User talk:Tabercil/Archive 15

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.

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Crystal Gunns. 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/Crystal Gunns. 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, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay. I was in Cuba from April 11-22. Pedro and I were close friends. His sister (Milagros Zamora) has given me all rights to release his photos. She believes as do I that Pedro has message to be said both then and now. I was on the first Pedro Zamora Foundation (Florida) Board of Directors. If Wikipedia requires an additional release from his sister or father, let me know. Callelinea (talk) 02:39, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

I'll check with the folks at Commons to see what's the next step should be. Thanks for the reply, and I hope you enjoyed your visit to Cuba. Tabercil (talk) 03:13, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes had a great time. Let me know and I'll let his sister know. Callelinea (talk) 19:39, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Okay I heard back: "We'd need an email/fax/letter from Pedro's family either transferring the rights to Callelinea or releasing the photo under an appropriate license." So that's what is needed, a statement from Milagros essentially backing up what you said. Tabercil (talk) 20:04, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your help but I thought I'd point this out. Thanks again, Dismas|^(talk) 03:48, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

I realized that problem in the later pages I did up, but forgot to double-back to check the first one. Thanks for the clean-up. <G> Tabercil (talk) 17:21, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi Tabercil. If there was any question what this "Playmates are not notable" line was all about, this should answer the question. Total "I don't like it" cleansing of the topic. Dekkappai (talk) 22:21, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Sigh... lemme see what I can do... Tabercil (talk) 22:29, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Had a suspicion something like this would happen. Putting them together was a nice visit through my ill-spent youth though ;-) Ah well. Dekkappai (talk) 22:33, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Notice the edit summary HERE. I just now realized "speedy" was meant... because of the moral tone of some of these guys, I thought "seedy" was intentional... Dekkappai (talk) 23:19, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

LOL... well that's likely a typo on Hulla's part. Ghod knows if you look back over my edits you'll likely find a similar (Freudian?) slip or three. <G> Everything else is just the normal boilerplate for a prod. Tabercil (talk) 23:24, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

In 2007, she said on her website, that she was born 24 August 1973, not 12 August 1973. As I said you are raising issues that have already been decided. This is vandalism. I am asking you to give a reliable source for August 12, 1972 date and by reliable i don't mean Internet Movie Database. My source is her website and if you don't believe me you can even check Grey Delisle's revision history circa 2007. 79.124.57.97 (talk) 23:43, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Actually I'm trying to nail it down to a given date. But there was a comment on Talk:Grey DeLisle that stated that the birthday had been changed to August 24. Now I'm checking her website and it currently comes back as "Site Temporarily Unavailable". So for now, until someone can point me to exact page that states what her age is, I'm pulling it altogether. Tabercil (talk) 01:28, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

This is your photo, right? The complexion of the subject seems unnaturely red, at least on my monitor. Here's another photo of him, I'd guess a professional portrait.[1] And here's a still from a video.[2] It's possible that he was wearing makeup in those. Even so, this photo looks like either there was something wrong with the lighting or camera, or that he was severely sunburned. Any ideas?   Will Beback  talk  23:04, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Or there's a third: it's not my photo to begin with. The original photographer is Luke Ford. He originally took photos of various porn stars, then expanded for a time into do some meet & greet-style events. One of the nicknames he got pegged with on one of the porn star chat boards was "the Camera of Death", basically because whoever was photographed looked like death warmed over. For example, File:Keri Windsor 00011154.jpg, File:Kim Chambers 2000g.jpg and File:Shanna McCullough 01011034.jpg from his early days. His later photos got better, as a result of him learning what to do and from getting better equipment, but his photos still tend to need work (e.g., File:Jennifer Love Hewitt LF.JPG was one of his last photos, and File:Jennifer Love Hewitt LF2 (square).jpg is the result of some very nice photoshop work by a Wiki editor). So I suspect part of the problem is the photographer. (And FYI, here's another photo of Steve from the same event: http://www.lukeford.net/Images/photos4/080423/afasteveemerson.htm and the write up that Luke did with all of his photos linkable from the event: http://lukeford.net/blog/?p=3249) Tabercil (talk) 01:58, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Ah- I didn't understand the provenance. I did a little adjustment and have uploaded this verion to Commons and the article. It still looks like he's got a sunburn, but he looks less like a boiled lobster.   Will Beback  talk  02:17, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

S'okay. A lot of folks can't seem to figure out how the credits section of Commons works. My nickname is absolutely unique as far as I know, so if I plug it into Google, every hit that comes back as "Tabercil" is a reference to me. So image my surprise when a Google search comes back with text indicating photos taken by me; things such as http://archive.wn.com/2010/04/22/1400/enttvasia... Tabercil (talk) 02:34, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Hi, why did you delete my picutre modf-deadspots.jpg? I am the owner and it can be used free of any license. It it a press foto from our band MASTERS OF DARK FIRE. www.modf.de please undo the delete. Greetings pronto123 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Panto123 (talk • contribs) 14:56, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

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

Hello, isn't this reliable?: http://www.sussilacour.dk/ Equinoxe 04:04, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Yup. Just need to use it as a source for the name. Tabercil (talk) 11:42, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Hey! You're online! Could you check the Rachel Rotten article? I would but I'm at work and don't want to go checking the source that was used while working. Thanks, Dismas|^(talk) 02:46, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Not reliable, and the edits are otherwise unsourced. Tabercil (talk) 02:52, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! Dismas|^(talk) 02:55, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Hello Tabercil,

This user name/ account was created by a computer tech friend of my family for my friends and their friends to log into Wikipedia and make edits. Some of these people are friends with my wife and occasionally surf the web and if they find some new links or stuff about me they said they would add it to my wikipedia page or at the very least pass it along to my wife for her to add the info that they found. I'm not computer savy at all but I have had a few fitness model shoot photos that people recommend be added to wikimedia commons as present day fitness model updates. A friend of mine said it would be a good idea to find somebody on here that I could email the photos to that could upload them to Wikimedia Commons. I trained with April Hunter at Killer Kowalski's pro wrestling school so I looked on her page at some of her photos and saw that she had emailed a few photos to upload to Commons and you did. If you would be so kind as to message this account back with a direct email address (or for privacy reasons) somehow let me know your direct email address I could send them to you at with the details of them, you know: the photographers name who agreed that I am the copyright holder of the photos but she would like to be credited as the photographer. She is a very nice lady & great photographer and that would be ok with me. I apologize for the long message and I appreciate the time you have taken out of your busy schedule to read this message. I thank you very much Tabercil.

Jaderocker (talk) 13:56, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

There's no email account associated with Jadrocker, so I can't contact you that way. What I would suggest is you email me - if you look to the right of this page, you'll see "Toolbox"; click on that and you'll see "Email this user" as an option.. Tabercil (talk) 21:33, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

just sent you an email, thank you Tabercil Jaderocker (talk) 01:12, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Hello, while on Page Patrol yesterday, I saw Rachel Starr‎ being created. It is for a WP:PROD but I am working on the article and should be able to bump it. If I get it up to DYK status and provide you the noms, would you mind being my nominator? I don't like doing self-noms. All that is involved in the nom would be to do a cut-and-paste to the DYK template page from the noms I will develop. Thanks in advance. ----moreno oso (talk) 11:50, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

If you do manage to get it up to that level, let me know as I'll gladly nominate it. And good luck... as it stands I don't see anything that'd give me cause to remove the PROD. Tabercil (talk) 12:33, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Give me a while. I'm a rookie editor (take a look now and then in about 3 hours). It's going to be a close call. She has one nomination and a Suze Randall award. I think I can dig up some stuff. She's getting more ghits because of my patent-pending YTrikc_search method. ----moreno oso (talk) 12:41, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Here comes the crescendo to the band starting up. I have improved lede and will place a citation I found that comes from a Suze Randall free site. It is bound to get edit-warred on because it's not mainstream and not being reported by anyone else yet. I hope to use my YTrikC_search to flush up more citations. ----moreno oso (talk) 14:10, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

The edit-war has begun. Another admin jumped on my edits and disrespected the in-use template. I lost data due to a lost of data session as well due to an edit conflict. ----moreno oso (talk) 15:02, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

User:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz has violated 3RR with his current revert. He cites BLP issues of which there none. I mentioned to him on his talkpage that he was approaching 3RR but he chose to revert. I am ready to walk away as he continues to violate the in-use template. ----moreno oso (talk) 15:24, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Rather than maligning other editors, you shgould take the time to become familiar with the appropriate policies. Removing unsourced, inaccurate promotional claims from a BLP is an exception to 3RR and removing an inaccurate internal link isn't a revert at all. If you're not going to put the effort in required to comply with the BLP policy, you've got no business posting uncivil complaints about editors who do. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 15:30, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Hullaballoo's admittedly aggressive about removing unsourced or poorly source BLP stuff, but he's right in that it is policy. And I've had a chance to take a look at that Suze Randall "award"... no ef'n way it should be in the article. Tabercil (talk) 22:59, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you Tabercil for your clarifying comments. As far as references for articles, are websites valid sources of info? And can you reference other wikipedia pages? Ringo1000 (talk) 19:12, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, websites can be used as sources, but what needs to be considered is whether they're reliable sources. As for referencing other pages, it's better to find what the other pages use to back up the information and use that for Jenni's article. Now I've tagged what I feel are the key initial points which need to be referenced: her birth date and birth place, her parentage and some of the touring history. Tabercil (talk) 22:56, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Hello again! Jenni is thinking that the way the page looks right now is making her look bad and would like to delete it. I'm telling her it's part of the process. Would it be possible to delete the page and continue to work on it as my user page, then move it back once the citations are verified? Would the citations be able to be checked beforehand? Thanks for your help. Ringo1000 (talk) 21:11, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

If you want, what I can do is to move the article into your own user space, where you can safely work on it. One example is User:Testales/Breanne Benson - which is an article I moved for someone else. If it's in your user space, you can safely work on it without it being deleted... but in contrast, you can't expect anyone else to work on it. Is that what you'd want? Tabercil (talk) 21:56, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi Tabercil, thank, but let's leave it where it is. I'll just forge ahead. I've managed to find resources for all the citations. Ringo1000 (talk) 20:14, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi Tabercil. We've got an editor who has twice removed a sourced statement about a cast member, in direct reference to the film The Seven Minutes (film). See: HERE. Since the editor appears to want to engage in an edit-war, I'll bow out. But perhaps something can be done? Dekkappai (talk) 21:46, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

I restored, since it's clearly reliably sourced, but it's been reverted. This dispute will no doubt continue at Marianne McAndrew. Dekkappai (talk) 22:38, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Re: Marianne McAndrew: My crystal ball proved accurate. This guy's a long-time edit warrior who does nothing but remove content, no matter how well-sourced. Dekkappai (talk) 22:39, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for looking in, Tabercil, but with this edit you seem to have mucked things up ;-) I think the version previous to your edit is the correct one-- we seem to be having slow server issues, which may have confused things... Also, besides a nude role being notable for the time period, I think just the fact that the role generated an entire news article is a pretty good indication of "notability"-- far more so than most individual facts in articles have... Anyway, I'll step out. I've done far more reverting in this case than I like to, but this one seemed pretty obvious... Dekkappai (talk) 00:06, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Yup... I thought I was reverting this edit, and even took steps to confirm it was most recent. Tabercil (talk) 00:55, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Since you've worked on this article, please weigh in on whether Eric Louzil's quote can be included. Thank you. UPCDAYZ (talk) 19:49, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Nope. That's a self-published book by Luke - see WP:SPS. Tabercil (talk) 01:09, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

...this diff. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:16, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

I found that subpage of yours because it's using a main article space category. Just a heads up that the category is there and also, the template might not be needed anymore since all the years have been covered. Dismas|^(talk) 02:23, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Yup, deleting it now... Tabercil (talk) 03:21, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Dear Tabercil,

My name is Paco Garcia and I am editor of Plataforma Editorial, a Spanish independent publisher. We are working in a book about ecological architecture by Dr. Enric Auli, professor at the Universitat Politecnica de Catalunya and one of the main Spanish experts in this field. I would like contact with you because we would like to use one of your photos of the City Hall Green Roof in Toronto, to use inside the book. I am looking forward to hearing from you. Yours sincelery, Paco Garcia ([email protected]) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pgarcialoren (talk • contribs) 08:11, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

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.} 02:11, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Hi Tabercil, I've added as many references as I can to Jenni's page but she doesn't like the "This biographical article needs additional citations for verification. Please help by adding reliable sources. Contentious material etc" staying on her page. I've told her this is a process. Could you tell me when this notice might change? Thank you Ringo1000 (talk) 15:42, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Offhand, I'd say it can be removed. I would point out one thing: Wikipedia standards call for chronological lists to be in earliest-to-latest order. You'll need to flip the discography around. Tabercil (talk) 16:47, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Hey Tabercil, thanks for the prompt reply. Got to make the ladies happy. :) I've reversed the discography like you suggested. Appreciate your help. 68.51.36.89 (talk) 23:54, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Hi Tabercil. Hullaballo is once again instigating edit wars involving multiple pages and multiple editors. Rather than discuss, as suggested, he reverts his contested edits. He forces other editors to either edit-war with him, or to accept his edits-- which, obviously, he wants. I take pride in not edit-warring, yet this one editor has got even me to break this rule at times. The edits of his I reverted recently (all but one) were re-insertions of his own edits that had been undone by two three other editors. (Tired of his behavior, I had intended to let his original removals go through unopposed until other editors spoke up.) This is bullying, pure and simple. When is this editor going to be brought in line with proper Wikipedia editing practice as explained in Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle? He continuously gets his way through bullying and edit-warring. Dekkappai (talk) 21:21, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Stop complaining about The Big Bad Wolfowitz and start addressing the policy issues. These are garden variety NFCC violations, and saying "No they're not" and tossing invective at me isn't good faith discussion. As for edit warring, you've edit warred, complete with uncivil personal commentary, beginning with the first editing dispute we had [3] [4] [5] [6]. For all your passive-aggressive styling yourself as the victim of bullying, bias, etc etc, these disputes simply arise, over and over, from your complete unwillingness to accept consensus notions of notability and reliable sourcing -- and it's hardly accidental that virtually all the disputed material is taken from advertising on retailer/vendor sites. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 22:05, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

"The Big Bad Wolfowitz?" Get over yourself and address the issue: Edit-warring. Stop it, or get blocked. Everyone else has to abide by this, you do too. Dekkappai (talk) 22:43, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

"Reverting to enforce certain overriding policies is not considered edit warring. . . Removal of content that unquestionably violates the non-free content policy." You might also keep in mind WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA, which comments like those in your last edit summary conspicuously breach. You are, as I recall, one of the few active editors, if not the only one, who's needed to be blocked for telling those who disagree with him to "burn in hell." I infer that your refusal to address the substantive policy questions simply demonstrates the absence of a policy basis for rejecting the edits you dispute. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 22:59, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Several days after your deletions I did not dispute your citation of policy. OTHER editors did, I disputed your reversions of those others' edits without discussion. Those editors have a dispute with your deletions and you need to discuss with them rather than instigating an edit-war, which your reversions do. Your dredging up of past, unrelated and controversial incidents further indicates a refusal to address my concern here: Your edit-warring. Dekkappai (talk) 23:12, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Folks, both of you play nice okay? My computer's sick (OS blew up but good) so I can't really spend much time online right now... and I can't certainly dig in to try abd figure out who's right and who's wrong. But I do know that it's likely that both of you are right, and both of you are wrong. Hulla, you're good at pulling out dubious information. But I do think you take too dim a view of some sources. Dekka, you're a good editor but in this instance I do think you're a touch thin-skinned. My suggestion for now: avoid each other, if possible. Tabercil (talk) 12:42, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the input and hope your computer problems are resolved quickly. Actually this is a case where HB is warring with other editors. I'm just sick of seeing him continuously get his way this way. I suppose it's time to bring his behavior up to RfC or some such thing, but I'm too lazy to instigate that kind of thing. Maybe one of the others will... Rgards. Dekkappai (talk) 13:08, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

The Video is located here http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x7vAJfUD1KA Totalaero (talk) 20:53, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Axel Braun didn't like my editing of his photo and requested that it be removed and replaced by the same photo only edited by his graphic artist. The times I've tried replacing photos have resulted in disaster, so what I think would be best if you could delete the current photo and then I'll upload the one that his artist edited.

thanks... Glenn Glenn Francis (talk) 20:56, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

K. Done. Tabercil (talk) 21:36, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! Glenn Francis (talk) 21:57, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Just to make sure, is File:Axel Braun 2010x.jpg the version Alex wanted to have used? Tabercil (talk) 22:00, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes. Glenn Francis (talk) 23:42, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

See this edit. Actually, the source which already was there does state the ethnicities. I checked it out when the IP changed it. Garion96 (talk) 19:23, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Huh. When I reverted, I knew I had read that source ages ago, and was sure I remember it as mentioning only her being Jewish... nothing about the German or Swiss part. Shoulda' double-checked first... thanks for the correction. Tabercil (talk) 19:45, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

You're not alone. My first thought was also to revert the IP since I was quite sure I checked out that source before. :) Garion96 (talk) 18:54, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Btw, nice job in getting these new images on Commons. Garion96 (talk) 18:57, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Hmm... you referring the TG stars I assume? Ah, de nada. Still surprised I got them.  ;) Tabercil (talk) 20:58, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Why did you delete the Cody Lane article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.1.207.228 (talk) 05:48, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm obviously not Tabercil but you can see why the article was deleted here. Basically, it kept being recreated and deleted. The reason it was deleted is because of Wikipedia's criteria A7 for speedy deletion, "No indication of importance (individuals, animals, organizations, web content)". In order to be included in Wikipedia, an article must show why a person is notable. This article, time and again, was obviously not doing that. You can see the notability standards for people at WP:BIO. Dismas|^(talk) 05:58, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

As Dismas sez... it kept getting recreated with the same thin information. Unless/until someone can clearly show that Cody Lane is notable, there ain't gonna be anything there. Tabercil (talk) 06:09, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Deleting the entire work was very unhelpful —Preceding unsigned comment added by Enidblyton11 (talk • contribs) 16:10, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

As I said, unsourced. Tabercil (talk) 17:49, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

There's no consensus support for the efforts of a few members of the unreferenced BLP project to unilaterally redefine the unferenced BLP tag that's been in use for years, has been used on tens of thousands of articles, and is still being used, by many skilled and experienced editors. Tt's also incompatible with the BLP-PROD standards. External links aren't references, as is made clear in WP:EL. The imdb tag in question is not used, as a general rule, on articles which actually cite IMDB. It's used primarily, if not only, on articles which have no references at all. It was created a few months back by members of the wikiproject who were frustrated by the slow pace of cleaning up the backlog, and decided to short-circuit the process by proclaiming that external links were references, despite contrary guidelines and policies and in contradiction of years of established practice. Even worse, editors like "The Pope" are also changing the tagging date, so that articles originally marked months or (often) years ago show up only having been flagged this month -- another attempt by project members to "meet" their goal of reducing the number of long-tagged-as-problematic BLPs by simply changing the tagging date. This is more damaging to Wikipedia than simple vandalism; it sends the message that we don't really care about the BLP problem, so long as we can make it look like it's much smaller than it really is. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 17:01, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Good point. And in anycase, I'm trying to do an end run around the problem by trying to find sources to expand it with. Best thing I can locate seems to be Mary Kay's fan site online... not as good as I'd like, but better than nothing I guess. Tabercil (talk) 17:14, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Sorry to have to but in on your talk page, but as he doesn't seem to want to talk to me, it's not a good point, it's an absolutely crap point. Almost as bad as avoiding direct discussion and edit warring over this, like HW seems to be doing. One could argue that keeping the BLPunrefered tag over other more suitable tags is a technique used by some to artificially inflate the "unreferenced BLP" problem AND TOTALLY IGNORE that there are lots of other BLP cleanup tags that also should be addressed. This tag simply takes it outof one cleanup cat and puts it into 4 other cleanup cats. Still there, still trackable, still marked as being unacceptable and a problem. The only reason that we have a "target number" is because of a few editors who ignored the rules and made it a big deal earlier this year and threatened mass-deletion of these articles. The only reason that no one is working through the other lists is because the unrefed BLPs got all the attention. In the past 6 months we've seen two useful generic tools, the Wolterbot Cleanup list and the Alertbot stop working, but I've helped get the DASHbot list to automatically list UBLPs by project. Once the heat drops out of this issue, there is no reason why that same system can't be used for other cleanup tags. I'd agree with HW if I was ADDING IMDB links and then changing the tag, but I'm only doing it to ones that already have the tag - as I said on HW's overly long talk page - to the everyday editor IMDB is a ref and they can't tell the difference between an Ext link and a ref. The IMDB tag tells them it isn't enough. The UBLP tag doesn't. The-Pope (talk) 22:54, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

you sent me a message saying i'm making disruptive edits. i admit to making some minor silly edits on some pages (e.g. the shane diesel article yesterday), i honestly didn't think something as unimportant as "shane diesel" would get somebody so upset that they would change it the next afternoon but i guess i was wrong. now as far as the other edits i made (i'm referring to adding birth names of pornstars) they are all CORRECT, yet people are freaking out over this and editing my entries, which by the way i took the time to look up and contribute to wikipedia, even if it's something as unimportant as pornstars. if you don't belive me check for yourself on IMDB.com, all of the birthnames are there. so frankly i'm kind of annoyed that my CORRECT DATA is being removed by people like you. you were so ignorant you even changed back the edit i made to the richard ramirez article even though if you were to click the ref. number right next to his birthdate you'll see it says the 28th not the 29th!! seems like there are some people on here that have no lives that like threatening to block people and edit out their contributions to wikipedia. for now i am going to leave the pages alone (except the obvious pages which were WRONGLY edited) because i don't feel like dealing with this when somebody is going to edit out what i add anyway. in the future i will decide what birth names and data to add to the articles, i hope when i do you can just leave it alone. oh and as far as blocking me that's no big deal. i can just change my IP address (which is relatively easy to do) and i'll be right back on wikipedia hopefully contributing without all this drama, thanks...

Gummy Dummy (talk) 08:34, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

You can't use the IMDB's biography page as a source for Wikipedia - it's not deemed to be reliable. See here and here for more. Tabercil (talk) 11:35, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm at work, so I can't check the risque.com source that the IP claims to have used for a source for Vicca's birth date. Could you check on this? Thanks, Dismas|^(talk) 02:40, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Yesh... risque's a pay site so it's difficult to figure it out. There's a blog entry there which states "Vicca had a birthday today" [7] but that's insufficient in my opinion by itself. The other two items that IP gives won't do the job: IMDB won't fly as a source, and her manager (while accurate) doesn't give us something we can go do as a back-up. Tabercil (talk) 13:34, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading File:My Fake Fiance.jpg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information; to add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia.

For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 19:06, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

I have already put a website source courtesy of AskMen.com last year and AskMen.com says Natasha Yi was born in 1979. I found vandalism on the Wikipedia article. And I found the IP user has made an incorrect birthyear. The IP user 99.7.171.33 change it's incorrect year of birth to 1981. But 1981 is the incorrect birthyear. Last year, I told the IP user to stop changing the incorrect year of birth. But the IP user 99.7.171.33 not answering me back. So go to Natasha Yi's article to revert it back to it's correct year of birth to 1979 under my username an then write to the IP user 99.7.171.33 not to change incorrect year of birth. If the IP user 99.7.171.33 continues to put the wrong year of birth the IP user will be blocked by editing. Also, could you watch the Natasha Yi artcle and this is to keep track on the correct year of birth that is already sourced. If the IP user continues to edit the wrong birthyear revert it back. Thanks for the alert and talk to me back as soon as possible. Steam5 (talk) 03:38, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

From the edit history of that IP, it looks like he's basically acting like an SPA - the only edit made seems to be changing the year of birth to 1981 or 1983 [8]. I'd say he can be reverted on sight, and warned appropriately. If they edit again, leave a message on their talk page and with luck they'll hit the point where they can be blocked. Tabercil (talk) 03:47, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Hello again, the IP user 99.7.171.33 has made vandalism again to it's incorrect year of birth. Could you revert it's correct year of birth that is already sourced and then write a message to IP user 99.7.171.33 and make the IP user to be blocked from editing. The IP user 99.7.171.33 has mad vandalism all the time. Write me back as quickly as possible and make the IP user 99.7.171.33 to be blocked. Thanks. Steam5 (talk) 23:24, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Reverted and warned. As for blocking, I don't see how that'd help. I could block it, but it'd probably wear off before he would go to edit again. (He's editing from an anon IP, and we really frown on permanently blocking them). Tabercil (talk) 23:34, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Hello, once again, I check the edit history on Natasha Yi on September 12 to it's correct year of birth. But 2 days later on the edit history, the same IP user 99.7.171.33 has made vandalism yet again on the incorrect date of birth. The IP user 99.7.171.33 is not responding to you, the IP user 99.7.171.33 continued it's behavior from vandalizing the incorrect year of birth. So revert it again then make the IP user 99.7.171.33 block from editing. Also could you protect the Natasha Yi article so no IP users including the same IP user 99.7.171.33 not to make incorrect year of birth from it's source. I work hard for my edits to Natasha Yi. If you read my new reply write me back as you quickly what I say. Remember to block the IP and protect the article. Thanks for the new alert and reply me back. Steam5 (talk) 19:01, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi. As you recently commented in the straw poll regarding the ongoing usage and trial of Pending changes, this is to notify you that there is an interim straw poll with regard to keeping the tool switched on or switching it off while improvements are worked on and due for release on November 9, 2010. This new poll is only in regard to this issue and sets no precedent for any future usage. Your input on this issue is greatly appreciated. Off2riorob (talk) 23:50, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

You stated in reverting an edit, "Spam - we deal in FACT, not rumour and innuendo. (TW)"

We provided the link to the video! It doesn't get any more factual than that! Nikki Nova did a boy-girl hard core video. Unless this is Nikki or her bff, there is no reason to deny this FACTUAL and WELL REFERENCED EDIT TO TAKE PLACE. —Preceding unsigned comment added by BigFan1 (talk • contribs) 15:59, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

The information you are adding states "unreleased hardcore b/g video". (emphasis mine) That means it's not available for public viewing. We have only YOUR word that it is a hardcore video, and that's not good enough. As it stands it is still SPAM. And I have no link to Nikki Nova whatsoever. Tabercil (talk) 22:59, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

The update provides a reference with a link to it! Please open your eyes. Do thine own eyes deceive? You errantly refer to her as an "R" rated actress and model when she is a Porn Star. Is WWF wrestling real in your world? :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by BigFan1 (talk • contribs) 06:01, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

The existence of the hardcore clip where you found a "trailer" for, is no more than a rumor.[9][10] It may be true or maybe not but Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Furthermore you may consider to sign your comments yourself by appending this ~~~~ to your comments. Testales (talk) 10:38, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Hello there, thank you so much for blocking the same IP user from vandalizing edits. but there is a problem again. The IP user 99.7.171.33 is unblocked and continue vandalizing and disrupt edits for the incorrect year of birth on Natasha Yi article. So write a warning message to IP user 99.7.171.33 do not vandalize edits, just like we did from the prevois old message. Now I am writing to you a second new message to assist you. I know I am not an administrator. So could you write to the IP user 99.7.171.33 a warning not to disrupt edits. If the IP does not respond to you and continue doing vandalism. I will reply you back if the IP does continue edits. So thank you and reply me back as soon as possible. Steam5 (talk) 22:13, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Reverted and blocked. Y'know, you can do the revert yourself... Tabercil (talk) 23:14, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Care to weigh in: User talk:CarrieBee. Dismas|^(talk) 23:01, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

A new user has recreated my article about Breanne_Benson apparently from a backup site and fully ignoring the deletion information template that directly lead to the restored version on my userspace (which is still under construction). Although I have not added yet the latest information about the actress that I have collected so far, I can tell that the reasons because the article was originally deleted (lack of notabilitly by current standards) are still valid. I am unsure what to do. Is a CSD here applicable? Can you please take care of that? Testales (talk) 11:44, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Easy enough to do - there's a category of speedy deletion - Wikipedia:CSD#G4 which I used that to wipe the article back off. Tabercil (talk) 11:54, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the super-quick response and help. I was confused whether G4 is correct because of "This excludes pages that are (...) and content moved to user space for explicit improvement" but I guess this just excludes content which is already on userspace and not any new copies in article space . Testales (talk) 12:36, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Apparently this user is unable to read, he just recreated the page again. Testales (talk) 18:41, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

It'd already been marked for CSD by Morbidthoughts, so that made it easy to remove. Tabercil (talk) 22:51, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm trying to change the image on Stana Katic's Wikipedia entry to a more flattering, up-to-date image. Please tell me why you are removing it. Thanks.

Wizemuler (talk) 05:05, 21 October 2010 (UTC)wizemuler

You're welcome to try and change the image - just remember that any new picture must be free use. What you had uploaded was in all likelihood not. Tabercil (talk) 12:01, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Could you check out the edits by User:Truthinjesus? The edits seem rather dodgy. I'm asking you since the edits span both here and Commons. The image of Kimo Leopoldo that they've uploaded to Commons credits both themselves and Taylor Wane. Thanks, Dismas|^(talk) 00:31, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Yup, very suspicious. One of the images uploaded of Taylor's already been tagged for deletion, and that'll almost certainly go. All the other uploads by the user prior to this have also been deleted as copyvios, so I expect they'll be cleaned out shortly. Tabercil (talk) 04:42, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi Tabercil. This is just to confirm, that the bus incident does not comply with Wikipedia policy about including items of trivial local news on pages that are supposed to be a basic description of a school. (See policy note at WP:NOTNEWS. Please continue your valued vigilance and help Wikipedia to comply with policy and keep an eye on the article to avoid any disruptive editing. Thanks--Kudpung (talk) 06:56, 25 October 2010 (UTC) :)

No problems for me - though you might want to make sure the removal sticks. (Hint: it's been readded already). Tabercil (talk) 12:43, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

I have it on my watch list. I don't want to get involved in an edit war - it's not my style, so I'll give it a few days and I'll revert it again. If it gets put back again after that, I would hope for some support from editors who are familiar with and understand our policies, and than maybe slap a couple of official warning templates on the editor's talk page - I'm equally concerned about etiquette because the editor has left abuse on my talk page. Thanks for your vigilance. --Kudpung (talk) 00:24, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Well I'm an admin, so I am more familiar with policies (at least I bloody well hope so <G>). I've pulled it on the basis that it should properly be on the article about the bus company, not the school. As for what the editor left on your page, I'd certainly call it rude but I'm not sure I'd term it as abusive. Tabercil (talk) 00:43, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm afraid they're at it again.

I see that someone has reverted it yet again (Talk:Nicole Polizzi) then copied and pasted The View dialogue I wrote out but added at the end "Snooki: I'm more of a Chilean Snooki: I want smush-smush!" the latter line which was not part of her exchange with Joy Behar.

I also see in the article Jersey Shore (TV series) that under the Cast section for Nicole Polizzi someone has written she is "Italian Arabic" which would be vandalism.

I have never reverted anything before and I will try to put everything back as it was but since I'm a first timer at that I would appreciate it if you could check to see if I've done it correctly. Thanks and Best Regards, Ava Slinkybinky (talk) 05:47, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Your navbox (or whatever it's called) stops with archive 14, but there appear to be more. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 17:08, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Curious... I had assumed the archive bot (MiszaBot III) would both create the archive page as well as update the navbox with the new entry. Maybe it missed the creation step. In any case I've manually added it to the box. Tabercil (talk) 17:13, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

I assume you are the manager of this page, which means you certainly have the power to determine appropriate links. But I really didn't think adding a link that can guide interested people to Thora Birch content in their local libraries is spam. It isn't like there are Google ads on that page. But as I said, you're the arbiter. So be it. I have to admire the control that keeps spurious links from polluting the resource. Matkatamiba (talk) 05:28, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Sorry for butting in but the link doesn't work for me. So, spam or not, I don't see the point in keeping it if it doesn't work. Dismas|^(talk) 05:31, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

My problem wasn't whether the link worked or not, but rather whether it met the test of WP:EL, and in my opinion it didn't meet that standard for Thora's article. Tabercil (talk) 12:48, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Is there any proper discussion where the inclusion of this website has been discussed? Because right now I see over 500 edits by a WP:SPA account adding this site, and I don't like it one bit. Nymf _hideliho! 22:10, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Well it's on a lot of articles... the template transclusion count currently stands at 3613. Scrolling through the list shows the bulk of them appear to be authors - e.g. Gerald Massey, W. P. Kinsella, Truman Capote. Then you get the ones that are Matkatamiba's contributions such as Kelly Clarkson, Erika Christensen and Mackenzie Astin, where they're actors and recording artists. Then you get the flat out strange - hello, Southern Railway (Great Britain) and Sexual Compulsives Anonymous!

Now, digging through I came across a mention in Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Biography/Archive 18#Proposal:_Worldcat_link about it which then led me to Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Archive 2#Worldcat_link which was the first publicization of it. A search of the Admins' board here comes up a mention of it at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Community_sanction/Archive2#Adding_100.2B_external_links where one editor placed Worldcar links on 100 articles and got a tentative debate about it. Nothing seems to have been resolved there though either way... it may be worth bringing this up at one of the formal discussion sites (e.g., Village Pump, Admin board) to try and get this resolved one way or the other. Tabercil (talk) 23:25, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Although it may appear that my account is single-purpose, it isn't. I've added to the Stanislaus River page and will be working up a page on the non-profit group Friends of the River. It's just that I when I get going on a particular project, I tend to go after it. However, given the concerns raised I will suspend the linking activity (which I still think adds useful value to those pages) until any concerns can be resolved. Matkatamiba (talk) 23:42, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Rachel Roxxx. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. --Hixteilchen (talk) 22:52, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

well if I know its true. I f I am doing such a bad job then could you find reliable sources to prove it because it did say before on this page that she was married to chris soldevilla on june 13th 2004 and that they have a son named C.J. born 4th september, 2005. And that they live on bainbridge island washington. So could you repost that with a reliable source please. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mua27 (talk • contribs) 15:33, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Google is your friend. Spend a few minutes going through Google News and you find an article in People magazine that pretty closely states what you're trying to add. Tabercil (talk) 16:10, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

look it says on Gary bakewell's wikipedia page that he and Elizabeth were in a relationship. Could you please do this because it was fine before obviously not for you so make it to your liking please. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mua27 (talk • contribs) 09:17, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Nope. There was no source on the Gary Bakewell page that backed it up, and Wikipedia cannot be used as a source for information. From here: "Wikis, including Wikipedia and other wikis sponsored by the Wikimedia Foundation, are not regarded as reliable sources." And yes, I did do some searching for sources elsewhere on the net for sources that Elizabeth and Gary were in a relation ship and could not locate any that I considered a reliable source. And per the biography of living people policy: "Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion." So that's that. And a warning: attempting to readd the Elizabeth/Gary relationship without providing a reliable source will be considered vandalism. Tabercil (talk) 15:13, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

me again. It is a well known fact that Elizabeth Mitchell was romantically linked to Gary Balewell. It was also rumored that they were at one point married and have since divorced. Could you plese find a reliable source to reference this fact. It has also been stated by Elizabeth herself, that her son is named Christopher Joseph, (C.J), after her husband and her father, would you please find a reliable sorce for this also. Finally, she has said on mayn occasions that she, her husband and her son live on Bainbrigde Island, Washington, when she is not shooting V or any other projects. Please find a reliable source for that also. Thank you —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mua27 (talk • contribs) 16:36, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

All of that may be true. Or it may not be. The burden is on *you* to find sources for content you believe should be added. Don't expect others to do it for you. Jack Merridew 16:41, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Exactly. I looked and could not find any reliable source for Gary, and I was looking for that. As for CJ's name source, and where they live... I didn't look for it. As Jack says, the onus is on you to come up with the source - from Wikipedia's verifiability policy: "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material." Tabercil (talk) 20:14, 22 November 2010 (UTC)