User talk:Bernie55

Gina Vice

Use the Biography section if using birthdate info from Freeones, the November 30 date you gave for Gina Vice is a default that only appears on the dashboard section, the biography section will have the best information!

BSP, this is *nonsense*. Why should there be a default birth date, why should it be different from the bio section, why is an unprecise date better (or the "best") than a precise one, and lastly, what makes you think I took the data from Freeones (it actually comes from IAFD, which should be better trusted than Freeones, as a long-standing and mature database mentioned in the infobox).

As a side note, you should try to edit Boobpedia properly, i.e. put edit comments, make sure your reverts leave articles in a consistent state (which was not the case with Gina Vice), sign your messages to users with four tildes, and start messages to users in a new section using the + in the top bar. Otherwise that is messy. Thanks. -- Bernie55 13:22, 15 June 2015 (EDT)

I assumed you had used Freeones as quite a few users have used Freeones as sources for birth dates and years. Personally I prefer Freeones as a source as it seems to be updated more frequently than IAFD, but I could be wrong. The differences Freeones has could be some sort of glitch. In regards to your comments about how I edit articles, I only make edit comments when its not obvious why I have made an edit, I am never malicious, so I won't be a dick and keep reverting, but will happily do so if better evidence for her comes along, which isn't very likely as she's been on my watchlist for a while and there is little information about her out there. BSP 15:05, 15 June 2015 (EDT)

Ah Okay. About the better info source, we'll have to agree to disagree. It seems to me that at IAFD they're very conservative (and so less "frequent"?) about adding information so they ought to be very reliable IMO; their film credits won't be stamped as complete if they've not been checked carefully; and they won't merge pages if not absolutely sure, as I've noticed from some requests of mine... Though there's one thing I find very stupid at IAFD: they strip the starting determinant from all film titles, making them not only unprecise, but also often changing their meaning or even making them grammatically incorrect for foreign language titles!

About putting edit comments, a lot of people miss the point. It's not about vandalism nor being "obvious"; without comments someone can't see it's "obvious" without actually clicking to see the change; and edits from vandals or new contributors will be checked anyway, even if they put comments. Comments are about both quickly locating changes from the history page, and good faith peer review efficiency, because good faith contributors can still make mistakes and so peer review is useful. Noone will ever check every edit from all their peers when comments are absent, so in that case checks will at best be random. With comments, peers can quickly decide if they want to check or not given what they know about the contributor strengths, weaknesses and habits; which means more focused checks, less time wasted, and overall better quality articles... -- Bernie55 19:11, 15 June 2015 (EDT)

Jordan Pryce

Sorry about that; she had asked for some information to be removed, and I reverted too much. I've restored most of it. The Honorable 19:56, 25 June 2015 (EDT)

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. —Bernie55 02:16, 7 July 2015 (EDT)

Deleted WP articles

Re 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. 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. -- 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. 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. -- 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. 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. Teddy 13:21, 9 September 2015 (EDT)

Frankie Dashwood

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. ;)

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. The Honorable (talk) 18:01, 11 July 2016 (EDT)

Good idea. But a disambiguation link at Vanessa (Score) is probably not needed either. --Bernie55 (talk) 18:25, 11 July 2016 (EDT)

Flower Tucci

According to IAFD and Adult Film Database, she's a B cup, so she doesn't qualify for an article. The Honorable (talk) 18:46, 12 July 2016 (EDT)