User talk:BAxRay

A question of identity

We have no evidence that the person using this account, and claiming a certain identity, is in fact that person. Impersonation is a problem throughout the internet. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:01, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Signature

Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. If you can't type the tilde character, you should click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --Orange Mike | Talk 17:01, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Arlene Baxter

By "my page" I'm guessing that you mean the article on Arlene Baxter. I'm guessing here since you haven't explained who you are. I have only to guess from your list of contributions.

If you mean this edit where I reverted your edit, it was because you blanked out a lot of the information that was in the article. Go ahead on click on the link to your edit and scroll down the page. You will see the results of the broken template that was left when you blanked out half of that template. Blanking a page is considered vandalism. Many people without anything better to do with their time come here to vandalize articles. When I saw that part of the article was blanked, I just naturally thought it was vandalism and fixed it.

I'd like to point out real quick that I didn't know that the page was about you. I'm working here under the assumption that you are who you claim to be. This is the internet after all and neither one of us had to swear to anything when we created an account here testifying as to who we really are.

I encourage you to read the responses to the question that you asked at the Help Desk. A direct link to your question can be found at this link: Wikipedia:Help desk#editing my page. (Unless you take a few days to come back and check that link, after which your question, along with all questions, will be put into an archive.)

I'd like to respond a bit to that question though. First of all, the article is about you. You don't "own" it any more than you own an article about yourself in a regular paper encyclopedia.

Second, the reason other Playmates names are on that page is for navigation. People who read about one Playmate will probably want to know about others. Therefore part of the template on that page is devoted to directing readers to the previous and subsequent Playmates. Another at the bottom of the article directs them to all the Playmates of that year. Their articles have related information.

Third, the reason why your stats (height, weight, birthplace, etc) is on there is... well, for a number of reasons. Because people want to know about Miss [month]'s stats. Because that information is of value (believe it or not, there have been a few scientific, peer-reviewed, papers that have been written on women and the playmate stats have been used as research). The Playmate Data Sheet that is in each centerfold is a well known part of the centerfold. So people want to know what was there.

And finally, any information that goes into an article should be able to be looked up somewhere else. An encyclopedia is a tertiary source. That means that we gather our info from books, magazines, television, films, etc. If you have something that you want added to the article, other accomplishments and so forth, that info should be backed up with a source. You can't just say that, for instance, you won the Nobel Prize when that can't be backed up with a source (newspaper, the Nobel Prize Foundation's web site, etc).

Are all of our articles perfect? No. There are many with unsourced info and things like that. But we try our best to do what we can. If you'd like to help add some well sourced info to the article about you, GREAT! But at the same time, realize that you represent a conflict of interest and the article should maintain a neutral point of view. Please read over at least the introductions to the conflict of interest and neutral point of view policies.

And if you have any other questions, please don't hesitate to ask. As you can tell, I don't mind explaining things to those who are willing to listen and work things out. Dismas|^(talk) 00:41, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

That link was added by an anonymous IP. If you are not logged in, there is no way to know that the edits are being made by the same person. Secondly, there is no indication on that site that it belongs to Arlene Baxter. There is nothing there that couldn't be put there by just some fan. Now that that has been said... I have been very civil with you. I have been courteous and patient. So, I'd appreciate the same in return. Dismas|^(talk) 13:00, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, you did come off as rude. After all, the 'F' in WTF stands for Fuck. And since there is no tone of voice to just text, it came off that way. I'm glad that it was not your intent though as I'd like to work on this article amicably.

Now, you've said that Baxter has done other work. That would be a good addition to the article. I realize that she was not only in Playboy. So add other notable work. Having sources for it would be even better. Trade publications, publishing info for magazine shoots such as the month and year or whatever that you Baxter was in Vogue or Cosmo or whatever. The page isn't meant to just be a source for Playboy info. So go ahead, add stuff.

Per the policy on Biographies of Living Persons though, if there is something that could be controversial then it will require a source. So if you say something like "Baxter was called the best model of X" then it's going to need a source. We can't just have claims like that made without being able to back it up.

You're probably thinking that there are a lot of policies and stuff to read over. You're right. There is. But the people who are serious about editing WP realize that a lot of people get their info here and WP should be reliable. With anything, there is red tape. And we haven't even gotten into talking about a photo. Dismas|^(talk) 22:14, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

As Dismas says, we try to treat everybody consistently. As far as anything for which you don't have external sources (a simple footnote citing the page number where your name is listed in that issue, for example), we need a solid reliable source. For reasons of verifiability, we can't just use your personal recollections, sound though they may be. If there are any edits you'd like to see made that might seem at all controversial or might be disputed, suggest the edit on Talk:Arlene Baxter, the talk page of the article; explain your reasoning, and ask that some other editor without a conflict of interest do the edit. --Orange Mike | Talk 16:33, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Autobiography (impersonal canned warning from a template)

You should wait for others to write an article about subjects in which you are personally involved, as you did at Arlene Baxter. This applies to articles about you, your achievements, your band, your business, your publications, your website, your relatives, and any other possible conflict of interest.

Creating an article about yourself is strongly discouraged. If you create such an article, it might be listed on articles for deletion. Deletion is not certain, but many feel strongly that you should not start articles about yourself. This is because independent creation encourages independent validation of both significance and verifiability. All edits to articles must conform to Wikipedia:No original research, Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, and Wikipedia:Verifiability.

If you are not "notable" under Wikipedia guidelines, creating an article about yourself may violate the policy that Wikipedia is not a personal webspace provider and would thus qualify for speedy deletion. If your achievements, etc., are verifiable and genuinely notable, and thus suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia, someone else will probably create an article about you sooner or later. (See Wikipedia:Wikipedians with articles.) Thank you. --Orange Mike | Talk 16:33, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Writing about yourself is autobiography. Like I said, just follow the guidelines regarding conflict of interest, with full disclosure, and if you're at all hesitant, put the information on the talk page of the article for others to mull over, rather than making the edit(s) yourself. (And, please, we're serious: do sign your posts to talk pages!) --Orange Mike | Talk 17:17, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Your recent edits

Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. If you can't type the tilde character, you should click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot (talk) 12:30, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Your recent edits

Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. If you can't type the tilde character, you should click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot (talk) 17:12, 23 September 2008 (UTC)