User talk:Tabercil/archive9
That certain linkHi, Tabercil. As (as far as I can see) our (WP:P*) only currently-active admin, maybe you can help. Over at Talk:List of big-bust models and performers the controversial link (you know which one) has come up for discussion again. Unfortunately, as always, the link itself is not being discussed, rather accusations are being tossed around. The current "discussion" is circular and getting us nowhere. Is there any civil way to put this thing to a vote, or settle the issue for once and for all? Dekkappai (talk) 00:18, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
Hi. I just want to know why you are deleting the images I've uploaded of Dani Evans. Is it because its a copyvio? Glitter1959 (talk) 21:00, 10 February 2008 (UTC)Glitter1959
Oh ok. I was wondering about that. Thanks. Glitter1959 (talk) 21:40, 11 February 2008 (UTC)Glitter1959
Glitter1959 (talk) 00:44, 13 February 2008 (UTC)Glitter1959 Sean MorleyDo not put the height and weight templates back in wrestlers articles. If you had check the template, you would see we don't use them in wrestlers articles. TJ Spyke 06:29, 20 February 2008 (UTC) Hey whats up? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Krissygirl (talk • contribs) 14:16, 20 February 2008 (UTC) Jennifer WalcottSubscript text I was wondering what it is that I said that was either a- untrue or b- inappropriate please. But, no worries, sandbox for now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Erutter11 (talk • contribs) 23:49, 20 February 2008 (UTC) You Started, This What you do Paulo Leonel - —Preceding unsigned comment added by Paulo Leonel (talk • contribs) 11:12, February 22, 2008
Michelle TrachtenbergAs I pointed out to Yamla, WP:V says that if your removal of unverified claims is contested you should ask for verification, for example via a suitable template, and give other editors time to fix the problem. Only potentially controversial info should be removed without pardon. You're quite right, though, that the categories should follow from the main text. But this could also be requested in a similar manner. The info has now been added to the text and given a citation. -Duribald (talk) 19:58, 23 February 2008 (UTC) there is no such thing as sikh backgroundThere is no such thing as "sikh background" as Sikhground I have been a Sikh 40 years. You can check with the golden temple there is no such thing as "sikh background" as Sikhground.--Sikh historian (talk) 20:09, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
Good books to get you going into understanding SikhismWe live in a time when everyone thinks everything is on the internet. Yes you have a lot of quantity but not quality (the information is shallow 10% and does not cover the subject in dept 90% falling short). The only way to get more confidence in a subject is by reading books -they are usually far more reliable (8-10 times) than websites. It take aleast year to write book, 6 months for peer review research paper, whereas a web article 15 minutes by ANYONE!!! best & most reliable sources of information:
These are Good books to get you going into understanding Sikhism (priority order):
Current Sikh websites don't trust 100% only trust with 40% confidence. Only exception being www.sikhs.org This is the MOST reliable Sikh site = trust 70% confidence. Therefore really with Sikhism you have read books to understand -because most Sikh websites are RUBBISH.
--Sikh historian (talk) 01:34, 1 March 2008 (UTC) Amber Lynn imageI have removed the image of Amber Lynn you uploaded as it's licensed as fair-use, and clause 12 of the unacceptable uses in WP:FU clearly states: "Pictures of people still alive, groups still active, and buildings still standing; provided that taking a new free picture as a replacement (which is almost always considered possible) would serve the same encyclopedic purpose as the non-free image." Tabercil (talk) 05:07, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
Kikki Daire Another editor has added the Mass-proddingUser:SilkTork is prodding articles faster than I can even list them at Wikipedia:WikiProject Pornography/Deletion. Care to say something to him? Dekkappai (talk) 01:01, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
Angela DeviAnother editor has added the Miko LeeAnother editor has added the Letha WeaponsAnother editor has added the Katja KassinKatja has been complaining about the German version of wikipedia publishing her name and her parents having to deal with harassment from zealous people. I can't make head or tails about the German site, but they cite to the German version of IMDB for verification. I don't know if you have any pull or control over at the deutsch wikipedia or not but I don't know what to tell her if the problem can be addressed or if she has someone to contact. Vinh1313 (talk) 07:37, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
Ellie Murdoch / Lynchburg CollegeI noticed that you've been busy again. This time removing Murdoch's listing at Lynchburg College. The argument you've used to justify this action is that IMBD is not reliable. If this is the case, then why not erase Diedre Quinn's listing as well? It too is only supported my IMBD.com. Also, why not erase Jerry Falwell's listing as an alum? There is no proof. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zcxvcbvnbm (talk • contribs) 02:37, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
So why are YOU only concentrating on porn stars? Why not police the rest of "offenders?" Do you just have a special interest in sex stars? I'm curious. Please explain.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.248.18.129 (talk) 02:00, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for your honesty in explaining your uneven, heavy-handed approach. You freely admit that your interest is not in application of a policy but in your personal ideals and interests. I do not believe this is in the best interest of Wikipedia. I will forward this matter to this appropriate persons for review and consideration of your continued role as an "editor." Best wishes---you would have made a perfect dictator. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.248.18.129 (talk) 15:54, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Then prove your committment to these criteria: go clean up the rest of Lynchburg College like you did with Ellie Murdoch. If not, then you have proven my point.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.248.18.90 (talk) 13:37, 28 March 2008 (UTC) Humm...obviously scary enough to get you to do it. Point made..... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.248.18.90 (talk) 02:02, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
Sorry you feel that way, but it was not an "attack," only an observation based on an assessment of your previous methodology and intransigence. There is a difference. You had steadfastly refused to uniformly enforce the very rules and criteria you had professed to follow. I'm sure any reasonble person would have come to the same conclusion that I did based upon the evidence. The very fact that you made the corrections AFTER I brought up the possibility of seeking outside mediation simply proves that you were not inclined to act justly without outside assistance---hence the observation. If you find this to be an "attack," then I would suggest that you may wish to cease your administrative duties for something where no one will question your motives. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.248.18.90 (talk) 01:26, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
There was an edit war between I think two banned users who then resorted to using sockpuppets. It got so messy the page was locked but the talk page is still active. One of the contentious points I've been trying to remove from the discussion page is Silvia's "real name", but of course he keeps putting it back in citing to IMDB of course. I'm a bit tired of dealing with him but have no idea how to do the sock puppet check stuff or whatever appropriate action to do. Vinh1313 (talk) 18:10, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
Infobox conversionAs you ask, I made the infobox conversion to the generic Adult one on Ron Jeremy article. If you would like me to do something else, just say it. Sdrtirs (talk) 19:53, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
user: McTools on Silvia Lancome is a sockpuppetHello. Just to let you know user: McTools has actually been confirmed as a sockpuppet of the banned user: NisarKand (an extreme Afghan-nationalist and Taliban supporter). A checkuser has been done on him confirming him as his sock but he just hasn't been tagged and blocked yet. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/NisarKand Thanks. Thanks For Protecting the Rudolph Valentino articleI have been trying to mention in the talk page my points, and the user Thegingerone, refuses to accept them. Everytime I try to bring up a point, the user always uses POV accusations to try to strike it down. It is only this users opinion that my source, Valentino:The First Superstar, is unreliable. The book has a strong bibliography that lists even Natacha Rambova's own autobiography as one of Botham's sources. Whenever we have talked with one another, the user has presented insult after insult to me. I'll admit I have responded to the user insults with some insults of my own, but I have tried to keep them less harsh. I also have followed advice from other administrators not to speak to this user through their talk page anymore, and will now do it through the Valentino talk page only. I want the article to be encyclopedic, and I want to start by making sure it meets the standards of Wikipedia's NPOV policy.Kevin j (talk) 23:01, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
Natalie JamiesonAnother editor has added the Your block of 83.131.64.62Hi, you recently blocked 83.131.64.62, despite the fact that the user had not vandalized and appeared to have stopped vandalizing anyway. Am I missing something? Malinaccier (talk) 19:16, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm involved in an edit war in the Luscious Lopez article. I'm not sure why the guy is so stubborn in not adhering to a neutral point of view. He's been making edits under both Xhy20 and 82.43.71.244. I've warned him twice already for the citation splicing (adding unverified conjecture in front of a legitimate citation) and NPOV respectively. Vinh1313 (talk) 17:40, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
Speedy deletion of Image:Rob Black Lizzie Borden 211.JPG A tag has been placed on Image:Rob Black Lizzie Borden 211.JPG requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section I8 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is available as a bit-for-bit identical copy on the Wikimedia Commons under the same name, or all references to the image on Wikipedia have been updated to point to the title used at Commons. If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding ConcernsHi, Tabercil. Is it just me, or have we got a user on a WP:POINT rampage? Tagging Featured Articles, and well-sourced B-grade articles for "Attention from experts" because of Fair Use images? Suddenly mass-tagging for Speedy deletion Fair Use images of living people is one thing, but then "Warning" me that I'd be blocked for uploading such images, after I-- along with most of Wikipedia-- gave up on photos of living people nearly a year ago? All the more questionable in light of this reply. Just wondering... Dekkappai (talk) 19:54, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
Vandal or spectacularly incompetent editorHi Tabercil. I hate police-work, but since you're the admin on the block, maybe you'll look into this :-) I've come across an editor who is making highly suspicious edits. HERE, for example, he renamed a filmography with eccentric capitalizations and mis-spellings, and then proceeded to created new, sub-stubs on these films, which already had articles. Here for example. I started making these into redirects to the correct film articles until I realized I was wasting my time. This guy is either so incompetent he shouldn't be editing here, or, more likely, he's just vandalizing. Regards. Dekkappai (talk) 23:25, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
reply to messagehi tabercil I received a message from you that you had reverted an edit I had made to the 'Sydney Moon' page. Unfortunately, I had made no such edit, indeed I was not aware that that page existed. I think you have made an error in fact. Cheers Nudge PS, sorry for replying publicly, but I could not work out how to do so privately. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nudge67 (talk • contribs) 11:59, 24 April 2008 (UTC) citesYou have edited over protection and used citations that were challenged, without consensus on the talk page. Please consider reverting and discussing. Regards, NonvocalScream (talk) 00:19, 26 April 2008 (UTC) I've undone your edit to this page. It is fully protected due to a dispute, and you readded the information that was disputed without consensus to do so. Use the talk page, and until consensus is reached, I'd ask you not to do that. Thanks, - Rjd0060 (talk) 00:27, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
Re: Spencer ScottI'm at work right now but I'll check when I get home in the morning. Keep this in mind whenever you want anything else out of some issue. I have every month back to about mid year 1997. Things get spotty from there back though... Dismas|(talk) 23:56, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
GoodGood reformat of the obituary reference at Albert Hofmann. I just did it quickly; you did it correctly. - Denimadept (talk) 22:52, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
digital maoism at work again!You are yet another Digital Maoist. http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/lanier06/lanier06_index.html Robert J Nagle (talk) 18:33, 3 May 2008 (UTC) You removed a link I added about the death of a porn star written by myself. pointing to the Conflict of Interest page. Here's why I don't need to deal with wikipedia. I have 3000+ articles/posts on the Net. I have manually added 3 links to my own articles on Wikipedia and probably made 100-50 minor edits. You deleted one of them. I dare you to delete the other two. In fact, they conflict with your conflict of interest policy as well, so you need to delete them. Here are the three links to my own articles I have added. 1. the one on Hailey Page. 2. an essay about Nobel-prize winning author Gao Xingjian. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gao_Xingjian 3. an informational page about tourism for a town I visited in Albania. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vlor%C3%AB So clearly I am not throwing in links willy-nilly. Let me explain the reason why I have added the three links. 1. the other linked articles on the Hailey Page section were brief newspaper accounts, with partial facts, and not giving the complete story. Also, many of the links included were not safe for work. My article/essay was a well-written obituary for her life and the significance of the tragedy. It was also on a safe-for-work domain. (More critically, it linked to a NSFW forum thread which had the most recent info on the facts of the case). 2. This Gao Xingjian was for a while the only web-accessible essay on the author in English. 3. The informational tourism page was the only available information on the city available in English. I have created four or five other wikipedia pages (mainly relating to obscure regional writers). But after these sorts of shenanigans, I have to wonder what the point is. For these reason I am making an ultimatuum. If this Haley Paige link I added is not reinstated, I shall have no choice but to permanently sever my relationship with Wikipedia. That means I will never make an edit again. (And in fact my user page will point to this User Talk page as the basis for my reason for leaving Wikipedia). Update: I have decided to leave Wikipedia for good. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Robert_J_Nagle. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Robert J Nagle (talk • contribs) 14:33, May 3, 2008
Yes, you're right, I misspoke, it was the spam page, not the Conflict of Interest. Robert J Nagle (talk) 22:55, 3 May 2008 (UTC) My aim is not to start a flame war. But the digital maoism essay by Jaron Lanier which I cited is relevant to your action. Lanier's essay argues that online collectivism devalues individual expression in favor of a (coercively rigid) emphasis on rules which ends up scraping out all useful information for readers. The fact remains that you did not make a qualitative judgment regarding the essay I wrote and you did not make a determination about whether it was relevant to understanding the significance of her death. Instead you merely noted the obvious fact that the link I added was something I wrote and declared it spam. Really, do you think I stood to benefit by including a link to an insightful blogpost? Did you notice that the other articles linked to in the Haley Paige page were shallow and limited to crime reports? (True, there was an interview with her, and that is good). Did you notice that out of all the links provided on the Haley Paige wikipedia page that my link was the only one completely ad-free? Did you notice that three separate links were to Luke Ford's website (I think he's a good reporter of the adult industry, but not that good! And his sites are also ad-supported). By removing the one ad-free link and keeping links to several ad-supported commercial sites, you are only calling attention to the biases that exist within Wikipedia against independent commentators. Although I appreciate the effort of certain individuals within wikipedia to raise the quality of the entries about adult actors, I think your action ends up hurting the subject you are trying to cover. This actress deserves more respect that that. H.P. is more than a crime blotter loaded with adult advertisements. I will not comment any further here (although if you want, you can continue it on my blog http://www.imaginaryplanet.net/weblogs/idiotprogrammer/?p=83399815 ). In my brief involvement with Wikipedia, I have noticed several instances of how rules are used to demean individual contributions in an effort to dumb a subject down. I participate in many online projects, and actions like yours have made me realize how incompatible wikipedia's culture is to the one I am used to. Perhaps it was inevitable that I would have to leave wikipedia; your action just underscore that the defects of Wikipedia are systemic rather than limited to a few bad apples. Next month's playmate sourceQuite often, this web site is used as a source of info for who the next Playboy Playmate will be. Since anons use this site as a source when they update the next month's info, I wanted to know where the site was getting its info. So, I went to the U of Chicago web site and asked who's site it was (student, faculty, etc.) and if they could help me find out the ultimate source. I got the following reply:
Just thought you might want to know, in case you ever wonder or if someone else wants to know how reliable the source is. Dismas|(talk) 21:43, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
|
