Jump to content

User talk:Jamesbeat: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
Jamesbeat (talk | contribs)
No edit summary
Thank you: new section
Line 35: Line 35:


:This is not about discreting Gavcrimson but about reliable sources. Unfortunately some of the sources cited by him were not reliable sources according to WP standards. I myself see no problem with the Mary Millington page now since Gavcrimson put in the Simon Sheridan book as reference. Until a few days ago the name was not referenced at all. As user [[User:AniMate|<font face="papyrus" color="Black">A</font>]][[User talk:AniMate|<font face="papyrus" color="Green">ni</font>]][[Special:Contributions/AniMate|<font face="papyrus" color="Black">Mate</font>]] just stated on this ongoing discussion [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard/Ongoing_BLP_concerns#Can_we_refocus_the_discussion.3F]]: "Any controversial claim, and revealing a birth name that has intentionally obscured is controversial, must have an excellent reliable source." ([[User:Jamesbeat|Jamesbeat]] ([[User talk:Jamesbeat#top|talk]]) 11:51, 13 August 2008 (UTC))
:This is not about discreting Gavcrimson but about reliable sources. Unfortunately some of the sources cited by him were not reliable sources according to WP standards. I myself see no problem with the Mary Millington page now since Gavcrimson put in the Simon Sheridan book as reference. Until a few days ago the name was not referenced at all. As user [[User:AniMate|<font face="papyrus" color="Black">A</font>]][[User talk:AniMate|<font face="papyrus" color="Green">ni</font>]][[Special:Contributions/AniMate|<font face="papyrus" color="Black">Mate</font>]] just stated on this ongoing discussion [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard/Ongoing_BLP_concerns#Can_we_refocus_the_discussion.3F]]: "Any controversial claim, and revealing a birth name that has intentionally obscured is controversial, must have an excellent reliable source." ([[User:Jamesbeat|Jamesbeat]] ([[User talk:Jamesbeat#top|talk]]) 11:51, 13 August 2008 (UTC))

== Thank you ==

for reverting the vandalism to my user page before I even knew about it. [[User:David in DC|David in DC]] ([[User talk:David in DC|talk]]) 18:59, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Revision as of 18:59, 13 August 2008

Welcome!

Hello, Jamesbeat, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date.

I had to remove the information you added to the Rolf Hammerschmidt article since the requirements per WP:BLP state that such controversial information must be sourced by a reliable source.

If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Again, welcome!  —meco 08:13, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Pavel Matous

Another editor has added the {{prod}} template to the article Pavel Matous, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but the editor doesn't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and has explained why in the article (see also Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not and Wikipedia:Notability). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia or discuss the relevant issues at its talk page. If you remove the {{prod}} template, the article will not be deleted, but note that it may still be sent to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. BJBot (talk) 01:01, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Birth name

Please note I have restored the actor's real name with a very well sourced link. The actor's or studios alleged and unsourced dislike of this fact does NOT allow censorship of an actor's real name. John celona (talk) 01:10, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going to do here what I did on the article talk page, because it's rude to do that on your page. But I urge you to do it here. The lock is stopping the name from being outed in the article. I've done the same on the articles talk page. Will you please do it here? I address that request either to John or to Jamesbeat. David in DC (talk) 04:25, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for deleting the birth name here. I figured only you should do that. David in DC (talk) 15:09, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deleting info

Please note I have deleted the name again. The actor's or studios dislike of publishing real names does allow to be respected. This has nothing to do with censorship but with ethics. Learning from the Johan Paulik case publishing real names of actor's in the adult business is helping stalkers. The link was very well in existence when the discussion about the name started and it was not used. You might think about that. (Jamesbeat (talk) 12:24, 30 May 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Birth Names

Please consider making a comment here. Thanks. David in DC (talk) 15:44, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unreliable Sources

What you indicate about unreliable sources is quite true I concur with what you say however as far as this discussion/argument goes Mary Millington her stage name was born Mary Ruth Quilter pure and simple and her married name of Maxted and birth name should indeed be mentioned in the WP surely her own family who are aware of her birth name they gave permission for a book to be published by the renown author Simon Sheridan to whit there are umpteen books out there that indicate Mary's birth name and I have most, including her own,then of course there was the newspapers of the time that splashed her stage name about then indicated underneath her real name, if research stands up to scrutiny which this by Gavcrimson does it should be mentioned, if its contested and proven wrong then it should be withdrawn. Gavcrimson is a major contributor to the WP and many other sites as far as I can see he references articles where he can then dates them. I come from a research background and I can see no obvious reason for excluding the quite lovely Mary's name from the WP, however if you know different I am listening.. this chap trying to discredit Gavcrimson is wrong and if he had the courage of his convictions he would tell the wider audience why he thinks he is right.. Rbt Foot [created on 23:57, 12 August 2008 by 84.13.25.63; moved from user page to talk page Jamesbeat (talk) 11:34, 13 August 2008 (UTC)][reply]

This is not about discreting Gavcrimson but about reliable sources. Unfortunately some of the sources cited by him were not reliable sources according to WP standards. I myself see no problem with the Mary Millington page now since Gavcrimson put in the Simon Sheridan book as reference. Until a few days ago the name was not referenced at all. As user AniMate just stated on this ongoing discussion [[1]]: "Any controversial claim, and revealing a birth name that has intentionally obscured is controversial, must have an excellent reliable source." (Jamesbeat (talk) 11:51, 13 August 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Thank you

for reverting the vandalism to my user page before I even knew about it. David in DC (talk) 18:59, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]