User talk:Rentaferret/Archive 06-05

Samuel Johnson Page Move Proposal

Your opinion turned the tide on the Robert Johnson move proposal. I am continuing work on the Johnsons. I would appreciate your opinion on the following:

Samuel Johnson → Dr. Samuel Johnson —(Discuss) Since the Feb 2006 page move, 6 new entries have been added to the Samuel Johnson (disambiguation) page including Sam Houston Johnson, a Presidential sibling, Samuel Ealy Johnson, Jr., a Presidential father, Samuel Ealy Johnson, Sr., a Presidential grandfather, Samuel Johnson (footballer), an active footballer, and Samuel Curtis Johnson, Sr. the patriarch of the richest family in Wisconsin. The primacy of Dr. Samuel Johnson versus the remaining field of Samuel Johnsons should be reconsidered. This move would enable replacement of the dab page at Samuel JohnsonTonyTheTiger 06:43, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

User:Nicer1

Are you operating this account as well? The reason I ask is that these edits [1][2] were made from the Nicer1 account to Chidom's status indicator, and these edits [3][4] were made from the Chidom account to Nicer1's status indicator.

On User:Nicer1 this statement appeared:

I'm a long-term anonymous Wikipedia user who proposed that some articles be deleted using the {{prod}} tag and the tags were removed without following the process; the articles weren't changed at all before removing the tag. The other user also took it upon themselves to remove a speedy delete tag (that I placed subsequent to the {{prod}} tag being removed). Since anonymous users can't nominate articles at {{AfD}}, I created this account in order to do so.

If this account in indeed yours, the statement is untrue. I am particularly concerned about this because of the WP:SOCK policy. The Nicer1 account was set up to block nominate for deletion a number of articles related to pornography. In particular, if this account is yours, it would appear it was set up to avoid scrutiny from other editors. I notice much of the edit history of the Chidom account relates to pornographic articles too.

You will note I left a question about this on User talk:Nicer1 at 00:57, 3 December 2006 (UTC). It goes without saying that I am very sorry to have bothered you with this if I have this wrong, and trust you will be understanding. --SandyDancer 12:45, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

User:Nicer1 is not a sock puppet; there is no evidence (the two of us posting to the same AfD, for example) to support your assumption, which is incorrect.

The statement made on Nicer1's user page is true.

Not that it's any of your business (since when is editing another user's status page an indicator of a sock puppet?), the edits are made to create placeholders on each other's watchlists that still show up when the "Hide my edits" option is used.—Chidom ^talk  08:41, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't see how you can maintain that editing another user's status indicator - for whatever reason - doesn't suggest the accounts are maintained by the same person? What other reason could there be? Why would Chidom and Nicer1 - who have no history of collaboration and have no posted on each other's talk pages - be cooperating in this way, if separate users? Couple with this the similarity in your areas of interest.

I'm afraid I find your explanations unconvincing and I will take the matter further. Your lack of civility does you no credit. --SandyDancer 10:14, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Show me where I've been uncivil; it isn't any of your business. You're once again leaping to conclusions that are unsupported by any evidence.

Nicer1 is my spouse, ok? That's still none of your business, nor is it anyone else's. We avoid chiming in on the same disucssions, etc., so as to avoid any appearance of sock puppetry.

As for your reference, neither one of us has made any effort to "confuse or deceive editors". Both our edit histories are clear; you still refuse to accept that there have been no ulterior motives involved here.

You now seem to be the one on a mission. Please spend your time constructively improving Wikipedia rather than harassing users.—Chidom ^talk  17:40, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Anyone reading the exchange will see the incivility.

I have no interest in harassing anyone, but to be honest I think the actions you/whoever have carried out using the Nicer1 account have been disruptive - nominating a load of articles that clearly shouldn't be deleted for example. The results of RFDs speak for themselves, and I am not the only user to object.--SandyDancer 18:42, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Stop trying to characterise a legit sockpuppet enquiry as a personal attack. It ain't. Calm down. This isn't a personal dispute between us. You've had you say, I've had mine. The fact I don't feel convinced by your explanations does not equate to a personal attack and I have never, ever called you a liar - you keep trying to twist things to make out I have. By your logic, no-one could ever be sanctioned on WP because all they'd have to do is say "it wasn't me" and if anyone didn't believe them, that would be a personal attack. --SandyDancer 01:34, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Sock puppet discussion

Why have you taken it upon yourself to add the pre-discussion of the issue - which is already linked to - to the article? My concern is that you are trying to falsely characterise the whole thing as a personal dispute in the hope others just pass it over - I am removing it again from that page. You are not entitled to dictate the terms of the discussion about your alleged sock puppet activities. --SandyDancer 08:38, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

It is not appropriate for you to remove any of my comments or quotes from the discussion. Please see my info box above:

"Please note that I may quote your comments or move them to other pages at my discretion"

(This was present when you first added material to this page. first post and corrected post with <nowiki> tags.)

Regardless, you are removing my response to your evidence in this matter; please do not edit my response again.—Chidom ^talk  14:33, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

No. I am not removing your comments. I have not removed your response to my evidence - that response remains in its entirety. I am trying to stop you from obscuring the matter at hand by cutting and pasting a huge chunk of discussion from your talk page on the page about the sockpuppetry case. Why do you believe it is right to do so? You are, after all, deleting and moving my comments in the process. I did not consent to you doing so. --SandyDancer 14:51, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Please also stop discussing this matter here; you opened the Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Chidom matter; any further comments should be made there. These comments have also been moved there.—Chidom ^talk  14:33, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I can discuss what I like here. On the sockpuppet page, I posted the evidence that leads me to believe Nicer1 is your sock. Here, I am discussing your attempts to prevent that process taking place by obscuring the issue. Two separate issues, and two instances of bad faith behaviour on your part. --SandyDancer 15:09, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Your removal of sockpupper tag

The tag will be removed when the process is complete - i.e. when an admin closes the debate. Until then the tag should stay - I had a look and can't find anything to back up your view that you are allowed to remove the tag after 10 days. Note there is a backlog currently, hence the delay. I think you need to allow the proper process to run its course. I note editing activity from the suspected sockpuppet account has ceased since the tag was placed. --SandyDancer 18:15, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sock puppetry/Notes for the suspect: "If the accuser hasn't requested CheckUser for ten days, you are allowed to remove the notice from your page."—Chidom ^talk  18:20, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

You are right - I did not see that policy page. Nonetheless even here you've behaved in a way that again reemphasises Nicer1 is an alternate account of yours - you've immediately logged into that one in order to remove the tag with more or less the same edit summary.

In order to draw a line under this, why don't you admit Nicer1 is an alternate account you created for a specific purpose? After all, but for the misleading statements about Nicer1 being a "long term anonymous user" etc on User:Nicer1, there isn't really any abuse here and you wouldn't be subject to any criticism. --SandyDancer 18:59, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

In the future, it would be a good thing if you read all the policy pages relating to a process before instituting it; it's pretty obvious you didn't.

By the same token, Nicer1 wasn't as familiar with the article deletion policy and the alternative templates as he could have been, either; that knowledge may have avoided this whole mish-mash. So more education is a good thing all around.

An admission that Nicer1 is an alternative account of mine will not be made because despite your opinion, the statement on Nicer1's page isn't misleading, it's true. I didn't create the account. Since Nicer1 and I co-habitate, he was available to log in and make the needed correction.

We're not sure what happened to "You will note I left a question about this on User talk:Nicer1.... It goes without saying that I am very sorry to have bothered you with this if I have this wrong, and trust you will be understanding"; I think we've both been more than understanding about this whole incident.

Nicer1 and I believe you to be wrong; you believe that I am wrong and that Nicer1 doesn't exist (something my parents would be only too glad to be true, by the way). Those seem to be irreconcilable points of view. Let's just drop it. Thanks.—Chidom ^talk  19:23, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't believe you and there is no point in pretending I do. However, so long as a new coordinated raft of AFDs doesn't come from either of your accounts, or indeed any other disruptive action, yes I will drop it. --SandyDancer 22:30, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Human name dab pages

I like the way Robert Johnson has evolved. IMO it is the best human name dab page I have worked on. I would like other hndabs to be formatted like what we collaborated on. I have sent some queries to WP_Disambiguation and MOSDAB. Your comments would be appreciated. TonyTheTiger 22:57, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Rent cast update

Hi again. I just checked the RENT website, and there are apparently a couple of new cast members. I'm still not exactly sure how to cite my sources, so...I would greatly appreciate if you could make everything "verifiable." Thanks! Jhg812 03:46, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

No worries. Actually, the reference to the official website wasn't linked to the cast list, which it should have been. It is now; if the updated cast list information comes from there, the citation will cover any updates. Take care.—Chidom ^talk  09:30, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

DomBot's moving of John Locke (Lost)

Hi. I left a message at Talk:DomBot, but it occurred to me that since it's a bot you might not see it. It's about your move of John Locke (Lost) to John Locke (actor). The article is about the character, not the actor who portrays him (Terry O'Quinn). As a matter of fact, Terry O'Quinn has had a number of other roles, listed at Terry O'Quinn#Filmography. This would have been readily apparent if you read the article you moved. Please be more careful in future. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 05:56, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Jenna Jameson contributions

Thank you, thank you, thank you! I appreciate it. From the "would check" notes, I gather you read the peer review comments. One thing I was actually debating asking you even before you started contributing by yourself - is that Club Thrust site at all known in the community? Someone else added the first sentences about it, back when, but I haven't been able to find that much news about it. Is is famous, moderately known, barely known, or a complete waste of sentences? Or do you have no idea? AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 21:12, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I hadn't a clue about Club Thrust until you mentioned it. With a quick search, I see that in 2004 there was a nightclub by that name in Orange County, California !, OC Weekly. A quick search on www.anywho.com doesn't return a listing for it; perhaps it didn't survive. (There is a listing for the "Thrust Christian Center", though. I'm not sure I want to know.) Actually, I had no idea there were ever such things as gay bars in OC, but apparently there are such establishments. Orange County is commonly referred to in the SF Bay area as being "Behind the Orange Curtain"—not a good thing.

(Verbosity strikes again!) The short answer, of course, would have been: "I don't know."—Chidom ^talk  22:20, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I actually meant the Jenna Jameson-affiliated gay web site, spin off of Club Jenna, mentioned and linked in the Jenna Jameson article. But "I don't know" is fine. AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 22:37, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Sorry. In all the verbosity, I didn't specify that I visited the website and have never seen nor heard of it before. The other was just "sidebar" information. Any road, the information is still the same—I don't know. Just because I'm not familiar with it doesn't really mean anything. It may be quite popular among others.—Chidom ^talk  02:11, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Alexandre Frota

Chidom said: Hi. I notice you've made edits in the past to the Alexandre Frota article. I've expressed several concerns about the article on its Talk page; please take a moment to read them and help edit the article to meet Wikipedia policies and guidelines, or it may be deleted.

(If your edits were strictly of the maintenance variety, and this information doesn't interest you, please pardon any perceived intrustion.)

Thanks.

Thank you for contacting me about this article. Sadly I know very little about the subject and personally feel that the only work I was doing to it was Wikipedia grunt work rather than personal information.

However, I shall see what I can contribute, and I hope the article will soon be at its best. Thank you for your notification. Bobo. 04:28, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Re: Alexandre Frota

Chidom wrote:

... If your edits were strictly of the maintenance variety, and this information doesn't interest you, please pardon any perceived intrustion. ...

Hi, yes, I'd say a one-character spelling correction is "strictly of the maintenance variety". Could you perhaps be a little more selective with your message spamming in the future, say only leaving messages for people who made non-minor, non-bot edits? I'm assuming you had to go to the page history to find my name, so the edit summary and the fact that the edit is minor are visible to you with no extra effort. Thanks – Gurch 12:28, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Talk about "no good deed goes unpunished". It was enough work to copy the names off the history, paste them into a text editor, get rid of everything but the names, eliminate the duplicates, and then format them as clickable links. I didn't really pay much attention to edit summaries and I certainly didn't go through the history one change at a time. Evaluating each edit summary for each user would definitely have been "extra effort". I'm sorry if you considered the message to be an intrusion, I apologized for that eventuality when I sent it. It wasn't spam; I was trying to do a good thing and was acting in good faith.

Also, have a look at the response above. Who am I to judge who will make edits and who won't? It's not safe for me to assume that because you only made a minor edit you won't care if the article gets deleted.

Perhaps next time you receive a message that states that it might not apply to you—and that turns out to be true—you can just skip it and not begrudge the less than a minute it took to read it. Have good days.—Chidom ^talk  22:51, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

WIKIFY, GAY PORN

I WIKIFIED CUZ I'LLL CREATE PAGES TO THEM. IF I WASN'T GOING TO CREATE PGS, I WOULD HAVE WIKIFIED MUCH MORE NAMES Yrgh 20:24, 25 December 2006 (UTC)yrgh

It's great that you want to contribute, and please do write the articles. I ask that you don't create the links until after you've created the articles; often what happens is people write nonsense and create the link, then the article gets Speedy Deleted. I check the deletion log for each of the red links to see if this is what's happened, so if you create the link after you've done the article, I won't have to do that. Thanks.—Chidom ^talk  23:47, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Paul Bellini

I believe I have addressed your concerns by citing reliable sources. I'm somehow puzzled by your comment ("Article does not state that he is gay, and it will need reliable sources to do so, see WP:V")[5]. I'm not sure how the article must state his sexuality -- every other place that someone's sexuality is noted in an article, somebody wails that we're making too much of it. In this case, the article notes his sexuality in the categories. BTW, doesn't seem like you're away, since you're making contribs. Cleduc 07:02, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

In order for someone to be included in a category, the article must make it obvious that they belong in the category, particularly in instances of such potentially damaging information. The link to the magazine bio is great; I still think the information that he is gay needs to be somewhere in the article. As for people wailing, saying someone is gay is not making too much of it. Linking everything they ever do in their life—down to sneezing—is. Particularly for someone who is employed by a gay publication, revealing in the article that he's gay shouldn't raise any hue and cry. (BTW, one needn't be gay to write for gay pubs.)

I don't really use my status indicate anymore, so I'll take it off the page.

Thanks.—Chidom ^talk  07:10, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Noted. I take no small amount of offense at the "damaging information" thing, and the whole witch-hunt, but I guess that's my problem. Thanks! Cleduc 07:20, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

The information is potentially damaging to Wikipedia if the person isn't gay and an article here says they are. As a gay man, I don't find such information "damaging", but others very well could. This isn't a witch-hunt, it's an effort to have sourced information that can't be disputed by those on a "witch-hunt" of their own—to get Wikipedia in trouble.

If you take a look at my contributions, you'll see that I spend most of my time here dealing with gay porn articles and the List of gay porn stars; so I have no cause to mount any sort of "witch hunt". Thanks.—Chidom ^talk  07:24, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Not blaming you, champ, but I do take offense at the whole exercise, as it lends creedence to the theory that such statements are defamatory. But like I said, that's my problem, not yours. Cheers, Cleduc 07:28, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

And I apologize for snapping at you. I think it's time to have a nice cup of tea. And remember just how happy I am to live in Canada :) Cheers, Cleduc 07:30, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

No offense taken; sometimes I'd much rather be in Canada these days, myself; I've visited Vancouver, BC (big surprise) and Whitehorse, Yukon, where a friend of mine lives (of all places!) and found both to be wonderful. I think I need to move a little further east and south in the country, for my next visit, though. Can't find it at the moment, there was this great little (and I mean little) book about tea with text on the back cover along the lines of, "When you've just found your husband lying dead on the kitchen floor, it's time for a simple cup of tea." Enjoy your cup!—Chidom ^talk  07:49, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Yrgh

SO YOU'RE TRYING TO GET ME BLOCKED LIKE TANTHONY, JUPPITER AND OTHERS, HUH!? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yrgh (talk • contribs) , 08:58, 26 December 2006

I don't know anything about the others that you've named. I'm not trying to get you blocked; I'm trying to help you become a better Wikipedia editor/contributor. In the process, I hope to save us both a great deal of time and effort—saving you the time and effort of making edits that need to be reverted, and saving me the time and effort to revert them.—Chidom ^talk  09:05, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

I THOUGHT THAT THREATS WERE AGAINST WIKI POLICY!?

AREN'T THREATS A FORM OF PERSONAL ATTACKING!?

WHAT'S NEW! I'VE BEEN PERSONALLY ATTACKED SO MANY TIMES ON WIKI (ATTACKED AGAIN EARLIER TODAY!!!!!) THAT IT'S NOT EVEN FUNNY, THAT NOTHING WAS DONE ABOUT IT. PEOPLE STRONGLY BELIEVE THAT MY ATTACKERS & HATERS WERE JUSTIFIED IN DEFAMING ME, IN ATTACKING ME. I GUESS I SHOULDN'T HOLD MY BREATHE FOR AN HONEST APOLOGY. THAT'S AN APOLOGY WHICH IS GENUINE & REAL, NOT THE FAKE, YES FAKE, ONES I'VE RECEIVED, IN CASE U DIDN'T KNOW.

WHY DID U THREATEN ME JUST NOW!? {{Subst:unsigned}Yrgh}}, 09:05, 26 December 2006

The only thing I can see you perceiving as a threat is that I told you that I would ask to have you blocked from editing if you continued to vandalize the List of gay porn stars article. That is not a personal threat. That is explaining the consequences to you if behavior that you have been asked to change doesn't. Also, please sign your posts with~~~~. Thanks.—Chidom ^talk  09:09, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

DON'T ACCUSE OF ANYTHING I DIDN'T DO: THE PICS WERE ADDED BY SOMEONE ELSE. I JUST ADJUSTED THE SIZES OF THEM & RE-ARRANGED THEIR POSITIONS ON THE PG. I DID NOT. I DID NOT, I DID NOT, I DID NOT ADD THE PICS!

I'M NOT, NOR HAVE A EVER BEEN, A VANDALIZER.

I was mistaken in thinking that you added the images; I misread the differences screen.

Continuing to make inappropriate edits to a page after you have been specifically asked not to is vandalism. I can and will assume good faith up to a point, but I have asked twice now that you stop making the sorts of changes to the list that you have. And I've explained what I will do if you continue to do so. My asking that you be blocked doesn't mean you will be, but I feel it only fair to let you know what I will do if you continue to make edits that I've asked you not to make—and that the article itself clearly spells out shouldn't be made.

And please sign your posts!—Chidom ^talk  09:17, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

HATE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

WELL, I KNOW THAT YOU DESPISE ME LIKE TANTHONY, SANDCHIGGER, JUPPITER & MANY OTHERS HERE ON WIKI.

IF SOMEONE IS AN ESCORRT, THEN THEY SHOULD BE IN THE PROSTITUTION CATY.

Yrgh 11:20, 26 December 2006 (UTC)yrgh

No, they shouldn't; you cannot call someone a criminal who hasn't been convicted of the crime. One of the reasons the Escort category was created to begin with was to get around the distinction. And as I have said before, I am only trying to help you be a better editor. How you choose to view my comments is entirely up to you. I will suggest, however, that if you are unwilling to accept help from others here, you will be very frustrated. Thanks.—Chidom ^talk  11:31, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Working overloading

Hi, Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Working is getting very full at the moment - in the coming days are you able to deploy your bot on some of the requests there? Cheers and Merry Christmas. Timrollpickering 14:47, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Rent cast update

Hi again. Slightly modified cast list! I'm still not exactly sure how modify the references...so...please remove the impertinent links. Thanks! Jhg812 21:16, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Um, I would need to know where the info came from??? Also, I'm not sure we should be trying to keep up with the "Current" cast list for Rent at all. One of the things that works in an article's favor when it comes to achieving Featured article status is stability; in other words, that it doesn't change often. One way to deal with this might be to split off the cast lists into a separate article; I'm not sure they're all that important, anyway. (Sorry if that rains on your parade.)

Anyway, for now, just tell me what the source of the information is. I'll try to give you a couple of "lessons" on citing sources, too <grin>.

By the way, do you know where the additional information on the original broadway cast came from? It's not in the book, which is what's listed as the source of the information. Thanks.—Chidom ^talk  23:48, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

old deletion

Thanks for the heads up; I deleted the old talk page. :) --Fang Aili ^talk 23:35, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

No worries. Hadn't run across that before. Have good days.—Chidom ^talk  23:37, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Re: Don't know the process and am too tired to care much

I have replied to your message on my Talk page. I'm sorry about the delayed response; I was busy with holiday business. --Slowking Man 13:29, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

License tagging for Image:Billy Brandt on aim to please dvd cover.png

Thanks for uploading Image:Billy Brandt on aim to please dvd cover.png. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 00:05, 31 December 2006 (UTC)