Talk:Stephanie Adams/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Archive 1 Archive 2 →

Contents

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)

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.

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

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)

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

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)

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)

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

GODDESSY NO PERSONAL ATTACKS

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

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)

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

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)

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)

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)


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)


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.

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)


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)

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.

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)

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)

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

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

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)

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

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

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)



"GODDESSY" or "Goddessy"?

Much of this section is copied from the archive page. I didn't move it, thinking that the archive might make a bit more sense without its removal. -- Hoary 23:23, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

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)

PPS (i) I later noticed that in the US (which isn't where I happen to live), Sony does now call itself "Sony". But Sanyo still systematically calls itself "SANYO". (ii) For URLs, see the talk archive page; but in brief, I point out that domain names are not case-sensitive (though what follows the first single slash is indeed case-sensitive). -- Hoary 23:23, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

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 commented 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)

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. [76] Every single book cover written by Adams that has GODDESSY on its cover reads "GODDESSY" [77][78][79][80][81][82], so "GODDESSY" is accurate.

No further comments and thank you for your time.

-GODDESSY

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 [83] as well as the book covers [84][85][86][87][88][89], 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

User:GODDESSY (below, UG) is again touting the company's own explanation for CAPITALIZATION. I've already read and commented on it. What UG doesn't repeat is an assertion I missed the first time around, that: GODDESSY is legally registered as a business as "GODDESSY". Can we see any evidence of this? (Is it perhaps to distinguish the company from the "Goddessy" cosmetics company?) Actually the company related to Adams is a bit of a mystery, as it nowhere seems to supply its street address (although it's possible I have missed something). -- Hoary 23:23, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Treading cautiously

I haven't edited this before, but see from the archive that that there was a huge edit war, then Jimbo blew away most of the previous article with the comment please rebuild with very careful attention to verifiable sources ONLY. I'll be doing that. If anyone has objections, please bring them up, I don't have any dogs in this fight, don't intend to edit war, and will discuss happily.

So far I added back those books that I could find ISBNs for on Amazon or Barnes & Noble, which, I imagine, would be considered "verifiable sources". Adams's site also mentions 2007 astrology books and Happenings, but I haven't found them elsewhere yet. AnonEMouse 14:51, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

user:65.184.17.216

Keeps reverting to the Jimbo version and his/her edit summaries are labelled "Reverted BACK to JIMBO WALES, as per his talk page, LEAVE THIS PAGE ALONE AS IT IS NOW. Want to Edit it? Fine, get banned, even admins", and "Don't even make me log on and get my blocking stick kids, this isn't a joke, leave it.". Not only to they sound like out of wiki process threats, they are ridiculous. The object of Jimbo's blanking was to rewrite the article, not create a perma-stub. — ßottesiηi (talk) 00:04, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Also commented on my talk page; I completely agree with Bottesini. AnonEMouse (squeak) 01:50, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
Didn't comment on my talk page, but yeah, me too. I've removed the attacks that 65.184.17.216 posted to this page. FreplySpang 13:56, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Are Adam's "books" really books?

Getting a Rogue Admin to try and block a person from posting does not work too well if the person posting is in a circle with Jimbo, at no time was I affected by any "block" and I'd like to point out, that if you insist on using multiple sock puppets to try and make a user look bad, we can take care of it.

This page was edited by Jimbo himself and only FACTUAL VERIFIABLE NOTABLE items were to be added.

The page sat still for almost 3 weeks, then someone added all of the books she has written. Jimbo himself again WIPED the page and said again "Only factual items may be added"

The books that Stephanie Adams has "written" are all eBooks available for sale ONLY by download from her website.

Try to buy one at Amazon.com and you are directed to her website to purchase and download. They are NOT available in print and never have been. They are not notable, many people write eBooks, that does not make them notable. To say she is an author is quite enough if even mention that.

... added at 07:12, 27 May 2006 by 65.184.17.216

I've taken the liberty of retitling the IP's comment. (Previously, it was "Pointless".) I hope that the new title directs people's attention to the substantive issue that the IP raises. -- Hoary 07:22, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Using the page history, I went back to the last version to have a list of books (or "books"). I clicked on the ISBN of the first book in the list. This took me to the regular list of libraries, etc. I clicked on the Amazon.com option, and arrived here (Amazon). Amazon had a single copy of this book. The page claimed that it was stocked, and would be shipped, by Amazon.

My idle guess is that some of these "books" are actual printed books, and that others aren't. You, IP, appear to be more interested in the status of Adams's books (or "books", or non-books) than I am. Perhaps you'd like to do the donkeywork of either (a) differentiating between Adam's actual books and quasi-books; or (b) explaining how I misread the Amazon page.

(My own opinion is that this kind of stuff sounds like such piffle that even if it's verifiably published in solid, dendrocidal form, it's not worth listing.)

I realize that other editors have previously reverted this mass deletion. They may have been right to do this. I'd ask them not to revert it again, at least till the IP (or anybody else) has had a couple of days to explain the matter further on this talk page.

And IP (or anybody else), let's try to assume good faith, OK? -- Hoary 07:33, 27 May 2006 (UTC)


That sounds fine but I have a rogue "Admin" and a user with 3 sock puppets flooding me with warnings that are pure meaningless, they follow me from article to article reverting ANYTHING I write, Jimbo has been made aware and a Wiki Admin has already been "de admined" because of it.

TRY to buy ANY of her books from Amazon, they will redirect you to her website, of course it's in stock, its a download only.

ANY creative written work can get a Library of Congress tag IF you apply for govermental copyright status, which costs a whopping $14.99.

That's not a joke.

Her books on this Wiki server NO other purpose then to try and get people to buy them, that is why she created this article, that is why she spent sooo much time arguing with EVERYONE about what should be on it. She is very good at using certain phrases for search engines.

As the Wiki is now, it is only a bulletin board for advertising her books.

Saying she is an author is acceptable enough, she is NOT notable like Stephen King, heck, my 14 year old daughter wrote an eBook, should I start a Wiki about her now too?

added at 07:51, 27 May 2006 by 65.184.17.216

Yes, I know that an ISBN can be acquired easily (even for a work that doesn't exist in any form whatever). And nobody has claimed that Adams is a Stephen King. If you think you're being persecuted, there are other places where you can complain about it; here, please stick to the subject.
Please click this link (Amazon). Do you or do you not read: Availability: Usually ships within 24 hours. Ships from and sold by Amazon.com. / Only 1 left in stock--order soon (more on the way). and below this Product Dimensions: 8.2 x 6.0 x 0.5 inches / Shipping Weight: 7.2 ounces. If you do read this, how do you square it with your assertion that it's a mere download? -- Hoary 08:11, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

NONE of her book are listed by the library of congress at ALL

http://catalog.loc.gov/cgi-bin/Pwebrecon.cgi?Search_Arg=Stephanie+Adams&Search_Code=TALL&PID=11203&SEQ=20060527041220&CNT=25&HIST=1

I know someone PERSONALLY that sells "books" on Amazon, anyone can, click the button at the bottom that says SELL YOUR STUFF.

You say what the item is, what is weighs, what size it is, what the price is and all other kinds of information.

Amazon does not EVER have to actually handle your product ever.

TRY TO ORDER THE BOOK ONCE. You will be told in email to visit her site to confirm the order and to DOWNLOAD IT.

You know its like the BIG public release people argued about above for the magazine that she was on page 6 for.

Yes , it was a public release, and it was written by someone named Saphica.

Sound familiar? It should, she wrote a press release about herself.


NONE of her books are real valid print books, NONE

... added in a series of edits from 08:13 to 08:23, 27 May 2006 by 65.184.17.216


http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ07d.html

Federal LAW. ALL PUBLISHED BOOKS IN THE UNITED STATES MUST BE REGISTERED MANDATORY WITHIN 3 MONTHS OF PUBLISHING.

That means ALL books.

The law envisions "voluntary" compliance and the only enforcement occurs if the LOC demands copies.

Not eBooks, which is what hers are.

She has NO listings at all, for her name, for GODDESSY, for any of her book titles, even the numbers. NOTHING nadda.

From the page above

"Mandatory Deposit Requirements On January 1, 1978, all works published with a notice of copyright in the United States became subject to the mandatory deposit requirements of the United States Copyright Act (title 17, United States Code). These requirements are similar to the "legal deposit" or "depot legal" laws in effect in other countries.

On March 1, 1989, the qualification "with notice of copyright" was eliminated from the mandatory deposit provision. This change was made in Public Law 100-568, the Berne Convention Implementation Act of 1988. As a result of this change, all works under copyright protection and published in the United States on or after March 1, 1989, are subject to mandatory deposit whether published with or without a notice.

The mandatory deposit provision ensures that the Copyright Office is entitled to receive copies of every copyrightable work published in the United States. Section 704 of the Copyright Act states that these deposits "are available to the Library of Congress for its collections, or for exchange or transfer to any other library."

How the Mandatory Deposit Requirements Work The copyright law in Section 407 requires requires the "owner of copyright or of the exclusive right of publication" in a work published in the United States to deposit the required number of copies in the Copyright Office within 3 months of the date of such publication.

Publication is defined in the copyright law as "the distribution of copies or phonorecords of a work to the public by sale or other transfer of ownership, or by rental, lease, or lending."

... added in a series of edits from 08:13 to 08:23, 27 May 2006 by 65.184.17.216


Let's try to be concise.
Let's sign our comments. (This is easy: "~~~~".)
You quote: The mandatory deposit provision ensures that the Copyright Office is entitled to receive copies of every copyrightable work published in the United States. Section 704 of the Copyright Act states that these deposits "are available to the Library of Congress for its collections, or for exchange or transfer to any other library." That's right. Let's suppose for a moment that a book by Adams exists in physical form. (Jeez, what a waste of trees!) And let's suppose that the LoC gets a copy of this. Do you imagine that the LoC would actually retain it or pass it on to another library? I'd expect, and for the sake of US taxpayers I'd hope, that the LoC would toss it into the trash. -- Hoary 08:37, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes by LAW, international law they MUST retain a copy of it. That's law man, like the book or not, it's the law. I have seen the library of congress, the building is a 6 story building about the size of a football field if not bigger. If it has been published in the United States since January 1978, it IS in the LOC.

I do not believe that ANY so called books written by her are notable at ALL, apparently Jimbo Wales didn't either as he crap canned the entire list once before.

The problem is, she's a playboy playmate, so she will always have rabid "fans" that will add all kinds of junk to her page, we can sit here and argue about it all year if need be, but it only takes 1 idiot to revert this page back to what it was when she made the article. Then we'll have an arguement over that.

This information on her page needs to be reliable facts that can be proven and it has to be NOTABLE. Notable means what the person is of historical NOTE for. She is a noted figure for being in PLAYBOY, not for being an author like Stephen King, big difference. Going to bed, peace. 65.184.17.216 08:45, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

I can't believe that international law would dictate that the LoC should keep worthless books. (In addition, the US seems uninterested in any application of international law to what it does.) However, you may be onto something. I've had a little websurf for truly awful books that verifiably exist in physical form. One author is Helen Ritberger. Amazingly, the LoC lists four of her publications (sample title: Your personality, your health: connecting personality with the human energy system, chakras, and wellness). It also has Harlequin romances, and indeed every crappy sub-book that I can think of. For whatever reason (and surely it's some kind of obligation, not any desire to preserve, uh, intellectual riches), the LoC gives the impression of truly dedicated barrel-scraping. And yet it provides no space for Stephanie Adams, US citizen, resident and self-described author. This strikes me as a non-trivial reason to remove her "books", whatever media they are transmitted in.
I note that you confirm that Adams is a playboy playmate (a fact that you disputed on my talk page). I don't know if that means she'll have "rabid fans": there are, after all, hundreds of ex-playmates. Anyway, please start by assuming that people who disagree with yourself aren't rabid or idiotic. Thank you. -- Hoary 09:15, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
You bring up an interesting point - are eBooks not deserving of mention in an article about their author? I would argue that they are; they're important to the author, they're how the author has been making a living for several years, they're selling well enough to be listed by Amazon and Barnes and Noble. Our rules are not the same as those of the Library of Congress; they collect books, we write an encyclopedia. I have never seen a Wikipedia rule or guideline saying that eBooks should not be listed in an article about their writer; if there is such a thing, please point it out. True, individually they're probably not notable enough to get an article in and of themselves, but they're notable enough to get a line each in the article of a person who has an article otherwise. The same is true of the aforementioned Stephen King, for example - he's got paragraphs about his car accident, which, by itself, would not be notable enough to get him an article, but, given that we do have an article about him, should certainly be covered. Similarly with these publications. However, it is probably worth while to mention that these are eBooks. That seems to be the way WP recommends we get around content disputes - list the facts, both sides. AnonEMouse (squeak) 13:01, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
First, a factual point. I don't see that availability via Amazon and B&N says anything about volume of sales. As I understand it, such retailers will list anything for which information is already at one or other of a small number of databases; putting something into one of these databases requires that the publisher has a certain small amount of knowledge and effort but again says nothing about sales or sales potential.
Secondly, I don't think that eBooks are inherently less noteworthy than dead-trees books. But (1) Is every book (regardless of medium) noteworthy? I'd say that these aren't. And (2) If a person is noteworthy in some way (e.g. having been a "playmate"), does that mean that every verifiable fact about her is noteworthy? Again, I'd say that no it isn't.
Third, how about the products of, uh, willing publishers? According to the list, Adams's most recent book is Happenings. I clicked on the ISBN and Amazon told me that it was published by "Infinity Publishing". Googling for that took me here: we have created a self publishing system which allows authors total creative control, total rights ownership, and a bookstore quality book; a one-stop solution for authors seeking a destination for their work etc etc. Two of Adams's books have similar ISBNs. A commoner ISBN pattern is that exemplified by Sapphica: 2006 Astrological blah blah blah. By a similar route, I learn that this was published by "Dubsar House", another name that was new to me. Unlike Infinity Publishing, Dubsar House doesn't simply offer to publish what you pay them to publish, but their page "How to Publish with Us" seems unusually open to manuscripts: none of the usual publishers' stuff about how they're swamped by submissions, but instead such advice for novices as "Please spell-check the entire document, correcting all spelling, punctuation and the grammatical structure, when appropriate." (And how many times have they been mentioned by the NYT? Look here.)
These books -- if they are books, and actually I think that most are -- don't seem to have survived the whittling process that produces the kind of books that are reviewed, discussed, or bought. This is publishing of a very low order. -- Hoary 03:56, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
At 06:54, User:151.202.15.218 (contributions) deleted the note about publishers (and a link to IMDb) with the comment: "On the contrary, Adams got paid for all of her books to be published. Don't post something you do not know about." Perhaps the IP could present evidence that Adams was paid; otherwise, this would seem to be original research. -- Hoary 07:10, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

I added the publisher of each book, so it can be more easily seen what is going on here. There are four publishers:

  1. PublishAmerica, about which we have a good article
  2. Dubsar House Publishing and
  3. New Age World Publishing which are extremely similar, right down to using text and graphics from each other on their web pages (Dubsar House page source code refers to nawpublishing.com - New Age pages use the words "Dubsar House" in their graphics); I would bet they are run by the same company
  4. Infinity Publishing which at least uses different web pages.

From reading their sites, all four seem to meet most definitions of vanity presses. I could not see anything one way or another about their being e-books. However, all that evaluation is original research on my part; I have not seen any published source say anything one way or another about the quality of Ms. Adams's books. As I wrote before, I still think they're worth about one line each - no more, and no less. This is nothing special about Ms. Adams -- if another person we have an article about for reasons other than being an author publishes a widely available vanity press book, I also think that would be worth briefly mentioning in their article. Since Jimbo's semi-protection has blocked both of our anonymous contributors from editing without first logging in, perhaps we will have a bit of peaceful discussion about this, rather than an edit war. AnonEMouse (squeak) 13:31, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Annual publications

I think the list of annual publications is overwhelming without being useful. I'd rather see it as something like,

  • The Goddessy series of yearly astrological forecasts (2004-2007. 2007 edition: ISBN 074143282X)
  • The Sapphica series of yearly astrological forecasts for lesbians (2004-2007. 2007 edition: ISBN 0741432811)

.... and then her one-off books as appropriate. It would be better to work the series title in there somehow, but then again, anyone who is interested can click the ISBN link. FreplySpang 13:39, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Good idea. That should condense the list, hopefully reducing objections from our anon, without reducing useful information. However, it's not easy to get from a 2007 ISBN link to a 2005 one, in case a user wants it, and I do want to keep the publisher info, since that was such a big issue just recently. Since there aren't hundreds, how about something like:
  • The Goddessy series of yearly astrological forecasts: 2004-2006 Dubsar House Publishing, ISBN 1111, ISBN 2222, ISBN 3333; 2007 Infinity Publishing, ISBN 4444.
Reasonable compromise? AnonEMouse (squeak) 13:57, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
Hmm. You're right, keeping the publisher info is good. I'm not entirely convinced that the past ISBN info is all that useful, though. The highlighted ISBN links are visually distracting. It doesn't seem like many people would be interested in past editions, and I'd be happy to let that small number of people do a title and author search on Google, Amazon, B&N, etc. FreplySpang 14:13, 2 June 2006 (UTC) Hm, I suspect that you are about to say "people might want the book for the current year." Good point. Maybe we could list the ISBN's in reverse chronological order, then. FreplySpang 14:15, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
WP:BOLD time. Take a look at the current condensation, and see if you like it. If not, edit it according to your counter-suggestion, and we'll if others like it. :-). AnonEMouse (squeak) 15:08, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
What is this, a wiki? :-) Looks good. I tried rearranging it a couple of ways, but the changing publishers make it a bit messy. FreplySpang 15:16, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm taking the tag off

The dispute needs to be worked out, but the POV tag is usually reserved for much more serious issues. A list of books thats notability is being argued over is no reason for the tag. — ßottesiηi (talk) 20:29, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

semi protected

I semi-protected the article (but did not put on the correct template, hopefully someone more clueful than me will do that) to encourage our anon ip to log in. Please, everyone, stay kind and thoughtful and generous all around. This includes GODDESSY but also others. I ask people who are working on this page to please not block GODDESSY for personal attacks and so on unless absolutely necessary. We have here a classic case of a WP:BIO process which has turned hostile for no good reason. Kindness. Please. Everyone. :)--Jimbo Wales 08:50, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

I have added the appropriate tag. I don't have time to pay this issue the attention it deserves at the moment, but I'd like to repeat Jimbo's call for everyone to be nice. In particular, I must remind everyone that the subject of this article takes a personal interest in how she is represented on Wikipedia (and who can blame her?) and is represented here by GODDESSY (talk · contribs). Please remember to be as sensitive and polite when speaking to and about these people as you would any other Wikipedian. Cheers, fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 09:19, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

False Comments on the Stephanie Adams Page...Once Again

This was dumped at Jimmy Wales wikipedia article, where it was out of place (S/he probaly wanted to have his user talk page. Anyway, I think it is here more appropriate. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 13:01, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Once again, someone is posting false comments on the Stephanie Adams page.
According to an archive posting from her legal department, Adams sued another web site for potentially libelous comments made on there named blognyc.net and is on a mission to do the same with other web sites that have produced potentially libelous comments about her.
THE TRUTH: Her books are not all ebooks and they are all available via Barnes & Noble as well as Amazon. Only one book was published by Publish America (her first book) and it wasn't vanity publishing because she got paid for the publication.

Suggestion

Maybe the way to solve this who published it etc issue is to add links to Amazon to each and every book that is listed. That will resolve the issue I would think, as the summary above it then can follow the content of the section, instead of reply on undocumented stuff. JJust my 0.02 euro cents -- Kim van der Linde at venus 13:11, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

That's what the ISBN link is for. It's a way to get to Amazon, B&N, and over a hundred other references for each specific book. AnonEMouse (squeak) 13:16, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Indirect, but when it is so contencious, it might solve the problem to add them directly to the page. Just an idea, just rambling. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 13:19, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Erratic behaviour

Even from within the confines of NPOV, Adams seems to be completely, batshit insane. Someone really ought to incorporate some of this behaviour into the article, perhaps in a section called "Erratic behaviour". See http://blognyc.net/news/stephanie-adams/more-fun-with-stephanie-adams-martin-siegel-and-brown-rudnick.php for details regarding an ongoing issue; the archived talk page for this article has more. I would sign this comment, but I'm (very slightly) worried that she will sue and/ or stalk me. .... Contributed in a series of edits on 12 July 2006 by 207.6.31.6

I went to that URL and saw no details.
If her behavior is odd in some remarkable and noteworthy way, and if you can specify authoritative sources for this, then you're free to add it to the article. -- Hoary 02:35, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, I'm very lazy and/or busy, and to do it properly (accurate, well-sourced and entirely NPOV) would require a little work. Her strange behaviour mostly consists in harassing bloggers and others who have portrayed her in a possibly negative light. She has been attracting a lot of attention lately from sites like fark.com (where I'm from). 207.6.31.6

Yup, I too am lazy and/or busy. Speaking on a talk page as I now am, and thus not now being constrained by any need to hide my PoV, I'd say that the thought occurs to me that the flaming nutballs are the people who'd pay actual money for stuff with titles like Goddessy: Psychic Reading Predictions for Every Astrological Birth Sign. But perhaps they're sane and instead it's me who's a flaming nutball even to consider for a moment that the idea of astrological birth signs is codswallop. -- Hoary 09:39, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Bat shit insane is an understatement. ... added at 14:51, 15 July 2006 by 68.162.99.208

If you have anything coherent to say, say it directly. And provide sound evidence for any claims you make, and have the guts to sign it. But if you just want to add tidbits of innuendo, please do it somewhere other than Wikipedia. Thank you. -- Hoary 16:06, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
I second what Hoary has said. To call Adams such names is to violate the "avoid personal attacks" policy and is just flat-out rude besides. RobertAustin 14:31, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

BLP

I do not believe the blognyc bit is appropriate per WP:BLP. However, her suit against the NYPD is per [90]. Hipocrite - «Talk» 17:35, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

What's inappropriate about it? Ben-w 18:46, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
"Material from primary sources should generally not be used. " Hipocrite - «Talk» 19:02, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
And how does the section violate this guideline exactly? Ben-w 19:27, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
Don't you think the statements by one half of a lawsuit qualify a primary source with respect to the lawsuit? Wait for someone else to write about it then include it. Hipocrite - «Talk» 19:28, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
No, that's not what "primary source" means. Ben-w 19:31, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
primary source- "In historical scholarship, a primary source is a document or other source of information that was created at or near the time being studied, often by the people being studied." Check, check - primary source. Hipocrite - «Talk» 19:46, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
This is not historical scholarship. In this context, a primary source would be the actual court record itself. The guideline you quoted, if you continue to the end of the sentence, is intended to discourage people from doing original research: here, trolling through FindLaw or Pacer, pulling court documents, and using them as sources for an article. In this instance, the case has attracted public comment both from the defendant and from others -- the blog's message boards, Fark.com, etc. -- The information presented about the case is accurate, is relevant, adheres to NPOV, and is verifiable with cited sources. Ben-w 21:12, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
You are wrong. I have requested a third opinion. Hipocrite - «Talk» 21:47, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
The guideline you state is under the heading "Presumption in favor of privacy", and specifically mentions that "Material from primary sources should generally not be used. For example, public records may include personal details such as home value, outcomes of civil court cases, traffic citations, arrest records, and vehicles and real estate owned." A primary source, here, is a document such as the court filing. The guideline is an effort to dissuade people from using Wikipedia to "out" information about someone which they have gleaned from primary sources. This is not the case here -- the case has been the subject of public comment and discussion on several fora, and there is nothing inaccurate, defamatory, or contentious about what is written: Ms. Adams is suing BlogNYC, that is public knowledge, it is under discussion, verifiable, sourced, cited. End of story. Ben-w 21:59, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
Could you cite a reliable source that mentions the lawsuit please? Blogs are not WP:RS. Hipocrite - «Talk» 22:59, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
And then what spurious reason for removing references to the case will you come up with for your third trick? Just let it go. Ben-w 23:27, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
PDF versions of the actual complaint are available widely on the web and linked to. Your BLP argument is in error. There is no conceivable reason to remove this information. Leave it. Ben-w 00:04, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
PDF versions of the complaint would be primary sources. Get a newspaper to write about it. Hipocrite - «Talk» 00:08, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
Yes -- and the primary source provides a perfect verification of the case. You are taking the line about "material from primary sources" out of context. It is not that primary sources cannot be used or referred to. The information is relevant, public, and verified. Your attempt to subvert it by claiming it violatse the presumption in favor of privacy as specified in BLP is absurd and it is noteworthy that, although you said you'd get a third opinion, you did not. I don't know why you are trying to suppress this information but you should attempt to go through a dispute resolution channel first. Ben-w 00:11, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
I filed at WP:3o here, and have have only reverted when you stopped discussing. I must insist on an apology. I dispute that the material is verified. There is no WP:RS who has mentioned the suit except for the filings, and the filings are primary sources, and not acceptable per WP:BLP. Hipocrite - «Talk» 00:14, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
"Stopped discussing"? What do you mean? I did not accept any of your arguments about BLP and I have explained why. I maintain that the information is public, it is the subject of much public discussion, it is verified with documentary evidence, and it is relevant. Ben-w 00:18, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
You wrote the following "And then what spurious reason for removing references to the case will you come up with for your third trick? Just let it go." I ignored your assumption of bad faith, and there was nothing left to respond to. So I determined that you had realized I was right. Please note that BLP requires there be realiable secondary sources for the article - I have asked repeatedly for a reliable secondary source - you have declined to provide this. Do you intend to provide a source, or are you just going to insist that such a source exists? Hipocrite - «Talk» 00:20, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
"If it is not documented by reliable third-party sources, leave it out.... Material from primary sources should generally not be used. For example, public records may include personal details such as home value, outcomes of civil court cases, traffic citations, arrest records, and vehicles and real estate owned. Use material only from reliable third-party sources. If X's arrest records are relevant to his notability, someone else will have written about them." That's what I'm looking for. Some reliable third-party source who has written about it. Hipocrite - «Talk» 00:22, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
That is a wilful misinterpretation of what I said. You are not right; I explained why and I did not retract what I said. Your invocation of the 'primary source' guideline is inappropriate for reasons which I have explained several times now; the person, the story, and the lawsuit are being volubly discussed in public; the primary source document is not the origin of this story, but it does support it. That is an entirely appropriate use of a primary source and one that does not violate BLP in any way.
I find it hard to assume bad faith when you claim that you interpreted my comment as an admission of error when it was quite clearly anything but, and you are insisting on removing accurate, sourced, cited, relevant content. Stephanie Adams did file that lawsuit. That is a fact, and it's relevant, it's being widely discussed and commented on, and it's supported by documentary evidence. Ben-w 00:30, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
Please read BLP again - specifically this unbroken paragraph - "Material from primary sources should generally not be used. For example, public records may include personal details such as home value, outcomes of civil court cases, traffic citations, arrest records, and vehicles and real estate owned. Use material only from reliable third-party sources. If X's arrest records are relevant to his notability, someone else will have written about them." What is the reliable third-party source in this case? Hipocrite - «Talk» 00:33, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
I can only explain it to you. I can't understand it for you. Ben-w 00:34, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
A link or harvard citation to the reliable source will be fine, please. Hipocrite - «Talk» 00:36, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Don't know, don't much care. But while WP purports to be an encyclopedia, I hadn't thought it even purported to be a newspaper. Up-to-the-moment verifiable facts about the bombing of Lebanon, perhaps yes; but why the need to add the very latest tidbits (however risible) about extremely minor celebs? Since the newspapers love celebs (writing about them is cheap, and the public thirst for gossip seems insatiable), I'd expect this stuff to appear in a newspaper if there's anything to it; if it doesn't, perhaps it doesn't even merit tabloid attention. -- Hoary 00:41, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

The fact that newspapers haven't yet found Ms. Adams's litigation the stuff to hold the front page for doesn't change either the facts or the evidence. Yes, a reliable third-party citation would be preferable, and one should generally use them for preference, but the absence of one does not invalidate anything of what I have said. The case I have made, and which you have failed to address, stands. The information is true: Stephanie Adams is suing BlogNYC for the reasons mentioned. It is relevant to an article on Ms. Adams -- that's beyond dispute. There is documentary evidence for this. The BLP guideline which you have invoked to censor the information is not appropriate here for reasons I have expressed, clearly, several times and which you have not attempted to refute. Your attempted justifications for censoring this information fail on every count. If you can provide a reason to delete this accurate, verified, relevant information from the article, do so. To date, you have not.
If we have an article about Ms. Adams at all -- and VfD says we do -- then this information unquestionably belongs here. Ben-w 00:44, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
I'd like to be clear - since you appear to believe that WP:BLP does not apply, I intend to follow the rules as required per WP:BLP - I must remove the poorly sourced negative information from the page - "Editors should remove any unsourced or poorly sourced negative material from biographies of living persons and their talk pages, and may do so without discussion; this is also listed as an exception to the three-revert rule." While I intend to revert this information untill you follow WP:BLP and provide a reliable third-party source, I will report you for a violation of 3rr shortly. Hipocrite - «Talk» 00:49, 19 July 2006 (UTC)


I have explained numerous times why your application of WP:BLP is wrong and inappropriate, and you have failed to attempt to argue otherwise. You are knowingly removing information that has been proven to be factually correct and well-sourced. You are, therefore, vandalising this page and demonstrating appalling bad faith. Arguments and evidence to prove you wrong have been advanced at every point and you have failed to even attempt to refute them. You are just clinging, pedantically and disingenuously, to an out-of-context sentence from a section in BLP which clearly does not apply here. Ben-w 03:07, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Request for Assistance Filed

Here. Ben-w 03:15, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Revionist History

There can be no dispute about the FACT that Stephanie Adams filed a lawsuit against BlogNYC. This is TRUE. There are court documents. There's PDFs of the law firm's complaint and the responses to it. It has HAPPENED and it is sourced. Now, you can try the tenuous BLP-says-generally-don't-rely-on-primary-sources-no-original-research line if you must, but you cannot dispute the fact that Stephanie Adams filed the lawsuit in question and unambiguous documentary evidence exists to prove that. So don't call it "unsourced". Ben-w 03:21, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Where is the source? I only see a link to that blog? That's not a reliable source. Garion96 (talk) 03:24, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
Here's something. You say some way above: The fact that newspapers haven't yet found Ms. Adams's litigation the stuff to hold the front page for doesn't change either the facts or the evidence. . . . If we have an article about Ms. Adams at all -- and VfD says we do -- then this information unquestionably belongs here. Another fact, as I hazily understand it (I don't claim to have read all the above) is that no newspaper yet identified has yet found this litigation the stuff to hold any part of any page. Yet another is that WP isn't a newspaper. So where's the urgency? (It's not as if a new cure for AIDs has been reported.) Why not wait, see what happens, and then, if/when it gets into the newspapers, edit accordingly? Yes, Adams passed AfD (probably on the strength of appearing in Playboy over a decade ago); I don't see how this means that her melodramas as a minor celeb must be added in "real-time" even if they're verifiable. As it is, WP comes off looking even more voracious for titillating trivia than the tabloids do. -- Hoary 03:30, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
Correct, so she sued someone, and only the blog she supposedly sued mentions it. What's the hurry here. I know the strength of a wiki can be to be up to date, but in this case we should wait till or if a reliable source mentions it. (which should actually always be the case) Garion96 (talk) 03:36, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
Set aside who "has" to do what, our sense of urgency, how titillating this is, how "voracious" WP might look, what the strengths of the wiki format are, what the nuances of a sentence in what policy could be and how deeply we gave into our own navels. Focus. Relevant and significant factual information about the subject of a legitimate article has been introduced to that article, supported by solid documentary evidence. You wish to delete that information. That is not right. Ben-w 04:02, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
What is the third-party reliable source per WP:BLP? Hipocrite - «Talk» 04:27, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
We are obliged to rely on the court document in this case. WP:BLP states that one should generally not do so, but we have no other reliable, documentary evidence. Further, WP:BLP's caution against relying on a primary source relates to issues which do not apply here, as is made clear by its position and context in that policy. Maybe if I explain it again you might try to understand. You will, of course, continue to parrot your one line of WP:BLP out of context and continue to claim that as justification for removing factual, verified and relevant information. It is not. You will not attempt to refute what I'm saying, you'll just bleat WP:BLP again and delete information that you know full well to be accurate and verified. Ben-w 05:12, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
Focus. Relevant and significant factual information about the subject of a legitimate article has been introduced to that article, supported by solid documentary evidence. Our focuses produce different results. Mine tells me that, whatever the relevance of this information and the solidity of its documentation, it's of dubious significance. A few months, weeks, or conceivably even days from now, its significance may be a lot clearer, and the evidence for it a lot more compelling. So relax till then. -- Hoary 06:41, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

For proof of the lawsuit, search http://iapps.courts.state.ny.us/webcivil/FCASSearch?param=I for index number 108616/2006. Provides proof of ongoing lawsuit - and the related motions of which copies are available on metadish.com. --Wandering_Canadian 15:33, 13 February 2007

Protected (again)

I've protected the article to prevent further edit warring. I'll be happy to unprotect it when y'all can agree that there won't be more disruptive reverting. I've also broke a personal rule, and reverted to the "last-known-good" version before protecting. My reasons are:

  1. Despite Ben-w (talk · contribs)'s protestations to the contrary, he has not provided any sources, particularly not in the article itself. Wikipedia is not in the business of hosting damaging and unverified allegations. I have policy backing on this one: we do not keep potentially defamatory statements that we're iffy about, unless we find a way to stop being iffy about them.
  2. Ms Adams has shown in the past that she keeps an eye on this article, and (not unjustifiably) is fully prepared to call up Jimbo and complain whenever someone inserts potentially defamatory statements that we're iffy about. I don't want Jimbo's dinner to be interrupted because some anonymous person on the Internet is annoying Stephanie Adams; do you?
  3. This article has seen more than enough edit warring and boorish behaviour for one year; I'm developing an itchy trigger-finger when it comes to wading into disputes on this article, and so should other admins. Eeurgh, people. Eeurgh!

Let me know how you get on. fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 10:45, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I can't believe an admin is caving to these bullying tactics

I have been following this story as well as the one on BlogNYC. Ben W is right. The only thing the wikipedia article was stating was that Stephanie Adams Filed suit against BlogNYC. That is a fact and can be backed up by court documents which are public record. I understand that you are sick of these editing wars, but changing a fact because you're afraid that the person in question will call up "Jimbo" is a little ludicrous. Basicially what you're saying is that anyone who has enough time on their hand and is willing to stop at nothing can cause edit wars and call the founder of Wikipedia and have their wikipedia article resemble a press release rather than a true knowledge base. ... contributed at 19 July 2006 by Thinkfreely

User's first contribution. Hipocrite - «Talk» 15:51, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
I dunno about you, but I'm not too concerned about whether or not a contribution is a user's first or fifteen thousandth. If they've got something worthwhile to say, I look forward to reading it; if they don't, well ... that's not so good (and we've got a couple of users with 10k+ edits who make the ol' peepers glaze over, so that's not pure rhetoric). fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 16:01, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
It's not a matter of "caving [in to] bullying tactics", Thinkfreely. I was a bit flippant in my earlier note, so I can see how it might have been misunderstood by someone not familiar with Wikipedia. Fair enough, I'll try again: Wikipedia and its contributors have tremendous power to cause an individual a lot of damage through carelessness or, in some cases, malice. We strive to be sensitive to the feelings of those we write about, not merely because it avoids complaints and lawsuits, but also because It's The Right Thing To Do. If there are true, verifiable comments that one would expect to find in an encyclopaedia's biography of an individual, then we'll include them whether that individual likes it or not — but until it's proven that potentialy defamatory comments are true, verifiable, and necessary for a biography, we play the "better safe than sorry" game, particularly when we know the subject of an article reads the article and is liable to get upset if we spread rumours about her.
If you still think that's somehow objectionable behaviour on our part, well, I'm sorry to hear that, but there's not much I can do to help you. We strive to write an encyclopaedia, not a gossip sheet, and we aren't in the business of printing whatever J. Random Blog says about someone unless it can be proven to be true, independent, verifiable, and significant. Welcome to Wikipedia! fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 16:01, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Presumption in favor of privacy

Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons says:

Presumption in favor of privacy

Biographies of living people must be written conservatively and with due regard to the subject's privacy.

Public figures

In the case of significant public figures, there will be a multitude of reliable, third-party published sources to take information from, and Wikipedia biographies should simply document what these sources say. If an allegation or incident is notable, relevant, and well-documented by reliable published sources, it belongs in the article — even if it's negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it. If it is not documented by reliable third-party sources, leave it out. WAS 4.250 16:25, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Until personal data about living persons is documented by reliable third-party sources it must not be included because the privacy concerns outweigh the noteability. Family members of noteable people are an example of what not to include until they achieve this level of personal noteability themselves. Noteable and influential wikipedians take this to heart. Take a hint. WAS 4.250 16:32, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Third_opinion

Hi, just offering a third opinion after requesting one myself. Those adding the lawsuit info claim it is sourced, but I haven't seen any actual citations (I admit that I only looked at a couple of diffs). This would be a good start, I think. Even if we decide the blog doesn't meet WP:RS, surely court documents would be. I don't know how NYC handles things like that, but remember that sources don't necessarily have to be accessable online. As for citing the blog itself, I would think that anything directly relating to her or this lawsuit would be acceptable. After all, we're not necessarily saying 'X,' we're saying 'X was said here.' -- stubblyhead | T/c 15:23, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

I am the attorney for James Poling and I can assure all who care that there is, indeed, a $100,000 law suit against him brought by Stephanie Adams. The Index Number in Supreme Court, New York County is 10861/06. It is signed by her attorney, Martin Siegel and it is verified by her. I'd be happy to send a photo copy of the signature pages to the central authority, if there be one. Neal Johnston. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.81.195.90 (talk • contribs)

IF you really are Neal Johnston, then it would be easier for you to get an online magazine/tabloid to cover the story in order to facilitate having a reputable source and third party coverage that would satisfy all of the policies here. Then again, your IP is just a Speakeasy IP, so there's no validation that you're the real Mr. Johnston. ju66l3r 20:50, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
Oh? I don't call "an online magazine/tabloid" "a reputable source". If you really are Neal Johnston, I suggest you ignore the rather feverish speculation and tittle-tattle here at Wikipedia (which, incidentally, lacks a central authority for verifying claims) and instead concentrate on the legal task in front of you. -- Hoary 21:01, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
I was unable to find any record of the case on the state's Unified Court System as of one week after it was allegedly filed, so either their system is broken or the case doesn't exist. The system is supposed to be "updated" 4 times daily. Searching for Mr. Johnston returns a single New York County case from a few years ago. If this search engine found the case, would that qualify as a verifiable and reputable third-party source? It certainly would be distinguishable from the court filing itself, so I suggest that it is at least a third-party source. --Beefyt 01:13, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi all, new to the whole debate, but wanted to help everyone out. The correct index number is 108616/2006, and you can also search the above portal for "Stephanie Adams" as the plaintiff to find the same case listing. Would this verification coupled with available court documents linked to the motions described on the legal site mean that we can now list the current court case Stephanie has filed agains James Poling as part of this entry? --Wandering_Canadian 15h28 13 February 2007

It's sad to see wikipedia cowtow and give in to this

Why not just call it Wikipedia/Stephanie Adams' PR Department since I guess that the Supreme Court of New York isn't a verifiable third party source. Up with Bill W. http://blognyc.net/adamsvblognyc.pdf ... comment added at 02:49, 22 July 2006 by Thinkfreely

  1. Please sign your contributions. (Just hit the "~" key four times in a row.)
  2. The usual spelling is "kowtow".
  3. Your suggested name is rather verbose. That aside, what is it that you are suggesting should be so renamed?
  4. You seem to miss the point that this melodrama in the life of a very minor celeb is still unfolding, and that Wikipedia doesn't even purport to be a tabloid newspaper with up-to-the-moment celeb gossip. Moreover, the melodrama is unfolding in the US, where affronts to dignity and related litigation are routine. This is not to deny that developments might become hilarious, even noteworthy; let's wait and see if that happens. -- Hoary 03:49, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
  1. I was suggesting you change the name of Wikipedia itself. As I still think it's deplorable that this article was changed.
  2. Normally I may even agree with you and fuddlemark, but the point is and I believe the point of the other people adding this lawsuit is that it seems apparent that Stephanie Adams, or someone acting on her behalf spends a great deal of time on the internet trying as hard as she possibly can to bully and intimidate anyone who writes anything about her that she does not agree with. She has done it to Wikipedia. She has done it to Richard LeCour. She is now doing it with BlogNYC and the last part is a fact, verifiable by court documents.
  3. I believe that is exactly the kind of information that belongs on Wikipedia and should be protected by the admins BECAUSE you may not find it anywhere else, not in spite of it. I believe that was the goal of Bill W.'s original editing. If you can't see that then yes, I do believe that is a very sad side to take on what I once believed to be an open minded publication that sought to publish truths, rather than half-truths and mystery based on ignorance, and fear of libel. --Thinkfreely 23:46, 22 July 2006 (UTC) ... contributed by 72.229.137.132
  1. Adams doesn't seem to have any interest in Wikipedia other than its article on her. Renaming the whole of Wikipedia because of alleged lack of resistance to her alleged influence on this one, very minor article on a subject of very minor importance seems a bit extreme. (If so-called "creation scientists" succeeded in degrading the article on evolution into unscientific silliness, that would be important. If that happens, let me know.) Or anyway I think that the subject of this article is of very minor importance -- do you perhaps disagree?
  2. For the sake of argument, I'll agree with you. The verifiability will not decrease if we wait a few months, weeks, even days. So where's the rush?
  3. Wikipedia doesn't claim to publish truths. It also doesn't purport to be a newspaper. It tries (though of course it often fails) to publish verifiable facts, as an encyclopedia.

Libel suits are humdrum in the US. Libel suits against gossip columnists are humdrum. US libel suits against gossip columnists are particularly humdrum. They're even more humdrum than "Playmates", of whom there must be six hundred or so. (Perhaps they're more significant than vanity-published horoscope books; I wouldn't object if somebody deleted all that stuff from this article.) Maybe this libel suit will develop into something really hilarious or even significant (and written up in broadsheet newspapers); let's wait till then. -- Hoary 00:35, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

If you agree with me on the second point then the other's kind of pale in comparison. I'm not being dramatic or just trying to make a point when I say I am highly disappointed in Wikipedia's handling of this matter. -- ... contributed by Thinkfreely

Deleting the list of (e)books

IP numbers (not mine) have been deleting the list of Adams' books (or ebooks), with comments such as "The Wikipedia is not a repository of all information; there is no public benefit in including the 'books' material; removal is proper and necessary."

I'd tend to agree, in that Adams' minor noteworthiness is almost exclusively for having been photographed; to me, an astrological tome isn't the slightest bit noteworthy (unless perhaps it inspires mass suicide or something similar, or perhaps unless a remarkable number of people buy it) and neither is its writing. This is low-selling material from vanity or near-vanity publishers that no library seems to bother to stock. (Has it been reviewed anywhere?)

Is the argument for retaining the list that (a) Adams survived AfD, (b) anything verifiable about her is admissible, (c) the publication details of these (e)books are verifiable? I'm not happy with that argument, as it leads to the unfettered addition of trivia, which is acknowledged to cause problems. Or is there some other reason for keeping this list?

While the article may not have been intended as an ad, it looks like one: people look up SA the nude model and see a list of commercial products, each linked fairly directly to a page at Amazon, etc. -- Hoary 09:18, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

The article is about Adams as a person, not just her Playboy appearance. Once a person's notability is established, information that is not notable in itself, but is important to describing the person, can be appropriate and even important to put in the article - for example, everyone has a date of birth, which, except for a millenium baby or royalty order of inheritance, is generally not notable in itself, but is certainly very important to their article. Since her Playboy appearance, Adams seems to be making her living as a spirituality author. (Don't know how successful she is, but she certainly seems to be making a serious effort at it, she has clearly written a lot.) That makes a list of her works sufficiently important to the article. They're not trivia, because they're not trivia to her. They may be trivia in the global sense, but then so are 90% of the individual sentences in most articles. Is G.W.Bush's birthplace the reason for his notability? Surely not - but should we then strike it from his article?
The reason the list of books looks like it takes up most of the article is that there isn't much else in . There was more, once, (compare [91] or [92]) but it was apparently the subject of edit warring and controversy, and Jimbo blew it away with instructions to start afresh, with carefully verifiable info only.[93] That threw cold water on the serious editing effort. The reason the books made it back and the rest hasn't yet, is that the existence of the books is easily verifiable, per multiple reliable sources (major vendors, including Amazon). The rest that can be easily found is info from her site, and, essentially, gossip columns, the reliability of which has been attacked. For most articles that might be enough, but the specter of the heavy hand of our founder has, so far, discouraged other people from adding it. Maybe you'll be the first to add better information? AnonEMouse (squeak) 14:16, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
I agree with AnonEMouse. If she has an article, then it seems pointless to remove her books section. Garion96 (talk) 19:41, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Most of us appear to agree that the books are vanity press affairs. They have extraordinarily minimal significance, and are not worthy of inclusion in the Wikipedia. There is no public benefit to their inclusion. (One of the IPs who has deleted the books.) Garion96, I think you should accept the judgment of the responders that the book list is not valuable information and not re-add the books. ... added at 22:46, 7 October 2006 by 65.188.37.227

Please sign your contributions to discussion here. This is easy: just hit "~" four times in a row.
While I agree that most of these books seem to be self-published (and would add that their content seems to be complete tripe), I don't think that either "public benefit" or "valuable information" is a criterion for inclusion in WP. Consider for example the featured article for 1 October. -- Hoary 02:34, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
True, I didn't realised there was more discussion on the books, I thought it only was this section. But see also the section below, Wikipedia is not a democracy. Concerning the books, I see no point on removing them, we do have an article on her, so why not mention the books. She did wrote them. Garion96 (talk) 01:45, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Not a democracy

One of the recent removals of the books list gave the reacon (Discussion page is 4-2 in favor of removing books, so far as I can tell. Add me, and that's 5-2. Deal with it.).

Please note that wp:not#Wikipedia is not a democracy. One of the reasons we do not "count votes" is that it is relatively easy for a single person to assume an additional electronic identity. Both Adams's publicity department, who have been accused of wanting to maintain the books list, and the former User:JuliannaRoseMauriello, who has been accused of wanting to delete them, have also been accused of being expert users of the internet for such purposes. From the similarity of methods used, I personally suspect several or all of the anonymous arguers to be only a single such actual person. All that is irrelevant -- what matters are the arguments on each side. So far the arguments in favor of keeping them seem to have been stronger, given that they're based on Wikipedia policy and practice, rather than the arguer's opinion. In short, if you want to see the list kept or removed, then make more convincing arguments, don't "count votes". AnonEMouse (squeak) 13:33, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Biography

http://www.stephanieadams.com/PressRelease.htm I believe it's a good source... contributed at 21:28, 16 October 2006 by User:213.140.22.74

It would be better to use something that doesn't come directly from SA, as she has been suspected of aggrandizing her achievements and significance. -- Hoary 22:57, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

She has served as seminar lecturer on the topic of relationships and love for Learning Annex. http://www.nypress.com/17/47/news&columns/ajdaulerio.cfm seems like a valid, reliable source. I would make the edit myself, however I have to be considered biased on the subject of Stephanie. Richard D. LeCour 22:16, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Fair use?

On illustrating this article with a scan of a book cover, one author's edit summary:

Read the fair use policy, it can only be used under fair use on a page discussing the book, as the plain language on the tag on the image says.

Another's:

Page clearly discusses the Goddessy collection of books, including this one. All 16 images, instead of 1, can be placed up here if preferred.

The former refers to WP:FAIR. Though this is a guideline, he/she refers to the large part within it that's a policy. It says that

Cover art from various items, for identification and critical commentary (not for identification without critical commentary).

is permissible, and that "fair use" would not apply to for example:

An image of a magazine cover, used only to illustrate the article on the person whose photograph is on the cover. However, if that magazine issue itself is notable enough to be a topic within the article, then fair use may apply.

The image in question comes with the comment

It is believed that the use of low-resolution images of book covers / to illustrate an article discussing the book in question / [...] / qualifies as fair use under United States copyright law. Other use of this image, on Wikipedia or elsewhere, might be copyright infringement.

The image is of the book Goddessy: 2007 psychic reading predictions for every astrological birth sign which is mentioned within the article but not discussed within it.

I don't know what there'd be to discuss. In any discussion, I suppose one would have to say something about the unconventional publishing arrangement. -- Hoary 21:49, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Dismas and I are discussing the image issue with SEKHMET7, who seems to be a representative of GODDESSY, and has expressed interest in making a Stephanie Adams image available under GFDL. If that happens, we should be able to put that on this page without any further hassle. AnonEMouse (squeak) 13:59, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Request for Comment: What is appropriate tone and description for ongoing lawsuit?

Can someone in a neutral position of authority clarify the Wikipedia appropriate way to describe something related to an ongoing lawsuit?

The current version of this entry includes the sentence "Since then, the taxi driver has been fined as well as fired, the police are being investigated, and the lawsuit continues."

The original reference for this was only a link to the plaintiff's own web site. Any request for further support for the statement was met only with "The mentioning of the driver being fired was all over the internet when it happened and it's in public records" and only that reference to the plaintiff's own web site.

It being "all over the internet" is not the standard Wikipedia has stated it strives for. References to Ms Adams suing BlogNYC were removed previously, and pointing out that THAT lawsuit was mentioned all over the internet and in public records were dismissed as insufficient support.

Eventually additional sources were provided (thank you) but don't actually support what is said. An attempt to fix this and more accurately state what is going on (per the cited articles) was almost immediately reverted and accompanied by personal attacks!

It makes me wonder why someone is insisting on including the sentence as written, allowing no other (more accurate) phrasing of basically the same information. It seems apparent that they wish to make the other parties look particularly bad. And including self-serving comments is not supposed to be allowed.

Note: I'm not advocating the removal of the sentence (although I do think that is more appropriate given the suit is not yet settled), only that it be accurate and neutral. - Sean Martin 22:56, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

(Also note: I sign my name when I make comments or edits.)

Disable Anonymous Editing?

I happened to stumble upon this thread from another website (not one of the one listed here in discussion, mind you!), and quickly noticed some unusual patterns with many of the anonymous IP addresses used to edit the page in question -- through a tracert it was determined that many originate from a particular IP block in New York City (Manhattan) and through Wikipedia contribs history most have in their brief histories edited only the Stephanie Adams page. Isn't that a bit too coincidental? Perhaps the solution would be to permanently prohibit anonymous users from editing or contributing to this page. That might help reduce the flame wars. 205.158.128.2 22:00, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

There's something in what you say, O contributor who would thereby ban him/herself.
Certainly the edit summaries are screwy. Consider this one: Reference 5 and several other media acknowledge lawsuit is against taxi, police & city. Due to his personal vendetta against the subject matter, Sean Martin should in fact be banned from editing. If somebody (registered user, mere IP) thinks that somebody else should be banned from editing, then that person should follow the regular channels. -- Hoary 23:00, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, I realized that I would ban myself with that policy, but I don't plan on spending any more time on this page, so I'm OK with that. I think it would be quite fair. :) 205.158.128.2 01:56, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
We don't permanently semi-protect any pages from anonymous editing; it goes against the spirit of wikipedia.--Isotope23 21:01, 7 February 2007 (UTC)