User talk:Dismas

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Welcome![edit]

When posting to my talk page, I have a couple of things 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 "new section" or "+" tab (depending on what skin you're using) 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'll answer here on this page.
  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|(talk)

Skin Diamond[edit]

I can cite that, but the video is age-restricted, so it takes you to a sign-in page instead of the actual video. Just google it. Casino 01 (talk) 09:43, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

@Casino 01:You have the WP:BURDEN of citing the information that you're adding to the article. You don't need to cite the YouTube link, you can cite an interview or article where the song is discussed. That would provide more information than the video anyway. The video just acknowledges that it exists. An article would actually discuss the song and her input into it. Dismas|(talk) 10:14, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
P.S. Also, it doesn't matter that it's age restricted. It would still be verifiable. Dismas|(talk) 10:24, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Okay, I've got it now. Thanks. Casino 01 (talk) 10:32, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Edits to entry for Juliet Anderson[edit]

I'm not sure whether I'm in the right place. What I really want to do is explain my situation and then find out how to do what I want to do.

I am in the process of writing a biography of Juliet Anderson (deceased), who is listed here on Wikipedia. I have attempted to go in and correct several factual errors on that page, based on information I have from her own personal journals, letters, etc. I received these from her family.

I suppose I could wait until my own book is published, and then make the corrections based on that published data, but that is going to be six months to a year.

Is there any other option? Can I have Juliet's family contact Wikipedia (perhaps providing a copy of her death certificate or something else that would prove they are indeed her family)?

Please, someone, tell me how to proceed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by KarenAins (talkcontribs) 05:35, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

@KarenAins: This is my talk page. So, unless someone else is watching this page, you are only talking to me here. That said, anyone else is free to reply if they know about this conversation. This is much the same as your own talk page which is at User talk:KarenAins.
As for what you can use as a source, Anderson's journals, letters, etc. would not be allowed to be used since they have not been previously published. In order to use something as a reference, that item should be able to be verified by any other person. For instance, if a book is used as a reference, then anyone can take the name of that book and go to a library to look it up.
Wikipedia is a tertiary source and as such it relies on information that has been previously published. We could eventually use the book that you are writing but you should not be the one adding the information from that book because you have a conflict of interest. You would obviously want the book to sell more copies and thus want to use it as a reference here. So, when your book is published, please post any corrections you may have on the talk page of the article at Talk:Juliet Anderson.
Since Wikipedia is a tertiary source and is based on what has already been published, we must base our article on what is available now. Wikipedia is a work in progress.
I encourage you to read the pages that I've linked to here as well as those on your own talk page. And if you have any questions, please feel free to ask me here or ask other editors at the Help Desk. Dismas|(talk) 06:13, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Helena Karel[edit]

Hello, first of all excuse my english, i'm french. I wrote the page about Helena Karel. Friday, it has been proposed for deletion. So i had to establish her notability. WP:PORNBIO, says that the person must Has been featured multiple times in notable mainstream media.. That's the reason i added the magazines she appeared. Doing that, the process was stoped yesterday (i still have problem with sources....). You undid that part (not usefull for you, i undestand, but english criterias are those). So excuse me but, i've to undo your delete. We can keep in touch if you want, i'll watch for some days your page. Have a nice day ! Sg7438 (talk) 06:09, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

I removed it because Wikipedia is not a place to post a resume and is not for promotion. There's no question that she's a model, so it's logical to think that she's appeared in magazines and various media. (Note: In English we don't use the word "medias". The plural is simply "media".) What is not obvious is that these appearances were notable. Additionally, we don't list magazine appearances like this in other articles about other models. Look, for instance, at Clara Morgane. Her bio simply lists six magazines (though these are not referenced).
I would suggest you try to find references in secondary sources for the other claims in the article such as Karel's awards or her background. Right now you have used only primary sources. There is no argument that she's a model. I'm still not convinced that she's a notable model. You can demonstrate that notability by providing better references. Dismas|(talk) 08:47, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
ok thanks for the answer. I'm not doing promotion, just translating a page about a very known french star of porn... Fool idea, it seems ! I would just like to come back on that : wp:pornbio says in section 3 : Has been featured multiple times in notable mainstream media.. That's why i added all magazines writing about HK (like on Clara Morgane's page) : i'm just trying to explain (not to contest). This morning i tried to improve the page, please, have a look and tell me ! TY Sg7438 (talk) 11:33, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
I nominated Helena Karel for deletion, please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Helena Karel. --Λeternus (talk) 07:56, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Mary McCarty[edit]

I am wondering as to what conflict of interest you are talking about, because there is none, I am an intern working on a research exercise and all of my references I got from newspaper articles. If I am citing them improperly then can you please tell me where I should go to see how to correctly cite my references.Paularyan1 (talk) 19:31, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

@Paularyan1: I'm talking about the conflict of interest that you declared here. And you were informed that it was a conflict of interest here. I don't appreciate you trying to feign innocence.
Help:Referencing for beginners will start you on your way to properly referencing your sources. Dismas|(talk) 23:33, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Eugene Daub[edit]

Hello Dismas, I would like to request your guidance on a page I created. Eugene Daub, sculptor. This page seemed to be very well verified, in my opinion, and the artist is highly notable. However it has been tagged as being written as an 'advertisement'. I want to correct the problem but I have questions as to how to make it stick. 1. First of all, there may be some question as to using a neutral point of view. Can you point out any 'puffery' you may observe? 2. There is also a comment about inappropriate external links. I do not think I am clear about that complaint. 3. finally, how do I have the flag removed once I make corrections? You have been helpful to me in the past and I would appreciate you feedback. Not everyone here is always helpful. Dr. Andrea Bruce (talk) 20:57, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Eugene Daub (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Just throwing in a convenience link for now. Dismas|(talk) 21:24, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
After having just read the article, I pretty much agree with the advert tag. I'd have been torn between that and the {{Like resume}} tag. But let me get to your points one at a time...
  1. I don't see any puffery. What I consider puffery is things like "He was the greatest..." or "Nobody had done blah blah for the last 50 years..." without any sources. I could say that Abe Lincoln was a great orator but I'd have to cite someone who said that. What I do see is a list of accomplishments sort of posing as prose. The career section is nothing more than a number of small paragraphs that only serve to list an accomplishment or paid job. There's no prose to it. And definitely no sources. It could be fleshed out with some reviews, both positive and negative.
  2. The external links were partially taken out here. The first was because you were using a Google search as a substitute for a reference or wikilink to an article about what a figurative monument is. The second is actually still prevalent in the article. External links should not be used in the prose of an article in this way. If a person/term has an article, then link to the article. But if they don't, don't simply link those words to an external site. If they are deserving of an article but one doesn't exist yet, link the words anyway. Red links are okay. If Anne Olson Daub or any of the other terms that are linked in that fashion are unlikely to ever have an article, simply don't link them.
  3. Once you make the corrections, you can remove the tag yourself. It's at the top of the article. There is no automated process to remove them or any reviewer that comes along to check them. Once you feel the issue has been addressed, you can remove it yourself. If the person who put the tag in feels that it's still applicable after you've made your edits, then they can put it back in. It may also be helpful to ask the person who tagged it why they tagged it in the first place. In this case, that was User:Deb.
Yes, some people are more helpful than others but then that's people for you.  :)
Oh, and one last thing, his marriage should definitely have a reference. If that is his or his wife's own web site, that's fine. Dismas|(talk) 01:27, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
Thank you so much for the feedback. I will work on these points this week. Deb has been rather hostile towards my efforts, without taking the time to point out the problems (speedy deletions seems to be his specialty). I am saving all my work as a precaution. Thanks again! Dr. Andrea Bruce (talk) 21:02, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Madeleine Collinson[edit]

I'm wondering if the whole article should be AfDd if there is not sufficient notability when the person died to be able to find a single mention in WP:RS. What do you think? --Jersey92 (talk) 21:31, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

I don't know about that. I think there would probably be enough sources to satisfy notability pretty well if we took the trouble to get paper sources from the time she was in the lime light. As for an RS of her death, maybe we'll have to find a Maltese reference since the article says that's where she was living. Dismas|(talk) 23:22, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
IMDb says she Died: August 14, 2014 (age 62). I know that citing IMDb is problematic but I don't see why we can't consider using that as a RS on this, since dates of birth and death are not simply user-generated content there. --ToniSant (talk) 10:12, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Talkback[edit]

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Dismas. You have new messages at ToniSant's talk page.
Message added 09:54, 23 August 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

ToniSant (talk) 09:54, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Madeleine Collinson[edit]

e Thanks for your interest. To-date I couldn't find any local source which mentions her death.Neither in English nor in Maltese. Will check with my local contacts and, if successful,will advise .

Thank you! Dismas|(talk) 10:58, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Help with new article title[edit]

I searched for any information about changing the title of an article and found your name in an archive. I am a new page reviewer and have found this new article Kannamangalam (Temble) should be named Kannamangalam Temple, the name that I found on google about this subject. I don't have the permissions/privelege of being able retitle this article. Can it be done by me or do you do this sort of thing? bpage (talk) 01:08, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

The article must be moved to the new article title. Your account has the ability to make that change. Let me know if you have any questions. Dismas|(talk) 01:21, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

hi dismas[edit]

Are you a girl ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Moazzam Ahmed Kamangar (talkcontribs) 04:36, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

See my user page. Dismas|(talk) 12:24, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Sorry[edit]

This is Almulust, yes I edited Erika's page. I have a lot of references (since I actually work with her) and would like to update her page, which has terribly old infos. Please, could you be more specific on where you have problems with the info I submitted? I never edited Wikipedia before. And we really need the page up to date, so please would you help? Thanks.79.155.139.100 (talk) 12:18, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

I can help. There are a couple things I'd like you to look over.
Also, it would help if you logged into your account when working here. It makes it easier to tell it's really you instead of some IP address (which may change). I have to run now. Dismas|(talk) 12:30, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
Getting back to what I was saying, it would be best if you left your comments about what you feel should be added/corrected/etc. on the article's talk page which can be found at Talk:Erika Lust. Please post what you feel should be changed as well as a source for that information. Sources cannot be personal knowledge. They should be published sources whether on the web or in book, magazines, or online video. Then impartial editors can decide whether that information should be added to the article and make any changes necessary. Thanks, Dismas|(talk) 18:05, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Hi, I think you've undone my whole editing again, yet I submitted a bunch of diverse, accurate and objective sources to support the writing I contributed with. Could you please inform me on what the problem is now? I understand the need of verification, but then, what's the point of keeping an extremely old information about someone who is currently quite relevant? Is this useful for Wikipedia readers? Is this better? At least, could you just edit the points that are not "impartial" enough according to you, but leave the other infos which are facts strongly supported by published sources? Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.139.237.232 (talk) 14:19, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

There are a few things wrong. And again, I'd like to point out WP:COI and suggest that you make suggestions for edits on the talk page of the article. That said...
  • You haven't provided a source for her birth date or birth name which is needed per WP:BLP.
  • "She is a pioneer of feminist pornography." is incredibly POV and has no source. This should be said by someone else about her though. Not her own claim. WP:RS, WP:V, and such.
  • You've stripped much of the formatting such as italics for film titles. You've made the formatting worse.
  • There are several laudatory phrases such as "one of the most important reference works" which have no reference. Again, they're incredibly POV. See WP:NPOV.
  • In the awards section, you've stripped out most of the references and the links to the web archive in preference for bare URLs. Again, you've made the formatting worse.
Dismas|(talk) 10:19, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks[edit]

Just wanted to say thanks for correcting my edit done on 31 Aug and for giving me the "good faith edit" benefit of the doubt. I had somehow inexplicably confused the wrong women with the right women and ... jeez, I hope this isn't a sign of early onset dementia. < sigh ...>__209.179.60.161 (talk) 23:54, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

I think you might enjoy it[edit]

If you have not yet done so, come to WP:AFC, sign up as a participant, enable the helper script, and review a few drafts. Even one per day wil make a dent in the backlog, and it's fun! Fiddle Faddle 07:55, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Timtrent, I have actually reviewed a few. My problem is that between school and work, I have very little time for in-depth Wikipedia editing. And I've found that by reviewing those drafts, I am bound to get a number of follow up questions from the author. And I don't feel I have enough time to properly give them the attention that that requires. Maybe I'll give it another shot though. Dismas|(talk) 12:48, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
We do get follow up questions, that is for sure. What I find is that answering them thougthfully is a benefit to me in real life. I find I am more patient! Fiddle Faddle 21:24, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

ANI discussion[edit]

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. The ANI discussion involves the Molly Ringwald problems you have noted elsewhere. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 01:47, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

reply[edit]

Okay. I have mutual friends who know Stacey Dash personally and whomever keeps changing her birth year to make her appear younger is ridiculous. I have the 2006 issue of her posing in Playboy that year and the big deal for that magazine was that she had just turned 40. That was 2006. I will cite the sources when I get up in the morning and feel like messing with it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Factual87 (talkcontribs) 09:09, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

@Factual87: You'll need a published source and not just your friends' personal knowledge. That's what we call original research. Sources must be able to be verified and that leaves out your friends. Dismas|(talk) 09:49, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Thank you[edit]

For continuing attention to the Rauner page, to ensure that exuberant supporters do not jump the gun with declarations, or give short shrift to WP policies regarding BLP sourcing. Leprof 7272 (talk) 06:17, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

A kitten for you![edit]

Youngkitten.JPG

Thanks, I will review the "howto" on referencing and do it properly from now on.

YouCallThisClean? (talk) 05:17, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Lisa Marie Scott[edit]

page http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lisa_Marie_Scott&action=history

I deleted the references to www.lisamariescott.com because the website is no longer active. Why did you reverse the edits?

The page is still available, I'm pretty sure, through web.archive.org. I'm at work right now, so I can't see the content but it can be retrieved and the reference re-tooled. If you can't do it, I'll try to get to it when I get home. Dismas|(talk) 00:47, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Copyright checks when performing AfC reviews[edit]

Hello Dismas. This message is part of a mass mailing to people who appear active in reviewing articles for creation submissions. First of all, thank you for taking part in this important work! I'm sorry this message is a form letter – it really was the only way I could think of to covey the issue economically. Of course, this also means that I have not looked to see whether the matter is applicable to you in particular.

The issue is in rather large numbers of copyright violations ("copyvios") making their way through AfC reviews without being detected (even when easy to check, and even when hallmarks of copyvios in the text that should have invited a check, were glaring). A second issue is the correct method of dealing with them when discovered.

If you don't do so already, I'd like to ask for your to help with this problem by taking on the practice of performing a copyvio check as the first step in any AfC review. The most basic method is to simply copy a unique but small portion of text from the draft body and run it through a search engine in quotation marks. Trying this from two different paragraphs is recommended. (If you have any question about whether the text was copied from the draft, rather than the other way around (a "backwards copyvio"), the Wayback Machine is very useful for sussing that out.)

If you do find a copyright violation, please do not decline the draft on that basis. Copyright violations need to be dealt with immediately as they may harm those whose content is being used and expose Wikipedia to potential legal liability. If the draft is substantially a copyvio, and there's no non-infringing version to revert to, please mark the page for speedy deletion right away using {{db-g12|url=URL of source}}. If there is an assertion of permission, please replace the draft article's content with {{subst:copyvio|url=URL of source}}.

Some of the more obvious indicia of a copyvio are use of the first person ("we/our/us..."), phrases like "this site", or apparent artifacts of content written for somewhere else ("top", "go to top", "next page", "click here", use of smartquotes, etc.); inappropriate tone of voice, such as an overly informal tone or a very slanted marketing voice with weasel words; including intellectual property symbols (™,®); and blocks of text being added all at once in a finished form with no misspellings or other errors.

I hope this message finds you well and thanks again you for your efforts in this area. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 02:20, 18 November 2014 (UTC).

       Sent via--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:20, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Holly Peers on wiki....[edit]

Dear Dismas,

Thank you for your email regarding my recent edit on the page for Holly Peers.

You mention I have a conflict of interest and my addition has been removed, I have no conflict of interest in any way, I just stated the facts of discovering her. I therefore ask for your advice, as I was the person that discovered Holly, I did her first photo shoot for her and I did submit her first images to the agency that has signed her and mentioned on her wiki page.

This information needs to be included on her bio, because I get asked by other models and photographers about this. As it stands, the information you state is incorrect.

Can you please advise me further on altering this information?

Thank you once again.

Best wishes,

Dave Henshaw — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.14.140.22 (talkcontribs)

You say "I have no conflict of interest in any way" although you also claim to be the same Dave Henshaw that was mentioned in this edit and also claims to have had an impact on Peers' career. That last point, especially, creates a conflict of interest. If she does well in her career, that gives you an accomplishment to get work in the future. How is that not a conflict of interest?
Second, you provided no reference to a reliable source for your edit. In order to be able to verify the information in this encyclopedia, we rely on reliable sources where the information comes from. We cannot take your word for it.
You also added a link to your own personal web site. This is a form of advertising and advertising is not acceptable on Wikipedia. Your comment about other people asking you about this increases my thoughts about you wanting to use the encyclopedia as a means of advertising for your own career.
Since you yourself do not have an article here, I don't see how you are worthy of a mention in the Peers article.
And finally, I don't see how not saying that you discovered her makes the article incorrect. Not saying something doesn't necessarily make everything else wrong. Dismas|(talk) 02:27, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Dear Dismiss, Thank you for the lecture and for the lack advice on 'how to' add the correct information as requested, that was much appreciated. For your information and future knowledge, a conflict of interest is a situation in which the concerns or aims of two different parties are incompatible, which is not the case here. I added a statement that clearly pointed out that I was one of the people that discovered Holly Peers, which causes no concern in any way, it is simply a fact. If this information was available on the internet elsewhere, then I would have obviously put a link to it, but seems as that information is not available and her brief biography is here on wiki, I simply tried to update it as your website suggests. This is also why I added a link to my website, my blog shows information on discovering Holly Peers, together with the shots I took and pictures of her with me at the shoot, it was not intended as an advertisement as I am busy enough, plus if I was looking to advertise then I wouldn't rely on people as negative as you to do so. I am so truly pleased that I'm not "worthy" of having an article on your website, I might even mention that when I win my next award. And finally, I'll tell you how not mentioning her discovery makes the article appear incorrect, you state that she started modelling in 2009 and soon appeared in the Sun, when in fact she didn't start modelling, she attended a photo shoot at our request and those images were submitted to an agency, she didn't start modelling, that is the point, it is therefore misleading to other models and teenagers aspiring to be like her, but with you hiding behind a keyboard and not really caring about how content you publish may affect young girl, I guess it won't make much of a difference. Anyway, have a great day and thanks for being you!

I don't know why I would add any 'how to' information here when it has already been posted to your talk page in the welcome message that I left. The talk page to which I refer is at User talk:Dave Henshaw and not this IP address that you are editing from now.
As far as the conflict of interest goes, this encyclopedia has an interest in providing information which is neutral and verifiable. By providing a link to your business, your interest seems to lie in promoting yourself. Those interests conflict.
I could go over many more things but again, there are many links to information which have been posted to your talk page.
I did look at your site, by the way, and I don't see where it verifies your claims.
I don't recall saying that you weren't worthy of an article here. Just that you don't currently have on. Wikipedia is a work in progress. Many articles are added on a daily basis. Perhaps one could be written about you, though we advise against you doing it.
I don't mean to be lecturing but you seem to have a pretty thin skin, as evidenced by things like your sarcastic tone and the mis-spelling of my name, so maybe you took it that way.
I look forward to seeing you accept some awards. Perhaps I'll see you in Nashville next year for Imaging. If you come over to the US for it, that is. Dismas|(talk) 17:36, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Straw Poll[edit]

There is a straw poll that may interest you regarding the proper use of "Religion =" in infoboxes of atheists.

The straw poll is at Template talk:Infobox person#Straw poll.

--Guy Macon (talk) 09:18, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the help![edit]

Choco chip cookie.png

To StuRat, Tcncv, Salix alba, Dismas and Mandruss. I gather that most of the time when you answer questions at the reference desk, you never hear back, so I wanted to let everyone involved in Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Computing/2014 August 26#Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Computing/2014 August 17#Please help me buy the right wire redux know a few months later that it made a real convenience difference in my life and is much appreciated! Thanks again.--108.54.18.254 (talk) 18:55, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

I do appreciate when questioners reply back. Even with a simple thank you at the end of the thread. So, um, you're welcome and thank you for thanking us!  :-) Dismas|(talk) 00:24, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Photo changes to Jasmin_St._Claire page[edit]

Can you please give me guidance as to how to get the correct picture up on the page? It was uploaded to Commons by the copyright holder who signed the agreement to for the CC license. When I look at the picture on Commons it shows the correct license. The revert back that you did mentioned that it does not have the correct license. Here is the link:

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Rhea_Alessandra_Calaveras,_%28Jasmin_St._Claire%29.jpg

I'm not sure what the correct step would be since I followed the guide for uploading the picture and it does show that the picture is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 International license. Your help is very much appreciated. Atominn (talk) 01:09, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

The license doesn't make sense to me. It claims that the author is someone named Rhea A Devlugt. But then the source says "Own work". So are you Rhea A Devlugt? That is not clear. If Devlugt is someone else, then it is not your own work. Dismas|(talk) 01:30, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

So should I have put my Wikipedia user name in that section instead of the real name? Yes, I am the author. If I have to re-upload it again and do the license again with my user name instead I will do that. Please let me know. Thank you. Atominn (talk) 01:38, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

If you are the person who took the photograph (photographers generally keep the copyright to all photos that they take) then yes, you are the author and your name (or your username) should be there. My primary concern is who owns the image. If you're not the photographer, then you need to contact the photographer to have them release the rights to that image. For instance, see this image which is one that I took. I took the photo, so my name is listed as the author and it says that it is my own work.
A secondary concern is the naming of the image. Why use a name (Calaveras) that is not her name? Dismas|(talk) 01:46, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

The copyright is owned by Jasmin St. Claire, which is a stage name. Rhea Alessandra Calaveras is also a stage name. Rhea A Devlugt is the actual legal name. So the name on the license is the correct name of who owns the copyright who also has control of this username. I'm just sitting with her helping her navigate through the process of correcting misinformation on the wiki page and having an updating photo, of which she does own the copyright to. I'm not sure if that helps or makes it a little more confusing. Atominn (talk) 01:57, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

You both should read over the conflict of interest guideline as well as the autobiography guideline, especially the section on problems in an article about you. Dismas|(talk) 02:32, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

I have read over both. Do either of those apply to just simply changing a photo? There's no autobiographical information being written. Right now I'm just trying to do a picture change. I certainly understand where you're coming from, I just don't see how updating a photo is either a COI or an attempt at self-promotion. If I just simply have no hope of getting the picture updated, please let me know, but I'd appreciate it if you would take the above thought into consideration. Thanks again for your help. Atominn (talk) 04:54, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

I see your point. I do appreciate that you've read them. Dismas|(talk) 09:10, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Yeah[edit]

I've looked before for picture tutorials but unable to find. Now that you shared them, I know where to look. And by editing the picture with the correct numerical coding, you showed me how to resize them.--Taeyebaar (talk) 23:44, 21 December 2014 (UTC)