but if I were you, I'd try and contact someone directly at those two places via phone or fax as a live person will likely be more responsive. And I trust you've initiated WIPO actions for the URL? Tabercil (talk) 22:10, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi Tabercil

Thanks once again for your help. It was really the Wikipedia entry I was worrying about as we are on the case of the others. The Twitter account was removed before we could even get to it for suspicious activity. Facebook we are working on now.

It seems that you have locked the page for now and that will hopefully keep things at bay. I really don't know if we are dealing with a fan who thinks he's actually doing the right thing or it is the same people who ran the old site. All the stuff about there being a Trojan is utter rubbish so I have to assume it's the latter.

It's just a shame that Linsey has never really been very active on the web and people have taken advantage of her name. Now she is actively trying to engage with her fans more online but then we encounter these guys who are not happy to have lost a revenue stream they have been enjoying for years.

We are approching the cybersquatting issue via Nominet in the UK instead of WIPO as we think it might be easier for us as we are UK based but we'll certainly bear it in mind and thanks for the tip.

Thanks again for your help, it's really appreciated

Michaela888 (talk) 08:43, 30 June 2009 (UTC) Michael

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 03:30, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Dear Tabercil

There was proof that the Jo is a Neo Nazi, She has a Tatoo of a butterfly which is a shape of a Nazi Swastika on her bum. plus she did not apoplogized properly for Bullying good old Shilpa Shetty. The White Adder (talk) 07:54, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

We need a reliable source for something as controversial as claiming she's a neo-nazi. Tabercil (talk) 12:07, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

The article cited says she is not a practicing Sikh. In anycase she has cut hair, therefore you cannot be a practicisng Sikh. I am reverting back. I will add a refrence to what constitutes a practicing Sikh. Thanks

We don't have anything in th article that clearly says she is non-practising. Now, maybe what you're saying is true, but I'm still going to insist on something which indicates from her own mouth that she is not a practising Sikh. Otherwise we're skating a little too to being in violation of WP:BLP in my opinion. Tabercil (talk) 12:07, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to Wikipedia. However, please know that editors do not own articles and should respect the work of their fellow contributors on Sunny Leone. If you create or edit an article, know that others are free to change its content. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Please do not remove legitimate references and edits Sikh-history (talk) 13:02, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia's BLP policy trumps ownership accusations in this instance. Tabercil (talk) 00:42, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Please note this edit here. The editor made it without discussion. Thanks--Sikh-history (talk) 08:12, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

What you have said on my page is pretty much not true. I haven't got time for it now, but lets discuss on the talk page. I want to avoid mediation, but I will go for that if we cannot get consensus. Thanks--Sikh-history (talk) 15:36, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Paulina sold more than 20 million worldwide copies acording to Univision, I forgot the link when I edit, but now that's here: http://www.univision.net/corp/en/pr/New_York_06052009-1.html Max Liron(talk) 15:09, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. That's what's needed. Tabercil (talk) 18:12, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

What is wrong with this. I was reading Mel Gibsons page and it has lots of stubs like this. Thanks --Sikh-history (talk) 06:37, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Hmm... that's odd. I had actually moved where the link hangs off of, not removed it altogether. I'll fix. Tabercil (talk) 11:08, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 03:40, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

If you don't mind, I'd appreciate your input on this topic: Template talk:Infobox adult female#Official website in infobox and ext. links section

Thanks, Dismas|^(talk) 03:54, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi, Tabercil. Yesterday you reverted my edit on Rush. Like you, I'm also from Canada (Halifax), and you are correct about having the common word "band" reverted. But you may have been unaware that I had also linked, in the infobox, our home country of Canada, because it too is a place (country), like Ontario (province) and Toronto (city). Please re-link Canada, if you would...thanks! Your Canadian brother, --76.198.234.254 (talk) 19:46, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

I wasn't previously familiar with the ^{[dead link]} tag, so thank you for bringing it to my attention. That would probably constitute a better method of future operation, with regard to such matters. Never-the-less, the information I deleted from that article was all information which was reasonably subject to being deleted, and I stand by my contention that Tyra Banxxx isn't notable. KevinOKeeffe (talk) 18:36, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

I was impressed with your comments on the Dana Delany talk page that suggest you're knowledgeable as an editor. I am a new editor trying to improve the Dana Delany page plus some other pages. I added lots of references (now there are almost 100) to comply with a Wikibot calling for them. I added more pictures (which were on Wikimedia Commons so there are no copyright issues I hope). I updated the filmography so it is comprehensive and I hope accurate. While researching, I found some new information and added it where appropriate. But I am wondering if you could look over the Dana Delany article and advise me how to make it better. I am thinking of adjusting the organization of it somewhat but want help from other editors before proceeding. Tomwsulcer (talk) 22:51, 23 July 2009 (UTC)tomwsulcer

Tabercil, wondering about your thoughts on possibly reorganizing the Dana Delany article. I think the article is getting much better, the information is solid with excellent references, but the subcategories are somewhat off. There's a section called "Voice work" which interrupts the early career and later career stuff (I like Dana's voice but I agree with you that it isn't that "notable" like you said in an earlier comment). But it's like the format switches gears mid-stream (sorry about mixing metaphors) from chronology to type of work (ie voice), and I hope we could get something which is more logically consistent, as well as helping readers find information that they need quickly. And I think all of it could be better organized somehow. I think most biographies have a chronological format, from early to current, and this is the best choice. I'm wondering: what categories can we have which keeps the chronological format? I've been researching this actress for some time now and my sense is that she's not a lightweight pretty face type actress but a serious, intense heavy-duty one who can master tough roles, a powerhouse who loves acting but sometimes gets snared in frivolous projects, and the consistent thing about her career is: a love of acting. That's what she loves. And I don't think things like friendships or causes should have their own section but rather should be included in the chronology when they're relevant and appropriate. But here's my sense of her career goes something like this --

I. early life (birth, schooling) II. New York City -- breaking into the business

 Soap operas
 Broadway (critical reviews)
 Off-Broadway (critical attention)
 Key friendships and connections (Christopher Reeve, for example)

III. Early Hollywood years (TV guest starring spots, China Beach) -- establishing herself as a major actress

 TV guest starring spots (showcasing her talent)
 China Beach (should include: how did she get this role? should get its own paragraph I think, mentioning Emmys plus critical attention)
 Movies
 TV movies
 Voice work (The Batman/Superman, Lois Lane, fan reactions, critical acclaim -- Why Dana = major voice talent)
 Relationships (there are dates so we could put this in where appropriate)

IV. Later Hollywood years -- pursuing acting

 More TV work (sitcoms that didn't get off the ground, critical reviews, etc)
 Other projects (narrating, Vietnam nurses, audio books)
 Guest spots on talk shows
 Dana-as-a-celebrity (being a presenter in awards shows, talk show appearances, interactions with fans)
 Causes (scleroderma, other causes)
 Relationships/personal (when there are good sources)

V. Filmography VI. Awards VII. Notable achievements VIII. References

So, my question to other editors is: do you like this organizational scheme? Or can we think of something better? I'm interested in getting feedback from excellent wikipedia editors such as yourself. Tomwsulcer (talk) 00:21, 24 July 2009 (UTC)tomwsulcer

Put my feedback on the talk page for the article. Tabercil (talk) 01:21, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Blake Mitchell (pornographic actress). 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(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Blake Mitchell (pornographic actress). 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) 01:13, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Delivered by -- Tinu Cherian BOT - 13:10, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi. Err... I didn't edit that page an never have. I think you must of got the wrong person...--90.204.209.218 (talk) 14:20, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, your IP address was used to make this edit, so it seems rather clear... Tabercil (talk) 01:05, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm seeking better pictures for the Dana Delany article. I phoned her agent, Paradigm Talent Agency, at Tel: 310 - 288 - 8000 Fax: 310 - 288 - 2000, and am awaiting a reply from them either by e-mail or cell phone. Agents = Chris Schmitt and Sarah Fargo (sp? on both). I want them to release pictures of her performing on stage, or something better than just accepting awards. But I'm wondering: what is the procedure for getting copyright permissions? Do I ask them to directly submit the pictures to the Wikipedia "Media Commons" site (and let them fill in the proper copyright forms)? If you have advice, I'm interested. Tomwsulcer (talk) 17:11, 30 July 2009 (UTC)tomwsulcer

Read WP:PERMISSION and WP:ERP for advice. Tabercil (talk) 22:20, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

I was looking at a photo album I have with pic of Pedro and me and I wanted to show the ravages of AIDS on person so young. I thought it might be educational and moving. Callelinea (talk) 04:51, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 06:26, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi excellent Tabercil. Wondering if you'd advise me about an article. Many users feel the Gerald Celente article is a lopsided, one-way advertising piece for Celente, a gloom-and-doom forecaster and business consultant, talking head. Most "references" in the existing article were bogus -- didn't go anywhere. Sometimes the reference was for a newspaper, but clicking on it only led to the paper's website -- that kind of thing; but there were perhaps two fairly solid references also (NY Times; one more; The El Paso Times reference was bogus). So I was intrigued. What was going on? (continued) Tomwsulcer (talk) 12:36, 4 August 2009 (UTC)tomwsulcer

So I spent a day researching the guy -- about 8 hours -- getting solid information and referencing each line with a good source (major newspaper or magazines etc). What I found is that Celente is an author, does have a consulting business in Rhinebeck NY, makes rather wild (extremely negative) predictions about the whole economy that border on the scary & bizarre (food riots, depression, tax revolts etc) but these rarely seem to happen; but he also makes business predictions too about consumer behavior, DIY market, and his business predictions are often rather bland, more reasonable. He's a guest on radio & TV talk shows fairly regularly (2 references said he was on Oprah, and he probably was, but I'm not certain), and his predictions make newspapers periodically. See, it's not that hard to do this -- newspapers are rushed and underfunded and need quick entertaining quotes as fodder for articles. My guess is Celente uses the wild statements to get media attention and help him build for himself a consulting business in Rhinebeck and uses the publicity to help him win clients. I don't know how many clients he has or how extensive his business is (this is typically confidential and I won't find it in any source) -- I suspect his consulting business is mediocre, but above average -- he's not McKinsey (since he spends much time courting the media) but he has an office with several employees so it's a functioning business (as best I can determine). Several rather prominent bloggers feel he's a fraud -- with no traceable history or proper schooling or background; one blogger named Ed Champion did a rather thorough study of him and concluded this (and I think these opinions should be in the wikipedia article for balance). I think Celente's more complex than this -- reading through his business predictions in 2006, I thought some were reasonable. One thing really flaky -- Celente would comment to a reporter "I successfully predicted the stock market crash of 1987", but there is no pre-1987 record in the media of him going on the record with such a statement; I really hunted but found nothing. My sense is he's always making gloom-and-doom predictions (so he probably DID make such a guess but its meaningless because he's always been gloomy); the flaky thing is that he then uses these newspaper stories of I-predicted-the-1987-crash as PROOF that he did in fact make these predictions. Anyway, I think this is how he climbed out of the pit of obscurity with this flaky stuff, and now he's a "future prognosticator"; in any event, he's an interesting guy, don't you think? (continued) Tomwsulcer (talk) 12:36, 4 August 2009 (UTC)tomwsulcer

So I rewrote much of the Celente article, based ONLY on solid stuff from good sources, referencing each line -- I took about 8 hours doing this. And I posted my re-edit. But some other editor reverted it back with the lackluster explanation that the blogger quotes rendered my effort worthless and said "go to the talk page first". (I did have comments on the talk page from earlier, but they were ignored). I'm wondering what to do here. Do you have any advice? I've posted comments on the reverting editor's talk page to try to resolve the dispute. I think my revised article is NPOV, And check out my revised version to see if you like it? (I told the excellent Hullabaloo Wolfowitz about this too). Tomwsulcer (talk) 12:36, 4 August 2009 (UTC)tomwsulcer

Okay, so it looks like Hullaballoo Wolfowitz did his usual job of boiling an article down to the bare solidly sourced info, and I've taken a swack at it as well (more style than anything else). As for the revert, i hate to say that but it happens. In general, I'd suggest you avoid blogs like the plague as sources. If you have one you feel is absolutely essential to the article, make mention of it on the talk page first.

Thanks, I saved a copy of my re-write; it's solid stuff (except for the blogs -- even though I think the bloggers were right on the money); is there a way I can send you the re-write file? Or post it somewhere? I'm putting bits and pieces of my re-write file back in to the Gerald Celente article. Can I post the re-write here on your user talk page or would that take up too much room?Tomwsulcer (talk) 23:34, 4 August 2009 (UTC)tomwsulcer

It's easy to see the version you wrote... just click on the history tab for the article. Tabercil (talk) 02:10, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I didn't know -- I thought one would have to revert it to see it. Thanks. Update on Celente -- it's much better as of 8/4/2009 10:30 eastern (New York) time. H.W. and yourself and I have reworked it substantially and the references are much better. I think it's becoming much more NPOV (perhaps tilting somewhat too much against Celente?) I'll keep watching it in the next few days, perhaps go over some of the new sources to make sure they're okay. Thanx for your help; if you need mine on a subject that interests you ,let me know. Tomwsulcer (talk) 02:34, 5 August 2009 (UTC)tomwsulcer

Btw, did you see David Wilcox perform live? I've watched some of his videos on YouTube (Bearcat) -- what a great blues rocker! I also like the American version of David Wilcox (great writer) and heard the DW-American play in New Jersey last year. Tomwsulcer (talk) 02:35, 5 August 2009 (UTC)tomwsulcer

Heh. That photo of David you found that I uploaded? I took that one myself, live in concert. Great show. Tabercil (talk) 03:16, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Great photo!Tomwsulcer (talk) 02:38, 16 August 2009 (UTC)tomwsulcer

She has won an AVN award that is why she is notable.

Has won a well-known award, such as those listed in Category:Pornographic film awards or Category:Film awards.

WP:PORNBIO Dwanyewest (talk) 22:01, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Tabercil, can the article be unsalted on that basis alone, or does it still have to go to a deletion review? Morbidthoughts (talk) 17:23, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Hmm... there's an article at Priya Rai (pornographic actress), easiest thing to do is to move it to where the original article should be. Tabercil (talk) 23:34, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Can you move Erika Hallqvist to Erika Lust? I can't move it due to being blocked by a redirect. All reliable sources refer to her as Erika Lust and I can't find anything reliable that calls her Hallqvist. Morbidthoughts (talk) 16:43, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Done. Tabercil (talk) 03:24, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 05:50, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Would you mind checking this file? Thanks, Dismas|^(talk) 18:03, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm... rather suspicious. TinEye gives this - http://tineye.com/search/e62cf8e527d99a1eef0658edc6cdd0fccd179042. Tabercil (talk) 22:38, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for uploading File:229373ChloeJones2 lg.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this file on Wikipedia may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the file description page and adding or clarifying the reason why the file qualifies under this policy. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your file is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a non-free use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for files used under the non-free content policy require both a copyright tag and a non-free use rationale.

If it is determined that the file does not qualify under the non-free content policy, it might be deleted by an administrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 16:30, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Hello, Tabercil. You have new messages at Drilnoth's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

–Drilnoth (T • C • L) 01:00, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 04:26, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi, you deleted Naga Chaitanya -- yet again. Did you realize that User:PeterSymonds had given permission to Universal Hero to rewrite the article? see the protect log:

   * 16:37, 17 August 2009 PeterSymonds (talk | contribs | block) unprotected Naga Chaitanya ‎ (Request by trusted user Universal Hero to rewrite the article)  (hist | change)
   * 13:38, 23 July 2009 Graeme Bartlett (talk | contribs | block) protected Naga Chaitanya [create=sysop] (expires 13:38, 23 August 2009 (UTC)) ‎ (Repeatedly recreated) (hist | change)

This awas after I deleted and protected against re-creation. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 04:28, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

This is due to the page getting an increased amount of hits. The person in regard's debut film is getting released at the end of the week and as he is a "star-son debutant", the curiousity factor is sky high Universal Hero (talk) 10:35, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Hmm... we have admins working to cross-purposes here. And you had asked to rewrite the article... as best as I can tell there's no significant difference between what the article looked like when it about to be deleted (as can be seen here) and what there was when you restored it, so the original problems with it still remain in my opinion. Tabercil (talk) 22:41, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

On second thought, I think it'd be best for the community to decide. I'll undelete it and let nature take it's course. Tabercil (talk) 01:56, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi Tabercil,

I am the author of the James Glasscock Wikipedia page. Can you please let me know if there's anything I can do to avoid its deletion. He is a senior executive involved in the launch of a major new beverage company. Happy to make any edits (or add any information) necessary. I made a point to use Sources tracking his executive career up to this point.

Thanks (Zepolekim (talk) 18:09, 21 August 2009 (UTC))

The primary issue is to simply make sure that the article makes a strong enough argument that he is notable - once WP:BIO has been satisfied, then you'll have no problems. Tabercil (talk) 23:06, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your response. What would be the next step in satisfying WP:BIO? Should I include more Sourced mentions of him in the media?

(Zepolekim (talk) 23:32, 21 August 2009 (UTC))

Sourced mentions always helps. <G> But the key item is what WP:BIO says is needed: "he or she has been the subject of published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject." What you need to do is to find third-party articles on Mr. Glasscock and work from them. For instance, did he do any interviews in newspapers about himself? Tabercil (talk) 14:42, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi Tabercil wondering what your take on the James Glasscock article is -- is he noteworthy? I found a source in Variety magazine that just listed his name and appointment as a VP for Playboy Entertainment. JG gave $2200 in political contributions for 2008. A cursory search suggests there isn't much info about JG from NYTimes, LATimes, Atlanta Journal Constitution, or elsewhere. Let me know how I can support you on this.Tomwsulcer (talk) 15:25, 25 August 2009 (UTC)Tomwsulcer

I'm still not quite sure... if he is notable, it's not terribly evident. The PROD I put on it, unsurprisingly, got reverted by the page's creator, and I'm not quite ready to AFD it... Tabercil (talk) 22:28, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Hey, I am walking out the door right now and don't have time to fix this. Could you check in to it? [1] Thanks, Dismas|^(talk) 11:13, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Offhand I'd say it looks right. I'm about to do the same myself (head out the door), but from a quick look it does look Renee Diaz is a pseudonym for Renee Perez. Tabercil (talk) 12:08, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Is it just me or is it a copy and paste move? Shouldn't that be addressed? Dismas|^(talk) 01:47, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

I hope that we can remove the dispute form on the Sunny leone wiki page. It has been over 3 months, and its just the two of us against Sikh History with no input from anyone else. Recomend that the addition of religion be deleted as it is not neutral. Lets close the chapter as it is dragging on even though the other party refuses to admit it.-- Throttlebay (talk) 16:40, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

"two of us against Sikh-history"? - Is that how you view Wikipedia, might is right?. I really try and assume good faith at all times but this really is too much. Unlike yourself, I am trying to get clarity on this article, without WP:Synth. I have already explained the problem readers are having, with confusing Karma Sutra (sex) with Sikhism, wheras, the view on "kaam" sexual obsession in Sikhism, is quite straight forward. If you have ideas on this, then lets move forward, but your solution seems to be either deletion, or censorship on articles. Thanks--Sikh-History 17:41, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

"See it how you like- three people have made their case, and by the book- what you wrote is not part of the artcile no matter how you slice it. Your welcome to stand by your request, but it is a three horse race, like it or not, and so far, from the discussion, no matter what tabercil and I have posted, your arguments have not seemed to resonate with any other wikipedia author or senior figure who really have agreed with your argument. Its been dragging for three months, and several times tabercil has mentioned that it does not meet the criteria selected by wikipedia for which you are splitting hairs.

Since you constantly mention Mel Gibson in your defence, let me mention a context that is more relevant and pertinent.The article on Savannah Samson, a practicing Roman Catholic and mentioned in several citings has not been edited or an article hyperlinked to talk about Christianity and Pornography.Why?. Because its not relevant, and strays away from the biographical stub.

I have no problem with your article on Sikkism and Pornography as a stand alone and welcome the entry, but just adding it to an unrelated artcile because the religion of the person in context is sikh. Will be seeking intervention by other senior editors to bring this issue to close. Throttlebay (talk) 19:40, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

By all means bring Admins, and wikipedia is NOT a race, but about consensus, NPOV and creating encyclopedic articles. Regards--Sikh-History 20:22, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Folk, folks, folks, please. Let's try and be civil about this. Now having said that, I do feel that Throttlebay's position is correct in this position. That there is a Sikhism and Pornography article is good, and it deserves to stay. However, the connection between said article and Sunny Leone is quite tenuous and the existance of said link could be taken as a POV statement against Sunny. And as an FYI, "senior editors" != Admins (though the way things work around here, most experienced editors do tend to be put up for adminship...) Tabercil (talk) 01:37, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Tabercil, I have 100% confidence that you will do what is right. My concern is that the article does confuse readers. I would not have been bothered about the page if a reader at my work had not been confused by the content. I am going to bow out, and I will trust you will do the right thing. Thanks--Sikh-History 13:05, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

I can understand you concern, though I think offhand it might be overstated... to my casual knowledge, there isn't a mainstream/notable religion out there that has stated that pornography is acceptable. So going out of the way to place a specific statement about the official Sikh view on pornography in Sunny's article is distracting, unneeded and potentially POV. Now, if you can find a statement by one of the major Sikh religious leaders that specifically addresses Sunny Leone and pornography in the same breath, then the article link you want would be more likely to stay. Tabercil (talk) 14:17, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi Tabercil, I could write an entire essay on Sikh thoughts on sexuality and pornography, but to summarise the Sikh thought states that 5 thieves steal your reason, Kaam (obsession with sex), Krodh (stubbornness/anger), Moh (Materialism), Lobh (Greed), and Hankaar (Egotism/obsession with self). Kaam is not sex per say, and nor even necessarily pornography. It is like some people can take or leave a drink yet others take one and are full blown alcoholics). The same view is expressed with sexual behaviour, but sex is seen as something necessary unlike booze. So Sikh thought is, sex is something to be enjoyed, in a loving relationship (which is defined as marriage). The other side is about having respect for the human form i.e. human life is seen as precious above all. It is something to be respected. To use the human form in a disrespectful way i.e. let it get fat, let it get unfit, use it just as a lustful object etc etc, not only disrespects the human form, but disrespects that person. Women in particular, are seen as creators of life and ones who are privileged in humanity as being able to create life. So to flaunt the act of creating life in a disrespectful way degrades woman "from who Princess and Kings are created" (a quote from the Sikh holy book). I know people will have different views, but pornography is primarily seen by Sikhs, as the people who participate it as those who disrespect themselves, those who are obsessed with Material gain, those obsessed with self. So it's not really about sex or God. The aspect that is concerned with God is, that the more one concerns oneself with these 5 thieves, one shuts oneself from God. I think George Lucas in the Star Wars films used this concept to describe the difference between Jedi and Sith. This is exactly the Sikh concept. God is seen like the force. Best Wishes --Sikh-History 07:38, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

One bored New Jerseyan (exit 14 on the turnpike). Wondering.Tomwsulcer (talk) 01:16, 6 September 2009 (UTC)Tomwsulcer

LOL... well, work to what your interests are. What areas of knowledge turns your crank? Find a couple of articles in that field and start nosing through looking for omissions or bits that can be improved on. There are lots of WikiProjects out there which are dedicated to improving articles that fall into their area - for instance, I'm part of WikiProject Pornography. There are lots more out there who would cheerfully accept help - for instance, there's Wikipedia:WikiProject New Jersey. You can find a fuller list by digging through the links that come off at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Directory. Tabercil (talk) 03:55, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Great. I've never done a porno actress before. :) If you have one for me which needs to be expanded from a stub (:)) and needs references, let me know. I need a break from my mini-war regarding BMC Software -- in future I'll probably avoid business articles. Safest article I ever did (ie no edit warring): a statistical agency; it's so wonderfully boring, nobody cares to start edit-wars, and it can quote itself. Tomwsulcer (talk) 01:26, 7 September 2009 (UTC)Tomwsulcer

I don't have much of an opinion either way, but why did you change the main photo? It's more recent, but the older one had her looking directly at the camera.--CyberGhostface (talk) 16:21, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Exactly as you said: it's newer. Tabercil (talk) 00:15, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Is there some policy that states the newest picture has to be used? I'm not crazy about the either, but there's only a one-year difference between the two and the first one was more professional looking.--CyberGhostface (talk) 02:28, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm... what we have in the article right now are essentially two pictures of Diablo at TIFF '09. I'll move the pic I added down and restore the original image, just to provide some variety. Tabercil (talk) 11:58, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

I got them from the bonafide websites. I think the pictures don't need for deletion.

Relly Komaruzaman Talk 02:22, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

We need to be able to verify that the pictures are properly licensed at the source, and that the source has the rights to place that image under the license chosen. For instance, I could in theory put the Star Wars movie up on a website and say "I herby place this in the public domain"... but I don't hold the copyright on the movie so I don't have the right to do that. (In fact, if I were to try and do that, i suspect George Lucas would probably sue for much more money than I currently have, or probably ever will have.) Tabercil (talk) 02:27, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Okay, thank you for teaching me. I just wanna make the pages about the pretty ladies to be fantastic. Anyway, do you mind to upload the properly images for the articles?

Relly Komaruzaman Talk 03:07, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi, Tabercil. I don't know if you're aware of the big hullabaloo over at Felicia Tang, but a certain user has nominated the article for deletion. So far, so bad... What he continues to do at the article is put a "refimprove" tag, despite the fact that every bit of information in the article (except for one, which has been tagged) is backed up by multiple, international reliable sourcing. At the article's talk-page he claimed that these reliable sources had used a previous Wikipedia article for their sourcing. I showed that the information was confirmed by the model's official biography as early as 2002, and removed the tag. He has since accused me of vandalism and again reinstated this tag. Care to look in? Dekkappai (talk) 20:50, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

More-- after libeling these reliable sources, he now calls the subject herself a liar. His routine has officially jumped the shark, as far as I'm concerned. Hope you or another rational entity will look in. Cheers! Dekkappai (talk) 20:54, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, we have a saying in porn valley. Whores lie. Generalised, people lie (since everybody's a whore). Yes, we can be skeptical of dead whores too. But really, just because someone is obstinate in demanding verification does not mean you should start insulting him by calling him a "self-important jackass". Morbidthoughts (talk) 22:01, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

"Self-important jackass?" That's peanuts. By extension, you've just called him a lying whore, I believe ;) Dekkappai (talk) 22:10, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, offhand I'd say the sources look good. Tabercil (talk) 01:05, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the input. You too, Morbid. Dekkappai (talk) 02:36, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

I was glad to see that you made this reversion. A few of us have been completely distracted with removing such additions, based on factual inaccuracy, WP:UNDUE, WP:OR, WP:BLP, etc., depending on what is being said in the additions. Your reversion ensured to me that we are correct. Some, especially the Woody Allen article, have been ripe with all of it. A good example which ended up with a vile personal attacks, including this one directed to me and this one directed to Rossrs. Thanks. Wildhartlivie (talk) 00:21, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

As I said here, the artists signing the petition is not notable for their own article, IMO - it would be notable for the Polanski article. If you feel the attacks are too persistent, drop me a line about it or drop a notice on the Admin's Noticeboard asking for some page protection. Tabercil (talk) 00:30, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

It's died down for now. I left an only warning template for the personal attacks due to the severity of it and have gotten no reply. Thanks, though, I'll keep it in mind! Wildhartlivie (talk) 01:42, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Hello, I am taking issue with you on the matter of the "unnecessary pejorative" description of Tweed as a convicted thug. It is a matter of legal fact that he has been repeatedly convicted for violence on the person, twice in 6 months: http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/mar/03/jack-tweed-jade-goody He is, by any definition, a thug. As such I have undone the edit. Captainclegg (talk) 12:17, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

haha;

well i'm sorry & thank-you :)!

i actually took a bunch of shots of the place: main entrance, old block, etc., but it's tricky getting a good wide shot with all the trees & power lines, plus they're redoing the one road right now... >__<

(know anyone who would be interested in stitching together a panorama?)

Lx 121 (talk) 00:36, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

I've cooked a few of them up myself: Image:Black History Cairn in Owen Sound.jpg, Image:Galt CVI panorama.jpg, Image:St Marys High School in Kitchener panorama.jpg... what image editing software do you have? Tabercil (talk) 00:41, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

gimp mainly (on linux/ubuntu); i can access picasa for xp, but i've no experience in joining photos, & no time right now to learn/do the work (massively backlogged irl as well as on wikimedia >__< )

i have several candidate shots of the main entrance, for possible joining; couldn't get it top to bottom in one frame, without pulling back enough to lose detail). also set of pics of the building as a whole, taken from different angles/locations (was thinking i might re-shoot after the leaves fall, to get clearer views).

didn't get any interiors, wish i could; might try & see if anyone at the school is interested in contributing material for the wp article.

off-topic: good job getting the other high schools done! you're local to guelph, or... ?

Lx 121 (talk) 04:00, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Yep, live in the tri-city area. If you want, drop me an email and you can send the pics to be joined to me - I'd be willing to take a stab at joining them. Tabercil (talk) 04:03, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Or alternately, you can upload the individual images to Commons, then ask at Commons:Graphic Lab School/Images to improve if someone's willing to stitch them together. Tabercil (talk) 12:37, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

It looks like many of the little issues have been fixed up, so it doesn't look as bad as it did. Earlier, I saw several "anonymous" authors, and lots of lowercase text in there -- just all around sloppiness -- but it looks better now. Ideally, all citations should have full citation information included, not just a title & URL -- the citations should have author, title, publication, date of publication. Also, look at reference #81, which has several bullet points and multiple references in the same ref tag. These should be separated out into separate citations.

The citation format is not the only thing wrong with the article, though. There are other issues with the prose and content that need to be looked at. Dr. Cash (talk) 17:50, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Bianca Trump. 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/Bianca Trump. 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) 01:14, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice. I'm sorry, I had my head in another place. It will not return to repeat. I thought it have no copyright, but now i don't know why... (sorry for my english, is not my natal lenguage) --Huevomaestro (talk) 05:41, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

i will find a source for you —Preceding unsigned comment added by Garconsaxon (talk • contribs) 04:00, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

In the Commonwealth the battle honours of a certain ship are carried by all ships of that name. The current Winnipeg carries the honours of the previous Winnipeg, as does the Athabaskan, Calgary, Toronto, Iroquois, etc. The honours belonging to only the ship and not the name is an American tradition. I will revert the article back to the previous edit based on this principle.McMuff (talk) 15:41, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

As creator of the Bobby Orr Hockey Hall of Fame picture, thanks for moving that into Wikipedia Commons. Really appreciated. Chris (talk) 21:10, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Ah, de nada. I was trying to populate a newly-created category on Commons for Bobby, so your image worked out fine. <G> Tabercil (talk) 22:40, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi Tabercil,

It seems you're a fan of Sunny Leone! I happen to have lots of photos of her so I loaded some up which I think are a little better than the ones you found. Please choose and post the ones you like the best.

Thanks...... -Glenn Glenn Francis (talk) 12:14, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Ah, so I see. I'll take a browse through and see what you added and how they'd fit in with the article. And I'm not really a fan of her specifically.. more like someone who cares to make sure the porn stars are properly looked after on Wikipedia. (Hint, see WP:P*#Participants <G>). Tabercil (talk) 14:31, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

I have nominated Krysti Lynn, 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/Krysti Lynn. 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. Epbr123 (talk) 19:02, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Alexis Malone. 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/Alexis Malone. 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) 01:11, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

I most certainly did so. You are wrong. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.51.148.249 (talk) 10:36, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I just love mystery comments... but what you're doing violates the spirit of WP:BLP. Sorry... Tabercil (talk) 13:22, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Tiffany Towers. 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/Tiffany Towers (2nd 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) 01:15, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Cassia Riley. 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/Cassia Riley. 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) 01:10, 8 December 2009 (UTC)