This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Yediot is the most important, most established newspaper in Israel, by miles. It has 10% penetration of the entire Israeli population on a daily basis, compared to 0.3% for the NYT in the USA. There is no translation to explain the prominence of this paper in the Israeli news and political scene. The only comparison might be the BBC in the UK. Almost all major Israeli journalists have worked for the paper, it carries daily columns from major establishment figures in Israel. The Israeli government has a contract with them to print death notices and tenders and so on, not a week goes by without a Yediot story setting the new agenda in Israel, sometimes it seems like all the news stories on TV are sourced in Yediot.The Google news archive gives 25,000 results for "Yediot" almost all of them discussing the Israeli paper of record or its daily stories. As if to make this point the major Israeli story of the past few days is the interview that Yediot did with one George W. Bush, which became a news story around the world, (NYT article on the Yediot interview), and that is only picking yesterday. The importance of this paper eclipses that of any other in Israel or the Jewish World i general, I simply cannot see how this could not pass RS. If Yediot is not a reliable source, there are no Jewish/Israeli reliable sources.
Why would you think it isn't a reliable source? Lobojo (talk) 17:14, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
[Jaffe] After it has been clearly established that News of the World is not a reliable source and Yedidot was mixed with those supporting saying that it would be on a case by case basis. And in this case it is merely quoting an unreliable source, Lobojo has added back this section[2]. In truth, the entire local controversies section on that page does not belong there, for the same reason why if a Priest was accused of going to a prostitute, then it won't belong in a controversies of Christianity article. I am therefore removing that entire section as well now. Chocolatepizza (talk) 22:26, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
The University of Kentucky reference actually does mention the club. Scroll down to the Michael Goldberg section. [3]. Grace Glueck wrote the NYTimes obituary that is reprinted in the Boston Globe. In The Times she says he died Sunday (the 30th), and in The Globe she says Dec. 31st. Thanks. Modernist (talk) 14:10, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
The UKY source [4] mentions "the Eighth Street Club", not "The Club, a regular meeting place of modern artists working in and around Tenth Street in New York".
Re Glueck, I know. The Globe article had a date of the 9th, so I removed the earlier NYT article with what was probably a wrong death date. -- Jeandré, 2008-01-15t10:26z
I noticed your input - and thanks for you help there Jeandré, using those templates isn't my long suit... I appreciated your consolidating the Sandler references. Thanks Modernist (talk) 11:59, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
Many thanks for working over the reference formatting. I had followed a recommended convention in Wikipedia:Citing Sources, but clearly it isn't well supported. I have also added the missing ref (well spotted, it really was a separate ref and not a typo). Thanks again. -- LloydGraham (talk) 22:34, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
As my edit said, the merging of the cells was based on a consensus on the talk page. The consensus was that no one found the sortable table to be of much use, so we restored the preferred style while retaining the sortability (in theory) so that it could be quickly restored if a reason was found to have a sortable table. Please read the article's talk page for full details. Cheers, CP 05:52, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Please see my entry at Talk:Bruce_McMahan. Basically, if Linda confirms the [redacted] on a video, would that stop the dicussion about whether this is true or not? My entry repeated here:
"So, let's say if there would be a video of Linda McMahan on which she details the whole [redacted] episode, would that be then reason to NOT doubt the veracity of the [redacted]? If the video would be in a, let's say grand-jury setting, on which she would explicitly state that she had [redacted]? In other words, what would it take? The word of the NYT/L.A times? Or the words of Linda herself? Just curious here."--TheSteelGeneral (talk) 20:45, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Latest comment: 16 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion
[huh?] What do you mean by this diff? The editor who works for the museum has contacted me via email, so she's obviously at least able to receive my replies. ⇒SWATJesterSon of the Defender 15:41, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
I see. Like I said, she's able to receive my replies because she contacted me outside of OTRS, so I've been in touch with her. ⇒SWATJesterSon of the Defender 18:17, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
Latest comment: 16 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion
I don't know if you're watching or working on Template:LCCN any longer, but I think that it might be better to use the LCCN Permalinks feature rather than performing a search. See Template talk:LCCN if you're interested. Thanks for creating this template. I have used it to provide an id for several books that don't have ISBNs. Quale (talk) 10:09, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. The updated template functions well on the tests I tried. You work very very quickly. I could have tried to make this improvement myself, but I wasn't sure if it had been considered and rejected for a reason not apparent to me. Also I have made only a few minor adjustments to a couple of templates, so I am always happy to have a more experienced person do the work. Quale (talk) 10:46, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
OTRS af.
Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Ek is vandag ingelig dat ek 'n OTRS-rekening het vir info-af@wikimedia.org, dis hoekom ek daardie e-pos gestuur het (met die OTRS-skerm voor my). Dis seker duidelik dat ek nog baie moet leer hieroor - is daar êrens 'n "Beginner's guide" of 'n ding wat ek kan deurlees? Hoop nie dat die e-possie gepla het nie - dis net vreemd dat hy dan nie by my gewys het nie. Anrie (talk) 14:42, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
The article had no content. It had no sources apart from Wikipedia, which is clearly where the content was directly taken from. When someone wants to give it some actual content, they can rewrite it at any time. Rebecca (talk) 19:56, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
Hello, I've seen that you've added the hoax tag at the Mărţişor article. Although I've not contributed to it, and I agree that it is not an exemplary Wikipedia article, I can assure you that it is an article about a living custom in Romania. Also you could do a small search on google and you can see that you cand find over 400,000 articles about it and that the article has an important history (and not only at english Wikipedia). Could you revise the tag, please. -- Thx Mihai -talk 13:42, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
The WikiProject Films coordinator selection process is starting. We are aiming to elect five coordinators to serve for the next six months; if you are interested in running, please sign up here by March 28! Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 10:30, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Please justify the definition that you seem to prefer. The book "African Dance", as listed in my references, includes an entire chapter on North Africa. Steve Pastor (talk) 18:17, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Could you please tell me where you found anything on a Pamela Ball who is from Britain? What is the basis for your assertion that there seems to be two Pamela Balls who's info are in the article I wrote. I really want to know; I couldn't find anything on a Pamela Ball that contradicts what I wrote in 220 google hits. It seems odd that you could just say "there seems to be two" without offering any evidence, and get the article deleted.Rosencomet (talk) 22:49, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
I have no problem accepting responsibility for handling this ticket: for many personal photographs (which have not been printed anywhere else before), there is little proof that the person claiming to be the copyright owner isn't indeed just that.
I do not have trouble assuming good faith in this particular instance, it seeming to be a personal photograph which could, in all probability, have been taken by his parents/wife, which would mean that, if they are deceased, Irma de Plessis would indeed be the copyright owner. If it was a clear-cut publicity picture or something similar, I would be more likely to share your doubt. But in this case I am happy to assume good faith.
I'm not quite sure what is expected of me now, though - I wasn't even sure where to reply! (Feeling a bit uncomfortable replying to the OTRS address - don't want to litter the system with normal communications.) If you could tell me what to do (where to click, etc.), I'd really appreciate it. My apologies for not knowing the protocol/system well.
Please note, I'll be without internet access for about two weeks starting tomorrow, so if I don't get back to you soon, that'll be why.
Reply emailed, and notes on commons and af. -- Jeandré, 2008-04-06t09:06z
Thank you, Jeandré, especially for that guide (I can't accessed the linked version in your email). I don't mind admitting that the OTRS interface still has me banging the keyboard in exasperation, my inexperience still makes me feel like a complete idiot! I "closed" the ticket and added the confirmation template to the image. Was that all I needed to do? (Also, after closing the ticket, I can't find it using the "search" function - is this normal or a mistake on my side?) Thanks, again, for your patience and help. 217.149.199.35 (talk) 11:17, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
What are you talking about? I didn't "add" anything, I just reverted to what was there before the page was blanked. --Closedmouth (talk) 15:55, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
Huh, well, I guess that's me told then. In my defence it did seem, on face value, to be a perfectly legitimate article. Looks can be deceiving I suppose. Sorry for not being more thorough in my fact-checking. --Closedmouth (talk) 18:07, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
Long time editors rarely react well to WP:TEMPLARs, so I am not sure what you hope to gain by slapping template warnings on the talk pages of regular editors. Additionally WP:BLP states that "editors should remove any contentious material about living persons that is unsourced," yet you have templated people who reverted the complete blanking of the page. I fully support the removal of contentious materials from BLPs, but how can deleting everything, including categories like Category:Living people and interwiki links, be viewed as anything other than vandalism?
As an example, you slapped a {{uw-biog2}} template on User talk:Closedmouth, but did you even review the edits in question? Closedmouth reverted [17] the total blanking [18] of the Kuljit Takhar article by Epicnarcissist (talk·contribs). When Epicnarcissist blanked the page, he noted "deleted by author" as an edit summary, which is clearly false because Wordscholar (talk·contribs) was both the starter and primary contributor to the article. Reviewing the edit history of Epicnarcissist shows all of his edits to have false or misleading edit summaries meant to disguise his vandalism: this edit summary says "grammatical correction" but he actually added "Sukhjit Takhar is my super cool big brother" to the article, and this summary said "Incorrect spelling" but in reality he added "Sukhjit Takhar is a super awesome doctor of everything and my amazingly cool big brother. He likes steak" to the article. The fact that you then removed [19] the vandalism warning that was properly issued by Closedmouth shows an astonishing lack of good faith. While controversial, the removal of personal attacks is permitted, but the deletion of warnings from the talk page of what otherwise appears to be a vandalism-only account?!?
While I can appreciate the difficult nature of your WP:BLP work, disrupting the project like this benefits no one and only serves to generate unnecessary drama. --Kralizec! (talk) 18:55, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
It's a good one, and he was one of the candidates whose ranking I had to wrestle the longest and hardest with (along with Ad's, who's extremely qualified and knowledgable, but whose answers were often extremely flippant). As far as Kohs goes, my thinking went something like this:
He's not a good contributor (witness his record of sock-puppetry on English Wikipedia and his behaviour on Wikispecies), but we're not elected an on-wiki admin, we're electing an off-wiki Trustee.
He's completely wrong about some issues, including advertising, but there's no way he could get his views on those issues enacted by the board, since he'll be only one vote of ten, and odds are the other nine will all be against him.
On the other hand, he at least recognizes the problems with the Foundation's current operations, and proposes that the Board take decisive action to address these; frankly, I think the majority of candidates are deficient in this regard. I think he's sometimes too strident in discussing these problems, and I also think his solutions are frequently too radical, but in general I'd rather go with somebody who's too radical than somebody who's too complacent.
The last issue is trust. I've been debating in my head for quite a while whether or not I trust him to work in the Foundation's best interests (as he sees it, of course), rather than sabotaging it or otherwise behaving detrimentally. I've eventually reached the conclusion that I do (partly because he'd be legally obligated as a Trustee to work in faithfully in the best interests of the Foundation, and would be liable in court if he failed to do so). If he's elected and I'm wrong, I'll look like an idiot. But I think that I'm right.
As I said, I think he's one of the most complicated candidates in the race to evaluate. I've had people tell me that they're ranking him first, to which I could only nod my head and say "Yeah, okay, that makes sense." And I've had people tell me that they're ranking him last, to which I could also only nod my head and say "Yeah, that makes sense." I didn't expect to rank him that high, but I started comparing his answers to the other candidates' answers, and that's where I wound up dropping him. I hope that makes some sense, and thanks for your support. -- Sarcasticidealist (talk) 22:49, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Xenophobia in South Africa.
Latest comment: 15 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion
I'd like to see if we can build some consensus around a rename for 2008 South Africa riots; the issue has been languishing. If you have a moment, won't you pop over to the talk page? Thanks. 9Nak (talk) 17:07, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
You claimed that the Nuance Communications page read like an advertisement. Please review your claim and see if it still applies. I would like to remove the {ad} claim. Mike (talk) 00:39, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
Latest comment: 15 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion
I got a message of speedy deletion of the article Duncan Clinch Marina. I don't understand why. The main reference link is the official website of Michigan State. We discussed the topinc of editing articles about ports with Flowanda [24] and found the way out. So, please, advise how I can improve the article instead of deleting it.Prokopenya Viktor (talk) 12:52, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
I once searched for the information about one port, I need urgently, but I found only List of marinas, which was almost empty. I thought that the information about ports will be very useful and started to add this information. I think that you should consider ports as geographical objects but not as commercial establishments, please pay your attention to this. So the article itself is notable. Moreover I used some references to the state Department of natural resources, which should be considered as reliable source. --Prokopenya Viktor (talk) 13:31, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
A7 only applies for articles on a person, group, or web content that does not assert signifigance. A ATP tennis event not only does not qualify in that, but I believe ATP events are inherently notable. ViperSnake151 13:46, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
Latest comment: 15 years ago5 comments1 person in discussion
I would apreciate your revisiting Mahaul Theek Hai. Using informations and sources brought forward at the Afd, I corrected the article format to remove the sense of it being a blatant advertisement and added sources to show its notability. While it still needs work, I am hoping you might advise what else I may do. Thank you, Schmidt (talk) 03:42, 2 August 2008 (UTC)Schmidt (talk) 03:40, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
You made me work for it (chuckle)... but I was successful and have replied at the AfD to address your latest concerns. Schmidt (talk) 02:31, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
I just gave the entire article a heart traansplant. It is rewritten, cited, sourced, and should hold up to scrutiny. Your coments would be appreciated. Schmidt (talk) 04:56, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
I apreciate you keeping me on my toes. I have tried to address your concerns about The Tribune by correcting the cites to show mention of either the paper and The Tribune Trust in relationship to either Chandigarh or world distribution. thanks. Schmidt (talk) 18:13, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
I got your message, what change are you referring to. I know wikipedia rules. If you are refereing to the the National Bank of Pakistan or the Sex Scandal both were sourced and someone took the referenes out. -- trueblood (talk) 04:17, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
I guess you think that the Times of London is not a credible source. So why dont you check times of london and see if the article was their -- trueblood (talk) 05:14, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
Hi, I'm interested that you say the idea that he was named after Horatio Nelson was contradicted in the Illustrated Long Walk to Freedom. Do you mean it says he wasn't named aftere Horatio Nelson, or just that it doesn't mention Horatio Nelson? I will check a few books and see if I can find a reference, otherwise it may just be an urban legend so you are quite right to remove it. Zaian (talk) 14:17, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
Hi. Thanks for the alert. I guess whether or not to bold all repeated links in a list is a matter of preference; shall I go ahead and unbold the repeated links here? Sardanaphalus (talk) 17:26, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
In csase you noticed the CSD template: It was added because the Prod you tried to add to the above article created a new page containing only the prod. :) Excirial (Talk,Contribs) 11:42, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
Bot patrolling talk pages?
Latest comment: 15 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion
It is a semi-automatic patrolling for wikiprojects pages which created by some users, they're full NewPage log.--OsamaKReply? on my talk page, please 11:42, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
BTW, if you think this is bad, just note me, this is a way to help filtering NewPage log for better patrolling only, it is not for heart anyone :)--OsamaKReply? on my talk page, please 11:47, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
[your complaint against the removal of DA] Jeandré—I've responded at MOSNUM talk, asking for clarification. In the meantime, I wonder whether you might consider perusing this page, or selected parts of it. I'm interested to know exactly why you object to the removal of date autoformatting. Tony(talk) 12:08, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
[Date formats after autoformatting.] With the recent deprecation of date autoformatting, "raw" dates are becoming increasingly visible on Wikipedia. Strong views are being expressed, and even some edit-warring here and there. A poll has been initiated to gauge community support to help us develop wording in the Manual of Style that reflects a workable consensus. As you have recently commented on date formats, your input would be helpful in getting this right. Four options have been put forward, summarised as:
Use whatever format matches the variety of English used in the article
For English-speaking countries, use the format used in the country, for non-English-speaking countries, use the format chosen by the first editor that added a date to the article
Use International format, except for U.S.-related articles
Use the format used in the country
The poll may be found here, as a table where you may indicate your level of support for each option above. --Pete (talk) 18:14, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
Latest comment: 15 years ago3 comments1 person in discussion
There was no reason to afd this page. If you wanted, you could have asked that it be merged; after all, it was a chart single (on three charts in two countries, no less), and it was by two acts who were superstars at the time. There are plenty of song stubs like this; generally, I give benefit of the doubt to anything that went Top 10 on a major chart. I'm not asking you to withdraw, I'm just saying that afd wasn't a good idea if there're other options available (such as expansion or merging in this case). I'll see if I can dig up any sources. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 17:15, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
Okay, I've added some more to the article. It was nominated for a major award, so I think that's a good starting point. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 17:24, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
Mmm... I blocked him for 2 weeks. I pondered (a lot) blocking him indefinitely, but I fear that he might get unblocked (he did it only once again after the warning and many admins don't block for more than one week for content disputes). At first sweat report him again (either on AIV or on my talk) and we'll make that indef. Hopefully he'll be driven away by the block. -- lucasbfrtalk 15:13, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
AfD nomination of Robert C. Knutson.
Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
No sir. You are kind of mistaken. Both policies work in tandem. You are implying that this other policy "overpowers" using the edit summary? I'll try to help you understand why with this bit. When applying the policy of WP:V editors must use the edit summary. This is for both the editor that placed the material and for other editors that come across this situation. It helps them learn about these policies in general. If the edit summary is left blank while enforcing WP:V, they're left to guess why the edit was reverted. They may incorrectly assume a silly edit war. Do you see how this is important now? It comes down to helping other editors understand the value and validity of each edit.
It is good practice to fill in the Edit Summary field, or add to it in the case of section editing, as it helps everyone to understand what is changed, such as when perusing the history of the page...Always fill in the summary field. This is considered an important guideline. Even a short summary is better than no summary. An edit summary is even more important if you delete any text; otherwise, people may question your motives for the edit.
So, there you have it. Please use the edit summary at all times. Bye E_dog95' Hi ' 21:31, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
Very good. I'm not interested in that astrology material in the Sagittarius (constellation) article. I won't be re-inserting the bit about the Astrology stuff. What I wanted to see was a valid reason for the removal of the material. After having said this, I think what may have been better of you to do with this situation was to ask for a reference first. But, I think we're done here. Like I said, I don't have an issue with that small tidbit being in that article, but someone else might. I think that an editor that would like to have that material back in the article probably wouldn't sweat too much locating a good ref for that. But again, we're done. Editors should not remove material without saying why. K bye. E_dog95' Hi ' 09:25, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
Latest comment: 15 years ago3 comments1 person in discussion
I'm not sure what your playing at with your over-cited attempts on Dhanush, can you tell me any other actor who is cited in this way....you have been removing films. Universal Hero (talk) 20:28, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
It is in't porly sourced. You've just over-sourced it! Look at any other GA/FA actors' pages. None of your nonsense. Universal Hero (talk) 17:54, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Please see WT:Only_make_links_that_are_relevant_to_the_context#Break 1 for the current discussion. I'm letting everyone know who has a comment on the relevant talk pages. Obviously, we're not going to push anything through without a full discussion of every issue, including whether to merge at all. My sense is that there's wide agreement on all the big points, but the devil is in the details. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 18:54, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
There are some folks who are mad as hatters. Thanks for changing the article back and eliminating the profanity used. The Troubles has been a very difficult subject to traverse, and I appreciate your efforts to keep the waters calm.Yachtsman1 (talk) 01:20, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
Hey, In response to your post on my talk page, the track "Dork Thinks He's Gonna Drown" is actually on the album, but it's a hidden track so it isn't listed in any of the official press releases. You can see for yourself by looking the album up on iTunes, as it's listed as part of the album there. Also, in regards to the Absolutepunk link, that isn't actually a forum posting. That site is kind of odd in that they post their news and reviews in a forum-style format so that people can respond or something to that effect. So it is actually a news post on the site, even if it appears to be a forum posting. Rwiggum (Talk/Contrib) 00:38, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
[The End of an Error] Please stop removing the track listing and personnel. The information is rather widely available, and while the article does admittedly need sources, it isn't necessary to have sources for every bit of information. I reverted your edit again, but please do not change it again. I don't want to start an edit war. Rwiggum (Talk/Contrib) 22:55, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a deletion review of The End of an Error. Since you were involved in the discussions for this page, speedy-deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Thank you. Soundvisions1 (talk) 05:06, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hello, Jeandré du Toit/archive ...
Regarding this edit from last week, and this thread, I would like your opinion on the {{Selected filmography}} template ... even though we appear to have a similar view, I would welcome your perspective ... you may be bold and modify it (within reason) without discussion ... I know that although I gave it birth, I do not own it, and "It takes a village ..." :-)
[A request] Hi Jeandré, could I ask that you separate reformatting edits from content ones. I find it hard to tell the substantive changes in your recent edits to the JIDF article because the reformatting of the references means that nothing lines up and what was removed isn't obvious. Thanks.--Peter cohen (talk) 21:40, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the prompt reply. I tried to put the request politely as I do blame the deficiencies of the change tracking program rather than you. "David Appletree" was mentioned as a founder in one of the other references for the sentence in which his name is first mentioned. But when I added a link that provided background information on him, it meant that the first reference after his status as founder was mentioned didn't substantiate that fact. Anyway, if you look at the talk page, you'll see that we were puzzling over how to handle him, given his name is almost certainly a pseudonym.--Peter cohen (talk) 22:02, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
Harry Howard (footballer) footnotes.
Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hi. You recently added a {{nofootnotes}} tag to Harry Howard (footballer). As this is a stub of 58 words and an infobox, I'd have thought the existing references section, containing two book pages, fitted quite comfortably under WP:CITE#General reference. Conversion to inline citations would result in both sources being cited together at the end of said 58 words, which I'm not convinced would improve the article. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 08:58, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Please take a look at Talk:Russell's_teapot. There is a discussion about your revert/removal of an illustration for this wiki page. tedder (talk) 01:10, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Re removal of unsourced material [40], [41], and again removing info with source that contradicts claim [42].
[deborah warner] hello....it seems to me that you are far more interested in in being contentious over the subject of warner being gay. please note that you may not execute wholesale reverts using TWINKLE of any other utility for valid, properly sourced edits. doing so is a violation of policy and can get lead to your being reported for abuse. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Emerson7 (talk • contribs) 2008-12-06t20:35:41z
Removed info contradicted by source [43]. -- Jeandré, 2008-12-07t02:26z
the section headings are not redundant...also, please make a note of WP:DTTR, and the appropriate use of Wikipedia:Twinkle. --emerson7 03:34, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
I've reverted your edit which removed her birth place. I've been in email communication with Sunset helping her to clear away some issues she has with the article, and I'm quite sure it's her as she was put in contact with me by a source in the adult business I trust. Additionally, the email from her stating where she was born has been forwarded to OTRS for archiving; from what I can tell from their reply to me, it's ticket # 2008111810023022. Tabercil (talk) 23:49, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
