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 male Republicans 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]
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]
It is highly unlikely that one *could* find corroboration of bio data on a junior US academic. The only source I could think of is the subject's departmental website. If that isn't sufficient, you should explain what would be. In addition, you have not explained what you consider to be a sufficient number of links to an article from other articles. Three seems sufficient to me, especially as there are other articles on living linguists that have fewer such links and yet don't show this tag. What is your numerical criterion for sufficient links? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aquilafer (talk • contribs) 16:13, July 21, 2007 (UTC)
I usually look for 5 other articles linking to an article before removing the {{Orphan}} tag, but since you disagree, I won't readd it. You shouldn't have removed the {{cleanup}} tag, either, but instead of readding that, I've cleaned up that section as you should have done. Generally, "junior academics" and people who are "highly unlikely" to have independent coverage are not notable enough to be included here. I've added the {{bio-notability}} tag to the article for this reason. Valrith16:49, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I removed the {{cleanup}} tag because it appeared redundant; the article was tagged for more specific faults (e.g., lack of reliable, third-party references), so this entails that the article needs clean up. The same holds for the {{bio-notability}} tag that you added: it's redundant with the {{Primarysources}} tag, and since too many tags affect the readability of an article, I'd like to remove the former. Would you be willing to compromise on that? More generally, I disagree with you that 'independent coverage' of a person is necessary to ensure notability. In academics, notability is secured through peer-reviewed publications in major journals and invited speaking engagements at scientific conferences. One would find biographical information on very few living linguists (with the exception of Noam Chomsky and George Lakoff, who are covered mainly for their nonlinguistic work). Laura Michaelis is notable primarily as one of the founders of Construction Grammar. The Construction Grammar article is extensive and it is widely cited by linguists, and since her name is prominently mentioned in that article, it should be linked to a biographical article on her.
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]
Ah, I see. Check out Russ Meyer sometime, Valrith. You might enjoy his work. I prefer the early stuff, pre-Beyond the Valley of the Dolls, but each to his own taste. Though it's true not every actress who appeared in his movies was a "big-bust model and/or entertainer", his name is pretty much synonymous with the genre, at least in film. Now I'll go put Ms. Myers back on the list. Regards. Dekkappai21:25, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Leaves a lot of people out. Who says all big-bust models and entertainers perform in pornography? And, from the Russ Meyer article: "Despite the fact that hardcore pornographic films would overtake Meyer's softcore market share, he retired in the late 1970s a very wealthy man." (From the Softcore article: "Softcore is a form of pornography...") It seems rather absurd to claim Russ Meyer did not deal in big-bust entertainment... And that Cynthia Myers was not a "Russ Meyer" girl. Dekkappai21:45, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it should leave out well-endowed women in any form of media, since it is not set up as a "List of well-endowed women in any form of media". Nor is is a list of List of big-bust PORNOGRAPHIC models and performers. The list as it stands is exclusive to big-bust entertainment, and Ms. Myers, and Mr. Meyer both worked in that field. Dekkappai22:03, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I would love to know as to why you deleted the article that I recently created and submitted titled "Last of the Believers". It was all relevant and correct information with all sources cited. You seem to have a habit to plainly delete whatever you want just because you don't like it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abolishamour (talk • contribs) 22:34, July 12, 2007 (UTC)
Taylor Rain
Valrith, I understand how to edit Wikipedia, and have for awhile. I will say, though, that not everything has to be cited. Some things yes, but to say that Taylor Rain's breasts must be cited is going too strict with the editing. Look at other pornstar articles...there is no citing for if they are real or not. If they were supposed to be cited, people would be marking them or putting a tag saying that sources were not being cited. Along with that, not all pornstars are going to say that they are real or not. In fact, many do not. If you have seen pictures of Taylor Rain, she clearly is not. Even the picture in her actual article is proof she is natural. Jade Owl 8:00, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
Valrith, it is not controversial...it is that you are being too strict with your editing. If you wish to puppy guard an article by being overstrict and erasing things that do not need citing, then have fun. I am not going to argue with you over an article because you wish to have everything cited and control the article to your wishes. Jade Owl15:52, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
a) you linked the wrong AfD (I've now fixed that), and b) did you happen to notice I'm the one that nominated it? Valrith03:03, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for citing the birthday. I had removed it because the model had complained about the birth year being there and incorrect (I contacted her for a free image, which she said her webmaster would be sending shortly.) Videmus OmniaTalk04:28, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
rvv
See this edit. rvv means "reverting vandalism". Please don't use a summary like that when it is obviously not vandalism. Also, what was wrong with the edit? Garion96(talk)10:21, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunate typo. I meant to put "rv", for "revert". Looking at it now, I shouldn't have been so quick to revert, either. But the {{Unref}} tag belongs at the top of the article, not buried at the bottom, and the links my edit removed are inappropriate per WP:EL. I should have just fixed those things and left the rest alone... Valrith20:07, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There isn't really a fixed place of the {{unref}} tag, see the discussion page of that template. It makes more sense, IMO, to have it in a references section. (not that I am going to revert over it though. :) Regarding the external links, I didn't reverted all your removal's, like the fansites. I only re added the official myspace and official myvideo sites. Myspace pages are not always fansites. Garion96(talk)15:59, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The official website for the girls and the company is unreliable? Wow.... The Rypcord. 00:37, 22 July 2007 (UTC)'
The Rypcord. 00:48, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
a) I don't see anything on any of these sites claiming these models/actresses are either bisexual or natural-busted. Can you provide a specific link?
b) Even if they made either claim, it wouldn't be reliable, as porn is frequently marketed via implications, half-truths and outright lies. Valrith01:47, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So then why even bother having porn pages? Where could we possibly get factual information then? The Rypcord. 13:16, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
You should be able to get more factual information from interviews with the people than from the websites they appear on or promote. Valrith15:31, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My name is Gregor Kaden - I am shooting and cooperating with Miss Ciesla since 2 years. If you need more specific or additional information, pls contact me - I will be very glad to assist you - I can provide you with phone numbers of most of the personal references as well as any kind of photo-material and cut-outs of publications - Thank you.
k a d e n p r e s s
G r e g o r K a d e n
C o n c o r d i a s t r . 11
D - 9 6 0 4 9 B a m b e r g
Phone (landline) +49-951-56043
Mobile-Phone +49-160-3524129
Fax +49-951-52830
e-mail: kadenpress@email.de
Model Information - Claudia Ciesla, Modelnick: CClaudia
Publications and important Shootings with personal references and photo links :
Photos in "Bild" Munich, Reference: Editors office, Mr. Malte Biss
Photos in "Bild" Nuernberg, Reference: Editors office, Mr. Phillipp Hedemann
Photo Shooting with "BILD"-Nurnberg with "BILD"-Photographer, Reference: Mr. Thomas Lange
Photos in "Bild" Hamburg, Reference: Photo-Chief-Editor, Mr. Thorsten Fleischhauer
Photo Shooting for "BILD" as Football/Soccer World cup Girl in AOL Arena Hamburg, Reference: Mr. Thorsten Fleischhauer
Photos and Interview for "Bild" Hamburg, Editors office, Reference: Mr. Jens Tuchenhagen
Photos and Interview for "Bild" Berlin, Reference: Mrs. Donata Meyer
Photos in AUTOBILD, biggest Car Newspaper in Germany, Hamburg, Tuning Editors office, Reference: Mr. Ralf Becker
Photo Shooting for AUTOBILD, Photographers Reference: Mr. Dirk Behlau
Photos for "MATADOR" - as Miss Matador, Chef Editors office, Reference: Mr. Stefan Gessulat,
Photo Shooting as MISS MATADOR, Photographers Reference: Mr. Deniz Kalkavan
Photos in German MAXIM, as Super Single Girl, Editors office, Reference: Mrs. Judith Fischer
Photos and big Interview in "Fränkischer Tag", Editors office, Reference: Mrs. Petra Meyer
Photos in "Milwaukee Journal Sentinel", online, biggest Newspaper of Wisconsin, Reference: Dr. John Savee
Photos in AUTOTUNING Magazin (German biggest Autotuning-Mag) , 11/2006, Reference: Mr. Ralf Becker
Photos on Start Page, AOL Germany, Single Girl of the week, Sept.2005
Photos for Fashion Company ANNA ROXXAH, Paris in Venice Lido Beach with "Le Chales des Stars" , Reference Director Anna Roxxah
Photos for Calendar, Flyer, Advertisement, Dental-Equipment-Company, ORANGE DENTAL/Germany,
Photos for Advertisement, Flyer, WEB Presentation, Exclusive Dirndl Fashion of the Finest, Moschen-Bayern/Germany, Reference Director Mrs. Gina Moschen
Photos for Fashion Shoot, with Top Fashion Photographer: Pierre Thomas Karkau, Duesseldorf/Germany
References Companies and Persons:
Bild München, Editor, Malte Biss
Bild Nuernberg, Editor, Phillipp Hedemann
Bild Hamburg, Foto-Chef-Redaktion/ Chief Editor, Thorsten Fleischhauer
Bild Hamburg, Editor, Jens Duchenhagen
Bild Berlin, Editor, Donata Meyer
AUTOBILD, Hamburg, Tuning Editor, Ralf Becker
MATADOR, Chef-Redaktion/Chief-Editor, Stefan Gessulat, Ivonne Wiesner
MAXIM Editor, Judith Fischer
Fränkischer Tag, Editor, Petra Meyer
Hawaiian Tropic, Ormond Beach/FL/USA, Owner/Founder, Ron Rice
FilmlineLA, LA, USA, Owner, Producer, Steven Greenstein
Dalhousie Film Productions, London, Owner, Peter Ramsey
Wiffen-Film Productions, London, Owner, Paul Wiffen
Cohen Sisters Productions, Berlin/Los Angeles, Director, Gabriala Tscherniak
Maverick Global Entertainment Group, Deerfield Beach FL/USA, Jack Campbell
Rocket Pictures, Van Nuys, CA/USA, Owner, Mark W. Gray
Ujena Talent/Ujena TV/Ujena Bikinis, Director, Bob Anderson
Kohler Films, LA/USA, Director Frederic Kohler
ACEA Production, Lyon/Paris, Director, Jaques Mollon
Casting Agentur Suhr, Berlin, Director, Angela Suhr
Casting Agency, 030 Casting, Berlin, Direkcor Imke Arntjen
NewFace, Model Agency, Director/Photographer Rod Meier
Model-Firmengruppe/Company Group Buchstab, Germany/Switzerland, Director, Dieter Buchstab
American German Business Club, Munich, Chairman Dr. John Savee
Starway-Model Agency, Paris, Director, Ives Brun
Avalonentertainment, München, Director Volker Arend
Arrangement Group, Radolfzell, Director Manfred Auer
Weryton Musik Studio, München, Director Hermann Weindorf
Credits/Awards/Acknowledgments/Honors
May 2005: Shoot for German MATADOR Magazine (right now the No 1 - the best and biggest-lifestyle/men-magazine in Germany),
published in Edition, 08/2005 on 10 pages as Miss MATADOR (first and last time till now posing for very esthetic topless-shoot in a Magazine!!)
Model Contest organized by most important Media and TV in Germany 2006:
I have won the Super-Girl-Contest 2006 organized by AUTOBILD, BILD, SAT1, KABELEINS; with big lead over
with over 400.000 hits and 41.000 Votes with 1. place, Reference: AUTOBILD, Editors Office, Mr. Ralf Becker
http://www.autobild.de/voting/autobild/supergirl/finden.php?...
May 2006: Selected by "BILD" Chief Editors as Football/Soccer World cup Girl 2006- during Football World Cup 2006,
8 Publications on page 1, "BILD" nationwide, Reference: Photo-Chief-Editors-office, Mr. Thorsten Fleischhauer
("BILD" is Germans and Europe's strongest daily Newspaper - now bigger than the
English SUN - daily circulation about 5 millions, daily range about 14 million readers)
Aug. 2006, Invitation at Venice Film festival, with English Film Prod. Peter Ramsey and Film Director Paul Wiffen
Other Descriptions, Comments, Assignments etc.:
1.) My English/US Fan Group (Yahoo-Model-GRoup) now due to member figures No.2 Top- Group of all 9300 US-Model Groups
with over 31.000 Members.
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/CClaudia_Modeling/
2.) Engl/USA Myspace-Fangroup, starting Aug. 2006, now about 9000 members
http://myspace.com/cclaudia_model
3.) French Yahoo-Fan-Group #1 IN FRANCE with ca. 4.800 Members
http://fr.groups.yahoo.com/group/CClaudia_Groupe_Francais/
4.) Spanish Yahoo-Fan-Group with ca. 1.500 members
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/CClaudiaGrupoEspanol/
5.) My new German Yahoo-Fan-Group, after 6 months now #1 of all Yahoo Model Groups in Germany
http://de.groups.yahoo.com/group/cclaudia_model/
6.) XING-Profile (XING is the biggest networking site in Europe)
with about 260,000 profile hits, about 3500 direct contacts,
https://www.xing.com/profile/Claudia_Ciesla
pls. also see my "about me" site at XING
https://www.xing.com/app/profile?op=aboutme&name=Claudia...
and my numerous Guestbook-Entries at XING
https://www.xing.com/app/profile?op=guestbook&name=Claud...
7.) In HOTorNOT (biggest photo rating site in US) CClaudia several times "Girl of the Week"
and was rated with 14 pictures 9.8 and 9.9 (out of 10 = Best)
8.) Model of the month June 2005 of IGPA; INTERNATIONAL GLAMOUR PHOTOGRAPHERS ASSOCIATION, INC. / USA
9.) SUPERSTAR OF THE MONTH MARCH 2005 in US/French/Spanish Show-Biz Magazine BIOSTARS
10.) Winner of "Spainmodels" contest Dec 2004,Spainmodels Model-Agency Madrid/Spain
11.) AUTOBILD, BILD, SAT1, kabeleins - Model-Contest 2006 with 350.000 hits and 41.000 Votes have won 1. Place
http://www.autobild.de/voting/autobild/supergirl/finden.php?...
12.) Football World-Cup Girl of "BILD" - during Football World Cup 2006, 8 Publications on page 1
13.) Advertisement Photo Shooting for Calendar, Poster and Flyer for dental accessories producers company "ORANGE DENTAL"
near Stuttgart/Germany for sales promotion. Photographed by Rod Meier.
14.) Fashion-Fotoshoot in Venice Lido Beach with ANNA ROXXAH Paris (le Chales des Stars)
15.) Fashion Dirndl Shooting with one of the best and most exclusice Dirndl- and Country Fashion Producer in Bavaria
called "MOSCHEN-Bayern" -pls. have a look at www.moschen-bayern.de
16.) Video Shoot in Tenerife, with ROKA-Producciones, Roberto Lopez, Cologne
17.) Feb. 2007: CClaudia for Advertising on ISPO (worldwide biggest international Sports Fair in Munich)
as Model for the French Sports Garment and Sports Cloth Company Zsport - www.zsport.fr
18.) Fashion Shoot with Top Fashion-Photographer: Pierre Thomas Karkau, Duesseldorf/Germany
Experience regarding Singing, Dance, Acting:
Show Dance and Fashion Shows;
Shooting for TV-Show "Hanging with the Commander" at the Film festival in CANNES with Producer/Director Steven Greenstein
Film Shooting with the US Film- and TV-Producer Frederick Kohler for "The AmericanDreamer" in Paris .
Trailershoot for Vampierfilm Carmilla in Siena/Tuscany, with Engl. Film-Director Paul Wiffen
Shooting for TV-Soap "Beach-Baby", Film Director Manfred Auer,
http://www.avalonentertainment.com/beachbaby/soap.php
Song Recording with Music Marsh Studios in Hamburg
Song Recording with Weryton Studios in Munich
Personal Info:
Name: Claudia Ciesla, Artist Nick: CClaudia
Living in : Bamberg/Germany
Citizenship: German,
born: 12. Feb. 1987 in Loslau/Silesia
Age: 20; height: 174cm / 5`8" ; weight: 56kg/123 lbs
breast: 98cm/ 40"; waist: 66cm/ 26"; hips: 95cm/ 38"
hair color : dark blond (natural)
color eyes: blue/green
clothes size: German 36 /American-US Small/2 /British 6
bra size : 75DD German/ 32DD US (all natural / no silicone)
shoe size: German 39 /American-US 7 /British 5 1/2
length of legs from belt to floor: 114cm/ 45"
I've removed the speedy tag you placed there since there seemed to be sufficient claim of notability that it should probably be taken to AfD. JoshuaZ03:34, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Talk pages are not meant to be image galleries. If people want to see the images, they can go visit the Commons. Valrith20:47, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You really shouldn't edit or delete my comments on the talk page - see WP:TALK. That said, if future editors wish to use the images as the article expands, how will they know that they exist? Videmus OmniaTalk20:52, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Let's agree to disagree. Or you can move your unhelpful suggestion to the discussion page of the article. Or you can submit it for review to the higher powers. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alwpoe (talk • contribs) 22:50, July 26, 2007 (UTC)
Connell66 has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing! Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
Recent prods
Hello! My watchlist tells me that in a 21 minute period, you prod'ed 4 of the articles that I applied a DEFAULTSORT to last night. I have NO ISSUE with the prods, one way or the other, but thought that 4 in such a short time was an interesting coincidence; I'm just idly curious as to how you happened to picked Jennifer Tomazic, Čeněk Kožišovský Tunkl z Brníčka, Jennifer Westhoven, Jillian Windham to look at. Since your recent contribs suggest that you're NOT looking at my contribs, I'm guessing you're keying on some particular change that I happen to be making in addition to the DEFAULTSORT (perhaps adding "Living people" category).
As you can see from my history of edits, lately I mostly do gnomish work, like DEFAULTSORT, and I'm just curious as to how other people work. FYI, I had picked those 4 (and others) as being mis-sorted in Category:Uncategorised people; it initially seemed like a "target-rich environment" but I've since given up sort work in that category because so many articles there seemed marginal and likely to be deleted; if you're interested in candidates for deletion, that would be a good category to review.
Why do you keep deleting my contribution? If there is a pronlem with format would you please explain a better way for me to format then? Maybe someone else on here would like to help. This information is valid, proven and in writing, so why does it keep getting deleted? Maybe you are a fan of Jenna Jameson working on her page and are not willing to put up negative facts? This is how it appears. What extra steps should be taken to assure proper wikipedia content? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Daisydog7 (talk • contribs) 19:28, July 27, 2007 (UTC)
I'm not Valrith, but I think I can explain, at least partly. (I also moved your comment down to a separate section, rather than at the top of the page.) I know the incident you're referring to in Jameson's autobiography, however we need a reliablesecondary source that describes the murder accusation and lawsuit before we can write about it. You'll notice we wrote about the Preacher rape accusation because it has been written about in the Sydney Morning Herald, The Age, and CNN - go to that section of the article, and you'll see links to those sources as references. They're "generally credited with high standards of journalism" (that's a quote from our article on the SMH). If you find similarly reliable sources that describe the Vanessa murder accusations and subsequent lawsuit, we'll absolutely add information on that to the article. But we can't rely on merely the lawsuit filings themselves, anyone can file a lawsuit, and many famous people have dozens of frivolous lawsuits filed against them every year, it's like having stalkers, and not particularly notable. --AnonEMouse(squeak)23:57, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I removed the prod tag from this article, I deleted yesterday by prod, its recreation is a way to contest the tagging. You are free to send it to AfD, of course ;). -- lucasbfrtalk15:53, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The main reason I tagged it so was because of the recent introductions of erroneous information in to the Jenna Jameson article by the same user who I was reverting in Jenna Jameson chronology of performances. That person seems bent on adding material without proper references, so I was hoping to provide additional discouragement. At any rate, I'm not sure IMDb should be used as a source; it is generally accurate, at least for mainstream Hollywood films and well-known actors/actresses. However, it seems to have significant issues with lesser-known films/people and with the pornographic films genre in particular. IAFD is likely to be more accurate for adult films. I don't know if we could reasonably call either a reliable source... Valrith21:31, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am the indivual you are referring to. My source is the US Copyright Office. The information is avilable online. I am sorry if that is not a proper reference for you, but it would stand up in court. By the way, Jenna's real name is Jennifer. Besides her own autobiography every source on the internet except Wikepdia has it correct. Perhaps you should do a google search. I intend to correct the errors again until the factual information displayed is ACCURATE. baronvon
I have seen the two of you steadily reverting each other's edits over the link to Silvia Saint's MySpace page in her article. I strongly urge both of you to take your dispute to Talk:Silvia Saint. Further additions and/or deletions prior to discussion occuring will result in the offending party being blocked and/or the article in question being fully protected. Tabercil22:45, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You have been reported to the above venue, regarding removal of certain sources re modelling. This is since you reported an ip to the same place (which is why I recognised it). Can you point me toward an example where you explain why the Fashion Model Directory is not reliable, so I can see if I can help. Thanks. LessHeard vanU21:34, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I subsequently protected the page and reverted back to your last version as I have doubts about the sourcing and believe this to be a BLP problem. I have reported this to ANI [35] as this is contra the protection policy and have notified interested parties. SpartazHumbug!22:39, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In brief, I have repeatedly stated (in edit summaries) that the Fashion Model Directory is not a reliable source. I didn't realize it had a Wikipedia page, but that doesn't change my opinion. From what I can see, the Fashion Model directory is no more reliable for biographical info than, say, IMDb. Valrith10:58, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As you gave no explanation for your reversion in your edit summary or on the talk page, I have reverted to my addition of the images and started a talk discussion on the article. Rather than starting an edit war, it is necessary for you to provide a reasoning for making the changes again if you choose to revert. Thank you VanTucky(talk)20:21, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I kept the article because while the reasons for keeping weren't that strong, there were enough that a delete decision would likely be overturned in a deletion review. --Coredesat22:15, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
External links
Hi Valrith. Once again I see there is some dispute over the external links on List_of_big-bust_models_and_performers and Breast_fetishism. I can't speak for the other links, but I believe Boobpedia is a useful and appropriate link for those pages. It is on topic, free of ads, and provides a place for the lesser known subject matters that Wikipedia doesn't have a place for. I have used it for several months now, and have not seen anything spammy about it. Last time we almost got into an edit war about this, so this time I'm writing to you first to explain my views before restoring the link. I appreciate all the hard work you do in keeping the articles clean, since I visit them all the time. --FranchisePlayer00:47, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I can't speak for Valrith, but I personally see a problem with Boobpedia in that it violates clause 12 of "Links normally to be avoided" in WP:EL: "Links to open wikis, except those with a substantial history of stability and a substantial number of editors.". Tabercil01:38, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm in agreement with Tabercil. There appears to be no additional value in that link. Not all "on topic" links are appropriate. Valrith06:03, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the response guys. I think I can make a case here. For one, Boobpedia has been around for a while now. I don't remember when exactly I stumbled on it, but it was definitely in 2006. It has over 1000 articles in a very limited topic, and also has had a large number of edits and editors - "There have been a total of 13,146,764 page views, and 16,530 page edits since the wiki was setup" and "There are 519 registered users" [36]. Registration is not necessary for editing, so there are even more editors who don't bother to register. Keeping in mind its limited subject matter, I would say it passes clause 12 of WP:EL. --FranchisePlayer20:01, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The issue was raised about clause 12 of WP:EL, which I had addressed. I am a frequent visitor of Boobpedia, and I can see with my own eyes it is a stable and actively updated wiki. I don't think even Wikipedia has coverage of over 1000 busty models, and Boobpedia provides an important outlet for information on those models which are deemed not notable enough to be on Wikipedia. I see you having to remove red links from List_of_big-bust_models_and_performers all the time, so people obviously want coverage of the not so notable models. Giving them a place to write about those models would probably result in less wasted time removing red links. The link on Breast_fetishism is entirely appropriate, because Boobpedia is one of the best example of breast fetishism you can find.
I see you have simply gone ahead and removed the links again, without us having come to any sort of agreement. Your edit summary once more says spam link. I don't know what you are using to justify the spam link assertion. Something that is directly related to the topic, provides expanded information and examples, and which is noncommercial, is the exact opposite of spam. I would like to hear your reasons, other than just "I don't think it's justified" or "spam". --FranchisePlayer23:54, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for inviting me into this conversation, FranchisePlayer-- though I think it probably belongs at the article's talk page where it can get more input. As I recall, the last time Boobpedia was being removed as an external link, the addition of ths site was being called "Vandalism" and "Spam." I think it's pretty obvious that the site is neither-- it's not vandalism, because the site deals, in an informative manner, with the subject of the article. It's not spam, because it's an even less commercial site than many links that are all over Wikipedia-- IMDB to name one. The "Spam" accusation seems to have originated from the time, several months ago, when the site owner posted invitations to Boobpedia on several talk pages related to the topic. In my opinion, the apparently sanctioned and encouraged practise of spewing dozens of identical paragraphs blaring that the image you were suckered into uploading under the "Fair use"/"promo image" ruse is now being deleted on user's talk pages is a far more annoying and invasive example of this sort of "spamming" than an invitation to a non-commercial site on a topic related to the subject of the article is... but that's another story...
Tabercil's citation of clause 12 of WP:EL seems to be a good argument against the inclusion of Boobpedia, since it's an open Wiki. There are a couple reasons I don't think this clause really applies in this case, however, and that this is a good example of why Ignore all rules is an official policy. I think Clause 12 is an excellent guideline to follow generally. Why link to a Wiki on a general topic like American history or mathematics when there are so many good, reliable, authoritative sources that can be linked instead? Also, linking to a Wiki, presumably, would be redundant in Wikipedia's case, since Wikipedia, presumably, already covers the topic in much the same manner that any other wiki could. Neither of these reasons apply in Boobpedia's case. Boobpedia, unlike a wiki on history or mathematics, covers a topic on which it is very difficult to find reliable, informative, non-spam-like sources. The Boobpedia articles I've seen cite their sources and are written in a fairly encyclopedic style. Further, because the Wikipedia community often excludes or deletes articles on topics covered by Boobpedia, Boobpedia is not redundant to Wikipedia, but a more like more subject-specific addendum to it. Also, Boobpedia, through its interviews with the subjects of its articles, is becoming more than just a wiki, but a source of information in itself. Dekkappai18:54, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
R Kelly Trail
I added a Chicago Sun Times cite to an already credible MSNBC cite. Further deletion will be takin as a sign you are just messin with me 69.114.117.10304:18, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I deleted the old cite that I put in because the information in it had become outdated by the more recent cites. As long as the cites are credible and relevant to the topic of the article I do not need to "justify" it to you or anybody. I see no reason why in an article about a tape to be played at a trail why the trail start date should not be relevant. Since the man is being listed under the "alleged" category his defense lawyers claiming that it was not him on the tape represents a notable source and relevant information for the article. 69.114.117.10306:38, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!
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.
You posted a {fact} tag on this stub article but is isn't clear which fact you want to see sourced. Could you drop by the talk page and let us know your concern? Thanks, ·:· Will Beback·:·20:50, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, you tagged this as a seppdy delete as an empty article. However, although it was very short, it was not empty. It also provides enough context that CSD A3 does not apply. The assertion that Ms. Chesler is known for being the voice acrtess for a television series is an assertion of notabilty, that makes this article not eligible CSD A7. In short it does not seem to meet any of the speedy criteria. In reviewing the articles's history I also not that an earlier, near identical version was deleted through the PROD process earlier this year. The creation of this article would count as cpost-deletion contesting of the PROD. It seems that idf you feel that this article should be deleted, the only avenue left is AfD. Dsmdgold19:34, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
