Talk:Stephanie Adams/archive

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I weep for the human race if this is what we have come to. Who is she and why should we care.

Contents

[edit] Recent edits

This seems to me to be something that isn't worth fighting over one way or the other, certainly not worth getting into an edit war. Can anyone propose a reasonable compromise? (ESkog)(Talk) 01:58, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

User:GODDESSY hasn't raised a valid objection to the inclusion of the information, only wrongly argued that it's false, or that it says something false about Adams. Trivial though it might seem, it's a matter of principle not to let an article's content be dictated by the article's subject, only by valid editorial concerns. Postdlf 02:10, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
And someone blocked GODDESSY, so the conflict is moot anyway, unless you can think of any valid objections? Postdlf 02:12, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Interesting, the tarot card and love reading pages have now been taken down from the GODDESSY website, though of course we can still prove the links in google cache.[1],[2],[3] I really don't understand what their deal was. Postdlf 02:27, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Aheh this is amusing

http://whois.domaintools.com/goddessy.com

Read the Yahoo and Dmoz descriptions, MADE ONLY by the webmaster of the site:

DMOZ Title: Tarot Card Readings By Sorceress DMOZ Description: Egyptian based Tarot card readings; tarot related services also available. Yahoo Title: Goddessy Yahoo Description: Specializes in online psychic readings.

[edit] STEPHANIE ADAMS & GODDESSY

The GODDESSY "company" is already mentioned and is therefore sufficient. The comment regarding GODDESSY becoming "the title of several metaphysical books by Adams" has also been confirmed and should remain.

Stephanie Adams does not confirm doing tarot readings and love readings online personally, so the information mentioned previously has not and cannot be verified and is therefore inaccurate.

The GODDESSY site is in the process of making updates to the web site and has confirmed that the information regarding "tarot readings" and "love readings" is not accurate and should not remain.

Refer to the source (The GODDESSY web site) [[4]] and their reciprocated link ("the latest") will confirm the revised information that is up-to-date and correct.

== Let's Clarify Something here == (OUR REVISIONS TO YOUR NOTE IS IN CAPS. NEXT TIME, DO A SPELL CHECK AND GET THE FACTS STRAIGHT.)

First of all, nice to meet you Stephanie Adams. (NICE TRY, BUT MISS ADAMS HAS A PUBLIC RELATIONS DEPARTMENT AND DOES NOT SPEAK TO PEOPLE DIRECTLY.) I to (SHOULD BE SPELLED "TOO") am a very well known celebrity (WHAT'S YOUR NAME AGAIN? WHO ARE YOU? NICE TRY, BUT NO.), I just in fact was almost a winner for a daytime Emmy award (but that's neither here nor there) (WHAT DOES THIS HAVE TO DO WITH STEPHANIE ADAMS? WHO CARES!)

I think what the big confusion is about Wikipedia is that it is verifiable information, not what you WANT on your wikipedia article. (OBVIOUSLY, YOU'RE NOT AN EXPERT BECAUSE YOU CANNOT EVEN SPELL PROPERLY.)

Meaning, awhile back your website sold tarot card readings via email, we can all see that looking at the cached version of it. (THAT'S IRRELEVANT TO WHAT IS ON THE GODDESSY WEB SITE NOW.) Maybe you do not do that anymore but your company DID in fact do it. Therefore since Wikipedia is a historicaly piece of work, it should be listed. (NO, CURRENT UPDATES HAVE BEEN MADE AND LISTED.) Maybe instead you could add in "Used to.... but does not anymore"

I used to dance with Hula Hoops on stage. I do not anymore. (WHAT AN ACCOMPLISHMENT. YOU SOUND REALLY INTELLIGENT.) But if a person put on my Wikipedia Article, "Julianna Mauriello used to dance with hula hoops on stage" then I could not mark that as non factual and write on wikipedia that it is not true. So for that reason, since I can see that your website USED to sell Tarot readings via email, I am going to revert it but also comment it to show that you no longer DO tarot card readings. (UPDATES HAVE BEEN MADE TO REFLECT WHAT IS CURRENT.)

Please See above from Admin Postdlf (REFER TO COMMENT HISTORY, INCLUDING EDIT BY JIM WALES.)

" Interesting, the tarot card and love reading pages have now been taken down from the GODDESSY website, though of course we can still prove the links in google cache.[5],[6],[7] "


Your company USED to sell those services but does not any longer, I have edited the Wikipedia article to show that. (AGAIN, WE MADE CURRENT REVISIONS TO REFLECT COMPLETE ACCURACY.)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julianna_Rose_Mauriello

JuliannaRoseMauriello 16:05, 27 April 2006 (UTC) (YOUR LINK DOES NOT WORK SWEETHEART.)

-User:GODDESSY

[edit] Enough is enough

Okay that's enough now you have personal attacks which is an immediate ban from Wikipedia. Also, Jim Wales has NEVER edited your Wikipedia Article.

It's okay if you do not know me, millions of people do, I'm only 14, my spelling is fine.

Read my Wikpedia Page

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julianna_Rose_Mauriello


JuliannaRoseMauriello 17:22, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] FINAL CLARIFICATION

First of all, you are not speaking with Stephanie Adams. You are speaking with the Public Relations Department for GODDESSY. Maybe you'd like to speak to her, but we can't always have what we want and that's life.

Second, we don't know nor do we care what you used to do. (Being on Wikipedia does not make you a celebrity and frankly, we've never heard of you so come back down to the earth with the rest of us normal people.)

And finally, besides editing your comments (clearly anyone can edit pages, including people who cannot spell) we are revising the Stephanie Adams page once again, removing the "tarot readings" and "love readings" comments (that were not relevant to the topic) and replacing them with the facts that are relevant to the topic.

GODDESSY offers/offered more than just "tarot readings" and "love readings". GODDESSY offers current news and press releases about Stephanie Adams as well as books, products, services, resources, information, etc.

-User:GODDESSY

[edit] Goodbye

I have a feeling your life at Wikipedia is about to come to a very abrupt end.

Goodbye.

JuliannaRoseMauriello 17:27, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] END

WE DO NOT UNDERSTAND WHY YOU SEEM TO HAVE A PERSONAL ISSUES OVER THIS, BUT THIS IS A PROFESSIONAL DISPUTE, SO KEEP IT THAT WAY.

A PHONE CALL IS ABOUT TO BE MADE TO RESOLVE THIS AND WE HAVE NOTHING FURTHER TO SAY TO YOU.

-GODDESSY



Look on your computer, right above your Shift key there is a key called Caps Lock. Please press it. I am dealing with this in a professional manner, I have not resorted to personal attacks, name calling or other unlike yourself. You may call who you wish, this is a vanity page, nothing more nothing less. If your personal savior (as you describe him) Jim Wales came to this Wikipedia entry and read all of the comments and this Talk page, you would be banned. I have broken no rules of Wikipedia (unlike yourself) and I stand by my edits.

JuliannaRoseMauriello 18:08, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] VANDALISM WARNING TO USER: JuliannaRoseMauriello

VANDALISM WARNING TO USER: JuliannaRoseMauriello

What you are doing is "vandalism" and you have been reported.

You cannot add, delete or change content that has accurately been provided by the primary source.

The changes made by us are in fact accurate, so leave them alone.

-GODDESSY

[edit] GODDESSY NO PERSONAL ATTACKS

GODDESSY this is your last warning. If you continue to make personal attacks, you may be blocked for disruption.

[edit] DELETION

User GODDESSY is via her own admittance the person of who this Wikipedia article is about (Stephanie Adams). User Goddessy has been blocked and banned by several moderators and administrators. User Goddessy has made several severe Personal Attacks and been warned and kept attacking.

No credible RELIABLE verifiable information on this Wikipedia article except that Stephanie Adams was in a fact a Playboy model. No reliable verifiable evidence at all about love life, partners and or business. While Stephanie Adams may be notable only for appearing in Playboy, her business, her lovers are certainly not notable.

The User GODDESSY was BANNED http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&page=User:GODDESSY

and continued to make the Wikipedia article via a sockpuppet IP http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&target=68.161.222.151

User GODDESSY continues to harrass and make libelous and Personal comments about users who edit the page with verifiable facts.

Previous Deletion Requests: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/GODDESSY

I vote Delete per Vanity and Wikipedia Rules and Standards WP:BIO and WP:VAIN and WP:WEB

  • I tagged the article as this is currently undergoing a content dispute.--Isotope23 20:46, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] GODDESSY

This has gotten completely out of hand. You cannot look for excuses to "delete" something simply because you took an edit personal. Contact PublicRelations@GODDESY.com for complete accuracy and refer to the following link to confirm: http://www.GODDESSY.com/PressInformation/MediaCoverage.htm

Simply click on the link that reads "the latest" and you will have your clarification for accuracy.

-GODDESSY

[edit] Breathe

  • Everybody needs to be WP:COOL here. Take a deep breath and discuss the content dispute calmly before anyone goes and changes the article again.--Isotope23 21:08, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Factual dispute

For what it's worth, I think the current version of this page is accurate. I'm not going to keep on fighting over whether the website's (now former) tarot card business should be mentioned (though please discuss an interesting consequence of this at the village pump), and other than that it looks substantially the same as to what I had last written. This version therefore has the POSTDLFTM Seal of Approval. Postdlf 22:47, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

OK, I see now that the factual dispute centers on Adams' alleged former girlfriends. Those I can't verify, except I think I saw a picture of Adams with Denise Taormina on the web. Regardless, Taromina does not seem to be notable so her name is irrelevant and should be excised, or maybe just her occupation substituted ("...in a relationship with a New York City stockbroker" or whatever she was). I don't know if Marga Gomez or Barbara Assisi are notable either. However, Joan Jett certainly is, and this is a claim that should be verified outside of Adams or her PR person asserting it. Or maybe it should be rewritten to simply emphasize that Adams has claimed to have dated these people, rather than stating it as objective fact. Postdlf 22:54, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Postdlf

SHE herself may be notable, buit her business is NOT. Her "girlfriends" are not. And untill you can VERIFY that ANY of them without a DOUBT dated her, then every single name she mentions on thei Wikipedia article is LIBELOUS in any court's opinion.

I can say I am 14 year old and had sex with 300 people including YOU. It doesn't mean it's true, but it COULD hurt your marketability and respectability IF people read it.

Joan Jett may or may not be gay, but it needs to be VERIFIED.

JuliannaRoseMauriello 23:02, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

I'd support commenting out the Joan Jett dating allegation until verification is provided, and the names of the non-notable girlfriends are simply irrelevant. Her business should be described her, however, just not in its own separate article. Postdlf 23:04, 27 April 2006 (UTC)


Well her business is not notable at all. Im sorry but I dont consider an internet website that sells horoscope readings for $200 a piece as notable. IF you think it is you have just opened up Wkipedia to every single self advertising idiot to come along.

Hell, I'm "famous", millions of people "know" me, but you don't see me linking my eBay auctions on my Wikipedia page.

There are thousands of metaphysical stores on the internet, hers is not notable at all.

JuliannaRoseMauriello 23:07, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Also I don't know if you and her are friends, but you ARE an admin, she HAS been banned before for personal attacks, perhaps you should reread this entire page. And then maybe think it over what kind of person she is acting like here.

She was in Playboy.

BIG DEAL.

So are HUNDREDS of women yearly. That does not mean they shouldn't have a Wikipedia page, but it doesn't mean that they can write about their pink bunny slippers and you think it's notable either.

JuliannaRoseMauriello 23:11, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Far from being friends with her, User:GODDESSY has shown rather inexplicable hostility towards me.[8],[9] I was actually the first one to include information about her website and new agey business on this article, because I thought it was relevant to the subject. The facts about a notable individual do not have to be notable in their own right, just significant enough to the topic that it is actually informative to include them in the article. This GODDESSY business appears to be a significant part of what she's doing with her life now, so I think it's relevant to include. And yes, I do think every Playboy Playmate merits an article of their own, as have a majority of Wikipedia editors every time the issue has come up. I agree of course that User:GODDESSY has acted inappropriately on this site, but I'm not sure what you're suggesting should be the consequence for that beyond banning that user—it certainly shouldn't affect whether or how we should document the subject of Stephanie Adams. Postdlf 23:22, 27 April 2006 (UTC)


I'm going to turn my Wikipedia article into a walking billboard for eBay then, because I do auctions on their and it's a "big" part of my life right now.

BTW, the "business" that she has hosted on a freewebs website, hasn't had a single post on it's bulletin board now for over 8 months.

JuliannaRoseMauriello 23:30, 27 April 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Tag

I tagged the section about her personal relationships for lack of verification. Only thing that is sourced is that she is a lesbian.--Isotope23 03:49, 28 April 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Administrator's Revision

Reasons for reverting the numerous edits by 208.47.88.133 back to the administrator's (Mark Gallagher):

- This is not a "groundbreaking public announcement" page, it is a resource for a specific topic.

- Reports have not been confirmed and verified regarding other lesbian playmates. Up to date, Adams has been the only one to come "out" publicly.

- Nicknames (like "Dee Tao") aren't necessary to add since the full name has already been provided.

- The people Adams was dating has already been mentioned, so the additional comment was not necessary.

[edit] warnings

Please don't give other users warnings on this page. Add the warnings to their user talk page, if applicable. This article talk page is for discussion on the article, not discussion on other editors, so lets get back to it. ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 22:44, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Capitals

While User:GODDESSY is of course fully entitled to her choice of orthography for her username, there's no reason for the article to refer to her/Adams's company, website, etc. as "GODDESSY", unless perhaps it's primarily referred to in conversation as "gee-oh-dee-dee-ee-ess-ess-wie", which I find hard to believe. Compare Sony Corporation, for example: the last time I looked, the company was consistently referring to itself as "SONY", and Wikipedia rightly ignores this. -- Hoary 07:20, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

PS on URLs, see below. -- Hoary 02:08, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] On two recent edits by "GODDESSY"

This edit: (1) The newspaper cutting that mentions De Niro isn't identified. (2) It may be worth mentioning that this assiduous coverage of Adams's love life comes from Adams's own website. (3) Books aren't "entitled", they're "titled". (4) I'm all in favor of respecting Adams's stated desire for privacy: why are we being told about who she's dating now?

This edit obscures the fact that, according to one of the websites (I now forget which), they're all run by the same outfit. It also may suggest that stephanieadams.com is run by Playboy; it isn't. The edit summary reads in part And by the way, we are not "she". There's more than one of us editing here. This sits oddly with Username policy: The primary purpose of user names is to identify and distinguish contributors. -- Hoary 13:19, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

PS sorry I was too lazy to provide details above. This page (as I viewed it just seconds ago) tells us: GODDESSY is the parent company of the following web sites: / GODDESSY: Astrology - New Age - Spirituality / The Stephanie Adams Fan Club / Sapphica: The Lesbian Place In Cyberspace (where a slash denotes a line break). These link to goddessy.com, stephanieadams.com (i.e. a circular link), and sapphica.com respectively. (Meanwhile, WHOIS gives publicrelations@goddessy.com as the technical contact for all three sites, but no other meaningful information.) It seems a bit odd for a page on one person to have three external links, each of the three pointing to a site run by her or her agents. WP readers might be informed that all three are under the same management. -- Hoary 03:07, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Robert De Niro

We read that Adams was "involved" with Robert De Niro. The link points to this image, which is (or purports to be) a short gossip column in an unidentified newspaper, which says that "a source says" that she had "an intimate dinner" with De Niro. Let's assume that this article is genuine. That some gossip column quotes "a source" as saying that Adams had "an intimate dinner" with De Niro seems pretty feeble evidence for "involvement" to me.

But in addition to that, does it matter who she had dates with? (Is this "encyclopedic"? -- Hoary 12:53, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Subject: Stephanie Adams

Hello To All & Thank You For Reading:

Firstly, "www.StephanieAdams.com" did not speak to anyone, so that explanation is false. Only the GODDESSY Public Relations Department handles any type of correspondence. We are dealing with the subject, not the person.

Reasons for edits are provided on the history page, but have been included here as well:

  • Newspapers are clearly identified on the URLs as the New York Post "Page Six" and the Daily News. Also, sites are not "blogs" and provide sources for articles.
  • Reverted information about recent girlfriend with further clarification, since the link originally provided shows their photo together.

Edits regarding the web sites were definitely an improvement, but the footnotes are not necessary because the URLs provide the source in it along with the photos of the actual newspaper articles.

Examples:

www.GODDESSY.com/images/Stephanie/DailyNewsHotCopyArticle(Part2).jpg

www.GODDESSY.com/images/Stephanie/PageSixArticle3(Part2).jpg

www.GODDESSY.com/images/Stephanie/PageSixArticle8.jpg

And by the way, we are not "she". There's more than one of us editing. Keep in mind that we happen to be experts on this particular topic and have done our best to provide clarity on the subject matter, so work with us here and please do so in good faith.

(Note: If we choose not to believe what is written by valid sources, then we can easily say that everything on this site as well is questionable, as this site was built upon sources (clearly provided regarding the subject matters.) Encyclopedias in general do not have that many persons as subjects, but since this person is in fact a subject on this site, the information about her life, both personal and professional, is substantial.)

Regards,

GODDESSY

[edit] Identifying sources

Thank you for the response. I'm not sure what some of it means, but I'll leave those bits for now and instead will take issue with: Newspapers are clearly identified on the URLs as the New York Post "Page Six" and the Daily News.... the footnotes are not necessary because the URLs provide the source in it along with the photos of the actual newspaper articles. / Examples: www.GODDESSY.com/images/Stephanie/DailyNewsHotCopyArticle(Part2).jpg www.GODDESSY.com/images/Stephanie/PageSixArticle3(Part2).jpg www.GODDESSY.com/images/Stephanie/PageSixArticle8.jpg (slightly reformatted). There's nothing in any URL about New York Post (unless perhaps you happen to associate p.6 with that paper, but of course most papers have a p.6 and many put gossip on it), there's no indication of which Daily News it is, and there's no date on any of these. (Incidentally, I'd rush to agree with any claim that a huge percentage of what's in Wikipedia is questionable.) -- Hoary 14:00, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Hello Hoary,

Thanks again for noting that the web site links had lengthy descriptions and thank you for your reply. Now we understand where you're coming from regarding "Page Six". Us New Yorkers assume everyone knows that "Page Six" is the most read column in the New York Post. Here is a link to the New York Post for further clarification: http://www.nypost.com/gossip/gossip.htm

And here is another link to show some of the publications that wrote about Adams: http://www.StephanieAdams.com/InTheNews.htm

We hope this information is helpful.

Best Regards,

GODDESSY

[edit] Case-sensitivity (or not) of URLs

A minor clarification. GODDESSY says (say?):

(URL is case sensitive, so place GODDESSY in caps)

The net is based on UNIX; and just as UNIX filenames are case-sensitive, URLs are too, in principle. However, the domain name -- what comes before the first single slash -- is not case-sensitive. Thus http://www.GODDESSY.com/PressInformation/GODDESSYAndSorceress.htm and http://www.goddessy.com/PressInformation/GODDESSYAndSorceress.htm are resolved in the same way (though http://www.GODDESSY.com/PressInformation/goddessyandsorceress.htm is not). There's no technical reason why the article should refer to "GODDESSY.com"; "goddessy.com" is just as good. -- Hoary 01:51, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Is there an issue here with us or with Adams? Really...

Links to validate the comment previously made by another user are as follows:

We removed this comment by mistake and added it back again with references. (Refer to history of page.)

Also, why add the "notes" back if there is nothing to note? That's hurting the quality of the page of the subject matter and is considered vandalism.

Question: Is there an issue here with us or with Adams? This seems like an issue that has gone from professional to personal and it has to stop. Something's not right, but it's not our edits. The subject matter is fine as is, so we do not see why it is being so highly scrutinized.

GODDESSY

Adding the notes section back was a mistake, as I didn't realize the footnotes themselves had been removed. As to why this article is being scrutinized so much, it's because we know that you are personally/professionally involved with the subject matter, and you are trying to control the content as if you owned the article. No one specifically or personally cares about the article, or about Adams as a subject matter; we care instead about the integrity of Wikipedia and its policies against original research and unverified, POV assertions. I think it would be best if you simply refrained from editing the article at this point, and instead limited yourself to raising your concerns on the article talk page. Postdlf 16:13, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Hello Postdlf,

Thanks for the reply. We do not plan on editing this article on a daily basis (as if it's a Daily News column) but it seems as if people feel the need to change it on a daily basis. Nothing notable has changed or been recorded in the life of Adams since yesterday, so why the daily changes? Keep in mind that we might not be experts with Wikipedia, but we are the experts on this particular topic and can provide better clarification on the subject matter than anyone else. Refraining from commenting on inaccuracies would not be helpful to Wikipedia and/or the quality that is strived from this overall project. We are a professional resource and have been nothing but professional in our recent edits. Any personal transgression between us previously should not reflect the content of this topic.

Also, why remove the comment regarding Marga Gomez and Joan Jett if the sources were provided? This issue was put to rest some time ago by administators (who found the edits to be factual), so there is no need to change it.

Feel free to contact: PublicRelations@GODDESSY.com for further information.

Regards, GODDESSY

[edit] FALSE TAG

The tag placed in this discussion stating that we (User:GODDESSY) are the subject (Stephanie Adams) is false and has to be removed.

-GODDESSY

Done, whilst you appear to be associated with the subject, I don't believe you actually are the subject. Also please try to reduce the 'shouting' (capitals and demands of 'has to'). Petros471 19:06, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
Given the previous statement by William M. Connolley:
"I've blocked you for a combination of WP:3RR on Stephanie Adams and ignoring the rule about avoiding editing your own biog. William M. Connolley 21:56, 27 April 2006 (UTC)".
Is this the person or not? Even if it is a hired public relations agent, the tag should still go there, since I assume that they would be working together closely. If they only wanted a minor change, then fine, no tag should be posted, but content edits require the tag. For "public relations", it is curious how closely the user's comments rememble trolling(among other conduct issues, like linking false to the article "false" instead of an explanation) and personal attacks. Better conduct is required for productive dialogue. Also, instead of emailing users with things like:
Once again, we are requesting full protection. Besides a few other vandals, an administrator named User:Postdlf is causing great harm to the Stephanie Adams topic by removing verified comments and unnecessarily changing them (perhaps to have the "last word" and is therefore taking this way too personal). This is getting out of hand and we very much so need your assistance. -GODDESSY
Try to actually talk to the person or work it out in a more transparent, productive environment. Thank you.Voice-of-AllT|@|ESP 19:36, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Purported romantic interests

1) Robert de Niro—the "source" for this is an unsourced claim in a gossip column that they had dinner once; User:GODDESSY uses this to verify that Adams and de Niro were "involved." 2) Joan Jett and Marga Gomez—the "source" for the claim that Adams dated these women was once again a gossip column, which didn't substantiate anything more than the writer "heard" that Adams was seen out with them.

I don't consider either of these to be verified (at least not beyond rumors, or the fact that Adams claims to have had those relationships), and I think GODDESSY's insistence on including them smacks of name-dropping, serving Adams' PR interests by linking her to more famous people, rather than providing relevant and substantive information. Hence, I believe the references should be removed. Postdlf 20:29, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Each and every romantic interest listed was not "purported" because all of them were confirmed and tags were removed by administrators. Facts involving romantic interests were placed as fact and have already been verified by numerous publications.
You cannot assume that valid information provided by anyone is "a publicity campaign" and your wanting to remove the information only hurts the overall purpose of this web site (which is to provide as much information about certain topics as known).
The comment about the Public Relations Department was inaccurate and totally personal.
Your comments are (as cited in the example section on the WP:NPA page):
  • Accusatory.
  • Negative and personal.
  • An attempt to use our affiliation as a means of dismissing or discrediting our views.
And no one famous has to promote or be promoted on a free resource page. Many famous people are involved with other famous people so this is not out of the ordinary.
Examples:
  • Information about playmate Barbara Moore was verified by the exact same publication (New York Post "Page Six") that mentioned Adams' romantic interests. Information about many other celebrities comes from the same publication and their validity is not questioned on here.
  • Pam Anderson allegedly had affiairs with numerous celebrities. Their names are all mentioned with their links on Wikipedia, even though proof of her dating them was neither cited or verified.
  • Hugh Hefner had even more romantic interest listed, but verification was neither given nor questioned on that subject.
This list could go on and on, but it will stop here.
GODDESSY


Postdlf, I share your concern with the tenuous sources given here. I think the "personal life" section should be condensed or removed. The larger issue here is that Adams' own website is the major source for this entire article. I've searched for other sources of info using Google and Lexis/Nexis, but haven't come up with much beyond her site, her press releases, and the blog of someone who claims to have had email interactions with her. The lack of corroborating or other sources suggests to me that the article as a whole should be much shorter. (As our policy on autobiography suggests, if someone is notable, others will write about her.) We should cut down on the number of "fair use" images used here - some of the images have (apparently) been released freely, so we don't need the unfree ones. Finally, I am concerned about the copyright issues involved in linking to the scanned "Page Six" column that is given as a source for the DeNiro connection. Our External links policy recommends that we should not link to sites that violate copyright. GODDESSY, please understand that this is a site for collaboration. We do not produce an "authorized" or "final" version of an article - different people come along and contribute their suggestions of ways it should be improved. Administrators generally do not have any more authority than other editors to "authorize" what should be in an article. The goal of our site is not "to provide as much information about certain topics as known", but to give a useful overview of a topic. FreplySpang (talk) 22:41, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] goddessy website

A version of this article is reproduced here (at the bottom of the page) with the following notice:

LEGAL NOTICE:

INFORMATION PROVIDED ON THIS WEB SITE REGARDING WIKIPEDIA HAS BEEN VERIFIED BY STEPHANIE ADAMS. ANY EDITS MADE TO WIKIPEDIA THAT AREN'T LISTED HERE ARE NOT VERIFIED AND MAY CONSTITUTE LIBEL IN A COURT OF LAW.

-Public Relations Department

Thoughts? NoSeptember talk 23:42, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

The impression that it gives is certainly odd. Still, the two sentences are separate. First, somebody may provide information on her own site about Wikipedia and may claim to have verified this information. I can't see anything problematic about this. (The only odd thing is to put it in FULL CAPS and under the rubric "legal notice".) Secondly, any edits made to WP that aren't listed on her own site aren't verified by her: again, nothing wrong with saying that. Of course an unverified edit may constitute libel in a court of law: let's imagine for a moment that there was some Playmate called Snurp Twayve -- there've been more than 600 Playmates, but I'm guessing that none has had that name -- who's an upright citizen but about whom some dimwit or troll makes the same kind of claims that have been vigorously made about, say, Elvis Presley. (Presley has been accused at one time or another of just about everything aside from mainlining heroin and eating puppy dogs.) Such claims may indeed constitute libel: it's for Twayve or her agents to go ahead and make a case for this. There's a WP rule about making legal threats on WP, but I don't think there is or should be a WP rule about making legalistic rumblings about WP elsewhere, if that's what you're driving at. My thought is that this legalistic talk is rather absurd, but unexceptional by (bizarre) US standards. -- Hoary 02:06, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mediation Request

A mediation request was made for this article. Please summarize the dispute below, or submit it to the mediation cabal. — ßottesiηi Tell me what's up 00:20, 1 May 2006 (UTC)


Unnecessary edits and personal attacks are being made by Postdlf and we feel that this person should no longer edit this topic. This person was even told once by an administrator named Mark Gallagher to not revert the page until he spoke with him in private. (Refer to edit history.)

  • Reference:

Purported romantic interests

1) Robert de Niro—the "source" for this is an unsourced claim in a gossip column that they had dinner once; User:GODDESSY uses this to verify that Adams and de Niro were "involved." 2) Joan Jett and Marga Gomez—the "source" for the claim that Adams dated these women was once again a gossip column, which didn't substantiate anything more than the writer "heard" that Adams was seen out with them.

I don't consider either of these to be verified (at least not beyond rumors, or the fact that Adams claims to have had those relationships), and I think GODDESSY's insistence on including them smacks of name-dropping, serving Adams' PR interests by linking her to more famous people, rather than providing relevant and substantive information. Hence, I believe the references should be removed. Postdlf 20:29, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Each and every romantic interest listed was not "purported" because all of them were confirmed and tags were removed by administrators. Facts involving romantic interests were placed as fact and have already been verified by numerous publications.
You cannot assume that valid information provided by anyone is "a publicity campaign" and your wanting to remove the information only hurts the overall purpose of this web site (which is to provide as much information about certain topics as known).
The comment about the Public Relations Department was inaccurate and totally personal.
Your comments are (as cited in the example section on the WP:NPA page):
  • Accusatory.
  • Negative and personal.
  • An attempt to use our affiliation as a means of dismissing or discrediting our views.
And no one famous has to promote or be promoted on a free resource page. Many famous people are involved with other famous people so this is not out of the ordinary.
Examples:
  • Information about playmate Barbara Moore was verified by the exact same publication (New York Post "Page Six") that mentioned Adams' romantic interests. Information about many other celebrities comes from the same publication and their validity is not questioned on here.
  • Pam Anderson allegedly had affiairs with numerous celebrities. Their names are all mentioned with their links on Wikipedia, even though proof of her dating them was neither cited or verified.
  • Hugh Hefner had even more romantic interest listed, but verification was neither given nor questioned on that subject.
This list could go on and on, but it will stop here.
GODDESSY


Shortly after the dispute with Postdlf, factual comments were removed from this article by someone named NoSeptember who seems to be on a mission to follow the acts of Postdlf.

Keep in mind that credible sources were cited and administrators removed the tags questioning the facts of the article on the article's page because they no longer questioned its credibility.

Continuous removal of these credible sources by others takes away from the article's quality.

Besides the GODDESSY [10] and Sapphica [11] web sites, as well as other sites [www.myspace.com/goddessy] and newspaper clippings (listed below), we also found links to other web sites which support what we wrote:

  • Playboy Bunny Likes Girls -- New York, NY- Playboy's Miss November, 1992 is out of the closet and proud to be Playboy's first lesbian playmate. According to The New York Post, Stephanie Adams, who has written seven books on metaphysics and spiritual awareness, recently broke up with her girlfriend and has been seen around New York with rock icon Joan Jett, lesbian comedian Marga Gomez and a few ladies featured in Playboy's "Girls Of Bada Bing" from the hit TV show The Sopranos. [12]
  • March 16, 2004 -- Lesbian Playboy centerfold Stephanie Adams does New York -- Lesbian Playboy centerfold Stephanie Adams, Miss November in 1992, is out of the closet and proud to identify herself as Playboy's first-ever lesbian Playmate. Ever since Adams broke up with her ex-girlfriend, she has been seen around New York City with different people such as rock icon Joan Jett, lesbian comedian Marga Gomez and a few ladies featured in Playboy's "Girls Of Bada Bing" from the hit TV show The Sopranos. [13]

Again, it was proven that the notable people mentioned in the article were associated with Adams and even though the newspaper clippings should probably remain removed, the fact that the comments were proven to be correct should be enough to allow them to remain.

Rather than reverting them, we made recent edits according to online publications and would like for them to remain.


  • Before:

Personal life

After dating Casablancas [14] [15], Adams married an Italian investment banker [16], whom she subsequently divorced. She was then involved with several prominent New York City men, including Robert De Niro [17] before becoming the first and only Playboy Playmate to come out publicly as a lesbian. [18]

Adams was in a relationship for some time with a woman named Denise Taormina [19], and briefly dated comedian Marga Gomez [20] and rock star Joan Jett [21]. Adams was later involved with a woman named Barbara Assisi [22] who appeared on the cover of various publications with her including her book entitled Empress. Adams has often said of her romantic life that she is a "Playboy trapped in a Playmate's body." Since then, Adams has been dating a woman who works for the NYPD [23] and prefers to keep the details of their love life private.


  • After:

Personal life

After dating Casablancas, Adams married an Italian investment banker, whom she subsequently divorced. She then dated several prominent New York City men, including Robert De Niro, before becoming the first and only Playboy Playmate to come out publicly as a lesbian.

Adams was in a relationship for some time with a woman named Denise Taormina, and afterwards was seen around town with lesbian comedian Marga Gomez and rock star Joan Jett. Adams was later involved with a woman named Barbara Assisi who appeared on the cover of various publications with her including her book entitled Empress. Adams has often said of her romantic life that she is a "Playboy trapped in a Playmate's body." Since then, Adams has been dating a woman who works for the NYPD and prefers to keep the details of their love life private.


It seems as if the people removing these comments are taking this way too personal, refusing to acknowledge the fact that the facts were provided and it is not uncommon for celebrities to often date other celebrities.

As most people know, it is important to add comments if they are facts, but it is equally important not to remove comments previously proven to be facts as well.

Also, personal comments made on the discussion page by a banned user are consistently added back again after we remove them. This is disrespectful and we would like for them to be removed permanently.

Thank You, -GODDESSY

... actually added at 03:23, 1 May 2006 68.161.222.151 03:23, 1 May 2006 by 68.161.222.151 (contributions)

Four quick comments, in no particular order: (1) If better sources are found for claims made in the article, anybody is free to replace the other sources by, or supplement them with, the better sources. (2) One defense of alleged flaws in this article is that, if these are indeed flaws, they are also flaws in other articles. I think everybody realizes that Wikipedia is brimming with poor articles. These articles can't all be fixed in a short time (if they can be fixed at all). Yes, analogies to just about any actual flaw in any given article can be found in other articles. To me, this is no defense of the flaws. (3) Without rushing to defend User:Postdlf's every edit (I haven't examined them), I see no valid reason above why he or she should not continue this or any other article. (4) It would be a big help if the people calling themselves User:GODDESSY would each get a distinctive username and edit while logged on as that username. (If "GODDESSY" is so favored, I see nothing wrong with GODDESSY1, GODDESSY2, etc.) -- Hoary 03:44, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
Yes, this is about being encyclopedic. The sources provided are all quite soft: gossip columns, Ms. Adams owned websites, other sites that are quoting Adams owned websites. Provide us with a solid source and the information would be acceptable. The fact that only insubstantial sources have been provided suggests that there are no solid sources, and this material is gossip, not encyclopedic. Please read WP:NOT NoSeptember talk 04:05, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
A postscript. The IP signing the long comment above as "GODDESSY" claims: The Vanessa Williams page has information placed on their with verification from The National Enquirer. That is a supermarket tabloid. It certainly is, and it's certainly trash. Even by WP's low standards, citing the Enquirer is awful. So I decided to take a look and to amend as needed. Here's what I found: Vanessa Williams is a disambig page. Neither Vanessa A. Williams nor Vanessa R. Williams mentions the Enquirer. Vanessa Lynn Williams mentions the Enquirer once. Here's the relevant sentence in full: After The National Enquirer published pictures of Fox kissing another woman in mid-2004, Fox's representatives announced that the couple had been "headed toward divorce" for over a year. (It ends with a non-Enquirer URL.) Arguably, in view of the well known trashiness of the Enquirer, this is an unjustified oversimplification of After The National Enquirer published what it claimed were pictures of Fox kissing another woman in mid-2004,..., and arguably the whole thing is untrue (no source is given for the claim that the Enquirer published any photos, authentic or photoshoplifted). But what the article does not do (I'm happy to say) is use the Enquirer to verify any claim. -- Hoary 06:37, 1 May 2006 (UTC)


[edit] My recommendation

This needs dispute needs to be taken to the mediation committee or arbitration committee (I would suggest the AC) because it involves the actions of an administrator. If you want my opinion, I stand by Hoary and his related argument. — ßottesiηi Tell me what's up 01:06, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Disputes while the page is locked

There seem to be various disagreements. Let's take them one by one. Since I'm a bit tired (and busy with WP-unrelated matters), I'll bring up just one for now.

[edit] Capitalization

Previously, the page referred repeatedly to "GODDESSY", all in caps. I changed this to "Goddessy". My rationale was given above, under the title "Capitals". The users who sign their contributions "GODDESSY" didn't respond directly, but they did reply under "The Subject: Stephanie Adams": "GODDESSY is placed in all caps for a reason, as clearly sited here: http://www.GODDESSY.com/PressInformation/GODDESSYAndSorceress.htm (URL is case sensitive, so place GODDESSY in caps.)"

I've comment on URLs here. As for the FULL CAPS other than in URLs, GODDESSYAndSorceress.htm tells us: "GODDESSY" is placed in all capital letters in order to stress the importance of spirituality in life. Whether we choose to or not, we all go through some sort of spiritual journey.

To me, this is pretty close to saying "We write GODDESSY in full caps as we think it's very important." And that, I imagine, is why Sanyo systematically uses "SANYO" on its US site. Adams is, or Goddessy is, or the Goddessy people are, fully entitled to write "GODDESSY" on her/their own site, just as Sanyo is fully entitled to write "SANYO" on its own site. But just as WP is right to say "Sanyo", WP is right to say "Goddessy".

Is this so complex? Does it really require "mediation"?

(As I've said above, the writing of the username GODDESSY is an entirely different matter; I've no objection to it.) -- Hoary 06:01, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Since our defense during mediation is lengthy (but thorough) we will place it here and wait to hear back from the mediator.

First off, since we seem to be the underdog in this case, we would not have a problem with changing our name here to anything other than GODDESSY such as User:The Underdog (not taken), User:Underdog1 (not taken), Underdog2 (not taken), etc. This could possibly prevent further edit wars with other editors assuming that we are personally connected to the founder of GODDESSY and/or might be the actual subject.

Clearly the information we provided came from publications or we would not have added it.

If you go to the archives of the web site for the New York Post and do a search in the archives for "Stephanie Adams Joan Jett", a link will come up for March 23, 2004 (the exact same day the GODDESSY and Sapphica web sites mentioned the article. [24]

If you go to the archives of the web site for the New York Post and do another search in the archives for "Stephanie Adams Marga Gomez", a link will come up for March 23, 2004 again (the exact same day the GODDESSY and Sapphica web sites mentioned the article. [25]


For those who do not want to pay to view the archived article, we can fax it to you. We've also provided a temporary posting of it for you. [26]

Even though others would like to discredit the following web sites for providing solid proof of resources, they are in fact true:

  • New York Post "Page Six" (March 23, 2004)

We Hear...THAT since Stephanie Adams, Playboy's first openly lesbian Playmate, broke up with her girlfriend, she's been out with rock icon Joan Jett, lesbian comic Marga Gomez and a few of the ladies featured in Playboy... [27]

  • New York Post "Page Six" (March 23, 2004)

We Hear...THAT since Stephanie Adams, Playboy's first openly lesbian Playmate, broke up with her girlfriend, she's been out with rock icon Joan Jett, lesbian comic Marga Gomez and a few of the ladies featured in Playboy's "Girls of Bada Bing" pictorial... [28]


For those who'd like to discredit the web sites affiliated to Stephanie Adams along with the reputable New York Post publication, other web sites besides the New York Post, GODDESSY and Sapphica include:

  • March 16, 2004 -- Lesbian Playboy centerfold Stephanie Adams does New York

Lesbian Playboy centerfold Stephanie Adams, Miss November in 1992, is out of the closet and proud to identify herself as Playboy's first-ever lesbian Playmate. Ever since Adams broke up with her ex-girlfriend, she has been seen around New York City with different people such as rock icon Joan Jett, lesbian comedian Marga Gomez and a few ladies featured in Playboy's "Girls Of Bada Bing" from the hit TV show The Sopranos. Adams will be appearing at the Playboy "Sex And Music" party tonight hosted by supermodel Rachel Hunter. [29]

  • Playboy Bunny Likes Girls

New York, NY- Playboy's Miss November, 1992 is out of the closet and proud to be Playboy's first lesbian playmate. According to The New York Post, Stephanie Adams, who has written seven books on metaphysics and spiritual awareness, recently broke up with her girlfriend and has been seen around New York with rock icon Joan Jett, lesbian comedian Marga Gomez and a few ladies featured in Playboy's "Girls Of Bada Bing" from the hit TV show The Sopranos. [30]

  • Lesbian Playboy centerfold Stephanie Adams does New York

Lesbian Playboy centerfold Stephanie Adams, Miss November in 1992, is out of the closet and proud to identify herself as Playboy's first-ever lesbian Playmate. Ever since Adams broke up with her ex-girlfriend, she has been seen around New York City with different people such as rock icon Joan Jett, lesbian comedian Marga Gomez and a few ladies featured in Playboy's "Girls Of Bada Bing" from the hit TV show The Sopranos. Adams will be appearing at the Playboy "Sex And Music" party tonight hosted by supermodel Rachel Hunter. [31]

  • NEW YORK POST

"We Hear...THAT since Stephanie Adams, Playboy's first openly lesbian Playmate, broke up with her girlfriend, she's been out with rock icon Joan Jett, lesbian comic Marga Gomez and a few of the ladies featured in Playboy..." [[32]]


Also, the comment regarding the mentioning of Stephanie Adams being related to President John Adams and President John Quincy Adams should not have been removed. This was mentioned in her article when she appeared as a centerfold for November 1992 issue of Playboy magazine [33] and is also located on numerous web sites all over the internet:

  • Before she became a playmate, Stephanie had a family history unlike that of any other Playboy Playmate in history. She is a direct descendant from two American Presidents (John Adams and John Quincy Adams).

John Adams (the second President of the United States of America) and John Quincy Adams (the sixth President of the United States of America) were two outstanding forefathers who gave all of their children (including those who were born out of wedlock) their last name and ownership of land. That (along with the fact that Stephanie Adams is part Cherokee Indian) explains why Stephanie comes from a family that owns over 4000 acres of land in various parts of the United States of America. [34]

  • "She is a direct descendant of U.S. presidents John Adams and John Quincy Adams." [35]
  • Playboy November 1992 Playmate of Month Stephanie Adams descended from two presidents (J & JQ Adams); claims to be a lesbian. Born on 7-24-1970 in Orange, New Jersey [36]
  • Stephanie Adams went to Catholic school -- all-girl Catholic school -- for more than 13 years. Then, she posed for the glossy pages of Playboy. Right now, if you're a straight male over 15 years of age, you are probably already concocting an elaborate fantasy involving softly lit underage schoolgirls wrestling in holy water. But let's back up a minute, shall we? This 33-year-old descendant of John Adams and John Quincy Adams, had a seemingly idyllic childhood. [37] (The article continues, but it would take up too much room.)
  • Best lesbian sex symbol - STEPHANIE ADAMS

Now that we have The L Word, people are starting to pick up on the fact that dykes can be hotties too. None more so than the tall, slender STEPHANIE ADAMS, who not only was a Playboy Playmate, but is a descendant of President John Adams and a writer of occult books. It's hard to turn a page in a queer rag without seeing the willowy model peeking out in a bikini, or nothing at all. -Rachel Kramer Bussel [38]

(Note: This article supports the president comment as well as the "Best Lesbian Sex Symbol" comment.)


More articles about this and other fact stated in this article can be viewed by visiting:


And if that's not enough, you can refer to a few of the actual book covers written by Adams, which clearly mention that Adams is in fact a "Playboy Centerfold & Descendant Of Two U.S. Presidents". [39][40][41][42][43][44][45][46][47][48][49]

We can go on further with web site links and direct viewing of articles, but this information is more than enough to support our case.

(Note: A copy of the article in Playboy mentioning Miss Adams being related to the presidents can be faxed to someone at Wikipedia if necessary, or you can sign up for membership to the Playboy web site to view it.)

In regards to editing, while you're at it, you can also mention the fact that she made a cameo appearance on the Late Show With David Letterman [50] [51] and gave her "coming out" speech in 2003 for the Gay Pride rally which was televised on New York 1 News [52] (If the link provided does not work on this site, you can click on the link via GODDESSY [53].

And in answering to the question of if the name "GODDESSY" is so complex that it requires mediation, you just answered your own question by bringing the subject back up again. GODDESSY is legally registered as a business as "GODDESSY" and the explanation to why GODDESSY is placed in all caps is provided. [54] Every single book cover written by Adams that has GODDESSY on its cover reads "GODDESSY" [55][56][57][58][59][60], so "GODDESSY" is accurate.

No further comments and thank you for your time.

-GODDESSY


(Please note that we will be in between travels this week, so we might take a day or two before responding. Thank you for your patience. -GODDESSY)

[edit] The username "GODDESSY"

The lengthy "defense" above starts by discussion of the username GODDESSY. I don't think anyone has objected to it: I certainly haven't. I did say it would be better if each person using the username GODDESSY (and they've indicated that they are plural) used a discrete username. This point is ignored in we would not have a problem with changing our name here to anything other than... (emphasis added). Please use one username per person. One of these usernames can be of course be GODDESSY. (Another might be GODDESSYsFriend, for all anyone cares.) Thank you. -- Hoary 08:40, 1 May 2006 (UTC)


We have no objection to changing the name GODDESSY, so we might be in agreeance with this. At the moment, one representative on our part is handling the commentary for this mediation, so one person is in fact answering this. Further people involved can create separate accounts on this site, but keep in mind that although we are several, there is one department with one e-mail account. If this is not a problem (sine e-mail addresses to not have to be included when creating an account), then this account can remain, but others can create separate accounts as well.
Comment: If several accounts can be created on this web site without name and e-mail validation, then one person can in fact act as more than one person. So several people responding as different usernames can in fact be one person. This is disturbing.
-GODDESSY

[edit] Capitalization of "Goddessy" (other than in the username, of course)

User:GODDESSY points us to the same web page on whose content I have already commented. Every book by Adams is marked "GODDESSY", all caps? Well, every product from Sanyo is marked "SANYO", all caps. The capitalization is important to Adams/Goddessy and Sanyo respectively; it's not important to Wikipedia. -- Hoary 08:40, 1 May 2006 (UTC)


Well if "it's not important to Wikipedia", but it is important to the founder of GODDESSY who clearly places the explanation for the name being in all caps (something SANYO does not do) on the web site [61] as well as the book covers [62][63][64][65][66][67], then it should remain.
Also, we took at look at the SANYO page and noted that the name change was not disputed. In the case of GODDESSY, it is.
Keep in mind that there is not one voice for Wikipedia, so your feeling about this might not be the same as others.
Regards,
-GODDESSY

[edit] Verifiability of Joan Jett claim

Above, User:GODDESSY provides two links as references for the claim that Adams was linked with Joan Jett. Let's look at them.

First, there's this one from mountainpridemedia.org: According to The New York Post, Stephanie Adams . . . has been seen around New York with rock icon Joan Jett . . . (shortened with ellipses for brevity, my emphasis). So the page does seem to verify that the NYP said this -- but still, it has no more credibility than does the NYP.

Secondly, there's a link to this extraordinarily long URL (whose content is at this much simpler URL). It's a short piece, signed by "Sapphica". Does this name sound familiar? It should -- and yes, indeed it's linked to sapphica.com, one of Adams's sites. This looks like a PR piece put out by Adams or her company; it's not independent verification. -- Hoary 03:11, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sources

User:GODDESSY, thank you for providing the dates for the references to the New York Post. This is exactly what we need in order to verify the source. If you cite newspapers as sources in the future, please provide the dates of those newspapers at the same time. Everyone, I agree that gossip columns are unreliable sources. Newspapers just don't hold their gossip columns to the same standards as their hard news reporting. I don't think it's very useful to have a list of people that Adams has dated, or has been thought to date, or has mentioned dating. If we trim that down, we can avoid a lot of this debate over sources. What do others think of cutting the Personal Life section down to something like, "After dating Casablancas, Adams married an Italian investment banker, whom she subsequently divorced. She then dated several prominent New York City men before coming out as a lesbian. Since she started dating women, she has often said she is a 'Playboy trapped in a Playmate's body.'" FreplySpang (talk) 12:33, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Perfect. Postdlf 13:06, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
Agreed. All we ask is for is good reliable sources. NoSeptember talk 14:36, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
That seems a major improvement. -- Hoary 15:50, 1 May 2006 (UTC)


User:Postdlf, the suggestion by User:FreplySpang is not perfect because it removes verified names and denies pertinent content that is directly related to the topic.

And User:NoSeptember, sources to what? You are asking to remove all of the names except for one so there wouldn't be a need for any sources. Sources were provided extensively in our initial response to this mediation, so you got it.

User:Hoary, that is not a "major improvement". It is a "major removal" of reputable people that were involved in the subject's life. How they were involved might be disputed, but they were in fact involved because enough information has been provided (see above) for verification.

We are not going to continue to respond to every username individually since this is one topic, so we will reply in total here:

As stated previously, removing content from Wikipedia is detrimental to the overall project.

Before this article was protected, the following changes were made to condense it (while still including verifified information):

"After dating Casablancas, Adams married an Italian investment banker, whom she subsequently divorced. She then dated several prominent New York City men, including Robert De Niro, before becoming the first and only Playboy Playmate to come out publicly as a lesbian.

Adams was in a relationship for some time with a woman named Denise Taormina, and afterwards was seen around town with lesbian comedian Marga Gomez and rock star Joan Jett. Adams was later involved with a woman named Barbara Assisi who appeared on the cover of various publications with her including her book entitled Empress. Adams has often said of her romantic life that she is a "Playboy trapped in a Playmate's body." Since then, Adams has been dating a woman who works for the NYPD and prefers to keep the details of their love life private."

That is concise and to the point.

Without removing the names (which, again, have been verified), your ideas to improve it are welcome.


Also, the following comment:

"According to her Playboy pictorial, Adams claims to be the direct descendant of U.S. presidents John Adams and John Quincy Adams"

should be changed to:

"According to her Playboy pictorial, Adams is the direct descendant of U.S. presidents John Adams and John Quincy Adams"

Because it has been documented several times as a fact and not a claim. (Refer to our initial comment during mediation.)

Either way, this is a majorly documented fact that should remain because it is relevant to the topic.

According to the actual November 1992 issue featuring Stephanie Adams as a Playboy Centerfold:

"If They Could See Her Now -- miss november, a descendant of that adams family, has big plans"

"Mees Stephanie Adams superachiever - not to mention fashion model, artist, designer and, of particular not this election month, a relative of the second and sixth presidents of the United States."

This comment was published as a fact and this issue was published during the presidential election of President Bill Clinton and Adams endorsed Clinton in her article. So her ancestry is relevant to her Playboy status as well as the article.

Remember, that this was exactly what was said in the publication and can be verified via www.Playboy.com and/or the magazine issue which can be faxed to the administration of Wikipedia.

-User:GODDESSY

[edit] Additional Comments

In reference to wanting to have User:Postdlf removed from editing this article:

  • One of our reasonings for wanting to have User:Postdlf removed from editing this article is simply the fact that he/she keeps removing valuable information about the subject.

Incidentally, this was not done until we started adding valuable information that no one else was aware of and/or included. User:Postdlf attempted to "mark" or own this article by commenting to us on our discussion page, in saying that he has been following the life of Adams for quite some time now (insinuating that he is an expert and has a personal interest in the topic).

We might be affiliated with the subject matter, but we do not have a personal interest at all. And we are experts in the subject matter because we have access to more resources providing verifiiable information about this topic than anyone else.

Keep in mind that we only added information that was based upon facts and waned to ensure that the facts were provided accurately, carefully and accordingly.

The sources we provided were in accordance to the Wikiedia Fact page: [68]:

According to that page:

  • Sources

"Fact checking does not break copyright, so we may cross reference article information in Wikipedia with other sources such as: Encyclopedias, Text books, Speeches, Newspapers, Magazines, Electronic articles, Movies, Television, Journals, Books, Websites, and Gazettes."

The sources we provided were also verified and in accordance to the Wikipedia Verifiability page:

According to that page:

  • Verifiability, not truth

"One of the keys to writing good encyclopedia articles is to understand that they should refer only to facts, assertions, theories, ideas, claims, opinions, and arguments that have already been published by reputable publishers. The goal of Wikipedia is to become a complete and reliable encyclopedia, so editors should cite reliable sources so that their edits may be verified by readers and other editors."

""Verifiability' in this context does not mean that editors are expected to verify whether, for example, the contents of a New York Times article are true. In fact, editors are strongly discouraged from conducting this kind of research, because original research may not be published in Wikipedia. Articles should contain only material that has been published by reliable sources, regardless of whether individual editors view that material as true or false. As counter-intuitive as it may seem, the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth."

  • Another one of our reasonings for wanting to have User:Posfdlf removed from editing this article is simply the fact that he/she placed [[Wikipedia:No Personal Attacks|personal attacks] up in this discussion forum, claiming that we the "PR" department are trying to use this web page as some sort of promotional publicity for the subject. [69]

User:Postdlf made perosnal attacks that were prohibited according to the Wikipedia No Personal Attacks page:

  • No Personal Attacks

"This policy in a nutshell: There is no excuse for personal attacks on other contributors. Do not make them. It is your responsibility to foster and maintain a positive online community in Wikipedia."

"Do not make personal attacks anywhere in Wikipedia. Comment on content, not on the contributor. Personal attacks will rarely help you make a point; they hurt the Wikipedia community and deter users from helping create a good encyclopedia."

  • Examples

Specific examples of personal attacks include but are not limited to:

- Accusatory comments.

- Negative personal comments.

- Using someone's affiliations as a means of dismissing or discrediting their views — regardless of whether said affiliations are mainstream or extreme.

(These are three specific example listed that are relevant to our case.)

And the consequences of keeping personal attcks by this user and others is detrimental to the overall credibility of this project:

According to that same page:

  • Consequences

"Remember that disputes on talk pages are accessible to everyone on the Internet. The way in which you conduct yourself on Wikipedia reflects on Wikipedia and on you."

"Many Wikipedians remove personal attacks on third parties on sight, and although this isn't policy it's often seen as an appropriate reaction to extreme personal abuse. Users have been banned for repeatedly engaging in personal attacks. Abusive edit summaries are particularly ill-regarded."

We tried to have the personal attcks by User:Postdlf as wel as a banned user (User:JuliannaRoseMauriello [70] removed from the discussion boards, but other editors continuosly keep adding them back up which is clogging the web pages and is overall unnecessary. Something should be done about this as well.

Even though we do not have to answer to a personal attack, we will. Besides having her own public relations department, Adams is also still affiliated with Playboy, which has an even larger PR staff that does any and every type of marketing and promotion for celebrity playmates.

There is no need to "promote" or publicize someone who is already reputable and has already had enough information mentioned about her on the internet to be found simply when you type in the words "Stephanie Playboy" or "Stephanie Lesbian".

Again, we only added information that was based upon facts and waned to ensure that the facts were provided accurately, carefully and accordingly.

In addition, we do not deny attacking the banned user when we initially came about this editing project. We also apologized to anyone we offended, and not once did we provide or remove information that was detrimental to clarification on the subject matter (as in the case of User:Postdlf.

User:Postdlf should be removed from editing, but if that is not done, then perhaps a decision should be made to have an administrator permanently come aboard and moniter the edits being made to this article closely.

In closing, User:Postdlf telling us to stop editing this page or refrain from editing this page and keep our comments to just the discussion board is an attempt to take away our freedom of speech. That is unconstitutional and is something this country does not stand for.

We are in a bit of a hurry right now because we are in between travels at this point, but we will check back in the next day or so. In the meantime, we welcome your comments and thank you for your time,

-User:GODDESSY

[edit] A note about verifiability

  • I noticed that you cited the verifiability guidelines above. The biggest problem I see here with alot of the sources you've cited to verify information in the article is that they do not conform to the guidelines for Reliable Sources. The vast majority of editors here will probably agree with me that gossip columns and personal websites do not meet the Reliable Sources guidelines. Just to pull an couple of examples from User:GODDESSY's post above:
  1. [71] - this is some Michigan State University student's personal webspace. It doesn't constitute a reputable source as it is a personal website (even if you ignore the fact that MSU is full of couch-burning drunks).
  2. [72] - This is a myspace account, presumably run by someone involved with GODDESSY. I couldn't find the text you cited (though I presume it is there)... but regardless, MySpace accounts don't meet WP:RS.

I just pulled 2 at random to show you examples of what doesn't meet WP:RS. Several of the other sources appear to simply reprint stories from the New York Post, so if NYP isn't seen as a reliable source, the reprints would not be seen as such either. I personally think you'll have a hard sell using the GODDESSY website for any type of WP:RS sourcing due to the strong implication of conflict of interest, but that's just my opinion.--Isotope23 18:26, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Right on. I think this discussion is done; everyone is in agreement except for User:GODDESSY, who isn't so much responding on this talk page as merely flooding it to insist on their ownership of the article. I think that FreplySpang's change should be implemented, and if GODDESSY continues to troll and revert any change they don't like, that user should be banned indefinitely for disruption. The account was created purely as a paid agent of Adams to dictate what and how Wikipedia writes about her, and has done nothing else on this site but to edit war mercilessly with everyone else. GODDESSY's insistence on continuing this dispute despite the consensus among those of us who aren't Adams' paid employees is meritless; that user's continued comments consist of nothing but repetitions of the same sources we've already discussed, addressed, and rejected; repetitions of the same meritless claims that it is us, not GODDESSY, who is violating Wikipedia policy or that we have personal vendettas against the subject; and a consistently selective quotation of policy. All of which is little snippets of content submerged in irrelevencies so that a response to a couple sentences ends up filling multiple screens. This is textbook trolling. Anyone (other than GODDESSY) disagree? Postdlf 23:13, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
And all this for an article on somebody whose NYC celebrity appears to have gone unmentioned in the New York Times. I think many of us would rather be spending our time on other articles. -- Hoary 23:56, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Yes, it is time to proceed, and any trolling should be handled with appropriate sanctions. NoSeptember talk 01:43, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Works for me. I suspect that most of the sources cited by GODDESSY have gotten their information from Stephanie Adams and her PR department. FreplySpang (talk) 02:45, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Truth Comes To Light -- (Re: Your Personal Attacks & Inability To Be Objective)

Your comments (directly above) spew haterd towards us as well as the person whose article you so zealously wish to dictate.

You (Postdlf) do not know whether or not we are "paid employees" so you have no business making assumptions and personal attacks about the subject matter (Stephanie Adams). Judging from that alone, it sounds as you do not like her. Not only do you not know her, but your opinion of her is why you are causing this frivolous argument to begin with, as you seem to want to hurt her article rather than improve it.

And in regards to her not being in the New York Times, that is another personal attack. The fact that you are wrong is besides the point. Not every celebrity is in every single publication in the world. Were you ever in the New York Times? Chances are, you're not a celebrity, so you certainly weren't, but that too is besides the point. You (Hoary) are also making a personal attack about the subject matter, which is why you too are trying to remove pertinent facts about her.

Regardless of where the sources come from, you (FreplySpang) have no right to make accusations about where they are coming from. Every source has to come from somewhere at some point, but that is something you do not know and should not assume, especially when it is not a fact.

Editing a page about someone you clearly do not like is detrimental to the article. Your personal disdain for the subject matter is the foundation of this disagreement.

It is apparent that none of you are capable of being objective at this point about the subject matter and none of you should be able to edit it.

(Refer to new posting below.)

-GODDESSY

[edit] The Bottom Line

No one commented on points that could not be disputed because no one wants to agree with anything we have commented on. It's almost as if one username representing many (that being us) is in disagreement with many usernames that is one (that being you).

Regardless, the information we provided regarding reputable sources is fact. The National Enquirer (a supermarket tabloid) and the New York Post (a well-known newspaper) are two totally different entities and cannot be compared. We also provided other reputable sources such as the Daily News and various web sites, which is more than enough. You can question whether a publication is reputable or not, but that is your own personal opinion and has nothing to do with professionalism.

Rather than removing verified information, it should instead be improved upon.

Raping the article of its content is an injustice of the initial purpose of Wikipedia (a site that takes pride in providing concise information).

Insisting upon removing pertinent information regarding the topic does not and will not decrease the character of the subject (facts about Stephanie Adams will always be documented and will always be a part of history), but instead decreases the character of the article.

And suspecting that the PR Dept and/or Stephanie Adams herself has anything to do with what is publicized about her, is making a personal accusation about the subject matter (Stephanie Adams), clearly a sign that you have a personal issue/problem with her and are maliciously trying to take away from the quality of the article about her.

Regardless of where any sources come from, articles published about anyone famous in a well-known newspaper is enough verification for everyone.

This seems to be a matter that has gone way too far and is based upon a dislike towards us as well as the subject matter. Regardless, we do not care about your personal feelings, but instead care about the quality of the content.

That is why we are posting an example of how the article should read, including all the possible revisions that can be made:


START OF ARTICLE----------

Click [Show] to see the proposed article.

END OF ARTICLE-----------


Articles about people such as Pam Anderson and Gia Carangi do not have any proof of what is being said there (Anderson has numerous mentionings of alleged famous love interests and Carangi only has fan club sites listed) so why are you choosing to scrutinize the facts provided here by reliable sources? This is obviously a form of prejudice as well as a campaign for harassment (against us as well as the subject matter).

Put aside your personal feelings (because you definitely have them) and take a look at the revisions from an objective and professional standpoint.

(Note: Since the revision above is our posting, we ask that you do not change it. If you have any comments or proposed edits, feel free to make them below. But at this point, your personal attacks on us as well as the subject is enough reason for you to no longer be able to edit this topic. Whether you're one person acting as several or several people acting upon one campaign to vandalize this article is now besides the point.)

-GODDESSY

GODDESSY, please create a subpage to this talk page, and delete your proposed page from immediately above here, and move it to that subpage. (In its present position, it disrupts conversation.) You can link to it and we can all read it there. If you don't do this soon, somebody else will. Thank you. -- Hoary 08:20, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:GODDESSY's complaint to/about User:Hoary

I quote: And in regards to her not being in the New York Times, that is another personal attack. The fact that you are wrong is besides the point. Not every celebrity is in every single publication in the world. Were you ever in the New York Times? Chances are, you're not a celebrity, so you certainly weren't, but that too is besides the point. You (Hoary) are also making a personal attack about the subject matter, which is why you too are trying to remove pertinent facts about her.

If User:GODDESSY (below, "UG") cares to regard my pointing out that somebody has not been in the NYT as a "personal attack", that's UG's prerogative. (To me, it says more about an idiosyncratic redefinition of "personal attack". Incidentally, I note that UG also writes of the "rape" of the article.) The fact that you are wrong: about what? Is UG suggesting that Adams was written up in the NYT?

That's right, I have not been in the NYT. But then I'm totally unlike Adams: not only am I old and ugly and live nowhere near NYC, but I neither have nor want anybody promoting me, my activities or my products. Further, I'm not (and don't want to be) the stuff of gossip columns. The writers of gossip columns are free to write about anybody they want, and these people are welcome to display this stuff on their websites. But if it's NYC gossip, then the fact -- or apparent fact (I'm willing to be proved wrong) -- that the subject of that gossip has eluded the attention of the NYT suggests to me that the gossipy aspects (love-life, etc.) of that subject needn't be a matter for WP concern.

UG is also entirely free to infer motives from my edits; of course, I can deny the truth of these inferences, but there's no compelling reason why UG or anybody else should believe these denials, or to believe my counter-claim that I'm sporadically trying to play a small part in ridding WP of what is unverifiable or trivial, and what appears to be promotional. (When trying to divine (?) my motives, I suggest that people consider my edit history.)

Still, there's hope. UG writes: we do not care about your personal feelings, but instead care about the quality of the content. I'll drink to that! (And I'd edit to it too, if the article were unprotected.) -- Hoary 08:42, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] What?

User:GODDESSY said, And suspecting that the PR Dept and/or Stephanie Adams herself has anything to do with what is publicized about her, is making a personal accusation about the subject matter (Stephanie Adams). What? That's the job of a PR department. It's no kind of accusation. The fact that the same information about her appears in a lot of places with little variation suggests strongly that it all comes from a single source. FreplySpang (talk) 12:06, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Don't worry about it, this is all just more BS. GODDESSY has proven itself/herself/themselves incapable of constructive response. Instead, we're the vandal trolls, and apparently we're all sockpuppets of one another too. Yawn... And apparently it's a personal attack to state that a person's PR rep is a paid employee. This is pointless. I'm going to unprotect the article, make the change, and warn GODDESSY to stop interfering or be blocked. Postdlf 12:45, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

After the above discussion, GODDESSY insisted on reinserting the unfounded claim that Adams dated de Niro, and spread around more threats that Jimbo is going to have our necks. I've accordingly blocked GODDESSY indefinitely for trolling and disruption. Postdlf 23:34, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and apparently, you're all my sockpuppets. Postdlf 00:42, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
I have an odd hunch that some other username is soon going to pop up and undo the recent good work, but in the meantime I've done such things as informatively relabel the promotional "external links", add a link that's about a rather different aspect of SA to that portrayed in the article, changed "GODDESSY" to "Goddessy", and removed the uninformative "Goddessy" logo. I'm now tempted to splatter the whole article with {{fact}}: if SA does indeed speak out on gay issues, good, and let's have independent references for these. Indeed, I think WP can dispense with at least one of the three (!) cheesecake photos and perhaps add one of SA speaking into a mike . . . if such a photo can be found. -- Hoary 02:54, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Quotes: Can we dump the lot?

I've tentatively and unenthusiastically added a quote about Adams. It's one of the few comments about her I've discovered that isn't written by Adams/Goddessy, and perhaps it's of some minor interest. I'd be happy to see it go, together with the quotes by Adams, which to my mind are uninteresting except for the presumably unintended demonstration of just how cartlandy is her prose style. Of course there are bags of potential quotes hereabouts, but putting them in a "Quotes" section seems to be overdoing it; and of course people can and do regret what they earlier wrote in email. -- Hoary 03:07, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm fine with dumping the whole quotes section. I also suggest that we remove the list of titles her books; these aren't major publications by any means, but rather issued by online publishers that apparently take all comers. It's enough to summarize that she's written them, and describe her method of distribution.
The posts on the richard's ramblings link you added are amazing...that's some crazy crap. If that's accurate, it looks like she's calmed down some since then (though the ridiculous libel claims were still popping up here and there). BTW, the tarot card page that started Adams' whole trolling episode is back up on the goddessy site, and the price jacked from $20,[73] the price when I first added information about it a week ago,[74] to $100![75] That's some pretty amazing inflation. A full list of the products and services can be seen at http://www.goddessy.com/Home.htm, including her...art. "All proceeds will go towards the religious mission of GODDESSY." Wow.
I noticed that one of the richard's ramblings postings asserted that Adams herself was the only person behind all of the "services" offered by the website, which I would fully believe given everything that we've seen (as if she pays a PR staff around the clock, weekends included, to monitor what we write here) and given the...quality of the website design. I don't know how we could verify that, but it makes for a strange fact that she is attempting to claim she has a thriving company rather than simply a do-it-yourself website, and also apparently puts quite a bit of time into attacking anyone who writes about her. Postdlf 03:32, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

More about the website: it asks for donations, claiming that "GODDESSY also provides funding and other valuable resources to promote breast cancer research, help for abused children, animal rescue, etc." Amazing. I wonder if she's already taken anyone for this garbage. I find it hard to believe it "provides funding" to anything.

I had a client at my firm recently, a foreign corporation that kept on sending threatening letters to every reporter that would write about it because it didn't understand that American libel law gave it no basis to control what was written about it. These letters of course had the opposite effect, to provoke the media's interest even further so that they scrutinized the company all the more. There's a lesson in that. Postdlf 03:48, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

OK, I've zapped all the quotes. Really, I think I've put as much time into this article for one day as it deserves, and indeed rather more: while I fully agree to the proposal of compacting the book list, I leave that to somebody else. (And yes, I also wonder about the claims she makes on the site.) -- Hoary 03:54, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Taking out the quotes is fine by me too. But I think we should stay away from referring to Richard's Ramblings. I read it a few days ago, and it is quite a story, but... it's a blog, and there wasn't much discussion of the incident outside Richard's blog. Bringing it into the article is likely to be more inflammatory than useful. FreplySpang (talk) 12:45, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, it has no place in this article due to WP:RS issues with blogs and should be left out. Interesting reading though. If even half of it is true, somebody has issues...--Isotope23 14:23, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Playmatecruft?

Do articles on "Playmates" need to have long lists of their every Playboy appearance? -- Hoary 03:54, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Do they "need to"? Probably not, but it's standard for these articles and I think it's harmless. At least those are major media publications, and were added by Playboy...um...afficianados rather than the article's subject. I'm fine with them remaining. Postdlf 03:56, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
If such lists are standard practice, let this list stay. It seems a nutty WP-convention to me, but I lack the energy to challenge it openly. -- Hoary 04:35, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../s/t/e/Talk%7EStephanie_Adams_archive_0426.html"