User talk:Dismas/archive10

diane webber
If "death certificate" isn't the right footnote, than what is? Diane's death certificate from the Los Angels County Registrar states her name as Marguerite Diane and the cause of death as colon cancer with a pulmonary embolism listed as a contributing factor.

71.118.248.191 (talk) 20:39, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Ida Ljungqvist
Why did you delete my posting of Ida Ljungqvist as PMOY on April 2nd?? Everyone knew she was PMOY I guess buy you.68.211.170.167 (talk) 13:05, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Diane Webber
Thanks for your reply. Diane was born Marguerite Diane, she chose to use her middle name as her first name after she was married. I can't cite a source since my source is her death certificate, listing her as Marguerite Diane Webber AKA Diane M webber. The birthdate is July not June, Playboy has it wrong. This can be checked at SSDI.

Katsand (talk) 03:32, 24 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Social Security Death Index, she is listed as Diane M. Webber. Katsand (talk) 04:46, 24 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks. It irked Diane no end that Gay Telese got her birthday wrong in Thy Neighbor's Wife.  As for her name, Diane had many issues with her mother, not the least of which was her arrogance in naming her daughter after herself. Diane chose to use her middle name as her first name. The only source I can cite is http://www.lavote.net/recorder/BDM_Records.cfm.  Anyone can fill out the forms and pay $12 to get a copy of death certificates since they are a matter of public record.Katsand (talk) 05:24, 24 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, I knew Diane for 35 years. No I wasn't suggesting YOU get a copy of her death certificate.  The information is available to anyone willing to fill out the forms and pay the money.  I don't know of any other citable source, unless you can suggest one. I got a copy since I was tired of seeing ovarian cancer listed as a cause of death and I knew that wasn't correct.  I needed to know the truth.

Katsand (talk) 07:08, 24 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I checked the Playboy website but couldn't find anything.  I know her family didn't publish an obit.  I will be trying to track down that obscenity case.  Diane gave a deposition, I know she wasn't the only defendent named. It had to do with sending nudist mags through the mail.  Nudity was condidered obscene.  Kinda funny really since the genitals were airbrushed out.

Katsand (talk) 08:44, 24 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm going to suggest a compromise on listing Diane's name. She used Marguerite Empey Playboy or Diane M. Webber SSDI.  She never used Diane Marguerite Empey, there is no citable evidence except other web sites.  I suggest using  Diane M. Webber, AKA Marguerite Empey, both of which can be cited.Katsand (talk) 15:41, 25 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I checked the older versions of Diane's listing and notice that it used to say Marguerite Diane. On Nov 15, 2008 someone named Gary 0090 changed it to Diane Marguerite with no citations.  How did he get away with that??Katsand (talk) 00:43, 26 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the reply.Katsand (talk) 02:57, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Juliette Fretté
Dismas, Juliette did not put her weight on her Playmate data sheet for a reason, because she did not want to share it. Additionally, she has said in interviews that the previously cited weight of 120 pounds was inaccurate. Please allow her weight to remain blank. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Urthgoddess (talk • contribs) 13:52, 24 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Dismas, check her playmate data sheet. She put a wagging tongue where it said "weight".  You can check out this link, even though it does not exactly transcribe the impish face I'm talking about: http://www.centerfoldblog.net/2008/11/juliette-frette-june-2008-playmate-datasheet/


 * If you need any more verification, you can actually pick up the June magazine of Playboy. It's there plan as day.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Urthgoddess (talk • contribs) 03:54, 25 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Dismas, okay I cannot find a source at this time to prove to you that Juliette refuses to give weight as a social/political statement and that 120 pounds is a lie. All I can say, is that I am actually Juliette Fretté, and moreover, I know how much I weigh!  Please feel free to email me through my website at info@juliettefrette.com to confirm this with me.


 * Thank you, Juliette Fretté —Preceding unsigned comment added by Urthgoddess (talk • contribs) 16:03, 25 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your message! How does one upload a photo here?  It's somewhat confusing.  The majority of this page was created by others . . .  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Urthgoddess (talk • contribs) 08:06, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Jo Joyner
Dismas - Jo Joyner's birthday is 24 May 1977. You keep changing this to the fictional character, Tanya Branning's, birthday. For some reason you have also claimed that the Chrstmas Eastenders episode was watched by 18 million people, when the official figure is 14 million.RipleyJ (talk) 16:41, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Wasn't me. Check the article history.  Dismas |(talk) 22:22, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Re: image
I was just removing it to shrink the kb size a bit, actually. It probably is causing more harm then good, I'll stop rm'ing that section. Wizardman : Chat  03:30, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

User:Greystone36
Thanks for the heads-up; sounds like we're singing from the same hymnsheet.  Chzz  ►  20:45, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

DISMAS...help me please...
Hello Dismas....my name is debi Lester...aka debi diamond (1983) till present...I have recently started getting a hold of all the content and miss-information on the internet and it is quite a job...There is a website, debidiamond uk.com that is misrepresenting me, my likeness and swindling many out of $$$ due to false Fan Club Promises...I have written them with no luck...I see they have been posting links on my page of information, alot of it is not even fact...Im back, trying to make accurate information available, but, am a self admitted...NON SAVY...cpu person, so HELP- ME....I want to give readers accurate info, point them to me.and my websites..not a scamming website, which is in place now, i would also like to post some current pictures... SO IF I MAY BEG FOR YOUR HELP IN DOING THIS...THANK YOU SO VERY MUCH

i can forward you all my information, hich was reverted off my page...It was just my novice attempt in looking out for the users! thank you ...debi Miss debi diamond (talk) 17:42, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Dismas..
I wrote to.... info-en-q@wikimedia.org on the 6th, still nothing back from them.i wish you could just talk me through the few issues that are really the problem, also help me get the photo up...I am so not cpu savy...and well, being that this page of mine is #1 when my name is googled, i would just like to rid it of the bad guys, and frauds...that's all thanks sir, again, i appreciate your timeMiss debi diamond (talk) 03:17, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

List of people in Playboy 2000–present
Time for a temporary semi-protect? Hopefully sometime in the next few days something verifiable will come out... shouldn't be long. Let me know if you'd like me to make the request. Townlake (talk) 17:04, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Requested. Townlake (talk) 19:25, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes I've had source, it was the next month section of the current issue of Playboy that I've received through my Zinio subscripition, Hpoirier Hpoirier (talk) 02:31, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

I've redone the submission, but this time stating my sources, also since the July and August issue will be a double month issue, the table should be changed to state that effect, source of that Playboy website itself. Hpoirier (talk) 03:08, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Here's another source for the double-issue thing, for what it's worth. This has been in the company's plans for a while. Townlake (talk) 17:28, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Another source for the double issue is the subscription page at playboy.com itself

https://w1.buysub.com/pubs/PY/PLY/55254.jsp?cds_page_id=55254&cds_mag_code=PLY&id=1240016582023&lsid=91072003020044268&vid=1&cds_response_key=MJTK005

At the bottom of the page they does state that 1 issue is a double issue Hpoirier (talk) 01:09, 18 April 2009 (UTC) -

Sunny Leone
Mate, you have no idea about that article on Sunny Leone. Her real name is Karen Malhotra, which is a Hindu name. Even "if" she was raised a Sikh, that is fully wrong as why will one follow that religion and have a Hindu name; which is completely against the religion of Sikhism. And you say a person who is raised that way, may not follow those morals in adulthood. If you even ask a Hindu or a Sikh, they will tell you that it the information is false. So many people look at the article, and it has the wrong info, which inturn gives the wrong data to people who are not aware of the religion. The thing is, anyone can make an interview on a webpage.

For example:

- www.madeupinterviewsblahblahonDismas.com

This interview was conducted on 11th January 2007. Dismas is an active contributor on the site of Wikipedia and needs to learn about common sense and some world's religions.

Interviewer: IP1

IP1: Hi Dismas, how are you? Dismas: Good, thank you IP1: So, how are your Wikipedia articles and daily life go with your beliefs? Oh, its all good. I manage my daily five prayers and dedication to Allah. *See Dismas, I just made up that you follow the teachings of Islam"*

Its quite astonishing that Dismas manages his Islamic prayers with such a busy schedule editing articles almost 24/7 in front of the computer on the most popular information website. *Again Dismas, I made up a paragraph similar to the Sunny Leone page where it says she was raised a Sikh*

--

There is no proof that she was raised a Sikh. Bring it up and I'll back away from this page. Looking at your contributions to Wikipedia, mate, you should atleast have some general knowledge about a religion called Sikhism. Hell, if you ask Sunny Leone that question in person or in a legit chat room, and if she says that she was raised a Sikh, or if you can present any proof except that webpage, I will seriously won't even argue about this and I will one day talk to her about that. Like I said before, anyone can make up an article on a candy ass website.

I have nothing against you mate, I respect you and your contributions to this site even though I don't even know you. Its just that some people convey a negative message of a religion about which more than 55% of the world's population don't even know about.

So what I'm saying is that you please review the article and write what I did, fixing up my grammatical errors and stuff. If you still think that the current information is right, I suggest you really please take some advice about the difference between Sikhism and Hinduism. I hope you look upon this seriously as in the real world, people get the wrong information, and just because of it, shit happens.

Regards, Fellow citizen of planet Earth.


 * Wow. Talk about going over the top trying to make a simple point.  And you managed to insult me along the way...


 * I'm tired and I'm right, so I'm going to try to make this quick. The source is legit and reliable.  She gave the interview and per WP:V, Wikipedia is interested in what can be verified.  We can verify that someone reported that she was raised Sikh.  My knowledge of Sikhism and Hinduism doesn't matter here.


 * And finally, the article is about Sunny Leone and not about the differences of religions or what their moral teachings are. Nor is it about the accuracy of Wikipedia.  The article is solely about Leone.  If you have points to discuss about the accuracy of the article, put it on the talk page for that article.  Dismas |(talk) 03:08, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Ida Ljungqvist again
Why did you delete my entry for Ida Ljungqvist on April 2nd?? It was common knowledge that she was 2009 PMOY announced on April 1st. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.211.170.167 (talk) 13:01, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
 * First, when posting to someone's talk page, it's best to start a new section rather than breaking the format of whatever introductory info they may have at the top of the page. I've moved your comment down here because of that.
 * Second, her PMOY announcement was not "common knowledge". Common knowledge would be something like the existence of gravity or that the earth is round.  The announcement of an award in a niche market is not common knowledge.
 * Third, you didn't provide a source for your edit, as I explained in my edit summary. Dismas |(talk) 13:18, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Website
Lol! It's a project by these people called Magimation, but sadly it hasn't been released yet. --Lazar Taxon (talk) 04:31, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Camryn Kiss
AVN nominations in one year do not satisfy the first criteria of WP:PORNBIO. Morbidthoughts (talk) 05:16, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Rachelle Lefevre
You removed the mention of Rachelle Lefevre having been briefly married to Ryan Etinson at the begninning of the 2000s, due to an absence of footnote. There is no source to cite, but I was at the wedding, making me a primary source of information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.21.37.69 (talk) 02:28, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
 * And you don't count as a reliable source. Dismas |(talk) 02:36, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you (in re: referencing of the Jamiee Foxworth article)
Thank you. I was indeed having issues with adding the reference. I tried using the example that came before my addition and that didn't work out so well. I appreciate you taking the time to help me out. :) Bvsdc (talk) 08:20, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Orsi Kocsis
Hi, regarding your deletions on Orsi's bio, I probably have sources and didn't reference properly. Could you undo your deletions and note where the sources/references are required? If I have them, I'll add the references, if not, I'd delete the content. This will help me to understand what needs sources and hopefully why. Thanks. Pete Rogers NYC (talk) 10:17, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

H1N1
Thanks I replied at User talk:CambridgeBayWeather. Cheers. Enter CambridgeBayWeather, waits for audience applause, not a sausage 05:27, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Ida Ljungqvist, no proof
Their are things said that are NOT proved. Example "Divorce finalized" (Not true) Their still legally married. No Proof. Went to State of CA website and their divocre in not finalized. Also their is no where that she works with UNICEF whatsoever. No proof anywhere online. (public information) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Greystone36 (talk • contribs) 05:15, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

You are posting things that are NOT verified anywhere such as her divorce finalization. That's NOT true or verify it, which your not doing please. The law suit Ida also filed has been dropped and no longer approved by the judge. So why don't you write that. Seriously. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Greystone36 (talk • contribs) 21:38, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

FYI- Look at the article. It's sooooooooo wrong. If something that is posted such as her court documents (on over 15 web pages) so be it. If you can have some stupid "Las Vegas" site as a "resource" but not 15 other verified web-sites. Stop putting stuff you cannot verify and removing things that are verified. If you have TMZ as a resource than you can have hollywoodgossip.com as one too or remove the TMZ lawsuit she filed. Period. facts are facts —Preceding unsigned comment added by Greystone36 (talk • contribs) 21:44, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

It is true, you cant put one thing and delete another. Facts are infact, facts. Her court documents on a celebrity website and an interview with her husband that is noted is a credible source. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Anderson7R (talk • contribs) 21:52, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

From what I'm getting online in "chat rooms" and people "talking". Ida and Josh are still legally married. Know for fact the divorce isnt finalized —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.82.33.195 (talk) 17:45, 17 June 2009 (UTC)


 * If this is going to continue to be a conversation about the article in general or about the sources for that article, take it to the talk page for the article! If it's just GreyStone telling me that he's upset with every little thing that I've done, then it can remain here.  Dismas |(talk) 19:52, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Just an FYI
I had seen your name popping up to revert quite a few pages while I was looking at accounts that I hadn't caught or included in a sock puppet case, but just to clarify things, you might want to see the list of usernames that came up in the case at Sockpuppet investigations/Excuseme99. Cheers. Wildhartlivie (talk) 02:16, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I had begun dealing with more than one of them recently, which is usually how socks end up being discovered. It had gotten quite problematic with the issues the main account was making at Talk:Natalie Wood and finally the person tripped up and changed the signature on an IP post on a page that was a response to issues regarding edits made with another username. I was a little shocked to see how many usernames I hadn't connected. It's a relief for it to be out. Wildhartlivie (talk) 02:57, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Then again, sometimes all we have is our sense of humor, isn't it? Wildhartlivie (talk) 08:34, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Your userpage
Just came across your userpage for the first time, and I wanted to let you know — although we apparently disagree on the merits of the previous presidential administration, I laughed when I saw the "Bush may be a sockpuppet" box. At least we don't disagree on the merits of going past Life Scout :-) Nyttend (talk) 21:21, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Darva Conger
A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Darva Conger, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process&#32; because of the following concern:
 * Failure to meet WP:ENT guidelines other than appearing in a single reality TV show

All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the  notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because, even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Donnie Park (talk) 12:33, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Your question about the golf license
You wanted to know where I got the idea that an article I rewrote was from.

Well, the answer is: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portal:Golf

Maybe I am mistaken. But my contibutions to the Wikepedia are made in good faith. If the Wikipedia prefers me to refrain from making contributions, please let me know and I will do other stuff. JHvW (talk) 00:23, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Shsha Grey
Agree with you that there need to be proof that she starred in this movie. I reverted the edits by 24.43.34.7 as this person did not sign his edit and gave no reason why the movie name was deleted. --Shorty23sin (talk) 07:58, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * To be fair, there is a cite in the awards section for that movie, which she won her first AVN award for. It's probably notable for her porn career.  -Chunky Rice (talk) 14:20, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Date formats
You changed the date format in Hazel Walker. Based upon my reading of wp:date, your change was in error. I'm on holiday at the moment, so not planning on much editing, but I plan to revert. If you think I've misread the rule, or there's some other rules I've missed, please bring it to my attention. For example, you imply that m d y is preferred over d m y when the subject is an American. I haven't heard of such a rule - that said, there are a lot of rules here, so please tell me where I can find the rule that trumps the MOS.-- SPhilbrick  T  22:21, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Re: Julia Ann
So if she had an Irish last name, that would be acceptable? Who in hell put you incharge? The Tavellas do have a bloodline, in fact there is a famous Italian painter from the Baroque period with that exact surname dating back to the 1600's. You have no idea what you are talking about and it shows. This is wikipedia so I should know be now to lower my expectations. "We simply don't link every person's last name." Yeah you don't. And that's the poorest excuse I've ever heard in my life. —Preceding unsigned comment added by AchillesLastStand (talk • contribs)

Scarlett Johansson GAR notification
Scarlett Johansson has been nominated for a good article reassessment. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to good article quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status will be removed from the article. Reviewers' concerns are here.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 20:49, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Cisco’s “I Will Survive” commercial
Turns out it was Nurse Alyssa Ogawa. See Reference desk/Archives/Entertainment/2009 February 10. —Mathew5000 (talk) 00:44, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Lindsey Gayle Evans


The article Lindsey Gayle Evans has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lindsey_Evans

Same person.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the  notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing  will stop the Proposed Deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The Speedy Deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and Articles for Deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Maxis ftw (talk) 23:48, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Default Sort
I am going to say this quickly, about the default sort. The default sort is to use by last name and first name. Also in the default sort are those categories to be arranged in order alphabetically. Steam5 (talk) 05:31, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Now I am going to say it slowly so pay attention what I say, about the default sort is put the last name first, then the first name goes second including the comma in the middle and the space and once it's put the default sort already then they put the categories including Category:(Year) births and Category:Living people and the put any of those categories to be arranged in order alphabetically. But almost most of the famous persons in articles already have a default sort and arrange those categories in alphabetical order. So that's all what I am going to say. Steam5 (talk) 06:56, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Adam Andrzejewski
This article seems to meet the definition of notable. He is the founder/ceo of an important Statewide IL organization and a front runner in the IL Republican primary. Not being from IL, you may not realize the importance of this individual.--Loudes13 (talk) 16:13, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

reverts
You reverted two modifications by Okki : &. Both data are supported by sources present in the infobox. Please, be more carefull when reverting, and i didn't saw you adding a message on Okki's talkpage for discussing the matter. Wikipedia is not a shoot them up.--Lilyu (talk) 00:54, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * You should assume good faith, the information is correct, the links are there, the probleme is wiki syntax : you should edit it to make those links looks like real references, not reverting. Yes multiple reverts leads to talking, it's a collaborative project.--Lilyu (talk) 04:49, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I disagree with you, you didn't do anything you said, you just reverted using an automated process modifications on porn actress articles. I try to explain to you that in this case the informations were correct, that the sources were there, and that you didn't tried to talk with the editor. I try to get you change your behaviour so that that kind of situation get better treatement in the futur, for mutual benefice for you, other contributors and the encyclopedia.--Lilyu (talk) 05:13, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Listen, i'm not attacking you, i just say that teh way you did it, we end up with correct & sourced informations removed, while a and a message to the contributor would have probably end up with better results. Now that you know the sources are there, put the informations back, please. You removed it, you put it back, ok ? :)--Lilyu (talk) 07:48, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * *sigh* kay kiddy--Lilyu (talk) 07:36, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Julia Ann
"... there is no reason to link someone's last name in the introduction of the article. I'll use the Kennedy family as an example.  And no, it's not because of being Irish or any other nationality.  If you look at the articles for John F. Kennedy, Robert F. Kennedy, or Ted Kennedy, you'll see that none of them have the person's last name linked.  None of those pages link to the Kennedy article."

I don't know why you have an obsession of the Kennedys, but you are a liar. They all have Irish-American links at the bottom of their pages. This is the second time you failed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by AchillesLastStand (talk • contribs) 17:42, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Seeking your advice about the Gerald Celente article
Hi excellent Dismas. I've been seeking help from the excellent Tabercil and the excellent Hullabaloo Wolfowitz too about a particular subject. Wondering if you'd advise me about an article. Many users feel the Gerald Celente article is a lopsided, one-way advertising piece for Celente, a gloom-and-doom forecaster and business consultant, talking head. Most "references" in the existing article were bogus -- didn't go anywhere. Sometimes the reference was for a newspaper, but clicking on it only led to the paper's website -- that kind of thing; but there were perhaps two fairly solid references also (NY Times; one more; The El Paso Times reference was bogus). So I was intrigued. What was going on? (continued) Tomwsulcer (talk) 12:39, 4 August 2009 (UTC)tomwsulcer

So I spent a day researching the guy -- about 8 hours -- getting solid information and referencing each line with a good source (major newspaper or magazines etc). What I found is that Celente is an author, does have a consulting business in Rhinebeck NY, makes rather wild (extremely negative) predictions about the whole economy that border on the scary & bizarre (food riots, depression, tax revolts etc) but these rarely seem to happen; but he also makes business predictions too about consumer behavior, DIY market, and his business predictions are often rather bland, more reasonable. He's a guest on radio & TV talk shows fairly regularly (2 references said he was on Oprah, and he probably was, but I'm not certain), and his predictions make newspapers periodically. See, it's not that hard to do this -- newspapers are rushed and underfunded and need quick entertaining quotes as fodder for articles. My guess is Celente uses the wild statements to get media attention and help him build for himself a consulting business in Rhinebeck and uses the publicity to help him win clients. I don't know how many clients he has or how extensive his business is (this is typically confidential and I won't find it in any source) -- I expect his consulting business is mediocre, but above average -- he's not McKinsey (since he spends much time courting the media) but he has an office with several employees so it's a functioning business (as best I can determine). Several rather prominent bloggers feel he's a fraud -- with no traceable history or proper schooling or background; one blogger named Ed Champion did a rather thorough study of him and concluded this (and I think these opinions should be in the wikipedia article for balance). I think Celente's more complex than this -- reading through his business predictions in 2006, I thought some were reasonable. One thing really flaky -- Celente would comment to a reporter "I successfully predicted the stock market crash of 1987", but there is no pre-1987 record in the media of him going on the record with such a statement; I really hunted but found nothing. My sense is he's always making gloom-and-doom predictions (so he probably DID make such a guess but its meaningless because he's always been gloomy); the flaky thing is that he then uses these newspaper stories of I-predicted-the-1987-crash as PROOF that he did in fact make these predictions. Anyway, I think this is how he climbed out of the pit of obscurity with this flaky stuff, and now he's a "future prognosticator"; in any event, he's an interesting guy, don't you think? (continued) Tomwsulcer (talk) 12:39, 4 August 2009 (UTC)tomwsulcer

So I rewrote much of the Celente article, based ONLY on solid stuff from good sources, referencing each line -- I took about 8 hours doing this. And I posted my re-edit. But some other editor reverted it back with the lackluster explanation that the blogger quotes rendered my effort worthless and said "go to the talk page first". (I did have comments on the talk page from earlier, but they were ignored). I'm wondering what to do here. Do you have any advice? I've posted comments on the reverting editor's talk page to try to resolve the dispute. I think my revised article is NPOV, And check out my revised version to see if you like it? Tomwsulcer (talk) 12:39, 4 August 2009 (UTC)tomwsulcer

Gerald Celente much improved, more neutral & NPOV hopefully
Tabercil and H.Wolfowitz and I have been working on it, hopefully it's better, although H.W. is worried I'm doing "original research", and I'm going to explore what this means tomorrow.Tomwsulcer (talk) 02:54, 5 August 2009 (UTC)tomwsulcer

There's a reply for you at...
Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Outline of knowledge

I hope my response answers your question adequately.

The Transhumanist 23:53, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Repeated deletion of Adam Andrzejewski
Seriously if you're not from IL how can you decide if he is notable or not? I hear his name on the radio everyday. I created the page a couple weeks ago, but didn't create the others. I'm sure you can look that up, but obviously you did not. Personally I find dealing with the wiki BS frustrating. It also does seem very biased, but this is not the time nor place.--Loudes13 (talk) 20:24, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

BMC Software and Statistics New Zealand
Hi I've done major revampings of the above two articles and seeking advice and input so I can do better ones in the future. Tomwsulcer (talk) 01:00, 15 August 2009 (UTC)tomwsulcer

emmanuelle chriqui- personal life
i worked on a film w/ them and am 100 percent together. i've since been at functions w/ them and they are most definitely together. (you can use google images to see pics of them together.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cherrycokefresca (talk • contribs) 18:41, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Replaceable fair use Image:FKB.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:FKB.jpg. I noticed the description page specifies that the media is being used under a claim of fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first non-free content criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this media is not replaceable, please:


 * 1) Go to the media description page and edit it to add, without deleting the original replaceable fair use template.
 * 2) On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on [ this link]. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per our non-free content policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. 71.176.83.93 (talk) 02:16, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

James Glasscock article
Wondering what's your take on this article's noteworthiness? Tabercil thought once it should be deleted. Tomwsulcer (talk) 12:57, 26 August 2009 (UTC)Tomwsulcer

Filmographies
Hi! You left a message on my talk page about filmographies, and since you seem to have a pretty good grasp on them, I thought I'd ask you. :)

When there's no page for a particular object (say, a film or TV show), is it okay to leave it unlinked?

Thank you (I hope I did it right this time)!

Youropheliac (talk) 04:37, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Okay, thanks! :)

Youropheliac (talk) 01:18, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

The WP:SURNAME FYI
Was it just a note, or would you ideally like me to cite this guideline when using it? Or was your intention both, to inform me that this specific guideline exists at Wikipedia and to compel me to cite it most times when using it? Flyer22 (talk) 03:46, 10 September 2009 (UTC)


 * As I stated on my talk page, thank you for clarifying. Flyer22 (talk) 03:55, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Re: Lisa Sparxxx
Thanks for the tip - I thought there was a template for that. I also seem to recall some kind of controversy about her birthdate, but I don't recall that now.-- Kubigula (talk) 03:13, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

List of people in Playboy 2010–2019
... I'm pretty sure this will get killed off as a blank placeholder or crystal ball page. Cheers. Hairhorn (talk) 20:35, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

First of all, thanks for the sarcastic "Cheers" at the end of you comment... It wasn't appreciated.

Second, the Playmate of the Month and associated interview subjects normally get announced a few months in advance, so although empty now, the list soon won't be. If you're all fired up to get it deleted, then just have it moved to my user space and I'll put it back into article space when I do have at least one entry. Thanks, Dismas |(talk) 20:39, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
 * The sarcarsm is entirely projected on your part. I sent you a note as a courtesy, in lieu of a deletion tag on your article. Hairhorn (talk) 21:18, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of List of people in Playboy 2010–2019


The article List of people in Playboy 2010–2019 has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * No need to have an article before there is any verifiable, notable, sourced information for the article to contain.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the  notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing  will stop the Proposed Deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The Speedy Deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and Articles for Deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. —Largo Plazo (talk) 21:07, 21 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I removed the PROD template, as I see it was moved to article space. I think it was premature in the first place. --JohnnyB256 (talk) 23:23, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Fearless
I just wanted to tell you how great it was to see that particular example at the help desk. If I was forced at gunpoint to name ten of my favorite songs from all of music that would be on the list.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 02:47, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Elke Sommer
Dismas, it would be easy for me to say that people like you here on Wikipedia aggravate me. But I won't say it because I think in any conversation you may learn something. The fact that she doesn't have children is as relevant as saying ieAngelina Jolie HAS six children. You see where Im going. Elke at 70 years old is certainly past her days of childbearing. It makes a well rounded and proper article like in a book or a magazine. It's a description of her family or would be immediate family such as her husband, mother etc. At 70 it would be imperative to say she doesn't have children becaue quite obviously she's not going to have any at this point. This for the reader who is interested in the personal side of a famous person's life and would probably ask this question if it wasn't there in the article. Thanks anyhow withstanding the 'bionic arms comment'. Koplimek (talk) 21:45, 6 October 2009 (UTC)Di

lölk —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.147.97.74 (talk) 07:15, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Toni Basil Page
Since you emailed me regarding my Toni Basil page I want to ask if it is you who keeps immediately changing the page back to it's original incarnation. I have done my thesis on Ms. Basil and the history of film choreographers and am simply trying to make sure the information is correct. CatchyJ (talk) 02:35, 27 October 2009 (UTC)CatchyJCatchyJ (talk) 02:35, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Edits
I am simply cutting and pasting information into the article and not changing the format in anyway yet you find it necessary to instantly revert them back even after I've tried to just edit the page section by section instead of entirely at once. Even though this entire website is full of inconsistencies, poorly referenced and full of mis-information I guess there's no point in trying to make sure information is correct so you win, go ahead and keep the page exactly as it is. You may want to post something on the main page so anyone trying to edit something knows that it's pointless. Thanks! CatchyJ =) —Preceding unsigned comment added by CatchyJ (talk • contribs) 03:06, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Adam Andrzejewski
I have declined the speedy deletion tag per CSD G4. The article has substantially more references than the version that was deleted at AfD several months ago. Please don't re-tag this for speedy deletion. It has already been declined by another administrator today. If you feel the article does not belong on Wikipedia, please nominate it at AfD. Best, IronGargoyle (talk) 01:47, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Shellie
I went to the same high school with the girl and this is not her real name. If you really want her real name to be secret, then add somewhere in her article that Tori Black is not her real name. Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kirekhar (talk • contribs) 20:26, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Any insertion of her name must be verified by reliable sources, not from your personal experience. Morbidthoughts (talk) 20:30, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
 * (also listed on your talk page) You are not a reliable source. Anyone could claim that they went to high school with her. And at no point do we say that her legal name is Tori Black. That is the name that the general public knows her by and so that is the name that we use. For another example of this, please see John Wayne, Cary Grant, or David Tennant. Those are all people who go/went by a different name than their legal name. Please see WP:COMMONNAME for more on this. Dismas |(talk) 20:35, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Annie Cruz
Hi, there

I am responding to your message regarding whether or not this is the real Annie Cruz, and I would like to take the step to prove that is in fact me. What do I need to do? The photos I posted belong to me, and I can provide the proper copyright information. I am extremely unhappy with the way my page looks at the moment, so please respond when you can ASAP.

Thanks, AnnieCruz (talk) 16:12, 17 November 2009 (UTC)Annie Cruz

Stacey Dash Aztec?
Mind weighing in on this on the talk page? I am confused about what to do on this matter. I just commented to Pinudjem about it. Flyer22 (talk) 20:04, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Jennie Ketcham
Can you do me a favour? Can you take a look at this article and see if you can locate sources for the various "cite needed" bits? TIA... Tabercil (talk) 02:12, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

SHART
I was browsing through the December 2005 archives and noticed that you did not get an answer to your question about SHART, and I know the answer. When a person endevors to fart and fecal matter comes out as well, that is a shart.Chief41074 (talk) 20:16, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
 * It's in the Miscellaneous section of the December 21 2005 archive. It's question #8 of the day. I hope that helpsChief41074 (talk) 22:08, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Found it. Dismas |(talk) 22:44, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Jenna Haze
Hi, did you look at ELN? I took out the links myself initially but reverted after reading the discussion. -- Neil N   talk to me  17:48, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Talk:Third_culture_kid
I'm questioning part of the move of this page... since you initiated, it I wanted to make sure you were aware of my concern/questions.--- Balloonman  NO! I'm Spartacus! 21:01, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Playmates of 1973
Hi. In reply to your query of 17:13, 2 January 2010 (UTC):

"Hi. I was just wondering if you could tell me why you made this edit."

Ms. Wood's name was bold, which is unnecessary, and the names of the other Playmates on the list weren't. Thanks. FredR (talk) 05:21, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

witch ball internal coloration
I am still looking for the coloring material and method color is added to the inside of a clear glass witch ball. The material may be a colored chalk but I would like to know how that is permanently affixed to the ball. Thank you.Papatollah (talk) 19:36, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your reference desk answer
thank you. I didn't know about the site...Tim Tebow ROCKS!!!!!! (talk) 00:08, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Ref Desk
Thanks for answering the question about Big Mac nutrition info. But the reply seemed the slightest bit "bitey," scolding the questioner for not looking it up himself. Thanks again. Edison (talk) 20:25, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Conflicted licensing on image File:Kevin white statue.jpg
The above noted image or media file appears to have conflicted licensing. As an image cannot be both 'free' and 'unfree', a check of the exact status of this media/image concerned is advised.Sfan00 IMG (talk) 18:15, 13 January 2010 (UTC)


 * You need to change the license tag so it has a single one... - In this case a 'non-free' one

would be appropriate. Speak to User:J_Milburn for more advice. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 19:59, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Move Image
Just wanted to thank you for the help. I tried what you did but just remembered that it's all case sensitive. ( My first Article) Again thanx Mlpearc (talk) 16:45, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks
Thank you. While I am not an employee of the university I am an alum who strives to make the entry more wholesome. While I try to make sure that references are placed where they are due, I am guaranteed to miss things. I'll gladly take your advice into consideration.

Thanks again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Saluki wiki (talk • contribs) 05:10, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Jennifer Lyn Jackson
A couple of more articles you might want to use:

http://www.clevelandleader.com/node/2295

http://www.clevelandleader.com/node/2289

http://www.clevelandleader.com/node/3931

Tabercil (talk) 01:46, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

File:Willy rey.jpg listed for deletion
An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, File:Willy rey.jpg, has been listed at Files for deletion. Please see the to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Damiens .rf 20:58, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

File:Carol vitale.jpg listed for deletion
An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, File:Carol vitale.jpg, has been listed at Files for deletion. Please see the to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Damiens .rf 20:59, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

File:Merle pertile.jpg listed for deletion
An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, File:Merle pertile.jpg, has been listed at Files for deletion. Please see the to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Damiens .rf 20:59, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Unreferenced BLPs
Hello Dismas! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot alerting you that 2 of the articles that you created  are tagged as Unreferenced Biographies of Living Persons. The biographies of living persons policy requires that all personal or potentially controversial information be sourced. In addition, to ensure verifiability, all biographies should be based on reliable sources. If you were to bring these articles up to standards, it would greatly help us with the current Category:All_unreferenced_BLPs article backlog. Once the articles are adequately referenced, please remove the unreferencedBLP tag. Here is the list:

Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 09:34, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Ashley Newbrough -
 * 2) Amie Zyla -

WP:P* articles to clean up
Wanna give yourself a heart attack? Take a look at the results on this page... Tabercil (talk) 04:53, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

archived now
Hey, I responded to you about the seagull thing, but that got archived, so I was just letting you know, since I wrote the response before realising it had been archived. Reference_desk/Archives/Science/2010_January_24

In short, I don't like them for dinner. --Neptunerover (talk) 13:19, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Willy Rey kept
Don't know if you've spotted it, but the decision came down on the three pics that got nominated for deletion, and it was to. Note that a part of the rationale behind the keep decision was because I stepped the images down further in size from the original. So if you want to upload any other such images, make sure you knock them down to around the same size and quality first. Tabercil (talk) 16:20, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Mass Deletion of AWMDB Links
Hi, I noticed you have been mass deleting links related to the "AWMDB link" template. In the discussion about its deletion it was stated "they should be substituted prior to the template being deleted" not that they should be deleted altogether, unless you have another reason? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.221.177.133 (talk) 23:09, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, I have another reason which I stated in my edit summaries. Since the site isn't notable, they're just another web link and therefore pointless.  WP is not a random collection of links, per WP:EL.  Dismas |(talk) 00:13, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * You don't think it's notable in the fact it provides information that isn't otherwise available elsewhere? The discussion about the template clearly stated "The external link guidelines do not require a site to be notable in order for us to link there". I would also say those links are relevant since they provide a unique resource beyond what the articles contain. The articles do not contain detailed information about those performers web-based scenes as the website 'Adult Web Movie Database' does therefore it may be worth including within the external links since it provides information not within the articles and information that is probably better served as an external link rather than a part of the articles. With your deletions this information is no longer covered at all, unless you can find another website that tracks web performances/scenes/movies with more information I would say that a minor link via the external links section would be of benefit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.221.177.133 (talk) 00:57, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:14, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Article Help
Can you help with my articles? Apparently you are very good at helping. I am currently working on two articles and need help with adding histories, images ect. You are more than welcome to help out if you can. If you do add something, can you leave a message on my talk page so that I know about it.

Thanks

--Klltr (talk) 12:08, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

help required
I really need to talk to someone about articles regarding myself on Wikipedia. Could you please advise me who i should talk to? I hope you can help! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Blog1 (talk • contribs) 18:24, 3 February 2010 (UTC)


 * thanks anyway, i had already look there but am new to this so have no idea what i am doing! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Blog1 (talk • contribs) 18:35, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Re: Luci Victoria
Unfortunately, I'm completely unfarmilliar with scottish football (you'll notice almost all of my edits pertain to the German Bundesliga), and until you told me about it, I had never heard of the incident you mentioned. As for sources, you might try digging through the archieves of the website of the Scottish Premier League or Kilmarnock's webpage. For something more specific, I suggest you ask someone a little more farmilliar with the subject. Sorry I couldn't be of more help. Sir Sputnik (talk) 00:33, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Tylyn
Go ahead and bounce it over... I'll take an eyeball to it. Tabercil (talk) 23:18, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Alina Puscau
The PROD tag on Alina Puscau is not correct. I am not saying that the article currently has sufficient indications of notability for a clear keep because I can see that it does not but to label it as "no indication of notability" is incorrect and a bit bitey. I came across the page whilst new page patrolling, it had incorrectly been tagged as speedy (very incorrectly). I did a quick google search and found extensive coverage so I cleaned it up a bit. I thought it far more appropriate to leave maintainance templates and see if the new user can improve it. I am an experienced user so it does not bother me at all but I can only imagine how a new user will find an incorrect speedy followed by an incorrect PROD rationale hitting their attempts at contributing to wikipedia. I will not remove the PROD tag. Polargeo (talk) 08:00, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Playgirls
Hi, it is not specifically Kelly Carrington, it is not notable playboy centrefolds, apart from that fact she is not notable at all, I am thinking about sending the article to AFD as a test case, but only thinking, there is a discussion regarding the notability of playgirls at here. Please comment there. Thanks. Off2riorob (talk) 15:03, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:16, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

MyFreeCams
Thanks for letting me discuss this with you. I hope to learn about Wikipedia in the process and become a better editor.

I believe that in the articles on Sunny Leone and Julia Bond, the reference to MyFreeCams.com was warranted.

Since November 2009, Julia Bond has been on MyFreeCams.com almost nightly so it seems that would be worth mentioning in the Career section of her Wikipedia article.

I cited this page: http://wiki.myfreecams.com/wiki/Celebrities_on_MyFreeCams

Perhaps I should have cited her profile page instead? It's here: http://profiles.myfreecams.com/JuliaBond

Please tell me if your removal of the edit was due to the content not being Wikipedia-worthy, or due to it being poorly cited.

I read that "Self-published and questionable sources as sources on themselves" are acceptable in some cases so I would argue that is the case here.

You mentioned that MyFreeCams is not notable enough to have an article. But in the Sunny Leone article I merely added it to a list of sites that included Flirt4Free and ImLive, which are two other webcam sites where Sunny Leone has appeared. MyFreeCams is considerably more notable than Flirt4Free.

So is the issue just that I'm citing an article hosted on a MyFreeCams? Would the situation be completely different if the cite was from AVN?

If you look at the list of sources at the bottom of the Sunny Leone article, at least 10% are sources on themselves, which seems to be allowed under Wikipedia rules.

Overall, I believe that my 2 edits on Julia Bond and Sunny Leone both added useful and accurate information and I do not believe either one was spam or advertising.

Please let me know where I am going wrong. Thanks so much!

Albert10109 (talk) 07:35, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Removal of cn tags
In this deletion] you removed cn tags that were highlighting personal information that remains unsourced. Was this a mistake or do you believe that such information does not need substantiation? Ash (talk) 22:43, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Boy Scouts in Palestine
Just to let you know, in case you haven't seen my response at RD/MISC, that the item about Boy Scouts in Palestine was broadcast on the 1st March edition of BBC Radio 4's Today programme; BBC iPlayer link is here; timestamp from 0:47:15 to 0:51:20. Link will only be valid for a week or so. Gandalf61 (talk) 10:21, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Cuz
Its a redirect. Ya don't need to delete it. GG360 (talk) 02:04, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Palestinian Scouts with bagpipes
Hi, just found this on the BBC wwebsite - DuncanHill (talk) 19:48, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Saint Dismas
Have you seen the article page: Saint Dismas. Last year I made some entries from the Saints' writings to his witness? They paint a very dim picture up to the cross!

MacOfJesus (talk) 23:45, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

hi there
Hi, i wanted to tell you i personally made changes to MY wikipedia page (i am Melissa Lauren). I just started a blog and wanted people to know about it, rather than gop to the website that was listed before, which i do NOT control.

I also uploaded a recent pic (the old one was about 6 years old). Please do NOT revert them. Thanks! have a good one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Blogdemelissalauren (talk • contribs) 05:58, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

And how is that supposed to help me? you'd rather link to someone's site from which i make absolutely nothing, full of old content, that i have nothing to do with, rather than let me link to my FREE blog? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Blogdemelissalauren (talk • contribs) 07:02, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

By the way, just so you know i own the rights to the picture i put up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Blogdemelissalauren (talk • contribs) 07:04, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Playboy Playmates
I have undeleted all Playboy Playmate articles I deleted and moved them to your userspace without leaving a redirect behind. Note that all the prod tags are still there, so they should perhaps be removed. I did not delete every Playboy Playmate article that was proposed for deletion, simply because there were far too many of them. I haven't done anything to the articles I did not delete. J I P | Talk 09:00, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Tanya Beyer, Drug dealer
I sent a note to the newspaper's editor to let him know that fugitive is most likely Miss February 1992. He'll have a story he didn't know was there. If news is slow in Palm Beach, something should come of it. We'll see.

That is the Tanya Beyer of Playboy, though. Portrait painting is part of my professional repertoire, and I know faces. I especially know her face, as I did several studies of it in my younger days. (She had the most classically beautiful features of any Playmate I've seen.) She looks like shit now, but age and dissipation can't hide that bone structure. The eyes, cheekbones, and jawline are identical. The faint Cheney-like semi-sneer that can be seen in several of her Playboy shots is there as well. Sad way for a glamour girl to end up.

76.226.45.246 (talk) 04:04, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

It appears I was right. The Smoking Gun posted an article about her yesterday, and the news is now showing up all over the Web.

76.226.45.246 (talk) 04:04, 6 April 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.131.3.156 (talk)

Kelly Wearstler biography
Kelly was born in Canton, OH. Her family moved to Myrtle Beach when she was seven. http://www.aboutstark.com/style/life-style —Preceding unsigned comment added by Doug165 (talk • contribs) 20:00, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

You're right ... I didn't see it was footnoted, which was my fault. I will learn how to change it with the footnote properly and take care of it. Apologies for the confusion and revert it caused. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Doug165 (talk • contribs) 04:09, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Audrey Bitoni
My changes to the page of Audrey Bitoni are absolutely correct: I got my information from her Wikipedia pages in other languages, and from other sites on which she is (for example the porn site "Brazzers.com" where you can see her bio). I am absolutely sure of what I write, you can trust me on that.Jayman1709 (talk) 18:09, 22 March 2010 (UTC)


 * You want a source ? Ok. First link : http://www.brazzers.com/tour3/index.php?action=pornstar_inside&pornstar_id=747
 * Click on the link and read the biography. Second source : http://www.adultfilmdatabase.com/actor.cfm?actorid=43951 On this page read "ethnic origin". These are my source. Now, you will probably trust me I hope...Jayman1709 (talk) 11:00, 23 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, I gave you the sources and now you tell me they are not reliable and verifiable. I just want you to know that the contents of those sites are controlled by the porn industry, or sometimes by the actors themselves. Only members of the sites (I mean directors and producers, not the readers) can write informations, which are controlled many times. But that's not all. If you think my sources are "wrong", so you can understand I am veeeeeeery curious to know YOUR sources. Please give me your sources, and I will compare with mine. And maybe I'll stop changing her page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jayman1709 (talk • contribs) 11:00, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Hahahaha, are you saying you haven't any source ?! You asked me for a source, I gave you TWO. I ask you for a source, and you are unable to give me one. So your informations are not reliable and verifiable. I will ask you to give me a source with complete and intelligible informations, as I did. If you are not able to do that, so your informations on Audrey Bitoni are wrong and you will be marked as a spammer.Jayman1709 (talk) 17:15, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

My sources are absolutely verifiable and reliable, as I told you before. These sites are serious. And I don't know if you noticed that : click on the last link under the Audrey Bitoni's description on her Wikipedia page, and read "ethnic origins". You'll see it's written "Italian/American". That means the one who made the Wikipedia page of Audrey put a link that says the contrary of what he wrote ! And, of course, I read the other links too. And what did I see ? In NONE of them it was written somewhere that Audrey has spanish origins ! This information is absolutely NOWHERE. I don't know how you got that information, because it is written nowhere. And, apparently, you still haven't understood I've asked you to give me a source with a LINK. Give me a LINK on which I can click and get COMPLETE and CLEAR informations !Jayman1709 (talk) 11:08, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

If the IAFD is unreliable, the link should not be there, source or not source! Anyone who reads the article and then clicks on the link will see a different information from the one he has read on Wikipedia. Simply because the information that says Audrey Bitoni has spanish origins is nowhere as I said before. And, by the way, I'm not the one who put the link on the article, it was already there when I read the article for the first time, and I showed it to you to give an example of mistake in the page. And even if what I'm saying is wrong, you haven't given your sources yet, so you can't criticize my informations.Jayman1709 (talk) 10:54, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Michelle Thorne
Hi Dismas. You said in an edit summary "actually, now that I've looked at the source, this should be '77 and not '75". Can you explain which source you were looking at to persuade you of this? All the ones I can see say 1975. There have been concerted attempts to remove or reduce her age in recent edits to the article, which I fear may be from her agents, so I am very suspicious of 1977 when IMDB, IAFD etc all say 1975. I have reverted it for now but obviously it can be unreverted if 1977 is demonstrably correct. --DanielRigal (talk) 19:28, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:Jackie_Rainbow_1954.jpg)
Thanks for uploading File:Jackie_Rainbow_1954.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Melesse (talk) 21:44, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Sunny Leone
Just want to give you a heads-up as a frequent editor to the Sunny Leone article that it has been given a review to see if it could be called a good article. Unfortunately, it failed, but the feedback from the review is available at Talk:Sunny Leone/GA1, which gives concrete advice on how to improve the article. Tabercil (talk) 03:57, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Article resurrection
Hi Dismas, I've userfied the articles you requested: User:Dismas/Cheryl Kubert, User:Dismas/Judy Lee Tomerlin, User:Dismas/Gloria Windsor, User:Dismas/Jean Jani and User:Dismas/Linda Vargas. Next time remember that WP:REFUND is the correct place :) Regards, Jafeluv (talk) 03:07, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks! And I had no idea that WP:REFUND existed.  I checked the Admin noticeboard and Admin/Incidents but I didn't see anything about resurrection.  I'll remember for next time.  Thanks again, Dismas |(talk) 03:29, 4 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Just curious why you wanted them deleted right after you requested them to be userfied? -- &oelig; &trade; 09:58, 4 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Recently, being a Playmate was removed from the notability qualifications under WP:PORNSTAR. (yes, it's a bad title since Playmates aren't necessarily porn stars)  At that time, there was a blitz to prod/afd every Playmate article that could be deleted.  With 500+ Playmates, and me being pretty much the only person who works on the Playmate articles, I couldn't listify them fast enough.  So, they got deleted.  Now when I have a few holes to fill, I have to ask an admin to resurrect the articles so that I don't have to recreate the articles from scratch.  Once I listify them, which only takes a few minutes, I don't need them any more.  An example of what I'm working on is at List of Playboy Playmates of 1954.  Dismas |(talk) 10:20, 4 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Ah I see. Nice work with that list too. Would be great if there was pics of all of them. -- &oelig; &trade; 19:49, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the compliment. It would be nice to have more pics but that's a whole other kettle of fish.  Even reduced images of deceased Playmates go through arguments over whether we're stealing from Playboy since pictures of women is what their bread and butter is.  We have much better luck with recent Playmates since there is a professional photographer that goes to Playboy events and donates a few pics to our cause when he's getting his own shots.  Dismas |(talk) 21:04, 4 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Wow, and you're in contact with this photographer? Can you request pics of certain playmates? -- &oelig; &trade; 08:02, 5 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I think you might be misunderstanding me. The photographer, User:Toglenn, is an editor here.  I try not to make too many requests of the two photographers that contribute quite a few photos here.  The other photographer/editor is User:David Shankbone.  I don't like to be a bother.  Dismas |(talk) 08:16, 5 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Oh I see. Here I was thinking you have some paparazzzi inside sources. :P -- &oelig; &trade; 09:51, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi again! I looked at the 1954 list again, and noticed that the two non-free images used in the list don't have a non-free use rationale for that article. Furthermore, I'm not quite sure how their use in the list article meets NFCC #8. Using a non-free image to identify the subject of the article is generally fine (assuming that it's not replaceable by a free picture), but I don't think using them in a list article like that is justifiable. Jafeluv (talk) 11:10, 5 April 2010 (UTC)


 * See, OlEnglish, this is what I'm talking about. It's a pain in the ass to get images in articles.  This is exactly why I gave up uploading images for over a year!  I've even had photos that I took myself get deletion warnings!!  I really don't know why I even have anything to do with images here anymore.  There's just too much red tape to cut through to get anything done.  And then, if I do upload an image, the red tape changes in six months and I get more nasty-grams telling me that the new red tape means that my image is up for deletion yet again!  It's a pain in the ass!  Dismas |(talk) 20:52, 5 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes I see what you mean. Wisely, I never got into doing anything with images since I started, believing all files should belong on Commons anyway. Not only that but I found learning about image copyrights to be incredibly boring, and really didn't want to get involved in image uploading or tagging. -- &oelig; &trade; 05:56, 6 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I understand your frustration, but the non-free content criteria were made intentionally restrictive to encourage using free content as much as possible. (We're supposed to be a "free content encyclopedia", after all.) For more information, you may want to read this guideline, which is specifically about the use of non-free content in list articles. Regards, Jafeluv (talk) 09:06, 6 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Now that I've read that, I still feel that I'm justified in putting those images into the list. I highly doubt that I'd be able to find an image with more than 1 or 2 of the Playmates from that year in the same image (such as the cast of a television show example on the link that you provided).  I've been reading the magazine for nearly 20 years now and I've never seen a "class photo" sort of thing with all the Playmates from a single year pictured together.  And finally, those women who are pictured are dead.  Therefore it is extremely unlikely that we could get a new free image of them.  Dismas |(talk) 09:37, 6 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Sounds reasonable. Thanks for adding the fair-use rationales. Jafeluv (talk) 10:29, 6 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks and it's no problem. Though, with 500+ Playmates spread over 50+ list articles, I'll be surprised if I get all the i's dotted and t's crossed on my first pass through.  Dismas |(talk) 10:34, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Really?
There are thousands if not millions of articles on Wikipedia that mention the crimes and misdemeanors of relatives of celebrities. The irony here is that when there was CONFIDENTIAL specific locations of Harold's family members posted here, it took several days before any of you took that down. My edit was from PUBLIC POLICE RECORDS and I did not list a specific location other than a state.

Again, my information IS verifiable and is no more inflammatory or irrelevant than thousands of other entries here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Agentkelton (talk • contribs) 03:22, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

playmates
I have userfied your requests now. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:26, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Drafts and categories/stub templates
Hi, Dismas. I edited a handful of your drafts on Playmates by adding a userspace draft tag and by commenting out categories and stub templates (on some). Please remember not to use categories on drafts in user space, as all entries in the categories should be in main space. The same goes for stub templates. Cheers. Jason Quinn (talk) 02:13, 8 April 2010 (UTC)