This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Doug Weller (talk | contribs) at 19:08, 23 January 2012 (→Judi Shekoni: previous post was an untemplated warning). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 19:08, 23 January 2012 by Doug Weller (talk | contribs) (→Judi Shekoni: previous post was an untemplated warning)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)Welcome
|
Cathy Barry
I've asked this several times in edit summaries to the Cathy Barry article and you still have not supplied the needed info... Please add a reliable and verifiable (WP:RS, WP:V) source to your edits. You can do this with an inline citation (WP:CITE). You seem to be getting your info from a web site, so please cite it! For the third time now, what is "Companies House"? And finally, a screen shot that you have taken is NOT a reliable source. Dismas| 22:26, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Cathy Barry. Users who edit disruptively or refuse to collaborate with others may be blocked if they continue. In particular the three-revert rule states that making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block. If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the talk page to discuss controversial changes. Work towards wording and content that gains consensus among editors. If unsuccessful, then do not edit war even if you believe you are right. Post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If edit warring continues, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Teapotgeorge 22:59, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
- Don't post a TIFF of the Companies' House website showing the information - better would be to post a link to the actual website page. As it is, we can't use the pic as we cannot independently prove the provenance. Two editors (Dismas and myself) have used the search engine provided to look for Cathy Barry, and we do not have any results coming back. Tabercil (talk) 00:09, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
Go to www.192.com (https://corporate.192.com/trace/index.cfm#); pay the subscription fee and then search for "Cathy Barry Bristol" and you will find her details. It's illegal to provide misleading information regarding company directors. It's not a porn site which is the so-called "verifiable" source that you are using. I can't sign this using tildes cos I don't have any on my keyboard.Only 1-0, A-Z and the following characters ¡€#¢∞§¶•ªºº–≠œ∑´®†¥¨^øπ“‘åß∂ƒ©˙∆˚¬…æ«Ω`≈ç√∫~µ≤≥÷ Shylocksboy
- There's a spot above the edit box which you can click to automatically insert a sig. Look for the pencil with some script writing, just to the left of "Advanced". --StarGeek (talk) 03:43, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
--Shylocksboy (talk) 03:45, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
Oh yes, so there is. Many thanks. --Shylocksboy (talk) 03:46, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
Content deletion
Please do not delete content from articles without first discussing your intentions and concerns and gaining consensus on the talk page. You have repeatedly deleted sourced content from the Abi Titmuss article without explaining 1) why you believe the content should not be there and 2) gaining consensus on the talk page. You even reverted another editor's restoration of your blanking with the edit summary "vandalism", which it clearly is not. Perhaps it would be helpful to take a break and read the links provided in the welcome message at the top of your talk page in order to educate yourself on the many Misplaced Pages editing guidelines and policies. If you have specific concerns regarding the content of a biography article you can post the information at the biographies of living people noticeboard for assistance. --Jezebel'sPonyo 15:19, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
- Am I missing something? The user's edit summary states that the reference doesn't have the content it is supposed to be sourcing.. which certainly seems to be the case. --CutOffTies (talk) 15:41, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
- I've struck the majority of my message above as it was not an inaccurate interpretation of the situation. I think the confusion came about as editors were attempting to communicate with each other via edit summary as opposed to using the talk page. I've left the link to WP:BLP and WP:BLPN as they are useful links for a new user editing in the areas that Shylocksboy appears interested. Apologies for any confusion and anything I may have done to contribute towards it. --Jezebel'sPonyo 16:09, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
- Am I missing something? The user's edit summary states that the reference doesn't have the content it is supposed to be sourcing.. which certainly seems to be the case. --CutOffTies (talk) 15:41, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
Hello I deleted the contentious Abi Titmuss material (twice) because 1) it is nonsense 2) it is libellous. No magazine that is freely available in shops would ever show pics of a blow-up doll covered in faeces. This is obviously someone's idea of a joke. I deleted it because it is surely a vandalisation of the page. The link was to an interview with porn star Ben Dover not as was stated an interview with Abi Titmuss. Hope this clears up this matter. --Shylocksboy (talk) 18:21, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
- I've replied to the cross-posted message on my talk page. --Jezebel'sPonyo 18:37, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
Maria Whittaker
Ta for your copy editing and your interest in glamour models !!!
--Whohe! (talk) 13:13, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
Ian Edmondson
I seaved your article on Ian Edmondson and added to it.82.18.199.36 (talk) 13:47, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
Re: Vera Renczi
I'm not sure you are aware of how Misplaced Pages works. I am not trying to be condescending. I am simply stating that the burden of proof lies with reliable sources. Every source I have used for this article is a reliable source. I have looked (since you questioned her existence) and I have not found any compelling evidence by any historian who has ever suggested or claimed she did not exist. If there were any doubts, I am sure I would have found them and I would have placed them into the article and cited the sources. Please read Misplaced Pages:Neutral point of view. All articles should be based on reliable sources. You simply can't insert your own POV into an article based on Original research. There is no reliable sourced evidence that I can find that Renczi didn't exist. Yes, I did create the article. No, I can't give you a year, because I couldn't find a reliable source for one. The best reliable source I could find was her birth year; any other date would merely be a guess, so I could not include it. If that somehow makes you dubious about her existence, I can't do anything about that, as I have no source telling me she never existed. The burden of proof doesn't lie with me, it lies with sourcing. As per the picture of Renczi, it was included in the article I linked to you here. That is a photograph of Renczi and her wine cellar, provided by a Romanian article about her. The photograph you linked me to here is a photograph of Belle Gunness. While it may be strange to you that particular years aren't known, I can't be called upon to prove her existence, when all reliable sources tell me she did exist. What you believe about author Colin Wilson is Original Research and can't be used on Misplaced Pages. I can believe (or make a case for) a many number of things - however, my opinion doesn't count for anything on Misplaced Pages. ExRat (talk) 06:39, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
"girlfriend" vs. "partner"
"Partner" and not "girlfriend" is preferred by many in the lesbian community (and in fact often describes a legal status and not just the fact of a relationship). Nicola Griffith expressed her dismay to see "partner" changed to "girlfriend" in her entry, so I changed it back; that's when I noticed you'd changed multiple entries in this manner. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cervenka (talk • contribs) 19:07, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
- I was actually just coming to talk about this same subject. I've asked around at Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject LGBT studies & Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Biography if there are guidelines for this, if you want to weigh in on the discussion there. I reverted your change to Kelley Eskridge as well, since Miz. Griffith expressed her concerns, & I noticed that you'd made similar changes to Susie Orbach & Deborah Warner. Can I ask about your thought process? mordicai. (talk) 19:21, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
Yes, simply it is ambiguous to say partner when you mean girlfriend, lover, inamorata or the like. My agent is a woman - her partner is also a woman. If I refer to her and mention her partner, many will assume I mean lover when in fact I mean her business partner. Jerry Lewis was Dean Martin's partner, Eric and Ernie were partners, Stan and Ollie the same - they certainly were not lovers yet there is no differentiation when you merely state he/she is so and so's partner. And also, partner is such a cold word (mainly I presume because of the business aspect) whereas girlfriend, boyfriend, lover, etc is much warmer, much more romantic and much, much nicer and says far more about a relationship than saying, "This is xx, my partner." --Shylocksboy (talk) 21:52, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
- That is one interpretation, but when the people in question prefer the term "partner," which is in common usage for such relationships, I believe it's important to respect that. Terms like "boyfriend" and "girlfriend" do not necessarily convey the same meaning as "partner"; some view them as trivializing relationships. Nicola Griffith has explicitly stated that she prefers "partner" be used in her entry, so I think that's how it should remain. In her case, they are both business partners and domestic partners, so it's fitting in both contexts.Cervenka (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:07, 22 October 2011 (UTC).
- Yeah, besides self-definitional respect-- which is hard to know about in advance-- there is a questionable element of accuracy in terminology. Your point is well taken, but the waters are muddied by the dubious legal definitions available to same sex partners, you know? "Girlfriend" & "boyfriend" are contextual terms, especially when viewed with the lens of marriage discrimination, etc-- & with things like civil partnerships & non-legal weddings. Hrm. I'm hardly an expert in this, & I think it is a good area for Misplaced Pages to build some guidelines-- or I mean, maybe there are some, somewhere. In cases where the subject makes their relationship terminology explicit it is a no-brainer, but rules of thumb would he handy. Hahaha! "Rules of thumb would be handy." mordicai. (talk) 23:09, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
- In such usages as "She lives with her partner," and "He had a child with his partner," there's no ambiguity: the term clearly refers to a personal relationship, generally a committed one. In the case of gay and lesbian couples who cannot legally marry, "partner" often means "spouse in all but name," and treating it as synonymous with "boyfriend/girlfriend," "lover," or "inamorata" simply isn't correct. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.100.123.4 (talk) 00:41, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
Yes there is ambiguity. What about Lucille Ball and Desi Arnaz? George Burns and Gracie Allen? And do sign your posts. --Shylocksboy (talk) 00:46, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
- Ambiguity is of course situational, that same could theoretically be said for the same-sex term "girlfriend," as platonic female friendships have been referred to that way in the past. Now, you might say that you'd have to be obtuse to purposefully misinterpret that but there you have it. Terms like "lover" aren't helpful, & "boy/girlfriend" as on a sliding hierarchy of terms of intimacy, as I mentioned. Maybe "romantic partner" & "business partner" would be more helpful elements of disambiguation? Anyhow, I think this is an opportunity for a robust discussion at either WP:BIO or WP:LGBT. -- mordicai. (talk) 16:30, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
Titmuss
I agree with you. I've brought up the Hullabaloo issue at User talk:Jimbo Wales. This editor removes any relationships from articles he comes across.♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:26, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
Seems silly to have an article about Abi Titmuss and not mention John Leslie. Bit like an article on Eric Morecambe without talking about the one with the short fat hairy legs! --Shylocksboy (talk) 15:59, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
Shirley Bassey
Apologies, I should not have reverted all of your edits. But I don't understand your remark about her post-nominal. It is not just a stage name, she is a DBE. Nyctc7 (talk) 04:03, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
- Yes, I know she is a DBE but usual style (although not in this case) is not to repeat the honour before and after the name. See my note about style from Debretts. --Shylocksboy (talk) 04:34, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
- A question of style. Perhaps you are right for encyclopedia and biographical entries. See Encyclopedia Britannica entries (as opposed to Misplaced Pages entries) for Winston Churchill, Paul McCartney, Maggie Smith, Diana Rigg, Helen Mirren, and so on. They say "Sir" or "Dame" without all the post-nominals. But see WP:POSTNOM (and scroll up a tiny bit). I guess the powers that be decided that post-nominals are included. To buck the trend here means changing it for Paul McCartney, Diana Rigg, Helen Mirren, etc, etc.--Nyctc7 (talk) 05:17, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
Proposed deletion of Bill Black (voice director)
Judi Shekoni
Hello, with regards to the article on Judi Shekoni and her date of birth, we have a verifiable source (although I wouldn't say its overly reliable) which says that the date of birth is in 1982. I couldn't find any sources (except Misplaced Pages mirrors) which said that the date of birth was in 1977. Would like your views on this. Lynch7 02:48, 23 January 2012 (UTC) I have a cutting from November 1999 which states she is 22. She certainly doesn't look 17 and all the sources saying 1982 are provided by Shekoni or her partner who runs a PR company. It's 1977.--Shylock's Boy (talk) 03:00, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
- Please refrain from reverting edits till the discussion is over in order to prevent any violations of the three revert rule. Lynch7 03:15, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
- Anyway, I'll leave it the way it is for the time being, since there is a cloud of uncertainty over it. Lynch7 03:20, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
In 1999 she said she was 22. I have a magazine cutting from that year in which she gives an interview saying that she was 22. She is lying when she says she was born in 1982. At the beginning of March 2006 - http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/columnists/article-378606/Fiennes-wins-DArby.html - she was 27, so would have had her 28th birthday at the end of the month. That puts her birth year at 1978 not 1982. --Shylock's Boy (talk) 03:24, 23 January 2012 (UTC) In addition, if you go to Ancestry.co.uk and search for Judith Shekoni born 1977 the first entry that comes up is Judith Jyabo Shekoni born Lancashire 1977. --Shylock's Boy (talk) 03:26, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
- She's also the first name that comes up when I put in 1982. In any case, if you are arguing Ancestry.co.uk says she was born in 1978 why did you change the article to read 1977? No one is suggesting that there aren't conflicting dates in various sources. The answer to that is leave out the birth date. And a BLP needs to be balanced, you are skewing this to emphasise her romantic interests, making that the most important part of the article. I'm going to revert to the version without that, without a birthdate and without your photo until you can show it's not copyvio. Dougweller (talk) 05:56, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
- Now at WP:BLPN. Dougweller (talk) 06:09, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
- And you've ignored my posts here and the fact of a BLPN discussion to replace a birth date simply because you think it is correct despite conflicting sources and to replace the gossip type material I removed. Please don't do this again without gaining consensus (starting with a response at BLPN). I don't understand why it is so important to you to have a birth date in the article & to overbalance it so it is more gossip than biography. Dougweller (talk) 19:06, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
- Forgot to add that you should consider this an untemplated warning. Dougweller (talk) 19:08, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
- And you've ignored my posts here and the fact of a BLPN discussion to replace a birth date simply because you think it is correct despite conflicting sources and to replace the gossip type material I removed. Please don't do this again without gaining consensus (starting with a response at BLPN). I don't understand why it is so important to you to have a birth date in the article & to overbalance it so it is more gossip than biography. Dougweller (talk) 19:06, 23 January 2012 (UTC)