User talk:Rentaferret/Archive 06-01

Erik Rhodes
Given your recent contributions, which are much appreciated, you may be interested in this AfD. Zeromacnoo 12:27, 18 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your constructive comments in my recent nomination of the Rhodes article. Since you have a great interest in pornography or gay pornography, I was wondering if you would review Articles for deletion/Paul Becker as well.  Is there something important about this person that I'm missing?  If so, please let me know what resources you use to look up this information as I had a terrible time finding anything of note about this subject.  Ciao, RFerreira 23:30, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Potential Collaborative Project
I am seeking anyone interested in improving the articles relating to York County, South Carolina. As someone who has contributed to articles relating to York County in the past, I hope that you will consider a project to revise York County history. --Chuchunezumi 08:13, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the response. I think that I might like your emphasis better! Maybe I'll add an article for Mason Wyler. :) --Chuchunezumi 16:23, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Alan Fox and Martin Landau
Thanks for pointing out the links that can be used as search resources. And thank you for responding to the anon editor who has the problem with "racial stereotypes." I thought I was banging my head against a wall. -- Dcflyer 03:23, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Southernisms
Many thanks for the e-mail. It took me back to my days in Hotlanta/Adlanna/Etlanta. If you don't mind, I will pass it along as well. Feel free to use the userboxes. I have been poaching them from other user pages. -- Dcflyer 05:24, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Hilarious (the last message)...I was wondering why the Baby Boomer box looked different...I think that I will snag your eBay and broadband boxes. -- Dcflyer 05:52, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Gay awards on Notability (pornographic actors)
I'm all in favor of adding more suitable criteria on gay porn stars, but it looks bad that they're all red links. If they're notable awards, can we make articles for them? That sort of feeds on itself - if the award isn't notable enough to deserve an article, it isn't likely that it's notable enough to deserve articles for the recipients. AnonEMouse (squeak) 21:43, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I understand your concern; however, with the exception of the Grabby and the Gay AVN awards, I'm not sure any of the others survive; however, they were important in their day. It will be difficult to write articles on them; finding information will prove problematical, I'm sure. I'm in touch with the owner of the Grabby Awards; the original owner died and they are in the process of updating the website; I can't even get stats for that award, and it's still being given! I'll give it my best shot, but don't be surprised when the articles get AfD'd. In the meantime, I'll take out the links; I'm working on more stats for the talk portion of the page. (By the way, when you leave a comment on my talk page, am I supposed to respond on yours, or mine? I'm still pretty new at this!) Thanks. &mdash; Chidom   talk   22:10, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I haven't figured out where to best respond either, despite doing this for months. :-). I've seen people doing it each way, and occasionally, like this, pasting the other's person comment with theirs. I generally "watch" the talk page where I leave a comment, to make sure not to miss it.
 * Don't take out the red links to articles, fill them in! I added a few external links that will fill space until then, (except XRCO which was alreaty there). AnonEMouse (squeak) 22:22, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I found out that we already had an article on the GayVN Awards and updated that link, although I'm not sure why the article is so obscurely named; I also added a link to an article about them at the "regular" Adult Video News website.
 * I think responding on the page where the thread started makes it easier to see what was discussed previously; I'll adopt that as my "style" until someone says otherwise. Thanks. &mdash; Chidom   talk   22:36, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Mouse, you're invited to come play in my sandbox for a draft of the Grabby Awards article; please pay particular attention to the link for Newcomers (among the myriad links available). I look forward to your thoughts (I hope). &mdash; Chidom   talk   13:26, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Impressively large, well written piece, and will be better than any of our other awards articles. No, I don't think the WP:BITE Newcomers link is right, that doesn't really have anything to do with the article, that's editing instructions. To really do it right, the internal links should also go in the References section with description, per Embedded Citations. I'd say to put it live, except it seems to need a merge with the article on Erotic Gay Video Awards . AnonEMouse (squeak) 13:41, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
 * (I changed your link to a non-link, as I moved the page to its proper name. Pardon the edit of your comment, please.) &mdash; Chidom   talk

The link to WP:BITE was a joke; I couldn't find "Newcomers" as a topic anywhere else in Wikipedia. I must have been relisting the links even as you were reading; that's done. Instead of the various links to the Grabbys site, however, I've just linked to the front page (with adult warning) in the "External links" section. I went ahead and merged this with Erotic Gay Video Awards &mdash; didn't know it existed. I also moved the article to retitle it with the proper name for the awards, Adult Erotic Gay Video Awards. &mdash; Chidom   talk   13:59, 29 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Are the "Adult Erotic Gay Video Awards" the same as the "Gay Erotic Video Awards"? If not, can you make a note about the difference (for example, Chicago vs wherever?) on the notability page? AnonEMouse (squeak) 14:50, 29 July 2006 (UTC)


 * No, they're not the same; I've just finished a draft of the Gay Erotic Video Awards article; it's really all the information I have on the award. I don't know where the ceremonies took place or where the magazine was located. I do know that the awards were given at least one more year&mdash;1995&mdash;but I can't find a list of recipients that includes all the categories for the other years. &mdash; Chidom   talk   17:04, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Will do. By the way, would it be useful to have a list of the winners of the Adult Erotic Gay Video Awards over the years? I note we do this for the Academy Awards, but I wouldn't presume to compare the two. Still, it would prove helpful when researching a porn performer's qualifications for notability. I'd make it a separate page from the article but add a link to it there. Thoughts? (By the way, lest I forget&mdash;which I do more and more often these days&mdash;thank you for your assistance and your reasoned comments in discussions.) &mdash; Chidom   talk   14:54, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Disambiguation of talk pages
Thanks for the question, Chidom. My answer is the same as my 11:37, 25 July 2006 (UTC) comment at Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation pages with links: "I agree that if a Talk page link was unambiguous when the author wrote it but it later becomes ambiguous, it may be reasonable to disambiguate it to preserve the author's original intention. But if authors link to a dab page (at the time they write), that's their choice (deliberate or implicit), and it shouldn't be changed." So if the Arrested Development links changed after the talk page postings had been created, it wouldn't be unreasonable to change the links so that they still point to what the talk page author intended originally. But if the redirects or ambiguity were in place when the author made the posting, it's not legitimate to change it, because that distorts the author's intention if they knew the link was ambiguous, or second-guesses it and makes them appear more competent than they are if they didn't know that. -- JimR 05:59, 30 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the reply, Chidom, and for your very reasonable and friendly response to the whole issue. -- JimR 11:42, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Re Tyrenius: as far as I can see the posting said to be a sock puppet's was not yours but this one. For some reason not only this but also my subsequent independent posting got removed; but Tyrenius restored mine later on. So I don't think there's been any suggestion you're a sock puppet :-) -- JimR 06:17, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Notability and AFD
Well, it is indeed true that notability is not universally accepted as a rationale for deletion; however, it is also true that it is considered by a significant portion of editors as a valid reason. As a result, I didn't feel comfortable that someone went around and removed it from WP:AFD, as it is truly a bone of contention that is better removed after some sort of consensus.

Personally, I'm not sure the problem is that there is "precedent" for deletion, but rather than notability is a way to address that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, and is used as a metric to measure just how indiscriminate that is. But again, that's just my personal opinion. Tito xd (?!?) 05:57, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Deleting or banning sock puppets
On "deleting sock puppets". . . I'm not sure that any users ever get deleted; instead, they might be banned. But that wouldn't automatically revert all their edits. Someone might revert some of their edits manually of course. -- JimR 07:28, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

GayVN and redirects
First, let's get it out of the way early: Wikipedia's search engine isn't good at all, and trying to optimize for it is a losing game. The specific search issues you mention are easily addressed: create a redirect at GayVN. That's what redirects are for, and that one would be perfectly appropriate.

Second, for those redirects that were once articles, and got merged, the GFDL really does require we keep them around. Why? The history of the now-redirected article is where the GFDL-required attribution of authorship lives for that text.

Third, for those maybe-useless redirects that were always redirects: There is no reason I know of those can't be deleted. But there is no speedy-deletion criteria allowing it. You need to list them on WP:RFD. &mdash;Bunchofgrapes (talk) 16:53, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Deletion proposals
Please take more care in avoiding incivility or comments that may be seen as uncivil. I read the discussion page. The nomination you refer to is over a year old. The policy underlying my deletion proposal took effect only a few months ago. Even without the new policy rules, there is nothing wrong with a new deletion proposal more than a year after an earlier one. Especially when the reason is completely different. The editor formerly known as Harmonica Wolfowitz 19:35, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Your edit to List of female porn stars
Your recent edit to List of female porn stars (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 15:17, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Invite
Hey Chidom! I see you've contributed to a variety of porn articles, so I was wondering if you would like to join our project at WikiProject Porn stars? If you decide to, just add your name to the "Active" list. Thanks. Duane 03:46, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Your edit to List of female porn stars
Your recent edit to List of female porn stars (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. // Tawkerbot2 10:01, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Worry not. The bot's pretty accurate, and ultimately it's a godsend for vandal patrollers, but it looks like this was one of it's few mistakes. I've already reverted to your version, and it shouldn't bother you after this. :) Happy editing. Luna Santin 10:03, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Status changing script
Any changes you want to make to what people see when they look at your status should be made at User:Chidom/StatusTemplate. What you put on your monobook is what changes the status. talk to JD wants e-mail 01:29, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Throat Gaggers AfD
Hi Chidom. Actually I don't believe the nominator's opinion does or should carry any extra weight in the debate. As its stands I believe it highly likely that the closing admin will keep the article, which would be the correct outcome given the extra information added late in the discussion. Thanks for your work on showing notability for this article. Best, Gwernol 07:32, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

alternatives to speedy
When you see an article that seems to be eligible for speedy deletion under A1 but which seems to have potential, it is often best to flag it as a stub, add categories and do some rudimentary cleanup on it. I did so for Hashem Zaidan, for example, and you might want to do so for Claes Lilja and other articles that might otherwise be speedily deleted. Of course, if you're sure that the subject of the article will never be notable, you should still speedily delete such an article. -- TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 11:28, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Pierre-Yves Darget
I have listed him because he has an imdb entry. The rationale from reading the discussion on the delete page is that actors with imdb entries should be included on the list. Incidentally I would like to know what happened to him after that one film, but thats another line. I'm sure there are other one-film wonders in the list too. Why are you singling out Mr Darget for exclusion from Wikipedia? Rhyddfrydol 22:16, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Discontinued gay pornography awards
Very impressive. Don't really know what else to write, I merely tremble in awe. AnonEMouse (squeak) 18:40, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Pierre Fitch broken link
Was deleted with "CSD A7" given as reason. Please see User talk:Yanksox. Cromulent Kwyjibo 22:40, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

File download dialog box?
Every time I try to edit a page by using the "edit this page" tab; I get the following dialog boxes:



Any idea if this is a wiki problem or something on my computer? &mdash; Chidom   talk   06:53, 25 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Apologies for taking so long; nobody in the IRC channel at the moment seems sure how to answer this one, heh. I can tell you I've never run into that problem. o.o;; But I'm not sure what might be causing it, either. Is it happening on every page, or just a few? What browser(s) have you used? How long has this been a problem for, and can you think of any changes you've made to your computer, recently? Those are just some quick questions I can think to get out of the way. Luna Santin 07:14, 25 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Is it a single left click you're making? because it looks like you are selecting "Save Link/Save target as" L Trezise 07:24, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

No apologies required; thanks for the help. Yes, I was single-left clicking. I found the problem; it was a change to the preferences I had made here. Somewhere along the way I checked the "Use external editor by default" box on the Editing tab; now that I've unchecked it, everything's fine again. Just for the record, here are the boxes that I've checked on that tab:


 * Enable section editing via [edit] links
 * Enable section editing by right-clicking on section titles (JavaScript)
 * Edit box has full width
 * Show edit toolbar (JavaScript)
 * Show preview before edit box
 * Add pages I create to my watchlist
 * Add pages I edit to my watchlist
 * Use external editor by default no longer checked; that solved the problem
 * Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary

What was so odd was that I could edit sections by right-clicking them; I just couldn't use the edit this page tab or alt-e>Enter; that's when the dialog boxes came up.

The good news is that I've completed a full virus scan, two different spyware scans, and an additional stand-alone registry scan&mdash;maintenance tasks that I had been avoiding. (Found a few problems; system is now slicker than snot on a glass doorknob.)

Thanks again for the assistance; if someone wants to explain to me why that checkbox created such an issue, great. (But I don't absolutely need to know.) &mdash; Chidom   talk   10:16, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

I doubt you care, but that was occuring because it thought you were going to use a program on your computer, instead of an online version, and then upload to wikipedia, and all that that is doing, is downloading the source code for the edit =) L Trezise 04:41, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Broken links
Hi, just an FYI: don't remove broken Wiki links. Seeing which not-yet-created articles have a lot of links to them is a good way to determine high-priority creations, and also once an article is created, it's tricky to go back and restore previously removed links. &mdash;Chowbok 20:31, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Lucas
It makes the citation font smaller, that's all, which is indeed the standard. Cheers, Mad Jack 03:45, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Awards
Thanks for your excellent work on Adult Erotic Gay Video Awards, Grabby recipients and the discontinued awards articles. These are excellent resources. When I have time, I'll do what I can to make sure that the awards identified are listed in each star's article. This would be good cross-referencing, and may help avoid deletion of some articles. Keep up the great work. (I was on vacation for a little while, and probably won't have much time to work on the 'pedia from now on-- work is too busy.) Zeromacnoo 22:28, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Hyphens
I'll have to look this evening. Thanks for letting me know. Rich Farmbrough 07:25 1 September 2006 (GMT).
 * I assume you mean Adult Erotic Gay Video Awards: this edit does not change any non-breaking hyphens. Rich Farmbrough 10:15 1 September 2006 (GMT).
 * Sorry I wasn't clearer; it's not the article on the awards; it's the listing of the recipients of the awards (Grabby recipients): This edit changed the non-breaking hyphens to regular ones. &mdash; Chidom   talk   17:47, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

They are still the same character I think. See below.

New
co‑creatorco‑creatorco‑creator co‑creatorco‑creatorco‑creator co‑creator co‑creator co‑creator co‑creatorco‑creatorco‑creator co‑creatorco‑creatorco‑creator co‑creator co‑creator co‑creator co‑creatorco‑creatorco‑creator co‑creatorco‑creatorco‑creator co‑creator co‑creator co‑creator co‑creatorco‑creatorco‑creator co‑creatorco‑creatorco‑creator co‑creator co‑creator co‑creator co‑creatorco‑creatorco‑creator co‑creatorco‑creatorco‑creator co‑creator co‑creator co‑creator co‑creatorco‑creatorco‑creator co‑creatorco‑creatorco‑creator co‑creator co‑creator co‑creator co‑creatorco‑creatorco‑creator co‑creatorco‑creatorco‑creator co‑creator co‑creator co‑creator

Old
co&#8209;creatorco&#8209;creatorco&#8209;creator co&#8209;creatorco&#8209;creatorco&#8209;creator co&#8209;creator co&#8209;creator co&#8209;creator co&#8209;creatorco&#8209;creatorco&#8209;creator co&#8209;creatorco&#8209;creatorco&#8209;creator co&#8209;creator co&#8209;creator co&#8209;creator co&#8209;creatorco&#8209;creatorco&#8209;creator co&#8209;creatorco&#8209;creatorco&#8209;creator co&#8209;creator co&#8209;creator co&#8209;creator co&#8209;creatorco&#8209;creatorco&#8209;creator co&#8209;creatorco&#8209;creatorco&#8209;creator co&#8209;creator co&#8209;creator co&#8209;creator co&#8209;creatorco&#8209;creatorco&#8209;creator co&#8209;creatorco&#8209;creatorco&#8209;creator co&#8209;creator co&#8209;creator co&#8209;creator co&#8209;creatorco&#8209;creatorco&#8209;creator co&#8209;creatorco&#8209;creatorco&#8209;creator co&#8209;creator co&#8209;creator co&#8209;creator co&#8209;creatorco&#8209;creatorco&#8209;creator co&#8209;creatorco&#8209;creatorco&#8209;creator co&#8209;creator co&#8209;creator co&#8209;creator


 * Rich Farmbrough, 18:37 1 September 2006 (GMT).

Incidentally it is not part of the HTML specification I believe, and on my browser (firefox) looks very short, almost dot like until I zoom in. Rgds, Rich Farmbrough, 18:39 1 September 2006 (GMT).
 * Well, shut my mouth and I'll be a bug-eyed mule! I suppose I could have tested the necessity of them; I got the HTML code from here, which seems to be a pretty thorough list. In most cases, a line break can occur at a regular hyphen, which is why I put them in. As for firefox, dunno why it doesn't handle the HTML properly. By the way, your hard work at all this is not unappreciated&mdash;thanks! &mdash; Chidom   talk   18:46, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Nice to be appreciated! Rich Farmbrough, 18:51 1 September 2006 (GMT).

Wikifying dates
Whichever bot you use to do this is deleting the comma between the day and the year in dates that are in the format Month day, year. This is an example. &mdash; Chidom   talk   18:41, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks. It's OK because the wikimagic that renders dates according to preferences puts them in. SO you should  see no difference between May 1,123 and May 1123. Rgds, Rich Farmbrough, 18:50 1  September 2006 (GMT).
 * P.S. I fixed a big red Cite error on that article. Rich Farmbrough, 18:50 1 September 2006 (GMT).
 * Thanks. Wikimagic&mdash;something else I learned. As for the red link, I got one and missed the other ::::sigh:::: ; thanks for catching it. &mdash; Chidom   talk   18:57, 1 September 2006 (UTC)