I don't see why you're questioning the source (of CM trying to get her porn pages taken down) when the source is stated in the first
half-dozen words of the sentence (her MySpace page). Is there a way it could be stated more clearly? Credmond19:22, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
WP:ADOPT
Hi there,
As a current Adopter with the Adopt-a-User program there has been some ongoing developments that we would like to bring to your attention.
A new Adopter's Area has been created where you can find useful resources and other Adopter's experiences. Please feel free to add any resources you may have found useful as an Adopter, as well as recount any experiences that you think may help others. If you know of any useful resources for new users / Adoptees then you can add them here.
Also the way the adoption process works has changed slightly. To decrease workload at Category:Wikipedians seeking to be adopted in Adopt-a-user, on offering adoption please change the {{Adoptme}} template to {{Adoptoffer}} on the user's user page, and this will add the user to Category:Wikipedians having been offered adoption. Users that have already been offered adoption can always have a second or third offer, but by separating out those users that have not had an adoption offer yet, it is hoped that no one will go lacking.
It would be VERY helpful and benificial to state within talk pages to clarify exactly what in the article needs sourcing. Simply placing unsourced tags says nothing on what needs to be improved or sourced. --† Ðy§ep§ion †Speak your mind04:12, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Most of the unsourced tags I place are due to the article being entirely unsourced, where no clarification is needed. If you have a specific counter-example, please point it out. Valrith04:16, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The Jenna Haze article, for example has at least 3 references, so how are other editors suppose to know what exactly you are referring to that needs clarification? Are other editors suppose to verify every single sentence in the article? Of course clarification is needed. If anything "citation needed" tags are more appropriate rather than placing a broad generalization that maybe confusing--† Ðy§ep§ion †Speak your mind05:09, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm well aware of the second paragraph. What it says is that she's of Mexican descent. For the slow, that means she has some Mexican ancestry; it doesn't say how much. Valrith21:56, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The article very clearly states that Alba's father is Mexican(with three sources given). Alba has discussed her ethnicity in the media several times and indentifies herself as latino. Again, read first before doing needless reverts/deletions. Crumbsucker01:34, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, the article states only that her father is of Mexican descent, which is not the same thing. Since the three sources you mention do indeed state he is Mexican, the article should probably be changed to reflect that... Valrith21:06, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Unless an edit is clearly vandalism (it wasn't), you shouldn't assume vandalism, even of anon editors. And yes, the editor should have explained their edit in the summary, but you could have taken a second to check IMDB to find the right year before reverting. Crumbsucker01:54, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Your deletion of almost the entire content of the Shu Qi article makes it virtually meaningless. I have restored it and added several biographical sources that back up the facts you deleted as unreferenced. Obviously many of the primary biographical sources are in Chinese, which I don't read, but these English-language sites all paint a consistent picture that backs up the parts of the article you deleted. Rodparkes09:37, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Can you explain your removal of the SDLP logo please? I plan to put free use photos in but until then a logo seems uncontroversial? Weggie23:22, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The image line in the person infobox is for an image of the person the article is about, not for logos, slogans, witticisms, or anything else. Valrith23:32, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Any particular reason you keep tagging the Jackass: The Game article?
I'll be removing the tag once more. The game is pretty much inherently notable for being a licensed game based on the television show and movies, much the same as it would be if there was a game based on any number of other Hollywood movies which scored big at the box office. Both Jackass: The Movie and it's sequel Jackass Number Two scored huge at the box office, taking the top earnings on the weekends they debuted, let alone the TV series (which was large enough that pretty much every member of the main cast got their own spinoff shows). If you'd like to discuss this further, please see the Talk page. Cheers, Lankybugger01:45, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Even if I were to assume/agree that the movie is notable, notability is not transferrable, ie. the game would not be automatically notable because of the movie. I don't believe the game is of any note, and that is why I placed the notability tag on its article. Valrith05:04, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I feel beaten up
Hi. I just need to kvetch. I hope you won't mind since it isn't directed at you. Rightly or wrongly, since Wikipedia goes with documentable sources, I have gone and edited, added, reword various articles. I then feel beaten up with negative comments by certain users, but especially from one who prefers to do majority of edits as an anonymous user. I try to place positive rebuttles, but its spiral down the tubes. Under normal circumstances, I would ask for a block, but in this case, I really don't want this person, even as an anonymous user, be blocked... I just want a positive conversation on how to make certain articles 1) fit the style and 2) be from NPOV. Thanks for taking a moment to read my venting. CJLippert02:18, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I understand your frustration. The only help I can offer is to say that I've been impressed with the cleanup you've done on several articles I noticed. Valrith05:07, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Your tagging of the subject article for speedy deletion was inappropriate and mean-spirited. The author had just recently created that article (within the past day or two). If you felt the article unworthy, the civil thing to do would have been to give the author a chance to improve it, but you didn't. Judging from the preceding comments on this page, it is apparent that you make a habit of knee-jerk tagging of articles without bothering to investigate whether the tags you liberally sprinkle around are warranted. 209.251.23.5309:33, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The author of that article had just created it THAT DAY. You tagged it and it was deleted. You also did not possess the courtesy to tell the author on their talk page what you had done. Since the author is probably not on wikipedia 24/7, he/she had no chance to improve the article or prove its worthiness before it vanished. Why don't you try contributing some content once in awhile rather than exlusively finding fault with what others have written. I suspect that once you actually add something to a page that doesn't reside between {{ and }} you might develop a collaborative attitude rather than envisioning yourself as everyone's superior. 209.251.23.14605:27, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.
I have reverted the page back. I think based on the new information and his work with God, Inc., that a new AfD is warranted if you think he is not notable (also, a redirect no longer makes sense because he has multiple works). Best, Irongargoyle04:46, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Vandalism
The only information that I removed from the Kentucky Wildcats page was the inappropriate tone tag and the banned 1952-53 team fromt the "memorable teams" section (since, technically, it didn't play that year, though it did just now lead me to correct the year of the Undefeated Team). If those were the problems, then I apologize. Other than that, I have only added information to the article. --147.133.217.5615:58, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The article was, in fact, speediable, as it makes no claim to the subject's significance. Neverthelees, a chance was given to provide reason for keeping it. No improvements have been made to the article (which is also poorly weritten and presented), nothing has been said at the Talk page — all we have is the anon's edit summary that simply points out that there are articles on other weather forecasters; that isn't grounds for removing the template, surely. Please don't remove it again wiothout doing something to justify this. (I see that you were the peson who added it, but I don't think that that makes any difference.) --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 17:31, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know much about them, it's true (I dislike them in fact, and never use them; they seem to me to provide no more than a pointless level of bureacracy between speedying and AfDing. The reqirement that you mention stregthens that feeling; if it's fragile enough to be swepot aside by an anon who isn't even prepared to edit the article or discuss it at the Talk page, then I can't see much point in it in the first place.
Checking the anon's contributions, I see that he has a history of removing notability and importance templates, either with no explanation or with edit summaries like "seems pretty important to me". I'll leave a message at the Talk page pointing him in the direction of relevant Wikipedia guidelines. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 17:40, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Just questioning why you keep reverting the article? I've read through the editing documentation provided by Wikipedia and am obviously missing something. Please let me know what I need to do. Thanks. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 206.192.113.98 (talk) 22:53, 1 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]
OK, I can understand that. The hard part is that I'm trying not to make it sound too ad-like as to have its neutrality debated again. A lot of the format and styles were copied from the other database company pages like MySQL, Sybase, Oracle.
In the history section, I don't know how to make this verifiable. Similarly, when looking at MySQL's page, theirs seems unverifiable as well. I know these things not from original research, but because I was one of the first employees, know the founders, and know the story.
Another difficult item is the timeline/history... how would I go about making that verifiable without linking to press-releases?
Sorry for the difficulty on this. I guess I just need to understand the rules better. I completely understand where you're coming from in terms of ensuring reliability of the information. Thank you for your continued assistance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonah.harris (talk • contribs) 13:01, February 2, 2007 (UTC)
As to the question of establishing verifiable sources other than press releases, that's probably going to be difficult. Valrith21:39, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So, I'm a bit confused. The page is contested for not being neutral, yet the only way to prove the information is to link to, what some would consider, biased press releases? I'll be happy to link to them if it means an updated page will be approved... but it's pretty ugly to have its neutrality in question. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonah.harris (talk • contribs) 06:21, February 5, 2007 (UTC)
Image:Monica sweetheart.jpg cannot be deleted through the copyvio process because the source is given and fair use is claimed. However, orphaned fair use images (like this one), as well as replaceable fair use images (if fact, this one has a replacement) can be deleted. Conscious06:35, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not restore prod tags to articles after they have been removed. If you look at Wikipedia:Proposed deletion especially the section called Conflicts you will see that the tag should not be restored no matter what. And yes I agree that an edit summary/reason for the prods removal would have been a better idea/good thing. Cheers CambridgeBayWeather(Talk)10:52, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well I can understand why Valrith restored the prod tag to the article as it was (and still is) rather sketchy. So I'm going to escalate it to a full AFD debate. Tabercil22:00, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I just recreated a page for Brandon Buddy (Cole Thornhart) of One Life to Live, which apparently has been previously deleted at least once due to "lack of notability." Obviously, he is a new actor, but his status as a contract player on OLTL makes him notable, no? In any case, I was hoping you and others who have contributed to OLTL pages could comment on the article's talk page regarding this deletion issue. Thanks in advance. TAnthony04:18, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The SmackBot changes were all sound, so I reverted them. I am particularly puzzled by why you restored something like gender in science fiction, which substitutes the title of the article for itself! Is there something one of us (possibly me) is missing here? --Orange Mike21:56, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The changes made to the {{fact}} tags are causing the "Notes" section to be very badly formatted. I'm going to fix this without a full revert this time... Valrith22:02, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Valrith. I noticed you just deleted the blog link from the "External Links" at the Miki Mizuno article, which I don't question, and considered doing myself. My question is-- The Female Adult Bio template has a field for "Homepage." Is there a Wiki policy or precedent for or against putting an official blog link in there? Dekkappai22:32, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I know, there's not. However, I generally won't link to a blog as they're on the list of links normally to be avoided. Besides that, I have a hard time seeing how a blog can be verifiable, or even verified as belonging to any particular person. Valrith22:45, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
IMHO the two templates I moved to the talk page are about editorial matters which is what the talk page is for. The information in them unlike for example {{unreferenced}} (which should be put at the bottom in a Reference section) provide no information which a reader of the page needs to know. If you think that these templates are needed then please either edit the article to add the information which is missing (so they are no longer needed), or at least add to the talk page what it is that concerns you about the page. --Philip Baird Shearer09:18, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I am curious about your edits to this article. You previously deleted half of its content with the edit summary "copyedit". You recently tagged it as unsourced. When I added inline references, you deleted all of them with the edit summary "fix references". I don't know where you are in the world, but where I come from, 'fix' and 'delete' are not synonyms.
If your deletion of my references was pursuant to a guideline, please educate me. Otherwise, I will be restoring them.
Additionally, I think it's fair to ask you to be a little more accurate in your edit summaries. It makes it harder for others to determine who is removing content if the edit summaries aren't clear.
I should probably be a bit more verbose with my edit summaries. As to "deletion of ... references", I really only deleted one (a link to her IMDb bio page). All the others were the same reference (a link to her main IMDb page), and having them appear multiple times was, imo, cluttering the appearance of the article. And since everything in the article is sourced to IMDb, it seemed adequate to have a single reference for the whole article rather than duplicate references for each sentence. Valrith02:46, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. I will insert a single ref at the end of each paragraph. That way, others won't flag the article as unsourced, but we hopefully won't run afoul of your clutter threshold. I'll note it on the talk page so others can make adjustments as the article expands. Cheers and thanks for the reply! Butseriouslyfolks06:49, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
just curious as to why you prod'd Trois but neither of the sequels. I would imagine if the first is not notable then the sequels would be too! Postcard Cathy16:10, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Just passing along notice to you that the article on Avy Scott which you have contributed to has been put up for AFD - discussion can be found here. Tabercil19:32, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I see you keep removing unsourced material from the bangbros article. At first I disagreed with you but afterward a bunch of one edit anons started adding to it and it began to look like spam. Since the bangbros article is in my watchlist I'll keep a eye out for it and remove any unsourced or spammish info from it. --M8v205:02, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The Olympics WikiProject is performing a membership update to check for currently active and idle members.
Because your username appears on the members list, we kindly ask you visit this page and put your name under the appropriate section, using the code #{{user|USERNAME}}, in order to renew or cancel your membership.
What (praytell) exactly do you have against her? You aren't abiding by these rules at all:"Deletion is performed by administrators based on policy, not personal likes and dislikes
There are three main processes for deleting articles — other types of deletion have similar processes
Articles that can be improved should be edited or tagged, not nominated for deletion"
Also, there's this stated by the Wikipedia rules and Chauntelle fits several of the criteria:"A musician or ensemble (note that this includes a band, singer, rapper, orchestra, hip hop crew, DJ, musical theatre group, etc.) is notable if it meets any one of the following criteria:
It has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent from the musician/ensemble itself and reliable.
o This criterion includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, books, magazine articles, and television documentaries except for the following:
+ Media reprints of press releases, other publications where the musician/ensemble talks about themselves, and advertising for the musician/ensemble.
+ Works comprising merely trivial coverage, such as newspaper articles that simply report performance dates or the publications of contact and booking details in directories.
An article in a school or university newspaper (or similar) would generally be considered trivial but should be evaluated on a case-by-case basis.
The above is the central criterion for inclusion. Below are some criteria that make it very likely that sufficient reliable information is available about a given group or individual musician.
1. Has had a charted hit on any national music chart.
2. Has had a record certified gold or higher in at least one country.
3. Has gone on an international concert tour, or a national concert tour in at least one large or medium-sized country, reported in reliable sources.
4. Has released two or more albums on a major label or one of the more important indie labels (i.e. an independent label with a history of more than a few years and a roster of performers, many of which are notable).
5. Contains at least one member who was once a part of or later joined a band that is otherwise notable; note that it is often most appropriate to use redirects in place of articles on side projects, early bands and such.
6. Has become the most prominent representative of a notable style or of the local scene of a city; note that the subject must still meet all ordinary Wikipedia standards, including verifiability.
7. Has won a major music award, such as a Grammy, Juno or Mercury award.
8. Has won or placed in a major music competition.
9. Has performed music for a work of media that is notable, e.g. a theme for a network television show. (But if this is the only claim, it is probably more appropriate to have a mention in the main article and redirect to that page.)
10. Has been placed in rotation nationally by any major radio network.
11. Has been the subject of a half hour or longer broadcast on a national radio or TV network. " —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.186.201.139 (talk) 23:51, 17 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Wikipedia policy requires sources, and this article had remained unsourced for entirely too long. The 3-revert rule does not apply to reverting violations of that policy. Valrith22:23, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Aurora's Real Name
Please don't change the real name of Aurora Snow to Rebecca Claire Kensington in her infobox again, their was a long discussion about this last year, and though we know Aurora's real name (Hint: it isn't Rebecca), due to threats of legal action her actual name can't be posted. See her Talk page section and the archive for discussion on the subject prior to Jimbo Wales blanking it. And, btw you pretty much ruined the rest of her article and I intend to find sources so it can be returned to it's original state. --CJ22:46, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm aware you wont like the edits I made there, but I do not think it could be argued successfully that she is not notable. One may wish she had never tried this "ordination", but she did. My general feeling is that any article about schismatic religions or religious people--no matter how peculiar-- should be kept, as it is not the province of WP to decide on theology. I think the material you deleted was at least some of it relevant, but I did not re-add it since most of it was a copyvio in the first place & it is present in the refs for those who want the details. Whether Roman Catholic Priest applies as a category is an interesting question of definition.; it could be argued she is relevant to that category, even if not a priest by RC standards. I think it obvious that the RC church does not consider her a priest, but readers unfamiliar with Christianity might not realize, so I went back and added it; it is supported by the references. I think the article will then be NPOV as it stands. DGG20:42, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Vandalism Warning?
Why did you leave a vandalism warning on my Talk page? I've made many edits, and created many entrys on Wiki and I even explained to you the reasons for the edit, and in fact, you can consider this your warning for adding faulty information to Aurora Snow's entry. --CJ21:15, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Removing sourced information is vandalism. When you comprehend that, you will understand why I left you a vandalism warning. Valrith21:18, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
But in this particular instance, IMDB is wrong. The whole matter has been discussed before, and I even told you where to find the previous conversation. Please check Aurora's talk page archive. Also see WP:FAITH. And, BTW, it's not vandalism, you and I are simply in a content dispute. --CJ21:23, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, after reviewing WP:VANDAL, I find I may have been using too broad an interpretation of vandalism. However, until there is a reliable source that shows IMDb is wrong, IMDb is the only data we have to work with... Valrith14:21, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Aurora Snow
It's this edit that everyone's referring to, done by Jimbo himself. His edit summary for said blanking: "blanking privacy violation, see WP:OFFICE, email me if you have questions". So it seems clear to us from that particular action: no putting her real name in the article unless we have a solid, reliable source for it. And if you search through the archive of the talk page prior to the blanking (hint: pull up this page), you'll see there is a clear discussion on what Aurora's real name is. The page blanking did not occur until after a specific name was put down, which was not Rebecca Claire Kensington. That implies that the later name is the correct one. Tabercil15:23, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
None of which changes anything. All of the discussion on the talk page is just speculation. The IMDb is a solid, reliable source, unless there's been a consensus somewhere that it's not (and if such a consensus has been reached, we have to remove quite a bit of content in many articles). Until there is verifiable evidence to the contrary, the name is what IMDb says is is. Valrith15:43, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Bot issue over Cytherea edit
Your recent edit to Cytherea (porn star) (diff) was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to recognize and repair vandalism to Wikipedia articles. If the bot reverted a legitimate edit, please accept my humble creator's apologies – if you bring it to the attention of the bot's owner, we may be able to improve its behavior. Click here for frequently asked questions about the bot and this warning. // AntiVandalBot14:54, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Excuse me, but both Doc glasgow and I were very clear in our edit summaries on the Jesse Capelli article that we were cleaning up information in response to a BLP concern. While you might disagree with us, please do not classify our edits as vandalism. I note that the entire article is unsourced; you might want to look into that. I wouldn't be counting on IMDB as a source, especially since her biography there has been changed in the last 24 hours. Risker04:23, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Removing information that is referenced to a reliable source should qualify as vandalism. Until you can provide another reliable source, IMDb is the only source we have... Valrith04:33, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
IMDB is not a reliable source. Anyone can add anything to it, and there is no oversight. It is like a wiki - see reliable sources. Further, there is not a single reference in the entire article. Much of what is there is not verified in any of the links in the infobox. Risker04:38, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That is patently false. Users can contribute material to IMDb, but the owners of the site have to review it and add it before it becomes visible (in all areas except the forums). Valrith04:46, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Bree Williamson
I don't want to keep reverting the Bree Williamson article back and forth because, admittedly, the green card item is sort of stupid, but the source is "ABC Soaps in Depth" magazine, and the issue month is even mentioned. A reference doesn't have to be in the form of a footnote, or readable online; is that why you're taking it out? TAnthony21:56, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Your tags are bogus. She's notable and your tag saying it is not "adequately" sourced is bogus also. You're not an administrator, and if you continue to revert changes to my talk page, you will be blocked. It makes you feel important when you try to bite newbies, but you're barking up the wrong tree.--24.9.112.4903:17, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Just in case you were going to take this seriously, note that this user has been blocked, as have two sleeper accounts they had. Most of these articles have been nominated for deletion. Natalie04:44, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This article has only been half wiikified and yet you have (apparently) removed the wikify tag. I don't understand. Can you possibly explain on the article talk page? Thanks. - Kleinzach03:54, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, dear, for lending a hand there. It was one of my early attempts at making myself useful to Wikipedia. The part you completely removed was a direct response to User:Deananoby2's comment on the talk page. If it's not needed, then I say - great. It still has mucho POV and and mucho unreferenced material. Though I have left some suggestions in the talk page, I myself can only cringe at the article. I also think the B rating makes it a bit over-rated. Thanks again for being the first person taking a serious interest in the article in a long time. Respond, if you want, to my talk page. Cheers. Aditya Kabir22:17, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. I'll explain why I reverted your changes to this article, and why I have done so again. I did not remove any content, as you suggest. I removed a stub notice, because the article is not by any stretch of the imagination a stub, especially now that I have expanded it. You had also used the default sort template incorrectly; as the article's introduction makes clear, "Elisa" is not a surname. Deb11:43, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The article is not a stub. It is an article that contains information about the date and place of birth, education and career of the subject, and includes an introduction explaining her importance. It contains references and is categorised. It is not "either a very short article or a rough collection of information that will need much work to bring it to A-Class level." The defaultsort tag was completely incorrect, for the reasons explained above. I have reverted your changes. If you repeat your unwarranged accusations of vandalism, I will consider escalating this matter. Deb14:31, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The article is an extremely short article, and is therefore a stub. As to the defaultsort, for the purposes of this article, "Elisa" is a surname. Valrith04:34, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
About 50 lines above you wrote, "Removing information that is referenced to a reliable source should qualify as vandalism." I cannot agree more. Yet you removed information in the L. Alloy article referenced to a Time/CNN article. Ironically, after you removed that sourced material you tagged the article as not having sources.
Even after reverting the Time/CNN material you tagged the article is unsourced. Does Time/CNN not qualify as a source to you? Please explain your reasoning. If you have valid arguments to dismiss Time/CNN as a valid source, I will allow the tag. ChicJanowicz10:43, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You'll note that after I removed the reference to Time/CNN, I also restored it. This is because I removed it unintentionally. I tagged the article as unsourced because most of its claims are unsourced. The Time piece is a good addition, but doesn't support any of the article, as far as I can tell. Valrith11:01, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Why was the article gutted for lack of source material when much of the removed material was sourced, for example her educational background, custody struggle and how the story came out was deleted? The source material was there. The military information put in its place was both vague and inaccurate; she was in the Army (more accurate than 'military') and during her second enlistment a Military Policeman at the confinement (not consignment) facility (military prison) on Ft Lewis, WA. While I served with her personally during her first enlistment and posted the correct unit and MOS, I can understand the issue of sourcing on that question. It looks like a bludgeon was used rather than the necessary scalpel, leaving a far inferior product. Virgil6118:12, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I removed no source material, so where is it? Answer: it didn't and still doesn't exist. If you can find sources for the material I removed I'll applaud its reinstatement. Valrith17:50, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nicole Sheridan
What's wrong with stating that Nicole Sheridan performs anal? That's about as uncontroversial as it gets. What would be an appropriate source for this information... an article in the Wall Street Journal? For a biography of a porn star, mentioning some of the acts she engages in seems highly appropriate. This is fully in keeping with articles on other porn stars, such as Jade Marcela. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.219.27.148 (talk) 09:54, 18 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]
It's people like you, Valrith, who will ruin Wikipedia by discouraging others from contributing perfectly valid edits. Seriously, why should I bother? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.150.10.200 (talk • contribs) 18:08, April 19, 2007 (UTC)
first of all I would like to invite you to have a look at our discussion page Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Olympics, maybe this would be very helpful in this case as well as in many other cases.
But especially for you I will explain the names:
DEN gold medal
Hans Hansen (gymnast) to Hans Trier Hansen. I add his thrid name to avoid the brackets, also Hansen is very common, we have 9 differnet Danish gymnasts in 1912 and 1920 called Hansen. But we are still speaking about the same person: Mr. Hansen born May 15, 1893.
Niels Nielsen (gymnast) to Niels Turin Nielsen. See above
Hans Rönne to Hans Rønne, because ö is not a Danish letter and ö is also not an English letter. I only gave him his corrct name.
Rino Sörensen to Harry Sørensen. See above
Peter Möller to Peder Møller (gymnast). See above
Hugo Helsteen to Hugo Helsten. See [3] and [4] (page 484) and [5] (Antwerpen 1920 (Free) Denmark)
Harold Jansson to Herold Jansson. See [6] and [7] (page 484) and [8] (Antwerpen 1920 (Free) Denmark)
Peter Marcussen to Peder Marcussen. See [9] and [10] (page 484) and [11] (Antwerpen 1920 (Free) Denmark)
SWE
Carl Charpentier to Erik Charpentier. His full name is Carl-Erik Charpentier, but it looks like, that he was better known as Erik e.g. [12] under Gymnastik in alphabetically order.
Sture Ericsson-Ewreus to Sture Ericsson-Ewréus this seems to be the correct Swedish spelling e.g. [13] under Gymnastik in alphabetically order.
Ake Häger to Åke Häger. See above
Erik Svensen to Erik Svensén. See above and the footnote on his page.
Sven O. Jonsson to Sven-Olof Jonsson. I only added his full name.
Sven Jonsson to Sven Johnson. See [14] and [15] (page 483) and [16] (Antwerpen 1920 (Swedish) Sweden)
DEN silver medal
Hans Hovgaard to Hans Jakobsen. His full name is Hans Hovgaard Jabobsen, his last name is Jakobsen.
Aage Jörgensen to Aage Jørgensen, because ö is not a Danish letter and ö is also not an English letter. I only gave him his corrct name.
Arne Jörgensen to Arne Jørgensen. See above
Knud Kirkelökke to Knud Kirkeløkke. See above
Hans Laurids Sörensen to Hans Laurids Sørensen. See above
Sören Sörensen to Søren Sørensen. See above
Alfred Jörgensen to Alfred Frøkjær Jørgensen. I only add his third name and see above.
Alfred E. Jörgensen to Alfred Ollerup Jørgensen. I add his third name to avoid confusion with the gymnast above. E. seems to be wrong, because the IOC medal database reports this exclusively. I can not find a single reference more.
Jens Lambaek to Jens Lambæk. This is the correct spelling of his Danish name.
Georg West to George Vest. See [17] and [18] (page 483) and [19] (Antwerpen 1920 (Swedish) Denmark)
Dines Sneftrup to Dynes Pedersen. His full name is Dynes Snejstrup Pedersen. I gave him his last name. See also the footnote on his page.
Peter Pedersen to Peter Dorf Petersen. I only gave him his full name to avoid any confusion, because he has a very common name.
Hans Drigstrup Sörensen to Hans Christian Sørensen. Once more his correct Danish name and I replaced his nickname. See his personal page.
Valrith, I reverted back to my edit and added a reference. An interview has just been posted on Naughty America 101 where Ashley talks about being happy to be out of her contract. Spinachmaster 16:07, 22 April 2007 (EST)
You have a clear vendetta against this article, so it's not your place to say. Go and fix some unreferenced BLPs, which would be much more productive. Majorly(hot!)21:29, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have to agree with other comments here that you seem to have a habit of taking the unsourced statements rule to ridiculous extremes. Many of your edits are "throwing out the baby with the bathwater", gutting valid articles completely. As a result, almost every entry by others on your talk page is a complaint about your over-zealous approach to sourcing of biographies. Please rethink your approach - finding and adding appropriate sources instead of just carpet-bombing ebtire articles wholesale would be far more constructive. Rodparkes01:49, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think most of those statements you're reverting are actually correct,
and can generally be relatively easily sourced to the issue of the magazine in question. --AnonEMouse(squeak)21:05, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Blanking
Please do not replace Wikipedia pages with blank content. Blank pages are harmful to Wikipedia because they have a tendency to confuse readers. If it is a duplicate article, please redirect it to an appropriate existing page. If the page has been vandalised, please revert it to the last legitimate version. If you feel that the content of a page is inappropriate, please edit the page and replace it with appropriate content. If you believe there is no hope for the page, please see the deletion policy for how to proceed. Matthew20:42, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've blocked you for 24 hours. Your disruptive page blanking helps nobody. There was no contentious material on that page, and you've been asked and asked to stop. That's what {{cite}} and {{fact}} are for. Majorly(hot!)21:34, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, that's not what {{cite}} and {{fact}} are for; see the quotes from Jimbo in WP:BLP. Unsourced material should be removed "aggressively". If you can't follow that guideline, leave alone those who can. Valrith20:21, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think you should read the suggestions given here. Contentious material may be removed, blanking entire pags for which a source could be found for in less than a minute is plain disruptive. I quote: "It should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced" (emphasis mine). You clearly made no attempt to find a source (as outlined below). Majorly(hot!)21:36, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is a side note at this point, but you seem a bit confused. Blanking and deleting pages does nothing to help Wikipedia achieve its goals at all. Please stop blanking pages, and if you feel like helping wikipedia, yau can help to find reliable sources on a topic of your interest. Dan, the CowMan21:59, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is a side note as well but I would like to put in my 2 cents. Going through the recent changes section, I've often mistaken your blanking of info as vandalism. You continuously use the argument of "unsourced" as the reason to remove content. While articles should always strive to give references in the info presented it is extremely counterproductive to keep deleting articles and let others find references. For example you've repeatedly blanked Angela Dimitriou citing that it was unreferenced. Yet it only took me a couple of seconds to find a reference for her here: [20] A little bit of effort is all it takes. --† Ðy§ep§ion †Speak your mind22:44, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Claiming that "so-and-so" said something is all well and good, but unless you can provide evidence that they actually said it, it's still not sourced. So either provide a citation for your source or don't bother adding the claim.
For the article Edyta Sliwinska, I don't know why you think the most recent elimination from Dancing with the Stars needs a citation, but I added a source lest you think the elimination was untrue. I fixed the article to what I hope is at least a decent state. Tinlinkin11:05, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've added a comment (and reverted the article) despite the fact that it will do no good. The inmates are running the asylum, ignoring policy and guidelines alike. There is likely money changing hands. Valrith04:03, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Just because people don't agree with your point of view doesn't make them 'inmates'. You need to grow up and stop making idiotic accusations. Cary Bassdemandez12:47, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't do that to the Lauren page. I did, however, delete a comment someone else had written that I considered vandalism. Chelsey2118:19, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Privacy information, no matter how relevent, is never appropriate for pornographic actors/actresses. Please try to avoid including personal names on articles about these people. Imdb, which is not itself verifiable, is not a credible source. Thank you. Cary Bassdemandez20:04, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia should not be in the business of omitting information. Information quoted in other sources will continue to be included here. Valrith23:08, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I may well have warned you again instead of blocking at this point, but if you keep reverting good faith editors with the edit summary 'rvv' as you did here, I'd have blocked you myself eventually, so I think Cbrown1023 was well within policy with this block. I'd strongly request that you reconsider your approach. If you contest the block there are channels to do so. Ask here if you are unclear as to what they are, but your block expires shortly. Use the time to reflect, instead, and come back with your good will and collegiality renewed. ++Lar: t/c17:50, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Just letting you know that I have removed the tags that you put on his page. If a guy who has played almost 100 games of Australian rules football is not notable then I trust you will be spending the week deleting over 500 articles of Australian rules players wikipedia pages as they fit the same category as Clarke
Crickettragic03:37, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Marcus Christian page
I've added internal links to this page: to the New Negro and to Dillard University for example. Why do you insist that there aren't any to other Wikipedia pages?
Another of your criticisms is 'wikifying.' I'm still wondering what in the world that is. Is there a model that you can suggest? I mean, I have my own writing style.
This page is also being expanded. I will be adding pictures, more references and filling out the Negro Federal Writers Project section. Perhaps you didn't figure that one out.
gab 17:37, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
The {{Orphan}} tag indicates that no other pages link to the page where the tag appears. Not the reverse. See Special:Whatlinkshere/Marcus_Bruce_Christian. The link in the header ([22]) might be of use in finding other Wikipedia articles that could benefit from a link to the Christian article.
You should see the discussion there that I have added. This should be responded to rather than edit warring. You also shouldn't accuse people of vandalism that have made good faith edits. It appears you have done this in the past also. I also hope you're not trying to bait me into a 3RR in lieu of discussion, as that would not really be a tactful thing to do. Chicken Wing22:42, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure why you placed a speedy delete tag on this article: [23]. Please could you elucidate. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nichalp (talk • contribs) 05:25, May 26, 2007 (UTC)
I would've thought it would be fairly obvious given the state of the article at the time. It was also explained by the speedy tag I used. The article was very short, providing little to no content and context. I couldn't even figure out what the article was trying to describe. However, that was in November of last year -- the article is greatly improved since then. Valrith13:41, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Byron Calvert
I contest the 'speedy deletion' of this page. The subject of this article has been cited in numerous prominant publications, most notably the Washington Post. He came to national attention when his home was raided by the FBI and his views gain widespread attention throughout the American neo Nazi community.----Edchilvers10:51, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
speedy tagging
G'day Valrith,
I'm in the middle of cleaning up CAT:CSD this arvo, and, as usual, roughly half the articles tagged for speedy deletion
Don't meet the speedy criteria, or
Are good articles
This is to be expected. However, I see that your strike rate in particular is very low. The vast majority of times you have recently placed a speedy tag on an article, you have done so inappropriately. Improper tagging offends the creators of good articles, and creates a heck of a lot more work for people like me.
I note from posts by other users and admins (and one bureaucrat!) on your talkpage that you have been questioned about improper use of the speedy and notability tags in the past. Please refrain from tagging articles in the future, until you feel you have properly understood the speedy criteria. We have a lot of work to do to make Wikipedia great. There is no need for us to create extra work for ourselves. Thanks, fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 08:47, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Josh Lewis Rugby League
This player is a well known professional sportsperson. He plays for the Sydney Roosters. He is well known in both Australia, New Zealand and Britain. Would also venture France as well. Certainly not to be deletedCorleoneSerpicoMontana12:16, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'd appreciate that. If editing of WP is intended to be restrained by decisions made by OTRS (whoever that is), the decisions should be publically accessible. I'd also like an answer to my question about interviews on the talk page. Valrith21:08, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've made further comments on my talk page, and would like to continue any further communications on that page, or in email if you prefer. --Tony Sidaway21:25, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sources
Please allow me to ask how many sources are necessary for one person? Or when I am allowed to delete the unref? Doma-w22:48, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi! The article Annelise Coberger. The article has two sentences therefore I have added three external links as references. Nevertheless you have restored the unref. Is it really necessary to have more sources for these two sentences? Please see, that this is not a complaint, I respect your work! Thank you and :) Doma-w19:18, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
External links aren't the same as references. I see someone else has already changed the 'External links' header to 'References', which should do fine... Valrith13:39, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I didn't think that there is such a big difference. :) But thank you, I will be more careful. Happy editing and :) Doma-w21:33, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sources complaint 2
Side Note, Will you please stop hounding over every single edit I make. If you would like I could give you her phone number so she can tell you personally --Spinachmaster00:31, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't doubt your word, but if we want to keep it in the article, we need a reliable source to cite. I've removed all of the unsourced claims from the article for now. Valrith13:36, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have given a reliable source earlier in the article. The very reliable source is: Deutsches Vornamen-Lexikon. You can also look at the German article in de.wikepedia.org --Zabriskiepoint18:53, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I noticed you added the references tag back to the celebs section of the Playboy article. What kind of references are you looking for? Don't the issues themselves serve as their own reference? Dismas|(talk)16:35, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, crap. That's not the section I was intending to tag... What I want sources for is the "International editions" section. I'll retag... Valrith18:15, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm getting pretty sick of being taken to task for removing unsourced/badly sourced material from articles.
Please note that User:Spinachmaster added the bisexual claim to the article [24] repeatedly ([25], [26], [27]), even after User:Katjakassin removed it [28] with a statement that it was false. After I added to the article a citation [29] for her being heterosexual, User:Spinachmaster removed the citation and restored the bisexual claim ([30], [31], [32]).
As to the usability of MySpace as a source, I still don't agree. Doing a "People" search in MySpace for "Katja Kassin" produces at least two profiles claiming to be hers [33]. We have no way to choose between them. Valrith18:44, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Summer Olympics medalists
Up to now it is not a super-cat. But I think we had to create one, because we have 10,000+ "Summer Olympics medalists" with articles and there are "only" 100-200 listed in this cat. So it is easier to pick them out and add them in an appropriate subcategory. I am trying to clean the Olympic-cats. Thank you and :) Doma-w21:35, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Acrylic glass
In the acrylic glass article, your deletion of a 'see also' link to a Wiki article showing images of acrylic sculptures by a noted artist is wrong.
The acrylic glass article even mentions modern sculpture among the uses of acrylic glass. It's as though there were an article about diamonds, and you wanted to confine it to discussion of the chemical structure of diamonds, with diagrams of the chemical bonds as the only images. Earlier, another editor deleted images placed near the portion of the text referring to artistic use of acrylics; and now you delete even an internal link to a Wiki article with images. Your behavior is contrary to sense and to the mission of Wikipedia. MdArtLover16:14, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That particular page contains no date of birth or death, just the years, so those reverts are fairly obvious. Also, pages should remain as {{uncategorized}} until placed into one or more major categories, so that they get more exposure. (eg. "American artists", "Politicians", etc.). Valrith21:03, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ah yes, "Year" does not equal "Date". I see that. I also see what you mean about when to remove the uncat tag. Fair enough. Thanks.--Fisherjs09:57, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Re Eleanor Roosevelt as a lesbian Icon
Dear sir, Your edits are impressive and you seem from your user page to be a bright nice Man (I may borrow the little brother/sister templates). Let's be civil and agree to disagree as to the importance of Eleanor Roosevelt as a lesbian icon. As a lesbian I can tell you that I have an Eleanor Roosevelt poster and she is a role model for ALL women straight and lesbian. I have had similar disputes that were quickly resolved by moving my link to my pet project Look alike contest by moving this tidbit to the Trivia section and posting a page on the discussion board if anyone else objects to the inclusion. So far NOT ONE other editor has a problem with this and I have even made "Wiki friends" with my disputing editors. PLEASE humor me on this and send me a polite exchange with your concerns-Happy Editing. Cr8tiv20:27, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am always pleased to make a new acquaintance. I think it's great that you've got a "pet project", but it has no connection of any kind with the Eleanor Roosevelt article, and is thus not appropriate to appear there. Please see WP:SECTION#See_also_sections. Valrith00:33, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Your knowledge of Pornography is vast
Fair enough, I noticed you are a Republican and Rebuplicans seem to love erotic works of art and German dungeon porn as much they love censorship. Is there a WIKI PORNOGRAPHY GROUP? Can we start one? Will your little brother and sister help contribute? My girlfriend is a GAY REPUBLICAN and a supporter of Log Cabin Republicans Which is her "pet project" could you help us?Cr8tiv22:23, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
HR-XML
Can we move the afd discussion on the HR-XML article to closure? There doesn't seem to be a clear consensus for deletion. Hopefully, I and others also have put forth a reasonable basis establishing HR-XML's notability (HR-XML has been around for awhile (8 years), has a membership that includes the leading companies in the field of HR services, and as User:Jayvdb pointed out in the afd discussion, it has been cited in numerous articles and books.)
I imagine it must be a constant battle to keep marketing-driven articles about "non-notable" organizations articles out of wikipedia. I don't believe that every consortium is necessarily a "notable" organization. However, notability as a consortium should rest on the notability of its members and documented adoption within the particular market the organization is intended to serve.
I think the problem with the HL7 proposed deletion was the misunderstanding of the organization as some type of dot.com. In HL7 article, they devote a section to explaining that the organization is not a software company -- which is a common misconception about HR-XML as well. The other issue is that the work of many consortia, while important, is narrowly focused on esoteric, technical aspects of bigger business, industry, and societal issues.
On a positive note, the afd discussion served the purpose of focusing attention on the quality of the article, which I believe is now much improved.
Laura Michaelis
This article has two outside sources (the two Goldberg references in the references section) and there are three articles (Charles Fillmore, Paul Kay and Construction Grammar) that link to this one, so why restore the tags 'few or no articles that link to this one' and 'insufficient outside sources'? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aquilafer (talk • contribs) 20:26, July 8, 2007 (UTC)
The {{Primarysources}} tag is for articles that provide no reliable secondary sources. It applies here because this article contains only references written by the subject of the article or references that don't appear to be about the subject of the article. The {{Orphan}} tag is for articles that are linked to by 'few or no' other articles. It applies here because there are three articles that link to this one. Valrith20:01, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have removed the {{prod}} tag from Dawn-Marie Wesley, which you proposed for deletion, because I think that the deletion of this article may be controversial. I'm leaving this message here to notify you about it. If you still think the article should be deleted, please don't add the {{prod}} template back to the article. Instead, feel free to list it at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. Thanks! Dsmdgold13:46, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Christa's Anscestry
Irish-Lebanese American. I made the following edit.
... McAuliffe was the oldest of five children of Edward (deceased) and Grace George Corrigan. Her mother, born Grace George, is of Maronite Lebanese origin through her father and is a niece of historian Philip Hitti.[34]
the first time carelessly w/o the citation. Usually, when a cite is missing, a citation needed request is put in. But it was deleted. Fair enough I guess. I sourced the fact, then it was deleted again with the tag line that it was not relevant. Since when is bio info not relevant in a bio article. It is relevant to her bio that Christa is a quarter Lebanese American. Just as it is relevant to Guv Richardson's bio that he's part Native American, Sen George Mitchell that he's Irish-Lebanese or Barack Obama that he's American-Kenyan. So what now an edit wheel with someone with a revert button? Godspeed John Glenn!Will22:32, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
