Talk:Stephanie Adams

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Portal:Biography
 Biography Portal
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the Project's quality scale. [FAQ]
(If you rated the article, please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)
This article is supported by the Arts and Entertainment work group.
Photo request It is requested that a picture or pictures of this person be included in this article to improve its quality.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject LGBT studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBT related issues on Wikipedia. For more information, or to get involved, visit the project page.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class.
Articles for deletion This article was nominated for deletion on 2006-04-27. The result of the discussion was speedy keep.
Wikipedian This article contains biographical material about a person who is or has been a Wikipedia contributor. Wikipedia policies are in place to ensure that the subject of such material does not exert undue influence over its content. However, the nature of Wikipedia is such that, as with all its articles, misleading material may be present.


Readers are encouraged to review Wikipedia:Autobiography for information concerning autobiographical articles on Wikipedia.

The archives of this page can be found at: Talk:Stephanie Adams/archive 01

Contents

[edit] Request for Comment: "the police are being investigated"

As noted in a previous RfC on this page: The three cited references have no mention of the police specifically being investigated. Only the reference to Ms Adams' own web site mentions any investigations, and those are of the TLC's investigations of the driver. With the lawsuit still pending, no doubt any reasonable investigation would be examining the statements and viewpoints of both sides. To name just the police is misleading.

Ms Adams has yet again insisted that this phrase be included in the article. The comment that "The media clearly stated that Adams filed a complaint with the CCRB & the police are being investigated. Read the 200 articles about it." included with the latest revert just doesn't hold true. As noted before, NONE of the references ever provided says the police are being investigated. And, assuming the 200 articles referred to are again the press releases on Ms Adams' own site, NONE of them mentined the police being investigated. No support has ever been provided for saying the police are being investigated. One might infer that, given the lawsuit is still pending. But then you would have to equally infer Ms Adams and her side of the story are being investigated. In any event, inferences should not be included in the article.

I would agree with those who have said it should be left off completely until it is resolved (and probably not included even then). But if it is going to be mentioned, at least it should be reported accurately. As it is, it is unsupported.

As I've done twice before I'm asking others what they think would be appropriate. --Sean Martin 02:32, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

It should not be there, as there is no independent link to the investigation on any sites I could find (only the press release). also strangely enough the coverage didn't say the guy is a blogger! Please note I have nothing to do with any party, I don't even live in America and I think to be honest a lot of people on both sides should read WP:NPOV, WP:V, WP:NN, WP:RS. DanielT5 04:11, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
I assume by "blogger" you're referring to James Poling of metadish. He has a steady stream of posts on his site regarding Stephanie and her suit... easiest way to access it all is via this link. Tabercil 05:40, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
Ah. Wondered what "the guy is a blogger" was referring to. (The cab driver, perhaps? Huh?) Ah. Got the two lawsuits Ms Adams is invlolved in crossed. I was referring only to the one against NYC and the NYPD. Made no mention of the one she's filed against the blogger. --Sean Martin 10:31, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Adams Lawsuits - The NYPD one is relevant, but the other one isn't.

The lawsuits against the City of New York, the Taxi and the NYPD have been highly publicized, and you better believe if she's suing the city because she was assaulted by the NYPD, they are still investigating it. But even that case probably should not be mentioned. Now, Adams filed a separate lawsuit against a blogger for posting defamatory comments (and Sean Martin is a friend of his). This blogger and his demonic, miserable, low-life sidekicks are just nobodies trying to ride the coat tails of Adams' fame (deep down they probably wish they could be with her) to get mentioned in the media (and tried several times to get the article on Wikipedia) but the blogger is an unknown and no one ever interviewed Adams about it from the media. So it has no validity to this article, as it is not a significant part of her life and therefore, it has no validity to being posted. Again, no article have been written about it and it was not mentioned in the news, it has never been referenced in any well-known publications, so it is unimportant. Nice try bloggers. Now let's hear what the haters of this beautiful woman have to say. Actually, I couldn't care less. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.89.106.24 (talk) 06:22, 21 February 2007 (UTC).

I'm not a blogger, hell I don't even read the blog in question, I'm just a Wikipedian who thinks all sides should be represented, including Stephanie's. That's the basis of our NPOV policy. Surely Stephanie would want people to know that the stuff on that blog site which from reading here and doing google searches has been WELL publicised elsewhere, like to millions of people, is stuff she thinks is defamatory and should maybe be regarded with a pinch of salt as it's been challenged in court? Also you are in violation of NPA, please stop insulting other people in this debate, and don't revert valid edits. Thank you DanielT5 09:03, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Someone may believe "if she's suing the city because she was assaulted by the NYPD, they are still investigating it" but what someone may believe or not is irrelevant. So far there hasn't been a single independent reference given to support the belief. Someone may believe that if "they" (whoever "they" are) are still investigating "it" that would mean they are investigating both sides of it. But, again, someone believing something is not sufficient. You would object (rightly) to my putting in something based soley on what I believe. Provide a valid, independent reference and you provide support for including it. Continue with the unfounded personal attacks and you sway nobody to your side.

And, much as you seem to want to make it true by repeating it, I have never met James Poling, have never spoken to James Poling, am not a friend of James Poling. --Sean Martin 10:27, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

IMO, the NYPD lawsuit is fairly notable and should be mentioned here. The Poling lawsuit really is not and doesn't warrent mention. Beyond that statements like "the police are under investigation" should be left out as they are not supported by the sources provided.--Isotope23 14:21, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Just wondering what would make one lawsuit important and the other unimportant. Stephanie Adams was the complaintant in both cases, and whether or not she has made a public statement about a case does not affect its importance. The lawsuit against Poling alleges libel and defamation, and asks for $100,000 in damages, not exactly an insignificant amount. A citation for the case can be found in the New York County Supreme Court database, and supporting documents can be found on Poling's website. The case obviously exists, leading one to wonder why Ms. Adams has chosen not to make a public statement...in any case, I think its existence should at least merit mention.--Wandering_Canadian 21 February 2007

Like I said, "IMO". To me the NYPD incident is notable because it has been covered by major news sources (ABC News, etc) whereas the Adams v Poling case has not been. It's been covered by some bloggers and obviously at Metadish, but I don't see 3rd party coverage here and to me at least, that is what kicks an incident into the realm of the notable; if other media is taking notice. There are hundreds of lawsuits filed every day and we don't included every single one of them in the articles about the subject. Whether Ms. Adams chooses to make a statement on this or not is irrelevant to me. That is just my opinion on the matter.--Isotope23 17:34, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
...and to our friendly anon IP, "sued" is not the same thing as "investigated". Please read WP:OR, specifically the part about novel synthesis or interpretations based on sources. Your claims are not supported by the sources and should not appear in the article.--Isotope23 17:40, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Point taken. I'm looking forward to the day this gets picked up so it can be included. If you get a chance to read the documentation on Metadish, it provides a very interesting look at Stephanie Adams persona...what I find most interesting is that here on Wikipedia, she argues that she is a noteworthy person, but her lawsuit states that she is not a public persona...fascinating contradiction.--Wandering_Canadian 21 February 2007

I wonder how, going forward, folks are to distinguish between what constitutes a "major" news source and what is just "some bloggers". Certainly there are some bloggers who are notable (Matt Drudge? AmericaBlog?, ). At what point does a blog become "major" enough to be considered sufficient for a reference? IMHO it's a distinction we shouldn't be trying to make. (Is this a major blog or not? Is this person a blogger, or a commentator? Is this a blog, or a news website?) Rather, the criteria should be whether something is verifiable. I'd accept something from JustMyLittleBlog.com that could point to (for example) records at an official court site over some thing said but not supported at Drudge or AmericaBlog. To say "well, it hasn't been published in a newspaper" would eliminate a LOT of obviously supportable things.
Just ruminating. --Sean Martin 19:26, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
WP:SPS covers this to some extent. What you are talking about I think is where the cutoff is; at verifiability or at notability. This is a much wider discussion that is pretty much continually being debated at various project-space talk pages (like the WP:RS talkpage). Personally I thing WP:V is a must, but it is too low of a cutoff for inclusion of an article or content in an article. At that point I would warrent an article on Wikipedia and I'm utterly non-notable.--Isotope23 14:13, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Article Regarding NYPD Assault

The article referenced on the Stephanie Adams page does in fact state that the lawsuit filed accuses the police of assault. It was announced to the press for a reason and if you're going to include the lawsuit in the article, then you have to be accurate and stop removing important facts. Several other articles as well as this one state specifically that "The complaint filed in state Supreme Court in Manhattan accuses the police officer of assault".

It seems as if people are trying to erase facts for whatever personal reasons they have, but this case is against the NYPD as well the taxi driver company and the city of New York, and regardless of your dispute with this article, they are in fact being accused of assault.

72.89.106.24 17:48, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm fine with the wording as it is now... "The complaint filed in state Supreme Court in Manhattan accuses the police officer of assault" is not the same thing as the ambiguous "police are under investigation" claim that was there before. This wording is supported by the source. My last revert was mistaken; for some reason I was caching the earlier version of the page. Beyond that, try and WP:AGF a bit here. You have no evidence that anyone is trying to erase facts. Most of the established editors who have chimed in here are saying the same thing: this article should contain information that is verifiable from reliable sources.--Isotope23 18:04, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

The article "does in fact state that the lawsuit filed accuses the police of assault." Yes. Now it does. Which is a verifiable statement. So next time someone asks for support for something in the article, can just go straight to an accurate phrasing and skip over your customary rants and insistence on things which are not supported?

At some point we'll have to add either "The suit was eventually decided in favor of _____." If the lawsuit (which you have insisted be included) should end up being decided in favor of NYC and the NYPD, I wonder how insistent you will be that all mention of it be removed. --Sean Martin 19:12, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Reference to being the first Playmate to become a spokesmodel

I removed this reference today. A previous version referred to Adams being the first Playmate to be a lesbian spokesmodel, which was at least somewhat verifiable. A friendly anon edit on 17:42, 21 February 2007 changed this to simply be "first Playmate to become a spokesmodel". This lines up with a Stephanie Adams press release; in one of the last paragraphs, it is stated that she "is no longer labeling herself as a 'lesbian'". Given this change, and without a citation, I can't believe that there wasn't a single Playmate before her who was a spokesmodel of some sort...Wandering canadian 14:01, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Just because Adams might not label herself as a "lesbian" any longer, does not mean she is not a lesbian or still not a lesbian spokesmodel. According to her press release, "she is no longer identifying herself as a lesbian, but would prefer people to focus on their own personal life instead". Thst is evidently a polite way of telling people to mind their own business. Also according to her current press release, she is still "a spokesmodel in the gay community" and it has already been confirmed by the media that she was in fact the first Playboy Centerfold to be a spokesmodel in the LGBT community. Do not make your changes by what you "can't believe" unless you can prove that what you remove is based upon a fact. 66.108.144.31 17:21, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Just took a look at the edit made by Isotope (wow, that was quick) and in my opinion, it makes a great deal of sense. Thanks for the clarification. 66.108.144.31 17:25, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
I also removed "notable as" from the Playboy playmate reference because that is a subjective judgement. It is impossible to say for what any particular person would find her notable for. Conceivably it is what she is most reconizable for, but I'd rather leave out subjective wording like the from the article.--Isotope23 17:31, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Just to clarify, 66.108.144.31, I was removing a statement that had been edited previously that led to an unsupported contention (i.e. that Stephanie Adams was the first Playmate to become a spokesmodel - the "lesbian" aspect was removed in an anonymous edit). Also, to your last point (my dear anon editor), the burden is not on me to prove that a statement is untrue before removing it, but for you to prove it true to support its inclusion...see WP:V. Wandering canadian 17:41, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

The reference provided (Gay Pride Week", NY1 News, 21 June 2004.) seems to be defunct. It links to a search results page on the NY1News site which now shows no results. Searched the site for "Stephanie Adams" and for "Gay Pride" and found 0 results, so can't correct the link. (Also searched for "Bush" and for "Clinton" and got 0 results, so perhaps the problem is with the site's search engine.)
In any event, Googled and found one reference to the June 2004 Gay Pride Rally which notes Ms Adams' participation, but says nothing about her being spokesmodel or first. What is proper correction for a ref that no longer seems to be there? -- Sean Martin 21:20, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
I removed the dead link though I left in the text because I don't necessarily find it to be particularly extraordinary statement. If someone disagrees though it can certainly be discussed.--Isotope23 21:23, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
Works for me. (Dang, but you're fast!) -- Sean Martin 21:26, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Am I alone in not even understanding the concept of "spokesmodel"? A spokesman/spokesperson is typically paid to talk on behalf of a company or institution; is a spokesmodel paid to model? If so, she sounds rather like a model. Payment aside, where's Adams's modeling? If it's not modeling, what is it that she verifiably does? Or does turning up at a rally and being photographed by somebody there constitute spokesmodeling? -- Hoary 23:06, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

For what it's worth: Spokesman"A spokesman (spokesperson or spokeswoman), or spokesmodel is a person who speaks on behalf of others, but is understood not to be necessarily part of the others (e.g. is hired to represent the others)." So, if that definition is used, presumably she gets paid. -- Sean Martin 00:48, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
She's paid, or perhaps she volunteers and isn't paid, but what does she do? Something like a non-speaking spokesperson? But a non-speaking spokesperson seems a contradiction. Somebody who sits on the podium and is seen clapping during and after others' speeches? -- Hoary 05:19, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Stephanie Adams is a spokesmodel for the LGBT community and Playboy

A spokesmodel is a model who acts as a spokesperson.

Stephanie Adams not only acts as a spokesmodel for the LGBT community via the site she founded known as Sapphica.com (refer to: http://www.curvemag.com/Detailed/652.html) but she also has been referred to as a LGBT spokesperson via GODDESSY.com, StephanieAdams.com, and the following:

http://www.amazon.com/Sapphica-2007-Astrological-Readings-Lesbians/dp/0741432811

Also, according to Shescape.com, if you click on the link that reads "enlightenment" and touch the photo of Stephanie Adams, you will read a bio that clearly refers to her as a "spokesmodel" for a LGBT fashion line, also referenced on other sites as follows:

http://www.fvnewswire.com/newsread.aspx?rid=14809

In additon, she has been a speaker/spokesperson for Gay Pride in New York (http://www.hopinc.org/media/pressDetails.cfm?articlePkey=24) and New Jersey (http://www.gaypasg.org/GayPASG/PressClippings/2004/August%202004/Gay%20Pride%20festival%20in%20Jersey%20City%20draws%20politicians.htm).

In additon, according to the following article, she is even a spokesperson for Playboy:

http://www.clublez.com/movies/lesbian_celebrities/a/adams_stephanie/index.html

So, she is in fact a spokesmodel. Whether or not she is paid is no one's business and has not been reported. 66.108.144.31 04:29, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

OK, "spokesmodel" means a model who's a spokesperson. But most of this evidence above seems very feeble. Take the two links for Gay Pride. First, NY: Playboy centerfold Stephanie Adams told the audience of her brave decision to risk jeopardizing her career by coming out (period); i.e. she spoke (about herself, not about other gay issues). Secondly, NJ: Cops were photographed with her. I thought a spokesperson was somebody who pops up to say quotable stuff on behalf of an organization, company, etc. -- Hoary 05:27, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Being a spokesperson for a community means you speak to the community and about issues in the community. Her coming out made news in the community and she spoke to people about herself personally to set an example for them and to inspire them to be happy with their identity in the community as well. Now I do not have time to find every single speech she made and every single appearance where she spoke to the LGTB community, but here is a fine example of what was just written: http://www.sapphica.com/ComingOut.htm

Have a good weekend. 66.108.144.31 05:48, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Just an observation here that any links from goddessy.com, stephanieadams.com or sapphica.com don't carry any weight since those are all sites controlled by SA. To say she is a spokesmodel because she calls herself a spokesmodel doesn't really say much. So it was good you provided other links (although I haven't followed them to see how good or bad they may be as support). -- Sean Martin 06:50, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
Now I do not have time to find every single speech she made and every single appearance where she spoke to the LGTB community: let's suppose for a moment that there are a great number of them. OK, fine. But how is she a spokesperson? I'm not very familiar with the idea of a spokesperson (let alone "spokesmodel") for a community, but I (perhaps wrongly) presume that it's analogous to a spokesperson for an institution. The spokesperson for an institution doesn't speak to that institution, she speaks to others on behalf of that institution. Are spokesmodels different? Really, I get the impression that she turns up at events and is photographed or briefly takes the mike, or both. If this is so, why not say this straightforwardly? -- Hoary 09:07, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Even if Adams controlled those sites, they would carry "weight" because she is in fact the person in the article. However, it cannot be confirmed by you or anyone else on here whether or not Adams personally controls those sites and it really doesn't matter. The only thing that is known is the fact that those sites are official sites handled by her public relations department. Regardless, the official Stephanie Adams sites as well as the other ones noted are valid and therefore substantiated. And by the way, the Goddessy site is spelled "goddessy.com". 71.167.239.60 07:05, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

"Even if"??
  • Goddessy.com's pages all start with a large banner that reads "Goddessy by Stephanie Adams" and the About page answers the question "Who am I?" with "My name is Stephanie Adams" and several other first person statements.
  • Stephanieadams.com is "Copyright (C) Goddessy" which is "dedicated solely towards Stephanie Adams with expressed consent and permission from Miss Adams".
  • Sapphica.com is also "Copyright (C) Goddessy" and the About page contains not much more than a link back to goddessy.com.
Without knowing any specific details about whether it's SA or someone else who does the actual editing and updating of the sites, it stretches credulity past breaking to suggest their content isn't controlled by her. Public relations departments don't publish anything without approval in some way from the person being publicized (not if they want to stay employed) and even if they did "it really doesn't matter". I could make my own website (or three) and say (or have my "public relations department" say) that I'm a spokesman for the Wikipedia community and a self-taught brain surgeon, but that alone wouldn't be adequate to show that it is true.
To be clear (just to make sure you don't mis-understand the point being made) this isn't a comment on whether SA's statements are true or not. But that relying on her own websites solely doesn't provide adequate, independent support. If something is true and (notable enough) other support will be available for it.-- Sean Martin 09:40, 24 February 2007 (UTC)


Your responses to her public relations department are irrelevant to the topic. Not anyone can have such a department (or even have Playboy remain to represent them) unless they are an important figure in the media and have the means or power to do so. Her having that is a fact, but is also irrelevant to the topic.

Anytime anything is ever noted anywhere else, it is usually because it comes from the source. If Stephanie Adams doesn't confirm or deny it (in an interview, on her web sites, etc.) then it cannot be reported. The minute she acknowledges it, then it can. That is under her control as well as the people who she gives the power to handle her business. Obviously everything mentioned is notable, because it has been reported and referenced by other sources.

So regardless of where it is reported, at the end of the day, and like any other celebrity news, it's coming from her or a reliable source that has interviewed her or reviewed her official web sites (which are by the way, relevant enough to be linked on the page of the article about her). This is not going to be a debate, because her links on the page are a fact, and will always reflect who she is, and therefore will always remain relevant. 66.108.144.31 15:43, 24 February 2007 (UTC)


I didn't respond to her "public relations department", unless you're suggesting they and User:71.167.239.60 are one and the same.
Sure anyone can have such a "public relations department". I have one. You can contact them at PublicRelationsSM@gmail.com.
Does she have such a dept, or is she just represented by Playboy's? Minor point, perhaps, but there is a difference.
If everything written about SA is "under her control as well as the people who she gives the power to handle her business" they you've pretty much proved my point. Her three websites are ultimately controlled by her and claiming her say-so substantiates any claim she makes is as valid as accepting my claim that I'm a spokesperson for Wiki and self-made billionnaire by 25 just because I say I am. You can contact my public relations department to confirm it. They'll even issue a press release saying so. (Silly, right?)
To see that "any other celebrity news" clearly does not come "from [them] or a reliable source that has interviewed [them] or reviewed [their] official web sites" you only need to look at any tabloid. VAST amounts of celebrity news is published without coming from (and often is objected to by) the celeb themselves. (Nice to know "you" consider "her" a celebrity, BTW.)
Not all "facts" about someone are relevant. That she's turned on by Nintendo and likes tall men [1] may be a facts, but are not worth noting in an article of this type.
Glad it isn't a debate. I enjoy discussing things, but this topic seems to have run its course. Sean Martin 18:32, 24 February 2007 (UTC)


No one suggested the other user is the same as her public relations department. They never identified themselves as such and who cares anyway? They and Playboy probably couldn't care less about this tiny little discussion anyway.

Whether or not you have a public relations department is irrelevant. I do not know who you are and you do not have an article written about you on Wikipedia.

We are discussing the person in this article. The Playboy public relations department still handles all inquiries about her and as well as her special bookings. She also has a public relations department separate from Playboy, who obviously handles her business as well.

Stephanie Adams is in fact a celebrity and has the power to do a lot of things that the media has an interest in, but that is not relevant here either. In fact, this entire argument is irrelevant, so there is nothing further to say about it. 66.108.144.31 18:52, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Comment Stephanie Adams or any PR outfit that represents her may be used as a source at this page. Per WP:RS, however, these are to be treated as self-published material rather than reliable third party material. In other words, neither Stephanie nor PR on her behalf has the final say-so on what appears in the article. Quite the reverse. Priority goes to impartial and reputable news sources. DurovaCharge! 21:47, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Commented out ref

I commented out the ref for "LGBT spokesmodel" because it doesn't actually refer to her as such. I honestly don't have a big problem with the text itself, but if this is going to be referenced, it needs to be referenced from a reliable 3rd party source that actually refers to her as a spokesmodel or spokesperson for the LGBT community.--Isotope23 16:07, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Final Notes?

In my humble opinion, it seems as if the last edit made by Isotope is the strongest one and because there are only a few sentences written in the article, do we really have to argue or dicsuss further edits any longer?

Until the person the article is about makes any further new releases or any other breaking news comes out about her that is legally safe and acceptable to reference, I really think re-editing what someone else has already written and verified will probably cause further edit wars and wasted time.

According to the most recent press release on behalf of Stephanie Adams:

"...now she has decided to dedicate most of her time developing as much of a private life as she can possibly have."

Amen to that, because people in the public eye most certainly deserve it. Maybe we should respect those wishes, especially since they were publicly announced, and agree that this article is fine as is for now. 162.83.205.36 17:18, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

But that is not the nature of a Wiki, nor will it ever be. It is a constantly changing, flowing, evolving repository of information, which is hopefully relevant, factual, and reliable. There is no such thing as fine or final. -- Richard D. LeCour (talk/contribs) 06:26, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
I understand that you and Sean Martin have negative personal issues with the person in this article (even though you do not know her personally) which is why your input is here. But I'm not sure why your input is here, as this woman is not even debating with you. Whatever. The simple fact of the matter is, that Stephanie Adams is no longer making the details of her life public, so we the public do not know anything else about her to write. Any news in her life is under her control and until (or if) she decides to make anything that happens in her life public, there is nothing else for any of us to write. Everyone knows that Wikipedia is constantly changing, but Wikipedia does not know the changes in her life, as she has now decided to make them private. Therefore, this web site and any form of media have to respect her privacy, whether we like it or not. The End. 66.108.110.230 18:08, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Why is this even a discussion? The discussion really is larger than the article. This woman's recent press release did state that she has now become private about her life and included a quote from her basically telling people to mind their own business. So what can you say on here about what's she's doing today or tomorrow? Really, nothing. 66.108.144.31 18:22, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

What is she doing today anyway? Let me stop living my life so I can be obsessed with hers. Eventually, I am going to start making bitter comments about her on and offline because I know deep down that she would never want to be with me. And let me visit this page everyday so I can feel like I am in touch with her spiritually. God, I'm pathetic! lol...Seriously, this discussion page has become comical. Elaborating any further on this topic would be a silly waste of time. Cle0patr4 18:43, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Don't make fun of me Cleopatra. Maybe I'm silly and I love wasting my time. :0 :) :P 66.108.144.31 18:52, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Whatever. 66.108.110.230 18:56, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, then, to support SA's recent discovery of a desire to be a private person perhaps we should cut the article down to the bare bones of "She was Playboy's Miss November 1992 and is now a private person." similar to the entries for several others from her year [2][3][4]. -- Sean Martin 19:35, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

This is awesome; its always funny when so many sock puppets, I mean, distinct, unique "individuals", all come to SA's defence. How surprising that all this support seems to come from New York, the city of residence of Ms. Adams. Could it be that she has logged on with different IPs to make it look like several people all think her POV is the right one? We'll never know I guess...unless she "decides to make it public" to take the words of our friends who are definately not sock puppets.


In reference to the person (who didn't sign his name - or should have least signed it RDL) above my comment:

First of all, defense is not spelled "defence". Second, are you referring to Stephanie Adams as "SA"? The last time I heard of her being referred to as "SA" was by two nobody haters on amateur blogs. (Hi haters!) Anyways, your thinking that this beautiful celebrity is wasting time on some discussion page is weird. And looking up IP addresses and finding out that they are in New York City (where she resides) is a bit obsessive. There are millions of people who reside in New York City. Do you think they are all Stephanie Adams too? It sounds like you do. And saying that people are coming to her "defence" is ridiculous because there is no reason for us or anyone here to defend her. This isn't a trial and she has done nothing wrong. And believe it or not, a lot of people love, respect and even admire her. Why does that bother you? No need to answer, because it doesn't even matter. Enough with this nonsense. 66.108.110.230 00:15, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

No, looking up IP addresses is investigative. And, no, I do not live in Canada, therefore 74.105.74.44 is not my IP address, which is the kind of thing you learn if you stop and trace an IP address before inserting foot. -- Richard D. LeCour (talk/contribs) 17:17, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
Uh, you're citing facts there Richard. Not the practice apparently endorsed by some (66.108.144.31, 66.108.110.230, etc.) -- Sean Martin 18:10, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
Just today's FYI..."defence" is the British English spelling of the word, so that is a correct spelling.--Isotope23 00:29, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Wow, but isn't Wikipedia based in the US? Well, I'm sure people in other countries are visiting this site also. I'd look up that person's IP address, but to be honest, I do not have that much time on my hands and really do not care to. Now, in reference to the arguments over what I consider to be nothing really to argue about: Articles on Wikipedia should not be written by haters - or even lovers - but instead, objective editors who can write about the article without personal criticism of the person in the article. Personally, I'm loving Stephanie Adams because she is truly amazing, but that's more normal than hating her. People who hate famous people they do not know have some serious issues. Regardless, our personal opinions do not matter here and it's silly to continue going on about it. :) 66.108.144.31 00:41, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it is. So why do you? -- 71.113.115.113 00:58, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

What? Who are you? In any event, no one said I was going on about it. I was merely leaving a comment. But even if I was going to go on about it, that would be my right to, which really isn't any one else's business. Including yours. Have a good evening. 66.108.144.31 01:05, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

And, as predicted, on about it you go... -- 71.113.115.113 05:38, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

And, apparently, that is all you came here to do. [5] Vwat 09:56, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] No More Personal Attacks People

Not to eachother or to the person in the article. It's really not helping anything. 66.108.110.230 01:22, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sock Puppets

My dear friend 66.108.144.31, (or whichever IP you are choosing to use today): Please try to be objective, I know it is hard when you are writing about yourself on Wikipedia, but you really should try. Your biased attacks on other editors are unwarranted and impolite; please try to be reasonable and fair, your rage is unbecoming. For someone who claims not to be the subject of this article, you show an uncanny devotion to Ms. Adams and her press releases. Just to help you in your quest to become a more fair and balanced editor, I would recommend you read WP:SOCK, puffery, and WP:RS (especially the part about self-published material not being used when it is "unduly self-serving or self-aggrandizing"). Please feel free to contribute further when you can do so politely. Best regards. 74.105.74.44 02:13, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Firstly, I am not your "dear friend". I do not know you nor do I want to for that matter. Now...Writing about myself? Rage? What are you talking about? And where did you come from by the way, cause you're probably whatever it is you are calling me (sock puppet). No personal attacks. I did not write about myself and there is no rage in my comments. Even if there was, that would be my choice, but there is no need for it. I suggest you read the section on Wikipedia about personal attacks. And your telling me when to contribute further is totally out of order, because you do not have the power or authority to do so. Wikipedia is a collaboration of writings from everyone. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:About) 66.108.144.31 02:55, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

My dear 74.105.74.44, I find it odd that you suddenly pop up on this page with such a biased and judgemental opinion, when you have never edited on Wikipedia before and out of all the places you could visit on Wikipedia, you somehow came across an article on this particular playmate. Maybe you should relax and reflect upon your own animosity. 66.108.110.230 03:05, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ignore the nonsense and it will eventually go away.

Along with the people creating it. I actually feel sorry for them. People, let's be cordial. There's really nothing more to say. Stop the personal fighting on what should be an objective discussion page. God bless you all and help you to find some inner peace. Seriously. 162.83.205.36 03:35, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Semi-protected

This article and talk page are semi-protected for one week. Editors who wish to contribute may register an account and participate after four days. I recommend this because I would reimpose semi-protection after this protection expires if the edit warring resumes.

Editors here may wish to review WP:AUTO, which specifically warns that people who start articles about themselves do not own content and may be dismayed to find reliably verified negative facts brought to the public's attention by other editors. The article itself should be WP:NPOV neutral in tone. DurovaCharge! 20:36, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Biography assessment rating comment

The article may be improved by following the WikiProject Biography 11 easy steps to producing at least a B article. -- Jreferee 19:24, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../s/t/e/Talk%7EStephanie_Adams_d4cd.html"