Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 16:23, 12 September 2008

Archives

/archive1, /archive2, /archive3, /archive4, /archive5, /archive6, /archive7

Welcome!

When posting to my talk page, I have a couple of requests that I would like you to keep in mind:

1. When starting a new discussion, please put it in its own section. The easiest way to do this is the click on the "+" tab at the top of the page and then give the discussion a title.
2. Please be specific. Comments like "Why did you make that edit?" will get us both nowhere. Which edit? To what article?
3. I don't expect you to watch my talk page. I'll leave my response on your talk page unless you tell me otherwise.
4. And finally, please sign your comments. You can do this by putting four tildes at the end of your comments like this: ~~~~

Thanks, Dismas|

Annie Cruz

Dismas, I saw the back-and-forth on the above article between you and AnnieCruz (talk · contribs) - do you have reason to believe the user is not the article subject? Have you tried to communicate with them? If it is the article subject, it seems to me that reverting their correction of personal details is a good way to make them mad and generate a complaint. Kelly 20:12, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Me and You (band)

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Me and You (band), suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Misplaced Pages's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Misplaced Pages is not" and Misplaced Pages's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Elonka 22:20, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

junaid

i again entered the same article of denise with proof/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Junaidrocks80 (talk • contribs) 12:03, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

the site i listed is of a small girl who is in the movie.the photos are of denise wedding scene in the movie.the website clearly indicates the name of the movie in which denise is photographed.she is a small girl with flower girl role...now do you think the 11yrs old will pay denise to have a photo with her?i dont think so...its because she is shooting for the said bollywood movie.check out imdb profile FAQS of the movie.the photos link are there.. the small girl has another movie called hannah montana but hasnt published photos of them yet.so i think its authentic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Junaidrocks80 (talk • contribs) 12:14, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

"Maybe she's a friend of the girl's family. Who knows?" yeah who knows..!!denise is in the movie man!!!imdb i think didnt updated.the lillte girl is a model and she has been cast as the flower girl in denise's wedding in the movie..ok see this link;;;; http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1144804/board/nest/113620461 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Junaidrocks80 (talk • contribs) 12:26, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

LISTEN YOU!!! 3RR has given me a warning not to edit it or else iam blocked i think we should both talk to him or some 3rd party to have his/her opinion on this matter!!!now lets reslove the issue here itself.i think we should talk with a 3rd perosn here who can advice us what to do.cause the site link i gave is not fake first of all.its shows the girl shooting with denise(if denise wont have been in the movie then the girl should have published the denise with her photos in some other headline and not in the movie name(good point from me).so what u think we should do now..reply me fast.... see.the link its authentic and the above imdb link i gave you just go and see it..and i havent seen anything wrong in this information ok.!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Junaidrocks80 (talk • contribs) 12:52, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

MAN U DELETE THE DENISE RICHARDS BOLLYWOOD ARTICLE AGAIN????NOW I GAVE U THE LINK TO A SITE WHICH IS NO 1 FOR BOLLYWOOD NEWS.IT WON AWARDS TOO AS YOU CAN SEE ON THE SITE..TODAY ITSELF THEY ADDED THESE PHOTOS FROM THE MOVIE...AND IF U NOTICE CAREFULLY THE GIRL MODEL THE PIX OF WHICH I LINKED PREVIOUSLY IS ALSO THERE WITH DENISE ALONG WITH AKSHAY KUMAR.ITS THE SAME WEDDING SCENE.!!!PLZZ ADD THIS...NOW DONT SAY ITS NOT RELIABLE SITE..THIS SITE WON AWARD AND IT WILL NOT PUBLISH FAKE NEWS OK!!!!!!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Junaidrocks80 (talk • contribs) 20:11, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Interested in Updating Adult Video Actresses

Hey,

I tired to update a few adult actress's bio's as to the time they started in the business. Because I work with alot of amateur girls, some who only do 3 or 4 scenes, I'd like to get that info up. What are the requirements? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mikenastyxxx (talk • contribs) 00:08, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Another Deletion Debate

Thanks again for your help with the deletion debate over the Alana Grace article. There's another debate where your opinion would be helpful - on a question of consistency. I did an article on Katherine St-Laurent who recently finished in 9th. place in this summer's Canadian Idol competition. The article has been proposed for deletion. I checked on other Misplaced Pages articles on Top 10 finishers in the Canadian and American Idol competitions, and found that yes there were individual articles on all but one of the 9th. place finishers, and that these articles have been in place for some time. It strikes me that the operative rule - at least in practice - is to leave Top 10 Idol articles in place, in which case the Katherine St-Laurent article should stay in. Anything you can say on this would be very helpful. If you see a good case for deletion, I'll bow out of this debate, but I do think that there is equity in consistency. Thanks for anything you can do about this! JD Fan (talk) 22:04, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Deletion Debate: Katherine St-Laurent Article

I made a number of improvements in the Katherine St-Laurent article which has been nominated for deletion, so hopefully this strengthens the case to retain it. Anything you have to say on this would be appreciated - thanks!

JD Fan (talk) 01:17, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

For template

I'll use that from now on, as opposed to the dashes :) WhisperToMe (talk) 21:45, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Cindy Fuller

I understand that the discussion is going on elsewhere, but if you do not mind I decided that I would post this here as well. Regarding notability of aircraft crash victims, there is a special class of this. See: Misplaced Pages:BLP1E#Articles_about_people_notable_only_for_one_event - Cindy Fuller is notable, but for one event. This means that a separate biography is not warranted for her. However I intended to have redirects so that people see the event instead of the person. WhisperToMe (talk) 07:45, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

• It's alright, Dismas :) - I think that the particular debate would have been better suited to maybe a WikiProject Aviation discussion or something, although BLP issues can also be raised at the BLP noticeboard too. Anyways, this isn't a terribly important matter, so I will live and let live. WhisperToMe (talk) 15:03, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

overlinking

I'm curious about your recent edit to the Playboy article. You delinked country names like Italy, Japan, and Spain but left other countries such as Poland, Norway, and Greece. I've read the third point under what should not be linked at WP:OVERLINK but I would like a bit more insight on where you draw the line between Italy and Poland or Japan and Norway. Thanks, Dismas| 06:01, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

You're right; it's a hard distinction to make, and depends partly on the context. If I had a magic wand, I'd discourage the linking of the names of all countries but those that are likely to be little-known to English-speakers, but again, it's hard to draw a hard-and-fast boundary. The alternative might be to restrict delinking to the names of the major anglophone countries, particularly the big four: the US, the UK, Canada and Australia. They're clearly unnecessary in almost every context, given that this is the English WP. I'll take this up with the writers of the script. Thanks for your input. In terms of the article, would you like that new boundary to be applied (or country names untouched)? Tony (talk) 07:17, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I personally think that we should link them all or have none linked. Either way as long as there's consistency. You have a point in wanting links for the little known countries though. If someone had never heard of Moldova, for example, then the link would be good so they can find out where that is. Though I doubt that many people are going to be reading that article and think "Hey, I wonder what the GDP of Poland is!" and follow that link. But at the same time, I think that having just a few unlinked looks strange. Like the examples that I cited, why Italy but not Poland? So, yes, I'm rambling and my point is that I don't care either way but I do think it should be all or nothing because wherever we draw the line, it will be based on some arbitrary notion of the average intelligence and geography I.Q. of the readership. Dismas| 08:52, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Naomi

Why do you keep changing it back to the lie? Eloite had nothing to do with the launch of Naomi's career;when she signed with them she was already a top model managed by synchro model management owned by,Beth Boldt.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.29.239.20 (talk) 09:37, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Check the history of the article and you'll see I explained myself in the edit summaries. I don't know how I can be more clear. Dismas| 10:29, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

This is weird

I keep changing it back to the truth and you keep changing it back without the facts. why don't you just leave it the way Beth wrote it? or can you explain to me why you keep changing it back?--76.29.239.20 (talk) 11:17, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm new here can you provide a link? Ok, I won't change it back until I understand what's going on here,sorry.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.29.239.20 (talk) 11:24, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I'll provide some links:

1. First of all, you are blanking content. All the info about Campbell doing modeling with Madonna and her work with George Michael is being erased every time you make your edits.
2. Second, not only are you blanking content but you're also removing the cited reference in the last paragraph. Both of these items are covered in the first two sentences at WP:VANDAL.
3. You are introducing several grammar mistakes and breaking the link to Ford Models by taking out the brackets on one end of the words.
4. The content that you are adding is not backed up by any reliable sources. If you could at least cite some sources for the info that you're providing, it would help a lot. See WP:RS and WP:V.
5. Your edits are the same as what was provided by User:Beth boldt. Due to the similarity between the user name and the person mentioned in the article, there seems to be a conflict of interest. See WP:COI.
6. Due to the fact that you are referring to Ms. Boldt as "Beth", it sounds like you are either related to or work for/with Ms. Boldt. Therefore, your edits fall under the same conflict of interest.
7. If you and User:Beth boldt know the subject of the article and are providing information based on your own experience, that constitutes original research. See WP:OR

An encyclopedia is a tertiary source. Basically that means that it should get its information from other sources that reported on the actual people, events, etc. Those sources can be newspapers, magazines, books, documentaries, etc. If you contact Encyclopedia Britannica or any other encyclopedia, they should be able to tell you where each and every piece of information came from. And none of it should be from the subject themselves or people who have a vested interest in the subject due to bias. And finally, an encyclopedia should maintain a neutral point of view (See WP:NPOV). We can't be saying that Coke is awesome and Pepsi sucks because one advocates for the product and the other disparages it without any just cause.

So, do you have any questions about what I've said? Let me know and I'll try to help out any way that I can. Dismas| 12:38, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

First of all, Ms. Boldt is the person that is trying to make the changes to the false information about Elite launching Naomi's career. Just because it's in the news doesn't mean it's true. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.29.239.20 (talk) 21:19, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

You started out with "First of all". Was there a second thing? Nevermind that... In reply to what you just said, read the first sentence of WP:V. Dismas| 21:25, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Mason Marconi

According to this edit, there was a request by the subject of the article to have the image removed. I see no such request either at the image's page, the article's talk page, your talk page, etc. You have only five edits, three of which are to this article. And you only have one edit to Commons which was to upload an image which you claim to have the right to release into the public domain. So, don't take this the wrong way, but what gives you the right to do this? Do you know the subject? Did you take the photo that you're releasing into the public domain? Could you clear up some or all of the mystery here? Dismas| 08:34, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

response: Hi! Yes, I am a friend of Mason, and I took the photo. She knows NOTHING about wikipedia, and I first added new information as an assist, and then when she told me how much she hated the photo posted, I added one of her choosing that is more recent. I am trying to make the wikipedia post regarding her more accurate and current. Librarian2008 (talk) 20:55, 9 September 2008 (UTC) Librarian2008

edited sarah paulson article

Why???? it's true, went to school with her. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.161.111.7 (talk) 18:29, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

By saying that everyone remembers her fondly (or whatever it was, I can't recall exactly right now) that is making a POV judgement. As an encyclopedia, we have to maintain a neutral point of view. Secondly, neither half of the info you added had a reference to check to make sure it's true. Dismas| 18:56, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Dates

Have you considered using a handy tool? If you go to User:Dismas/monobook.js and paste in this string underneath your existing script::

importScript('User:Lightmouse/monobook.js/script.js');

hit "Save page", refresh your cache (instructions at top of monobook).

When you are in edit mode, look at the left of the page in the 'toolbox'. You will see the commands:

• What links here
• ...
• ...
• Delink year-in-X dates
• Delink all dates to dmy
• Delink all dates to mdy
• Add metric units
• Delink ISO dates
• Delink non-full dates
• Delink non-full dates+add metric units
• Delink common terms

For example 'Delink all dates to dmy' will check all the dates in an article (linked or not) and set them to day-month-year. All with just one click. There is also 'Delink all dates to mdy'. Any problems, just ask me or User talk:Tony1. Lightmouse (talk) 23:40, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Citations for Ice LaFox

I added two sources regarding her mother's decent and cited them. I couldn't find any online sources about her father since he has no fame or involvement in the adult entertainment industry. I do know for a fact that he is of Mexican decent, he's my uncle. AngelFire562 (talk) 01:23, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Courtney Peldon

Yes you do, you're vandalizing it all!... Check every biography, historical, of actors, etc, they all have links, except maybe one or two because some idiot took them out or forget them! What the hell is wrong with you? What's your problem? You delete information without reason, you even delete links to academic graduations, jobs,ch film genres and even the mention to child actors? Do you want to empty and impoverish articles like that? Sure, some of them should be taken, but I can't allow others to be taken out without any good reason. For that motive, I think I should get to a middle term. If you don't want it... G.-M. Cupertino (talk) 16:15, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Missy Peregrym

What the fuck is wrong with you? Now you're persecuting me for every article I write? Destroying people's work, not just mine, making people loose their little time?... G.-M. Cupertino (talk) 16:23, 12 September 2008 (UTC)