User talk:Greystone36

Ida Ljungqvist

I'm aware of what you posted in the article. After all, I'm the one who removed it. I did so because the article is about Ljungqvist, not Lang. If Lang is notable enough, then create an article about him. But I don't feel it belongs in the Ljungqvist article.

And please sign your posts to talk pages with four tildes like this ~~~~. That will automatically put in your username and the time stamp like I am about to do... Thanks, Dismas|^(talk) 10:13, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:BLP, you can't have Ljungqvist's real/birth name in the article unless you can provide reliable sources for it. Just wanted to warn you that real names are a hot button item around here. And please, sign your posts to talk pages. Dismas|^(talk) 10:21, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why have you started another article (Ida Ljungqvist Playmate) about Ljungqvist? She already has an article. We do not need, nor want, multiple articles about the same person. Dismas|^(talk) 11:22, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

more detailed than the other(s) updated with more detailed info which is better sorry here is the sign :) Greystone36 (talk) 12:50, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You can just update the original article. That's the way it works. We all collaborate on one article. We don't all start our own versions of articles about the same people/places/etc. Dismas|^(talk) 13:37, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why was my article "Ida Ljungqvist Playmate" erased? This is pathetic to say the least. The article now is bland stupid facts with no in depth truth as was stated in my article that had 7 references as the current only has 3. I dont care what kind of award Wikipedia sent out to whomever "for the best job" (this isnt elementary school) but its BS my article was shut down over stupid political online garbage. FYI- I know both parties in REAL LIFE and my judgement is non biased and the facts are the facts!!! Greystone36 (talk) 08:20, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Articles here don't "belong" to anyone. See WP:OWN for more on that. You are free to edit the Ida Ljungqvist article and add sources and text. There was/is no point in creating more than one article about a person. We work collaboratively on articles here. We don't all create our own articles for the same people/places/things/events/etc. Just think of how many articles there would be on George Bush or Albert Einstein or Africa or... if everyone just created yet another article about the same thing.

I'm confused as to what you're referring to with the comment "I dont care what kind of award Wikipedia sent out to whomever "for the best job"". Could you explain what you're referring to?

With the exception of the information about Lang and the trivia about her likes and dislikes, the current article has all the same information about Ljungqvist that your article did. If Lang is notable, please start an article about him. As I've said, info about him doesn't belong in her article. It belongs in his.

And there's no reason to get mad about this. I've been willing to discuss this with you the entire time and I still am. Dismas|^(talk) 08:54, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You cannot edit the "Ida Ljungqvist" article because it is locked from editing. Now do you understand my frustration? So I dont know which moron locked it but thats totally unfair and un-ethical from what I read in the Wikipedia "what were about" section. The article needs to be unlocked. Greystone36 (talk) 09:01, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea why you're getting that message. The Ida Ljungqvist article is not under any sort of protection from edits. You might want to ask at the help desk as to why you might be getting that error. Dismas|^(talk) 09:05, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article is infact locked. My friend is also having the same problem and she cannot edit it either. Whats going on? thanks Greystone36 (talk) 03:15, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The edit history of the Ida Ljungqvist article does not show any protection ever being applied to it. Since I am not an admin, I cannot look any further into it than you can. So, I have no idea either. I suggest you take my earlier advice of asking at the help desk. Dismas|^(talk) 04:11, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, hope all is well. Can you please see or who is deleting my credible xource and editing job in this subject. I got this from Yahoo and Google front page as well as in google images and yahoo as well. It's really annoying me. Ecspecially that court documents are public records for the public to view protected by law. Thanks Greystone36 (talk) 02:35, 1 April 2009 (UTC) GreystoneGreystone36 (talk) 02:35, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Click on the history tab at the top of the article and you'll see that it's me removing your edits. Dismas|^(talk) 02:36, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Synchronism (talk) 07:55, 14 January 2009 (UTC) Why are you doing this. COURT DOCUMENTS ARE PUBLIC RECORD!!! PUBLIC RECORD! Did I miss something. You really need to stop delteing things on here, It seems your the onlky one who wants to run this pages, seriously. Los Amgeles superior court documents are publin records and are credible proof and evidence protected by the state and law. Copies of them are online and are under GOOGLE (which is credible) and Yahoo (which is credible) Greystone36 (talk) 02:44, 1 April 2009 (UTC)greystoneGreystone36 (talk) 02:44, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to be confusing Google and Yahoo with news agencies. They are only search engines and do not vouch for the credibility of anything that is found using their services.

Secondly, just because something is in some court records, does not mean that it can or should be in an article. I'll quote again from WP:BLP, just like I did at the bottom of this page, "Exercise great care in using material from primary sources. Do not use, for example, public records that include personal details—such as date of birth, home value, traffic citations, vehicle registrations, and home or business addresses—or trial transcripts and other court records or public documents, unless a reliable secondary source has already cited them." I emphasized the important bits that relate to this discussion.

Third, Synchronism did not remove the information from the Ida Ljungqvist article. You were looking at the history of your own talk page and not the history of the Ljungqvist article. I was the one who removed your edits multiple times. I stated my reasons for doing so each time in the edit summary for my edits.

And lastly, if you'd like to report my actions, please feel free to do so. The administrators notice board is here: WP:ANI. Dismas|^(talk) 02:53, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. I get what your saying. this can be very very confusing here. It just seems weird how a state/federal organization such as a court isnt reliable, but yet some "agency" is....? if you get my drift. I know what you mean though. Example: TMZ obtaining information from courts and posting them, basically the exact same thing but it wont fly. I understand it now.

I think you're on the right track. But it's not that the court records aren't reliable. Think of it this way. Celebrity X has a disagreement with their neighbor over a tree that is on the property line. It goes to court, the whole thing is cleared up and the two neighbors settle. This is in court records but is never reported by anyone. Does it therefore deserve to be in their article? No. Nobody cared enough to report on it in the press, so we don't put it here. If someone were writing a biography on Celeb X, then they would probably do a lot more research than just using an online encyclopedia and would find those records. We're not here to write about every detail of a person's life. Just the notable bits. And if it hasn't been reported on by the media, chances are, it's not notable. Dismas|^(talk) 03:44, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I thought that if an article is on the front page of a search engine such as google and yahoo then it must be important because of the thousands of clicks and views people have viewed of the matter. Thats where Im coming from thats all. The reason this wasnt published just for (future information) from a "news" company is because it already had thousands and thousands of hits already just from the blog alone. Greystone36 (talk) 03:49, 1 April 2009 (UTC)greystoneGreystone36 (talk) 03:49, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just because a link is on the first page of results at a search engine doesn't mean that the information on that page is any more or less true than any other site on the net. The National Enquirer is bought by millions of people every day but that doesn't mean that what it reports is true. Like I said before, Google and Yahoo do not make any claims as to the validity of the information found through their services. I could make a web page right now that says that Barack Obama is a rabbit. It could get millions of views and get ranked really well on Google and Yahoo. That doesn't actually mean that Obama is a rabbit. And it especially doesn't mean that we should put that in his article here.

And again, another example. Let's say someone puts up a blog posting about the recent economic crisis. It gets millions and millions of hits. Do you really think that the New York Times is going to say "Oh, well everyone already found out about this economy thing from this blog post. We won't bother writing about it." Of course they won't. Just because a bunch of people read one blog entry, doesn't mean that it's important. Dismas|^(talk) 04:05, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia ignores the nature of knowledge. Facts are not necessarily what everybody agrees on. Consensus is not a good way to determine what is true. I just saw hundreds of articles online such from USA today, CNN, MSNBC and Cnet all saying that Wikepedia is "very innacurate and ran by majority not actual facts. Facts written that add up too nothing from random online sources and people ignoring true events." I guess this proves my point but its the way its ran I guess and its a catch 22 and we have too follow their rules. Interesting. Greystone36 (talk) 04:18, 1 April 2009 (UTC)greystoneGreystone36 (talk) 04:18, 1 April 2009 (UTC) Their has to be a better way of getting better reliable results. Any Public relations person or AP can sent a bogus press release out and every onlin news organization will copy the exact same article. Such as the "sky is always purple" but yet since lets say CNN said so then it must be true, right? you know what I mean.[reply]

Sort of... Read WP:V. At least read the first paragraph. Dismas|^(talk) 04:28, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Basically Wikipedia equals socialism. They just copy what is already written and available online. The whole concept doesnt make sense. Like you said if you have court papers and we agree their legit and reliable. But yet their not unless someone "talks" about it???? what makes one source better than another? the truth is the truth who cares where it comes from. FYI- I am a reporter and I posted that original blog, which I have many. I report and obtain only original documents and information. remember that news comes from people like me. I just choose not to put press releases out or they would be in the "news". Make sense? What makes some idiot at CNN better than me? Facts are facts and document are documents.

Well, then WP:OR might be of interest to you. Dismas|^(talk) 06:49, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WHY WAS IDA LJUNGQVIST ARTICLE CHANGED AGAIN? FOR THE 10th TIME? SERIOUSLY! ITS A REAL ARTICLE!!!!! WHATS UP?

Speedy deletion of "Joshua Lang"

A page you created, Joshua Lang, has been tagged for deletion, as it meets one or more of the criteria for speedy deletion; specifically, it is about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how they are important or significant, and thus why they should be included in an encyclopedia. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, and the guidelines for biographies in particular.

You are welcome to contribute content which complies with our content policies and any applicable inclusion guidelines. However, please do not simply re-create the page with the same content. You may also wish to read our introduction to editing and guide to writing your first article.

Thank you. Synchronism (talk) 07:55, 14 January 2009 (UTC) Why are you doing this. COURT DOCUMENTS ARE PUBLIC RECORD!!! PUBLIC RECORD! Did I miss something. You really need to stop delteing things on here, It seems your the onlky one who wants to run this pages, seriously.[reply]

Joshua Lang merger

I've responded to your comment from my talk page at Talk:Joshua Lang. Discussion of the merger should be centralized so that if someone else wants to know what's going on with this merger, they don't have to visit the article talk page, my talk page, and your talk page. Dismas|^(talk) 19:49, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Joshua Lang deletion

Well, you waited too long to show that Lang is notable enough for an article. An admin has deleted the article. It can be undeleted, if you can show that he's notable enough (see WP:BIO) for an article, by going through the process described at Wikipedia:UNDELETE#Deletion review. Dismas|^(talk) 23:51, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BLP

Per WP:BLP:

Never use self-published books, zines, websites, webforums, blogs and tweets as a source for material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject of the biographical material.

It would help if you followed the policies that are in place here. A greater number of your edits would actually be allowed if you did so. Dismas|^(talk) 02:34, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re. IRC

Hiya,

I'm sorry we couldn't help you more on IRC; I was glad of the input from Ironholds, because I would have thought that the court doc itself would be citable to support a simple statement. However, after thinking about it and reading up, I can see why it isn't; we can't just 'state the fact' because it wouldn't be balanced, as we'd be making a big deal of an event that, as it's not in the news, we can't really consider noteworthy.

I did do some more digging - I checked in some foreign language papers, because if they'd covered it we could cite them.

So - I think all you can do is, as suggested by Ironholds, check the news and hope they pick up on it. If/when they do, take a look at the Template:Cite court, which you could use as the 'other reference' to assert the facts.

Cheers, Chzz : Chat 03:45, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

May 2009

Please do not replace Wikipedia pages with blank content, as you did to Ida Ljungqvist. Blank pages are harmful to Wikipedia because they have a tendency to confuse readers. If it is a duplicate article, please redirect it to an appropriate existing page. If the page has been vandalized, please revert it to the last legitimate version. If you feel that the content of a page is inappropriate, please edit the page and replace it with appropriate content. If you believe there is no hope for the page, please see the deletion policy for how to proceed. Eugene Krabs (talk) 20:01, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Ida Ljungqvist, no proof

Why do you keep making a big deal over this article? If you look at your edit: [1], you'll see that you blanked quite a bit of content! If you had an issue with the UNICEF info, then you should have removed just that part and NOT most of the personal life section. This isn't hard but you seem to be trying your very best to make it that way. Dismas|^(talk) 21:39, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]