Hello Valrith! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. If you decide that you need help, ask me on my talk page, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. Below are some recommended guidelines to facilitate your involvement. And remember, no question is "stupid"; if you have anything, absolutely anything that you'd like to know, feel free to drop on by and leave me a message!:D Happy Editing!
Please place speedy delete, prod, and other delete tags on the TOP of articles, especially redirects so that they are visible. Thanks! --Signed and Sealed, JJJJust (TC) 18:58, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, thanks for the note. As I'm sure you are aware, the thing with the CSD criteria for notability is that it is about asserting notability rather than the person actually being notable. The criteria also says that "only those articles where there is no remotely plausible assertion of notability should be considered". In this case, I felt that the statement about him creating concept and production cars for Nissan, and about developing the relationship between Nissan and Airstream meant that there is at least a "remotely plausible assertion of notability". As such, if we follow the criteria, I'd say that it should really be PRODed or sent to AfD. Hope that clarifies my thinking, and I'd be keen to hear any more thoughts you have on this. Cheers TigerShark 22:01, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I'd never seen the 'no remotely plausible' clause before. That's significantly more restrictive than I thought... Valrith 22:17, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hello... are you monitoring the discussion? Might you consider withdrawing your nom so we can speedy keep the article? PT(s-s-s-s) 22:05, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I noticed that you tagged the page Cadboro Bay for speedy deletion with the reason "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information". However, "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information" is not currently one of our criteria for speedy deletion, so I have removed the speedy deletion tag. You can use Wikipedia:Articles for deletion if you still want the article to be deleted. Thanks! Stifle (talk) 23:50, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Would you please revisit C. Kumar N. Patel, and see whether the NPOV tag you placed there is still appropriate? Please either delete the tag, or leave a note on the talk page so other editors know what your concern is. Thanks.--Srleffler 06:04, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You tagged the article Ellen Perry Berkeley for speedy deletion. I just wanted to let you know that I was able to compile a list of her books at the Library of Congress using the catalog at http://catalog.loc.gov , and find some other information on Google, so that I could expand the article and assert notability. Could you please takle a look at the article and make any further changes that seem appropriate? In general, if someone is identified as a writer but the article seems to be speediable, a quick check at the Library of Congress or at Amazon for the person's books may allow you to either expand the article or (if nothing notable is found) to continue with the speedy-delete process. TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 22:42, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You tagged the Gideon Dreyfuss article for speedy deletion. I was able to find some additional information. I think that, if an article states that its subject is a professor, then that statement is an assetion of notability, and the article is not eligible for speedy deletion. It may still be eligible for prod or afd, but often a bit of research will find enough evidence that the person is notable. TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 07:22, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Isaw that you marked Gillian Elisa for prod. Please do not mark an article for prod without doing a Google search first. I was able to expand the article with the assistance of a quick Google search. TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 18:57, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Clearly I know nothing about Russian poetry. However, I still don't see any evidence of the article satisfying WP:BIO... Valrith 20:15, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I noticed that you marked Killingsworth's article as CSD A7. Thanks for your input, but I don't think that this is appropriate; the article states that he was an officer in the Civil War and made a significant contribution to the battle of Antietam and others. This is certainly an assertion of notability. If you think he is not notable enough to qualify, then please nominate the article for AfD and have the discussion. I'm not convinced that this should be deleted at all, but no way is this a speedy. --- Deville (Talk) 21:50, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please be careful when creating categories to ensure that you are not creating a duplicate (such as your Category:People from New Zealand). Wikipedia has tens of thousands of categories and unless the one you want is very specialised it will almost certainly exist already. Hawkestone 09:41, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. I removed the proposed deletion tag for this article; she seems to more than pass WP:BIO and the Wikipedia criteria for actresses, having appeared in multiple notable stage and television productions in Singapore, as well as being nominated for major television awards in the company. I have also added a link to her IMDB entry. Crystallina 14:38, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, which one of these criteria does she meet?
Widely recognized entertainment personalities and opinion makers (ie - Hollywood Walk of Fame)
Notable actors and television personalities who have appeared in well-known films or television productions. Notability can be determined by:
Multiple features in popular culture publications such as Vogue, GQ, Elle, FHM or national newspapers
A large fan base, fan listing or "cult" following
An independent biography
Name recognition
Commercial endorsements
The person has been the primary subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the person. (Multiple similar stories describing a single day's news event only count as one coverage.)
I don't see that any of these applies... Valrith 15:10, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
2, clearly. She has appeared in notable television shows in Singapore - see the wikilinks in the article - and has been nominated for awards for said television shows - see Star Awards. This, I believe, qualifies as name recognition and large fan base. Crystallina 15:25, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not delete aquanodd labs article..as it is an article which abides by the rules of wik. It is also an article which is greately need to spread the word of these great artists involved in this project..thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.70.141.22 (talk • contribs) 03:03, 10 September 2006
greatly needed. That's a good one. Valrith 01:09, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi -- just wanted to let you know I made substantial adds to the Suzi Digby article and have removed your prod. Take a look and if you think it still needs more work let me know. --Bookgrrl 02:13, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You're right, it's looking better. The article still needs sourcing. I'm still not sure she meets the notability requirements, but I'll take a wait-and-see approach... Valrith 19:57, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Valrith. OK you are correct again. I will leave them. However this is unfair because these comments and votes were made with only half of the information available. And they failed to say what rules of WP:CORP the article was breaking. There haven't been any comments since I have answered your questions and put other links.
My main concern with those comments is they had nothing to do with the rules for deletion that Wikipedia has set forth here WP:CORP. Read the comments again. Please tell me how they apply.
You flagged the article for deletion under WP:CORP. I produced the proof that it does not, I feel that we qualify under the first criteria you disagree.....fine. How do we get a real consensus on this issue
Also, it bothers me because I feel like our company is being unfairly targetted. Can you enlighten me as to why pages like this PC_Tools can exist and yet our company is considered not to be important? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Enigmasoftwaregroup (talk • contribs) 21:18, 13 September 2006
My theory about PC_Tools is that it exists because noone has gotten around to nominating it for deletion. If you feel the article doesn't meet the notability requirements, you can nominate it to be deleted. If you marshal your arguments well and enough people agree, the article goes away.
As to getting a consensus on your article, I think we're getting there. Valrith 01:08, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've removed your speedy deletion notice from the Janice Neuberger article, since the article clearly does assert notability. I'd suggest you might want to use AfD instead. Best, Gwernol 14:28, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hey there. You recently tagged the above article as needing citations. I had fleshed it out to save it from Afd -- I've now gone back and sourced it (I believe) properly. Can you go take a look and either give me some feedback on the way I sourced it or, if you're comfortable with the job I've done, remove the tag? I'd remove it myself, but I'd prefer a second opinion. Cheers Dina 19:09, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Looks great to me. I'd still like to see a reference for the 'personal life and education' section, but I think the unsourced tag is no longer warranted generally, so I've removed it. I also modified the referenced articles so that each only shows up once in the 'references' section. Valrith 01:40, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Awesome, thanks. I'll check your changes to see how it's done. I should be able to reference the personal life and education section better -- I want to find an article about when she was first elected, it should contain all that info, but most are about the recent controversy. Thanks Dina 02:37, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
i believe i have met every criteria for this article. yes, it is not stock full of info, but the company is young. i am not advertising, i think this is as unbias as it gets. there are other airline pages that are just as short. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Varig_Logistica so, if there are any other issues, comment on my page Urban909
you still have YET TO GIVE AN EXPLANATION FOR DELETION. give tips, hints or whatever else is needed to keep this article open. i have NEVER had this much problem creating a page. WRITE BACK!
Urban909
What would be your grounds for the deletion of this article? I have cleaned it up exstensively since it was forst nominated for deletion, and intend to do more. AlenWatters 00:31, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for being a jerk. I'm clearly new to wikipedia. Educate me. Don't you think that instead of deleting the article, it just needs to be rewritten in a more passive way? ZIM really is legit, it's just that it's not big on the internet and the article posted seems like an advertisement. I've tried to clean up the deletion debate page a little bit, and I think it will bring the debate back to order and fairness. Check out what I did. From: ZX2C4.
I read it, and I didn't want it on my talk page so I removed it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zx2c4 (talk • contribs) 23:18, 5 October 2006
Gee, wonder why... Valrith 20:05, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I join the chourus of voices pleading with Valrith to stop his storm of destruction[edit]
I think for the first step for determing if a page should exist is getting the name right. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alpharigel (talk • contribs) 17:38, 6 October 2006
If you're going to whine, you ought to at least give an indication of what you're whining about. Valrith 20:04, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This user MidCenturyMod has the ip number of 65.xxx.xxxx. This user has reverted the article for the Dayton Mall once again. But this time, I am not going through the trouble of reverting it or cleaning up editing errors. I'm only leaving the decision in your hands if you think that this article should be edited or reverted. You will see the link located below here. Thanks. LILVOKA 14:33, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm fairly ambivalent. I see good points in both versions of the article, but with no sources cited, I don't see a way to choose between them... Valrith 19:59, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Your tags of The Anchro Blue Clothing Comapny[edit]
As the article does cite sources and it is notable company and the required changes were made, the tags are removed. If this tag removal war lingers on, you can nominate the article for afd. Thank you. --Marriedtofilm 20:23, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Can you please explain what's inappropriate with my posting of youtube links in Wikipedia? I don't see a reason why you have to remove those links considering there are lots of articles with links to youtube music videos, shows etc. Pszx 20:44, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
See the style guideline for external links, with attention to the sections on links normally to be avoided and rich media. Valrith 21:15, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, please review the criteria for speedy deletion at WP:SPEEDY before tagging articles. You have tagged some for speedy deletion because of being non-notable - that is not a reason. If the article asserts notability, it cannot be speedied. You have to use WP:PROD or other. Thanks! --Aguerriero (talk) 22:21, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Some people seem to have an awfully thin definition of 'asserting notability'. Valrith 00:05, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Valrith, I rejigged your nom to make the redirect issue a little clearer, hope that's cool. Deiziotalk 19:03, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, that's cool. Valrith 20:12, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
American is a nationality, but not an ethnicity.[edit]
I reverted your edits to Lightspeed Media Corporation.
The Ethnicity slot in the Female adult bio templates is not for nationality, but rather for ethnic group or at least race.
Caucasian is a race, American is a nationality (proudly including many races). AnonEMouse(squeak) 20:52, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've always regarded 'American' as both an ethnicity and a nationality, especially considering the muddled nature of 'Caucasian'. But whatever... Valrith 22:39, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
An editor has disputed the prod of Disadvantaged on the talk page. I've de-proded it on their behalf (and removed my prod2) QuiteUnusual 15:03, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I saw that. I'm leaving it alone for now, but if it stays in its current state for long, it's going to AfD... Valrith 20:37, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Your placement of a speedy deletion tag was without merit on a band that had a two week #1 hit. Your stupulation that it did "not assert the importance or significance of the subject" is a direct contradiction the article line "was a British band which had a #1 hit." I have removed the tag.
You should be reminded that criteria for WP:CSD states that "only those articles where there is no remotely plausible assertion of notability should be considered". Please don't tag articles for Speedy Deletion that don't fit the crieteria for it. Thank you. --Marriedtofilm 23:19, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I see that you have completely changed the contents of my page at Fiona Mont again. I have tried to communicate with you to discuss what your problems are. Fiona was not expelled from school, you have just copied an article from the Daily Mail and used it to replace a very well balanced biography of her life. You have also removed totally checkable links which I put there to confirm all the facts. Communication would be very helpful and in some detail, it would be polite seeing as you have deleted all of my work. Comments from editors are always welcome but a total re-ed followed by silence? Graham Hesketh
First, thanks for the note. Here are my thoughts on the subject.
While the text you would like to use for this article may be, as you say, a 'balanced biography of her life', most of it - the biographical information in particular - is unsupported by reliable secondary sources. By Wikipedia policy concerning biographies of living persons (see WP:LIVING), material that is not verifiable via such secondary sources should not be added to articles and should be 'removed on sight'.
As to the particulars of the article, I have seen published sources that state that Ms. Mont was expelled from school, but I have not seen any that contradict that claim.
About the 'checkable links', I did read all of them, and I did move some around, but I don't believe I removed any of references to reliable secondary sources. Valrith 22:43, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Most of the changes seems to be from the first hand accounts of Graham Hesketh - Wikipedia is not interested in truth but verifiability. So yes I agree with your stand in this matter. --Charlesknight 22:40, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No-one is going to make more of a stand over my life than me. I am Fiona Mont. Graham's article may sound unbalanced to you but it is all true. I was not expelled from school. School records are not available for public consumption but if it came to a law suit I would provide documentary evidence. It was a lie published about a fugitive, not a person who is in any position to defend themselves. My arresting officer was arrested for perverting the course of justice, once again police files are not public record, however there was a newspaper report which is available on hard copy only and a copy of this is available on my website. As the living subject of this article I am going to make it my business to make sure that a balanced article is published. I am making a request that you please stop re-editing the page with defamatory quotes from newspapers. Graham and I were married on the 2nd Oct and we do have two children. As for the comment wikipedia is not interested in the truth........ Fiona-Mont 23:42, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I was not expelled from school. Steve Skerrett was arrested for conspiracy to pervert the course of justice and now runs a private detective agency called Giotto Investigations. As I am the living subject in this matter I am going to have to go to mediator on this. Fiona-Mont 16:16, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Have been reading up on reliable third party sources and am continuing to. Just wanted to say thank you very much for your initial re-edit. It looks very clean and must have taken you ages, much appreciated. Will post suggestions on talk if I find any reliable sources to support my claims etc. Fiona-Mont 18:53, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I noticed that u changed the article to say she was still expecting her 2nd child if you follow the link on the page her husband David confirmed the birth of there 2nd son! you can also find this out by searching for Holly Marie Combs on google news this has a few pages with David confirming the birth. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.159.85.179 (talk • contribs) 23:18, October 29, 2006
See my latest edit for an example of how to properly cite your sources. And please, learn to use the edit summary to explain the changes you've made. Valrith 23:42, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There is no policy justification, other than to say that prods may be removed at will by anyone, and a fortiori a two day extenstion is fine. It's not like I hid my purpose or anything: I asked on lv:wiki, received my answer, and am not objecting to deletion. As a matter of fact, let me go and delete it right now. There, done. What's the big deal? - crzcrztalk 22:55, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't claiming it was a big deal, just wanted to see if there was a policy I hadn't read yet. Valrith 22:59, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Stephanie Rothman easily satisfies WP:BIO as a very notable director of horror and exploitation films. The IMDB reference in the article alone confirms this. If you don't agree, send to AfD. Tag is removed. I'm also removing a second one (see below). --Oakshade 04:41, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Marguerite "Missy" LeHand is an historic figure and longtime confidant and speculative mistress to Franklin D. Roosevelt. The notability tag is being removed. --Oakshade 04:41, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Can you explain why you inserted {{notability}}. Isn't a knighthood evidence of notability? Guettarda 13:42, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, a) I didn't see anything about a knighthood, and b) I don't see knighthood listed as a criterion in WP:BIO. Valrith 20:58, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
" I didn't see anything about a knighthood" - first word of the article, and last line before the references. Should have been hard to miss.
"I don't see knighthood listed as a criterion in WP:BIO" - true, but then one would think that "receiving your country's highest national honour" would be too obvious to mention. In addition, if you are going by WP:BIO, then you should have been aware of the first listed criterion, "The person has been the primary subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the person". Or did you also miss the references? Guettarda 21:15, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please note that a) I have restored the copyright explanation on the Gladys Swarthout article, and b) I have removed the notability tag.
B should be obvious; A is because of the problems we recently had with Daniel Brandt and his Plagiarism Detector Bot. Furthermore, the statement on the talk page did not go into enough detail as to the provenance and the legal issues. DS 05:15, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for de-prodding and running. I thought I'd also be able to improve the article after de-prodding, but something important suddenly started take a lot more time then had been, just late yesterday. It'll probably be over by Nov 8th one way or the other, and I'll be able to improve the article after that, but I can't guarantee the time until then. AnonEMouse(squeak) 15:16, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Just so's you know, a biography of someone who verifiably competed in the Eurovision Song Contest is an assertion of notability. The contest is viewed throughout Europe and various other parts of the world. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 01:40, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I guess I'm notably uninformed about European talent shows. Thanks for the info. Valrith 04:49, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I randomly stumbled across Bad Bitch after having prodded another article on the same day ... anyhow, I worked it over a bit and removed the PROD after a little research turned up more references than I expected. While it still contains a lot of original research, I think it's an average stub. I don't have any strong feelings or attachment to it, so I'd be interested in your feedback/take on whether the article's worth it, etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Strom (talk • contribs) 09:56, November 5, 2006
Still looks like neologism to me, but based on your new references, there may be a chance the article can eventually be saved. Valrith 13:00, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm inclined to remove the original unsourced content at this point, and make it a very small article that at least has a few references... not sure what would be best. Strom 18:39, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for cleaning the article up; it's helpful for me to see what you did to wikify headings, etc. Can you educate me on why the External Links were removed? I assume there's a guiding principle, just want to beef up my understanding.(Nevermind. I see your reference to WP:EL. Thanks again!)Strom 22:36, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I see you tagged the above article as a speedy candidate as a non-notable bio. Please be aware that the criterion in question, A7, states:
Unremarkable people, groups, companies and web content. An article about a real person, group of people, band, club, company, or web content that does not assert the importance or significance of its subject. If the assertion is controversial or there has been a previous AfD, the article should be nominated for AfD instead.
Starring in the soap opera Hollyoaks is an assertion of notability, importance or significance. Articles which contain such claims should not be listed as speedy candidates, but rather the proposed deletion or full deletion methods should be used. Steve blockTalk 23:36, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Having a role in a television show is an assertion of having a job, not having notability. Valrith 21:22, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No, it's an assertion of importance or significance. Otherwise you may as well just say that having won a nobel prize is an assertion of having won an award, not having notability. You may feel the claim is controversial, but that means the article cannot be speedied. Steve blockTalk 21:28, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Apples and oranges. Winning an Oscar and winning a nobel prize would be a better comparison/analogy. Valrith 21:39, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe apples and oranges to you, but that's not the point. The point remains that appearing in a television show upon which we have an article imparts significance. That sch assertions qualify as assertions of significance was established when the criterion was proposed. You may contest that, but the assertion has been made. Where such an assertion is made, please take it to prod or afd, not speedy. Thanks. Steve blockTalk 21:53, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with you that the article needs a lot more work/it is a stub. What separates Carol from "the average college professor" is that she wrote a book which not only achieved popularity outside academia, but that it contained a theory which is in itself notable. There is already a wiki article specifically about her theory--the final girl.
Thanks,
Cindery 16:48, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What will it take to get the copyright noticed removed from the article on Chapin? The UUA had previously given permission to post the content of their articles on WP if referenced (which is what I did and documented). Do you need to correspond with the person who gave permission? --Mikebrand 03:58, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You need to read the middle bullet on the article's current page, which shows:
If you hold the copyright to this text and permit its use under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License:
Explain this on this article's discussion page, then either display a notice to this effect at the site of original
publication or send an e-mail from an address associated with the original publication to permissions at wikimedia
dot org or a postal letter to the Wikimedia Foundation. These messages must explicitly permit use under the GFDL.
Once this is satisfied, an admin can clear up the issue... Valrith 22:00, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for explaining that. Rather than request formal GNU license from the UUA (their wheels turn rather slowly), I rewrote (and greatly condensed) the article.--Mikebrand 01:26, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You recently prodded this article under WP:BIO. I believe an author with 3 published books from a major publishing house and a decent Amazon ranking (also available in Audio and optioned as films) with numerous reviews does qualify for notability. If my interpretation is incorrect, perhaps we could take this to AFD. Thanks MNewnham 21:59, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
please read before reverting any edits: http://pubrants.blogspot.com/2006/05/stories-behind-names-cont.html
above is the author's own literary agent's entry about creating the pseudonym -- it also has replies from the author herself. it takes more than a minute to read the whole thing, but it's worth it. thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.164.87.55 (talk • contribs) 22:30, February 13, 2007
Blogs are not reliable sources and should not be cited. Valrith 01:23, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
blanket statement that doesn't hold up to every situation. esp. if the blogs are the subject's own personal (and official) ones that are linked directly from the subject's own site (or own representation), and/or the blog is well-known in the industry. please see: http://www.nelsonagency.com/ and click on Kristin's Blog and compare the address to the one posted previously. and just to tie it all together, also see the first author featured at: http://www.nelsonagency.com/sales_chick.html —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 172.151.252.225 (talk) 04:16, 17 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]
If you encounter an article about an actor or scriptwriter where you are uncertain about the person's notability, it is often worthwhile to check whether there is a listing for the person at http://www.imdb.com In the case of David (Dave) Mitchell, I was able to find a listing there which allowed me to expand the article a bit. --TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 22:16, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Good evening. Per the discussion about privacy concerns expressed at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons#Privacy of birthdays, date of birth should generally not be added to the biographies of living non-public or semi-public figures. So far, that policy has been interpreted fairly strictly with a pretty high bar being set for the definition of "public figures" who are assumed to have given up their rights to privacy.
By the same token, we should not be adding Category:Date of birth missing to articles unless we have made the case that the person meets the "public figures" threshold. Otherwise, we're just baiting new users into adding content even though the community has already said that we shouldn't include that particular data point. Category:Year of birth missing is okay but the exact date is often not. Thanks for your help. Rossami(talk) 22:44, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting. However, it seems to me that anyone notable enough to have an article in an encyclopedia is a "public figure". I will keep using this category as long as it exists. Valrith 19:47, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, our experience has shown that not to be the case. Many people are notable for a single achievement but do not meet the definition of "public figure". WP:BLP requires us to use extra caution for living persons. Public figures in this sense mean those who are so famous that they can be assumed to have other controls and protections in place (such as paid staff who can watch out for identity theft being executed in their name). That would not generally be the case for an author of a single book or person with a minor league sports career. Please stop. Rossami(talk) 06:10, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Between the appearence in a broadway play, and the listing on IMDb, this didn't seem like an open-and-shut A7 deletion. Thus I removed the tag and cleaned it up a bit instead. You are, of course, welcome to nominate the article for deletion by other means. -- SCZenz 00:58, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, which notability guideline are you concerned the ELETTRAsynchrotron does not meet? Also, what sort of references do you agree would be acceptable? Scientific papers, news reports, science magazines? Thanks,Canley 10:06, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the only guideline that I know of that would apply would be WP:CORP. Valrith 12:41, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Just came across your various attempts to prod articles. May I kindly suggest that you try to discuss the merits of the article on talk pages prior to prodding them? Thank you. -- Joe Beaudoin Jr.Think out loud — WP:PORN BIO? 21:55, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Good evening. Per the discussion about privacy concerns expressed at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons#Privacy of birthdays, date of birth should generally not be added to the biographies of living non-public or semi-public figures. So far, that policy has been interpreted fairly strictly with a pretty high bar being set for the definition of "public figures" who are assumed to have given up their rights to privacy.
By the same token, we should not be adding Category:Date of birth missing to articles unless we have made the case that the person meets the "public figures" threshold. Otherwise, we're just baiting new users into adding content even though the community has already said that we shouldn't include that particular data point. Category:Year of birth missing is okay but the exact date is often not. Thanks for your help. Rossami(talk) 02:10, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Those edits were certainly not "vandalism". See the discussion at WT:CAT for the basis for these retaggings -- and aside from which, try assuming good faith. Alai 21:25, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
My thought was that the bot was malfunctioning by replacing the specific 'uncat' stub with the non-specific 'uncatstub' stub. I wouldn't have considered applying AGF to a malfunction. Valrith 21:36, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure I quite follow the specifics of that, but thanks for the reply. If you think a bot is malfunctioning, much better to inform the operator about the behaviour so it can be amended (or explained), rather than just reverting. By no stretch is a "malfunction" the same as "vandalism", which specifically connotes intention to make worse; mislabelling questionable (or indeed outright unintentionally bad) edits as vandalism is not good practice, since it's apt to needlessly escalate any disputes that are in progress, or in fact start them in the first place. Alai 21:49, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please take the time to read the page, or even Rossami's entry one above in here.
1. "This biographical article needs more biographical information on the subject.
Statistical information such as date and place of birth, information on historical significance, and information on accomplishments is desired. Please remove this message when done."
-- The article includes year and place of birth. See Rossami's comment two above on date of birth, and Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons#Privacy of birthdays, date of birth should generally not be added to the biographies of living non-public or semi-public figures. The article also contains numerous references to accomplishments. The fact that Ms. Powers is one of the most reknown American folk artists, in the permanent collections of the Smithsonian Institution and AMuseum of American Folk Art, among others, is proof enough.
2. "There are very few or no other articles that link to this one.
Please help introduce links in articles on related topics. After links have been created, remove this message.
This article has been tagged since November 2006."
-- There are fourteen (14) internal and extenral links in the article. That is sufficient to address the requirments in Help:Link, I believe.
Thank you. EHS 14:26, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Since you disagree with the "cleanup-bio" tag, I won't dispute it, but it still seems to me there's very little biographical information in this biography. I never disputed her notability. As to birth date/year - whatever. I overlooked the fact that the year/place was given because it was placed abnormally. I've now fixed that.
However, the "linkless" tag is still appropriate. Notice the text says "There are very few or no other articles that link to this one". It has nothing to do with the number of links within the article. Valrith 15:12, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for stopping by to make some additions. I barely got started last night so I have more that I am going to try to add in the next few days to make it a fuller and wikified article (with references). Uberveritas 22:06, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hello,
Thank you for your stub submission. You may wish to note that it is preferable to use a stub template from Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Stub types instead of using simply {{stub}}, if you can.
Thanks!
--Vox Causa 00:56, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Valrith, PLEASE stop adding "he and his girlfriend run a clothing company called Love is Suicide" to my Wikipedia page.
THANK YOU.
Chris Chasse
This is FALSE information. Please stop. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.148.65.18 (talk) 04:43, 19 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]
You should have inserted an edit summary stating that the information was wrong; without that, it looked like simple vandalism. Valrith 04:52, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've pulled down an extensive rewrite, and I think I have covered all the issues that people had with the article. Olson has been noted as writing an historically valuable book, her film has received good reviews and three awards, as well as having cultural impact with regards the Golden Gate Bridge, whilst her roles as a festival curator and founder, website founder and maintainer, collector and her importance to her field have all been established through verifiable citations in reliable sources. I would hope that's enough substance to satisfy any notability concerns. Appreciate your further thoughts on the article at the afd. Steve blockTalk 17:04, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding the links User:ALLtheTrue wishes to add to Wikipedia, I'm not disagreeing with you about what you have said, and I've pulled his links out a few times myself. Having said that, his filmographies do seem to the air of greater accuracy than IMDB et al. What you might want to do is put the same question you put to me on the Wikipedia:Village pump (assistance) page and see what kind of feedback you get there. If you do put the question there, let me know and let ALLtheTrue know about it as well so we can all follow and contribute any debate. Tabercil 01:14, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hey i nominated that article for deletionn about the list of playmates, and i read the wikipedia page on what youre supposed to do, but i still am not sure. plus people are having fights on the afd page. What do I do?Missy1234 22:26, 21 December 2006 (UTC)missy1234[reply]
If you're asking what you "should do" about the "fights" that are going on over the AfD, the answer is nothing. The amount of commentary appears to be fairly typical for hotly contested topics. You may wish to contribute additional commentary, but it's certainly not required... Valrith 21:29, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I listed you as an involved party in 2006-12-24 ALLtheTrue mediation cabal case. Please see the page for more details. - Tutmosis 04:13, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have removed the {{prod}} tag from Daniele Buetti, which you proposed for deletion, because its deletion has previously been contested or viewed as controversial. Proposed deletion is not for controversial deletions. For this reason, it is best not to propose deletion of articles that have previously been de-{{prod}}ed, even by the article creator, or which have previously been listed on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. If you still feel the article should be deleted, please don't add the {{prod}} template back to the article, but feel free to list it at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. Thanks! Tim Shuba 21:56, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What do you mean "photos are not reliable sources and do not provide any verifiability"? Neither the policy on "reliable sources" or "verifiability" mentions photos. Both on these images referred to in handbra are extremely well known if not iconic, so they provide verifiable evidence of the phenomena's prevalence. Believe your eyes.H Bruthzoo 03:27, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In 31 December you put a tag on the Svetlana Bakhmina article that it is not neutral, (the NPOV tag), and I agree, so I would like to fix this, but I need to know what the complaints are, so I can solve it, please let me know .......Thank you!!! Pernambuco 00:29, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I do not know why you removed the quotation. Do you believe it is irrelevant, or are you worried about its copyright status? If the latter is true, should we add it back again if its source (obviously http://www.veronicastallwood.com/about_veronica.htm ) were provided? Best wishes, <KF> 19:08, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see why you're questioning the source (of CM trying to get her porn pages taken down) when the source is stated in the first
half-dozen words of the sentence (her MySpace page). Is there a way it could be stated more clearly? Credmond 19:22, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As a current Adopter with the Adopt-a-User program there has been some ongoing developments that we would like to bring to your attention.
A new Adopter's Area has been created where you can find useful resources and other Adopter's experiences. Please feel free to add any resources you may have found useful as an Adopter, as well as recount any experiences that you think may help others. If you know of any useful resources for new users / Adoptees then you can add them here.
Also the way the adoption process works has changed slightly. To decrease workload at Category:Wikipedians seeking to be adopted in Adopt-a-user, on offering adoption please change the {{Adoptme}} template to {{Adoptoffer}} on the user's user page, and this will add the user to Category:Wikipedians having been offered adoption. Users that have already been offered adoption can always have a second or third offer, but by separating out those users that have not had an adoption offer yet, it is hoped that no one will go lacking.
Finally - thanks for all your hard work, keep it up - and if you have any general questions or suggestions about the further development of Wikipedia:Adopt-a-User please bring them to our talk page. Cheers Lethaniol 14:06, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It would be VERY helpful and benificial to state within talk pages to clarify exactly what in the article needs sourcing. Simply placing unsourced tags says nothing on what needs to be improved or sourced. --† Ðy§ep§ion †Speak your mind 04:12, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Most of the unsourced tags I place are due to the article being entirely unsourced, where no clarification is needed. If you have a specific counter-example, please point it out. Valrith 04:16, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The Jenna Haze article, for example has at least 3 references, so how are other editors suppose to know what exactly you are referring to that needs clarification? Are other editors suppose to verify every single sentence in the article? Of course clarification is needed. If anything "citation needed" tags are more appropriate rather than placing a broad generalization that maybe confusing--† Ðy§ep§ion †Speak your mind 05:09, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Don't know what I was thinking when I added that. I've removed it for now. Valrith 05:35, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Re: Jessica Alba (rm cat - no evidence she's "half Mexican")[edit]
Next time, take two seconds to read the second paragraph of the article. Crumbsucker 01:59, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm well aware of the second paragraph. What it says is that she's of Mexican descent. For the slow, that means she has some Mexican ancestry; it doesn't say how much. Valrith 21:56, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The article very clearly states that Alba's father is Mexican(with three sources given). Alba has discussed her ethnicity in the media several times and indentifies herself as latino. Again, read first before doing needless reverts/deletions. Crumbsucker 01:34, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, the article states only that her father is of Mexican descent, which is not the same thing. Since the three sources you mention do indeed state he is Mexican, the article should probably be changed to reflect that... Valrith 21:06, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You reverted a valid correction. Zubdub 08:24, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Edit by an anonymous user with no edit summary. No expectation that it was a valid edit. Valrith 21:40, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Unless an edit is clearly vandalism (it wasn't), you shouldn't assume vandalism, even of anon editors. And yes, the editor should have explained their edit in the summary, but you could have taken a second to check IMDB to find the right year before reverting. Crumbsucker 01:54, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please assume good faith when dealing with other editors. See Wikipedia:Assume good faith for the guidelines on this. Zubdub 05:47, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Your deletion of almost the entire content of the Shu Qi article makes it virtually meaningless. I have restored it and added several biographical sources that back up the facts you deleted as unreferenced. Obviously many of the primary biographical sources are in Chinese, which I don't read, but these English-language sites all paint a consistent picture that backs up the parts of the article you deleted. Rodparkes 09:37, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Can you explain your removal of the SDLP logo please? I plan to put free use photos in but until then a logo seems uncontroversial? Weggie 23:22, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The image line in the person infobox is for an image of the person the article is about, not for logos, slogans, witticisms, or anything else. Valrith 23:32, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Can you provide a link to this discussion or wikiguideline please Weggie 23:34, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know of a specific literal guideline, however, the actor infobox at least does specifically state that the image parameter is for an image of the person. Valrith 01:51, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am trying to nominate List of big-bust models and performers for deletion. when i try to create the afd discussion page, i click on the this articles entry and it goes to a previous afd discussion. how do i create a new afd discussion page for this?Missy1234 17:58, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'll be removing the tag once more. The game is pretty much inherently notable for being a licensed game based on the television show and movies, much the same as it would be if there was a game based on any number of other Hollywood movies which scored big at the box office. Both Jackass: The Movie and it's sequel Jackass Number Two scored huge at the box office, taking the top earnings on the weekends they debuted, let alone the TV series (which was large enough that pretty much every member of the main cast got their own spinoff shows). If you'd like to discuss this further, please see the Talk page. Cheers, Lankybugger 01:45, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Even if I were to assume/agree that the movie is notable, notability is not transferrable, ie. the game would not be automatically notable because of the movie. I don't believe the game is of any note, and that is why I placed the notability tag on its article. Valrith 05:04, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. I just need to kvetch. I hope you won't mind since it isn't directed at you. Rightly or wrongly, since Wikipedia goes with documentable sources, I have gone and edited, added, reword various articles. I then feel beaten up with negative comments by certain users, but especially from one who prefers to do majority of edits as an anonymous user. I try to place positive rebuttles, but its spiral down the tubes. Under normal circumstances, I would ask for a block, but in this case, I really don't want this person, even as an anonymous user, be blocked... I just want a positive conversation on how to make certain articles 1) fit the style and 2) be from NPOV. Thanks for taking a moment to read my venting. CJLippert 02:18, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I understand your frustration. The only help I can offer is to say that I've been impressed with the cleanup you've done on several articles I noticed. Valrith 05:07, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Your tagging of the subject article for speedy deletion was inappropriate and mean-spirited. The author had just recently created that article (within the past day or two). If you felt the article unworthy, the civil thing to do would have been to give the author a chance to improve it, but you didn't. Judging from the preceding comments on this page, it is apparent that you make a habit of knee-jerk tagging of articles without bothering to investigate whether the tags you liberally sprinkle around are warranted. 209.251.23.53 09:33, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There is nothing uncivil about tagging an article for deletion, especially when it is as clearly warranted as was the case with Anjali kara. Valrith 20:44, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The author of that article had just created it THAT DAY. You tagged it and it was deleted. You also did not possess the courtesy to tell the author on their talk page what you had done. Since the author is probably not on wikipedia 24/7, he/she had no chance to improve the article or prove its worthiness before it vanished. Why don't you try contributing some content once in awhile rather than exlusively finding fault with what others have written. I suspect that once you actually add something to a page that doesn't reside between {{ and }} you might develop a collaborative attitude rather than envisioning yourself as everyone's superior. 209.251.23.146 05:27, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.
P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot 14:49, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have reverted the page back. I think based on the new information and his work with God, Inc., that a new AfD is warranted if you think he is not notable (also, a redirect no longer makes sense because he has multiple works). Best, Irongargoyle 04:46, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The only information that I removed from the Kentucky Wildcats page was the inappropriate tone tag and the banned 1952-53 team fromt the "memorable teams" section (since, technically, it didn't play that year, though it did just now lead me to correct the year of the Undefeated Team). If those were the problems, then I apologize. Other than that, I have only added information to the article. --147.133.217.56 15:58, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The article was, in fact, speediable, as it makes no claim to the subject's significance. Neverthelees, a chance was given to provide reason for keeping it. No improvements have been made to the article (which is also poorly weritten and presented), nothing has been said at the Talk page — all we have is the anon's edit summary that simply points out that there are articles on other weather forecasters; that isn't grounds for removing the template, surely. Please don't remove it again wiothout doing something to justify this. (I see that you were the peson who added it, but I don't think that that makes any difference.) --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 17:31, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest you read Wp:prod#Contesting_a_proposed_deletion. It points out that the only requirement for removing a prod tag is asserting the opinion that the article should not be deleted without discussion. Valrith 17:36, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know much about them, it's true (I dislike them in fact, and never use them; they seem to me to provide no more than a pointless level of bureacracy between speedying and AfDing. The reqirement that you mention stregthens that feeling; if it's fragile enough to be swepot aside by an anon who isn't even prepared to edit the article or discuss it at the Talk page, then I can't see much point in it in the first place.
Checking the anon's contributions, I see that he has a history of removing notability and importance templates, either with no explanation or with edit summaries like "seems pretty important to me". I'll leave a message at the Talk page pointing him in the direction of relevant Wikipedia guidelines. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 17:40, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I came to tell you that I'd opened an AfD, but then I saw that you'd already spotted it. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 19:10, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Just questioning why you keep reverting the article? I've read through the editing documentation provided by Wikipedia and am obviously missing something. Please let me know what I need to do. Thanks. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 206.192.113.98 (talk) 22:53, 1 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Wikipedia requires that articles be verifiable via reliable secondary sources. When adding material to an article, you should cite the sources that provided the material. Valrith 04:40, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I can understand that. The hard part is that I'm trying not to make it sound too ad-like as to have its neutrality debated again. A lot of the format and styles were copied from the other database company pages like MySQL, Sybase, Oracle.
In the history section, I don't know how to make this verifiable. Similarly, when looking at MySQL's page, theirs seems unverifiable as well. I know these things not from original research, but because I was one of the first employees, know the founders, and know the story.
Another difficult item is the timeline/history... how would I go about making that verifiable without linking to press-releases?
Sorry for the difficulty on this. I guess I just need to understand the rules better. I completely understand where you're coming from in terms of ensuring reliability of the information. Thank you for your continued assistance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonah.harris (talk • contribs) 13:01, February 2, 2007
As to the question of establishing verifiable sources other than press releases, that's probably going to be difficult. Valrith 21:39, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So, I'm a bit confused. The page is contested for not being neutral, yet the only way to prove the information is to link to, what some would consider, biased press releases? I'll be happy to link to them if it means an updated page will be approved... but it's pretty ugly to have its neutrality in question. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonah.harris (talk • contribs) 06:21, February 5, 2007
I removed a few things from the article that sounded like ad-copy (eg. pov) and removed the neutrality tag. Valrith 21:50, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Monica sweetheart.jpg cannot be deleted through the copyvio process because the source is given and fair use is claimed. However, orphaned fair use images (like this one), as well as replaceable fair use images (if fact, this one has a replacement) can be deleted. Conscious 06:35, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not restore prod tags to articles after they have been removed. If you look at Wikipedia:Proposed deletion especially the section called Conflicts you will see that the tag should not be restored no matter what. And yes I agree that an edit summary/reason for the prods removal would have been a better idea/good thing. Cheers CambridgeBayWeather(Talk) 10:52, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well I can understand why Valrith restored the prod tag to the article as it was (and still is) rather sketchy. So I'm going to escalate it to a full AFD debate. Tabercil 22:00, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I do too and it's really annoying when the tag gets removed for what appears to be no valid reason. CambridgeBayWeather(Talk) 23:03, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I just recreated a page for Brandon Buddy (Cole Thornhart) of One Life to Live, which apparently has been previously deleted at least once due to "lack of notability." Obviously, he is a new actor, but his status as a contract player on OLTL makes him notable, no? In any case, I was hoping you and others who have contributed to OLTL pages could comment on the article's talk page regarding this deletion issue. Thanks in advance. TAnthony 04:18, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The SmackBot changes were all sound, so I reverted them. I am particularly puzzled by why you restored something like gender in science fiction, which substitutes the title of the article for itself! Is there something one of us (possibly me) is missing here? --Orange Mike 21:56, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The changes made to the {{fact}} tags are causing the "Notes" section to be very badly formatted. I'm going to fix this without a full revert this time... Valrith 22:02, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Valrith. I noticed you just deleted the blog link from the "External Links" at the Miki Mizuno article, which I don't question, and considered doing myself. My question is-- The Female Adult Bio template has a field for "Homepage." Is there a Wiki policy or precedent for or against putting an official blog link in there? Dekkappai 22:32, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I know, there's not. However, I generally won't link to a blog as they're on the list of links normally to be avoided. Besides that, I have a hard time seeing how a blog can be verifiable, or even verified as belonging to any particular person. Valrith 22:45, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OK. Thanks for the feedback. Regards. Dekkappai 22:48, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The speedy deletion of the article was overturned in WP:DRV, please don't retag it has a speedy, take it to WP:AFD instead. Thanks Jarandawat's sup 00:39, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
IMHO the two templates I moved to the talk page are about editorial matters which is what the talk page is for. The information in them unlike for example {{unreferenced}} (which should be put at the bottom in a Reference section) provide no information which a reader of the page needs to know. If you think that these templates are needed then please either edit the article to add the information which is missing (so they are no longer needed), or at least add to the talk page what it is that concerns you about the page. --Philip Baird Shearer 09:18, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The tags belong on the page, not on the talk page, and are self-explanatory. Valrith 04:58, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Could you and User:TRFA kindly take your dispute over the NOPV status of the article to Talk:Silvia Saint, rather than just blindly reverting each other? Tabercil 15:44, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And on that note.... could you please at least attempt to engage in some level of dialogue with a person instead of repeatedly calling them a vandal. Such as here: diff, among many other reverts you have done there and elsewhere. MathmoTalk 22:34, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I am curious about your edits to this article. You previously deleted half of its content with the edit summary "copyedit". You recently tagged it as unsourced. When I added inline references, you deleted all of them with the edit summary "fix references". I don't know where you are in the world, but where I come from, 'fix' and 'delete' are not synonyms.
If your deletion of my references was pursuant to a guideline, please educate me. Otherwise, I will be restoring them.
Additionally, I think it's fair to ask you to be a little more accurate in your edit summaries. It makes it harder for others to determine who is removing content if the edit summaries aren't clear.
I should probably be a bit more verbose with my edit summaries. As to "deletion of ... references", I really only deleted one (a link to her IMDb bio page). All the others were the same reference (a link to her main IMDb page), and having them appear multiple times was, imo, cluttering the appearance of the article. And since everything in the article is sourced to IMDb, it seemed adequate to have a single reference for the whole article rather than duplicate references for each sentence. Valrith 02:46, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. I will insert a single ref at the end of each paragraph. That way, others won't flag the article as unsourced, but we hopefully won't run afoul of your clutter threshold. I'll note it on the talk page so others can make adjustments as the article expands. Cheers and thanks for the reply! Butseriouslyfolks 06:49, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. Nice job on the citation formatting! Butseriouslyfolks 18:48, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
please suggest changes or methods of required.
the article is verified but needs more information on past productions.
I am working on it —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Kalaripayatt (talk • contribs) 17:29, 18 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]
just curious as to why you prod'd Trois but neither of the sequels. I would imagine if the first is not notable then the sequels would be too! Postcard Cathy 16:10, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Just passing along notice to you that the article on Avy Scott which you have contributed to has been put up for AFD - discussion can be found here. Tabercil 19:32, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I see you keep removing unsourced material from the bangbros article. At first I disagreed with you but afterward a bunch of one edit anons started adding to it and it began to look like spam. Since the bangbros article is in my watchlist I'll keep a eye out for it and remove any unsourced or spammish info from it. --M8v2 05:02, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The Olympics WikiProject is performing a membership update to check for currently active and idle members.
Because your username appears on the members list, we kindly ask you visit this page and put your name under the appropriate section, using the code #{{user|USERNAME}}, in order to renew or cancel your membership.
What (praytell) exactly do you have against her? You aren't abiding by these rules at all:"Deletion is performed by administrators based on policy, not personal likes and dislikes
There are three main processes for deleting articles — other types of deletion have similar processes
Articles that can be improved should be edited or tagged, not nominated for deletion"
Also, there's this stated by the Wikipedia rules and Chauntelle fits several of the criteria:"A musician or ensemble (note that this includes a band, singer, rapper, orchestra, hip hop crew, DJ, musical theatre group, etc.) is notable if it meets any one of the following criteria:
It has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent from the musician/ensemble itself and reliable.
o This criterion includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, books, magazine articles, and television documentaries except for the following:
+ Media reprints of press releases, other publications where the musician/ensemble talks about themselves, and advertising for the musician/ensemble.
+ Works comprising merely trivial coverage, such as newspaper articles that simply report performance dates or the publications of contact and booking details in directories.
An article in a school or university newspaper (or similar) would generally be considered trivial but should be evaluated on a case-by-case basis.
The above is the central criterion for inclusion. Below are some criteria that make it very likely that sufficient reliable information is available about a given group or individual musician.
1. Has had a charted hit on any national music chart.
2. Has had a record certified gold or higher in at least one country.
3. Has gone on an international concert tour, or a national concert tour in at least one large or medium-sized country, reported in reliable sources.
4. Has released two or more albums on a major label or one of the more important indie labels (i.e. an independent label with a history of more than a few years and a roster of performers, many of which are notable).
5. Contains at least one member who was once a part of or later joined a band that is otherwise notable; note that it is often most appropriate to use redirects in place of articles on side projects, early bands and such.
6. Has become the most prominent representative of a notable style or of the local scene of a city; note that the subject must still meet all ordinary Wikipedia standards, including verifiability.
7. Has won a major music award, such as a Grammy, Juno or Mercury award.
8. Has won or placed in a major music competition.
9. Has performed music for a work of media that is notable, e.g. a theme for a network television show. (But if this is the only claim, it is probably more appropriate to have a mention in the main article and redirect to that page.)
10. Has been placed in rotation nationally by any major radio network.
11. Has been the subject of a half hour or longer broadcast on a national radio or TV network. " —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.186.201.139 (talk) 23:51, 17 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Please start a discussion on the discussion-page and remember the 3-revert rule. Please, just ask for citations in the text and do not remove the contributions of others without a discussion about it if you can. Thanks! Nlwiki 13:54, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia policy requires sources, and this article had remained unsourced for entirely too long. The 3-revert rule does not apply to reverting violations of that policy. Valrith 22:23, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't change the real name of Aurora Snow to Rebecca Claire Kensington in her infobox again, their was a long discussion about this last year, and though we know Aurora's real name (Hint: it isn't Rebecca), due to threats of legal action her actual name can't be posted. See her Talk page section and the archive for discussion on the subject prior to Jimbo Wales blanking it. And, btw you pretty much ruined the rest of her article and I intend to find sources so it can be returned to it's original state. --CJ 22:46, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Unless you want Wikipedia to get into trouble, I suggest you do your research. [2] --71.118.34.232 19:51, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm aware you wont like the edits I made there, but I do not think it could be argued successfully that she is not notable. One may wish she had never tried this "ordination", but she did. My general feeling is that any article about schismatic religions or religious people--no matter how peculiar-- should be kept, as it is not the province of WP to decide on theology. I think the material you deleted was at least some of it relevant, but I did not re-add it since most of it was a copyvio in the first place & it is present in the refs for those who want the details. Whether Roman Catholic Priest applies as a category is an interesting question of definition.; it could be argued she is relevant to that category, even if not a priest by RC standards. I think it obvious that the RC church does not consider her a priest, but readers unfamiliar with Christianity might not realize, so I went back and added it; it is supported by the references. I think the article will then be NPOV as it stands. DGG 20:42, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Why did you leave a vandalism warning on my Talk page? I've made many edits, and created many entrys on Wiki and I even explained to you the reasons for the edit, and in fact, you can consider this your warning for adding faulty information to Aurora Snow's entry. --CJ 21:15, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Removing sourced information is vandalism. When you comprehend that, you will understand why I left you a vandalism warning. Valrith 21:18, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
But in this particular instance, IMDB is wrong. The whole matter has been discussed before, and I even told you where to find the previous conversation. Please check Aurora's talk page archive. Also see WP:FAITH. And, BTW, it's not vandalism, you and I are simply in a content dispute. --CJ 21:23, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, after reviewing WP:VANDAL, I find I may have been using too broad an interpretation of vandalism. However, until there is a reliable source that shows IMDb is wrong, IMDb is the only data we have to work with... Valrith 14:21, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's this edit that everyone's referring to, done by Jimbo himself. His edit summary for said blanking: "blanking privacy violation, see WP:OFFICE, email me if you have questions". So it seems clear to us from that particular action: no putting her real name in the article unless we have a solid, reliable source for it. And if you search through the archive of the talk page prior to the blanking (hint: pull up this page), you'll see there is a clear discussion on what Aurora's real name is. The page blanking did not occur until after a specific name was put down, which was not Rebecca Claire Kensington. That implies that the later name is the correct one. Tabercil 15:23, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
None of which changes anything. All of the discussion on the talk page is just speculation. The IMDb is a solid, reliable source, unless there's been a consensus somewhere that it's not (and if such a consensus has been reached, we have to remove quite a bit of content in many articles). Until there is verifiable evidence to the contrary, the name is what IMDb says is is. Valrith 15:43, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Your recent edit to Cytherea (porn star) (diff) was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to recognize and repair vandalism to Wikipedia articles. If the bot reverted a legitimate edit, please accept my humble creator's apologies – if you bring it to the attention of the bot's owner, we may be able to improve its behavior. Click here for frequently asked questions about the bot and this warning. // AntiVandalBot 14:54, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Excuse me, but both Doc glasgow and I were very clear in our edit summaries on the Jesse Capelli article that we were cleaning up information in response to a BLP concern. While you might disagree with us, please do not classify our edits as vandalism. I note that the entire article is unsourced; you might want to look into that. I wouldn't be counting on IMDB as a source, especially since her biography there has been changed in the last 24 hours. Risker 04:23, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Removing information that is referenced to a reliable source should qualify as vandalism. Until you can provide another reliable source, IMDb is the only source we have... Valrith 04:33, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
IMDB is not a reliable source. Anyone can add anything to it, and there is no oversight. It is like a wiki - see reliable sources. Further, there is not a single reference in the entire article. Much of what is there is not verified in any of the links in the infobox. Risker 04:38, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That is patently false. Users can contribute material to IMDb, but the owners of the site have to review it and add it before it becomes visible (in all areas except the forums). Valrith 04:46, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't want to keep reverting the Bree Williamson article back and forth because, admittedly, the green card item is sort of stupid, but the source is "ABC Soaps in Depth" magazine, and the issue month is even mentioned. A reference doesn't have to be in the form of a footnote, or readable online; is that why you're taking it out? TAnthony 21:56, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Your tags are bogus. She's notable and your tag saying it is not "adequately" sourced is bogus also. You're not an administrator, and if you continue to revert changes to my talk page, you will be blocked. It makes you feel important when you try to bite newbies, but you're barking up the wrong tree.--24.9.112.49 03:17, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Just in case you were going to take this seriously, note that this user has been blocked, as have two sleeper accounts they had. Most of these articles have been nominated for deletion. Natalie 04:44, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't, but thanks for the confirmation. Valrith 13:57, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This article has only been half wiikified and yet you have (apparently) removed the wikify tag. I don't understand. Can you possibly explain on the article talk page? Thanks. - Kleinzach 03:54, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, dear, for lending a hand there. It was one of my early attempts at making myself useful to Wikipedia. The part you completely removed was a direct response to User:Deananoby2's comment on the talk page. If it's not needed, then I say - great. It still has mucho POV and and mucho unreferenced material. Though I have left some suggestions in the talk page, I myself can only cringe at the article. I also think the B rating makes it a bit over-rated. Thanks again for being the first person taking a serious interest in the article in a long time. Respond, if you want, to my talk page. Cheers. Aditya Kabir 22:17, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. I'll explain why I reverted your changes to this article, and why I have done so again. I did not remove any content, as you suggest. I removed a stub notice, because the article is not by any stretch of the imagination a stub, especially now that I have expanded it. You had also used the default sort template incorrectly; as the article's introduction makes clear, "Elisa" is not a surname. Deb 11:43, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The article is still a stub and the defaultsort tag is appropriate. Valrith 14:06, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The article is not a stub. It is an article that contains information about the date and place of birth, education and career of the subject, and includes an introduction explaining her importance. It contains references and is categorised. It is not "either a very short article or a rough collection of information that will need much work to bring it to A-Class level." The defaultsort tag was completely incorrect, for the reasons explained above. I have reverted your changes. If you repeat your unwarranged accusations of vandalism, I will consider escalating this matter. Deb 14:31, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The article is an extremely short article, and is therefore a stub. As to the defaultsort, for the purposes of this article, "Elisa" is a surname. Valrith 04:34, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
About 50 lines above you wrote, "Removing information that is referenced to a reliable source should qualify as vandalism." I cannot agree more. Yet you removed information in the L. Alloy article referenced to a Time/CNN article. Ironically, after you removed that sourced material you tagged the article as not having sources.
Even after reverting the Time/CNN material you tagged the article is unsourced. Does Time/CNN not qualify as a source to you? Please explain your reasoning. If you have valid arguments to dismiss Time/CNN as a valid source, I will allow the tag. ChicJanowicz 10:43, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You'll note that after I removed the reference to Time/CNN, I also restored it. This is because I removed it unintentionally. I tagged the article as unsourced because most of its claims are unsourced. The Time piece is a good addition, but doesn't support any of the article, as far as I can tell. Valrith 11:01, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Why was the article gutted for lack of source material when much of the removed material was sourced, for example her educational background, custody struggle and how the story came out was deleted? The source material was there. The military information put in its place was both vague and inaccurate; she was in the Army (more accurate than 'military') and during her second enlistment a Military Policeman at the confinement (not consignment) facility (military prison) on Ft Lewis, WA. While I served with her personally during her first enlistment and posted the correct unit and MOS, I can understand the issue of sourcing on that question. It looks like a bludgeon was used rather than the necessary scalpel, leaving a far inferior product. Virgil61 18:12, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I removed no source material, so where is it? Answer: it didn't and still doesn't exist. If you can find sources for the material I removed I'll applaud its reinstatement. Valrith 17:50, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What's wrong with stating that Nicole Sheridan performs anal? That's about as uncontroversial as it gets. What would be an appropriate source for this information... an article in the Wall Street Journal? For a biography of a porn star, mentioning some of the acts she engages in seems highly appropriate. This is fully in keeping with articles on other porn stars, such as Jade Marcela. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.219.27.148 (talk) 09:54, 18 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]
If you can cite a reliable source for the claim, you can keep it; otherwise, it's just weasel words that don't belong in an encyclopaedia article. Valrith 17:52, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's people like you, Valrith, who will ruin Wikipedia by discouraging others from contributing perfectly valid edits. Seriously, why should I bother? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.150.10.200 (talk • contribs) 18:08, April 19, 2007
first of all I would like to invite you to have a look at our discussion page Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Olympics, maybe this would be very helpful in this case as well as in many other cases.
But especially for you I will explain the names:
DEN gold medal
Hans Hansen (gymnast) to Hans Trier Hansen. I add his thrid name to avoid the brackets, also Hansen is very common, we have 9 differnet Danish gymnasts in 1912 and 1920 called Hansen. But we are still speaking about the same person: Mr. Hansen born May 15, 1893.
Niels Nielsen (gymnast) to Niels Turin Nielsen. See above
Hans Rönne to Hans Rønne, because ö is not a Danish letter and ö is also not an English letter. I only gave him his corrct name.
Rino Sörensen to Harry Sørensen. See above
Peter Möller to Peder Møller (gymnast). See above
Hugo Helsteen to Hugo Helsten. See [3] and [4] (page 484) and [5] (Antwerpen 1920 (Free) Denmark)
Harold Jansson to Herold Jansson. See [6] and [7] (page 484) and [8] (Antwerpen 1920 (Free) Denmark)
Peter Marcussen to Peder Marcussen. See [9] and [10] (page 484) and [11] (Antwerpen 1920 (Free) Denmark)
SWE
Carl Charpentier to Erik Charpentier. His full name is Carl-Erik Charpentier, but it looks like, that he was better known as Erik e.g. [12] under Gymnastik in alphabetically order.
Sture Ericsson-Ewreus to Sture Ericsson-Ewréus this seems to be the correct Swedish spelling e.g. [13] under Gymnastik in alphabetically order.
Ake Häger to Åke Häger. See above
Erik Svensen to Erik Svensén. See above and the footnote on his page.
Sven O. Jonsson to Sven-Olof Jonsson. I only added his full name.
Sven Jonsson to Sven Johnson. See [14] and [15] (page 483) and [16] (Antwerpen 1920 (Swedish) Sweden)
DEN silver medal
Hans Hovgaard to Hans Jakobsen. His full name is Hans Hovgaard Jabobsen, his last name is Jakobsen.
Aage Jörgensen to Aage Jørgensen, because ö is not a Danish letter and ö is also not an English letter. I only gave him his corrct name.
Arne Jörgensen to Arne Jørgensen. See above
Knud Kirkelökke to Knud Kirkeløkke. See above
Hans Laurids Sörensen to Hans Laurids Sørensen. See above
Sören Sörensen to Søren Sørensen. See above
Alfred Jörgensen to Alfred Frøkjær Jørgensen. I only add his third name and see above.
Alfred E. Jörgensen to Alfred Ollerup Jørgensen. I add his third name to avoid confusion with the gymnast above. E. seems to be wrong, because the IOC medal database reports this exclusively. I can not find a single reference more.
Jens Lambaek to Jens Lambæk. This is the correct spelling of his Danish name.
Georg West to George Vest. See [17] and [18] (page 483) and [19] (Antwerpen 1920 (Swedish) Denmark)
Dines Sneftrup to Dynes Pedersen. His full name is Dynes Snejstrup Pedersen. I gave him his last name. See also the footnote on his page.
Peter Pedersen to Peter Dorf Petersen. I only gave him his full name to avoid any confusion, because he has a very common name.
Hans Drigstrup Sörensen to Hans Christian Sørensen. Once more his correct Danish name and I replaced his nickname. See his personal page.
I hope this clear up. :) Doma-w 13:09, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Valrith, I reverted back to my edit and added a reference. An interview has just been posted on Naughty America 101 where Ashley talks about being happy to be out of her contract. Spinachmaster 16:07, 22 April 2007 (EST)
If you like removing unsourced statements...[edit]
It would be much more useful and less counter productive to blank biographies of living people without sourced statements instead of the Handbra article. See User:Messedrocker/Unreferenced BLPs for a list. Cheers. Majorly(hot!) 18:50, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You are being disruptive. Please stop. Majorly(hot!) 21:15, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, you are ignoring policy. Materials added to WP must be based on reliable sources and those sources must be cited. Cite your sources or don't bother adding material. Valrith 21:23, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You have a clear vendetta against this article, so it's not your place to say. Go and fix some unreferenced BLPs, which would be much more productive. Majorly(hot!) 21:29, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You are to cease immediately with the disruptive edits. Matthew 22:29, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have to agree with other comments here that you seem to have a habit of taking the unsourced statements rule to ridiculous extremes. Many of your edits are "throwing out the baby with the bathwater", gutting valid articles completely. As a result, almost every entry by others on your talk page is a complaint about your over-zealous approach to sourcing of biographies. Please rethink your approach - finding and adding appropriate sources instead of just carpet-bombing ebtire articles wholesale would be far more constructive. Rodparkes 01:49, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"throwing out the baby with the bathwater" is the best course of action when no reliable sources are provided. Valrith 20:29, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think most of those statements you're reverting are actually correct,
and can generally be relatively easily sourced to the issue of the magazine in question. --AnonEMouse(squeak) 21:05, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not replace Wikipedia pages with blank content. Blank pages are harmful to Wikipedia because they have a tendency to confuse readers. If it is a duplicate article, please redirect it to an appropriate existing page. If the page has been vandalised, please revert it to the last legitimate version. If you feel that the content of a page is inappropriate, please edit the page and replace it with appropriate content. If you believe there is no hope for the page, please see the deletion policy for how to proceed. Matthew 20:42, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've blocked you for 24 hours. Your disruptive page blanking helps nobody. There was no contentious material on that page, and you've been asked and asked to stop. That's what {{cite}} and {{fact}} are for. Majorly(hot!) 21:34, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, that's not what {{cite}} and {{fact}} are for; see the quotes from Jimbo in WP:BLP. Unsourced material should be removed "aggressively". If you can't follow that guideline, leave alone those who can. Valrith 20:21, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think you should read the suggestions given here. Contentious material may be removed, blanking entire pags for which a source could be found for in less than a minute is plain disruptive. I quote: "It should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced" (emphasis mine). You clearly made no attempt to find a source (as outlined below). Majorly(hot!) 21:36, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is a side note at this point, but you seem a bit confused. Blanking and deleting pages does nothing to help Wikipedia achieve its goals at all. Please stop blanking pages, and if you feel like helping wikipedia, yau can help to find reliable sources on a topic of your interest. Dan, the CowMan 21:59, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is a side note as well but I would like to put in my 2 cents. Going through the recent changes section, I've often mistaken your blanking of info as vandalism. You continuously use the argument of "unsourced" as the reason to remove content. While articles should always strive to give references in the info presented it is extremely counterproductive to keep deleting articles and let others find references. For example you've repeatedly blanked Angela Dimitriou citing that it was unreferenced. Yet it only took me a couple of seconds to find a reference for her here: [20] A little bit of effort is all it takes. --† Ðy§ep§ion †Speak your mind 22:44, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
