User talk:Bernie55 - Revision history

The Honorable: /* Flower Tucci */ new section

2016-07-12T22:46:44Z

Flower Tucci: new section

← Older revision		Revision as of 22:46, 12 July 2016
Line 46:		Line 46:
	I'm only removing it from pages where people aren't likely to have gotten there accidentally. For example, if you're at [[Vanessa Del Rio]], you probably meant to be there, but if you're at [[Vanessa (Score)]], you might be looking for a different Vanessa. [[User:The Honorable\|The Honorable]] ([[User talk:The Honorable\|talk]]) 18:01, 11 July 2016 (EDT)		I'm only removing it from pages where people aren't likely to have gotten there accidentally. For example, if you're at [[Vanessa Del Rio]], you probably meant to be there, but if you're at [[Vanessa (Score)]], you might be looking for a different Vanessa. [[User:The Honorable\|The Honorable]] ([[User talk:The Honorable\|talk]]) 18:01, 11 July 2016 (EDT)
	:Good idea. But a disambiguation link at [[Vanessa (Score)]] is probably not needed either. --[[User:Bernie55\|Bernie55]] ([[User talk:Bernie55\|talk]]) 18:25, 11 July 2016 (EDT)		:Good idea. But a disambiguation link at [[Vanessa (Score)]] is probably not needed either. --[[User:Bernie55\|Bernie55]] ([[User talk:Bernie55\|talk]]) 18:25, 11 July 2016 (EDT)

			== Flower Tucci ==

			According to [http://www.iafd.com/person.rme/perfid=Flower03/gender=female IAFD] and [http://www.adultfilmdatabase.com/actor/flower-tucci-35565/ Adult Film Database], she's a B cup, so she doesn't qualify for an article. [[User:The Honorable\|The Honorable]] ([[User talk:The Honorable\|talk]]) 18:46, 12 July 2016 (EDT)

Bernie55: /* Disambiguation */

2016-07-11T22:26:18Z

Disambiguation

← Older revision		Revision as of 22:26, 11 July 2016
Line 45:		Line 45:

	I'm only removing it from pages where people aren't likely to have gotten there accidentally. For example, if you're at [[Vanessa Del Rio]], you probably meant to be there, but if you're at [[Vanessa (Score)]], you might be looking for a different Vanessa. [[User:The Honorable\|The Honorable]] ([[User talk:The Honorable\|talk]]) 18:01, 11 July 2016 (EDT)		I'm only removing it from pages where people aren't likely to have gotten there accidentally. For example, if you're at [[Vanessa Del Rio]], you probably meant to be there, but if you're at [[Vanessa (Score)]], you might be looking for a different Vanessa. [[User:The Honorable\|The Honorable]] ([[User talk:The Honorable\|talk]]) 18:01, 11 July 2016 (EDT)
			:Good idea. But a disambiguation link at [[Vanessa (Score)]] is probably not needed either. --[[User:Bernie55\|Bernie55]] ([[User talk:Bernie55\|talk]]) 18:25, 11 July 2016 (EDT)

The Honorable: /* Disambiguation */ new section

2016-07-11T22:01:17Z

Disambiguation: new section

← Older revision		Revision as of 22:01, 11 July 2016
Line 41:		Line 41:

	Regards. ;)		Regards. ;)

			== Disambiguation ==

			I'm only removing it from pages where people aren't likely to have gotten there accidentally. For example, if you're at [[Vanessa Del Rio]], you probably meant to be there, but if you're at [[Vanessa (Score)]], you might be looking for a different Vanessa. [[User:The Honorable\|The Honorable]] ([[User talk:The Honorable\|talk]]) 18:01, 11 July 2016 (EDT)

Athanatophobos at 15:17, 10 April 2016

2016-04-10T15:17:48Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 15:17, 10 April 2016
Line 29:		Line 29:

	:I happen to agree with User:Bernie55. For example, if a reader looks at [[Roxanne (disambiguation)]] because they can't remember [[Roxanne McPherson]]'s surname, she's easier to find with Bernie55's formatting. [[User:Teddy\|Teddy]] 13:21, 9 September 2015 (EDT)		:I happen to agree with User:Bernie55. For example, if a reader looks at [[Roxanne (disambiguation)]] because they can't remember [[Roxanne McPherson]]'s surname, she's easier to find with Bernie55's formatting. [[User:Teddy\|Teddy]] 13:21, 9 September 2015 (EDT)

			== Frankie Dashwood ==

			[[User:Athanatophobos\|Athanatophobos]] April 10th, 2016

			Sorry for my English, I'm French.

			I had to merge these two articles. Instead of complaining and writing a sentence in my section, you should use c/c to merge the article.

			I will do it.

			Regards. ;)

Teddy: /* Roxanne (disambiguation) */

2015-09-09T17:21:09Z

Roxanne (disambiguation)

← Older revision		Revision as of 17:21, 9 September 2015
Line 27:		Line 27:

	You seem to be the only person with this view on disambiguation pages, therefore in the minority, I implore you to maintain the status quo, listing people by what they are commonly known by, followed by any aliases is logical in my opinion. [[User:BSP\|BSP]] 12:33, 9 September 2015 (EDT)		You seem to be the only person with this view on disambiguation pages, therefore in the minority, I implore you to maintain the status quo, listing people by what they are commonly known by, followed by any aliases is logical in my opinion. [[User:BSP\|BSP]] 12:33, 9 September 2015 (EDT)

			:I happen to agree with User:Bernie55. For example, if a reader looks at [[Roxanne (disambiguation)]] because they can't remember [[Roxanne McPherson]]'s surname, she's easier to find with Bernie55's formatting. [[User:Teddy\|Teddy]] 13:21, 9 September 2015 (EDT)

BSP: /* Roxanne (disambiguation) */

2015-09-09T16:33:52Z

Roxanne (disambiguation)

← Older revision		Revision as of 16:33, 9 September 2015
Line 25:		Line 25:
	Take a look at other disambiguation pages, Adriana is a good example, they have the same format, link first in alphabetical order, with the aka after the link. [[User:BSP\|BSP]] 15:12, 8 September 2015 (EDT)		Take a look at other disambiguation pages, Adriana is a good example, they have the same format, link first in alphabetical order, with the aka after the link. [[User:BSP\|BSP]] 15:12, 8 September 2015 (EDT)
	:Yes, I know all that, no need to tell me what to do. But I don't agree with the old format, which is a mess and has apparently not been thought out very well. Disambiguation pages are much more logical and easier to use if all names are first sorted on the first names related to the disambiguated name. As previously done, it's always main names at the start of lines, but the drawback is that people whose other-than-first names match the disambiguated name are mixed with names without any matches, which is not good; also, it's a real pain (to editors as well) trying to spot identical names/aliases since they can be all over the place. As done by me, there are no such drawbacks; it's just main/secondary names that are mixed, but they're very easily identifiable with link presence or absence at the start of lines. AFAIK, the format is not cast in stone so unless there's a clear consensus against it I will continue with the new way. If you really want to help "new users", then please add new entries and/or create disambiguation pages (there's a lot of work to be done); that's much more useful than trying to casually enforce an inferior format on a page collection that's far from complete. Thanks. -- [[User:Bernie55\|Bernie55]] 23:22, 8 September 2015 (EDT)		:Yes, I know all that, no need to tell me what to do. But I don't agree with the old format, which is a mess and has apparently not been thought out very well. Disambiguation pages are much more logical and easier to use if all names are first sorted on the first names related to the disambiguated name. As previously done, it's always main names at the start of lines, but the drawback is that people whose other-than-first names match the disambiguated name are mixed with names without any matches, which is not good; also, it's a real pain (to editors as well) trying to spot identical names/aliases since they can be all over the place. As done by me, there are no such drawbacks; it's just main/secondary names that are mixed, but they're very easily identifiable with link presence or absence at the start of lines. AFAIK, the format is not cast in stone so unless there's a clear consensus against it I will continue with the new way. If you really want to help "new users", then please add new entries and/or create disambiguation pages (there's a lot of work to be done); that's much more useful than trying to casually enforce an inferior format on a page collection that's far from complete. Thanks. -- [[User:Bernie55\|Bernie55]] 23:22, 8 September 2015 (EDT)

			You seem to be the only person with this view on disambiguation pages, therefore in the minority, I implore you to maintain the status quo, listing people by what they are commonly known by, followed by any aliases is logical in my opinion. [[User:BSP\|BSP]] 12:33, 9 September 2015 (EDT)

Bernie55: /* Roxanne (disambiguation) */ no, we ought to have a better format for disambigs

2015-09-09T03:22:17Z

Roxanne (disambiguation): no, we ought to have a better format for disambigs

← Older revision		Revision as of 03:22, 9 September 2015
Line 24:		Line 24:

	Take a look at other disambiguation pages, Adriana is a good example, they have the same format, link first in alphabetical order, with the aka after the link. [[User:BSP\|BSP]] 15:12, 8 September 2015 (EDT)		Take a look at other disambiguation pages, Adriana is a good example, they have the same format, link first in alphabetical order, with the aka after the link. [[User:BSP\|BSP]] 15:12, 8 September 2015 (EDT)
			:Yes, I know all that, no need to tell me what to do. But I don't agree with the old format, which is a mess and has apparently not been thought out very well. Disambiguation pages are much more logical and easier to use if all names are first sorted on the first names related to the disambiguated name. As previously done, it's always main names at the start of lines, but the drawback is that people whose other-than-first names match the disambiguated name are mixed with names without any matches, which is not good; also, it's a real pain (to editors as well) trying to spot identical names/aliases since they can be all over the place. As done by me, there are no such drawbacks; it's just main/secondary names that are mixed, but they're very easily identifiable with link presence or absence at the start of lines. AFAIK, the format is not cast in stone so unless there's a clear consensus against it I will continue with the new way. If you really want to help "new users", then please add new entries and/or create disambiguation pages (there's a lot of work to be done); that's much more useful than trying to casually enforce an inferior format on a page collection that's far from complete. Thanks. -- [[User:Bernie55\|Bernie55]] 23:22, 8 September 2015 (EDT)

BSP at 19:12, 8 September 2015

2015-09-08T19:12:54Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 19:12, 8 September 2015
Line 20:		Line 20:
	:Also keep in mind that administrators (or should I say the one admin remaining here) are no gods, do not know everything, and learn things with time spent editing here, like everyone else; they're admins just because they're knowledgeable, responsible and trustable enough to run the wiki and use special rights. My clearly commented reverts also seem ok to the admin (who seems to check edits daily), so there apparently was no required need to talk. On a wiki we're also not supposed to discuss every obvious change before editing.		:Also keep in mind that administrators (or should I say the one admin remaining here) are no gods, do not know everything, and learn things with time spent editing here, like everyone else; they're admins just because they're knowledgeable, responsible and trustable enough to run the wiki and use special rights. My clearly commented reverts also seem ok to the admin (who seems to check edits daily), so there apparently was no required need to talk. On a wiki we're also not supposed to discuss every obvious change before editing.
	:Lastly, about crediting work, it's clearly wrong to remove the GFDL template when the target is deleted. Even without reading the GFDL license, common sense dictates that if you must put a GFDL template when you copy Wikipedia work, then it must always stay there since the deleted Wikipedia article does not suddenly become your own work (otherwise that would be plagiarism). Also, keeping references to deleted pages (not only WP articles) is very good practice, if not a required practice, since in the face of unavoidable link rot, it gives at least starting points to readers who want to verify facts stated in articles. -- [[User:Bernie55\|Bernie55]] 15:45, 1 September 2015 (EDT)		:Lastly, about crediting work, it's clearly wrong to remove the GFDL template when the target is deleted. Even without reading the GFDL license, common sense dictates that if you must put a GFDL template when you copy Wikipedia work, then it must always stay there since the deleted Wikipedia article does not suddenly become your own work (otherwise that would be plagiarism). Also, keeping references to deleted pages (not only WP articles) is very good practice, if not a required practice, since in the face of unavoidable link rot, it gives at least starting points to readers who want to verify facts stated in articles. -- [[User:Bernie55\|Bernie55]] 15:45, 1 September 2015 (EDT)

			==Roxanne (disambiguation)==

			Take a look at other disambiguation pages, Adriana is a good example, they have the same format, link first in alphabetical order, with the aka after the link. [[User:BSP\|BSP]] 15:12, 8 September 2015 (EDT)

Bernie55: /* Deleted WP articles */

2015-09-01T19:45:30Z

Deleted WP articles

← Older revision		Revision as of 19:45, 1 September 2015
Line 17:		Line 17:
	== Deleted WP articles ==		== Deleted WP articles ==
	Re [http://www.boobpedia.com/butler/index.php?title=Anna_Ohura&action=historysubmit&diff=483269&oldid=483244 this edit summary]: I deleted no references. As a matter of fact I'm the one who added most of the references to the Wikipedia article before it was copied here. I have asked BP administrators in the past, and they agreed with removing the Wikipedia template after WP deletes material submitted to them. I'm not very active at this site anymore, but your reversion ''should'' have been discussed with an admin first, however, and it should ''not'' be stated that I removed references. [[User:Dekkappai\|Dekkappai]] 21:21, 30 August 2015 (EDT)		Re [http://www.boobpedia.com/butler/index.php?title=Anna_Ohura&action=historysubmit&diff=483269&oldid=483244 this edit summary]: I deleted no references. As a matter of fact I'm the one who added most of the references to the Wikipedia article before it was copied here. I have asked BP administrators in the past, and they agreed with removing the Wikipedia template after WP deletes material submitted to them. I'm not very active at this site anymore, but your reversion ''should'' have been discussed with an admin first, however, and it should ''not'' be stated that I removed references. [[User:Dekkappai\|Dekkappai]] 21:21, 30 August 2015 (EDT)
			:Nonsense. A link to a WP article as the text source is a reference, and an important one with that, even if the page is deleted (as content can often be retrieved via archives anyway), and removing the GFDL template is removing a reference, so yes, you removed references.
			:Also keep in mind that administrators (or should I say the one admin remaining here) are no gods, do not know everything, and learn things with time spent editing here, like everyone else; they're admins just because they're knowledgeable, responsible and trustable enough to run the wiki and use special rights. My clearly commented reverts also seem ok to the admin (who seems to check edits daily), so there apparently was no required need to talk. On a wiki we're also not supposed to discuss every obvious change before editing.
			:Lastly, about crediting work, it's clearly wrong to remove the GFDL template when the target is deleted. Even without reading the GFDL license, common sense dictates that if you must put a GFDL template when you copy Wikipedia work, then it must always stay there since the deleted Wikipedia article does not suddenly become your own work (otherwise that would be plagiarism). Also, keeping references to deleted pages (not only WP articles) is very good practice, if not a required practice, since in the face of unavoidable link rot, it gives at least starting points to readers who want to verify facts stated in articles. -- [[User:Bernie55\|Bernie55]] 15:45, 1 September 2015 (EDT)

Dekkappai: /* Deleted WP articles */ References removed?

2015-08-31T01:21:07Z

Deleted WP articles: References removed?

← Older revision		Revision as of 01:21, 31 August 2015
Line 15:		Line 15:
	:Ok, but why did you later remove the correct Eurobabeindex link and Alexandra Cat alias, again without any comments? That's inconsistent with the other links. And please, try to comment your edits, and not revert good faith edits like they were vandalism. That would be much more useful to and respectful of everyone seriously contributing here. Commenting edits has nothing to do with fighting vandalism, but with documentation and peer review efficiency (see section above). It's especially important for edits following model requests; making a note about that somewhere for future reference seems a no-brainer to me; don't you see why with this example where noone (except you) knows what has been asked to be removed while I'm trying to make sense of your inconsistent, uncommented edits according to model requests that are kept secret? Btw, the proper way to start a new thread on a wiki discussion page is to create a new section, otherwise it will become a mess very fast.		:Ok, but why did you later remove the correct Eurobabeindex link and Alexandra Cat alias, again without any comments? That's inconsistent with the other links. And please, try to comment your edits, and not revert good faith edits like they were vandalism. That would be much more useful to and respectful of everyone seriously contributing here. Commenting edits has nothing to do with fighting vandalism, but with documentation and peer review efficiency (see section above). It's especially important for edits following model requests; making a note about that somewhere for future reference seems a no-brainer to me; don't you see why with this example where noone (except you) knows what has been asked to be removed while I'm trying to make sense of your inconsistent, uncommented edits according to model requests that are kept secret? Btw, the proper way to start a new thread on a wiki discussion page is to create a new section, otherwise it will become a mess very fast.
	:Sorry for all that criticism, but shouldn't one expect the only active sysop remaining here to do the right thing? Thanks. —[[User:Bernie55\|Bernie55]] 02:16, 7 July 2015 (EDT)		:Sorry for all that criticism, but shouldn't one expect the only active sysop remaining here to do the right thing? Thanks. —[[User:Bernie55\|Bernie55]] 02:16, 7 July 2015 (EDT)
			== Deleted WP articles ==
			Re [http://www.boobpedia.com/butler/index.php?title=Anna_Ohura&action=historysubmit&diff=483269&oldid=483244 this edit summary]: I deleted no references. As a matter of fact I'm the one who added most of the references to the Wikipedia article before it was copied here. I have asked BP administrators in the past, and they agreed with removing the Wikipedia template after WP deletes material submitted to them. I'm not very active at this site anymore, but your reversion ''should'' have been discussed with an admin first, however, and it should ''not'' be stated that I removed references. [[User:Dekkappai\|Dekkappai]] 21:21, 30 August 2015 (EDT)

← Older revision		Revision as of 16:33, 9 September 2015
Line 25:		Line 25:
	Take a look at other disambiguation pages, Adriana is a good example, they have the same format, link first in alphabetical order, with the aka after the link. [[User:BSP\|BSP]] 15:12, 8 September 2015 (EDT)		Take a look at other disambiguation pages, Adriana is a good example, they have the same format, link first in alphabetical order, with the aka after the link. [[User:BSP\|BSP]] 15:12, 8 September 2015 (EDT)
	:Yes, I know all that, no need to tell me what to do. But I don't agree with the old format, which is a mess and has apparently not been thought out very well. Disambiguation pages are much more logical and easier to use if all names are first sorted on the first names related to the disambiguated name. As previously done, it's always main names at the start of lines, but the drawback is that people whose other-than-first names match the disambiguated name are mixed with names without any matches, which is not good; also, it's a real pain (to editors as well) trying to spot identical names/aliases since they can be all over the place. As done by me, there are no such drawbacks; it's just main/secondary names that are mixed, but they're very easily identifiable with link presence or absence at the start of lines. AFAIK, the format is not cast in stone so unless there's a clear consensus against it I will continue with the new way. If you really want to help "new users", then please add new entries and/or create disambiguation pages (there's a lot of work to be done); that's much more useful than trying to casually enforce an inferior format on a page collection that's far from complete. Thanks. -- [[User:Bernie55\|Bernie55]] 23:22, 8 September 2015 (EDT)		:Yes, I know all that, no need to tell me what to do. But I don't agree with the old format, which is a mess and has apparently not been thought out very well. Disambiguation pages are much more logical and easier to use if all names are first sorted on the first names related to the disambiguated name. As previously done, it's always main names at the start of lines, but the drawback is that people whose other-than-first names match the disambiguated name are mixed with names without any matches, which is not good; also, it's a real pain (to editors as well) trying to spot identical names/aliases since they can be all over the place. As done by me, there are no such drawbacks; it's just main/secondary names that are mixed, but they're very easily identifiable with link presence or absence at the start of lines. AFAIK, the format is not cast in stone so unless there's a clear consensus against it I will continue with the new way. If you really want to help "new users", then please add new entries and/or create disambiguation pages (there's a lot of work to be done); that's much more useful than trying to casually enforce an inferior format on a page collection that's far from complete. Thanks. -- [[User:Bernie55\|Bernie55]] 23:22, 8 September 2015 (EDT)

			You seem to be the only person with this view on disambiguation pages, therefore in the minority, I implore you to maintain the status quo, listing people by what they are commonly known by, followed by any aliases is logical in my opinion. [[User:BSP\|BSP]] 12:33, 9 September 2015 (EDT)