User talk:Tabercil/archive10

New-ish AFD, old topic
Thought you might want to see/weigh in on this: Articles for deletion/Kimberly Evenson. Dismas |(talk) 04:02, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Saleisha
I'm not vandalizing anything. So don't try to ban me from editing. Im trying to update her page and her birth surname is Cooper, not Stowers, because before the show she was going by Cooper. Check her previous work. And also stop taking off my image of her. Jaslene has a model photo up, so why can't Saleisha. Also I'm the one who started the update on Post Show Career, no one else has been adding information except me. I add references so stop taking them off. And I dont understand why you took L.A. Models off, since she is signed to there now, under runway division. How about checking your facts first. Sorry if this sounds rude, but I'm tired of re-adding facts. Ohmygosh34 (talk)

Saleisha Stowers
sorry, Saleisha isn't size 2, never will be. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.13.64.120 (talk) 19:46, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Ah, but if you look at her profile on Elite's website, it clearly says " Dress size: 2 US". Case closed. Tabercil (talk) 19:51, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Red links
Do me a favor, don't remove them. The idea is to encourage filling them. And I'm frankly astounded nobody else has yet. You removed no less than Mongoose McEwen, Dick Landy, & Cannonball Baker! It rivals removing Rusty Staub or Catfish Hunter. (I just wish my sources for drag racing were better, I'd fix it myself.) Trekphiler (talk) 22:53 & 23:11, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
 * As you said, they're redlinks... for all I know they're uncaught vandalism (though I did recognize a couple of names as being typos, like Moose Dupont) and as a result I'm sorry for what I did. If there aren't any articles for the person, then why not at least create a bio-stub for them and hope someone else comes along to flesh it out? Tabercil (talk) 00:20, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Pushing Playmates one step further
Do you think it's worth it to push for better wording of the WP:BIO/WP:PORNBIO guidelines so that they clearly spell out that Playboy Playmates are indeed notable?

My Google skills aren't good enough apparently to find the previous playmate articles that have survived AFD but doing so may help to establish a precedent. I'm not sure how many other playmate articles have been subjected to AFD but I'm certain that there are more than the recent Kimberly Evenson discussion. Dismas |(talk) 04:16, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Well I played around with Google, and got this as a result; you might want to play around with the terms to try and refine it. Simply put, I think offhand Kimberly was the only Playmate who was put up for AFD... any Playboy-related ones before then were models who appeared in Playboy. As for redoing WP:BIO to clarify, I'd bring it up on the WP:BIO talk page first to make sure everyone's aware of what's being proposed and why. Tabercil (talk) 16:36, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
 * One of the results of that search was my talk page archives. In it, I found that Marliece Andrada had been gone through AFD.  I guess I'll play around with the terms a bit.  Dismas |(talk) 21:19, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Point of clarity
Just wanted to clarify something... Per the Luke Ford permission that you got, we're not allowed to use this image (found on this page) of Annie Cruz, correct? I'm asking just because you can see her face much better in this image than the one currently on the article. Thanks, Dismas |(talk) 16:15, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Hmm... offhand I think we can. It was taken by Luke and posted before October 22/07 which means Luke was the copyright holder. Tabercil (talk) 16:42, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Done.  See Annie Cruz.  Dismas |(talk) 04:53, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Elizabeth Mitchell Photo
I'm a contributor from Lostpedia and I don't yet have permission to upload pix here, otherwise I'd take care of this myself. But the pix you uploaded for Elizabeth Mitchell is a really, really bad photo! Any chance we can get you to change it something else? In her Lostpedia article, we use this one. Thanks! Kevrock (talk) 20:50, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Stats for the Stephanie Adams Article
Why did these people remove her stats? Playmate stats are on every playmate's article and should remain on this particular playmate's article as well. Take a look when you get a chance. 72.89.109.11 (talk) 01:59, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Did you take a look at the discussion on the Talk:Stephanie Adams page? That lays everything out quite nicely. Tabercil (talk) 03:28, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I still think they should be re-added. Every other playmate has their stats on the articles written about them. 72.89.109.11 (talk) 00:30, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
 * And I'm not disagreeing with you... make you case on the article's talk page. Tabercil (talk) 00:35, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Favorites
Just wondering what your opinion on "favorites" is. Things like favorite movie, favorite actor/actress, and particularly favorite position. The recent edits to Adele Stephens brings this to mind. Thoughts? Dismas |(talk) 20:09, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Mostly they count as trivia and can be handled as such. Tabercil (talk) 21:06, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Kirsten Price
if you look at her biography on IMDB and IAFD they say her birthplace is Calgary Alberta and not Boston Massachuset where she grow up please could you change her birthplace to Calgary Alberta.

Thanks have a nice day :-) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Krazy Soviet (talk • contribs) 14:47, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
 * See my reply on your talk page. Tabercil (talk) 18:55, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Stephanie Adams Page
Appreciate you weighing in on the page. I've decided to sit back and let the loudest voices deal with this for a while. I still think that there are quite a number of sock puppets at work, but I don't think its worth the time to figure out who is who. Wandering canadian (talk) 19:43, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Kitty Kat
The "new and improved" Kat (porn star) article seems a bit over the top especially with the devil worshipping bit. Any BLP concerns here? Vinh1313 (talk) 19:04, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh hell yeah. I'd already once culled the article back. Time to do so again... Tabercil (talk) 23:12, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Quick check
Would you mind checking this diff? I would but I'm at work and can't view the sources. The info in the paragraph and the info in the infobox don't agree. Dismas |(talk) 23:52, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Cleared up. Tabercil (talk) 04:29, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Japanese subjects and the loss of a major source
Hi Tabercil. (Note: I'm pissed in both the U.S. and the U.K. senses of the word at present, so please disregard any ramblings, misspellings, poor grammar, etc.) Since you're the only active Admin in the area, maybe you can help me out or give me some advice on this matter. The Japanese erotic cinema is an extremely difficult area to source for many reasons, not the least of which is that when good sources appear online they are likely to be removed after a matter of a few months. I know for a fact that most of these subjects, and many, many who should have articles here, are covered in mainstream, and almost-mainstream Japanese media, but unless you are in the country at the time (not a day passes that I don't think about moving back to Korea or Japan...), it is almost impossible to get those sources. You have to get them in print, because the Internet is still very English-centric. Japanese print sources just don't go online all that much. There was one good source-- the Mainichi Shimbun-- which allowed their articles on the more risque elements of Japanese society to go online, in their WaiWai section. It appears now that, due to "pressure", they have stopped that section, removed all archives, and blocked it from the Internet Archive. Besides the crushing blow this deals to future work in my area of specialization, it also, basically, now makes all of my best work in this area unsourced. If I ever want to put one of these articles through GA, and the sourcing comes under examination, what do I do? The articles existed, I know that, and I have saved copies, but how "Reliable" is that?... And when people come snooping for articles to delete, if they claim these sources are all fictional, how can I now prove they ever existed at all?... It's really a major blow to the already shaky hold Japanese erotic cinema had here on Wikipedia... very discouraging. Any words of advice will be appreciated. Dekkappai (talk) 04:17, 24 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Ouch. I feel for you and I don't honestly have any ideas. My suggestion would be to repeat what you just said on Reliable sources/Noticeboard... see what they suggest be done. Tabercil (talk) 04:27, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
 * "Ouch" isn't very reassuring... Maybe I'll just go with the flow and start writing about The Simpsons instead :-<( Dekkappai (talk) 05:00, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Nothing stops you from giving an accurate complete citation at the time and then updating the citation with a (dead link) note. Editors are supposed to assume good faith that the article existed at one time and verified the statement. Vinh1313 (talk) 19:37, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Not to be confrontational or anything, Vinh, just asking: Didn't we have the "Chewbacca defense" discussion on the Japanese subjects? (I was trying to explain how these articles are very "notable", and entirely sourceable in Japan, but it is very difficult for those of us outside Japan to access that sourcing.) If so, does this indicate a bit of the problem. The Mainichi Waiwai articles were a treasure trove of English-language material on notable Pink film and AV actors, as well as other subjects in Japanese society which are very difficult to research unless you are there. These subjects are covered in national media in Japan, but that sourcing is-- purposely, it seems-- kept difficult for those outside Japan to access. Whatever the reason these subjects are blocked from outside view, it makes writing on these subjects, which are entirely "notable" by Wiki's standards-- i.e., covered in reliable, secondary sources-- extremely difficult. Dekkappai (talk) 00:10, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
 * The "Chewbacca defense" discussion was about your consistent argument that "common sense and the occasional exception" applied when there was a seeming lack of notability due to cultural ignorance or just lack of sources. If there are citations that that cover topics that I'm not familiar with (even if deadlinked), personally I would let an expert try to verify them rather than do anything with it myself. Vinh1313 (talk) 00:39, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Well that was your misrepresentation of my position, yes. Actually I was using the "common sense and occasional exception" to exactly this situation, as you see it happening before your eyes. The "exception" is that these are Japanese subjects-- not U.S., in English, with sourcing right there for us to pick up or find on the Internet. There are good sources on these subjects-- much better and more mainstream, often, than comparable U.S. subjects-- yet those sources are intentionally kept away from outsider eyes. You see this happening in the Mainichi case-- and that is just one. The Mainichi articles would, about once a week, report on one of the hundreds of such articles available in Japan. Now, it seems a convergence of Japanese face-saving and Anglo-Saxon prudery has joined to shut down this one small window into an interesting aspect of that society... You really don't understand how this makes Japanese subjects exceptions to "notability" rules which are-- unintentionally-- tailored for U.S. subjects? Dekkappai (talk) 17:25, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Significant text:
 * "Following criticism of WaiWai in late May, we decided there was a problem with listing the stories on the Mainichi Daily News site, even though they were transcriptions of articles that had appeared in magazines published in Japan. Stories were withdrawn from the site and we halted access to problematic archived stories. We also asked search engines to prevent past WaiWai stories from being displayed."
 * Now, what is exceptional about this case is that they actually had put these articles up in English and made them available to outsiders. There are hundreds and hundreds of such sources in the country, sourcing all these subjects, which are never made available to us, and intentionally so. And Wikipedia pretends these subjects-- sourced all over-- are not "notable". Is the picture still not clear? Dekkappai (talk) 17:34, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I still don't understand. Aren't there Japanese sources (in Japanese) available online over these topics that can be used? The way you make it sounds like there's a big firewall where only people in Japan can access Japanese sources. Vinh1313 (talk) 18:17, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I really don't understand your confusion. You see what happened in this case, right? One overzealous editor at Mainichi was translating and printing articles on these subjects. They've now all been taken down, the archives purged and archiving by other sites blocked, and the editor is apparently going to be disciplined. There were sources-- good sources-- available. You get that, right? Now they're gone. So far, so good? Now these sources were just sample translations of the hundreds of such sourcing on Japanese subjects who often come up for AfD here. Sourcing = "notability" as I understand it. Following me? These subjects have sourcing, in Japan, in Japanese, therefore, by Wiki-policy, they are "notable". Right? Now follow me here, this will be a difficult concept for writers on U.S. subjects to grasp: Unlike English, not all sourcing in Japanese is put online at all. Very little is. They still use things like newspapers and magazines over there. This Mainichi column was actually very notable for its rarity-- a very rare glimpse into a thriving, well-sourced (in Japan) part of that culture. I'm always coming across the argument-- even from Admins-- that when U.S. articles are unsourced, that's OK, because "everyone" knows they're notable. Yet here we have subjects I know are notable, I know there is sourcing out there, but it is unavailable unless you are in Japan.
 * One quick example: Check Boobpedia's article on Serena Kozakura See all those English sources at the bottom of the article? I'd planned on starting an article here on her. But within a couple weeks they were all taken down and archives blocked. So, rather than play the losing, time-wasting "notability" game, and get accused of making a "Chewbacca defense", I just say "Fuck it" and let Wikipedia go without the article. Meanwhile we have articles on individual phrases in a current U.S. male-teen-oriented cartoon-- because that is what the "consensus" (i.e., the average English Wikipedia editor) is aware of. No one else seems to care much about the bias this sort of thinking creates, why should I? Dekkappai (talk) 18:36, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
 * One more example: Check User:Dekkappai/Tools/Japan/In progress Down at the bottom you'll see a web link and a Japanese article pasted. This is on a major Japanese adult video award ceremony. And the link? Now taken over by a US site, and the reference to the Japanese award ceremony online now gone. Dekkappai (talk) 18:41, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

For what it's worth: I apologize for incorrectly fingering the Anglo-Saxon prudes above. Apparently they had nothing to do with this bit of censorship (and, presumably, the censorship which keeps so much of this topic out of gaijin eyes). No, it seems to have been another proud bullying-campaign by right-wing, racist thugs who thought that the column "insulted the motherland." It's the same Internet group which has continuously POV-warred on Japan/Korea/China-related articles, so we can probably expect to see some anonymous removal of previously-sourced content which "insults the motherland". Got to admire the hypocrisy of this crowd though... I guess they'd rather put forth the image of an intolerant conformist, censorious, and hypocritical society rather than one with a free press and a healthy, normal human interest in sex... Funny how those who are "proudest" of their countries are always the ones who do it the most harm... Dekkappai (talk) 21:52, 25 June 2008 (UTC)


 * This is an unfortunate turn of events. Sourcing things such as this (and even anime and manga stuff in many cases) is hard to do, so losing this very useful source is going to make this task even more difficult. The only thing I can think of is to see if someone in Japan can see if there are microfilmed copies of the articles which can be copied and used. That's much more difficult, though, and likely much more expensive. ··· 日本穣 ? · Talk to Nihonjoe 03:46, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Right... The point I'm trying to get across is that these many of these subjects who are hard to source are "notable" in Japan. They appear in mainstream media, broadcasts, etc. So the sourcing does exist-- often probably much more so than their U.S. counterparts-- it's just so hard to get to unless you're in the country... And this incident seems to indicate that it's not just "coincidentally" unavailable to outsider-eyes either... Oh well, there are other ways around this problem, I'm sure... Thanks for the input, Joe. (About the WaiWai column specifically, it seems that most of the complaints were on the stories of the "Fisherman Screws Manta Ray" ilk, which, frankly, were useless and dubious, and I won't be sorry to see gone. It's unfortunate though, that the occasional articles/interviews on the popular or erotic entertainment field has to get thrown out with the rest... There are also indications that the cancellation and the "severe punishment" which the paper promised a day after the first announcement were at least partly due to political pressure. One of the recent columns, on an alleged hentai cartoon mascot for the government started out, "From the same governmental ministry that brought you Pearl Harbor and the Rape of Nanking..." To be fair to Japan, there's a limit to how far you can go anywhere. An equivalent story in a major paper in Bush's America would not have gone over very well either. I guess the guy was testing to see how far he could go, and he found out...) Dekkappai (talk) 15:47, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Hello, Dekkappai san. You were saying that The Mainichi waiwai articles are "notable" and "sourced", but the whole archives were banned by the censorship of some Japanese right wings, blah blah... anyway, I will tell you the true background of this incident. Waiwai was written by sex maniac ausie called Ryan O'Connell, based on the Japanese tabloid magazines such as Spa!, Shukan Jitsuwa, Shukan Gendai, Asahi Geino, etc.. with a bit of extra spices put by Ryan O'Connel, and this waiwai section was not reviewed by The Mainichi executives at all so The Mainich says that they are NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR THE CONTENTS IN WAIWAI at all.

The Mainichi itself are well known as one of the quality paper in Japan, however, all the articles found in waiwai should be treated as nothing more than gossip, faked, a fantasy of some wicked psycho guy. Common Japanese people all known that stories found in Shukan Jitsuwa or Asahi Geino are all fake, but it was not so indicated in the waiwai, and it was published under the quality paper like Mainichi, this very truth makes the Japanese mothers and women get angry and they requested The Mainichi to withdrawn the archives, and they are now asking The Mainichi to show real accountability of keeping Ryan O'Connell free to write his fantasy on line for such a long time. Did you ever find gossip tabloid type of articles in the column section of The Times or The Washington Post ever? I assume not. But this was what happend in Japan.

Anyway, if you want to know more about the Japanese AV or sexy porn tabloids, go and get your latest copy of Shukan Jitsuwa, you can purchase them in the Japanese news stands and convenience stores freely, although, they are all written in the Japanese ;P Char red comet (talk) 14:45, 1 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the input, Char red san. Sure, the column was pure tabloid journalism-- no one denies that. And I, and no one else here at Wikipedia that I'm aware of, ever used any of the "those crazy Japanese" articles which angered the Japanese mob so much as a source for any article. But they were just harmless, wacky fun tabloid stories paraphrased into English. Putting the blame on Ryann Connell for showing them to English-readers is simply shooting the messenger. But included in those sensationalistic stories, occasionally, were articles on, or interviews with, people who work in the more sensationalistic areas of Japanese pop culture. Articles, in English, on these subjects are extremely difficult to find, and Mainichi provided a good window on that aspect of Japanese society which was a good way to prove the subject was "notable" and "sourced".
 * The "official version" you present is very dubious however. When the incident first happened, and I was still interested in the matter, I looked around and saw lots of evidence everywhere of the "blah blah" I presented above-- a bullying-campaign put together by 2-channelers, with a lot of very right-wing and racist talk behind it... And your characterization of Ryann Connell sounds like a less-hysterical version the character-assassination he was undergoing in these posts. Mainichi's "official" distancing of itself from the stories is very shaky at best, since the paper knew about this column for years, gaining readership due to its notoriety which it actively promoted. Only when the mob, and possibly government, put the pressure on them did they cave in. Yes-- I've thought about subscribing to Shukan Jitsuwa or one of those... But I'm not in Japan, so doing this will probably be difficult and expensive... Which is as the mob wants it, no doubt. (Your smirk that these articles-- not even the very few that WaiWai showed-- are available only in Japanese says a lot, and none of it good.)
 * From a personal perspective, what the WaiWai column showed me was that the Japanese had a thriving, wild and free journalism and subcultures which often made the U.S. press look hypocritical in comparison, in its fetishism of the word "freedom", while toe-ing the official, governmental line. What the cancellation of the column, due to pressures, showed is that Mainichi is very much in the grips of those old habits which have caused Japan so much trouble in the past-- hypocrisy, face-saving, group-think, bullying, mindless conformity... Now the mob leaves Mainichi "free" to portray Japan as nothing but tea-ceremony and cherry blossoms... If I want that, I'll watch an Ozu movie. But where do we go for an English-language coverage of the wilder sides of Japanese culture? Not Mainichi anymore... Dekkappai (talk) 15:57, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi Dekkappai again (btw, your user id sounds great, enjoying your big tits huh?)

These type of false news should be modified by its original source, in this case, The Mainichi Shimbun itself should be responsible for modification, however, The Mainichi only deleted it's "waiwai" archives and simply reported they have deleted waiwai because it so demanded by its reader; and pretending there's nothing wrong with their own media control and compliance. WHAT? Do they know what will happen to these honest Japanese travelers and business people around the world? The misguided, false image made by The Mainichi, are already given some Japanese a certain trouble, still insisting that The Mainichi is not responsible for the incidents... surely the Mainichi Waiwai would be harmless for non Japanese, but I AM, all these 2-channelers are the same too.

In some article, Ryan O'Connell was saying that some Japanese tourist visit Ecuador and enjoys child hunting, or some of us visit Kenya wishing to purchase a sex slave.... it's obviously and seriously harmful for the Japanese reputation. Also, I can imagine that if this false story become known to the local people in Ecuador or in Kenya, the Japanese living out there will get killed by the locals, and you still think it's harmful, and the Mainichi still don't understand the possibility to become harmful for their own readers.

I know you really loves mainichi sex tabloids and miss it so much, you seems understand that they are the tabloids, but are you really sure that "ALL" the readers of waiwai column understand it's just some tabloid like you? I don't think so, and many criminals that "seems to be infected by waiwai columns in a way or two" are already get arrested here in Japan, means, the Mainichi waiwai IS harmful to the daily life of the Japanese.

I don't ask you to stop studying the Japanese sex tabloids, you really can do so by only studying local language, anyone can purchase Shukan Jitsuwa, they are all less than 5 dollers, also I don't try to limit the freedom of speech at all, however, at least, the Mainichi should be responsible for what they reported in the past, simply and honestly. Char red comet (talk) 20:05, 1 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the honest reply, Char red. I don't remember seeing the "sex slave" articles, but I do admit many, many of those articles were very bad, and did seem to create a bad stereotype about Japan, so I certainly do understand the Japanese concern about them, especially if some people in foreign countries were actually influenced by them. (Personally, I find this very hard to believe, but I've been very wrong about human nature many times before...) I'm really not bothered to see that type of article gone. However, my history here at Wikipedia started out by working hard to prevent articles on Japanese erotic entertainers from all-out deletion. So I will miss the good sourcing that WaiWai sometimes-- not very often-- provided for those topics. I do enjoy learning Japanese language, culture and society, and by all means not just in the pink film/AV areas-- for example I had intended to do some major work on the Ozu articles, before this incident gave me a bad feeling on the whole topic... But I'll get back to it soon. Also, I keep meaning to do some work on articles on the compositions of Toru Takemitsu... Anyway, for good and bad, WaiWai is all history now. I'll certainly look into finding a source for the Shukan Jitsuwa, Shukan Gendai and that sort of thing. Thanks for the feedback, and thank you, Tabercil, for allowing your talk page to be used for this discussion, which is outside your general editing area. (Oh-- about the user name-- I know what I like, and so far my user page is the only one I've seen on Wikipedia with a nice pair of tits on it :-) Dekkappai (talk) 20:30, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh I don't mind the discussion... an interesting glimpse into something rather odd. Goodness knows I do have a mild interest in Japanese culture... probably from all the anime and live action Japanese TV shows I went through some years back. Hmm... I wonder if there's a DVD with English subs of Kasouken no Onna?  Tabercil (talk) 21:23, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Last note for Dekkappai san, for your research, study a little bit of our language, use web based translator, or try your best to find your friend or agent who understands the Japanaese and happy to help you find and read Shukan Jitsuwa, it's rather easier. I know that there's not many Japanese publication translated into other language and published on-line but that's not our faults, wish you a good luck! (I assume that you can easily find Takemitsu articles.... no?)

Also I thank Tabercil for your kind support!Char red comet (talk) 22:34, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Char red. Actually my connection with Japan goes back almost half a century now... I'm not as young as my editing interest and user name may lead you to believe :-) My Japanese language ability was much better a couple decades ago. About that time I moved to Korea and got married there, so I often get the two mixed up when I speak either one. My interest in both countries and languages is very strong though, and I'll keep practising and studying both Japanese and Korean, though I'm sure I'll never quite master either one. I hope you stick around Wikipedia to contribute to articles. I've collected quite a bit of Ozu information that I'll put to use soon, and I'm pretty sure I can get plenty on Takemitsu when I turn to him (I have in mind an article on November Steps first)... Anyway, nice to meet you. Cheers! Dekkappai (talk) 23:14, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

All Japanese are very angry about mainichi's waiwai article. Because almost article are lie. Why do you believe stupid asshole mainichi article? Don't trust Mainichi stupid article! It's True! Don't believe Mainichi stupid Sex article! If You believe Mainichi stupid article, Go to hell. The Hell is a suitable place for you. Please Trust your god,Don't trust Mainichi stupid article! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Japan xxxxx (talk • contribs) 04:32, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Regarding the Mainichi article, I believe the discussion above accurately reflects the validity of it. And as for my beliefs, they're mine and they're 100% in agreement with my actions here. Tabercil (talk) 04:37, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Xihr
You need to gain control of your new deciple. Because of what you wrote he thinks he is right. I'm not saying you want him as a deciple. But he now thinks he has your approval to just run around and revert anything he wants and spout BLP and you will approve. Try looking into just exactly what he does. Just like I said, about the other stuff. You missed the point. I know BLP needs to be followed. But that is not what he does. In fact he has went back and reverted other stuff again today. That has (cited references). Just for the simple fact of doing it. Then spouting that he is doing it because of BLP. Which isn't true. So check your facts, before joining in. What he does has nothing to do with BLP, when the reference is there (much less the ones he reverted were from the person's Official site).Swampfire (talk) 16:54, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
 * You just can't waive your hands around and say "the info's there". You need to be able to point specifically to the information. Note what I did with April Hunter's birth date. I pointed to a specific page on her website where she said what her birth date was, and I left the cite needed tag on the year as she didn't mention it there.
 * As for Xihr, he is not my disciple, probably more like someone who is of like mind. Tabercil (talk) 17:04, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Wasn't saying you wanted him as a deciple, was saying he was now becoming one. He is not like minded. Instead of trying to help fix problems, like you did. He spends all day trolling around reverting things spouting BLP. When most of the time, he could fix the problem just as quick as reverting. Heck I have seen him go in and revert someone hard work. With paragraphs of added stuff, with citations. And just delete the whole thing and say he did it because of misspelled words. Well if he knows all that work has some misspelled words in it. Why not fix the words, instead of deleteing a contributors hard work? When looking into Xihr I havent saw hardly any info he has contributed. Almost everything he does is revert other peoples contribs under the guise of BLP, Instead of helping.Swampfire (talk) 17:30, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Easy there... you're nudging into getting a warning on WP:CIVIL; as for Xihr's behaviour, I'll drop him a line later when I have more time to type it up. And a quick word about April's birth date - if you can't find a reliable mention of her birth year, try for a mention of how old she is and infer from that... take a look at what I did at Enza Anderson for an example. Tabercil (talk) 17:41, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I deleted April's year. Also pointing out a fact should have noting to do with CIVILTY as I did not call him a name. I pointed out what he does. In fact check his user talk page. I havent used anything to describe him, that he hasn't used himself. And in fact where is the CIVILITY, in the things he does? I personally consider someone that does not really contribute, but spends most of there time looking for things to revert as doing "trolling"Swampfire (talk) 17:50, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I tried to just do month and day in the info box without the year. but it kept giving an error for April, so I deleted the birthday all together there. And just left moth and day in main part, until a year can be found. Or an article with an age. Update I found her year.Swampfire (talk) 17:56, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Full story
I know this was asked for on the Commons, but this is my home wiki, so I am going to tell you here. A lot of the discussions took place outside of the Commons before the deletions, so that is why discussion wasn't there on hand.

I came into the IRC channel for the Wikimedia Commons, and there was a discussion going on regarding one of the images in the set. The image discussed was Image:Monique Alexander DSC 0328.JPG. I was asked to look into seeing if the image existed on the website of Luke Ford, and it did. (I was sent searching on the site, since several blog posts screamed at the site was banned in the USA. I wanted to prove a point that it wasn't.) I found the photograph without any issue, however, the website itself brought some concerns among the administrators at the Commons. First, a photographer wasn't listed at all on the websites. Since Luke is mostly a blogger, he can and has used images from other websites or of DVD's and haven't mentioned sourced. Since this was tagged with OTRS, I had to ask someone who has access to the system. It is a select few group, so I had to move to another channel to find someone. I did, and got their opinions. Due to the way the email was constructed, I was told it was a possible forgery and that we should arrange the images for deletion on the Commons. A deletion bot was chosen and sent to delete way. I become involved at the en.wikipedia deletions since I am an administrator at both here and at the Commons. That was about it, until this morning, when I was privately asked to figure out what happened.

The main reason why I had to delete your userpage regarding the emails was because OTRS asked me to delete everything regarding the images on en.wikipedia. I restored it so people at the Commons can see what emails were sent back and forth. As I have told you on my talk page, I will restore the images in a swift manner, but only if OTRS gives me the authorization to do so. This is it for my side of the story and participation. If you have any concerns, my talkpage is open and also, you can email me via the system I put on my userpage. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 08:10, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Nah. 'Sokay now... my blood pressure's long since returned to normal.  But it's been mentioned on the Commons chat in the Village Pump that there was a rush to remove things that bordered on the unseemly, and I'm very much surprised and dismayed that no-one bothered to ask me or ask Luke about the permissions/photographer issue first. I'm very much active on Wikipedia and I'm sure the OTRS info would have Luke's email address on it as well. Tabercil (talk) 12:25, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Since I cannot see the emails, I do not know what was said between OTRS and Luke. Anyways, from the question you asked me on my talk page, there was only about 10 images or so deleted from here that belong to Luke. Once I get word to restore the images, I'll let you know when I finish. I do admit we rushed it a bit, but I personally believe we didn't want to have 1200 possible copyright violation sitting at the Commons. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 18:23, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I was given the go-ahead to restore the images on en.wikipedia. I have done so, and all related templates and related pages to Luke Ford. Sorry about all of the mess. If I missed anything, let me know on my talk page. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 03:09, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
 * K... found the images via the external link search tool. A couple of the files were already on Commons but under different names so I redeleted them, but I'll have to wait for all the images to be restored before I can confirm if the others are there as well. Tabercil (talk) 03:56, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Alright. I had no clue you were an admin too. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 03:59, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Between you & me, that's one part of the whole mess that sticks in my craw... I'm an admin on EN who (in theory) has a small amount of privilege and responsibilities here but that meant squat when folks were looking at those images on Commons. Tabercil (talk) 04:06, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I am a sysop at the Commons too, so I am going to work with them on restoring the images. But if I am listening to OTRS right, the images will be bot restored. The only sticking point is to find out how to revert the CommonsDelinker, a bot that removes images deleted from the Commons. I am not sure what progress has been made on that. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 21:15, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Well from the sounds of things, they're all back on Commons, and a very large percentage of them (if not all) are back on EN. Tabercil (talk) 22:27, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

The only sticking point, which other users mentioned below, is to get them back into being used in articles. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 22:55, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm slowly going through all the Luke Ford images on Commons to make sure they have proper templated information on them and uploading a version which has been polished in Photoshop if the difference is notable (e.g., compare the different images here). I'll try and check at that time to see if it's in use on EN... don't know about the other languages. Tabercil (talk) 23:01, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
 * The only places seem affected were Commons and en.wikipedia. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 23:03, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Delinker didn't do the other languages?? Tabercil (talk) 23:04, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Only if the images are used. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 23:27, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Early feedback from going through the A's & B's... too many images got missed during the revert. :( As I said, I'm going through all the Luke Ford stuff so eventually I suppose all the EN pages will be repopulated... Tabercil (talk) 23:44, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I'll try and lend my hand in. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 01:01, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I also was corrected by a Commons users. Other Wikipedia's were affected by the deletion. The full list can be viewed at http://toolserver.org/~overlordq/CommonsDelinker2.txt. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 03:03, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Why do I have the feeling that someone's gonna come up with some improved tools to undelete images from Commons as well as improved rollback capability for Delinker?  Tabercil (talk) 03:09, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

That was talked about today in IRC. It feels like that with every time one these events happen, something new either comes along or something gets revamped to prevent a future one. Anyways, I checked the smaller Wikipedias that I edit, like the Japanese one, and it seems to be fixed. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 03:23, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Swimsuit templates
As a leading editor at Heidi Klum you may have an interest in the debate at Templates_for_deletion/Log/2008_June_27 regarding swimsuit issue templates.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 01:18, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Re: Luke Ford photos
Thanks. Maybe I'll take tomorrow night off work to catch up on all that. :-) Just so you're aware, there's an anon IP that's been putting the "replace this image" image in place of a lot a few of these images.  They're obscuring the "top edit" by the CommonsDelinker bot by making their edits.  Can I just start going through their contribs and putting images back wherever I see that they still exist?  Or are we culling some of them?  Dismas |(talk) 08:54, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Butting in, I'd encourage you to start adding images back wherever the scripts couldn't due to stuff like that IP. —Giggy 09:01, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Please stop removing lesbian categories
--71.108.3.144 (talk) 14:42, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Sources are there. Are you lesbophobic?  Please separate your biases from reality. --71.108.3.144 (talk) 14:44, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not "lesbophobic". I'm just insisting on proper sources per WP:BLP. Tabercil (talk) 05:38, 9 July 2008 (UTC)\
 * You have plenty of sources in articles you keep changing. I think you just don't want to lose the fantasy of availability from some of those articles. Now, please stop. ObsidianBlack (talk) 23:42, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
 * LOL... dude, I couldn't care less about the "fantasy of availability". I'm more interested in one thing - accuracy. If you can provide reliable sources for their sexual orientation, then do so. But be warned: MySpace and IMDB are both considered to be very poor quality ones (the former due to the prevalence of fakes and the later due to the lack of editorial oversight). Tabercil (talk) 23:46, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Then explain why you keep changing Judy Star's sexual orientation, where it is clearly mentioned in a link. If you need any further proof, run a search on her name on YouTube and you can find the interview, and hear it coming from her own lips. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ObsidianBlack (talk • contribs) 00:09, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I was going by what it said on the Bio page for her official website, which is a clear statement: "I'm bisexual and really wild." However, now that you give a YouTube link, I now have something which can be used as a reference to change it. Tabercil (talk) 00:26, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Could you examine the article "Independent National Socialism" for bias?
I am asking a number of administrators at random to review Independent National Socialism which is sourced completely from a white nationalist webpage called Stormfront, which has anti-Semitic and other xenophobic material on it. A user is claiming that this website is acceptable for use. I believe that this source is not reliable and could be original research, but you you believe that this website can or should this source be relied upon for the article? Please post your determination on the talk page of Independent National Socialism. Thank you for reading this.--R-41 (talk) 02:47, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I've made my say at both Talk:Independent National Socialism and Articles for deletion/Independent National Socialism... basically, DOA unless more sources can be found. Tabercil (talk) 20:42, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Gavcrimson
Tell you what, why don’t I stop adding ANYTHING to Wikipedia. Thats what I hate about this place, you spend ages researching people, adding links etc then two busybodies come along and start deleting things and then using my talk page to threaten/bully me. Charming. --Gavcrimson (talk) 04:41, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I believe Dismas stated why those links were being culled rather succinctly in his statement on your talk page: they violated Wikipedia's external links policy. Tabercil (talk) 17:48, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Re:Emily Osment image
Oops....my mistake....i just saw the image license page on wikipedia and assumed it must be ok.....also the anon ip didnt give any reason while removing it so maybe i jumped to the conclusion that his removal of image it was vandalism.....Anyways it was my mistake and thanx for explaining it....Gprince007 (talk) 13:35, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Jasmin St. Claire
Constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, but a recent edit of yours has an edit summary that appears to be inaccurate or inappropriate. Please use edit summaries that accurately tell other editors what you did, and feel free to use the sandbox for any tests you may want to do. (Diff) Nightscream (talk) 04:15, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not about to change that summary. It took me less than 1 minute to put a URL to each fact that got removed. Tabercil (talk) 04:30, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

check edit?
Do you have anything available that you can confirm this edit with? Dismas |(talk) 21:52, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
 * And if you don't mind... I'm at work, so I can't check this edit.  I think the referenced site will get me in a bit of hot water around here...  Dismas |(talk) 23:52, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Well I can definitely back up the Jill Kelly ref as I was the one who provided it in the first place and the book in question is clear. As for the Tamara Sky edit, the ref in question smells like a blog so I'm reverting. Tabercil (talk) 02:13, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I appreciate it! Dismas |(talk) 02:58, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Eliza Dushku External Links
Yesterday I added three external links to Eliza Dushku's page. All three are official sites, in fact one is her personal webspace. You removed all three shortly afterwards saying they were either "not related to Dushku" or didn't work. I have no idea what you mean by this comment... all three links work, and are indeed related to Eliza. Perhaps you should check your facts? I refer you to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:EL if you are unsure of the rules regarding External Links =) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.66.118.39 (talk • contribs) 04:11, August 10, 2008
 * Well it's not just me who feels those links don't belong as I see that after you restored them, they got promptly pulled back out again.  But let's go over the links one at a time:
 * elizapatriciadushku.com - currently this comes up saying "Full Site Coming Soon". There's nothing to see there at this point; if/when the full site becomes active, then we can put the link back.
 * www.bostondivaproductions.com - again, this says "Full Site Coming Soon". Again, nothing to see, no reason to have the link at this point.
 * s223519731.onlinehome.us/BDL/ - this site is live but the only content I see here that is Eliza-related is the two links to her sites in the Related Links section. I can't see how this one can be allowed period.
 * So there's my explanation behind why the links were culled, and I suspect if you were to ask Duribald he'll give those exact same reasons for why he pulled them back out. Finish building the sites then put the links in, not the other way around. Tabercil (talk) 14:17, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Whatever... none are my sites, they are all owned by Ms Dushku herself. If you actually read any of the content of the third link which you say would "not be allowed period" it is her own blog, as I explained before. Your colleague who removed them again stated one was just advertising... it's not advertising at all, if he actually looked properly he would see they are all links to news articles about her current projects. Have it as you will though, you guys seem to think you know how to sail this ship /gives up —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.79.251.84 (talk) 10:25, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
 * As I said, once there's something there, then the links can be added. Tabercil (talk) 23:30, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Move to Mason Raige
Regarding your recent move of the above article, I should point out that one of the references clearly states his real name. Surely Oswego.edu is a reliable source ? Also you might want to consider keeping the name as a redirect as 17 other articles link to the title. 72.74.202.168 (talk) 09:06, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Ah. I hadn't known about the Oswego article. I was responding to a direct email to me from the subject and I think in this instance I'll defer to his wish for privacy. If you wish to take this to a larger forum (e.g., WP:AN), be my guest as I'll hold no malice against you. And I've restored the name as a redirect only. Tabercil (talk) 12:29, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

August 2008
Thanks for the adorable Wiki Welcome message you placed on my talk page. My primary edits were related to Holly Madison's sexual preference. I have not seen that discussed in any infoboxes on any BLPs save for those of adult film stars, which she is clearly not. I have removed the information from the box. The information related to breasts, real or otherwise, while not universally applied (based on my quick study), appears in others like BLPs, so I have left it. Oh, and thanks for the "welcome". Newguy34 (talk) 14:55, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Hey, what's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander, or are you forgetting this? But just the same, you might want to chime in on this discussion. Tabercil (talk) 15:10, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I assume, then, that you were the ANON IP I added the "Welcome" message. How was I to know it was you and not some ya-hoo? :) I'll look into the discussion, thanks (sincerely, this time...) Newguy34 (talk) 15:16, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Nope, that wasn't me. I've never edited under an anonymous IP since I made my account. Why would I? I have nothing to hide. Tabercil (talk) 15:27, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Hmm, there was no edit summary from an ANON IP, so I assumed vandalism. Later I assumed it was you, given the discussion we are having and that my welcome message on the ANON IP talk page is now gone.  But, my apologies for later quessing it was you.  Newguy34 (talk) 15:42, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
 * De nada. Tabercil (talk) 15:44, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi there, regarding the Adult Bio Template
Hi there,

Why are FreeOnes and AdultStarsIndex not listed as a reliable source of additional information for adultstars? They are both edited by industry professionals, have been around for ages, and as for adultstarsindex.com they even have a parameter which censores all explicit content in accordance with wikipedia rules :

http://www.adultstarsindex.com/profile.asp?model=anna_malle&wiki=wikipedia

vs

http://www.adultstarsindex.com/profile.asp?model=terri_summers

and btw, I just noticed Please discuss adding a new field to the Female Adult Bio template before you go and do it for this bit, I am sorry. New to Wikipedia, not new to the world of adult stars :).

please respond, and above all.. have a nice day :) Kind Regards Alan Sandry AlanSandry (talk) 02:27, 18 August 2008 (UTC)


 * We have more than ample existing links as is in the Infobox as is. When I look at adultstarsindex, I ask one simple question: what does it provide that the existing links don't already have? And frankly, I don't see anything. Tabercil (talk) 02:34, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

thanx for the swift update. I supply both (freeones and adultstarsindex.com) with updates, I'm an industry professional, have no financial interests from either site. First of all, since you mention ASI, anyone can update it, like Wikipedia, it has 1.200 model portfolios with way more accurate information, more informations and more features than eurobabeindex.com for example (which I dont know what is doing in your list). It has a facebook style discussion feature (just try it), one of the most convenient adultstars search engine I've come across and it is edited by industry professionals with accurate information. I can give you access to the moderator panel, but you can see more features by :

http://adultstarsindex.com/profile.asp?model=alexa_kai (click the green chat balloon) to test the discussion feature and it's features

It's quite obvious how the search engine differs from the single input of sites such as eurobabeindex.com, not to mention wikipedia, which isnt exactly focusing only on adult entertainment

http://www.adultstarsindex.com/search_engine.jpg

Easily subscribe to all discussions of your interest and view them all in your page

http://www.adultstarsindex.com/discussion_summary.jpg

View all updates, not taking your own preferences into consideration and easily subscribe to changes of your favorite girls or simply edit their information yourself.

http://www.adultstarsindex.com/new_girls.jpg

Try the site on your mobile phone and see what happens (iPhone, Nokia N95)

Subscribe to the RSS

It's basically a site, about real fans of adult stars, made by people like you and me, for people like you and me.

If you want an access to the moderator backed (such as the one I am using right now to type in, here i Wikipedia) I will get you access. If you want to meet other moderators (including Lorenzo at Eurobabeindex), let me know.

Basically... please think about this, if you require anything instead, let me know, and I can forward it to the administrators or they can communicate with you directly.

AlanSandry (talk) 03:02, 18 August 2008 (UTC) Kind regards from the north pole (Iceland) Alan Sandry


 * Again, I'm wondering what those sites offer that are specific and worthwhile. Wikipedia has an external links policy which states in part: "Wikipedia's purpose is not to include a comprehensive list of external links related to each topic"; also there is a page called What Wikipedia is not which also states: "Wikipedia articles are not... (m)ere collections of external links or Internet directories." And offhand, I can't see anything unique to those sites which argue persuasively in their favour for inclusion. Tabercil (talk) 03:30, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm off to bed... I'll get back to you tomorrow, I appreciate your swift responses. —Preceding unsigned comment added by AlanSandry (talk • contribs) 03:32, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Nude pictures in article about porn stars

 * NOT
 * Why nudity is not allowed according to P*?
 * Why should we avoid nude picture in porn related articles? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.0.51.89 (talk) 17:57, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
 * You're right in that Wikipedia is nor censored. However, the purpose behind having a picture in the infobox is primarily to put a face to the name. There is a more detailed explanation of what is and is not acceptable, and why, here. Tabercil (talk) 20:09, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Miss Use of Cuban Flag
Sorry for missusing the flag I didn't know I will be changing all the ones that I changed.. Sorry.. Callelinea (talk) 03:32, 19 August 2008 (UTC)