User talk:Dismas/archive19

Skin Diamond

I can cite that, but the video is age-restricted, so it takes you to a sign-in page instead of the actual video. Just google it. Casino 01 (talk) 09:43, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

@Casino 01:You have the WP:BURDEN of citing the information that you're adding to the article. You don't need to cite the YouTube link, you can cite an interview or article where the song is discussed. That would provide more information than the video anyway. The video just acknowledges that it exists. An article would actually discuss the song and her input into it. Dismas|^(talk) 10:14, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

P.S. Also, it doesn't matter that it's age restricted. It would still be verifiable. Dismas|^(talk) 10:24, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Okay, I've got it now. Thanks. Casino 01 (talk) 10:32, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Edits to entry for Juliet Anderson

I'm not sure whether I'm in the right place. What I really want to do is explain my situation and then find out how to do what I want to do.

I am in the process of writing a biography of Juliet Anderson (deceased), who is listed here on Wikipedia. I have attempted to go in and correct several factual errors on that page, based on information I have from her own personal journals, letters, etc. I received these from her family.

I suppose I could wait until my own book is published, and then make the corrections based on that published data, but that is going to be six months to a year.

Is there any other option? Can I have Juliet's family contact Wikipedia (perhaps providing a copy of her death certificate or something else that would prove they are indeed her family)?

Please, someone, tell me how to proceed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by KarenAins (talk • contribs) 05:35, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

@KarenAins: This is my talk page. So, unless someone else is watching this page, you are only talking to me here. That said, anyone else is free to reply if they know about this conversation. This is much the same as your own talk page which is at User talk:KarenAins.

As for what you can use as a source, Anderson's journals, letters, etc. would not be allowed to be used since they have not been previously published. In order to use something as a reference, that item should be able to be verified by any other person. For instance, if a book is used as a reference, then anyone can take the name of that book and go to a library to look it up.

Wikipedia is a tertiary source and as such it relies on information that has been previously published. We could eventually use the book that you are writing but you should not be the one adding the information from that book because you have a conflict of interest. You would obviously want the book to sell more copies and thus want to use it as a reference here. So, when your book is published, please post any corrections you may have on the talk page of the article at Talk:Juliet Anderson.

Since Wikipedia is a tertiary source and is based on what has already been published, we must base our article on what is available now. Wikipedia is a work in progress.

I encourage you to read the pages that I've linked to here as well as those on your own talk page. And if you have any questions, please feel free to ask me here or ask other editors at the Help Desk. Dismas|^(talk) 06:13, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Helena Karel

Hello, first of all excuse my english, i'm french. I wrote the page about Helena Karel. Friday, it has been proposed for deletion. So i had to establish her notability. WP:PORNBIO, says that the person must Has been featured multiple times in notable mainstream media.. That's the reason i added the magazines she appeared. Doing that, the process was stoped yesterday (i still have problem with sources....). You undid that part (not usefull for you, i undestand, but english criterias are those). So excuse me but, i've to undo your delete. We can keep in touch if you want, i'll watch for some days your page. Have a nice day ! Sg7438 (talk) 06:09, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

I removed it because Wikipedia is not a place to post a resume and is not for promotion. There's no question that she's a model, so it's logical to think that she's appeared in magazines and various media. (Note: In English we don't use the word "medias". The plural is simply "media".) What is not obvious is that these appearances were notable. Additionally, we don't list magazine appearances like this in other articles about other models. Look, for instance, at Clara Morgane. Her bio simply lists six magazines (though these are not referenced).

I would suggest you try to find references in secondary sources for the other claims in the article such as Karel's awards or her background. Right now you have used only primary sources. There is no argument that she's a model. I'm still not convinced that she's a notable model. You can demonstrate that notability by providing better references. Dismas|^(talk) 08:47, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

ok thanks for the answer. I'm not doing promotion, just translating a page about a very known french star of porn... Fool idea, it seems ! I would just like to come back on that : wp:pornbio says in section 3 : Has been featured multiple times in notable mainstream media.. That's why i added all magazines writing about HK (like on Clara Morgane's page) : i'm just trying to explain (not to contest). This morning i tried to improve the page, please, have a look and tell me ! TY Sg7438 (talk) 11:33, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

I nominated Helena Karel for deletion, please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Helena Karel. --Λeternus ^(talk) 07:56, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Mary McCarty

I am wondering as to what conflict of interest you are talking about, because there is none, I am an intern working on a research exercise and all of my references I got from newspaper articles. If I am citing them improperly then can you please tell me where I should go to see how to correctly cite my references.Paularyan1 (talk) 19:31, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

@Paularyan1: I'm talking about the conflict of interest that you declared here. And you were informed that it was a conflict of interest here. I don't appreciate you trying to feign innocence.

Help:Referencing for beginners will start you on your way to properly referencing your sources. Dismas|^(talk) 23:33, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Eugene Daub

Hello Dismas, I would like to request your guidance on a page I created. Eugene Daub, sculptor. This page seemed to be very well verified, in my opinion, and the artist is highly notable. However it has been tagged as being written as an 'advertisement'. I want to correct the problem but I have questions as to how to make it stick. 1. First of all, there may be some question as to using a neutral point of view. Can you point out any 'puffery' you may observe? 2. There is also a comment about inappropriate external links. I do not think I am clear about that complaint. 3. finally, how do I have the flag removed once I make corrections? You have been helpful to me in the past and I would appreciate you feedback. Not everyone here is always helpful. Dr. Andrea Bruce (talk) 20:57, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Eugene Daub (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Just throwing in a convenience link for now. Dismas|^(talk) 21:24, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

After having just read the article, I pretty much agree with the advert tag. I'd have been torn between that and the {{Like resume}} tag. But let me get to your points one at a time...

1. I don't see any puffery. What I consider puffery is things like "He was the greatest..." or "Nobody had done blah blah for the last 50 years..." without any sources. I could say that Abe Lincoln was a great orator but I'd have to cite someone who said that. What I do see is a list of accomplishments sort of posing as prose. The career section is nothing more than a number of small paragraphs that only serve to list an accomplishment or paid job. There's no prose to it. And definitely no sources. It could be fleshed out with some reviews, both positive and negative.
2. The external links were partially taken out here. The first was because you were using a Google search as a substitute for a reference or wikilink to an article about what a figurative monument is. The second is actually still prevalent in the article. External links should not be used in the prose of an article in this way. If a person/term has an article, then link to the article. But if they don't, don't simply link those words to an external site. If they are deserving of an article but one doesn't exist yet, link the words anyway. Red links are okay. If Anne Olson Daub or any of the other terms that are linked in that fashion are unlikely to ever have an article, simply don't link them.
3. Once you make the corrections, you can remove the tag yourself. It's at the top of the article. There is no automated process to remove them or any reviewer that comes along to check them. Once you feel the issue has been addressed, you can remove it yourself. If the person who put the tag in feels that it's still applicable after you've made your edits, then they can put it back in. It may also be helpful to ask the person who tagged it why they tagged it in the first place. In this case, that was User:Deb.

Yes, some people are more helpful than others but then that's people for you.  :)

Oh, and one last thing, his marriage should definitely have a reference. If that is his or his wife's own web site, that's fine. Dismas|^(talk) 01:27, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Thank you so much for the feedback. I will work on these points this week. Deb has been rather hostile towards my efforts, without taking the time to point out the problems (speedy deletions seems to be his specialty). I am saving all my work as a precaution. Thanks again! Dr. Andrea Bruce (talk) 21:02, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Madeleine Collinson

I'm wondering if the whole article should be AfDd if there is not sufficient notability when the person died to be able to find a single mention in WP:RS. What do you think? --Jersey92 (talk) 21:31, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

I don't know about that. I think there would probably be enough sources to satisfy notability pretty well if we took the trouble to get paper sources from the time she was in the lime light. As for an RS of her death, maybe we'll have to find a Maltese reference since the article says that's where she was living. Dismas|^(talk) 23:22, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

IMDb says she Died: August 14, 2014 (age 62). I know that citing IMDb is problematic but I don't see why we can't consider using that as a RS on this, since dates of birth and death are not simply user-generated content there. --ToniSant (talk) 10:12, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Dismas. You have new messages at ToniSant's talk page.
Message added 09:54, 23 August 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

ToniSant (talk) 09:54, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Madeleine Collinson

e Thanks for your interest. To-date I couldn't find any local source which mentions her death.Neither in English nor in Maltese. Will check with my local contacts and, if successful,will advise .

Thank you! Dismas|^(talk) 10:58, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Help with new article title

I searched for any information about changing the title of an article and found your name in an archive. I am a new page reviewer and have found this new article Kannamangalam (Temble) should be named Kannamangalam Temple, the name that I found on google about this subject. I don't have the permissions/privelege of being able retitle this article. Can it be done by me or do you do this sort of thing? bpage (talk) 01:08, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

The article must be moved to the new article title. Your account has the ability to make that change. Let me know if you have any questions. Dismas|^(talk) 01:21, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

hi dismas

Are you a girl ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Moazzam Ahmed Kamangar (talk • contribs) 04:36, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

See my user page. Dismas|^(talk) 12:24, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Sorry

This is Almulust, yes I edited Erika's page. I have a lot of references (since I actually work with her) and would like to update her page, which has terribly old infos. Please, could you be more specific on where you have problems with the info I submitted? I never edited Wikipedia before. And we really need the page up to date, so please would you help? Thanks.79.155.139.100 (talk) 12:18, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

I can help. There are a couple things I'd like you to look over.

• Wikipedia:Autobiography - Even though you say you work for her, this would still be good for you to read.
• Wikipedia:Conflict of interest - This is also relevant.

Also, it would help if you logged into your account when working here. It makes it easier to tell it's really you instead of some IP address (which may change). I have to run now. Dismas|^(talk) 12:30, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Getting back to what I was saying, it would be best if you left your comments about what you feel should be added/corrected/etc. on the article's talk page which can be found at Talk:Erika Lust. Please post what you feel should be changed as well as a source for that information. Sources cannot be personal knowledge. They should be published sources whether on the web or in book, magazines, or online video. Then impartial editors can decide whether that information should be added to the article and make any changes necessary. Thanks, Dismas|^(talk) 18:05, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Hi, I think you've undone my whole editing again, yet I submitted a bunch of diverse, accurate and objective sources to support the writing I contributed with. Could you please inform me on what the problem is now? I understand the need of verification, but then, what's the point of keeping an extremely old information about someone who is currently quite relevant? Is this useful for Wikipedia readers? Is this better? At least, could you just edit the points that are not "impartial" enough according to you, but leave the other infos which are facts strongly supported by published sources? Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.139.237.232 (talk) 14:19, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

There are a few things wrong. And again, I'd like to point out WP:COI and suggest that you make suggestions for edits on the talk page of the article. That said...

• You haven't provided a source for her birth date or birth name which is needed per WP:BLP.
• "She is a pioneer of feminist pornography." is incredibly POV and has no source. This should be said by someone else about her though. Not her own claim. WP:RS, WP:V, and such.
• You've stripped much of the formatting such as italics for film titles. You've made the formatting worse.
• There are several laudatory phrases such as "one of the most important reference works" which have no reference. Again, they're incredibly POV. See WP:NPOV.
• In the awards section, you've stripped out most of the references and the links to the web archive in preference for bare URLs. Again, you've made the formatting worse.

Dismas|^(talk) 10:19, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks

Just wanted to say thanks for correcting my edit done on 31 Aug and for giving me the "good faith edit" benefit of the doubt. I had somehow inexplicably confused the wrong women with the right women and ... jeez, I hope this isn't a sign of early onset dementia. < sigh ...>__209.179.60.161 (talk) 23:54, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

I think you might enjoy it

If you have not yet done so, come to WP:AFC, sign up as a participant, enable the helper script, and review a few drafts. Even one per day wil make a dent in the backlog, and it's fun! Fiddle Faddle 07:55, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Timtrent, I have actually reviewed a few. My problem is that between school and work, I have very little time for in-depth Wikipedia editing. And I've found that by reviewing those drafts, I am bound to get a number of follow up questions from the author. And I don't feel I have enough time to properly give them the attention that that requires. Maybe I'll give it another shot though. Dismas|^(talk) 12:48, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

We do get follow up questions, that is for sure. What I find is that answering them thougthfully is a benefit to me in real life. I find I am more patient! Fiddle Faddle 21:24, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

ANI discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. The ANI discussion involves the Molly Ringwald problems you have noted elsewhere. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 01:47, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

reply

Okay. I have mutual friends who know Stacey Dash personally and whomever keeps changing her birth year to make her appear younger is ridiculous. I have the 2006 issue of her posing in Playboy that year and the big deal for that magazine was that she had just turned 40. That was 2006. I will cite the sources when I get up in the morning and feel like messing with it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Factual87 (talk • contribs) 09:09, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

@Factual87: You'll need a published source and not just your friends' personal knowledge. That's what we call original research. Sources must be able to be verified and that leaves out your friends. Dismas|^(talk) 09:49, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Thank you

For continuing attention to the Rauner page, to ensure that exuberant supporters do not jump the gun with declarations, or give short shrift to WP policies regarding BLP sourcing. Leprof 7272 (talk) 06:17, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

Thanks, I will review the "howto" on referencing and do it properly from now on.

YouCallThisClean? (talk) 05:17, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Lisa Marie Scott

page http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Lisa_Marie_Scott&action=history

I deleted the references to www.lisamariescott.com because the website is no longer active. Why did you reverse the edits?

The page is still available, I'm pretty sure, through web.archive.org. I'm at work right now, so I can't see the content but it can be retrieved and the reference re-tooled. If you can't do it, I'll try to get to it when I get home. Dismas|^(talk) 00:47, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Copyright checks when performing AfC reviews

Hello Dismas. This message is part of a mass mailing to people who appear active in reviewing articles for creation submissions. First of all, thank you for taking part in this important work! I'm sorry this message is a form letter – it really was the only way I could think of to covey the issue economically. Of course, this also means that I have not looked to see whether the matter is applicable to you in particular.

The issue is in rather large numbers of copyright violations ("copyvios") making their way through AfC reviews without being detected (even when easy to check, and even when hallmarks of copyvios in the text that should have invited a check, were glaring). A second issue is the correct method of dealing with them when discovered.

If you don't do so already, I'd like to ask for your to help with this problem by taking on the practice of performing a copyvio check as the first step in any AfC review. The most basic method is to simply copy a unique but small portion of text from the draft body and run it through a search engine in quotation marks. Trying this from two different paragraphs is recommended. (If you have any question about whether the text was copied from the draft, rather than the other way around (a "backwards copyvio"), the Wayback Machine is very useful for sussing that out.)

If you do find a copyright violation, please do not decline the draft on that basis. Copyright violations need to be dealt with immediately as they may harm those whose content is being used and expose Wikipedia to potential legal liability. If the draft is substantially a copyvio, and there's no non-infringing version to revert to, please mark the page for speedy deletion right away using {{db-g12|url=URL of source}}. If there is an assertion of permission, please replace the draft article's content with {{subst:copyvio|url=URL of source}}.

Some of the more obvious indicia of a copyvio are use of the first person ("we/our/us..."), phrases like "this site", or apparent artifacts of content written for somewhere else ("top", "go to top", "next page", "click here", use of smartquotes, etc.); inappropriate tone of voice, such as an overly informal tone or a very slanted marketing voice with weasel words; including intellectual property symbols (™,®); and blocks of text being added all at once in a finished form with no misspellings or other errors.

I hope this message finds you well and thanks again you for your efforts in this area. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 02:20, 18 November 2014 (UTC).

       Sent via--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:20, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Holly Peers on wiki....

Dear Dismas,

Thank you for your email regarding my recent edit on the page for Holly Peers.

You mention I have a conflict of interest and my addition has been removed, I have no conflict of interest in any way, I just stated the facts of discovering her. I therefore ask for your advice, as I was the person that discovered Holly, I did her first photo shoot for her and I did submit her first images to the agency that has signed her and mentioned on her wiki page.

This information needs to be included on her bio, because I get asked by other models and photographers about this. As it stands, the information you state is incorrect.

Can you please advise me further on altering this information?

Thank you once again.

Best wishes,

Dave Henshaw — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.14.140.22 (talk • contribs)

You say "I have no conflict of interest in any way" although you also claim to be the same Dave Henshaw that was mentioned in this edit and also claims to have had an impact on Peers' career. That last point, especially, creates a conflict of interest. If she does well in her career, that gives you an accomplishment to get work in the future. How is that not a conflict of interest?

Second, you provided no reference to a reliable source for your edit. In order to be able to verify the information in this encyclopedia, we rely on reliable sources where the information comes from. We cannot take your word for it.

You also added a link to your own personal web site. This is a form of advertising and advertising is not acceptable on Wikipedia. Your comment about other people asking you about this increases my thoughts about you wanting to use the encyclopedia as a means of advertising for your own career.

Since you yourself do not have an article here, I don't see how you are worthy of a mention in the Peers article.

And finally, I don't see how not saying that you discovered her makes the article incorrect. Not saying something doesn't necessarily make everything else wrong. Dismas|^(talk) 02:27, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Dear Dismiss, Thank you for the lecture and for the lack advice on 'how to' add the correct information as requested, that was much appreciated. For your information and future knowledge, a conflict of interest is a situation in which the concerns or aims of two different parties are incompatible, which is not the case here. I added a statement that clearly pointed out that I was one of the people that discovered Holly Peers, which causes no concern in any way, it is simply a fact. If this information was available on the internet elsewhere, then I would have obviously put a link to it, but seems as that information is not available and her brief biography is here on wiki, I simply tried to update it as your website suggests. This is also why I added a link to my website, my blog shows information on discovering Holly Peers, together with the shots I took and pictures of her with me at the shoot, it was not intended as an advertisement as I am busy enough, plus if I was looking to advertise then I wouldn't rely on people as negative as you to do so. I am so truly pleased that I'm not "worthy" of having an article on your website, I might even mention that when I win my next award. And finally, I'll tell you how not mentioning her discovery makes the article appear incorrect, you state that she started modelling in 2009 and soon appeared in the Sun, when in fact she didn't start modelling, she attended a photo shoot at our request and those images were submitted to an agency, she didn't start modelling, that is the point, it is therefore misleading to other models and teenagers aspiring to be like her, but with you hiding behind a keyboard and not really caring about how content you publish may affect young girl, I guess it won't make much of a difference. Anyway, have a great day and thanks for being you!

I don't know why I would add any 'how to' information here when it has already been posted to your talk page in the welcome message that I left. The talk page to which I refer is at User talk:Dave Henshaw and not this IP address that you are editing from now.

As far as the conflict of interest goes, this encyclopedia has an interest in providing information which is neutral and verifiable. By providing a link to your business, your interest seems to lie in promoting yourself. Those interests conflict.

I could go over many more things but again, there are many links to information which have been posted to your talk page.

I did look at your site, by the way, and I don't see where it verifies your claims.

I don't recall saying that you weren't worthy of an article here. Just that you don't currently have on. Wikipedia is a work in progress. Many articles are added on a daily basis. Perhaps one could be written about you, though we advise against you doing it.

I don't mean to be lecturing but you seem to have a pretty thin skin, as evidenced by things like your sarcastic tone and the mis-spelling of my name, so maybe you took it that way.

I look forward to seeing you accept some awards. Perhaps I'll see you in Nashville next year for Imaging. If you come over to the US for it, that is. Dismas|^(talk) 17:36, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Straw Poll

There is a straw poll that may interest you regarding the proper use of "Religion =" in infoboxes of atheists.

The straw poll is at Template talk:Infobox person#Straw poll.

--Guy Macon (talk) 09:18, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the help!

To StuRat, Tcncv, Salix alba, Dismas and Mandruss. I gather that most of the time when you answer questions at the reference desk, you never hear back, so I wanted to let everyone involved in Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Computing/2014 August 26#Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Computing/2014 August 17#Please help me buy the right wire redux know a few months later that it made a real convenience difference in my life and is much appreciated! Thanks again.--108.54.18.254 (talk) 18:55, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

I do appreciate when questioners reply back. Even with a simple thank you at the end of the thread. So, um, you're welcome and thank you for thanking us!  :-) Dismas|^(talk) 00:24, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Photo changes to Jasmin_St._Claire page

Can you please give me guidance as to how to get the correct picture up on the page? It was uploaded to Commons by the copyright holder who signed the agreement to for the CC license. When I look at the picture on Commons it shows the correct license. The revert back that you did mentioned that it does not have the correct license. Here is the link:

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Rhea_Alessandra_Calaveras,_%28Jasmin_St._Claire%29.jpg

I'm not sure what the correct step would be since I followed the guide for uploading the picture and it does show that the picture is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 International license. Your help is very much appreciated. Atominn (talk) 01:09, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

The license doesn't make sense to me. It claims that the author is someone named Rhea A Devlugt. But then the source says "Own work". So are you Rhea A Devlugt? That is not clear. If Devlugt is someone else, then it is not your own work. Dismas|^(talk) 01:30, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

So should I have put my Wikipedia user name in that section instead of the real name? Yes, I am the author. If I have to re-upload it again and do the license again with my user name instead I will do that. Please let me know. Thank you. Atominn (talk) 01:38, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

If you are the person who took the photograph (photographers generally keep the copyright to all photos that they take) then yes, you are the author and your name (or your username) should be there. My primary concern is who owns the image. If you're not the photographer, then you need to contact the photographer to have them release the rights to that image. For instance, see this image which is one that I took. I took the photo, so my name is listed as the author and it says that it is my own work.

A secondary concern is the naming of the image. Why use a name (Calaveras) that is not her name? Dismas|^(talk) 01:46, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

The copyright is owned by Jasmin St. Claire, which is a stage name. Rhea Alessandra Calaveras is also a stage name. Rhea A Devlugt is the actual legal name. So the name on the license is the correct name of who owns the copyright who also has control of this username. I'm just sitting with her helping her navigate through the process of correcting misinformation on the wiki page and having an updating photo, of which she does own the copyright to. I'm not sure if that helps or makes it a little more confusing. Atominn (talk) 01:57, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

You both should read over the conflict of interest guideline as well as the autobiography guideline, especially the section on problems in an article about you. Dismas|^(talk) 02:32, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

I have read over both. Do either of those apply to just simply changing a photo? There's no autobiographical information being written. Right now I'm just trying to do a picture change. I certainly understand where you're coming from, I just don't see how updating a photo is either a COI or an attempt at self-promotion. If I just simply have no hope of getting the picture updated, please let me know, but I'd appreciate it if you would take the above thought into consideration. Thanks again for your help. Atominn (talk) 04:54, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

I see your point. I do appreciate that you've read them. Dismas|^(talk) 09:10, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Yeah

I've looked before for picture tutorials but unable to find. Now that you shared them, I know where to look. And by editing the picture with the correct numerical coding, you showed me how to resize them.--Taeyebaar (talk) 23:44, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Interview for The Signpost

This is being sent to you as a member of WikiProject Articles for creation

The WikiProject Report would like to focus on WikiProject Articles for creation for a Signpost article. This is an excellent opportunity to draw attention to your efforts and attract new members to the project. Would you be willing to participate in an interview? If so, here are the questions for the interview. Just add your response below each question and feel free to skip any questions that you don't feel comfortable answering. Multiple editors will have an opportunity to respond to the interview questions, so be sure to sign your answers. If you know anyone else who would like to participate in the interview, please share this with them. Thanks, Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (confabulate) @ 20:58, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Lisa Daniels

I am the publicists and Manger for lisa daniels. And I would like your help on updating her page. Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bigbrains78 (talk • contribs)

Update to Audrey Hollander's Wiki Page--Divorce

Dismas, Otto and Audrey's divorce was considered private and not included in interviews. Both parties never planned to make it public UNTIL it has developed to be a liability now that Otto has being given directorial exclusivity for Hustler's "Barley Legal" series. Now, Otto is asking that all bios he is mentioned in should be updated to include information that he and Audrey divorced in July 2011. If you need a reference cite/confirmation, I'll give you his email, does that work? I am also trying to get a wiki article for Otto Bauer approved (someone deleted his existing wiki, for some unknown reason) which will reflect the change in marital status as well. BlackAndBlueMedia (talk) 22:36, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

@BlackAndBlueMedia: See WP:BLP. We just can't put information like that in an article unless there's a source. We could use an email from him but I am not the person to handle that. Please see the "problems in an article about you" section of WP:AUTO for information about how to email someone that can confirm his identity and the information. Dismas|^(talk) 05:19, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

@Dismas: Updated information with cite to AIP Daily interview with Audrey Hollander. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BlackAndBlueMedia (talk • contribs)

I see that, thanks. FYI, you don't need to ping me on my own talk page. Users get a notification alert when anyone other than them edits their talk page. I pinged you above just because you're new to WP and I wasn't sure you knew how to check back here for a reply. Dismas|^(talk) 21:34, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi Dismas. I'm not familiar at all with editing of biographies of adult film actors/actress. Moreover, I only came across this edit indirectly via this Teahouse post. Anyway, I have posted some concerns regarding the reliability and suitability of the source being used to support the Hollander-Bauer divorce at Talk:Audrey Hollander#Divorce so any comments you may have would be appreciated. Thanks in advance. - Marchjuly (talk) 01:57, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Re Wiki help page.

Thanks.Anmccaff (talk) 05:29, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Email

Hello, Dismas. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Mike V • Talk 02:13, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

@Mike V: Thank you for bringing that error to my attention. I will try to double check things better next time. And I have NO idea where that title came from!

That said, I don't see why you had to email me to get more immediate attention from me. The issue had already been fixed. Dismas|^(talk) 03:40, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Brigitta Bulgari

Thanks for your communication regarding our update to the “Brigitta Bulgari” entry on Wikipedia. To clarify our position, we have edited the page because the person featured on the page is not accurately referred to as Brigitta Bulgari. Her real name is Brigitta Kocsis, and she no longer uses Brigitta Bulgari, because of a court order in Italy. News reports, including those cited at the Wikipedia page (fn.10), confirm that Brigitta Bulgari is not her real name. And we also provided you with the Italian court order preventing Ms. Kocsis from using the “Bulgari” name, Court of Milan, judgment n. 633/09.

Given these facts, we repeat our request that the page for Ms. Kocsis be updated so that it does not present inaccurate and misleading information. All references to Ms. Kocsis should be revised to make clear that Bulgari is her assumed name and one which she is no longer allowed to use. For example, the title of the entry should be revised to use her legal name, Brigitta Kocsis. The article itself could read “Brigitta Kocsis, born 29 Sept. 1982, is a Hungarian pornographic actress and fashion model, who formerly used the assumed name Brigitta Bulgari.” This can be followed by a citation to the judgment from the Italian court. Alternatively, a paragraph should be added to her biography discussing the Italian court’s judgment concerning her name. Similarly, all references to her in the Biography section of her entry should refer to her as Brigitta or Kocsis, not “Bulgari.” While Ms. Kocsis may have once performed under the Bulgari name, she can no longer do so and to continue to only list her under her former stage name (and not any the other stage names such as: Brigitte Bui, Brigitta Kocis Bulgari, Brigitta Kocsis Bulgari, Brigitta Bui Kocsis, Bisse Bui or Brigitta Koss) is misleading and inaccurate.

We believe that continuing to refer to Brigitta Kocsis by a stage name that she is no longer legally permitted to use leads to a misleading and inaccurate page about her. If the mission of Wikimedia and its various projects is to provide accurate information, the fact that Ms. Kocsis can no longer refer to herself as Brigitta Bulgari must be referenced at her Wikipedia entry and the overall entry should not mislead or confuse project users as to her true, legal identity. We ask that this entry be updated as discussed above by no later than February 16, 2015. 63.138.172.9 (talk) 18:48, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Just adding a convenience link for now: Brigitta Bulgari (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). --Dismas|^(talk) 20:48, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Per WP:COMMONNAME, the article should be titled Brigitta Bulgari. It is the name that she is best known by.

We don't have a reliable source for her legal name. Due to pornographic performers using stage names, we do not normally use their legal names unless they have released it such as confirming their name in an interview. Having their legal name in a court case does not constitute their release of that information. See Wikipedia:WikiProject Pornography#Real names of performers and WP:BLPNAME.

As I said on the talk page, a court case in Italy does not have any bearing on a web site that is hosted within the U.S.

And I don't understand why you mention February 16. Is that some sort of legal threat? If so, see Wikipedia:No legal threats. Dismas|^(talk) 07:48, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

PoM March 2015 : Chelsie Aryn

Athanatophobos February 11th, 2015

Hello,

I don't understand why you deleted my work about 2015 PoM. Chelsie Aryn is actually the PoM for March and I put a reference about it with her datasheet.

If something was wrong, don't need deleting all my work!

Regards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Athanatophobos (talk • contribs) 08:51, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

@Athanatophobos: Your work is still in the page history. It can easily be restored when you find a reliable source.

A scan of a Playmate Data Sheet is not a reliable source since you could have easily made that image with Photoshop or any other image editing program of that nature. A reliable source would be something like wekinglypigs.com (which doesn't yet list the March Playmate) or any number of other reliable sites including Playboy's own web site. Dismas|^(talk) 09:31, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Dismas. You have new messages at WP:Help_desk#Block_evasion_noticeboard.3F.
Message added 16:26, 13 February 2015 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Amortias (T)(C) 16:26, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi

Your answer on the refdesk was not helpful or constructive. You assumed bad faith. Thank you. 94.118.96.4 (talk) 13:06, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

I post many answers to the Ref Desks. You'll have to be more specific. Dismas|^(talk) 13:55, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 24

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Stacey Dash, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Equal Pay Act. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:00, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Question...

Is there a reason why you keep reverting the recent images I have been adding to articles lately? Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 04:12, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

I wasn't aware that I "kept" doing it. The only one I recall you being part of was the image for Belladonna. I recall doing some image reverts lately but don't remember who the editor was that I was reverting. In short, I'm not stalking you or anything like that.

As for the Belladonna image, the image you put in, while newer, doesn't show her face at an angle that anyone would be able to recognize her at. That is what the infobox image is for, identification. Dismas|^(talk) 04:18, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

FWIW, there was also this. Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 07:50, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Okay. But like I said, I wasn't targeting you. I have that article on my watchlist and I disagreed with your decision to change the image. I doubt I really paid any attention to what user made the change at the time. Dismas|^(talk) 08:00, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

I think Improvingthepen is back

After the SPI you filed on Improvingthepen ended with two accounts blocked, I think they've returned with Poolinpool (talk · contribs). I ran the editor interaction here on all four accounts but don't know their habits at all. I did ask on their user page, hoping to get a response. Would you mind looking and seeing what you think? Ravensfire (talk) 15:45, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

@Ravensfire: Sorry for the delay in getting back to you on this. I've been working 70+ hours a week lately while attending school, so my time has been very limited as far as how much I can devote to WP. But I did inquire as to go forward at Wikipedia talk:Sockpuppet investigations. Thanks for understanding, Dismas|^(talk) 17:47, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Understand completely! Appreciate you creating the SPI - I'm not familiar enough with their patterns for me to be comfortable creating one myself. The editor interaction tool for all four user really shows the overlap of these editors. Ravensfire (talk) 17:59, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

@Ravensfire: See the newest case: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Improvingthepen. Dismas|^(talk) 15:25, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

I think you're right. Some diffs have been requested on the SPI, so I'm going to see what I can do. If the user is blocked as a sock, I suggest reverted their edits as block evasion. Often, new socks will re-add the same information, making it easy to spot new socks. Ravensfire (talk) 17:00, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the assist. In a way it's too bad that they've taken this route. I don't remember their edits to the Sunny Leone article being bad. I'm not motivated enough to dig through them to verify this though. Dismas|^(talk) 23:25, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

For the most part, their edits look good. Their original account had some warnings related to copyright though and they seem to very rarely respond to concerns from other editors. That's probably what caused the original block which they just ignored. It's hard to deal with people that frankly don't care about anyone or anything else. Ravensfire (talk) 02:06, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

• Sigh... he never left. [1] Morbidthoughts (talk) 02:50, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Yup - I spotted and tagged the account shortly after it started. It's obvious that they don't care about being blocked and will perpetually evade the block, so the question becomes how much effort do people want to take on this. I watch their edits every day or so, looking for anything counter-productive. My thought is that as long as they edit productively, use decent sources and don't edit-war, they are a net positive to the project. They are so fixated on Leone that spotting new socks is trivial, but is it worth the effort so long as they remain a quiet, productive editor? Ravensfire (talk)

I've been wondering about that for a bit now. Truthfully, I don't even know what they were banned for to begin with. Dismas|^(talk) 17:49, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Night Trap

Hello Dismas,

I appreciate your input on the topic of Night Trap. As one of its producers, I have knowledge and insights that others clearly do not have. While you may view this as having a conflict of interest, others may see this as an opportunity to have a first-hand account. In undoing my changes, you have reintroduced incorrect information into this article, which undermines the credibility of Wikipedia.

If you have some concern about impartiality, you could have asked for clarification rather than simply reintroducing the error.

For example, if you would like to verify the spelling of Kelli Medd, have a look at the back of any Night Trap package or any of its manuals/user guides. Here's a link to one where, on page 3, you can see the correct spelling: http://gamesdbase.com/Media/SYSTEM/Sega_CD//Manual/formated/Night_Trap_-_1992_-_Sega.pdf

In the future, I'll gladly note the errors in the article and forward to you as an editor to evaluate.

Ktwelsh (talk) 13:45, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

@Ktwelsh: I have no problem with correcting errors. None at all! But please take a step back and see it from Wikipedia's viewpoint.

In order to maintain "the credibility of Wikipedia" as you put it, we have to be able to verify all the facts on Wikipedia. The policy for this is at WP:V. Every reader has to be able to have some channel to verify everything. In the case of a video game, the source for the name of a character can be the game itself. Another editor, X201, has cited the game itself as the source for the spelling with a Y. That is why I don't see what I did as reintroducing an error. We can't use YouTube as a source since any recordings of the end credits not supplied by the makers of the game would be copyright violations. That said, there are numerous recordings of the end credits and some list an I and some list a Y.

Also, I can't verify that you are who you say you are. Think of this, again, from someone else's vantage point. Anyone can create an account with the username Ktwelsh. And even if I could, every reader should be able to trace the facts of an article back to a source. And we rely on published sources for that. A person's statement is not published and can't be looked up anywhere.

So, if a published source can be provided for the I spelling, then we can put that in the article and make a note that the name was spelled with a Y in some versions of the game and an I in others. Can you provide such a source? Perhaps versions of the game where the name is spelled with an I? The link that you provided lands me at a 404 page on that site. Dismas|^(talk) 20:19, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Edit summary on Gina Abercrombie-Winstanley

In the future, you may want to pick a different event for not caring about Day of the Week. The attack on Pearl Harbor was specifically scheduled by the Japanese for Sunday to take advantage of a lesser level of alert on Sundays.Naraht (talk) 17:25, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for seeing through my error to see my point beyond and also reminding me of that bit of history. Dismas|^(talk) 21:43, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Guidance

Dismas: I represent the Northwestern State Demons via my position with their athletic league, the Southland Conference. I am trying to upload their current logo, but it has since been deleted due to copyright issues, but that should not be the case. Can you give me some guidance on this? Thanks. Mycoskie (talk) 20:27, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

@Mycoskie: I'm away from my computer for the next day or so, so please excuse my brief reply.

You'll need to upload it under a WP:FAIRUSE license.

Also, if you have not read it yet, please see WP:COI.

If you need more help, either go to the Help Desk or wait till I can have a real keyboard in front of me.  :-) --Dismas|^(talk) 21:48, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Replace my Company Logo

Dear Dismas, Thank you for your help replacing my company logo. I am a new user so you might find I'm a little (much actually) confused with the whole editing things. Ela (talk) 04:30, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

No problem. Try reading through the links in the welcome message on your talk page. Dismas|^(talk) 04:54, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

undoing an edit

Dismas, I made some changes (edit) on 4/17 to the Angela Devi, which you deemed to change; even though in that same article there was and are redirected.[citation needed]. This last part you did not mind, but the truth that came from research you and others mind. I may not know how to enter references into an article, but does not mean that I made up the stated edited fact. They came from several sources all stating nearly the same thing. THree of which you can view yourself. (the reference is found at: 1. http://www.boobpedia.com/boobs/Angela_Devi; 2. https://archive.is/udZif (scroll down about 1/3 the way); 3.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=guDYBw1j5xE Exposing the Porn industry ILLUMINATI) In the future leave the truth alone, or join the Flat Earth Society, or go to some jungle and beat a drum while asking the moon god to bless you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.97.169.102 (talk) 04:43, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

I've reverted your changes again. Boobpedia, much like Wikipedia, takes its information from user contributions and is therefore not considered a reliable source per WP:RS. I see that archive site hides a page on xHamster which is a porn site that I'd rather not pull up here at work again. I closed it once I saw where I was being redirected. That said, xHamster is not known for its journalistic integrity. So, that doesn't measure up to WP:RS either. And the same pretty much goes for some random channel on YouTube. Please find legitimate reliable sources for the information that you want to add.

Second, you can learn how to add references at WP:REFB. The very short explanation is to just put the URL between ref tags like so: <ref>URL goes here</ref>

And lastly, I have no idea what your last paragraph is trying to say. Are you trying to insult me just because I'm trying to uphold the policies that have been in place for years here? Dismas|^(talk) 05:01, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Oh, and as for the citation needed tag on the one sentence about her domain name, I'm not too concerned about that since it's not saying anything about her. You're trying to add information about her death and that falls under WP:BLP more than some factoid about a domain name. Dismas|^(talk) 05:04, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

No site is legitimate to you unless you wrote it. Youtube has taken their video based on a book written by a man, and backed by ex-porn stars(these you would not accept due to their past). If calling you narrow minded bigot, when you state that you do not like a site because it a porn site, even when that which they are putting on their site is a truthfully article on their site, then you dismiss it. You don't want to hear or it except the truth unless God Himself wrote it, and even then HE must write your way, or else. What about the article the way it reads is that Devi is alive and her reported death a fraud. This is lie. She is dead. But you rather have this lie then the truth. Why shouldn't I insult mildly to self pronounced bigot, who would rather have a lie then the truth. YOU DESERVE IT. What upsets me is not the removal of what I wrote, but why you are permitting a lie, instead of the truth. In our world today we have too many trying to ram a lie down our throats saying that it is the truth. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.97.169.102 (talk) 05:40, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Please stick to a rational and calm argument for keeping the text you keep adding instead of trying to insult me. See WP:CIVIL. Dismas|^(talk) 07:59, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi Again

Hi Dismas,

Hope youre well mate. I see you have removed my changes to Elcom Credit Union. I certainly understand you removing comments that are biased however the current contents misrepresent our organisation. I simply want to correct the outdated information.

Our organisation is community based and we are certainly not trying to circumvent anything and are just trying to be factual and up to date.

I have a draft ready to go that expands on the Elcom page can I email it to you?

Cheers

Dave

Bowey21 (talk) 04:32, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

@Bowey2: We don't generally handle too many things around here via email. Instead we keep things out in the open by posting on talk pages of both editors and articles. So, no, I'd rather you not email it to me. That said, you are free to use your personal sandbox for works in progress. There is a link to your sandbox at the top right of the page.

I've only seen a couple examples of articles about organizations that were bought out/taken over by other organizations. Company articles aren't usually my thing. That said, what I believe would be best here is if the Elcom article were WP:MOVED to the new name and the contents updated. The content should not completely remove the information about what Elcom was but instead should be expanded upon. I noticed it looked like you tried to change the name of the article by putting in a new heading right at the top of the article. That's not the same as moving the article and does not, as I'm sure you saw, change the title of the article.

The article is already woefully in need of some references. Please try not to add any more unreferenced information to it, e.g. the charity info. In fact, since you have a conflict of interest, the method of getting changes made that is usually suggested is for people with a COI to post their desired changes on the talk page of the article. You can find that link at the top of the article where it says Talk or Discussion.

I hope this helps. Dismas|^(talk) 05:28, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi Again,

Thanks for your prompt follow up. Today what I will do with your permission is move the page to the new info and then reference the current information there to ensure it meets the guidelines. The previous references and info was all completed by someone without that COI.

I appreciate the assistance and again thanks for the prompt follow up.

Cheers

Bowey21 (talk) 22:39, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Since I posted the above reply, I have learned that there is already an article for Community First Credit Union. That article is being considered for deletion. You can see the discussion link at the top of that page in the big AFD notice box. A couple people, myself included, support having the two articles merged. So that might happen. In the meantime, the best thing to do would be to add references (preferably from secondary sources that don't have affiliation with the banks in question such as local and national newspapers) to both of the articles. There isn't necessarily a reason to rush to do anything but add references.

As for how to add references, you can learn the basics at WP:REFB. The bare minimum would be to put the address for the reference between two ref tags after the sentence that the reference supports. So it would look like this:

"Such and such did this thing in 2008.<ref>http://www.someURL.com</ref>"

Physical references, such as books and magazines, are fine too. You can learn how to reference those at WP:REFB as well.

And lastly, you don't need my permission for anything. I don't have any special position here. I'm just trying to help Wikipedia and you by explaining these things. If I something that is wrong, then I will also try to correct it or remove it but again I don't have any special say in things.

Clear? I hope so. If you have any further questions for me, don't hesitate to ask. Dismas|^(talk) 23:18, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Hey Hey,

Just trying to be respectful (it seems by reading the above comments its few and far between). Ive made several updates to the page and will continue to add third party references as they come in. I have also requested a non technical move to have the pages merged.

Many Thanks

Bowey21 (talk) 23:46, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi Dismas

Ive been having some issues with some content that was deleted which Police_Bank_Ltd and others have on theirs . I appreciate your help before but would like some help as we're trying to do the right thing. Yet other pages seem to be fine who do the same thing.

Cheers Bowey21 (talk) 05:50, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

If I understand your question correctly, the "content" that you're wondering about is the inclusion of awards. To that end, I have a couple things for you to consider.

First, you didn't provide references for the awards. Notice that the Police Bank article has references to sources where that information can be verified.

Second, it's not always a good idea to pattern what you're trying to do in one article based on what you find in another. Especially when that second article has issues, as Police Bank does. If you want to use another article for an example, a featured article is probably your best choice. Though that may present complications as well.

And lastly, there's the notability of the awards themselves. Are these awards worth being pointed out? Would someone in the banking industry think "Well, that is prestigious!" when they find out that "Cheapest Credit Card Non-Bank" was awarded to some institution? Having a reference would help towards that argument. It would help even more if some other party mentioned that they got that award. For instance, Money magazine gave Elcom that particular award. But is it just Money just trying to fill an issue once a year? Or do other publications take note of it? If Forbes, for example, included in one of their articles something like "Elcom, which was awarded such and such by Money magazine..." then that says something about the quality and notability of the award.

In some corners of Wikipedia, in order for an award to be listed, the award itself must have an article. That supports the idea that it is notable enough to be mentioned elsewhere at Wikipedia. So things like the Emmys and the Oscars are mentioned in biographies of actors but something like "Best Actor of the Year" from some site like "Bob's Movie Reviews" doesn't get mentioned because Bob's Movie Reviews doesn't have an article here.

Does that help? Dismas|^(talk) 15:05, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi Dismas,

All valid points cheers mate. Money (Australia) would be the equivalent to Forbes in the USA, these awards are a major deal in the Financial Sector in Australia. Definelty not a Bob's award. I can certainly reference and will obviously try to see If i can find more compelling information.

The one query I had about our intro was that I linked quite a bit of information to APRA, RediATM & Cuscal which were removed. Something some of the majors (like Westpac) do.

Hope you can help again. Any news of the merger (as I was the one who created the CommunityFirstCreditUnion Page)

Cheers Bowey21 (talk) 21:41, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Brattleboro meetup

Hi! I saw that your mentioned living in Vermont. I am going to be visiting the Brattleboro in May, before I move there in August and I wanted to see if anyone would be interested in doing a Wikimedia meetup there during my May visit. If you are interested, it would be great if you responding at the event page at Wikipedia:Meetup/Brattleboro to help me schedule such a meetup! Sadads (talk) 18:43, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Princess Cruises logo

You just replaced the company logo in the Princess Cruises article infobox with another graphic from the company's Web site. However, I can find no evidence that Princess Cruises has changed their corporate logo. If you examine the numerous PDF brochures available from the site, it uses the same logo in the 2014, 2015 and 2016 editions, which is the same as the SVG logo that you replaced. I can find no press releases stating that the company has changed its logo, nor is there any evidence that the logo is being changed on any of their ships or stationery.

Changing corporate logos is an expensive, disruptive process. Most large companies do not do this casually and without notice. It appears that Princess Cruises has, in fact, not changed their logo. I've reverted the image to the previous version until such time that evidence can be produced that the logo has officially been changed. — Quicksilver^{T @} 18:10, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

A user posted to the Help Desk saying that their tagline, "Escape Completely", had been changed. The only place I could find that phrase was in the logo. When I checked their web site, it looked like the logo had changed as well as the tagline. So, I changed the logo thinking that had changed as well. Guess I didn't look into it well enough. Sorry about that. And thank you for not being sanctimonious like many editors get when things change that shouldn't have been. Dismas|^(talk) 19:33, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Princess Cruises come back new logo.png

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Princess Cruises come back new logo.png. 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 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).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 02:30, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

I just joined and was wondering how to get started.

Hi I am new here and I wanted to know how to help out. I would like to help a lot and than become a host. I just want to help. Thank you! --Icyeti (talk) 00:37, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

@Icyeti: There are a number of things you can do and it depends on what you want to do. Here are a few suggestions:

• Fight vandalism
• Find a WikiProject on a subject that you're interested in. There are many and they normally have to-do lists of ways to help.
• Prevent link rot: When links no longer point to the information that they should, the link needs to be repaired.
• Cleanup! There are many articles that need cleanup due to poor spelling or grammar, tone, etc. There's more work than you can shake a stick at here.

Wikipedia is a big place. Chances are there is something that appeals to you. In addition to looking through the above links, I would suggest reading the questions and responses at both the Help Desk and Tea House. You will, I'm sure, find some questions that you didn't know you had and you'll learn much from the answers to those questions.

Best wishes, Dismas|^(talk) 02:15, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Emergency workers and slang terms

Hi Dismas,
Seems you found my lexicological meanderings at WP:RD/M#USA emergency service response interesting. There is, of course, a somewhat relevant XKCD here
Don't get your 'Reg Grundies' in a twist, but have a 'Captain Cook' or a 'butchers' at "Australians have 80 words for ...". Also, Aussie slang.org!, [2], [3], [4], and the ever reliable BBC [5] & [6]
Be particularly careful about 'rooting' for your team, this means something else entirely in Oz, may cause 'aggro' and get you 'biffed'.
See also Diminutives in Australian English

'Give me a bell' if you ever need any Oztralian translated. 220 of ^Borg 04:31, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

That's a bunch of links! Thanks! Dismas|^(talk) 08:20, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

RE: Jackie Buscarino Feedback

You said that my biggest problem with my page is that there are no references supporting her notability. The problem is; I believe she is very notable but I don't really have good sources but I'm not sure exactly what to look for with the article. Thanks. --KingGrubermeister420 (talk) 23:55, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

The grammar of your last sentence has me confused. Are you saying that you're having trouble finding references? The easiest thing would be to find articles written about Buscarino. The writers/publishers of those articles can't be connected to her though. So, no press releases that she has put out, etc. Has Variety written about her? Hollywood Reporter? Anyone big like that? Dismas|^(talk) 00:04, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

damn, sorry. yeah, trouble finding references. i'll look for some right now. Thanks again. --KingGrubermeister420 (talk) 00:05, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

RfC: Religion in infoboxes of nations

There is an RfC that you may be interested in at Template talk:Infobox country#RfC: Religion in infoboxes of nations. Please join us and help us to determine consensus on this issue. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:02, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Bots

You are receiving this message because a technical change may affect a bot, gadget, or user script you have been using. The breaking change involves API calls. This change has been planned for two years. The WMF will start making this change on 30 June 2015. A partial list of affected bots can be seen here: https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikitech-l/2015-June/081931.html This includes all bots that are using pywikibot compat. Some of these bots have already been fixed. However, if you write user scripts or operate a bot that uses the API, then you should check your code, to make sure that it will not break.

What, exactly, is breaking? The "default continuation mode" for action=query requests to api.php will be changing to be easier for new coders to use correctly. To find out whether your script or bot may be affected, then search the source code (including any frameworks or libraries) for the string "query-continue". If that is not present, then the script or bot is not affected. In a few cases, the code will be present but not used. In that case, the script or bot will continue working.

This change will be part of 1.26wmf12. It will be deployed to test wikis (including mediawiki.org) on 30 June, to non-Wikipedias (such as Wiktionary) on 1 July, and to all Wikipedias on 2 July 2015.

If your bot or script is receiving the warning about this upcoming change (as seen at https://www.mediawiki.org/w/api.php?action=query&list=allpages ), it's time to fix your code!

• The simple solution is to simply include the "rawcontinue" parameter with your request to continue receiving the raw continuation data (example <https://www.mediawiki.org/w/api.php?action=query&list=allpages&rawcontinue=1>). No other code changes should be necessary.
• Or you could update your code to use the simplified continuation documented at https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/API:Query#Continuing_queries (example <https://www.mediawiki.org/w/api.php?action=query&list=allpages&continue=>), which is much easier for clients to implement correctly.

Either of the above solutions may be tested immediately, you'll know it works because you stop seeing the warning.

Do you need help with your own bot or script? Ask questions in e-mail on the mediawiki-api or wikitech-l mailing lists. Volunteers at m:Tech or w:en:WP:Village pump (technical) or w:en:Wikipedia:Bot owners' noticeboard may also be able to help you.

Are you using someone else's gadgets or user scripts? Most scripts are not affected. To find out if a script you use needs to be updated, then post a note at the discussion page for the gadget or the talk page of the user who originally made the script. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 19:03, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Holly Weber

Thanks for your comment on my page. The goholly.com website does not belong to me and it's not "Official". It's just my ex-husband being a petty jerk. He keeps trying to add it to my profile. thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.184.15.225 (talk) 03:36, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Dismas, I'm still really new to this stuff so I apologize for any mistakes I make. On my Holly Weber profile I have no "Official" website and the goholly.com website does not belong to me. It's just my ex-husband being mean/petty and trying to slander me. He keeps trying to add it back. I'll keep deleting it. Again it's not my site and you can tell by the content it's not me. Thanks Holly 107.184.15.225 (talk) 03:44, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

I've blocked one account purporting to be Weber and agree with your assessment. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 03:52, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Good to know my suspicions were correct. Dismas|^(talk) 06:02, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

OTRS received identity documentation from one of the accounts adding the link and it looks pretty strong. If the link is re-added and an IP shows up again please ask them to email info-en-q@wikimedia.org and refer to ticket 2015063010003464. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:56, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

@NeilN: Wait. So it is her site? Dismas|^(talk) 20:14, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

The Hollyweber account provided identity documentation and documentation that states Holly Weber is supposed to own the domain. If the IP shows up, they will need to have counter-documentation. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:21, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

RE: External links editing: IMDB

Thanks for letting me know that it didn't work. I didn't work as there wasn't an IMDB statement on her Wikidata page, but I have now corrected this.--WikiU2013 (talk) 19:33, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

@WikiU2013: Thanks for the tutorial! Dismas|^(talk) 21:30, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

@Dismas: I'm not sure, there might be a bot that can do that.--WikiU2013 (talk) 11:27, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Library needs you!

We hope The Wikipedia Library has been a useful resource for your work. TWL is expanding rapidly and we need your help!

With only a couple hours per week, you can make a big difference for sharing knowledge. Please sign up and help us in one of these ways:

• Account coordinators: help distribute free research access
• Partner coordinators: seek new donations from partners
• Communications coordinators: share updates in blogs, social media, newsletters and notices
• Technical coordinators: advise on building tools to support the library's work
• Outreach coordinators: connect to university libraries, archives, and other GLAMs
• Research coordinators: run reference services

Sign up now

Send on behalf of The Wikipedia Library using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:31, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Dismas. You have new messages at MediaWiki talk:Spam-whitelist.
Message added 08:42, 22 July 2015 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Stifle (talk) 08:42, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Susy Schultz Edits

I see what you mean. I really didn't delete anything but only moved a couple of the links up to references because I thought that was more to the Wikipedia style. All that was there before attempted edit is still there, only differently organized. To make sure I understand. If I leave references intact, I can then simply add the others. One other question before I proceed: I notice that in references the names of each reference are live links, i.e., clickable to reach the link without having to include the link address. I am unfamiliar with the symbol or whatever needed to achieve that in Wikipedia edit. And one other thing, as I proceed, would it be better for me to run the reference and links changes past you here before attempting to install? I thank you for any time and help you can give me. Zay. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Znocktonsmith (talk • contribs) 01:34, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

It's not really necessary to run everything by me, or anyone else, before making an edit but you should know what you're doing before you do it. Some of the comments you just made lead me to believe that you haven't read WP:REFB.

Aside from that though, let me see if I can explain things a bit. First of all, references aren't added in the references section. I know that sounds weird but take my word for it. If you click the 'edit' link next to the References section header, you'll see that the only thing there is {{reflist}}. That's the template that pulls all of the reference information from the body of the article and displays it. The actual text of the references are in the body of the article.

Go up to the top of the article and click edit. Either next to Schultz's name or the edit link at the very top, it doesn't matter which. Now, you see at the top where there is the sentence that starts "She currently is executive director ..."? Go to the end of that sentence and look at the reference. That's where the information for what's in the references section comes from. If your references are all online, which it looks like they are, you can copy that reference and use it as an example. You would then replace the URL with your reference's URL, the title with your reference's title, etc. You would put that new reference that you've created at the end of whatever sentence in the article that it supports.

Now, if you want to use a reference more than once, you only need to put all that information into a reference just once. See how that first reference says at the beginning <ref name="ChicagoReader">? If you want to re-use that reference elsewhere in the article, all you have to do is put <ref name="ChicagoReader" /> where you want to use that reference again. Notice the ending backslash. That's important. You can see where this is used by looking at the end of the Early Life section.

That's a start. I really do hope you read REFB though. It will help a lot. Dismas|^(talk) 03:50, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

I see I have gone about revision of Susy Schultz page the wrong way. No references were deleted but only reorganized but now I understand this may not fit Wikipedia protocols. If possible, when I have revised revision to submit, I would like to run it past you. Let me know. Thanks for your time and help. Zay — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:243:201:F307:AC9D:AA6E:DA0E:7E09 (talk) 02:39, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. I will proceed with care. Zay — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:243:201:F307:AC9D:AA6E:DA0E:7E09 (talk) 02:42, 4 August 2015 (UTC)