Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 14:18, 24 March 2010

New discussion at ANI

We don't appear to be making any progress with my proposed guidelines for male porn performers, so I've started a discussion at ANI regarding your recent BLP article creations. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 20:31, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

This was not appropriate. Within hours of saying you were waiting for other comments on the list talk page, you have resorted to complaining about me in an ANI. Nothing you have raised in the ANI requires an admin to intervene. Your action appears an obvious attempt to stir up drama and try to block me from creating articles that meet the PORNBIO requirements you were demanding. You have done nothing constructive to resolve these issues. You are on a mission, go away and do something else rather than harass me. Ash (talk) 23:46, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Porn bio is currently disputed and I also talked to you about the articles you were creating, there are issues with your creating stubs specifically as a reason to re add them to a list and it seems I am not the only editor to raise this questions, do you not think it would be better to move to discussion? Off2riorob (talk) 23:56, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

As far as I am aware, PORNBIO, is not disputed. I suggested a clarification in wording on the notability talk page, you raised an issue but dropped it for the time being. As I have said several times, if there was a problem with any specific article I have created, then the specific article could be addressed. DC has suggested several "special" rules that there has been no consensus on and there appears to be little support for. It would be a very odd situation if editing on Misplaced Pages was supposed to stop every time someone started discussing the guidelines. If you want me to halt creating any further articles (possibly halting all creation of pornography related articles for an indefinite period) whilst DC continues to make various new objections (as s/he has done for several months now) then I suggest an RfC is raised on the list talk page to make consensus for a topic block clear. To my eyes, this would look an awful lot like censorship by the back door. If you wish to discuss further then discuss the matter there rather than on my personal user talk page as I am tired of having the same discussion in several different places. Ash (talk) 03:37, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

RFC

Misplaced Pages:Community de-adminship/RfC

I had noticed this was up, and glanced at some of the views expressed. My gut reaction is to support any such proposal but I'm going to think about it a bit longer before deciding whether I will be adding my opinion. Cheers Ash (talk) 22:43, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Looking through the current arguments on ANI makes up my mind. Obviously some admins are prepared to behave in outrageously arrogant, biased and offensive ways, any system of straightforward de-adminship is worth having as a deterrent. Not now though, I have to get dinner started. Ash (talk) 18:25, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Excuse me for butting in (I'm not sure how you got on my watchlist) but a couple of brief points, if I may:

• Under the current process, admins who behave badly often enough or egregiously enough tend to lose their bit via ArbCom.
• Editors other than admins also behave badly sometimes, and effectively dealing with them can require good admins who are unafraid to take them on. There might well be fewer such admins if community desysopping became the norm.
• Given the amount of daily drama on WP, the tendency of lynch mobs to form, and the difficulty in determining consensus, community de-adminship likely would be less straightforward than the current process.

That was three thoughts. Sorry!

Cheers,

(non-admin) Rivertorch (talk) 20:02, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

LOL; it must be a truely contentious if I'm being canvassed based on mentioning that I intend to express an opinion. Not, of course, that I'm formally accusing you of deliberately canvassing.

I agree that recruiting good admins is a problem. It is also true that I seem to be noticing a lot of admins behaving badly, which may indicate that the "bar" is too low or there is a need for on-going monitoring. I am minded to opine in favour of the proposed system not because it appears the best of solutions but that such a system would then evolve (yes, there are arguments back on forth on this point, I can see them in the discussion). Personally I would rather see a system of yellow-card, red-card style where action against an admin is progressive and so based on repeated poor behaviour. A light-weight system for putting an admin temporarily "on the bench" because they got angry one day and vented at a far less experienced editor would probably be enough of a deterrent in most cases. Even having a place where non-admins could raise their gripes (and then be given time to cool off) would be useful and only result in action if a genuine pattern was apparent. Anyway, still thinking about it and there is a lot of chat to wade through in the RfC before I would chip in with my 2p worth. Certainly a number of recent ill-tempered discussions from admins on ANI appear to demonstrate that there is a problem and there are parts of Misplaced Pages where contributions from admins have become routinely un-civil and un-welcoming. Ash (talk) 07:42, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Project in crisis

Do you think starting a project rfc for this topic would be helpful or not needed? - Stillwaterising (talk) 18:31, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

My advice would be to wait for another 24 hours. If there is no sort of consensus emerging after that then some wording of a suitable RfC could be discussed for a while before launching a RfC for the community to feedback on. Ash (talk) 19:10, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

you' so wise. Thanks! -Stillwaterising (talk) 20:22, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Re:Removal of cn tags

I was trying to perform the same edit that you did just before me. I don't know how I screwed that up but I'll take credit for the goof. Dismas| 22:52, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Chad Knight

Hi there. I've userfied this for you. It's now at User:Ash/Chad Knight. Cheers! GedUK  16:40, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I can see why it was deleted, I'll have to get my large pruning shears out for this one. Cheers Ash (talk) 16:47, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Jeff Stryker

I'm looking at the references you're including -which is great that you're doing legwork-, but I'm sure they're not backing up the information in the article here. I appreciate your help and all, but the information must be verifiable and true to it's source, yes?38.109.88.196 (talk) 19:47, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Could you be more specific? Some of the references may well support part of the text, not necessarily all the information in a paragraph. Consequently I believe all the references have value, this does not mean that adjacent text should not be trimmed down to the facts that are either supported or verifiable. Ash (talk) 22:18, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Sure. Like I mentioned, I hope I'm doing this right, but I'm not sure.

"A bodybuilder since age 11, Jeff Stryker was discovered by adult film producer John Travis at age 26"...the refs you included say nothing to verify any of those those facts. The first source you provided only quotes Chi-Chi Larue as saying Stryker was discovered by Catalina Video and that Powertool made him a star, and the second source only verifies that John Travis was, at one point, Stryker's agent.

That's right, from the sources I added probably only show that Travis discovered Stryker when he was managing Catalina Video.

"Jamie Loves Jeff was one of the biggest selling heterosexual adult movies of all time." is not verified by your reference, which only states that the tape was one of Vivid's biggest sellers and was shortly due for release on DVD.

Okay, so the text needs to be qualified in the same way, i.e. it was this producer's biggest seller.

This ref only refers to Jeff's appearance in "Can I Be Your Bratwurst, Please", but none of the other films listed.

Cool, so the footnote ought be placed against that film rather than left to the end of the sentence. Note that film credits are not normally required to be individually sourced as such information is not often controversial and easily checked using the film database pages already listed in the article.

I'm pretty sure that Misplaced Pages guidelines, do in fact, require that information included here be supported and verifiable, according the the first of the WP:5P, unless I'm misunderstanding something, which is totally possible. :o) 38.109.88.196 (talk) 00:01, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I don't think there's any conflict in viewpoint here. The sources added support some of the article information. If the remaining information appears unsourced or unverifiable then it is reasonable to remove or re-word it. I suggest you follow BOLD and assume that others will be prepared to revert and discuss if there are issues with your revisions. Ash (talk) 17:25, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

RFC?

Hi! you've been very helpful with me so far...perhaps you could give me some advice.

If I see a pattern of biased Wikiediting with a certain user (one, for example, with a particular history of creating (successful) AfD's for gay porn stars, but also doing so to other gay-related articles). I know there's a procedure to address the behavior of such users...doesn't it start with an RFC? How would somebody go about investigating or beginning that process? Please reply on my talk page. Thanks! 38.109.88.196 (talk) 05:41, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately if the basis of your complaint is that an editor (User X, say) is making a point by targeting gay-related articles for deletion, then a RfC or ANI is unlikely to get anywhere unless this were an extreme case. The basis of any admin intervention would be that such targeted deletions were deliberately disruptive editing. Even if such deletion discussions were raised for many articles over a long time, the nature of the AFD process is that the nominator gets no particular weight during discussion and so by the inherently fair nature of the deletion discussion process (it is rather a good well proven process), articles only get deleted when there is a reasonable case for doing so. Consequently to prove this was truly disruptive, someone would have to do something pretty extreme, such as stepping through all the articles in Category:LGBT putting them up for deletion without reasonable grounds.

Saying all this, there are other things you could try and I would recommend them in this order (also see the step by step guide at DDE):

1. Discussion with X on their talk page to make your view of their activities clear. You must make a good faith attempt at this before doing anything else.
2. Ask for advice and support on Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject LGBT studies, this may generate some suitable discussion on what is fair and reasonable to expect.
3. WP:WQA if you feel they are not listening to repeated complaints about their uncivil behaviour.
4. Either raise an alert on ANI with the above evidence of initial discussion, WQA and the list of contentious AFDs or do the same thing for wider community discussion on a RFC/USER.

I have raised a couple of WQAs with mixed results (advice tends to come from rather less experienced users), my experience with ANI is sort of okay so long as the action to be taken is clear and the issue is straightforward to describe and as with Meco I have never used the RFC/USER process as normally things resolve themselves with sufficient prior discussion. It can be very hard to keep an open mind but please remember that another editor's actions may seem deliberately disruptive but they may honestly believe they are acting for the best of reasons, sometimes they just need another way of getting their point across. Sorry to mention this but you should be aware that complaints from anonymous IPs will probably be treated with more initial suspicion regardless of the guidance of HUMAN. Cheers Ash (talk) 12:46, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks much, Ash! Seems like good advice. 38.109.88.196 (talk) 22:30, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Chris Greene deleted content

Your deleted content is at User talk:AGK#Chris Greene. If you need anything else, just ask. Regards, AGK 17:48, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Notability discussion

Your definition of "more than" is obviously different to mine. BTW, how is this a typo? Epbr123 (talk) 18:51, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

• Our definitions would be the same. SW is proposing a re-word of the criteria, not defining what the word "several" means. I have just looked again at my comment and I'm not sure how else to word that to be more clear.
• The "typo" was a mis-saving. Ever since upgrading to Firefox 3.6, editing in Misplaced Pages seems to keep on failing (possibly some issue with caching the text box field as it is blank when it fails to save) and I have to go back and try saving again most of the time. Unfortunately sometimes that means re-pasting my edits and in this case I reposted my last version and did not spot that I was pasting it next to a draft. I was going to debate the definition but then I realised that you were correct and that was not the point that SW was making. Ash (talk) 19:09, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm using 3.5.8 and don't have that issue. - Stillwaterising (talk) 21:02, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Tried using Safari for a couple of days, not a single repeat of the problem with Firefox 3.6. Makes things more complicated (as Firefox is still my main browser) but okay as a work-around. Maybe the next Firefox upgrade will wipe out this problem... Ash (talk) 09:23, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Gay Exorcism

Man that video is fugd up! I'm glad we're keeping the article. I actually think the video adds the credibility of exorcism, but without a before and after interview of the subject and complete knowledge that it was a voluntary event it's hard to determine whether it is abuse or not. - Stillwaterising (talk) 20:58, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

I haven't seen the video - I can not bear watching that sort of stuff on Youtube and the description in the papers was bad enough. Actually I had heard of plenty of exorcisms (and faith healing) against homosexuality going on, this video just made it popular in the press. Sexual deviance being caused by demons is hardly a new idea for the church. Ash (talk) 21:09, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Here's a line from the first revision "They are often very brutal and painful to the victim, but do actually work." I notice there's a image here but don't think it represents too well. I hope you keep working on it and maybe it will attract other contributors as well. - Stillwaterising (talk) 23:25, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Template:ANN

Can you help me to customize this? I want instead of it saying Archive 1,2, etc, to have the dates of the archive. Is this possible? CTJF83 chat 18:36, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure it is possible. If you want to archive by year, try using {{aan}} using the year as the sub-folder name. I designed it exactly for that reason (as used on this talk page). You could also just use the {{archive box}} and manually put the dates of the archive next to each folder name. Cheers Ash (talk) 19:32, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Would I just do something like {{aan}} or something like that? Or should I just change the archives to the dates instead of numbers? CTJF83 chat 21:02, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

I'd just drop aan into the pages though changing the names is not difficult to do if you really want the years to be obvious. Ash (talk) 21:06, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

That's true, the years aren't even that important...thanks. CTJF83 chat 21:09, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Mea Culpa

I could have sworn I checked the source listed in the Kristian Digby article, but I obviously opened the wrong one, so sorry about that!

I'm not totally comfortable with sources that second guess coroner's reports, and 'sources close to the enquiry'; it feels a little too gossipy to be considered a RS, and sometimes their entertainment section is more like the Sun's. GedUK  08:44, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

I might have agreed if the particular source was a "gossip" source (and I happen to feel bad for Digby's relative reading this stuff). As this is as stated by BBC news it is obviously mainstream and we can rely on the fact that these items have gone for forensic investigation. The deduction that they were likely to have been used for sexual purposes is logical and reasonable unless the evidence has been manipulated (there are no sources that speculate as to that unlikely scenario). Ash (talk) 12:38, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

It's not in the BBC reports (or it wasn't last time I looked), but the ents section of the Telegraph. It's not been officially announced that the items have gone for forensic examination, that's just what the 'source close to the inquiry' said. It's probably true (that they've gone for examination), but I'm uncomfortable relying on unsourced leaks, even if they're reported in a reliable source. We might be better wording it something like: 'Some sources assert that a belt and plastic bag (or whatever it was) have been taken for forensic examination, but this has not been officially confirmed'. I'll copy this to the article talk page. GedUK  12:45, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Okay, paragraph 4 of the Times report states "Sources close to the inquiry disclosed that a belt and a bag, items associated with autoerotic asphyxiation, had been removed from the property for forensic tests." How much clearer could that be? Ash (talk) 13:43, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Hm, I see you copied this thread to the article talk page. It would have been polite to let me know so I would not have wasted time replying here. Ash (talk) 14:26, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

I did, it was the last sentence. GedUK  15:13, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Oh yes, I'll have to practice that reading stuff a bit more. Doh! Ash (talk) 15:38, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

You caught me in the middle of work

When I hit save, I had a ec with you. Was fixing the old as below:

'''''In the Closet''''' is an ] ] ] ] written and directed by Jody Wheeler, starring model and actor ] and writer, producer, director ].<ref name="twitmagazine"/><ref name="gayporntimes"/>

Plot

Press (Brent Corrigan) picks up Griffin (J.T. Tepnapa) in a bar. When they get to Press's home, there are strange noises coming from the bedroom.

Awards & nominations

• 2009, The film was nominated as 'Best Short' at the Iris Prize festival.

<ref name="twitmagazine"> {{cite news |url=http://thisweekintexas.com/content/view/59/95/ |title=Review: In The Closet |last=Simolke |first=Duane |publisher=This Week In Texas |accessdate=3 March 2010}}</ref>

<ref name="gayporntimes"> {{cite news |url=http://www.gayporntimes.com/hardnews/2008/05/19/brent-corrigans-in-the-closet-frightfest/ |title=Brent Corrigan’s “In the Closet” Frightfest |last=] |first=] |publisher=Gay Porn Times |accessdate=3 March 2010}}</ref>

<ref name="irisprize"> {{cite web |url=http://www.irisprize.org/shortlist09/index.html |title=2009 Iris Prize nominations |publisher=Iris Prize Film festival |accessdate=3 March 2010}}</ref>

<ref name="lavoce"> {{cite news |url=http://www.voceditalia.it/articolo.asp?id=41119&titolo=Porno%20gay%20attori%20si%20traformano%20in%20Zombie%20e%20Vampiri |title=Porno gay: attori si traformano in Zombie e Vampiri |date=10 November 2009 |publisher=La Voce |language=Italian |accessdate=3 March 2010}}</ref>

<ref name="afterellen"> {{cite web |url=http://www.afterellen.com/node/58880|title=IRIS - International LGBT short film Prize finalists announced... |publisher=After Ellen |accessdate=3 March 2010}}</ref>

Maybe you can use some of the above. Schmidt, 08:55, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Mathew Shepard

Incivility-- apology

I'm sorry. It was not my intention to behave in a incivil manner, and I apologize for having made heat-of the-moment statements that offended you. I don't believe in pretending not to have written something-- I'd feel like a weasel. (Should have gone for a walk before I posted the first version.) If you feel anger toward me, then I probably deserve it and won't whitewash my own behavior by pretending. Again, I'm sorry for hurting you. Dlohcierekim 19:16, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Stryker.

Duly noted. But the SPS does not back up the info that was in the article. :o) Thanks for keeping an eye to make sure I'm doing this right. I'll lay off for a bit and see how the edits I've already made land with the general WP community. 38.109.88.196 (talk) 14:37, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Re: RfC

Per the argument on the Admin Noticeboard, and per WikiStandards, I'm going to stay away from Delicious Carbuncle. But I do believe he is WP:TE against gay porn star articles. If you believe there is a time to address that, please include me in the discussion. 38.109.88.196 (talk) 14:51, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Steve Titus#Requested move

Hi, Ash. Because you participated in Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Steve Titus (2nd nomination), you may be interested in Talk:Steve Titus#Requested move. Cunard (talk) 18:47, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

ANI thread regarding your latest accusations

Please see here. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 02:37, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Please note: nominating an article for deletion is not a personal attack. Nominating an article is merely the mechanism by which an editor expresses their opinion that the article should be deleted. Other editors may or may not agree with that editor. In some cases, articles are in a poor state, and the AfD nomination spurs editors to improve the article until it can be demonstrated that it really should remain on Misplaced Pages. A nominator generally does not delete an article that they have nominated. Mjroots (talk) 16:22, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

1. Nominating an article with the rationale that it is "in order to improve" it is explicitly against the deletion guidance.
2. I do not believe that anyone apart from Delicious carbuncle has made any claims of personal attack with regard to nominations.
3. As an admin, why are you raising your opinion here rather than in the ANI? —Ash (talk) 16:35, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Re the first point, if you see this happening, then the relevant AfD debate is a good place to voice your concern over that. I'm not saying that it is the case with DCs nominations, I was saying that having been nominated, in some cases this is what happens, even with a nomination raised in good faith. Re the third point, I was offering some friendly advice, which you are free to take or ignore as you see fit. We admins aren't all "block first, ask questions later" you know. Personally I don't like having to block an editor if it can be avoided. However, I will block if it proves necessary to do so in order to protect Misplaced Pages as a whole. Mjroots (talk) 18:50, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

I think you may have misunderstood what is going on here. Delicious carbuncle has raised an ANI requesting admin intervention due to personal attacks. I have made no accusations of personal attacks. Consequently your point stating that nominating an article for deletion is not a personal attack on my talk page seems entirely irrelevant to the ANI raised or to any action or concern I may have or that Delicious carbuncle may have. Nobody has suggested that nominating an article for deletion has been a personal attack. Did you mean to say something else? Ash (talk) 18:57, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

change your page name.

Hello. My name is Chase Hunter and I am a college student at BVU in Storm Lake Iowa. I kindly request that you take the page off that is about the actor "Chase Hunter." Being in the political science area of the university I cannot afford to have my name related to the type of thing this actor is in. I kindly ask for you to remove this page.

Thanks, Chase Hunter —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.55.238.103 (talk) 07:57, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi, I shall raise the suggestion of a page move on the article talk page. However it is normal for any biographical article to be named after the subject of the article. The page could be moved to Chase Hunter (pornographic actor) but as there is no other notable Chase Hunter on Misplaced Pages there is has been no need to disambiguate the page. Ash (talk) 08:39, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

A request for comment has been raised on Talk:Chase Hunter. Ash (talk) 11:35, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Marins Ssempa

Thanks for your help in getting those references in order. I'm still not clear how you did that. Is it something I can do, or is it only account holders? 38.109.88.196 (talk) 18:03, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

I think anyone can use the online tool, take a look at REFLINKS. To get it to appear as a handy link in your sidebar you need to fiddle with your monobook.js settings - (adding the line importScript('User:SQL/refcheck.js'); ). This probably means editing from a named account as you need to be able to have saved preferences (and I think only default settings are available for IP addresses as otherwise a dynamic IP user could suddenly find someone previously set their new IP address with some silly style, such as black text on a black background...). Ash (talk) 18:20, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

I looked at that page, and to me it's quite a bit of technical jargon that I don't understand, but I'll try to wade through. Thanks for your help. 38.109.88.196 (talk) 18:43, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Tea!

Someone has poured you tea.

Thanks for the comment. Actually about to grind some fresh coffee beans in RL. A delightful morning routine. I have noted your wikilove approach, congratulations on getting some results even if they were painfully grudging. Cheers Ash (talk) 07:03, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, thank you for your advice and guidance. You'll also want to note my brief edit here. I hope I can count on you in the future and promise not to take up too much of your time. 38.109.88.196 (talk) 07:05, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

NP, glad to help. Ash (talk) 07:29, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

link to existing citation in George Swede

Hi Ash, you wrote:

Hi, from your first edit you may have an interest in the website link you have added. Please be aware of the conflict of interest policy for such contributions. Cheers, Ash (talk) 07:51, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi Ash! Thanks for the reply and I hope you can help me out. I'd like to make the changes, but I'd like to make them correctly. Actually, I'm pretty sure I am in compliance just want to check with you. I read through the policy again now and according to the "Non-controversial edits" section the following two items are allowed:

a) Fixing spelling and grammar errors.

The citation already existed, haijinx was simply mis-capitalized. That seems unquestionably allowable.

b) Adding citations, especially when another editor has requested them.

As I mentioned, the citation already existed and I changed no text in it other than the capitalization. The link for the citation however was not present most likely because the "haijinx" archive were offline for several years. As another editor already created the citation, I don't see how adding the valid link is a COI.

That said, the same section on "non-controversial edits" includes: If another editor objects for any reason, then it's a controversial edit. Such edits should be discussed on the article's talk page. Should I place a comment on the talk page proactively about why I fixed the capitalization and added the link?

Haijinx (talk) 10:27, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for raising this back on my talk page. Your interpretation looks good to me, the fact you have explained it here is fine and I doubt that you need to take any further action (if anyone else asks you can point to this conversation).

I would like to point out that if you add any links to a website that includes the same text as your account name, this will flag up on automatic searches for conflict of interest. If you are acting in good faith and complying with the COI policy that should not be an issue but some editors may automatically revert your changes and you are at risk of your account name being blocked if it is perceived that your account name itself is promoting your website. Tricky area. Assuming you have nothing but good intentions, I have two suggestions to avoid this happening, either think about changing your account name to something more neutral (by creating another account to edit under) or avoid adding such links but point out the links on the article talk page for others to add on your behalf (if they think it is okay to do so). Cheers, Ash.

FYI

Looks like semiprotection because of potential for vandalism is not limited to lists. --RegentsPark (talk) 18:30, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Everyone understands that BLP exists for good reason but it is never an excuse for indefinite preventative protection. It surprises me that the general admin community do not recognize this as a direct conflict with the core principles, in particular Founding principles #2 "The ability of anyone to edit (most) articles without registration". Ash (talk) 18:43, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

I was going to make a similar statement on the discussion you linked to but I note the emphasis "please realize that this page is for admin review of requests", so I'd rather not interfere where I'm not genuinely welcome. Ash (talk) 18:52, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

I would have commented as well but others have commented appropriately and I assume that the article won't stay protected. I'm concerned though about this tendency to pro-actively protect articles. I agree about IP editors, I think they are our most valuable resource (more than admins for sure!) and I think that asking long term IP editors to register themselves is not appropriate. This definitely bears watching. --RegentsPark (talk) 19:00, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Did I misunderstand your proposal?

Please see . Did I misunderstand? 38.109.88.196 (talk) 23:20, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

I think you did misunderstand. The RFC is proposing that footnotes are not needed where an article includes a suffix such as "(pornographic actor)". The RFC is not proposing that such suffixes (intended to disambiguate articles) could be dropped. Cheers Ash (talk) 07:28, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Ah, thanks. 38.109.88.196 (talk) 19:37, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Please advise Re: Delicious carbuncle.

Per your advice, I have made civil attempts in multiple places with Delicious carbuncle, including a lengthy thread on his talk page, as well in article discussion pages s/he and I are both interested in.

My issue here is not that he is WP:TE (although that is a secondary concern), but that he continues to WP:BITE my edits with no serious intent towards WP:AGF or WP:CIVIL, while I have suggested a WP:TRUCE (which was painfully short-lived) and WP:COOL. He has indicated that he is not interested in any WP:RfC on his behaviors.

• I myself am going to take a day of WP:COOL to make sure I'm not overreacting, and to show my willingness to follow the spirit of WP:5P.

Do you still think WP:WQA, WP:ANI, or WP:RfC might be in order? I'm concerned that these might just inflame an already tense situation. I don't understand how I've become a target, when I've been polite and respectful of his editing from the get-go.

Please advise. Thanks. 38.109.88.196 (talk) 21:50, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately Delicious carbuncle appears to be using bullying tactics such as making accusations of personal attack and taking editors repeatedly to ANI (such as myself and Benjiboi) without reasonable substantiation. I do suggest following the recommended process in good faith. Going to WQA should not inflame the situation as it will get independent views on the behaviour demonstrated to date, though you should note that no action would normally be taken against DC using WQA as it is an advisory forum. The fact that you have offered a truce and only received abuse and further claims of potential malfeasance in return should hold any opinions you now have in good stead. I would welcome such a move on your part, the fact that DC has raised two recent ANI's against me makes the counter-claim that I would be getting some sort of "revenge" possible if I were to go that forum at this point. However DC's behaviour should be appear immediately unacceptable for any independent reviewer. The process may be a drag but it may result in a change in the uncivil editing we have recently seen. Ash (talk) 22:00, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, all of that is a somewhat unfortunate path to feel necessary to take. I was unaware he raised ANI's against you, and since that's the case, I'll probably avoid involving you more in this Un-delicious debacle. But you've given me good advice and I'll follow the good direction you've given. 38.109.88.196 (talk) 22:18, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Cool, the ANI and WQA forums have the facility to search the archives. It may be worth taking a look at any previous contributions involving DC before taking any action. Needless to say the two ANI's against me amounted to nothing as there was no intervention required. Cheers Ash (talk) 23:05, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

• Some of this user's actions, edits, particularly in relation to you, myself, and some other Wikieditors appears intent on achieving some non-specific goal that is unrelated to making wikipedia a better place. I have no idea what his/her goal might be. I am going to follow the good advice you gave me above, but might I suggest -just suggest- laying off of Delicious carbuncle for a day or so? Take a WP:COOL yourself from the articles you are both involved with...they will still be there in a day or two and, as you knkow, here on Misplaced Pages, nothing is forever set in stone. It might be in everyone's best interests later on, and would certainly show your willingness to address the matter in accordance with the advice given at Griefers. Just my two cents. Hope I'm not out of place. 38.109.88.196 (talk) 16:52, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
  • No problem and taking a break is always a good idea. I'm not actually annoyed, the fact that DC is digging a big hole to fall into feels like their problem rather than mine. Ash (talk) 16:56, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Sorry to have to involve you again in this, but I don't know where to go without being accused later of some form of Canvassing against Dc. And since we've both been under his/her attack as of recent, I think you'd be the best starting point on where to turn next.

I've complied a summary of my experiences with Delicious carbuncle and do wish to have the matter move forward. Below, please find my notes. I can edit them and include more or less info, but do not simply want this to be placed on your "Analysis page" if that will not move forward within a reasonable amount of time (say, the next few days). Please advise on which direction you think this should go. 38.109.88.196 (talk) 04:24, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Hey, nevermind...I'm going to begin by placing this at WQA. That seems the coolest and most civil path to follow...and when dealing with an aggressive editor such as Dc, it's best be behave as civilly as possible. :o) 38.109.88.196 (talk) 16:14, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Good idea. I was pondering a response but wanted to tidy up some of the trivial sourcing challenges by DC that were littering up ANI. One possible benefit you may consider to having a named account would be the ability to have anonymous emails sent to you. In this situation when an editor appears to be scanning talk pages to find evidence they can claim as attacks, use of email to discuss what to do next can be helpful. I'll probably stay out of the WQA unless I can help clarify any facts as I'm getting pretty tired of having to address these nonsense passive/aggressive personal attacks. Ash (talk) 16:21, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

The WQA has been posted here. Sorry to have your continued involvement, but hope you'll at least "keep an eye" on things. 38.109.88.196 (talk) 16:30, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

PornBio

Pornbio leaves a significant number of performers out of the loop, such as the legendary Chad Douglas, who made significant contribs to mainstream porn before awards were given. How to account for this? 38.109.88.196 (talk) 22:14, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

In my eyes this is an ongoing serious flaw with PORNBIO. You would probably have to demonstrate more general notability, I doubt there is a strong case. You may consider the notability of the movie Big Guns (pornographic film) (it did win 1987 X-Rated Critics Organization Best Video, 2002 Grabby Award, Best Classic DVD and 2006 GayVN Award, Best Classic Gay DVD) or the notability of Laguna Pacific or add to the existing William Higgins (director). Any of these articles/potential articles could discuss Chad Douglas as a key figure with supporting sources (try this GBooks search for some sources). Ash (talk) 23:15, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

X15v72A

Dear Ash,

You are mistaken. My edits were in no way libelous. I was referring to allegations of plagiarism by Mr. Gervais that have been made by other persons. Furthermore, these comments were all fully backed up and referenced and the allegations are already well known and in wide circulation:

• www.plagianimals.com
• www.captainpottie.co.uk
• www.enotes.com/misanthrope
• www.enotes.com/tartuffe
• www.pilkipedia.co.uk
• familyhobgoblin.blogspot.com

Your grounds for removing my contributions on the basis of libel OR bad referencing are therefore highly questionable and in direct conflict with the supposedly democratic and impartial principles of Misplaced Pages.

X15v72A (talk) 21:13, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

These sources fail the reliable sources guidelines. They are either primary sources, forums or blogs. If you provided a newspaper article in a quality newspaper about the claim of plagiarism then you may be getting somewhere but to make such a weakly sourced claim in a biographic article is not appropriate. Ash (talk) 22:55, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

CACPT

Hello I see you've added "issue tags" to the CACPT article.

It is a small organization with few outside sourced references. The Canadian Institute of Planners, and Ontario Professional Planners Institute are very similar organizations with little to no references but seem to not have had any problems. Perhaps you could suggest some ways I could improve the article. Thanks. Po' buster (talk) 14:01, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for raising the question. If there are no sources to be found apart from primary sources then the organization fails WP:ORG for notability and should be deleted. References to independent trade magazines or conference proceedings should be sufficient to establish that this is an institute with impact in the field. As for the other articles, they fail too, and I have added similar tags now you have highlighted them for improvement. The rationale of other pages being just as poorly sourced falls under the often heard argument of OTHERSTUFF exists and is not of itself a reason to keep a poorly sourced article if that article has little chance of future improvement. The tags are a way to advertise the fact that the article needs sources to attract potential editors. Cheers Ash (talk) 14:10, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Almost all urban planning organizations aren't well referenced outside of their own web pages. Even the American Planning Association and Royal Town Planning Institute which have tens of thousands of members have little to no references. There must be a way to write articles which don't have many outside references, no ? Po' buster (talk) 14:47, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Professional organizations, associations and trade associations must have demonstrable impact on the field. If Misplaced Pages allowed pages for any group without requiring anything but self-published sources then I could set up a nonsense website about a group that worships my cat and we would have no policy that could legitimately remove it. Try Google News & Books, again if the association has events, awards or publications that trade journals/magazines refer to, then this is a certain level of collaborating evidence. However after trying a Google search myself, there does seem very little hard evidence of notability.

Perhaps you should look into the history of the "Planning Principles Award". Ash (talk) 14:56, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Martin Ssempa

Hi. Could you please look at this and then the user's page.

I've reverted his edit and added (another) last warning, but perhaps he could be blocked for a short period? I know it's a shared IP, so I want to give every possible chance for improvement before sanction. But s/he's a new editor and there's clearly no grasp of basic 5. 38.109.88.196 (talk) 15:05, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Probably not. This IP only has one warning in the last two months. As we have to assume that this could by a dynamic IP reallocated to different people on a regular basis, blocking normally only occurs if there are 4 warnings recently. All you can do is keep on giving out warnings. As it happens, your last warning should have been a level 1 as previous warnings were so long ago. PS I'm not an admin so I wouldn't actually block anyone but once 4 warnings are given it happens fairly promptly. Cheers Ash (talk) 15:12, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Right on, thanks. 38.109.88.196 (talk) 16:49, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Some questions...

I liked the "collapse" that you added to , and think that might help on the talk page of list of porn actors, especially when some of the bulky threads were wholly off-topic. Is there a list of "collapse tags" somewhere? Thx.

Probably worth having a surf through the categories - try starting at Category:Collapse templates.

Awesome, thanks.

Oh, and congrats on the prelim results of your analysis page. Seems fair, but given the user in question, I'm still laying low.

NP, I'm have a rest from it. I may return to consider whether to drop the idea in the next couple of days.

I'm sure you'll make a decision that makes you comfortable and conforms to the guidelines.

Your editing method has all my respect, even when we don't always agree, such as with the footnote proposal. Care to be my WP:MENTOR? It might help you later on if you apply for Adminship. Also, please let me know if I'm being a nudge, just say and I'll gladly lay off... 38.109.88.196 (talk) 17:11, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

lol - I'm flattered and happy to continue offering advice an any issues you have, though I don't feel wise enough to be a grownup mentor. Brings to mind a Kesuke Miyagi type training program, though most WP editors can wax on indefinitely, few get around to waxing off... Ash (talk) 17:41, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

:o) Well, I think you would be a very good mentor. But if you don't want to, I'm happy to keep taking your advice just the same. Might you be able to recommend another editor to mentor me? 38.109.88.196 (talk) 03:04, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

It is probably worth taking a look through Misplaced Pages:Adopt-a-User/Adoptee's Area/Adopters and seeing if there are any names you recognize or if some have similar interests. Ash (talk) 10:05, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

GedUK  14:30, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Analysis Page

I see the MfD of your Analysis page has been withdrawn.

Since, as you state, that "page is the basis of preparation for a dispute resolution process by one or more editors", does that mean I can use that page to include some of my own observations and diffs in prep of the identical process?

(My other option would be to compile the info off-Wiki, which might be later construed as Wiki-stalking or trolling...at least this way, it will be admittedly in that editor's field of vision). Pls advise. 38.109.88.196 (talk) 02:50, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, please do. If the page is later deleted I will keep a copy off-wiki but should be able to share a copy (possibly via Google documents). It may help to have key diffs for recent disruptive behaviour. Of course as previously stated if DC's behaviour abruptly stops being disruptive then no action would or should be taken. Ash (talk) 08:33, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

I think WP:Griefing may be useful. Like when they keep posting to an ANI thread, or any admin board thread, presumably to keep a discussion everyone else is tired of from being archived. I think most admins see through all of it but it's worth noting. Their doing it with tho threads presently. The overall issues remain disruption and incivility but that's only going on my interactions with them. Really there's so much to work through, ugh! -- Banjeboi 17:41, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

WikiLinking

Hi Ash, I was monitoring the page Homosexual behavior in animals because of vandalism, and noticed your last update there. I was under the impression that WikiLinking should be limited to words not commonly understood by English-speaking people. It seems that most of the words you linked are common enough that they needn't be linked, such as Australian and prostitution. I'm fairly new here, so I wanted to confer with you before taking any action. Thanks. Bento00 (talk) 19:00, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

It depends on the context, there may be a relevant article on zero to link from another article on algebra for example. I think you are right about these two links however, as they don't add much information to the article. Please do unlink them if you prefer. I'll revisit User:Ash/linklistLGBT.js to winkle these out. Ash (talk) 19:05, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Dave Awards

Please note that I am now trading emails with the leading US gay porn expert from 1980-something to 1995, LOL! So many questions! I feel like we should ask him to look at the list and suggest early porn stars we're missing completely and maybe resources he's found helpful? Ideas? -- Banjeboi 21:53, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Wow, well done. His feedback would be handy, though a definitive OTRS with his own full list of Dave Awards would be better. Alternatively, perhaps he could publish the definitive list independently (even if just on a blog) so we could cite the webpage, maybe with an OTRS to make it clear it really has been published by him. This would satisfy WP:SELFPUB as the awards were originally published by him. Anyway this little wrinkle in the history of gay porn seems neatly solvable rather than a bone of contention. Ash (talk) 22:07, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Request for Speedy Deletion: Ronnie Larsen

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
You may also wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles. See the Article Wizard. Thank you. A tag has been placed on Ronnie Larsen requesting that it be speedily deleted from Misplaced Pages. This has been done because the article, which appears to be about a real person, individual animal(s), an organization (band, club, company, etc.), or web content, does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not indicate the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable. If this is the first page that you have created, then you should read the guide to writing your first article. If you think that you can assert the notability of the subject, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the article (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the article's talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm the subject's notability under Misplaced Pages guidelines. For guidelines on specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for bands, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. --tb240904 23:32, 13 March 2010 (UTC) Really? It is not considered good practice to raise a speedy delete when an editor is in the middle of improving citations for an article. In this case, the article was only 3 minutes old when you raised a speedy delete on it, and at that point there were already independent reliable sources on the article establishing reasonable notability. The speedy was misjudged. If you believe Larson is not demonstrably notable and the article cannot be improved, then an AfD could be raised, not a speedy. Ash (talk) 23:58, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Busy

I'm tied up with work meetings for a day, though may dip in for the odd minute. A bit of a break from WP might be helpful.

Recent repeated accusations of deliberately fraudulently sourcing articles on ANI have rattled me. I find this assumption of bad faith insulting and personal. How am I supposed to assume good faith on behalf of my accusers in such a situation? The fact that my accusers had every opportunity to discuss any sourcing issues in a non-threatening way on article talk pages, or my user talk page, but instead have preferred to jump to ANI and demand Admin intervention, is ridiculous and unnecessary escalation. At the moment I feel let down by the lack of a collaborative atmosphere, instead direct accusations of "fraud" with thin evidence are bandied about with no immediate consequence for those who are apparently here to enjoy such drama at the expense of other editors. My good record of contributions over the last 3 years seems to stand for little. Curate's egg applies, a few editors acting in bad faith ruin the whole environment here and leave a lingering unpleasant experience. Ash (talk) 21:04, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, Ash, if it makes you feel any better, I've archived my grievances over Delicious Carbuncle (uch, is there a grosser username?) offline and am going to post it tomorrow or the next day on your analysis page. After all, Illegitimi_non_carborundum. You've been a great help to me. We'll get his actions brought to light. 38.109.88.196 (talk) 05:46, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

File:Mowbli Jumping small.jpg listed for deletion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Mowbli Jumping small.jpg, has been listed at Misplaced Pages:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Cloudbound (talk) 22:13, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages review dot com

Hi Ash, I am assured that User:Delicious carbuncle is not part of some off-wiki (or on-wiki)conspiracy, and has nothing to do with Misplaced Pages review dot com. I don't understand the context, nor would a reasonable man, so the allegations are not defamation. People at Misplaced Pages review dot com are the bane of my existence -- I've been outed and accused of being disbarred. Pay no heed to the man behind the curtain. If there is some admin action you want, list it at WP:AN/I. If there is something specific that I can do, based on my experience, get back to me. Bearian (talk) 17:46, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, as per my comments on Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion/User:Ash/analysis (2nd nomination) no claim that DC has been involved in a "conspiracy" has been made. I merely mentioned that a thread on Misplaced Pages Review specifically discussed an ANI raised against me by DC. This in turn has obviously attracted interested editors to view the original ANI (why else would the ANI have been mentioned unless to attract attention to it?). I have no interest in raising an ANI on this matter, the page in question at MfD is preparation for a RFC/U. If I am not allowed to discuss these matters, how on earth could I ever get to prepare an RFC/U? Cheers Ash (talk) 17:49, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Ash, since you stated "I have no particular plan to raise these concerns directly in an RFC/U about DC as I have no evidence that DC is personally deliberately manipulating WikipediaReview or vice-versa and I am keen to assume as much good faith as possible" the point about discussing them is moot. Your statements have more than implied that there is some conflict of interest happening ("administrators who then get involved in ANI or other disputes without declaring their previously existing interests"), which, when tossed out with no evidence in a discussion which should be about deleting or keeping a page, are wholly inappropriate. If you feel that these concerns need to be discussed, please do so in the right place and provide some form of evidence that people can review. Again, I would like to ask that you delete the comments in question, since I view them as personal attacks. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 18:05, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

What would you consider "the right place" for such discussion? In your posts, you've eliminated your interest in participating in conversations about the matter on your talk page, an RfC/U, and ANIs...perhaps you suggest we all jump straight to a MedCab? (PS- Call me a troll again to show how civil you're being.) 38.109.88.180 (talk) 00:08, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

No, you are inferring, I made no attempt to imply any such thing. If you chose to ignore those parts of my statement that gave context and pick out the bits you want to support your argument then your argument has no credibility. Ash (talk) 11:22, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Correction to Bearian's comment: The statement that Delicious carbuncle has "nothing to do with Misplaced Pages Review" is incorrect and based on the impression that DC gave Bearian on their user talk page. Delicious carbuncle has made contributions to Misplaced Pages Review since 2008 using the name "carbuncle", please see this archive copy of his/her member card page where "carbuncle" declares their WP account to be "Delicious carbuncle". Ash (talk) 06:57, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

I looked at site:wikipediareview.com carbuncle and see that you are correct. Bearian (talk) 12:32, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Casting Aspertions

Need some help please

Hi Ash, what's up? I could use an extra set of eyes on this. The two editors I'm working with are both Buddhist and I'm finding it hard to maintan a NPOV. - Stillwaterising (talk) 22:11, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

At first glance, your additions seem factual. My reaction is to wonder why so many words actually say very little about the subject. Presumably the Dalai Lama's views on sexuality have moved on since 1997, so reliance on a 13 year old quote might be slightly over-egging the case (particularly as "other holes" is a slightly tangential reference). As the same newspaper report from 1997 goes on to quote him saying he supports full gay rights and tolerance, it makes one wonder if "sex with your wife" may also apply today to same-sex marriage for members of the Buddhist faith. These are unanswered questions that the current text tacitly ignores and consequently gives potentially undue weight to out of date views. Perhaps a talk page appeal for more recent sources to support a factual and more up to date statement of the case, however I would not rush to remove or change the facts you have added as "potentially undue weight" is a very mild criticism here. Cheers Ash (talk) 00:18, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

User:Ash/RfC Delicious carbuncle

• User:Ash/RfC Delicious carbuncle

Please remove mention of me on this page, User:Ash/RfC Delicious carbuncle. I do not want to be involved in this anymore due to the inappropriate tone by multiple parties. Thanks. -- Cirt (talk) 15:49, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Sure, done. Ash (talk) 19:09, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

While that's noble of you, Ash, (and certainly not to stir up any shit or animosity, Cirt), I DO hope that you will eventually include any and all inappropriate edits by Dc in the DR process, regardless of whomever those inappropriate edits were targeted against. 38.109.88.180 (talk) 00:41, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

I think there is enough evidence without this particular example, and I think we should respect any editor's request to stay uninvolved. There is a lot of history with regard to other editors and DC, for the RFC/U to stay robust, it will probably be best to only raise evidence that those who "certify" the RFC are comfortable to answer questions on. So far I see that as yourself, Banjiboi and me. Not only do I respect a position of staying uninvolved, I personally envy it. I would much, much rather be viewing this on the sidelines rather than being the target of Delicious carbuncle's accusations. Ash (talk) 07:06, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
		For honesty, resilience, sisu, and diligence in defending English Misplaced Pages against Misplaced Pages Review. Please accept my apologies for my previous posts made in ignorance of the danger to the Wiki, which you recognized. Bearian (talk) 20:54, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Kind of you to say, I appreciate your help clarifying matters here. I'd much rather spend my time constructively; it is a pity that Delicious carbuncle will not just get bored and go away. Ash (talk) 21:38, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Is this potential "Outing"?

http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=A-Frame&diff=prev&oldid=351663390 38.109.88.180 (talk) 00:45, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, not only is outing in edit comments not appropriate, it cannot be withdrawn without official intervention. If you wish to follow up, I suggest pointing this out to an interested admin to test if it is worth taking action. Considering current events it is probably better that I do not get involved. Cheers Ash (talk) 06:56, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

RFC/U questions

Ash, is it likely that the RFC/U you are preparing will be filed any time soon (i.e. within the next few days when the MfD is due to be closed)? The ANI thread about your misuse of citations (Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Fraudulent referencing) has stagnated and the next step would seem to be an RFC/U. I do not want it to be viewed as a preemptive move to head off your action, but I would like to get the issue addressed properly. If your filing is imminent, I will wait, but please be realistic in your response. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 14:18, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

1. Cite error: The named reference irisprize was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
2. Cite error: The named reference afterellen was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
3. Cite error: The named reference lavoce was invoked but never defined (see the help page).