User talk:Dismas/archive5

Adding an article

I just wrote in the help desk about adding info and being rejected. I have opened an account and now would like to add my info about a clothing company to the clothing company section. it is a swim wear and apparel company that I would like to add to companies such as polo, o'neill, so forth. Since I am new to this thing, its very confusing. since there are so many different portals leading to others when I try to find the categories for them.

Chile707 17:25, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

THANK YOU!!!!!!

I thank you greatly for taking the time to help someone like myself. Thank you, Thank you, Thank you!

Chile707 17:57, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

==Keeley Hazell==

Can you explain why you removed the image I uploaded to Keeley Hazell's page? I took a screenshot from the DVD it was referenced to. As far as I can tell this is Fair Use, as many other profiles have a screenshot representing people. Thanks Timclare ^(talk) _{(sign here)} 10:33, 14 April 2007 (UTC) [reply]

P.S. You can tell it's a screenshot, for the poor resolution small image. Timclare ^(talk) _{(sign here)} 10:36, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

the fife shuffle

aahh dismas surely you are also the parton of the enternally bewilldered, thanks for your prompt answer, i will get the shuffle shuffling soonest, in honour of you removing a barrier (which only i saw) would you care to suggest a favourite track for me to download? much in your debt st jude (Perry-mankster 14:22, 14 April 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Vikki BLows

WHY can't that image be used? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sound sound of music (talk • contribs) 09:43, 16 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Your userpage

You're welcome. Simply south 10:07, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Katalin Vad

You are incorrect and I'm reporting you to corporate. Please stop removing it. Get a life. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Timiyy (talk • contribs)

Re: Thanks

You're very welcome. Glad I could help. Will (aka Wimt) 14:07, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Dutch -- your edit

Why would a relevant pop culture cross reference not be consider usable?

Pls response to the grading system in place.

thanks.

Trent (sjurat)

Thank you for the explanation - I will, in future adds/edits, your points regarding reference points.

Mental images

I do care, Dismas, I do care. You do me great honour with such an image. My hair is a hell of a lot blonder these days than it used to be - but it's usually called "grey". When I was 36, it was very dark brown, and would have seemed black from a distance. But that was 20 years ago. There, my secret's out. :) JackofOz 05:45, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks...

...for telling me that. I see it now on the page. :) - Bagel7 09:02, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Playmates

Hi, you're quick. Yes you'r right about the cat, that was a mistke ahich I have changed back. The title is less accurate. You can say "She was Playboy Playmate 1994", but even popes only get a capital when used in the form Pope John Paul, for example. Rich Farmbrough, 10:24 24 April 2007 (GMT).

However I will leave the capitalisation alone... Rich Farmbrough, 10:25 24 April 2007 (GMT).

Rachel Sterling

Oops, meant G4, recreation of deleted material.--Wizardman 03:53, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Falling into swamps

I'm sorry, what? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Falling into swamps (talk • contribs)

Trippiness on ref desk

Just in case it's not very obvious: my defense of the idea of discussing, under the humanities rubric, which Pink Floyd songs may share distinctive stylistic features with "Any Colour You Like" was not directed against you! My point was exactly that expertise such as you profess (and demonstrate in your answer) should be welcomed on the ref desk (in my opinion) and not somehow excluded as opinion (by "the editors who feel..." as you say). Anyway, my intention was to welcome such contributions, not to chastise you for deciding to give it elsewhere. Wareh 01:13, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Curiosity

Per WP:BLP the new assertion here: [1] is unsourced. — Indon (reply) — 12:46, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it's a builtin edit summary from the one-click tool. For me, giving unsourced negative statements to a living person article is still in the vandalism area (it is just based on my experience). Okay, cheers. — Indon (reply) — 13:06, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

May 9th Science Ref Desk Question

I didn't say it was idiotic, I just said it was silly (and I still think it is). I just found it incredibly hard to take seriously. Please don't take my remarks personally, as I was talking about the question, not you. I ask silly questions and make silly remarks all the time ;-) You ought to look at my user page! Is that not the silliest thing you've ever seen?

Sometimes, what seems silly is actually not, so one should not be afraid to ask (at least oneself) silly questions. Sometimes those questions spawn others that aren't so silly.

I think it is only when silly questions become bothersome that they become stupid questions. Root⁴(one) 14:53, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Janine Lindemulder

Oops! Didn't mean to remove those refs with my last edit. Thanks for the fix... Valrith 21:35, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kata Kärkkäinen

Hello! I noticed that you reverted the insertion of a previously orphaned image. If the picture violate some sort of policy, why is it not deleted yet? Also an orphan needs to be adopted :-) Wooyi^{Talk to me?} 02:19, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Did you really underestimate the internet that badly?

On a side note, I didn't think that in searching for the name of a pick up truck that I'd so easily stumble across porn...

Seriously, have you ever found a search on the internet that *didn't* have porn? -- Phoeba Wright^OBJECTION! 07:30, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Man, i've stumbled across porn looking up OSX. Ok, maybe I was looking for the OS-Tan. But still, I haven't seen any other pictures of it outside that... If you have a sick mind, you might enjoy 7chan's 'Rule 34' board -- Phoeba Wright^OBJECTION! 08:44, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You can't say that I did not create the image

Its my image. Also, you can't say that I had only 2 contributions any more.

Masuimi Max article —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bopash4 (talk • contribs)

Red Links

Ok, sounds good to me. Sometimes you just can't be sure! Hellswasteland 01:49, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image (Image:Grossepointeblank.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Grossepointeblank.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 20:59, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rebecca Cummings AfD

Dismas, You participated in the first AfD discussion for the Rebecca Cummings article at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rebecca Cummings. The decision was keep but it has been nominated for deletion a second time. I thought you may be interested in participating in the discussion that is going on at [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Rebecca_Cummings_%282nd_nomination%29. Thanks in advance. --HeartThrobs 01:28, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Operation Moonwatch

hi...i received your message. the photos in the Operation Moonwatch are from NASA collections and NASA sponsored research. I've tried to indicate this by editing the photos and showing this tag. Did I do this right?

PM

BS

No, BS does not stand for "bullshit". =) I've given you this barnstar for your work in the Reference Desk and always having the answers for those that need it. Enjoy!--Ed ^{¿Cómo estás?} 21:35, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

		The Original Barnstar
		This goes to Dismas for his ability to find information when questions are asked in the Reference Desk. Ed ^{¿Cómo estás?} 21:35, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, BTW, you're the second hit on a Google Search for "prison dwarf." =D --Ed ^{¿Cómo estás?} 21:36, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Which part of the suburbs, if I may ask?--Ed ^{¿Cómo estás?} 22:57, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's cool...I'm from Naperville, Illinois--Ed ^{¿Cómo estás?} 01:32, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free use disputed for Image:Charmer-big.jpg

This file may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:Charmer-big.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read carefully the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content and then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our Criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 05:03, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free use disputed for Image:Family Groove Company.jpg

This file may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:Family Groove Company.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read carefully the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content and then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our Criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 07:58, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but the image is MINE!!

I was there when Giant Drag was performing. Its mine. I took that image. SO STFU and stop being an ass. Tuskjet 13:03, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FUCKING ASSHOLE. DELETE THAT MASUIMI MAX IMAGE BUT THE ANNIE HARDY IMAGE IS MINE.

User:Tuskjet

Right, he's had a fairly friendly warning from me about personal attacks so I think you need to report him on the Admin incidents page at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents - I'm happy to act as a witness to his behaviour if you need me. I think he probably needs blocking as this is unacceptable. Madmedea 15:50, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd report a personal attack, which is against wikipedia policy, so it is more than a complaint. The difference between the to for me means "I don't like what this user is doing" vs. "this user is blatantly breaching policy". The language he used is pretty inflammatory and he should be threatened with blocking by an admin - then if he does it again I would think he get a block, even if it just a temporary one.

I don't know what to do about the images, I agree with you they probably are not user created, but without any evidence it is difficult to argue that they are copyright violations - ultimately how does anyone prove that they took an image? Madmedea 19:20, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the Masuimi max image. Its not mine. Its CLEARLY a professional photoshoot. Took it from her official site. I admit it. But the Annie Hardy image is legit. Don't believe me, right? I'm incoherently making up things, right? I can't be trusted (according to Dismas), right? Fine. None of MY business. If you don't believe me, that's not my problem. Its not like I can't re-upload the image of Annie again, can I? I have plenty of those images and you CANNOT prove that the image of Annie Hardy is not mine :D. I've got nothing to worry about, LALALALALALALALALALA. Oh, if you are thinking of blocking me, because I make puerile and inflammatory comments, go ahead. Thank you very much, and have a fantastic day. Tuskjet 15:05, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've acted on User:Tuskjet's suggestion and blocked him for offensively redirecting your user page. -- Hoary 15:56, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cemetary image

Hello. We would like to publish this image of "Cemetary in Monkton, Vermont" in a Sociology textbook. Would you please contact me at jillenge@yahoo.com for details? I would like to obtain your permission to publish this photo. Thank you. -Jill

Fair use rationale for Image:Reverence_2.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Reverence_2.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use. Suggestions on how to do so can be found here.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. ShakespeareFan00 11:02, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Reverence_1.jpg

I have tagged Image:Reverence_1.jpg as {{no rationale}}, because it does not provide a fair use rationale. If you believe the image to be acceptable for fair use according to Wikipedia policy, please provide a rationale explaining as much, in accordance with the fair use rationale guideline, on the image description page. Please also consider using {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. Thank you. ShakespeareFan00 11:02, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Kevin_white_statue.jpg

I have tagged Image:Kevin_white_statue.jpg as {{no rationale}}, because it does not provide a fair use rationale. If you believe the image to be acceptable for fair use according to Wikipedia policy, please provide a rationale explaining as much, in accordance with the fair use rationale guideline, on the image description page. Please also consider using {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. Thank you. ShakespeareFan00 11:16, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gwen Summers

I got your message. This site can be very confusing. After 30 minutes I finally found this place. I apologize for the remarks left in the body of my wifes page. But when you have a family with kids, the less personal info out there the better. Especially since she has had stalkers in the past as well as just plain mean people out to hurt her. They are the ones that feel her real name needs to be published and continually put her info up. I find myself constantly changing it in order to protect her. We would like it if wikipedia can lock her page from anymore changes from both registered and non-registered users and contributors. I placed part of an article that was posted in the past back up on the page. In it's current state the page lists all the personal information she wishes to have posted. Anymore puts her and our family at risk. Is it possible to keep the page as it is? We would really appreciate it. Thank you. -Johnny Thrust

As I said on your talk page, see WP:OFFICE. Personal info can be removed from a page permanently but you'll have to prove that you are indeed related to her. Dismas|^(talk) 04:19, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Playboy celeb sources

Well, crap. That's not the section I was intending to tag... What I want sources for is the "International editions" section. I'll retag... Valrith 18:15, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Playboy format

I didn't know it. However, it's clearly against how filmography, bibliographies etc. are stated they would be in WP:Manual of Style, so I'll go on in reverting it. Good work and thanks! --Attilios 15:53, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Editing a redirect

Done. Thanks, Dismas. Acad Ronin 16:21, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Inappropriate external links to Wikipedia

Sorry and thanks for your email. Wikio.com is a search engine presenting all available news info in real time on the web. Many Wikipedia pages provide links to Yahoo, IMDB, MySpace and more. Wikio provide a service that synchronizes with the purpose of Wikipedia.

According to Wikipedia rules, it’s impossible to add links if you work for the site you are adding. But we prefer to add our own links out in the open, rather than create a false identity to do the same thing.

Please reconsider allowing links to Wikio under your External Links sections; we really think there is a logical convergence between the services offered between Wikipedia and Wikio.

Best regards, Pat

Re:thanks

No problem! I like getting rid of Vandalism --_ʇuǝɯɯoɔɐqǝɟ 19:20, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That makes one of us. It's just a tiresome chore, a bit less tiresome than having pages left in a vandalized state.

Dismas, you must have been doing a lot of good in order to have so got up the nose of the moron who, under a succession of names, persistently redirects and makes other puerile edits to your user page. But what's with the vandalism count? It seems as if you're proud of having your page vandalized, which in turn leads to the suspicion that vandalisee needs vandalizer as much as vice versa; it anyway gives recognition to your silly stalker, which I imagine is what he craves.

Suggestion: Scrap the vandalism count. -- Hoary 01:44, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tubetends

Done. I'll see if I can't keep an eye on things; his image contributions are easy enough to pull out by pointing to the guidelines at WP:WPPORN: "Also note that images should not be explicit in nature. Pictures with the genitals, bust, or buttocks of the person exposed should not be posted, nor should there be pictures posted of the person engaging in sex acts. Pictures should not include the person covered in any bodily fluids, including semen. The point of a picture is to put a face to a name -- if people want pictures of the person, there is always Google search." Tabercil 22:06, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Follow Up

Hi, would you mind taking a look at my follow-up question about Primal Fear on the July 6 Entertainment Help / Reference Desk? Thanks. I would appreciate any input. (JosephASpadaro 19:45, 12 July 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Patrice Hollis

If you would like the accurate stats and info related to Patrice Hollis for her listing, let me know since it was deleted earlier. I am the photographer that submitted her and got her approved with Playboy and have the email and phone logs to back it up as well as hand written signed Playmate Profile data sheet.

Thank you,

Mark Mosher Mark@IMAGEZZ.com www.IMAGEZZ.com

Ref Desk/Entertainment question

I'm dying to know if I sussed out the right answer for you .... [2]. --LarryMac | Talk 00:26, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free use disputed for Image:Tread lightly logo.gif

This file may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:Tread lightly logo.gif. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted after seven days according to our Criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 05:04, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Replaceable fair use Image:Playboy_October_2002.jpg

Replaceable fair use

Thanks for uploading Image:Playboy_October_2002.jpg. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:

Go to the image description page and edit it to add {{di-replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.
On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace the fair use image by finding a freely licensed image of its subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or a similar) image under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that fair use images which could be replaced by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted 7 days after this notification, per our Fair Use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 06:37, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unspecified source for Image:BACON_bw2.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:BACON_bw2.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, then you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, then their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Fair use, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 07:57, 17 July 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. MER-C 07:57, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image (Image:Empire2002.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Empire2002.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 19:33, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image (Image:Playboy October 2002.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Playboy October 2002.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 19:49, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: deleted bad image link

Sorry. I'm usually rushing when I do it, so I just delete the entire line. But you're right, it doesn't really matter either way, template wise. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 15:34, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Surplus Stores Article

I was very carefull to keep this link as informational and still giving links to GENUINE army suplus gear.

If you want to be more specific you can link to:

army-surplus-m-39.html

with the address added before that www.go-outdoor dot com.

.............

stop reverting my edits you gilded cunt

Let me know what edits you're talking about and I will be able to explain why I'm reverting them. Dismas|^(talk) 17:14, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bridget Marquardt

Hi Dismas,

I edited my first article today to include Bridget Marquardt's marriage to Chad Marquardt in her biography. As I have never done this before, I just wanted to give you the heads-up because I saw that you had been active in that article.

If I did something wrong, would you please let me know so I can avoid making that mistake in the future. I was able to find what I believe to be adequate source evidence for this marriage, as in it's included in her entry on Internet Movie Database. There had been some talk about including her marriage in the entry but it had been decided not to due to lack of proper citation.

I hope I am making sense!

Lucida.ann 18:00, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

EDIT - is there a reason her marriage cannot be included? Nobody else requires a marriage certificate to add it.

Marriage to Chad

Dismas, You still havnen't told me why this needs to be referenced. I have yet to see where you have to put a reference to say that someone is married. Please show me the policy.

Thanks. Lucida.ann 18:37, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your comment

Dismas, you wrote:

"And to say that she's married but not living with the man that she's married to, without a reliable source, is to at least suggest the infidelity of the marriage which for many would be offensive and hurtful. "

We are talking about a woman who is living with a man who is still "married but not living with the (wo)man he's married to."

You should know that I actually paid $30 for a membership at Ancestry.com and searched their records and verified that the marriage exists. I have also personally spoken to her husband.

I don't understand why the part about the marriage and the date cannot be in there and leave out the rest.Lucida.ann 18:56, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you.

Thank you for your help regarding Bridget Marquardt's entry including her marriage. I have been in contact with the managing editor of "The Smoking Gun" and I believe a credible source will be forthcoming.

Spam in Boink

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Boink, by 124.168.70.11 (talk · contribs), another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Boink is blatant advertising for a company, product, group, service or person that would require a substantial rewrite in order to become an encyclopedia article.

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Boink, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. --Android Mouse Bot 2 16:07, 6 August 2007 (UTC) [reply]

the

User:Itsforaquest Itsforaquest 21:34, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I noticed. Oh well...it made me aware of another copyvio. Probably would never have encountered it otherwise. :) Garion96 (talk) 21:50, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A Help Desk Barnstar

		The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
		As one of the top four contributors to the Help Desk, you deserve this barnstar. Thank you! Jreferee ^(Talk) 05:12, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Many notable photographers..."

I am new at this, so maybe I don't understand. I added Robert Scott Hooper to the list of photographers that contributed to Playboy. He certainly qualifies as he had several major pictorials in the magazine from 1973 to 1986. The list of his contributions can be verified on the internet from his own website rscotthooper.com as well as Playboy's site. You can find the magazines with his name on the articles by putting his name in google and seeing the magazines appear that have his articles in them. Wikipedia itself has his name listed as the photographer of Debra Jo Fondren, a very popular Playmate and Playmate of the Year. He actually won the first Playboy Photo award for a Centerfold with Debra Jo Fondren.......am I missing something?tess 15:07, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar

		The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
		For being nice to many users, I award you this barnstar. --Shark face 217 05:29, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Daaaaaang

		A Barnstar Slice
		You get this slice of a Barnstar of Good Humor, as part of the group in the RD/M Daaaaaang thread. This is only a symbolic part of the barnstar, the rest of it lies with the other members. lucid 23:32, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Playboy articles

I was just wondering if you have all of the Playboy centerfold articles on your watchlist? It ended up not mattering, but I might have thought that you would have commented at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marliece Andrada if you had. I have added your talkpage to my watchlist, so feel free to respond here. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 16:02, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it's funny that you mention this. Lately I've been going through each of them to fix little things and make sure that each of them are on my watchlist. I would say I have about 90% of them on it already. I would also say that the ones I don't have on the watchlist are from the 50s/60s era. I had not seen that AFD though, thanks! Dismas|^(talk) 21:04, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are welcome. I think that I was missing many also, but when I went through and made sure that each one was in the category for the proper decade, I think I got them all. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 21:39, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Louise Glover

Louise Glover has been edited by some IP's and new users recently. Would you please review that article and make any needed changes. Thanks. -- Jreferee ^(Talk) 18:13, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Help Desk

Welcome to wikipedia!

I have answered your question at the help desk. I hope that I helped you. Happy editing:)--SJP 08:07, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bridget Marquardt #2

Wiki is supposed to be an encyclopedia. Her birthname is necessary, and has never been a secret of any kind. Nor is it controversial. She says her real name on "The girls next door" not to mention her if you actually watch the dvd's you can clearly see her birthname on her first college degree, before she got married to Chad Marquardt. Also when questioned about it, she says Hef has NO problem with it. Since he himself is married. So do not delete that information unless you call for a "request for comment" on the situation.Rogue Gremlin 01:29, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also if you listen to her radio show on sirius radio She has talked about her marriage and has talked about her maiden name. if you post a response it should be on this pageRogue Gremlin 01:33, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
An exact cite would be preferred, namely with a time stamp and the episode in question. Also, if you have the DVDs, then perhaps it would be a good idea to get a screen capture so as to prove this. -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. ^{Think out loud} 01:48, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Also here are 2 links that prove Her personal webpage stating "Earned her Master's degree in Communications from the University of the Pacific in Stockton" [3] and a webpage about a study she did at the university stating " A Pilot Study Designed to Measure Patients' Self-Concept, Desire for Information and Uncertainties for a Proposed Experimental Study to Improve Overall Health Satisfaction. Bridget Sandmeier, University of the Pacific" [4]Rogue Gremlin 02:09, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- First of all, Rogue, there's no reason to get snippy. Second, it's established that a person's birth name, if that is not what they go by in public such as is the case with celebrities, is to be cited with a reliable source or else removed. The sources that were provided did not do this. IMDb has been noted many times as not being reliable when it comes to biographical information since they rely heavily on contributed information from the general public and don't have the most rigourous fact checking in place. Second, her own site's bio page states that her birth name is Bridget Marquardt. Those two points are the reason why I removed the information. And finally, I've never seen The Girls Next Door (nor do I care to) or listened to her on Sirius, and I'm sure this is true for most people in the world. So it cannot be assumed to just be known by all. As Joe B. said, if you would like to cite these sources then do so. You posted a few links here on my talk page but these were not present on the article's page for references. I wasn't trying to attack you or obscure information. I took the name out simply because it is something that needs sources cited religiously. Dismas|^(talk) 02:37, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Also on the DVD, the premiere episode, as Bridget talks about going to school, they scan over her degrees. If you freeze-frame it...her bachelor's degree from Cal State-Stockton says "Sandmeier," while her M.A. from University of the Pacific says "Sandmeier-Marquardt." And if you watch the first episode you see Bridget was crying and telling the camera how "when she sets her mind to something she really goes after it". and "my husband who just likes to make fun of the show, says 'she is only with hef to get in the Mag'" BTW I wasn't being snippyRogue Gremlin 02:42, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

BTW you are also a lil mistaken on IMdb usage on Wiki. Wiki does not say biographical info from IMdb is unnacceptable. Here is there standard on "Unacceptable usage" The IMDb tends to be weak, or the least, more open for abuse or mis-attribution when discussing less objective matters such as anecdotes and trivia, as well as films which have not yet been released to the general public. Any trivia which was submitted to the film's IMDb entry should presumably have an origin in either secondary sources – interviews or press reports – or primary sources such as DVD extras and commentaries. These are better sources by WP:V's standards and should be used directly in the article if trivia is to be included. Historically, the IMDb has a bad track record for information about unreleased films, with poor accuracy and timeliness of updates. Any information about unreleased films needs to be sourced from primary or secondary sources, as there is otherwise no way to verify even basic data. As per the film notability guidelines, articles about films should not be added until production is already underway, and even then, only if the film clearly meets existing notability guidelines. And again I am not being snippy just pointing out the facts. So unless as is states in the "Acceptable usage" part about IMdb, unless you can find a website stating that she isn't married to Chad Marquardt the IMdb version is perfectly usable. Also on her own personal website she has banner adds for Ooga Booga Inc. owned by her husband(seperated} Chad Marquardt.Rogue Gremlin 02:56, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

After searching for the page that you pulled that from, I see that you got it from WP:CIMDB. At the top of that page, it states This proposal has been rejected by the community. Dismas|^(talk) 03:08, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK then, the fact that you stated earlier on her page than IMdb was not usable was rejected by the community. Thus making it OK. :) Thanx again. BTW I only went to that page because you personally posted it in her discussion page. So like I said the fact that you said Wiki says IMdb is not acceptable has been rejected :) So you suceded in discounting your own info :)Rogue Gremlin 03:19, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Funny. Okay so I was wrong then. But the point is relevant now. That guideline has been rejected. Dismas|^(talk) 03:31, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

exactly cause that was the guidline you tried to cite saying it wasnt acceptable. but the community rejected that proposal. Making it perfectly usable. Not to mention that thousands of other pages on wiki use it as reference material for citations.(even on somefeautured articles)Rogue Gremlin 03:49, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also the link on her page to Ooga Booga Inc. her online costume shop--"Bridget's Costume Shop" owned by Ooga Booga Inc.Rogue Gremlin 03:19, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- And what does Ooga Booga being owned by Chad have to do with her birth name? I don't see the relevance. Dismas|^(talk) 03:38, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It goes to show how why she uses the name Marquardt.Rogue Gremlin 03:49, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Xhawk_sketch.jpg

I have tagged Image:Xhawk_sketch.jpg as {{no rationale}}, because it does not provide a fair use rationale. If you believe the image to be acceptable for fair use according to Wikipedia policy, please provide a rationale explaining as much, in accordance with the fair use rationale guideline, on the image description page. Please also consider using {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. Thank you. Rette tast 15:16, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Playboy

If you have time, you might could stop by [5] Hugh Hefner's page and comment on the "request for comment" "RFC: Is Playboy in The Porn Business? Does this relate to Hefner?" Because the same person tried to add it to his personnal bio too. A place where it doesn't belong since all these claims he was trying to make happened in 2006, and his daughter has ran PEI since 1982. We have told the person it belongs on PEI's page. But not on Hef's personal page since he does not run PEI. A few of us told him this in the RFC but he just can't seem to let it go. So another comment wouldn't hurt. Thanks for your time.Rogue Gremlin 07:02, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK thx, This apparently the same person. Because he placed it on almost every page about Playboy, including Hugh and Christy's. I left the part of the comment that is fact, but not the personal POV part on Playboy Emterprises page, and Christy Hefner's page. But have deleted from all of the rest. As The decision to buy these company's should only fall under PEI and Christy Hefner, and not Hugh Hefner, Playboy Magazine or any other subsidiary of PEI. Thanks in advance for you comment, if you have time.Rogue Gremlin 15:52, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Barbara Moore

Hi. You are right saying that changing a little is normal after 15 years. But if you read well, you saw I have written "in the last years", not "now". I mean she has looked different since some years. I don't want to write lies, but what that everybody can see. You can compare the shoot of 1992 with many other pictures or videos filmed since the middle of 90's and you will be able to notice some changes in her face. She is a little different, it's undeniable. I thought it was just an impression of somebody, but after doing a comparison, I had to confirm that. I even thought she was another person. I think she has had some intervention of plastic surgery (surely rhinoplasty, maybe something else). However, I think it would be right to write about the change, but if it have to be a problem, I can avoid that. It's just that the article is incomplete. Bye. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.13.142.216 (talk) 15:24, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Let's look at what you said... "Curiously, in the last years, she has looked a little different than her Playboy shoot of 1992."

First of all, why is this curious? It's been 15 years, so naturally someone will look "a little different". I would say that it's pretty obvious that someone is going to look different. There's nothing curious about that. Secondly, is there someone noteworthy who said something about this? Was there a fashion reporter or anyone from the magazine who talks about her looking different in a notable publication? There's nothing backing this up. It's just your observances. I'm not saying that you're lieing, I'm just saying there's nothing backing it up or pointing out why it's notable. Dismas|^(talk) 17:25, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have written that she has looked different "in the last years". It means she was different even 8-10 years ago, so since the middle of 90's: it's strange that a person has the face a little different just after 5 years. For this reason I have written "curiously". Saying the truth, this isn't "curious" for me, because I think at some plastic surgery intervention, but I couldn't write that, because is just my opinion. So I have used the word "curiously". I have never found any notable publication which speaks about this change, but the articles of Wikipedia are full of notes which haven't any reference. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.13.142.216 (talk) 20:19, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Mignonette album.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Mignonette album.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. 17Drew 19:49, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Conspitation

Just checking what your rationale was for this revert. No spam was removed but you undid a recent copyedit by myself (in which I incidentally removed some spam for Dulcoease, a laxative). I presume the revert was made in error and I hope you don't mind I've changed it back. JFW | T@lk 20:46, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Choking game

Choking game, an article you created, has been nominated for deletion. We appreciate your contributions. However, an editor does not feel that Choking game satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in the nomination space (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and the Wikipedia deletion policy). Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Choking game and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Choking game during the discussion but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. 1of3 20:08, 10 October 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Images

Hahaha. I can't believe someone finally noticed that. Well, I was with Playboy for 3 years and I still occasionaly go to some events which explains the pictures. I'm in all of the pictures, I just crop myself out in all of them. I'll donate the pictures but I actually don't edit Playboy articles in terms of content, but I do add info to some Catholic articles. Hey, Jenna Jameson is practicing Catholic, besides going to Catholic school all your life does that to you! Glad someone noticed my work though. =) ----Ðysepsion † ^{Speak your mind} 22:26, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Replaceable fair use Image:Playboy 1988 12.jpg

Replaceable fair use

Thanks for uploading Image:Playboy 1988 12.jpg. I noticed the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:

Go to the image description page and edit it to add {{di-replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.
On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace the fair use image by finding a freely licensed image of its subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or a similar) image under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, fair use images which could be replaced by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if not used in an article), per our Fair Use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Corvus cornix 22:34, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]