User talk:Guy1890/Archive 12
 | This is an archive of past discussions about User:Guy1890. 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. |
| Archive 5 | ← | Archive 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 | Archive 13 | Archive 14 | Archive 15 |
Carmel Moore
I note that on the article talkpage you have suggested that this
and this
are not Carmel Moore. Here are some stills from the DVD
which ought to convince you that they are. If they do, might I suggest you state this clearly on the article talkpage. Thank you. Graemp (talk) 12:14, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
- I understand that you're probably trying to expand an article for a performer that you probably like, but I also really don't think that you understand the concept of original research. To be attempting to try and stretch this far to try & "prove" something like this for a really trivial issue is really not what we're supposed to be doing here on Wikipedia. All you are doing is drawing attention to an article that (if I remember correctly) barely survived deletion at AfD. That's not smart behavior at all. Guy1890 (talk) 19:32, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
- I am surprised that you have not acknowledged that the image you suggested was not her is in fact her. I am not trying to expand this article, merely trying to address the concerns of those who have raised issues with the sources. I would point out that I accepted the recent edits you made that removed elements of the article. With regard to this article's AfD discussion, my understanding is that the article did not "barely survive" but survived because of the award she won. Graemp (talk) 09:25, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
- "I am surprised that you have not acknowledged that the image you suggested was not her is in fact her"...and I'm not surprised that you still have no clue that Wikipedia doesn't allow that kind of original research in the first place. "I would point out that I accepted the recent edits you made that removed elements of the article"...because you have no choice in the matter, since they were all in line with well-established Wikipedia policy...most importantly being - put into an article what a citation actually says, not what one wishes that it would say. You also need to learn that there's a difference between a "Keep" outcome at AfD as opposed to a "No consensus" outcome. Hint: One is more definitive than the other. I really can't help the willfully helpless...go away now... Guy1890 (talk) 09:51, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
- I am surprised that you have not acknowledged that the image you suggested was not her is in fact her. I am not trying to expand this article, merely trying to address the concerns of those who have raised issues with the sources. I would point out that I accepted the recent edits you made that removed elements of the article. With regard to this article's AfD discussion, my understanding is that the article did not "barely survive" but survived because of the award she won. Graemp (talk) 09:25, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
- I understand that you're probably trying to expand an article for a performer that you probably like, but I also really don't think that you understand the concept of original research. To be attempting to try and stretch this far to try & "prove" something like this for a really trivial issue is really not what we're supposed to be doing here on Wikipedia. All you are doing is drawing attention to an article that (if I remember correctly) barely survived deletion at AfD. That's not smart behavior at all. Guy1890 (talk) 19:32, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
A reflinks edit
Guy, I comment on an edit you made at User talk:Dispenser/Reflinks#Cosmetic edits. I think its likely that the ref links tool takes the blame rather than you, but I figure you should know about the discussion. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 04:56, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
Jodi West
Hello! I thought you might want to add something to this discussion Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Jodi_West, someone has nominated Jodi West for deletion. Abcmaxx (talk) 20:08, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
- I'm afraid you've generated an article on Wikipedia without fully understanding how notability works on here. I can't do much about that...sorry... Guy1890 (talk) 00:05, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
- I didn't create any of it, I merely moved it to the mainspace. If it's deleted then so be it, seems like a waste though Abcmaxx (talk) 00:45, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
Marriage in Mexico
Cannot thank you enough for helping with all the links on this article. Way too many to manually fix them. It is the first article I ever edited and while I keep up with current changes, with over 300 links, impossible (well, it is possible but not likely) to change them manually. SusunW (talk) 04:23, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
- You're welcome. I actually like doing this kind of work (usually by using one of several available tools). It isn't that easy to keep up with all of the "correct" formatting rules that Wikipedia has on here. Guy1890 (talk) 04:36, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
Boredom?
HW must be bored and is editing porn articles again[1] and removing a lot of sourced content for any of his seemingly "understood only by HW" reasons. He's also making some good cleanup and at least reasonable policy based edits as well, but its the other kind that worry me. @Rebecca1990:@Morbidthoughts: --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 21:44, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
- If this is about adding non-notable award wins & nominations to articles in order to try & prop them up, then count me out. As I've said before, that a pointless process. I don't mind articles having notable award nominations listed, especially if they have valid inline citations associated with them, though - even though they currently add nothing in terms of subject notability at this time. Guy1890 (talk) 04:23, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
Guy, I agree with you about adding non-major awards for the purpose of propping up and article, but removing sourced content (in this case wins) from articles about performers with already clear and/or established notability seems pointless well. It comes across IMO as a "cheap shot" rather than an sincere effort to improve the article. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 18:34, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation and please get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly; your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 02:17, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
Scalhotrod and Hullaballoo Wolfowitz
Re: User_talk:Guy1890#Boredom.3F, have there been any discussions about their long-running edit-warring? --Ronz (talk) 17:37, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
- I don't want any part of this, and an editor with your sorted background certainly isn't going to sort their mess out. Guy1890 (talk) 23:53, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
- So you know nothing and threw in a jibe at me. Noted. --Ronz (talk) 00:18, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
- LOL...in other words, an editor like yourself that has a history of edit warring & Wiki-gamesmanship isn't qualified to be sorting anything like this mess (that I again want nothing to do with) out, period. Guy1890 (talk) 00:22, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
- More insults. Do stop. --Ronz (talk) 00:31, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
- You can go away now "Ronz". Guy1890 (talk) 00:42, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
- Thank you. --Ronz (talk) 19:09, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
- You can go away now "Ronz". Guy1890 (talk) 00:42, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
- More insults. Do stop. --Ronz (talk) 00:31, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
- LOL...in other words, an editor like yourself that has a history of edit warring & Wiki-gamesmanship isn't qualified to be sorting anything like this mess (that I again want nothing to do with) out, period. Guy1890 (talk) 00:22, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
- So you know nothing and threw in a jibe at me. Noted. --Ronz (talk) 00:18, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation and please get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly; your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 00:41, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
Drama boards
Re: [2].
Some discussions are worth (to me) continuing, but not worth adding bricks to the wall of text. Perhaps you'd feel inclined to add a few words here.
I guess there's no avoiding the paternalistic tone; I find myself doing it with those less experienced than I am (although I usually manage to avoid explicit references to relative experience).
you'll eventually come around to one of two opinions...that many (not all) of Wikipedia's drama boards help Wikipedia move forward with improving an online encyclopedia or they hinder its further development.
I've already come around to one of those opinions, the former. I don't know what in my comments implied otherwise.
You may feel that some "drama boards" are a net positive, but I think you're in the minority among those who use the term. From what I've seen, "drama" means "heated, extended discussion that does not concern or interest me". Many of the people who repeatedly slam "drama" are often seen engaging in it when it's in their perceived interest to do so.
I think the term "drama board" is unconstructive and inherently combative, and itself hinders the project's further development. If people want to help the project, that's done by positive efforts, not by spreading negativity in their wake. I think the jaded guys with 8 years could learn something from the unjaded newer editors, too. ―Mandruss ☎ 01:34, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
- You appear to have been actively editing on Wikipedia for a little over a year, which is not very long. That doesn't mean that you know nothing about how things work on Wikipedia, but it also doesn't make you an "expert" by any stretch of the imagination. I know what a drama board is and what it is not. Like it or not, they exist on Wikipedia, and almost every single post made on those boards takes away from Wikipedia's primary goal, which is to build an online encyclopedia - that's why I'm here. Just think of the hours & hours & hours of wasted time spent debating issues...many of which will never be settled in full no matter how much discussion is had...on those boards. It's depressing.
- The original proposal here (that I saw before I came the VP(P)) appeared to just be about "punctuation, capitalization, spelling, and other style issues", which are pretty much already covered well by the WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors, WikiProject Grammar, and the Wikipedia:Typo Team - all of which are active (and I'm a member of them). The actual proposal at VP(P) appears to be somewhat broader, and the RS noticeboard, on more than a few occasions, rarely comes to the same final conclusion about what constitutes a "reliable source" again & again, which is pretty pointless and not at all a good basis for a brand new noticeboard.
- The NPOV & External links noticeboards both appear to attract very few editors, which makes their overall utility dubious at best. DRV is biased drama board pretty much against retaining most article content. AN/I is monumentally huge waste of time, and its bastard cousin AN rarely seems to go against its fellow administrators, which pretty much makes it next to useless as well.
- The only board that I've come across that's even marginally useful has been the BLP noticeboard, but there's also a lot of useless drama there as well.
- I only actively monitor a few of the above drama boards just on the off-chance that some of the drama from there spills over into article content that I have already contributed to or might want to contribute to in the future. I have enough real-life drama in my life...I don't need more fake online drama as well. I strongly stand by my original comment on this matter: "What Wikipedia needs least is another drama board" - especially one that pretty much duplicates venues that are already readily available to address these kind of mostly trivial issues. Guy1890 (talk) 02:39, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
- My comments, both here and there, had nothing to do with the merits of that proposal. They were in my opinion worth saying, but tangential and meta, which is why I brought this here. And I fear you've missed their point. But thanks and never mind. ―Mandruss ☎ 02:50, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
- I'm aware that you apparently feel so strongly about that proposal, which is what I was originally commenting on in good faith in the first place, that you chose to "abstain" from supporting it. There are two ways to learn my friend...the easy way & the hard way. Both work equally well...good luck with either one... Guy1890 (talk) 02:55, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
- My comments, both here and there, had nothing to do with the merits of that proposal. They were in my opinion worth saying, but tangential and meta, which is why I brought this here. And I fear you've missed their point. But thanks and never mind. ―Mandruss ☎ 02:50, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
Dead links at Rape jihad
Thanks for discovering these. Note that all of the identified problem sources were carried in from their respective "main articles", so those articles will contain the obsolesced links as well. Pax 07:28, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
Its just missing the winners for the moment and I was thinking of using the same table format in the Soft and Hard Adult Film and Television Awards article. The award is in its 6th year, is covered by AVN and XBIZ, and there are discontinued awards that did not make it to 6. @Rebecca1990: --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 16:18, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
- Scalhotrod, the RISE awards are simply not notable. They do not meet the WP:GNG. There isn't a single AVN or XBIZ article on them that isn't a press release. I only found two AVN articles on the RISE awards ([3] & [4]) that aren't LABELED as "Company News" (which means press release), but neither of them has an author, which indicates that they are also press releases. There is also no mainstream coverage of them. RISE doesn't even appear to be a legitimate award. Nothing suggests that a physical ceremony is even hosted somewhere for this "event"? Rebecca1990 (talk) 16:58, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
- I've actually contacted them about links to press and surprisingly they responded. They said they would add a Press section to their website in a week or so as time permits. I also understand what you are saying about Press Releases, but if they are simply used for basic and strictly factual information, how is it different from using a WP:PRIMARY. I'd like to see what the folks at RISE come up before we AfD the article. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 17:04, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
- WP:GNG requires the topic to have "significant coverage in reliable sources that are INDEPENDENT OF THE SUBJECT. GNG #4 states "'Independent of the subject' excludes works produced by the article's subject or someone affiliated with it. For example, advertising, press releases, autobiographies, and the subject's website are not considered independent". Press releases and the RISE awards website are the only sources which exist for the RISE awards. These sources don't satisfy GNG. As you can see, the RISE Awards article has already been tagged for notability and will likely end up PRODed or sent to AfD. Rebecca1990 (talk) 19:26, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
- I've actually contacted them about links to press and surprisingly they responded. They said they would add a Press section to their website in a week or so as time permits. I also understand what you are saying about Press Releases, but if they are simply used for basic and strictly factual information, how is it different from using a WP:PRIMARY. I'd like to see what the folks at RISE come up before we AfD the article. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 17:04, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
Hello
Hey there. I was checking your edits and user page and i found you very interesting. Even if i don't know who you are in real but you seem such a nice buddy. I mean damn i like you :D I'm not lying or some $hit like that, you're just interesting for me as we both interested in porn. Waiting for your answer :D XO --Croxx036 (talk) 10:44, 21 April 2015 (UTC)