User talk:Tabercil/archive7

This is an archive of past discussions with User:Tabercil. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Hi, and thank you too. I don't know much about Wikipedia, but I was requested by Mai Lin to help her remove all of the references that list her full name and residence location. I got pooped after about fifty edits in the history section, so no doubt there are errors. I believe the offending entry was made on 1-3-'07, but I haven't got that far. It just wasn't a nice thing, or a smart thing to publish that info. Do you know of any faster or more intelligent way to go about this? I tried contacting Wikipedia but got no reponse. Thanks again, --Philipbrooks 22:41, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi, Tabercil. As I mentioned to AnonEMouse, there's a discussion going on at Talk:List of big-bust models and performers about an external link. You weighed in with your opinion on Valrith's talkpage. Perhaps you'd like to do the same here. Regards. Dekkappai 22:39, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi. Sorry to bother you again so soon, but I seem to be having some trouble with Talk:Tratare, who is engaging in an edit war with me over the accompanying image of the Jeph Loeb article, without providing any rationale for why the pic he favors is a better image to accompany than article than mine. For my part, I have explained why I think it's a more appropriate image, in part because the pic he favors has been tagged for its unclear copyright status, and mine was one I took and released into the public domain myself. His only response was to revert the article and say, "I don't agree", without any elaboration. You can get an idea of the situation by looking at the Edit Summaries and the discussion I'm attempting to engage with him on his Talk Page. I have had images of mine removed from articles before, so I assure you, I have no problem with it is someone shows how the other image is better. Can you assist? Thanks. Nightscream 18:45, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

• What other image? Oh, you mean the one I just deleted because it had neither license nor source? <G> Tabercil 22:22, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

No idea what either of you just said, but yea, the image doesn't belong. Bye Tratare 00:40, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi. I noticed you reverted a correction of Spears' to Spears's' This was in error, as you can see from the discussion page on the Britney Spears discussion page. Cheers MrMarmite 12:58, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

I suspect these cookie cutter sites mentioned in Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Pornography#Need_help_with_linkspammers are your close and dear acquaintances. :-) Want to weigh in? --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 19:30, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Reffering to AVN_Hall_of_Fame
It just doesn't look accurate. The list contains Robert McCallum, the current United States Ambassador to Australia. It also has Robert Bullock(1828-1905), a US congressman and a Confederate soldier in the American Civil War. Perhaps they may be the only suspicious names in the list, so idk. I didn't mean to say the whole list is innacurate, just MAYBE some ppl might not belong there. I really can't prove that McCallum and Bullock dont belong there, but they just seemed suspicious. cheers.Modelun88 16:31, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

• Ah. Well Robert McCallum is pointing to the wrong person. It should be as a redirect to Gary Graver. As for Robert Bullock, I'll have to do some checking. Tabercil 17:09, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

• • Well Robert Bullock is a different person altogether, so I've created a stub for him. Tabercil 17:24, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Cool. awesome job!Modelun88 23:10, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

User:Hwilcox81 not only has not answered your question about whether the Jeph Loeb photo is really his or NBC's, but has now deleted the entire discussion from his Talk Page. Nightscream 16:35, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

His reply to my question was sent to me via email: "The photo is the property of Jeph. He owns Empath Studios. Its the photo NBC wants used. If you have a problem with this email Jeph directly." And he gave an email address which I'm not about to put up here. Tabercil 12:12, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

What are the chances of getting AVN award winning producer and director Mike South listed on Wikipedia? He is also a respected industry blogger a la Luke Ford and a candidate for the AVN Hall of Fame.

Just wondering.

Felicia Fox and Tim —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.185.214.59 (talk) 23:47, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

• Actually, when i checked Mike had already created an article for himself - twice. The first time the article got pulled out on the basis of it being advertising, and the second got pulled on the basis of no significance being argued for him. I'll see about creating a proper article for him.
  • Thanks for working that - I actually forwarded Mouse an e-mail from her about this subject. Oh, did you happen to see the message I left on his page about the Flickr photos? Videmus Omnia ^Talk 16:49, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
    • Hadn't spotted it yet. When I check for edits to my watchlist I always start at my last edit and work my way forward chronologically along the list; that way I don't miss anything. So recent edits I haven't yet been gotten to. But lord knows we need more info about Mike... I took some of the info from the deleted copy, but I can't use more because it'd be unreferenced. Now if Mike were to put the same thing on his own website...  :)

Any thoughts on the recent change from {{Infobox actor}} to {{Infobox female adult bio}} ?? Valrith 19:36, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

• Well she is arguably best known for her adult work. Besides, with the removal of the "Notable Roles" line from the Actor infobox, I think the Female adult bio style works best. Tabercil 20:01, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

I have changed the image of Mrs Bellucci with the cover of the German edition of GC as per WP:FU, specifically clause eight-A which states: "One should always select the most representative picture available." --Barateiro 20:49, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

• Hmm. Let's see now... you attempted to insert the cover of said issue of GQ six times, and got reverted by four different editors. I think that speaks who's in the right and who's in the wrong by itself. :) Tabercil 00:50, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
  • That editor got blocked for 3RR. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 00:54, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
    • Indeed. I see Barateiro has been a very naughtly lil' boy. That clause which he refers to as being in WP:FU was actually a phrase which he inserted. As well I see he also used a sockpuppet to try and get around the 3RR block. And I'll say this much: the second the clock hits September 25 locally, that German cover of GQ is gone. :) Tabercil 22:29, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Can you ID the actresses in the photos that Mike South sent me? I think the woman in Image:Mike South 3.jpg is Jacklyn Lick (her autograph is on his shirt). I don't recognize the actress in Image:Mike South 2.jpg. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 23:20, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

• Yup. I'll agree with you on the Jacklyn Lick ID... see the second-to-last image here for another pic of the two of them together. As for who it is in number two, no idea. Pity the EXIF data didn't pass along for the image as knowing when it was taken might have helped in searching his site for an ID. Tabercil 00:58, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
  • By the way, he says he's willing to give us a free license on pics that he owns the rights to, all we have to do is ask. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 01:02, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
    • Bingo! Her name's Cameron and I found her pic on the site here. Tabercil 01:03, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi, Tabercil. I'm having trouble with User:Loansince on the Coral Smith article. I recently went through that article to rewrite the run-on sentences, organize the sections a bit, and remove all the unsourced/POV stuff. Loansince repeatedly reverts it, remarking in his Edit Summaries, "reverted unsourced info back to sourced information". When I tried to open a dialogue on his Talk Page, his only response was to revert again, and remark in his Edit Summary, "find sources / this has been sourced". When I again tried to explain to him how things were done on WP, he reverted again with the Summary: "Nightscreem stop reverting. You find sources". He also blanked my messages from his Talk Page, and I it should be noted that his last three reverts were within less than 24 hours. Nightscream 07:48, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Tabercil, Loansince has also blanked your comments of a short time ago on his Talk Page. I found my way over here because I'm involved in a different editing controversy with him and was keeping an eye on his page. JTRH 12:35, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

And I see that all the excitement boiled down to Loansince being a sockpuppet of User:EverybodyHatesChris... which surprises me not in the least as Loansince seemed to know too much about Wiki procedure (such as how to create an archive) to be a newbie. Tabercil 22:44, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for helping out with the Loansince matter. I have a question, though. Can you help me out by telling me how I can go about becoming an admin? I've been editing since March 2005, have close to 7,400 edits to my credit as of this writing, had a mostly positive Editor Review last October, and have taken the suggestions made during that Review to heart (the main exception being the whole "do more Project edits" thing, because I can't figure out what that means, or how to go about it). Can you offer me advice? I tried asking the same question to a couple of admins I met at the NYC Wikipicnic over the summer, but neither one has responded to me. Thanks. Nightscream 03:04, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

I reverted your changes to the images on these articles. Per WP:MOS: However, it is not set in stone and should be treated with common sense and the occasional exception.. These thumbs are set at particular sizes because of conflicting view errors caused on a userts page. These sizes were a compromise of a previous discussion on the images and them causing browsers to display in a non-uniform manner. Thank you. -- ALLSTAR ECHO 03:55, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

I was re-reading the permission discussion again, and was struck by something. It reads a lot as if Luke wants to avoid mention of his full name in the attribution. Could that be so? He does tend to have periods when he is somewhat shy about that, even using "Duke Floored" or "L-ke" or similar text in interviews on his site. If so, we aren't really doing that completely, even the link to the page has his name in it. Can you re-read your emails and see if you think my impression is correct? If so, what do you think about us renaming that page to User:Tabercil/LukeIsBack.com permission and similarly changing the links from the images to it, where we can, just as a courtesy? --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 14:53, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

• I've been thinking over what you said, and there is some merit in the suggestion. But the permission also covers the lukeford.com material from when Luke was the owner. Now granted probably 95% of the old lukeford.com material is now on lukeisback.com, but what about the last 5% which can be found through archive.com?? I'm tempted to just leave it as is on that basis. Tabercil 15:40, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
  • I'm not saying we should change the text of the permission, just rename the page you store it on. Of course we can't avoid mentioning the name of the old site, with his name in the title, when we use material from the old site, but at least this way we'll have that name in 20 places on the Wikipedia, and not 400 places. And we'll always have the article on him. But I could be wrong; all people are complex, but Luke is more complex than most. He may not mind, or may even have changed his mind and prefer his name be used more and not less. Maybe we could ask if he cares? I gather you've sent emails to him quite a bit. :-). --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 15:54, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
    • LOL. You could say that. <G> If what we're talking about is just renaming the page to lukeisback.com permission then that's fine. We just need to make sure there's redirect to the new page, and also set a bot or two to cleaning up the redirects. There's only about a dozen or two pages on the English Wikipedia that link to it so that's almost something that can be done by hand, but I have no clue how many pages on Commons point to that permissions. Maybe instead what we could do is to hang that permission page off my page on Commons and have everything on Commons changed to point to there? Tabercil 16:48, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
      • That would be good too. But we probably do want to ask, it would be a shame to mess around with this, then find out he actually preferred being named. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 18:21, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Volume 3, Issue 40	1 October 2007	About the Signpost

WikiWorld comic: "Buttered cat paradox"	News and notes: Commons uploaders, Wikimania 2008/2009, milestones
Wikimedia in the News	Features and admins
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News	The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Archives  |  Newsroom  |  Tip Line  |  Single-Page View	Shortcut : WP:POST

So does that mean that every single thing you restored deserves to be there? Come on? A little common sense here. Does every single person who stakes a claim against Joe Francis deserve to be in the article, and does every social commentator deserve to be relegated to actual content and not a footnote? That was certainly not a fair re-edit here. Jaydon Farrely 21:53, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

• Mayhaps not all of it belongs in the article. But to summarily remove all of the legal conflict that Joe finds himself in now is painting too rosy a picture. Tabercil 21:57, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

• See it wasn't removed, it was put in its own article. Why is that such a damning thing? There is certainly no rosy picture of his life, but take a look at the history of the article and see that every time some comment on a bad thing is edited, it is reverted, and every time someone has something not so bad to say, it is deleted? What does it take to make Wikipedia a forum for information and not another blog with leading and bias data stacked in one direction? Jaydon Farrely 22:00, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

• • You do not summarily remove all of the information. What you do is to reduce it down to a core nub, then have a link to the article which details the full legal mess. Anything less is insufficient. Tabercil 22:05, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

It ok with me. But if you check back I did not add that site. It was already there. All i did was remove some of the stuff it said around where the site was. I left the site because i felt it was reliable as it clearly pointed out what the statement said. Just wanted to point out that i did not add the site to the page. So if yo want to go check what you did you will see you just made the page exactly what you reverted, but added back some comments that were uncited. And of a personal POV. Which is why i think my edit was a better version of the page. TA3M YM TA3 00:44, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Weekly Delivery

Volume 3, Issue 42	15 October 2007	About the Signpost

From the editor: Brion Vibber interview
Wikimania 2008 awarded to Alexandria	Board meeting held, budget approved
Wikimedia Commons reaches two million media files	San Francisco job openings published
Community sanction noticeboard closed	Bot is approved to delete redirects
License edits under consideration to accommodate Wikipedia	WikiWorld comic: "Soramimi Kashi"
News and notes: Historian dies, Wiki Wednesdays, milestones	Wikimedia in the News
WikiProject Report: Military history	Features and admins
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News	The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Home  |  Archives  |  Newsroom  |  Tip Line  |  Single-Page View	Shortcut : WP:POST

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 10:17, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

"What is so bad about that photo"? Allow me to point out one thing about the image you are in favour of: Teagan is not the focus of it. If you look at the original which can be seen here), you will see it was a picture of Teagan with someone, and the version that was uploaded was cropped to show Teagan only. The version which I reverted to focused solely on Teagan and was not cropped down from a larger image. Tabercil 05:01, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

• OK, whatever the case is with the photo, that someone was cropped off and whoever cropped that person off did nothing wrong. Since that person was cropped off, it does indeed focus solely on Teagan. I see NOTHING in the picture that is pornongraphic or anything. So what's the big issue with the photo??--Xraffle 05:19, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

It's a question of taste I guess. I just believe the other photo better shows Teagan. Tabercil 11:46, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't matter. That "Island Fever 4 Party" is a good picture. I just never liked that original picture because it focuses more on her boob job rather than solely on Teagan. As long as the Island Fever 4 Party picture stays, then I won't be changing pictures.--Xraffle 15:51, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Wasn't sure to reply to your post, or start a new one here.. so I thought I'd just start it here. Ah, I see. I read that but wasn't sure how it linked to why you reverted it. Just to clear it up, you're allowed to use a screenshot of a TV show, film, etc. when it is only included in the main article and provides an image for the commentary.. but you cannot use it as their main image? I would have to physically find Hannah Spearritt and take a photo of her for the image to be accepted (unless I could find a copyright free image of her performing.. which I'm not too experienced in doing) Thanks. :) - ǀ Mikay ǀ 10:04, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Ah, thank you very much for that link. I'll have a search around and see what I can find. :) - ǀ Mikay ǀ 12:42, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Some users have recently edited the article by addiing frankly a completely irrelevant piece. PLEASE REMEBER THAT THIS IS NOT A MAGAZINE but an encyclopedic article. Adding such speculation will completely discredited the article's encyclopedic nature.

Plus, please keep some facts in mind before any such edits are added to this article:

• PAK FA project is nearly complete. The first plane will fly in 2008.
• It will enter service between 2012 and 2015 with Russian Air Force
• India and Russia have only just signed a deal to develop a new 5th gen. figther
• Both country will have 50/50 partnership on this new deal. the PAK FA project has been developed entirely by Russia.
• Take the F-22 and F-35 (US) fighter jets for example. Both aircrafts are 5th gen, but one of them was built with international partnership, becase by the time the JSF was agreed, the F-22 development was complete.
• Common sense, logic and hard facts thus indicate that the Russo-Indian project will be a completely new aircraft project with new designation

PLEASE READ ALL HARD DATA and consider the logic before adding any speculations to the PAK FA article. Please remember, this is an encyclopedic site and NOT a news or magazine site. We should always do edits based on hard data, NOT POV.

Thanks -- Ash sul 17:04, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi. I created the above article based on information from Christopher Hitchens' book, god is not Great. Another editor, Eliyak, asserts that the information is wrong, arguing that Hitchens is not an authority on Jewish customs (Hitchens converted to Judaism when he married his current wife, though he's currently an atheist), etc. Eliyak changed material without a citation, and left a citation tag in the article. Although Eliyak appears to have done much work on Judaism-related articles, I tried to explain to him/her that the WP standard is Attribution and Credible Sources, not truth. Eliyak insists that the name of the article is wrong, that the procedure it describes is incorrect, that the frequency of its practice is greater than the article asserts, etc. He moved the article to a new name, and changed the material, and even added a source, but does not go into detail as to how that source contradicts the material. My position is that when two sources disagree, the article should incorporate both of them. I've tried to revert the article to reflect both sources, but I don't know if Eliyak will be satisfied by this. I even tried to look for a link to Hitchens' website in his article so I can contact him over his sources, but his article has none. Any advice? Nightscream 03:28, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

• I wish I had some piece of absolutely brilliant advice on what should be done but I'm drawing a blank right now... why not raise the issue at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents? Most likely someone else will be able to help you out. Tabercil 04:10, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Eliyak has reverted the title's page, and again altered material in the article, relying on his/her personal knowledge, rather than wait until the conflict can be clarified through collaboration. I'm not going to revert the article, because I don't want to engage in any further edit warring. I'll try to go to that board. Thanks. Nightscream 04:12, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Ok thanks. michfan2123 03:14, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Weekly Delivery

Volume 3, Issue 43	22 October 2007	About the Signpost

Fundraiser opens, budget released	Biographies of living people grow into "status symbol"
WikiWorld comic: "George Stroumboulopoulos"	News and notes: Wikipedian Robert Braunwart dies
WikiProject Report: League of Copyeditors	Features and admins
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News	The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Home  |  Archives  |  Newsroom  |  Tip Line  |  Single-Page View	Shortcut : WP:POST

Sorry for the tardiness in sending the Signpost this week. --Ral315

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 14:56, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi,

on the Nella article I added exactly 2 links some time ago

• Clubnella, Nella's official site
• Nellablog, a site that catalogs and indexes her work across the internet. While clubnella is the usual paysite (aren't all pornstar sites that thes days ?) Nellablog is a collector's dream - these guys are current, complete, and decently presented. Nonetheless Nellablog does not claim to be Nella's official site, it seems to be the work of dedicated fans.

So you removed my description of nellablog, called it her official site instead (for which I find no confirmation), and removed the clubnella link. Before I reinstate my version, I'd suggest you explain your point of view on this, either here or on the article's talk page. FWIW, I am not, nor am I relatetd to, an owner, operator, propriator or anybody else who earns profit off these sites. I'm just an interested bystander (and Wikipedian who likes his anonymity) Thanks 84.176.210.119 21:42, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I'll grant you that the removal of ClubNella was in error. Usually there is a link to the official site in the infobox, so placing it in the article text is unneeded duplication. I forgot to check first that the infobox had the link. I have since corrected that error and added ClubNella to the infobox.

As for the other link (Nellablog), I find it difficult to see how that link can be anything but in conflict with the policies at Wikipedia:External links, specifically clause 12 ("Links to blogs and personal web pages, except those written by a recognized authority.") of the Links to be avoided section. Tabercil 22:56, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Nellablog is not a blog, despite its name. It's a catalog and index. I don't doubt these guys earn some money by ads and referrals, but the site is really well done and a unique resource. IMO, It is exactly what is described in the (non-negated) clause 1 of WP:EL. If somebody looks for information on Nella's work, this link might be the single most helpful information item in the article. It is certainly immensely more helpful than Club Nella, which, while her own, is just a pay site. Look at it from the angle of a fan or a collector. So I think the Nellablog link is valuable and enhances the article. That's the reason I originally added it. 84.176.210.119 23:37, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Weekly Delivery

Volume 3, Issue 44	29 October 2007	About the Signpost

From the editor: Florence Devouard interview
Page creation for unregistered users likely to be reenabled	WikiWorld comic: "Human billboard"
News and notes: Treasurer search, fundraiser, milestones	WikiProject Report: Agriculture
Features and admins	Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Home  |  Archives  |  Newsroom  |  Tip Line  |  Single-Page View	Shortcut : WP:POST

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 06:17, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Just wondering, why'd you only block him for 48 hours? It looks like a vandalism-only account to me, deserving of an indef block... but if I'm wrong, tell me. Thanks! Gscshoyru 04:46, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

I was going to say the same thing. That's a vandalism-only account if I ever saw one. —Wknight94 (talk) 04:49, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

I took a second look... you're both right. Block has been set to indefinite. Tabercil 04:51, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Hello, just curious how you moved Susan B. Anthony acrl to Susan B. Anthony. I tried that a few minutes ago and couldn't because the page Susan B. Anthony already existed. Regards—G716 <^T·_C> 05:19, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

• Because there was a redirect page at Susan B. Anthony which pointed to Susan B. Anthony acrl. Took me a bit to figure out what was happening. Tabercil 05:22, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

This is an archive of past discussions with User:Tabercil. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.