User talk:Tabercil

Welcome to my talk page. Please sign and date your entries by inserting -- ~~~~ at the end.
Start a new talk topic.

Archives

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

Stupid mistake

I actually meant to put down that Mercy wasn't renewed for second season, forgot to proofread. My apologies. QuasyBoy (talk) 5:39, 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 16 August 2010

• News and notes: Book publisher apologizes for plagiarizing photos by Wikipedians, brief news

• Spam attacks: Large scale vandalism revealed to be "study" by university researcher

• In the news: Supportive communication and missing incentives on Wikipedia, and more

• WikiProject report: A Pit Stop with WikiProject NASCAR

• Features and admins: The best of the week

• Arbitration report: ArbCom releases names of CU/OS applicants after delay

• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 09:09, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Nina Hartley

See this edit. Actually, the source which already was there does state the ethnicities. I checked it out when the IP changed it. Garion96 (talk) 19:23, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Huh. When I reverted, I knew I had read that source ages ago, and was sure I remember it as mentioning only her being Jewish... nothing about the German or Swiss part. Shoulda' double-checked first... thanks for the correction. Tabercil (talk) 19:45, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

You're not alone. My first thought was also to revert the IP since I was quite sure I checked out that source before. :) Garion96 (talk) 18:54, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Btw, nice job in getting these new images on Commons. Garion96 (talk) 18:57, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Hmm... you referring the TG stars I assume? Ah, de nada. Still surprised I got them.  ;) Tabercil (talk) 20:58, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 23 August 2010

• News and notes: Pending changes poll, Public policy classes, Payment schemes debate, and more

• In the news: Zionist editing courses, newspaper denies editing candidate, net neutrality

• WikiProject report: WikiProject Cryptozoology

• Features and admins: The best of the week

• Arbitration report: Proposed decision of climate change case posted

• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 21:10, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Cody Lane

Why did you delete the Cody Lane article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.1.207.228 (talk) 05:48, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm obviously not Tabercil but you can see why the article was deleted here. Basically, it kept being recreated and deleted. The reason it was deleted is because of Wikipedia's criteria A7 for speedy deletion, "No indication of importance (individuals, animals, organizations, web content)". In order to be included in Wikipedia, an article must show why a person is notable. This article, time and again, was obviously not doing that. You can see the notability standards for people at WP:BIO. Dismas|^(talk) 05:58, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

As Dismas sez... it kept getting recreated with the same thin information. Unless/until someone can clearly show that Cody Lane is notable, there ain't gonna be anything there. Tabercil (talk) 06:09, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Mater Maria Catholic College

Deleting the entire work was very unhelpful —Preceding unsigned comment added by Enidblyton11 (talk • contribs) 16:10, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

As I said, unsourced. Tabercil (talk) 17:49, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Tagging against consensus to whitewash the unreferenced BLP problems away

There's no consensus support for the efforts of a few members of the unreferenced BLP project to unilaterally redefine the unferenced BLP tag that's been in use for years, has been used on tens of thousands of articles, and is still being used, by many skilled and experienced editors. Tt's also incompatible with the BLP-PROD standards. External links aren't references, as is made clear in WP:EL. The imdb tag in question is not used, as a general rule, on articles which actually cite IMDB. It's used primarily, if not only, on articles which have no references at all. It was created a few months back by members of the wikiproject who were frustrated by the slow pace of cleaning up the backlog, and decided to short-circuit the process by proclaiming that external links were references, despite contrary guidelines and policies and in contradiction of years of established practice. Even worse, editors like "The Pope" are also changing the tagging date, so that articles originally marked months or (often) years ago show up only having been flagged this month -- another attempt by project members to "meet" their goal of reducing the number of long-tagged-as-problematic BLPs by simply changing the tagging date. This is more damaging to Wikipedia than simple vandalism; it sends the message that we don't really care about the BLP problem, so long as we can make it look like it's much smaller than it really is. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 17:01, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Good point. And in anycase, I'm trying to do an end run around the problem by trying to find sources to expand it with. Best thing I can locate seems to be Mary Kay's fan site online... not as good as I'd like, but better than nothing I guess. Tabercil (talk) 17:14, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Sorry to have to but in on your talk page, but as he doesn't seem to want to talk to me, it's not a good point, it's an absolutely crap point. Almost as bad as avoiding direct discussion and edit warring over this, like HW seems to be doing. One could argue that keeping the BLPunrefered tag over other more suitable tags is a technique used by some to artificially inflate the "unreferenced BLP" problem AND TOTALLY IGNORE that there are lots of other BLP cleanup tags that also should be addressed. This tag simply takes it outof one cleanup cat and puts it into 4 other cleanup cats. Still there, still trackable, still marked as being unacceptable and a problem. The only reason that we have a "target number" is because of a few editors who ignored the rules and made it a big deal earlier this year and threatened mass-deletion of these articles. The only reason that no one is working through the other lists is because the unrefed BLPs got all the attention. In the past 6 months we've seen two useful generic tools, the Wolterbot Cleanup list and the Alertbot stop working, but I've helped get the DASHbot list to automatically list UBLPs by project. Once the heat drops out of this issue, there is no reason why that same system can't be used for other cleanup tags. I'd agree with HW if I was ADDING IMDB links and then changing the tag, but I'm only doing it to ones that already have the tag - as I said on HW's overly long talk page - to the everyday editor IMDB is a ref and they can't tell the difference between an Ext link and a ref. The IMDB tag tells them it isn't enough. The UBLP tag doesn't. The-Pope (talk) 22:54, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Natasha Yi vandalism

I have already put a website source courtesy of AskMen.com last year and AskMen.com says Natasha Yi was born in 1979. I found vandalism on the Wikipedia article. And I found the IP user has made an incorrect birthyear. The IP user 99.7.171.33 change it's incorrect year of birth to 1981. But 1981 is the incorrect birthyear. Last year, I told the IP user to stop changing the incorrect year of birth. But the IP user 99.7.171.33 not answering me back. So go to Natasha Yi's article to revert it back to it's correct year of birth to 1979 under my username an then write to the IP user 99.7.171.33 not to change incorrect year of birth. If the IP user 99.7.171.33 continues to put the wrong year of birth the IP user will be blocked by editing. Also, could you watch the Natasha Yi artcle and this is to keep track on the correct year of birth that is already sourced. If the IP user continues to edit the wrong birthyear revert it back. Thanks for the alert and talk to me back as soon as possible. Steam5 (talk) 03:38, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

From the edit history of that IP, it looks like he's basically acting like an SPA - the only edit made seems to be changing the year of birth to 1981 or 1983 [1]. I'd say he can be reverted on sight, and warned appropriately. If they edit again, leave a message on their talk page and with luck they'll hit the point where they can be blocked. Tabercil (talk) 03:47, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 30 August 2010

• News and notes: Most linked websites on Wikipedia, New York Wiki-Conference, and more

• In the news: Agatha Christie spoiled, Wales on Wikileaks, University students improve Wikipedia, and more

• WikiProject report: Studying WikiProject Universities

• Features and admins: Featured article milestone: 3,000

• Arbitration report: What does the Race and intelligence case tell us?

• Technology report: Reusability of MediaWiki code, Google Summer of Code: Interwiki transclusion, and more

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 16:22, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Disruptive Edits???

you sent me a message saying i'm making disruptive edits. i admit to making some minor silly edits on some pages (e.g. the shane diesel article yesterday), i honestly didn't think something as unimportant as "shane diesel" would get somebody so upset that they would change it the next afternoon but i guess i was wrong. now as far as the other edits i made (i'm referring to adding birth names of pornstars) they are all CORRECT, yet people are freaking out over this and editing my entries, which by the way i took the time to look up and contribute to wikipedia, even if it's something as unimportant as pornstars. if you don't belive me check for yourself on IMDB.com, all of the birthnames are there. so frankly i'm kind of annoyed that my CORRECT DATA is being removed by people like you. you were so ignorant you even changed back the edit i made to the richard ramirez article even though if you were to click the ref. number right next to his birthdate you'll see it says the 28th not the 29th!! seems like there are some people on here that have no lives that like threatening to block people and edit out their contributions to wikipedia. for now i am going to leave the pages alone (except the obvious pages which were WRONGLY edited) because i don't feel like dealing with this when somebody is going to edit out what i add anyway. in the future i will decide what birth names and data to add to the articles, i hope when i do you can just leave it alone. oh and as far as blocking me that's no big deal. i can just change my IP address (which is relatively easy to do) and i'll be right back on wikipedia hopefully contributing without all this drama, thanks...

Gummy Dummy (talk) 08:34, 2 September 2010 (UTC)