User talk:Dismas/archive18

Reflinks[edit]

Hello, Dismas

I have posted a query on the Help desk (see #4.7) about how to use #Reflinks. You may remember you told me about this method for creating footnotes earlier (at #1.7 #SkyBlu (2)). No-one has come back to me on it yet, which I suspect is because not many use this method, so when you have a spare minute (I know your time on the Wiki Help desk is limited), I would be very grateful if you could. You will see the trouble I had with Reflinks in the first para of #4.7. --P123cat1 (talk) 11:44, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Answered on the Help Desk. Dismas|^(talk) 20:54, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much, Dismas. I will have a good look at this tomorrow. --P123cat1 (talk) 22:53, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:DENY[edit]

Please bear WP:DENY in mind when editing the Ref Desks. If you look on the talk page, you'll see that, while people considered the reaction over-the-top, editors generally felt your provocation was uncalled for. People will never be prosecuted for full WP:Dickery if there are clear provocations. 86.146.28.229 (talk) 05:50, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'll keep it in mind. Dismas|^(talk) 06:13, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Gary Wagner[edit]

Hello Dismas, Thank you for reviewing my page on Gary "The Wagman" Wagner.I will continue to tweak this page and resubmit if you do not mind helping me become a Wikipedia contributor. Thanks again! Andrea Dr. Andrea Bruce (talk) 16:03, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't mind at all. Ask what you need to. Dismas|^(talk) 20:24, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Dismas, I have made several edits to the page Gary "The Wagman" Wagner. Please take a look and see what you think. I have tried to beef up the reference section. Mr. Wagner may not be "famous' but to the many thousands of listeners to his show he is certainly "notable". I hope you can reconsider this post.Dr. Andrea Bruce (talk) 01:25, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Andrea, I have a lot going on this weekend. I'll try to get back to you early next week. If you would like help sooner than that, there are a couple places that you can get help and feedback. The Help Desk is a good place for questions about how to edit, and the Tea House is also good for that but is more aimed at newer editors such as yourself.

Oh, and when you post to my talk page (or anyone's really) please don't just post your comments at the bottom of the page. When you did that tonight, you posted your comment at the end of an entirely different discussion that I was having with another editor. If you want to start a new section on the page, the "+" at the top right of the page will do that. If you'd like to add a comment to a section that is already here, then you can simply click on the "Edit" link next to the section title and then post your comments. Thanks, Dismas|^(talk) 03:48, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dismas, Thank you for your guidance. Just to let you know, I have also removed unsubstantiated claims on the Wagner page. I am learning! Dr. Andrea Bruce (talk) 16:39, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Dismas, I hope I am posting this comment in the correct location. Could not find the + plus sign you directed me to. I believe I have completed edits on the Gary Wagner page. Please give me your feedback. ps I can see on your talk page that you have a very full plate. I appreciate your help.Dr. Andrea Bruce (talk) 21:59, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Andrea, I've collected all the sections that you had started on this page for this article and put it under this single heading. You can just click on the "edit" link next to the section title, so that you're not editing the entire page, if you like.

There are a couple things that I'd like you to fix before I approve the article. First, the early life section. Per WP:BLP, all the info that you have in that section needs to be cited to a reliable and verifiable source. I'm thinking specifically of the birth date and birth name. Please cite your sources inline for that information.

Secondly, the recognition section. At the end of that you have a bunch of sources with a sentence fragment. Those references should follow what info they are referencing.

There are some other minor things that need to be fixed but they aren't so serious that they are keeping the article from being approved. Once you fix the reference items, let me know. Dismas|^(talk) 23:37, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Dismas, Well...now I am afraid it looks worse than before. I do not know how to verify Mr. Wagner's birth information, so I elected to remove that section. I tried to place the recognition information in the body of the article (I think that is what you were suggesting). Unfortunately I could not find the instructions on how to properly format and link that information together. On top of all that, the section titled "Radio Show Style" is now beneath the "References" section. HELP! I think I have hit a wall.Dr. Andrea Bruce (talk) 02:56, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Dr. Andrea Bruce: Again, I've moved your comment up here to keep everything in one section.

I fixed the issue you were having. You had placed opening ref tags, presumably, where you intended to put the references but then you hadn't closed them. Once you used the opening tag, the software looked for the next closing tag which wasn't until several paragraphs later. Dismas|^(talk) 03:29, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dismas, Thanks for fixing that. Do you approve of the article? I am still not sure that I have corrected the referencing format. I believe I have done my best, considering my inexperience. This is a good learning experience.Dr. Andrea Bruce (talk) 03:48, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Dismas, I saw the edits you made this morning. Thank you for your corrections. I will take this as encouragement that we are moving towards approval. Thank You!Dr. Andrea Bruce (talk) 18:07, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, things are looking much better. The only sticking point I have is that I can't find any source for the award he was given. The "Keeping the Blues Alive" award from the Blues Foundation. I can't find anything with his name on it from 2013. The Blues Foundation's awards page from that year can't be found. Dismas|^(talk) 19:03, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dismas, Mr. Wagner did not win the award from the Blues Foundation. He was nominated by one of the board members, Meg Ramos. http://www.blues.org/about/board-of-directors/#. https://www.facebook.com/megaramos1/about. Thank you for your vigorous research. Dr. Andrea Bruce (talk) 15:24, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Dismas, Just wondering what is the next step on this article? Since you originally declined the article I assume you are the editor who can move it forward to approval. If you are concerned about his nomination to the Blues Foundation I will be happy to edit that section. I will be waiting to hear from you. Dr. Andrea Bruce (talk) 13:25, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the delay. Things have been crazy in my real life. Quickly though, I'm not crazy about mentioning being nominated for an award when we don't have a source for the nomination. Providing a link to Ramos' name on a list of directors or to her Facebook page doesn't confirm anything about Wagner. Dismas|^(talk) 08:53, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for checking in. I figured you have been preoccupied. I have read some guidelines that advise against referencing Facebook, but I gave you the links simply for your own information. I removed the reference regarding submission for the award since I do not consider it a critical part of his credentials. Hope that helps. Dr. Andrea Bruce (talk) 06:30, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dismas, perhaps you can explain the "orphan" delineation for me. I created several links, external and internal for this page. We did not discuss this prior to your approval. Dr. Andrea Bruce (talk) 15:13, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The tag means what it says. The article doesn't have any articles that link to it. In other words, there are no articles in the main space of Wikipedia that have Wagner's name linked to the article. If you click on "What links here" on the left side of the article, you'll see that the only pages that link to the article are various talk pages and such. If you click on the links in the tag, those links will explain this a bit more. Dismas|^(talk) 19:12, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I think I understand. I have linked his reference on the page "Long Beach Blues Festival" to Wagner's article. Does that correct the problem? Dr. Andrea Bruce (talk) 16:00, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As to the article being an orphan, according to WP:ORPHAN, "Although a single, relevant incoming link is sufficient to remove the tag, three or more is ideal and will help ensure the article is reachable by readers." So yes, you can remove the tag. (I didn't remove it myself because I'm trying to keep my edits to the page to a minimum so that you can learn how to do as much as possible.) Another page that you could add a link to would be Gary Wagner. Look at the other entries there and format the new line for the disc jockey article in a similar way. For more on that you can see WP:DABSTYLE.

As to the new article that you started at Gary "The Wagman" Wagner, we don't keep multiple articles on the same topic. The article is at Gary Wagner (disc jockey) where it should be per WP:ARTICLETITLE. I've changed the other title into a WP:REDIRECT. Dismas|^(talk) 00:37, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

message[edit]

I've received messages but I am still unclear as to why the Timothy Bloom wikipedia page has not been posted. I believe it is in the correct format. Can you let me know what the status is? Thank you Hartmanshouse (talk) 17:40, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's not the format that's bothering people. As it says in the comment that was left for you, it lacks references. There isn't a single reference to a reliable and verifiable source for where you got your information. Sometimes it helps for people to think back to when they were writing a paper for school where your teacher made you write out a bibliography explaining where you got all your facts. This is the same thing. Only this time the references will serve multiple purposes. They will both confirm the information that you've supplied. When you do find those references, you can learn how to put them into the article at referencing for beginners. Secondly, they will also demonstrate why we should have an article on him to begin with. For Bloom, the standard to meet is at WP:MUSIC. Is this more clear and more helpful? Dismas|^(talk) 20:22, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Dismas- I manage Timothy so the information for this article is from him but I will put in a few references from interviews he has done where he states the same facts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hartmanshouse (talk • contribs) 02:26, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If that's the case, you are strongly discouraged from editing anything to do with Bloom. This is because you have a conflict of interest and many people who are close to the subject of an article have a hard time maintaining a neutral point of view. For more on this, see WP:AUTOBIO. Dismas|^(talk) 02:42, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have listed the sources of all the content and have not written anything that is not factual. I hope this is enough information to get a wikipedia page up as he is cited on numerous wikipedia pages and you cannot click on his name -https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F.A.M.E._(album) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hartmanshouse (talk • contribs) 02:59, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reflinks (2)[edit]

Dismas, I have just left you a message on the Help desk under #1.7 Reflinks (posted on 3rd May). Still having difficulties, I'm afraid. --P123cat1 (talk) 23:03, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your last post re Reflinks on the HD. (You asked me to put further queries here.) No wonder I couldn't find the "Reflinks toolbox" - I was looking for a "tool BOX", i.e. something shaped like a narrow box! A few more queries, but they can wait if you're pressed, it's not urgent!

(1) I couldn't find my #1.7 Reflinks (dated 3rd May) earlier on the HD today, then it popped up on the 8th May listing. Obviously something to do with Wiki's date-stamping methods. Is there a quick way to look up past posts, assuming I can remember their titles?

(2) What exactly is a "bare" URL? I copy-and-pasted into the article's edit text the URL only as far as the end of the newspaper article's number and added ".html", though there were a lot more words in the URL. (The full URL for the Daily Mail article to be referenced in the footnote is: "http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2619398/Comedy-super-agent-managed-Jonathan-Ross-Michael-McIntyre-died-heart-attack-snorting-cocaine-inquest-hears.html".)

(3) I'm sure the footnote I now have isn't a Reflinks one; the code is not the code shown on the Reflinks page, but the one I mentioned in (2)! (See the Wiki article Addison Cresswell, foonote #10.)

(4) I did follow the steps you said for Reflinks. I had to do several run-throughs, obviously stripping out all code from the footnote beforehand, to check I was doing the steps correctly. This is what I did, and if you can spot where I went wrong, please let me know.

On the first run-through, having entered the URL, I clicked on "Reflinks" which led to a Reflinks screen where the code filled in and it looked OK. You said then to click "Show preview", but that button is greyed in on my Reflinks screen and I couldn't press it, I could only press "Save". So I pressed it, and when I went back to the article to do "Save", as you said I should, (or perhaps you meant "Save" on the Reflinks screen!) there was a big red "cite error" message on the article.

So I stripped out the code and tried again (hoping to void the red error message), but this time I couldn't get beyond clicking on "Save" on the Reflinks page, which led to a blank screen. I couldn't call up the article from it, so I called up the article afresh, and there was a footnote, but without the Reflinks code in it, just the URL I had originally entered.

I am sorry my posts are so wordy. I am very aware of it, but couldn't see how to pare them down without losing clarity. I am completely new to this type of editing onscreen, even writing onscreen, so please bear with me. The technology is very new to me and I can think on paper so much better. But don't worry about my editing in Wiki, as my edits are usually only copy-edits (see my User page) and I always ask the Help Desk if I have a problem.

Regards, Pcat --P123cat1 (talk) 14:32, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't asked or looked at the Help Desk page history but I'm guessing that the other editor who was in the conversation moved your question down the page so that it didn't get archived. The way that I find something on a page is to just use my browser's Find function. I often just search for my own username since it's after every comment that I've made. If it's already been archived, it's a bit harder but again, I usually throw my own name into the search terms. This is all assuming that it's a conversation that I've taken part in.
A bare URL is just the URL. No title, no publisher, no date, etc. What you included above is that. A bare URL.
I see that there is just the bare URL for the reference.
As far as I can tell, you did everything correctly but the results went haywire. Looking at the article history and specifically at your edit, I see that the edit changed all of the brackets, letters 'm', and periods to hash symbols. That's what gave you the red cite error message. Just now I checked at the talk page for Reflinks and found this thread which says that that happens when people use older versions of Internet Explorer. While going through and making the change at Addison Cresswell's article, I took screenshots of every step. I was going to post them here but now that I see that your problems might be caused by your browser and not anything that you've done, I don't think I'll take the time to upload them just yet.

And finally, don't worry about the wordiness. If this gets something solved and makes editing easier for you, it's worth the time. Dismas|^(talk) 20:48, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for getting back so quickly. The problem could have been caused by Internet Explorer, at least the red error part, and I saw the comment about IE on the Reflinks talk page, but my version is #9 (2011) or #11 (2013) (can't tell which), so not old. If you haven't deleted those screenshots, could you pass them over, please, as I would like to see if I can make sense of what I did wrong. If I can't sort it out myself, I won't ask any more questions, enough is enough! I will in future either use Reflinks in the way I did, which is at least better than the manual method I once used, or the simpler "cite web" method I was told about on the HD. Thanks for your forbearance. --P123cat1 (talk) 22:55, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Here you go. In the order in which I see them when I use the tool.

Thanks. I have compared those screenshots with my pages and the first two are the same, but on the third one mine has the "Show preview" button greyed in unlike yours, so I have flagged this up on the Reflinks talk page, as a potential problem with the Reflinks tool. I can get no further than that page, if you remember, but I have found a neat solution: just copy the code in the box and paste it into the article text, and the footnote becomes a Reflinks one! (i.e. the footnote becomes the same as yours did using Reflinks properly.) This way Reflinks does all the hard work and I just copy. --P123cat1 (talk) 10:18, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank You Dismas.[edit]

Thanks for your information. I hope I'm doing this right on here. Eek. I can see that this is a lot to learn. It's daunting but I want to tackle this and make it happen. I read the "notable" part of requirements. Yes. I believe that there is notability. I did not do the page justice. I'll do more research on how others submitted their edits with people of Ms. Fontaines level of notability and succeeded with the page. It may take me some time. Not so good with this so any support is welcome. I met this woman at a gathering of abuse victims and she was the most humble, kind and warm person. I really came away feeling a strong sense of calm and inner strength I can't explain. She is also an abuse survivor and has come out of many other trials. An inspiring woman. I certainly want to do her page justice. Ms. Fontaines shared that she was called "Soula" as a sort of nickname. It has the word "soul" in it. Very fitting for this performer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Venus2211 (talk • contribs) 20:19, 8 May 2014 (UTC) Venus2211 (talk) 21:02, 8 May 2014 (UTC)Venus2211[reply]

Good luck with your research! Dismas|^(talk) 23:23, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tiffany Limos[edit]

Hi, Tiptoety emailed me and said I can place my changes back online. Did you take them off? Please email me. These changes were authorized by Ms. Limos' lawyers and manager in Los Angeles. I told Tiptoety that I need help with book citations. There is alot of information on Tiffany Limos out there and its not on this Wikipedia. We've spent hours putting this information together, please let us know how to keep it on the page. Ms. Limos is working on a new movie and we need this new information on this site. Thank you. Ps. I just figured out how to look at your notes. Thank you so much for the notes. I will change the info based on your notes. There are many books, magazines, and newspapers that Tiffany Limos has been featured in since 1991 when she started modeling and NOTHING is mentioned on Wikipedia about her whole body of work. Please be patient. We're trying our best to put it all together. Its quite time consuming to get all these materials together. We're looking through hundreds of printed materials that are NOT online because it was before the online boom. ManagerFriendly (talk) 02:44, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much for your tips. I truly apologize I did not see your notes until now. I will make adjustments according to your notes. Thank you. ManagerFriendly (talk) 03:37, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Manager, I'm asking for help from other editors on this. I have a lot going on in real life that is stressing me out and now I have this article to deal with. You, Limos, and her lawyers need to understand that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and not a PR platform or advertising space. I am removing the article from my watch list because I don't need to deal with Limos' vanity by way of your edits to the article. Dismas|^(talk) 03:42, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dismas, thank you so much for your critique. We will make changes and not use this as a PR tool. It seems that most of the people on Wikipedia have the information correctly added, we just want the opportunity to add the correct information. Sorry for the misunderstanding, thank you for clearing it up. I hope that everything in your life is going well and will work out. ManagerFriendly (talk) 03:52, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Italics and other HTML[edit]

Re: your reply on the HD to my query today headed "Contributions page" — Thanks for the WP:CHEATSHEET reference (v. useful) and showing me how to do italics just now. (I had removed my query when I remembered how!) Can you help on the below, please?

(1) When I am on someone's talk page, how do I best refer back to any request I have made on the Help Desk if I need to? (i.e. how can I collapse my clumsy "Re: ... page'" above?) Obviously the formula, as for example here, #Contributions page doesn't work, and it must be tiresome for people to search on the HD for the reference back if they need to.

(2) I am very concerned about the many copy-edits that can show up on my "Contributions" page for the same article. How can I reduce them? Reason for them: I know edits to an article should be done section by section, but when I copy-edit, I often fail to spot errors in an article the first time round (or sometimes the umpteenth time round), or sometimes miss correcting them on the edit page (I try to keep a mental list for each article section) because they are so hard to spot in all the text code "undergrowth". This can result in many resaves for the same section, although obviously I always try to use "Show preview" first). So the same section can come up again and again in my "Contributions" page and make the list of copy-edits overall for an article extremely long. Also, manipulating many screens at a time when checking footnotes and quotes that need changing can be very confusing sometimes (esp. when the article's quotes are bitty and wrong, which entails re-jigging/rewriting whole sentences sometimes); all this means I have to keep saving and re-saving for the same section until I get it right. As a result, the copy-edits appear in my "Contributions" list higgledy-piggledy and must be a nightmare to follow, for anyone wanting to check them. A good example is the Wikipedia article on Piers Morgan that I have just finished copy-editing.

(3) I suppose practice makes perfect (as you may remember I am newcomer, both to Wiki editing and on-screen editing generally), but if you look at my "Contributions" page entries for some articles, you will be horrified. Is this acceptable? The most helpful thing I have found so far is to highlight "ref" in the edit page, so that at least I can see more easily where the text is, but do you have any more tips?

Sorry again for my verbosity, and I will try to keep this exchange to the minimum this time!

Regards, Pcat --P123cat1 (talk) 11:31, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you want you can compact [[Wikipedia:Help Desk]] to simply [[WP:HD]]. Regular editors are used to seeing these abbreviations. The abbreviations are normally listed on the right-hand side of the pages. To link to a specific section, you can just do [[WP:HD#Contributions page]] which yields WP:HD#Contributions page. Which, if you click on it, you'll see works just fine. This link will, of course, break when the discussion is archived in a few days but most editors don't worry about that since by the time it gets archived, the discussion on the talk page is done. To summarize, I usually just start out with something akin to "Re: WP:HD#Contributions page. I wanted to clarify..."
Don't be concerned about having 20 edits when everything could have been done in 1. It's often easier to see what changes have been made if things are done in smaller pieces. Let's take an example from Piers Morgan. If we look at all 22 edits that you recently made in one big chunk, it looks like this. See that section in the middle where there is a paragraph that starts "In September 2012..." Because the software marks an entire paragraph in red, it's a little hard to see what was done. Also, if another editor disagrees with some part of your edits but not every edit you have made, it's easier to click "Undo" on a single small edit rather than copying what used to be there and then pasting that in to a new version of the article.
As with anything, the more you do it, the more comfortable you become with it. A long list of contribs is not a bad thing. I use the preview button quite a bit when I'm making a lengthy edit and yes, I still miss things. If I'm working on a longer article that needs quite a bit of clean up, I will often just work on one section at a time. So if the article has 10 sections, I'll end up with 10-15 edits. Sometimes more. And yes, it can sometimes be challenging to see the prose vs. the references. That's why I use the preview so much. I do very little reading of the text in the edit box. I read the preview, scroll down to the edit box, make a change, click preview, read the preview, repeat. Dismas|^(talk) 23:42, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That is very helpful, thanks. It never occurred to me that it would be easier for anyone wanting to change just one edit to deal with the edits in small chunks, though it is fairly obvious, really. It is very difficult to see the wood for the trees sometimes when grappling with the vast amount of new knowledge one has to take in as a newbie! .--P123cat1 (talk) 12:52, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Contributions to de:wp[edit]

I had to smile when reading your de:wp contributions thread at WP:HD — it took me the longest time to figure this out. Aside from a few I made years ago, copy/pasting content from article to article and changing the relevant information (e.g. creating the de:Quinter article), almost all of my de:wp contributions are the same situation; check de:Martin Marmon House for an example. It's part of the Help:Import setup; I note that this page mentions the transwiki process, but I'm not sure whether they're the same or not. Nyttend (talk) 05:30, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Playmate of the Year[edit]

Go to playboy.com if you need a source. Sheesh. Or is this just another case of arrogance towards anons? 84.175.223.37 (talk) 22:18, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's a case of seeing a user who knows how to edit two articles and a template but isn't providing a reference which I feel they have the technical skill to be able to add as well. And since you're the one providing the info, you have the burden of providing the reference. Dismas|^(talk) 23:46, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The reference is already on the wiki page. Under "External links", first link. The official playboy page.

Don't you get it? Official playboy page.

Reference already on the wiki list page. The same as for each and every playmate of the month.

And if you don't like the official page use the second link of the "External links".

The references are already being cited.

(At least) 3 different users have now added this info (PMoY) during the last 12 hours since the references are already on the wiki list page.

On top of that I also mentioned the source in my re-revert to your revert yesterday evening.

This is not a case of burden of proof, it's of you keeping ignoring the cited references. 84.175.223.37 (talk) 05:43, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Now there's a reference. And not just a primary source reference. A secondary source. And it's not just suggested. It's actually inline. Dismas|^(talk) 09:55, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

1RR violation[edit]

I think this edit http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_Playboy_Playmates_of_2013&diff=608729509&oldid=608726595 violated the 1RR rule. So be a peach and hand yourself over to the wiki authorities. (You had done the same thing before: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_Playboy_Playmates_of_2013&diff=next&oldid=608723596) ;) 84.175.223.37 (talk) 06:19, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of Shy Love edit.[edit]

You recently removed an edit to the Shy Love page. I referenced it so I would like to know why you removed it.

Gemdog (talk) 15:46, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Gemdog, the reason I removed it was in my edit summary though I didn't add a link to the guideline I was using as justification. The reason is that your reference was a blog. See WP:BLOGS. Dismas|^(talk) 20:42, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of April Flowers edit.[edit]

You have repeatedly removed edits to the April Flowers page even though the edit is clearly documented. I can present several examples of loosely documented articles on Wikipedia that have not been removed. So why target this?

What is more, it seems like you keep doing this to other people too. Why? What is your problem?

As background, April Flowers is well-known by her name Diane Merhi. This is actually referenced in the article itself--in the very first line! All I am trying to do is to link to her current business at the bottom of the article. I have linked to it and if you follow it, it shows her pictures. If you require her current website to say that she was formerly a pornstar known as April Flowers then you are just being plain old ridiculous. Wikipedia is a place where people come to find information not to deal with censors like you. Please do not remove the edit again. Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Urbandervesh (talk • contribs)

Responded on User talk:Urbandervesh to keep discussion in one place. Dismas|^(talk) 20:08, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Eugene Daub[edit]

Hello Dismas, I would like to know if you are an auto confirmed user. I am editing Eugene Daub in my sandbox and I would like to credit him on the Rosa Parks page. That page is locked, to be edited only by auto confirmed users. Daub is the sculptor of the Rosa Parks statue recently installed in the statuary hall of the U.S. Congress. I have not yet gone live with the edits to Daubs page, so I am not sure if this is the right time to add him to her page? Please give me your opinion. Dr. Andrea Bruce (talk) 21:14, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Same question for Harvey Milk. Daub created the sculpture of Milk in San Francisco City HallDr. Andrea Bruce (talk) 22:58, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You're auto-confirmed. You should be able to edit Rosa Parks. And I bet you can edit Harvey Milk as well.

Quick question for you. Why are you working on a completely new article in your sandbox? Why not just edit the current article at Eugene Daub? Dismas|^(talk) 23:21, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

How did you start a section?[edit]

Hello, Dismas. You have new messages at Joseph A. Spadaro's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Rewrite second sentence[edit]

Hi there, Dismas,

Please rewrite the second sentence within the "Introduction to Wikipedia." It currently reads, "It is a special type of website designed to make collaboration easy, called a wiki." Please rewrite to read, "It is a special type of website, called a wiki, that is designed to make collaboration easy."

Thank you,

Michelle A. Dryden 02:11, 11 June 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mdryden14 (talk • contribs)

I'm not an administrator. I'm just an editor such as yourself. As I said, the place to post suggestions for changes to that page would be on its talk page which is at Wikipedia talk:Introduction. Dismas|^(talk) 02:15, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My additions to wiki keep getting deleted because my guy is not yet in wiki[edit]

Very briefly, thank you. I am the biographer for a country music legend, Charlie "Sugartime" Phillips. Winner of a gold record, winner CMA music awards, Texas country music hall of fame, etc. He's had a 65 year career; however, no one has ever created a Wiki page for him. I will create his page when his biography is completed; however, in the meantime, it's important for me to place his name where it belongs on certain Wiki pages. I'm unsure WHY I can't place his name where he BELONGS in lieu of the fact that a primary Wiki page has not been created YET. His name keeps getting deleted even though I have hundreds of sources to back up where I put him and I do cite specific references. What is your suggestion to allow me to make proper posts on his behalf? Thank you again.Cycushenberry (talk) 02:16, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) @Cycushenberry: The biography doesn't have to be complete. Why not create a small article covering what he's most notable for with sources? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 02:23, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There are a couple things I'd like to mention.

First, since you say that you are Phillips' biographer, you clearly have a conflict of interest (WP:COI) and it is not suggested that you write an article about Phillips. It's not forbidden but it generally doesn't end well since most people with a conflict of interest are unable to write from a neutral point of view (WP:NPOV). We are after all writing an encyclopedia and not a promotional piece or advertisement.

Second, as I said on the Help Desk, lists here at Wikipedia generally include just those people who already have an article. There is no deadline here at Wikipedia. So there is no need for any article to be written today or tomorrow or next year. It will be written when it's written.

That said, you can suggest that an article be written about Phillips at Wikipedia:Requested articles. You'll want to provide references such as news articles, magazine articles, books, interviews, and such to establish Phillips' notability (WP:N).

Best, Dismas|^(talk) 02:27, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. I just saw what NeilN said and agree. The article need not be complete. It can just be a small article. But again, you still have a conflict of interest. Dismas|^(talk) 02:27, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hopefully Dismas doesn't mind me jumping in here again. Tell you what Cycushenberry, if you create an article using WP:AFC, let me know and I'll review it for NPOV which Dismas quite rightly points out is critical. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 02:33, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jump in. I have no problem with that. I've been frustrated too many times by notable people or their agents or friends trying to whitewash the articles. So neutrality and COI are touchy subjects with me. Dismas|^(talk) 02:48, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I know what you mean. I'm involved in this mess: Talk:Banc De Binary. Makes your eyes bleed. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 02:51, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Joe Daley[edit]

My sister and I are already trying to spruce up our father's page. We will re-upload as soon as I can learn something about your visual formatting.

I am not ignoring any of your inputs.

How do I change the d of daley to a capital D?

How many links are inappropriate?

Thank you for your patience. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GrafixMix (talk • contribs) 15:22, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There's no "re-upload"ing to do. The article was made live as soon as you saved it. Part of why I suggested using the Articles for Creation process was so that you'd learn how to format the article before it went live.

The title has already been fixed. You wouldn't have been able to fix it since it requires an auto-confirmed editor to move it.

External links, those that lead to a non-Wikipedia site, shouldn't be used in the main prose of an article except when using them as a reference. See WP:EL and WP:REFB.

Dismas|^(talk) 02:43, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links in Playboy lists[edit]

There's related discussion here. Basically, since the subject of the article is all the Playmates of the specific year, external links to individuals listed are inappropriate. --Ronz (talk) 20:49, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You know, putting a link to that discussion would have helped a lot instead of your vague use of WP:EL which is several screen pages long. It was really unclear as to what part of WP:EL you were using in defense of your edits. Thank you for wasting my time, Dismas|^(talk) 20:57, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I placed the link here on your talk page. Sorry for the confusion. --Ronz (talk) 16:46, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I was referring to in your edit summaries. See my comments at the discussion. Dismas|^(talk) 18:04, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you are not totally disgusted, as I nearly am, by recent assaults on the "Lists of Playmates", I put in my 2¢ worth here. Well, maybe $2 worth. Wikilister (talk) 09:21, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Katie Morag (TV Series)[edit]

Hi Dismas,

I'm a complete newbie on wikipedia so any help you can give me on creating/editing the article is much appreciated. I'm all done for now so please feel free to adjust/format in ways that make the article more in line with Wikipedia formatting.

If I search for the article at the moment in google for example, it doesn't come up. Is that because it's going through a vetting process and will go Live when that is complete?

Is simply continuing to edit and save okay or do we need to move the article somewhere else after each new edit?

many thanks for your help.

Thinneck (talk) 08:33, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Thinneck (talk • contribs) 08:25, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Replying on Thinneck's talk page. Dismas|^(talk) 09:24, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ola Ray[edit]

Don't change my stuff about Ola Ray it says she's 5'4 dummy in the interviews she has had. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Peacemaker4ever (talk • contribs)

@Peacemaker4ever:, there is a cited source that says that she's 5'2". You have not provided any sources for your claim of 5'4". As such, we have no way to WP:VERIFY your sources. And I'll remind you to keep a WP:CIVIL tongue. Dismas|^(talk) 19:50, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Playmate Data?[edit]

Someone erroneously tried to change Ola Ray's height to 5' 4". You correctly reverted it to 5' 2". The "cited source" you referred to is "wekinglypigs". That data happens to agree with that of more "official" sources that were _not_ cited: the Playboy Wiki, Playboy's Cyber Club, and ultimately PLAYBOY magazine itself. But you also reverted a different editor's correction of Elisa Bridges' height to 5' 6". You reverted that to the previous 5' 0" and again referred to a "source", but this time I couldn't find the reference. As it happens, the best sources of which I am aware all agree with 5' 6" — that includes "wekinglypigs", the Playboy Wiki, Playboy's Cyber Club, and the December 1994 issue of PLAYBOY magazine, where her Playmate Data Sheet is printed on the reverse of her Centerfold.

You were right to revert the info re Ola Ray's height, but not so re Elisa Bridges. So...on what source(s) do you rely? The citation you refer to re Ola Ray is the PLAYBOY Playmates database, which is maintained by someone I happen to know as a very reliable and knowledgable longtime fan of Playboy and Playmates. All of the very many "wekingly" references throughout the many Playmate-related pages are to that source. However, the source of such data is ultimately the Playmate Datasheet published in the relevant issue of PLAYBOY magazine, or, for Playmates prior to July 1977, the same data as later posted in the relevant Playmate File in Playboy's Cyber Club. "Wekingly" very faithfully reflects that data, but is not technically the "source". The official Playboy Wiki has even leaned on "wekingly" for past Cyber Club data, but even they ultimately cite the magazine wherever possible. Playboy's outsourced "Playboy Plus" site, by contrast, is notoriously unreliable with data of any kind, even though they are supposed to be "official".

I am currently quite soured on Wikipedia as a useful source of information about Playmates, so I don't really care to devote much time to mastering Wikipedia's standards for cited sources, nor to correcting or supplying such citations where needed. But you seem to be one of the more knowledgeable editors of the Playmate lists, regarding both the subject matter and Wikipedia policies, so I have offered these comments to help you among others may make the best of the Playmate lists — at least until other editors succeed in eliminating them altogether. Wikilister (talk) 02:33, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I've seen the Playmate info here go through quite a few changes over the years. I've become rather fed up with the constant paring down of info in this area. I also have a lot more going on in my real life now than I did in years past, so I have much less time and energy to devote to fighting the deletionists.

As for WeKingly, I've been in contact with the maintainer of that page in the past. Years ago. After a few email conversations with them, I'm confident with them as a source. Unfortunately, I can no longer reach their site due to content filters at my employer having recently (last year or so) put that page on a blacklist. Since I do most of my editing at work, it's been a bit of a thorn in my side. In the past, I've used WeKingly for a couple reasons. A) They are online and easily (for everyone but me) accessible. B) Playboy has not always listed all the biographical data on their web pages. C) Playboy's URLs can change at the drop of a hat (we used to employ a playmate template that provided a link to the Playmate's profile page but a change at Playboy's site broke that) whereas WeKingly's never seem to change.

That aside, let's get to Ola Ray and Elisa Bridges.

We both agree that there is a source which is reliable for Ray's height. The ultimate source is the Data Sheet, which could be used for a source, but as I've said, the WeKingly site is easily referenced.

As for your contention that Bridges' height is not sourced, it is. Via the Straight Dope article. They have a copy of the coroner's report on their site which says that Bridges was 60" tall. That's 5' even and not 5'6". Granted, it says "estimated height", so maybe we should use the 5'6" height that you say is on her Data Sheet. (Again, at work I don't have access to sites or the magazine itself) So, if you want to change it to 5'6" and cite the Data Sheet, great! I'm fine with that.

And finally, when an IP editor changes a height and doesn't provide a source or edit summary, I have a hard time assuming good faith. But in these instances, I did have a source to back up my side of the argument. Dismas|^(talk) 03:00, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wordsworth[edit]

I am not sure, I realize now this was wrong first, because it is not an article, but poetry and belongs in Wikisource, as per my first error message... now, I do understand this poem by Wordsworth is in the public domain, so I thought I could copy/paste this poem from Wordsworth to the blank page in Wikipedia...from another website... Now, I think there is something wrong with this as well... I think, now, the source must be coming from a special place even for public domain materials... so... where would this source be? I think this has got to be some kind of source that is unquestionably correct... as opposed to the "word of mouth" passed around on other websites... so what place would this be? Sorry — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sheree Dawn Music (talk • contribs)

@Sheree Dawn Music: I have no idea what you're talking about. Dismas|^(talk) 19:06, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think that if I copy and paste a public domain piece of material from another source... that this is unacceptable, because the other source is online... I am under the impression that the source for public domain material has to come from some sort of original file... not just from any website that happens to have the material online... so I cannot copy and paste material from just anywhere...right? How do I find the right sources? like... where did you get your information on your entries? You have a bunch of them... boy I'm sorry... I've never done this... stupid of me..

You can use physical references such as books and magazines but you can also use web sites. There's nothing saying that your sources for information have to be online. It just makes it easier for most people to verify the information. If you need to reference something that is in the public domain, using the original work as the reference would be best. Many more of your questions regarding references could probably be answered by the info at Referencing for Beginners. That clear things up? Dismas|^(talk) 10:39, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

... I have a bit of reading to do... Thank you for this... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sheree Dawn Music (talk • contribs) 16:50, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]