I didn't have much time before to explain my revert of your sizable contribution but I'm taking the opportunity now while I have a bit more time.
The biggest reason that I removed your contribution is because I felt that it was a copyright violation (see WP:COPYVIO) otherwise known as plagiarism. Although I didn't research it then, it seems I was right since what you posted is a word-for-word copy of the interview seen here. At the bottom of that page, you'll see that there is a copyright notice from a company called "24-7 Internet". So, they own the rights to that interview and we (Wikipedia) do not have permission to copy and re-post that interview.
Additionally, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. We don't just copy and paste other people's works. We write descriptive articles about people, places, etc.
As far as the awards go, those should be removed since they are not notable. The Pornography WikiProject here on Wikipedia has put quite a bit of work into what does and does not belong in pornography related articles. Amongst those things that do not belong are non-notable awards.
And finally, I'm going to remove your most recent edits since your source, halloffameporn.com, does not appear to be a reliable source (WP:RS) for information.
- I look forward to her proving her identity and improving the article. In the future, you can post your comments at the bottom of the section on my talk page and "sign" the comment with four tildes like I told you in my welcome post above. That will provide a time stamp so you don't have to use your "update 6-5-10" stuff. Dismas|(talk) 13:57, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
- Just a quick note to let you know that I moved the stuff about Booble to the talk page Talk:Vicky Vette while it's worked on. I don't have a lot of time to spend to this today since I'm heading out the door in a minute, so sorry for the quick and dirty reply.... I clean up the templates for ya. Look at them and see what I did. It should be self explanatory now. You need to look at the sources though. You need to ask yourself, "How do I show that this award is notable?" That means finding sites that talk about it, like AVN Mag. It's hard to say why Pepsi or Starbucks is notable if you only show their own press releases. If something is notable, other people will write about them (news, magazines, industry publications, etc). You need to find other people talking about this award. Oh, and the first link you provided doesn't even mention Vette's name. Did you paste in the wrong address? Gotta go, more later, Dismas|(talk) 21:41, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
- First of all, thank you for dropping the sarcastic and antagonistic tone that your first few messages included.
- And now for a few pointers and explanation. The "accessdate" part of the template is for the date that you accessed the web page (i.e. today), not the publication date. You can include the pub date as well if you like but that would look like "date=". The title should be the title of the article/page/etc. So, it would be something like "title=War and Peace". The only two fields that are required are the url and title.
- As far as why the article is so short, well... She's a porn star. By that I mean that A) there aren't a lot of reliable sources for info on porn stars. It's not like they show up in the New York Times or on CNN very often, and B) there are a lot of porn stars and not a lot of people who follow the industry or desire to have porn stars on their watchlists. You can see how many people are working on porn articles at The Pornography WikiProject. A big reason for the article's brevity is WP:BLP. That's the policy on Biographies of Living People. Basically, it says that all contentious material should have a reliable source, or else it should be removed. Porn star articles suffer from a lot of mis-information, so the people that watch the porn articles are especially cautious of WP:BLP. There are a lot of rumors and "I heard that she did 500 guys in an hour!!" type info out there. Add to that the fact that we've had several porn stars read their articles and then raise hell over the bad info in them. All that adds up to short articles. (although not all the time, for instance, Jenna Jameson is a featured article!)
- WP:P* also has a list of reliable sources. So you might want to check that out.
- Altogether, we don't want the articles to be so short but there are a lot of factors working against it. If you'd like to put the time in, we'd be grateful to have a better quality article. Just know that there's a burden of proof and you take it on by posting info.
- As far as how notable Booble is, I can't say. I can't access the sites that you've been using for sources from my current location. But like I said, in order to prove that Booble and their award is notable, you'll have to find other reputable people talking about it. Company press releases don't add much weight since anyone can post a press release. And industry publications like to reprint them because it saves them from having to write an article of their own. It's easier to copy and paste the release than it is to come up with some original work.
- Any questions, you know how to reach me... Dismas|(talk) 06:44, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
- I removed the info about Booble from Vette's article. I did this because information on what Booble or their award is should be in an article about them (if they themselves are notable enough, again third party references are key). Vette's article is about Vette. For example, you don't see a description of what a Playboy Playmate is on every Playmate's article. Dismas|(talk) 06:31, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
- Sorry but yeah, that was me that removed the Vette/Corvette info. Do you have any interviews where she talks about her choice of name? Just taking your word for it constitutes original research (see WP:OR). I was on the fence about removing that. It's not normally what I'd call "controversial" or easily contested but it would be nice to have a verifiable source. From WP:BLP: Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion. -- Dismas|(talk) 06:50, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
- I realize that finding a source for everything can sometimes be daunting. But think of it like this: How, if you don't have to verify your source, do people know that the information that you're providing is accurate? Do you want everyone that wants to verify any info to purchase a membership at every adult web site just so that they can get into the member's area and confirm it? That's outlandish. If you have a pipeline to Vette, why not ask her about interviews that she's given? Surely some of those are on the net somewhere. Or maybe you have hard copies of them in some publication. Why not add info from those and cite the interview or magazine? Has nobody ever asked her in an interview where she got her name?
- Think of it like this, when you did a paper for school, you had to cite your sources, right? Same thing here. You couldn't just say anything you wanted. You had to back it up with sources. It's the same thing with work. You can't just tell your boss that your company will save X amount of money by doing things your way instead of the way it's done now. You have to be able to back it up with facts and figures.
- I took a look at Sexipedia. I hope it's just starting up because there's hardly anything there. Vette isn't there. The Jenna Jameson article is a copy of the one here. (although every template and image is broken because they didn't convert those). I couldn't see articles on really most any major topic. But if anyone is going to add anything without having to provide a source, as you suggest your web site friends have said, how do you know it's right? For more on this see: WP:V. Dismas|(talk) 07:00, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
This is the final warning you will receive regarding your disruptive edits.
The next time you use Wikipedia for advertising, as you did with Vicky Vette, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. You've ignored all the advice Dismas gave you, and you've ignored all the policy notices I've cited. Now you're just edit warring to insert copyrighted, unlicensed advertising material. That's three clear, independent grounds for suspending your editing privileges, and such a block is likely to be summarily imposed if you continue to add such material to the article. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 21:45, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
Your recent edits
Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you must sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 22:21, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
Edit warring report
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:Db54_reported_by_User:Hullaballoo_Wolfowitz_.28Result:_.29 Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 22:44, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Douglas, Massachusetts, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page James McGovern (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that
- List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
- at the end of july features the artists who were formerly with their original bands; Mitch Ryder (detroit wheels(, Chuck Negron (3 dog night), Mark Farner (grand funk railroad) & Gary Lewis & the Playboys.
Happy Together Tour
Your addition to Douglas, Massachusetts has been removed, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without evidence of permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for more information on uploading your material to Wikipedia. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted material, including text or images from print publications or from other websites, without an appropriate and verifiable license. All such contributions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. Garchy (talk) 18:40, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Douglas, Massachusetts. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.
Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:
- Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
- Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.
If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Garchy (talk) 03:37, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, it's important to be mindful of the feelings of your fellow editors, who may be frustrated by certain types of interaction. While you probably didn't intend any offense, please do remember that Wikipedia strives to be an inclusive atmosphere. In light of that, it would be greatly appreciated if you could moderate yourself so as not to offend. Thank you. Garchy (talk) 04:59, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
It appears that your filing at the dispute resolution noticeboard had to do with this dispute. If so, first, please follow the advice of User:JustBerry and take copyright issues to the appropriate forum, but also please be aware that Wikipedia takes copyright issues very seriously (even if no one else on the Internet cares about copyright). Also, second, your filing at DRN was very hard to read, so I am not sure what the subject was. Please be careful to review your posts after posting them to see if they are confusing and need cleaning up. If you need general advice, ask for advice at the Teahouse. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:32, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
A Few Reminders
I have a few reminders for you, since you have been editing Wikipedia for several years, but not regularly. First, I don't know if you are aware, but your posts come across as strident. I think that User:Garchy was trying to mention that to you politely while also addressing their concerns about copyright. Your post to Garchy's talk page, and your post to my talk page, have an unpleasant tone to them. (They are also hard to read.) Maybe you didn't intend that. Second, your reply on my talk page, stating that there is no copyright problem, has a dismissive tone. There is a copyright problem if it appears that there is a copyright problem. Just saying that there is no copyright problem doesn't resolve it, and ignoring a concern about copyright in Wikipedia is a way to get blocked. I don't mean that as a threat; I am not an administrator. I mean that just saying there is no problem doesn't mean that there is no problem. Third, as a general matter, when an editor posts to your talk page, you may reply at your own talk page; it isn't necessary, and can be confusing, to go to their talk page. Fourth, if you put something in Wikipedia that was somewhere else on the web, it really is your responsibility to ensure us that the copyright holder has agreed to its copying in this fashion. Just telling us that it was a public document doesn't mean that it was a public domain document. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously, even if no one else on the Internet does. Please do not risk getting blocked either for incivility or for copyright violation. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:51, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
So how is this then resolved since the article was an excerpt from a two page article printed in a public pamphlet that was not copyrighted nor were there any copyrights or permissions required? As previously noted The original town author of the historical excerpt used died in 2008 (as have several other town residents). The commemorative pamphlet had no commentary, markings or otherwise that indicates anything within required permission. In fact, several items have been posted elsewhere. If I come across as "strident" then it's from the annoyance of having to jump thru unnecessary hoops of an insert that has been on wiki for a few years. Pointing me to a "some policy paragraph" that are completely unintelligible to this editor doesn't help as one doesn't know what needs to be done. Then again, I'd rather just stop with WIKI all together cause frankly it is taking to much of my time. When someone accuses me of "blatant copyright infraction" without out any source of information, I take that as an insult. Thus, I'm done with WIKI as it is way too exhausting and I have neither the patience nor desire. But, thanks for taking time to provide some advice[[[User:Db54|Db54]] (talk) 20:19, 29 December 2016 (UTC)]
- Although it may not appear this way to you, my editing on Wikipedia is done in good faith with the best interests of everyone in mind. That being said, I have tried to offer you advice on how to rework the material so that it does not violate Wikipedia rules (put the information into your own words or rework it in another way). We (the editors) are here to help, and I'm always ready to help new editors overcome these hurdles - of course, this is easier if I'm approached by someone asking for help instead of assuming the worst. I am not trying to remove this information because I personally don't want it there (I see how this information is related to the article and deserves a place within), however it must be done in the proper manner (don't shoot the messenger). User:Robert McClenon did a much better job than I have explaining this, but if you ask for help rewording the material most editors will jump to help (you can also check out the Teahouse which helps new editors.) Working together and having general civility helps us all accomplish much more on this site. Garchy (talk) 20:33, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
- Also, for transparency, here is the basis for why I removed the information Garchy (talk) 20:43, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
That information also came from the same source - time of the town as even they cited the same reference that I cited originally. I noted that suggestion and also saw something similar from Bob just a few minutes ago. Perhaps it would have been the path of least resistance to simply rewrite it or paraphrase it as the case may be. However, I also felt what better tribute to someone who has died who did yeomen's work on the Town History over the years then to simply insert a portion of an article she had submitted and reference it plus some pictures that I have taken of reenactors at related events. Unfortunately, you cannot see the pamphlet that I am looking at, right at this moment, commemorating the Town's 250th birthday from 1996 from a Town appointed adhoc committee. Many of those involved included some notables have since passed away. The greater majority of the document should be included as it cites an extraordinary amount of town history but I can just see the brouhaha that might have created. Unfortunately, It appears I am not savvy enough to navigate the wiki way. [[[User:Db54|Db54]] (talk) 20:58, 29 December 2016 (UTC)]
- "Unfortunately, It appears I am not savvy enough to navigate the wiki way." - That's why we are here to help :) I'll take a look at the information that was removed and see what I can do to reword it to get it back in (in some form) into the article. Also, I know the vast amount of rules and ways makes Wikipedia a tough place to navigate, so feel free to ask and someone can help you with it. I've been through the same struggles, and luckily other, more experienced editors were there to pick me back up and help. Also, if you have a pamphlet it can be properly added in (and cited) within Wikipedia! Print sources (in addition to online sources) can be used as references on Wikipedia. Not to provide yet another link, but this one may be helpful (the pamphlet would most likely fall under "newspaper article") - and of course I would be happy to help (and I'm sure Robert too) if you have any questions about how to cite sources within the article. Garchy (talk) 21:25, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
Go for it. With that perfectly fine section and images removed the entire page is boring and numerous citation missing. One could obtain the information that is now there from the community profile. I dont have the attitude to engage in edit wars and debates over non copyrighted information. So if you have time then feel free to reword it so we can get past this. Understand however, the images (two of them) are mine and were UL thru WIKI hurdles and the third one is a common usage picture. I'll see about digitizing the entire pamphlet at some point and get my mindset to jump thru the hoops to get in play as you suggested above. thx in advance Db54 (talk) Jan 17 2017
Hello, I added back the images and as much cited information as I could find on the store and museum. Please take a look and add your own edits if you'd like - if you have any questions feel free to reach out! Garchy (talk) 15:14, 18 January 2017 (UTC)