User talk:Tabercil/archive9

That certain link

Hi, Tabercil. As (as far as I can see) our (WP:P*) only currently-active admin, maybe you can help. Over at Talk:List of big-bust models and performers the controversial link (you know which one) has come up for discussion again. Unfortunately, as always, the link itself is not being discussed, rather accusations are being tossed around. The current "discussion" is circular and getting us nowhere. Is there any civil way to put this thing to a vote, or settle the issue for once and for all? Dekkappai (talk) 00:18, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Umm... no habla ingres?... No... Sigh... I recognize we have a number of individuals with clear opinions on all sides, and doubt my stepping in will somehow clear things up. That's why I'm reluctant to act in this case. My personal opinion is that B**bp***a does violate WP:EL as it violates the first of the "links to avoid" criteria: "Any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a Featured article.". As for the WP:BLP issues, I don't know enough about it to be able to say... I looked at a few articles and didn't see anything which jumped out. Any articles that had unsourced material had the exact same stuff on Wikipedia as well. The fact that it's a open wiki does makes it rather suspect in my mind. My instinct? Punt the question along to one of the discussion boards... but there's no clear "discuss here" sign. My gut says either WP:RSN or WP:ANI... most likely the latter discussion page. Tabercil (talk) 00:59, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Ah? sprechen sie Wiklisch??? Right, knew you were on the other side of the fence, and AnonEMouse is on the pro-Boob side. I don't know Joe's position in re Boob... All I'm looking for is a reasonable discussion/vote/put-this-thing-to-rest thing. Not being a policy-sort myself, I'll probably take the noble way out. Duck the argument and watch the edit-warring escalate until blockings occur all around. Dekkappai (talk) 01:15, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Dani Evans

Hi. I just want to know why you are deleting the images I've uploaded of Dani Evans. Is it because its a copyvio? Glitter1959 (talk) 21:00, 10 February 2008 (UTC)Glitter1959

• Well the first image I did tag as being a copyvio, but doing some research and finding the source for it. I believe the second image you uploaded suffered the same fate but I wasn't involved with that. It's because the Flickr page where you took the images from didn't have the right license on them. Tabercil (talk) 23:16, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh ok. I was wondering about that. Thanks.

Glitter1959 (talk) 21:40, 11 February 2008 (UTC)Glitter1959

Oh no, it was a copyvio? I'm sorry (again) about that. Thanks for informing me.

Glitter1959 (talk) 00:44, 13 February 2008 (UTC)Glitter1959

Sean Morley

Do not put the height and weight templates back in wrestlers articles. If you had check the template, you would see we don't use them in wrestlers articles. TJ Spyke 06:29, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Hey whats up? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Krissygirl (talk • contribs) 14:16, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Jennifer Walcott

_{Subscript text} I was wondering what it is that I said that was either a- untrue or b- inappropriate please. But, no worries, sandbox for now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Erutter11 (talk • contribs) 23:49, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Ashley Tisdale

You Started, This What you do Paulo Leonel - —Preceding unsigned comment added by Paulo Leonel (talk • contribs) 11:12, February 22, 2008

Oh no, you started it. And as I suggested, please read Wikipedia's policy on fair use images before you do something that gets you blocked. Tabercil (talk) 16:15, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Michelle Trachtenberg

As I pointed out to Yamla, WP:V says that if your removal of unverified claims is contested you should ask for verification, for example via a suitable template, and give other editors time to fix the problem. Only potentially controversial info should be removed without pardon. You're quite right, though, that the categories should follow from the main text. But this could also be requested in a similar manner. The info has now been added to the text and given a citation. -Duribald (talk) 19:58, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

there is no such thing as sikh background

There is no such thing as "sikh background" as Sikhground I have been a Sikh 40 years. You can check with the golden temple there is no such thing as "sikh background" as Sikhground.--Sikh historian (talk) 20:09, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

See my reply on the Sunny Leone page. Tabercil (talk) 23:18, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Good books to get you going into understanding Sikhism

We live in a time when everyone thinks everything is on the internet. Yes you have a lot of quantity but not quality (the information is shallow 10% and does not cover the subject in dept 90% falling short). The only way to get more confidence in a subject is by reading books -they are usually far more reliable (8-10 times) than websites. It take aleast year to write book, 6 months for peer review research paper, whereas a web article 15 minutes by ANYONE!!!

best & most reliable sources of information:

• Books
• Peer reviewed research papers

These are Good books to get you going into understanding Sikhism (priority order):

• Encyclopaedia of Sikhism by Harbans Singh ISBN-10: 8173802041 (One of the best 20th century Sikh historians & scholars - if EVER in doubt you use one of his books to read)
• The Sikhs of the Punjab ISBN-10: 0521637643
• Khalsa: Sikhs and Non-Sikh Perspectives ISBN-10: 8173045801
• Understanding Sikhism ISBN-10: 1903765153 (cheap to buy)
• Sikhism: A Very Short Introduction ISBN-10: 0192806017 (cheap to buy)
• A History of the Sikhs ISBN-10: 0195673093
• Sikhism ISBN-10: 0140252606

Current Sikh websites don't trust 100% only trust with 40% confidence. Only exception being www.sikhs.org This is the MOST reliable Sikh site = trust 70% confidence. Therefore really with Sikhism you have read books to understand -because most Sikh websites are RUBBISH.

Let me know if you have anymore questions Sikhism.

--Sikh historian (talk) 01:34, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Amber Lynn image

I have removed the image of Amber Lynn you uploaded as it's licensed as fair-use, and clause 12 of the unacceptable uses in WP:FU clearly states: "Pictures of people still alive, groups still active, and buildings still standing; provided that taking a new free picture as a replacement (which is almost always considered possible) would serve the same encyclopedic purpose as the non-free image." Tabercil (talk) 05:07, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your note. The image was provided by Amber Lynn. I have forwarded the email to the the Wikimedia Communications committee and tagged the image per Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission. If the tags aren't correct, please let me know. Dreadstar † 05:16, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Kikki Daire

Another editor has added the {{prod}} template to the article Kikki Daire, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but the editor doesn't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and has explained why in the article (see also Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not and Wikipedia:Notability). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia or discuss the relevant issues at its talk page. If you remove the {{prod}} template, the article will not be deleted, but note that it may still be sent to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. BJBot (talk) 01:00, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Mass-prodding

User:SilkTork is prodding articles faster than I can even list them at Wikipedia:WikiProject Pornography/Deletion‎. Care to say something to him? Dekkappai (talk) 01:01, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

• Not quite yet... but I've gone through and removed prod's on a bunch of them, so the list is a lot shorter now. <G> Tabercil (talk) 01:51, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
  • OK-- I took care of my continent. I stood clear of realms unfamiliar to me, but tried to at least list them all. Cheers. Dekkappai (talk) 01:57, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Angela Devi

Another editor has added the {{prod}} template to the article Angela Devi, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but the editor doesn't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and has explained why in the article (see also Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not and Wikipedia:Notability). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia or discuss the relevant issues at its talk page. If you remove the {{prod}} template, the article will not be deleted, but note that it may still be sent to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. BJBot (talk) 01:00, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Miko Lee

Another editor has added the {{prod}} template to the article Miko Lee, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but the editor doesn't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and has explained why in the article (see also Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not and Wikipedia:Notability). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia or discuss the relevant issues at its talk page. If you remove the {{prod}} template, the article will not be deleted, but note that it may still be sent to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. BJBot (talk) 01:00, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Letha Weapons

Another editor has added the {{prod}} template to the article Letha Weapons, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but the editor doesn't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and has explained why in the article (see also Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not and Wikipedia:Notability). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia or discuss the relevant issues at its talk page. If you remove the {{prod}} template, the article will not be deleted, but note that it may still be sent to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. BJBot (talk) 01:02, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Katja Kassin

Katja has been complaining about the German version of wikipedia publishing her name and her parents having to deal with harassment from zealous people. I can't make head or tails about the German site, but they cite to the German version of IMDB for verification. I don't know if you have any pull or control over at the deutsch wikipedia or not but I don't know what to tell her if the problem can be addressed or if she has someone to contact. Vinh1313 (talk) 07:37, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

• Well I've got no pull there whatsoever... I would advise her to send an email to the German contacts for Wikipedia asking them for the sake of her privacy to remove her real name from the article. I've posted a comment at the Administrators' noticeboard asking for more feedback. Tabercil (talk) 15:09, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Did you find any leads on this? Katja probably thinks I've been hiding from her, and well yes I am. Vinh1313 (talk) 18:14, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
    • Yeah, I've found a lead or three for her... and it looks like she'll need to go through WP:OTRS to do it. I've already sent her a email to open up a channel between us as it looks like the OTRS request'll have to unquestionably come from her. Once she replies to me, I can walk her through what needs to be done. Tabercil (talk) 18:32, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Ellie Murdoch / Lynchburg College

I noticed that you've been busy again. This time removing Murdoch's listing at Lynchburg College. The argument you've used to justify this action is that IMBD is not reliable. If this is the case, then why not erase Diedre Quinn's listing as well? It too is only supported my IMBD.com. Also, why not erase Jerry Falwell's listing as an alum? There is no proof. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zcxvcbvnbm (talk • contribs) 02:37, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

That's them, and if you want to remove them be my guest. But as I said before, there is no reliable source that Ellie and Alicia are one and the same. And without that proof, per our policy on living people we cannot add that information anywhere on Wikipedia. And what you're trying to do is add that info through the backdoor. And it will not be tolerated. Tabercil (talk) 03:47, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

So why are YOU only concentrating on porn stars? Why not police the rest of "offenders?" Do you just have a special interest in sex stars? I'm curious. Please explain.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.248.18.129 (talk) 02:00, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Because someone has to. Besides, I don't need to explain why I am focusing on these articles. If I choose to focus on them, tough luck for you. Tabercil (talk) 04:57, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your honesty in explaining your uneven, heavy-handed approach. You freely admit that your interest is not in application of a policy but in your personal ideals and interests. I do not believe this is in the best interest of Wikipedia. I will forward this matter to this appropriate persons for review and consideration of your continued role as an "editor." Best wishes---you would have made a perfect dictator. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.248.18.129 (talk) 15:54, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Oooo... scary. Not. And besides, someone else pointed out in a discussion elsewhere that IMDB doesn't rate as a reliable source within the general community. Look here at what it says about IMDB: "Trivia on sites such as IMDb... should not be used as sources. These media do not have adequate levels of editorial oversight or author credibility and lack assured persistence." And believe me, the bio page would fall into the "trivia" category. Tabercil (talk) 21:58, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Then prove your committment to these criteria: go clean up the rest of Lynchburg College like you did with Ellie Murdoch. If not, then you have proven my point.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.248.18.90 (talk) 13:37, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Humm...obviously scary enough to get you to do it. Point made..... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.248.18.90 (talk) 02:02, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

• It was done because sourcing should be done. It was no shape due to your comments or threats. And believe me, comments such as "you would have made a perfect dictator" are definitely a personal attack in my book! Tabercil (talk) 23:13, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry you feel that way, but it was not an "attack," only an observation based on an assessment of your previous methodology and intransigence. There is a difference. You had steadfastly refused to uniformly enforce the very rules and criteria you had professed to follow. I'm sure any reasonble person would have come to the same conclusion that I did based upon the evidence. The very fact that you made the corrections AFTER I brought up the possibility of seeking outside mediation simply proves that you were not inclined to act justly without outside assistance---hence the observation. If you find this to be an "attack," then I would suggest that you may wish to cease your administrative duties for something where no one will question your motives. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.248.18.90 (talk) 01:26, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

• As I said before and I'll say again, you have no reliable source to back up your edit that Alicia and Elle are one and the same. It's just that simple. End of story. If you feel my actions were improper, go ahead and take me to mediation. Tabercil (talk) 03:07, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Silvia Lancome

There was an edit war between I think two banned users who then resorted to using sockpuppets. It got so messy the page was locked but the talk page is still active. One of the contentious points I've been trying to remove from the discussion page is Silvia's "real name", but of course he keeps putting it back in citing to IMDB of course. I'm a bit tired of dealing with him but have no idea how to do the sock puppet check stuff or whatever appropriate action to do. Vinh1313 (talk) 18:10, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

• Well the article has been protected by a different admin for a couple of weeks. As for User:McTools (who I assume is one of the users you're referring to), there's already been an appeal to CheckUser on the topic - see Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/NisarKand. Tabercil (talk) 18:50, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
  • He's back!!! (as an IP address), reverting all of the edits to the Silvia article and randomly accusing other people to be his enemies. Vinh1313 (talk) 19:30, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Out of all the Afghan related articles they war about, they had to war over some porn star. I'm shocked that KyleSmithX was confirmed as a sockpuppet for Beh-nam. DuvarnGreen is a european photographer that I've met in Berlin and "his account" was also accused and confirmed to be Beh-nam which also surprised me. Vinh1313 (talk) 20:27, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Infobox conversion

As you ask, I made the infobox conversion to the generic Adult one on Ron Jeremy article. If you would like me to do something else, just say it. Sdrtirs (talk) 19:53, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

• Thank you! Tabercil (talk) 19:57, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

user: McTools on Silvia Lancome is a sockpuppet

Hello. Just to let you know user: McTools has actually been confirmed as a sockpuppet of the banned user: NisarKand (an extreme Afghan-nationalist and Taliban supporter). A checkuser has been done on him confirming him as his sock but he just hasn't been tagged and blocked yet.

See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/NisarKand

Thanks.

Thanks For Protecting the Rudolph Valentino article

I have been trying to mention in the talk page my points, and the user Thegingerone, refuses to accept them. Everytime I try to bring up a point, the user always uses POV accusations to try to strike it down. It is only this users opinion that my source, Valentino:The First Superstar, is unreliable. The book has a strong bibliography that lists even Natacha Rambova's own autobiography as one of Botham's sources. Whenever we have talked with one another, the user has presented insult after insult to me. I'll admit I have responded to the user insults with some insults of my own, but I have tried to keep them less harsh. I also have followed advice from other administrators not to speak to this user through their talk page anymore, and will now do it through the Valentino talk page only. I want the article to be encyclopedic, and I want to start by making sure it meets the standards of Wikipedia's NPOV policy.Kevin j (talk) 23:01, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

• Thayt's nice, but I'm not on your side though... my view is the two of you should try and hash out your differences as Pinkadelica asked you. The fact that you proceeded to revert to the version you preferred for the article pretty much immediately after the first protection ended is not a good thing in my book. I would strongly suggest you and the Thegingerone started hashing out your differences before someone suggests that it might be less aggravation all around if we blocked both the warring users involved instead of locking the article. I don't think we're at that point... yet. Tabercil (talk) 23:09, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Natalie Jamieson

Another editor has added the {{prod}} template to the article Natalie Jamieson, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but the editor doesn't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and has explained why in the article (see also Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not and Wikipedia:Notability). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia or discuss the relevant issues at its talk page. If you remove the {{prod}} template, the article will not be deleted, but note that it may still be sent to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. BJBot (talk) 16:59, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Your block of 83.131.64.62

Hi, you recently blocked 83.131.64.62, despite the fact that the user had not vandalized and appeared to have stopped vandalizing anyway. Am I missing something? Malinaccier (talk) 19:16, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

• Recently stopped? That's not how I remember it... said user was still in the process of vandalizing when I blocked him. Note the time stamps on the warnings on User talk:83.131.64.62... all four of them were issued by two different editors within 7 minutes prior to my blocking. So when I went to warn him for his edit to Bon Jovi discography, I saw he had already collected four warnings and decided to block him as an active vandal. Tabercil (talk) 19:20, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Luscious Lopez

I'm involved in an edit war in the Luscious Lopez article. I'm not sure why the guy is so stubborn in not adhering to a neutral point of view. He's been making edits under both Xhy20 and 82.43.71.244. I've warned him twice already for the citation splicing (adding unverified conjecture in front of a legitimate citation) and NPOV respectively. Vinh1313 (talk) 17:40, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

• I've left a warning on 82.43.71.244's talk page about violating the three revert rule. Between that and the warnings on his talk page, there is cause to report 82.43.71.244 to either WP:AN3RR or WP:AIV if he acts again without leaving any explanations on Talk:Luscious Lopez. However, I'm not going to issue a block quite yet, as I want to see if the clue-by-four left on User_talk:82.43.71.244 sinks in first. Tabercil (talk) 22:28, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Maybe a semi-protect of the article is in order now that there are two ip addresses currently spreading high jinks. Vinh1313 (talk) 00:35, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
  • With the appearance of Wikkibobby after your 3RR warning, I've filed a sockpuppet claim under Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets/Xhy20. Vinh1313 (talk) 15:37, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
• He's back again under another ip, 218.6.169.93. The "ass fetish" edit gives him away. Vinh1313 (talk) 19:56, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
  • It might not be him... granted it is suspicious but it might just be different people here. His first IP address (82.43.71.244) comes back as a UK ISP. A WHOIS on the other two recent IPs give these results: 218.6.169.93 comes back as some place in Sichuan, China and 68.50.242.99 comes back as Comcast. (Yes, I realize that a more probable answer might be something like Tor). Tabercil (talk) 23:29, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Image:Rob Black Lizzie Borden 211.JPG

A tag has been placed on Image:Rob Black Lizzie Borden 211.JPG requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section I8 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is available as a bit-for-bit identical copy on the Wikimedia Commons under the same name, or all references to the image on Wikipedia have been updated to point to the title used at Commons.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on [[ Talk:Image:Rob Black Lizzie Borden 211.JPG|the talk page]] explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you. Sdrtirs (talk) 15:56, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Concerns

Hi, Tabercil. Is it just me, or have we got a user on a WP:POINT rampage? Tagging Featured Articles, and well-sourced B-grade articles for "Attention from experts" because of Fair Use images? Suddenly mass-tagging for Speedy deletion Fair Use images of living people is one thing, but then "Warning" me that I'd be blocked for uploading such images, after I-- along with most of Wikipedia-- gave up on photos of living people nearly a year ago? All the more questionable in light of this reply. Just wondering... Dekkappai (talk) 19:54, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

• I'd have to take a closer look at his actions... I know he's been going through and doing a good deal of needed clean-up on the various articles, such as moving inboxes to the new unisex adult one. But fair-use images should always get a hard look-at to see if they're truly needed and useful. Tabercil (talk) 20:18, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Vandal or spectacularly incompetent editor

Hi Tabercil. I hate police-work, but since you're the admin on the block, maybe you'll look into this :-) I've come across an editor who is making highly suspicious edits. HERE, for example, he renamed a filmography with eccentric capitalizations and mis-spellings, and then proceeded to created new, sub-stubs on these films, which already had articles. Here for example. I started making these into redirects to the correct film articles until I realized I was wasting my time. This guy is either so incompetent he shouldn't be editing here, or, more likely, he's just vandalizing. Regards. Dekkappai (talk) 23:25, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

• Hmmm... I'd go rather with extreme newbie at this point. After all we are supposed to assume good faith. Tabercil (talk) 04:52, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Right-- But assuming good faith still leads me to "spectacularly incompetent". Anyway, thanks. Dekkappai (talk) 18:25, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

reply to message

hi tabercil

I received a message from you that you had reverted an edit I had made to the 'Sydney Moon' page. Unfortunately, I had made no such edit, indeed I was not aware that that page existed. I think you have made an error in fact.

Cheers Nudge

PS, sorry for replying publicly, but I could not work out how to do so privately. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nudge67 (talk • contribs) 11:59, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

cites

You have edited over protection and used citations that were challenged, without consensus on the talk page. Please consider reverting and discussing. Regards, NonvocalScream (talk) 00:19, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Stephanie Adams

I've undone your edit to this page. It is fully protected due to a dispute, and you readded the information that was disputed without consensus to do so. Use the talk page, and until consensus is reached, I'd ask you not to do that. Thanks, - Rjd0060 (talk) 00:27, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

I misgauged how much contentiousness there was about the measurements and Playboy as a source for it prior to making my edit, otherwise I would not have made said edit. As it is, I'll chime in my $0.02 on the Talk page. Tabercil (talk) 02:33, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

The stupidity of certain editors and their desires to destroy that article are disappointing. If I were in your shoes, I wouldn't even go anywhere near it anymore. It doesn't matter what facts you bring to the table, it appears that NonvocalScream is hell bent on certain information not being in that article. I don't know if they simply don't approve of Playboy for whatever reason or if there is a method to the insanity, but it's not worth the effort anymore. (FYI - Please respond, if you plan to, here. I refuse to have that subject clutter my talk page any longer. I'll be watching this page.) --InDeBiz1 (talk) 23:49, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Do yourself a favour and dig up John Paul Jones' most famous quote... I believe it applies in this case. <G> Tabercil (talk) 23:52, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Duly noted. LOL --InDeBiz1 (talk) 23:58, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Re: Spencer Scott

I'm at work right now but I'll check when I get home in the morning. Keep this in mind whenever you want anything else out of some issue. I have every month back to about mid year 1997. Things get spotty from there back though... Dismas|^(talk) 23:56, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

No problem. Didn't get to it when I wanted but it got done. Now when I get a few extra minutes, when I can actually concentrate, I'll throw in a {{cite magazine}}. Dismas|^(talk) 21:04, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Good

Good reformat of the obituary reference at Albert Hofmann. I just did it quickly; you did it correctly. - Denimadept (talk) 22:52, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

• I knew there was a reason why I have the Cite Web page bookmarked.  :) Tabercil (talk) 22:58, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

digital maoism at work again!

You are yet another Digital Maoist. http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/lanier06/lanier06_index.html Robert J Nagle (talk) 18:33, 3 May 2008 (UTC) You removed a link I added about the death of a porn star written by myself. pointing to the Conflict of Interest page. Here's why I don't need to deal with wikipedia. I have 3000+ articles/posts on the Net. I have manually added 3 links to my own articles on Wikipedia and probably made 100-50 minor edits. You deleted one of them. I dare you to delete the other two. In fact, they conflict with your conflict of interest policy as well, so you need to delete them. Here are the three links to my own articles I have added.

1. the one on Hailey Page. 2. an essay about Nobel-prize winning author Gao Xingjian. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gao_Xingjian 3. an informational page about tourism for a town I visited in Albania. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vlor%C3%AB

So clearly I am not throwing in links willy-nilly. Let me explain the reason why I have added the three links.

1. the other linked articles on the Hailey Page section were brief newspaper accounts, with partial facts, and not giving the complete story. Also, many of the links included were not safe for work. My article/essay was a well-written obituary for her life and the significance of the tragedy. It was also on a safe-for-work domain. (More critically, it linked to a NSFW forum thread which had the most recent info on the facts of the case). 2. This Gao Xingjian was for a while the only web-accessible essay on the author in English. 3. The informational tourism page was the only available information on the city available in English.

I have created four or five other wikipedia pages (mainly relating to obscure regional writers). But after these sorts of shenanigans, I have to wonder what the point is. For these reason I am making an ultimatuum. If this Haley Paige link I added is not reinstated, I shall have no choice but to permanently sever my relationship with Wikipedia. That means I will never make an edit again. (And in fact my user page will point to this User Talk page as the basis for my reason for leaving Wikipedia).

Update: I have decided to leave Wikipedia for good. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Robert_J_Nagle. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Robert J Nagle (talk • contribs) 14:33, May 3, 2008

• Conflict of Interest? I was pointing to the page regarding spam! The article link which you added to the Hailey Paige consists of a blog post which provided no new information beyond what was already present. With regards to the charge of "digital maoism", I have no clue what you mean beyond it being an interesting turn of the phrase. As for your leaving Wikipedia, that's your choice. If you can't stand seeing your contributions be modified by others, then it's your loss. Tabercil (talk) 19:34, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, you're right, I misspoke, it was the spam page, not the Conflict of Interest. Robert J Nagle (talk) 22:55, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

My aim is not to start a flame war. But the digital maoism essay by Jaron Lanier which I cited is relevant to your action. Lanier's essay argues that online collectivism devalues individual expression in favor of a (coercively rigid) emphasis on rules which ends up scraping out all useful information for readers. The fact remains that you did not make a qualitative judgment regarding the essay I wrote and you did not make a determination about whether it was relevant to understanding the significance of her death. Instead you merely noted the obvious fact that the link I added was something I wrote and declared it spam. Really, do you think I stood to benefit by including a link to an insightful blogpost? Did you notice that the other articles linked to in the Haley Paige page were shallow and limited to crime reports? (True, there was an interview with her, and that is good). Did you notice that out of all the links provided on the Haley Paige wikipedia page that my link was the only one completely ad-free? Did you notice that three separate links were to Luke Ford's website (I think he's a good reporter of the adult industry, but not that good! And his sites are also ad-supported). By removing the one ad-free link and keeping links to several ad-supported commercial sites, you are only calling attention to the biases that exist within Wikipedia against independent commentators. Although I appreciate the effort of certain individuals within wikipedia to raise the quality of the entries about adult actors, I think your action ends up hurting the subject you are trying to cover. This actress deserves more respect that that. H.P. is more than a crime blotter loaded with adult advertisements.

I will not comment any further here (although if you want, you can continue it on my blog http://www.imaginaryplanet.net/weblogs/idiotprogrammer/?p=83399815 ).

In my brief involvement with Wikipedia, I have noticed several instances of how rules are used to demean individual contributions in an effort to dumb a subject down. I participate in many online projects, and actions like yours have made me realize how incompatible wikipedia's culture is to the one I am used to. Perhaps it was inevitable that I would have to leave wikipedia; your action just underscore that the defects of Wikipedia are systemic rather than limited to a few bad apples.

Next month's playmate source

Quite often, this web site is used as a source of info for who the next Playboy Playmate will be. Since anons use this site as a source when they update the next month's info, I wanted to know where the site was getting its info. So, I went to the U of Chicago web site and asked who's site it was (student, faculty, etc.) and if they could help me find out the ultimate source. I got the following reply:

My advance information about upcoming Playmates usually comes from two sources: the Next Month page in the current issue of PLAYBOY; and the online Playboy TV schedule:

http://www.playboyenterprises.com/pbtv_schedule/index.cfm

On that page is a link to the current month's schedule, and from that page there is a link to Next Month. If you then pull up the full month's listing, search the page for "World of Playboy". Starting mid-month, the name of the following month's Playmate will appear.

I think those sources are very reliable, but still there are occasional late changes and what is scheduled may not happen in reality.

Just thought you might want to know, in case you ever wonder or if someone else wants to know how reliable the source is. Dismas|^(talk) 21:43, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

• Interesting. Tabercil (talk) 21:51, 4 May 2008 (UTC)