Talk:Stephanie Adams/Archive 2

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 Archive 3 →

Contents

Request for Comment: Maintining accurate and neutral tone

Current text in article: Since then, the taxi driver has been fined and had his license revoked, the police are being investigated, and the lawsuit continues.

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

Would a more neutral and accurate phrasing be something like: Since then, the taxi driver has been fined and had his license revoked, while the investigation and the lawsuit continue. This maintains the essential info without the potentially prejudicial slant.

This is, of course, assuming that a pending lawsuit is an appropriate item to include at all. Perhaps the best course would be to wait for the matter to be settled and then include it?
00:08, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

I didn't look for mention that the police were being investigated. I did however look in the two independent October '06 stories (I discount anything put out by Adams herself) for evidence that the lawsuit was continuing even then, let alone now, and found nothing; I therefore removed this claim.
I agree with the main point made above, though. Actually I'd go further: even when all of this is resolved, it seems to be pretty minor stuff. Surely somebody who deserves an article in WP is notable for much more than having been involved in a fracas with a taxi driver. -- Hoary 02:11, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

A millionaire?

We read that SA is [present tense] a "self-made millionaire". The source given for this claim is the Google cache of a very short, unsigned article that was previously in panachereport.com, which in turn appears to be a celebrity gossip site. All that article says that's relevant is: Stephanie would invest in 'Fortune 500' companies and become a self-made millionaire by the age of 30. That's it. No evidence, no examples, nothing. This strikes me as very feeble backup for the claim that SA was a millionaire by the age of 30, let alone that she's a millionaire now. Is there any stronger evidence for this (rather uninteresting) claim? -- Hoary 02:20, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

I've removed it yet again. I agree, a passing mention in a Google cache of a celebrity gossip site isn't even in the range of a reliable source.--Isotope23 18:22, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

This article is nothing more then a very very glorified resume by a has been playboy model. Look ast her own edits, if you say one word she doesnt agree with it's off to Jimbo himself. It's amusing, she could say she went to the moon and would cry iuf you removed it. Whatever happened to nuetrality, or pov ??? 65.184.20.38 16:29, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

What's with the personal attacks on the person in the article? No personal attacks. Had it been reported that she was broke and on the streets, it sounds like all of you here would be happy. Enough with the fighting. Several web sites report her as being a millionaire (including four of her own, which is actually the most reliable) and it is even mentiond on the internet that she is an investor. Sounds like too much hatred for the person in the article (none of you even know her) and not enough objectivity. And by the way, the cached web site mentioning her being a millionaire was added that way because someone complained of the web site having popups. Stephanie Adams is not a "has been" because she is an author of numerous books and, in my opinion, is more beautiful now than ever. It's truly sad that a small number people who want to edit her article don't seem to like or respect her as a human being. 71.167.230.171 18:57, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Her own websites would not be a WP:RS here... what we are looking for is reliable 3rd party sources. Nobody said anything about her being a "has been" or anything along those lines. I don't know her and I have no feelings about her one way or the other. The bottom line though is that making a statement that she is a millionare (or that she "was broke and on the streets" for that matter, absolutely requires a verifiable, reliable source and right now that is simply not the case here. Find a reliable source for this and you can add it back, but the sourcing provided at this time is simply not adequate to support the statement you are trying to make.--Isotope23 19:23, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
It really is a shame that common people hate celebrities. Deep down they admire them and often want to be like them or be with them, but since they can't, they just write about them and sometimes hate them. In any event, I agree that the reference abut Stephanie Adams is valid, just like any other refernce listed. Besides GODDESSY.com, Sapphica.com, and StephanieAdams.com, which each have two articles stating that her fortunate status is true, the third party web site (unrelated to Adams herself) is substantiated. Stop hating! Ladysekhmet 19:06, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
"Ladysekhmet" is a special purpose account. There's nothing particularly wrong with that in itself, but when this is considered with this edit and its summary Since when does an article have to have a reference for every single word mentioned in it? There is alot of prejudice here. I vote it stays. If anyone else agrees, just revise it along with your vote. (emphasis added), this looks like mere sockpuppetry. -- Hoary 00:48, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
See above; a website run by the subject cannot be considered a reliable source on said subject and the other "source" is a trivial mention on a gossip website. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary sources.--Isotope23 19:25, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't bother me if she's a millionaire, and I haven't seen anyone else saying they would be bothered by her good fortune. Nor have I seen anyone saying they hate her. The only issue is whether that statement is adequately supported, and the refernces provided (to her own websites and to a brief mention in a gossip site) do not seem to meet that standard. Sean Martin 20:06, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Seconded. There's a single, very unconvincing statement in a gossip site that SA was a self-made millionaire by the time she was thirty. Even if this assertion is true, it says nothing about her financial status now. I don't "vote" that this should be deleted, I argue that it should be deleted. I'm open to counterarguments. -- Hoary 00:48, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
I've semi protected the article because I really don't think an edit war is warrented and that is where this is going. Discuss the source here.--Isotope23 00:53, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Ladysekhmet asks "Since when does an article have to have a reference for every single word mentioned in it? There is alot of prejudice here. I vote it stays. If anyone else agrees, just revise it along with your vote."[[1]]
And what if anyone else disagrees? Will you still allow us to revise it?
To answer the Straw Man argument: No, of course "every single word" doesn't need to be referenced. But the word isn't "notable" or "appear". If the included word were "astronaut" or "Senator" wouldn't some legitimate support be needed for that? One one side we have several saying "Yes", and on the other "Ladysekhmet" claiming those who disagree are... prejudiced. Huh???Sean Martin 01:05, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Speaking of notable, is the fact even noteworthy? I live in Silicon Valley where being a "self-made millionaire" is so common that it's no big deal. Two of my co-workers (verifiable, mind you, through Forbes magazine) are each worth over $100 million, they certainly pass the "college professor" test, and yet I don't see them here editing pages day and night to assert their fame and worth. There's no hate, envy, or any other emotion in play here. The FACT is that your assertion is unverifiable through reliable sources. And what everyone is saying is, if you can find an impartial, reliable source (not written or influenced by you) that passes the impartial Wikipedia tests, and you cite that source, then the assertion would stay.
Think of it this way, Stephanie -- if your websites should be considered reliable sources, so should mine. According to Google, my website has at least two references of your multi-million-dollar net worth. Want to use those as sources? -- Richard D. LeCour (talk/contribs) 16:33, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Sock puppet

Ladysekhmet = sock puppet of 71.167.230.171

Isotopae or Hoary, can you check that one out please?

There are 2 ips at work here both vigorously defending ANYTHING written about goddesy or sa. Work ip, and home ip. look at the posting times, different ips for different times of day and both ips = same geographical location.

Stephanie, if you are reading this, this isn't a resume service, we are NOT personally attacking YOU, we are attacking the information according to Wikipedia RULES. Posting on Jimbo's user talk calling me a "vicious attacker defacing the Stephanie Adams article" doesn't do much for Jim, he knows how to work the history button here and all I removed from your page was that you are a "millionaire"

The only proof of it is from your OWN websites, that is NOT reputable. You ARE Goddessy, you ARE StephanieAdams.com and you DON'T have an army of people "watching" wikipedia for you as you have claimed a few months back. LexiLynn 03:36, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

At the end of the day, she's ultimately in charge of what's on here because she is the one you continuously write about. Period.

I've never heard so many bitter, personal attacks in my life. And I actually feel sorry for most of you because none of you know her and she couldn't even care less about you. No offense, but Stephanie Adams is a celebrity (another bitter person once tried to delete her from Wikipedia and failed) and Stephanie Adams already has enough press, web site articles and other success in her life, that she does not have time to waste time editing one little article.

You can try to change the Stephanie Adams page as many times as you want, but you can never take away from her beauty, success or glory.

She might not be editing, but at the end of the day, she is in fact the last word. She makes news and others can do nothing but write about her. And like it or not, Stephanie Adams will always be famous. You can try to erase a few words about her here, but you can never erase her fame.

Like most of the haters, I can only wish I was her, but here is something in her own words that really applies here:

RECENT STATEMENT

"I've always been successful in spite of being controversial. But at the end of the day, I do not give a damn about success or what anyone thinks of me as long as I am happy with myself. I love my family, friends, and fans, as they love me enough to know that what I'm about to say at this stage of my media presence is necessary. Love me and that's fine. But don't hate me because I posed in Playboy over 14 years ago and look even better now than ever. Don't hate me because I never had cosmetic surgery, never did drugs, don't believe in profanity and don't believe in lowering myself to the standards of those consumed with jealousy. Don't hate me because I made more money before 30 than most people make in a lifetime. Don't hate me because I'm smart enough to still have it. Don't hate because I have the ability to write 16 books that I did not have to invest money in to publish. Don't hate me because I have the courage to fight for what I believe in. Don't hate me because I am proud of everything I have ever done and have no regrets for anything. Don't hate me because I am confident enough to speak my mind and intelligent enough to know that some of you will not understand what I have to say. Don't hate me because I am happy enough with my life to not have the time or desire to hate those who bond together in hating me for no godly reason. And don't call me "crazy" when I'm not the one wasting my time thinking about what I can say or do to harass you. Keep talking about me because you're making me more famous than I already am. Keep hating me and you'll only make those who love me, love me even more. Those who wish to defame others do so because they know that fame is something they'll never have. I never wished for it...but I've got it. And like it or not, I'll always be remembered...but those who hate me will soon be forgotten. So don't hate me...because I don't care. I'm proud of who I am...and I love myself. Live your own life...and love yourself..."

- Stephanie Adams

And here is your reference:

http://www.stephanieadams.com/index.htm

Like I said, at the end of the day, she's ultimately in charge of what's on here because she is the one you continuously write about. Period.

Now, let's hear more personal attacks on her so I can have a good laugh. Miss Adams, if you're reading this, I'm sure you're laughing too. ~Cle0patr4

She's ultimately in charge of what's on here? Actually, I don't think she is. I suppose, if a living person were to ask that their article to be removed it would be. But for an article that is there the stated policy is:[[2]]
Information supplied by the subject may be added to the article if:
  • It meets verifiability, NPOV, and no original research policies.
  • It is relevant to the person's notability;
  • It is not contentious;
  • It is not unduly self-serving;
  • There is no reasonable doubt that it was provided by the subject.
Clearly should she edit it to conflict with any of those points then that edit would have to be changed.
According to "you", however, "she" does not have time to waste time editing one little article, so I guess it's a moot point. --Sean Martin 09:49, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
Ah, looked a little further down the page. [[3]] "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." (emphasis added)
And since, as you say, "Stephanie Adams is a celebrity" who has a lot of press, etc. clearly that would apply to her. She would not, at the end of the day, ultimately be in charge of what's on here.
(Notice: I am discussing Wikipedia policy, not making a personal attack.) --Sean Martin 09:58, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
User:Cle0patr4, I strongly suggest you take some time to read WP:BLP, WP:RS, WP:V, & WP:BIO. As Sean stated above, the subject of an article is expressly not in charge of what appears in a Wikipedia article about them, just ask Daniel Brandt. This is not a n attack on the subject, this is simply a requirement that what appears in the article be reliably sourced when necessary and I think someone claiming to be a millionaire is something that needs to be sourced reliably.--Isotope23 12:58, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Outside comment

Per WP:OWN, Stephanie Adams does not control what goes onto her Wikipedia biography (I'm a sysop so I've settled that type of misconception before). I suggest an article content request for comment to bring in fresh perspectives on how to edit the article. The best chance of getting good responses is if the page's regular contributors set up a RFC section and outline their dispute succinctly. Best wishes, DurovaCharge! 17:38, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the beautiful, successful, lovable, millionaire playboy playmate, Stephanie Adams is in charge.

None of you seem to understand the previous point. Stephanie Adams IS IN CHARGE of this article, simply by being Stephanie Adams. She's famous, people love her, people want to know about her, people want to write about her. Even the one or two of you that hate her love to write about her. Everyone's hooked on her. You're reading this because you're hooked. You'll deny it, but you are. I'm even hooked because I can't believe I'm still on her like everyone else, wasting my time when I can be doing something with my own life for others to write about.

Like any other famous person, people love to love her and hate her because they love her. (Now, what do you say to that boys and girls?) And any move she makes in the real world is ultimately written about her in the cyberworld. So, she's in charge honey bunnies, because none of you can say one single word about her until she does something. So guess what? You wait. And at the end of the day, we write about her, but she has nothing to say about us. Personally, I wish I knew her because she's definitely an extraordinary individual.

The funny thing about Wikipedia is, anyone can go on here and edit. Anyone. A 6-year old who knows how to log onto daddy's computer, a 16-year old teenager who's mad at the world and takes it out on a keyboard, a 46-year old overweight retard who hates anyone who's not him or hates a celebrity he could never be with....Anyone. If the only power or the only accomplishment someone has in life is to monitor a site anyone can make edits to (with no pay and no recognition), then let them have their 2 1/2 minutes of cyberfame. Wikipedia will never add an article about any of us on here. Sad. Anyway, like I said before, Stephanie Adams is the real person in charge of the Stephanie Adams article. And only she knows what's going to be on here next.

Have a nice weekend! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ladysekhmet (talk • contribs) 17:39, 9 February 2007 (UTC).

Based on this little gem and the continuing addition of poorly sourced info into the article I've fully protected the article for the time being.--Isotope23 18:22, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
Yup. I'm certainly not impressed one way or the other with Stephanie Adams. Just a neutral editor pointing the way to dispute resolution. Seems like several users at this page are unfamiliar with site standards. DurovaCharge! 19:15, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
It's my understanding that Adams is actually in charge of this article, by virtue of possessing J Wales's cellphone number and not hesitating to use it at any hour to express her indignation at any perceived lèse majesté. Me, I don't know why she's so quick to perceive slights, what with the adoration expressed by all the usernames above. ¶ Ah well, mustn't waste too much time here: if I get enough [paying] work done today, I'll treat myself to another viewing of Sunset Boulevard tonight. -- Hoary 00:57, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

That sounds like you have some sort of inside information. Let's be real here. A representative for Stephanie Adams probably made a call to Jimbo, which is why it's now fully protected. Regardless, she's probably in her New York City penthouse apartment now sipping a martini and talking to her significant other about their next vaction or her latest project. [citation needed] Just kidding with the "citation needed" comment. The article does not look that bad actually. Perhaps if we all sit back and enjoy the weekend, we might realize that there are other articles that probably need more editing than this one. Cheers! 66.108.144.31 01:29, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

No, it got fully protected because I got tired of seeing it get flipped back and forth based on non-reliable sources. Jimbo has been involved with this article in the past and perhaps he will get involved with it again. That is his and the Foundation's call.--Isotope23 02:16, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
Yup, Isotope23 protected the article and explained the reason to me before that speculation was posted.[4] I would have protected it myself if Isotope hadn't already done it. This is silly. Dispute resolution is the way to get things resolved here. A couple of edits from Jimbo a while back doesn't create a special exemption from WP:OWN. Please refrain from wild speculation and get down to the business of collaboration. DurovaCharge! 04:21, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

"an advocate in the LGBT community"

The article asserts that SA is "an advocate in the LGBT community". The only evidence given for this is a web page that states, with no elaboration: Adams is an outspoken advocate in the LGBT community and has participated in several Gay Prides for New York City, Brooklyn, and Staten Island. To me, mere participation in a rally doesn't constitute noteworthy advocacy. If she's an advocate (outspoken or otherwise) of any note, wouldn't her advocacy -- what she actually said -- appear in some newspapers or magazines?

The claim that she's an advocate looks to me about as dodgy as the claim that she's a millionaire. Moreover, the two claims look curiously similar. If there's better evidence, fine, but where is it? -- Hoary 14:48, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

That's a fair criticism. Some of the accounts that post to this page assert people are fascinated with her. If that's the case then they should be able to produce reliable citations of her advocacy. Would you separate that from the related part of being the first Playboy centerfold to come out as a lesbian? That fact does appear to be verified and noteworthy. DurovaCharge! 18:54, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Obvious Jealousy of Stephanie Adams

Clearly, some of you "editors" would like to take away any and every positive noteworthy about Stephanie Adams. She's beautiful, intelligent, successful and wealthy, which obviously makes people who edit on a page (that anyone can edit on) envious enough to want to remove important information. Whether the fact that she is an advocate, playmate, millionaire, etc. stays on this page or not, they are in fact the truth (like it or not) and they are in fact wtitten about Adams everywhere else on the internet (which you can never edit). And for the record, someone at Wikipedia did confirm that a representative of Adams contacted the company, which is why the page is protected. Some of you wish she was wasting time on here giving you the time of day, but keep dreaming. Adams does not have the time or the care to defend what the entire world already knows and loves her for, unlike one or two people who seem to hate/love/envy her enough to feel a small bit of power (believe me, it's small) by taking a few words away from her article on Wikipedia. Cle0patr4 03:40, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

No, I for one merely want to ensure that assertions in biographical articles are verifiable. You claim that she's beautiful, intelligent, successful and wealthy but only the last of these would be easy to verify and nobody has yet presented any evidence for it. You say: someone at Wikipedia did confirm that a representative of Adams contacted the company, which is why the page is protected: If this fantasy keeps you happy, please continue to wallow in it. -- Hoary 03:55, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

No Hoary, that is a fact. Someone at Wikipedia confirmed it, just like they confirmed that Jim Wales asked you to refrain from editing this page so much. And by the way, are you having a nice weekend? 66.108.144.31 04:29, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Stephanie, you interrupted his weekend again? (I wonder why he doesn't change his cellphone number.) Thanks for your concern, but I'm having a rather busy and boring weekend. That's to be expected, of course, what with my being ugly, stupid, unsuccessful and poor. -- Hoary 04:39, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

T'would seem to me that if it were a fact then you would be able to provide some evidence to support it. That's pretty much all that has been asked for and exactly what you keep not providing.

  • "...and they are in fact wtitten about Adams everywhere else on the internet." Excellent! Then it should be possible to provide all sorts of independent references for this "fact".
  • "someone at Wikipedia did confirm that a representative of Adams contacted the company." "Someone at Wikipedia confirmed it" If this was true why continue to use the distinctly vauge "someone". Wouldn't your claim have much more weight and believability (is that a word?) if you actually said who? As it is it carries no more credibility than if I were to say someone at Goddessy did confirm that she lives in a fantasy world.

Provide appropriate references for what you claim and you'd silence much of the complaints like that! (sound of snapping fingers). Continue as you have and you continue to demonstrate there is nothing to back you up. --Sean Martin 05:29, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

The claim that this article protection results from Ms. Adams's appeal is a post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy and since I've already supplied a page diff to demonstrate how false that is the continued assertion only damages the credibility of the poster. Any other claims regarding this article need to be substantiated with evidence, which should be posted here at the talk page for discussion and consensus review. See WP:V and WP:RS. DurovaCharge! 21:53, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Anyone who searches the internet for "Stephanie Adams" will end up spending most of their time at StephanieAdams.com anyway.

Her site is the first site that comes up on the search engines when you do a search for her name, so people who see her page will read the detailed, factual, complete biography about her. By the time anyone gets to the two sentences you guys keep bickering about, they will just go back to her web sites because they have so much more about her on there. And people, try to enjoy some of your weekend and try not to spend so much of your life refreshing this page. :) 66.108.144.31 04:34, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

If people want to get information about Ms. Adams from her website they are more than welcome to. It is her website, she has every right in the world to have whatever information she wants there. On Wikipedia though we must have verifiable, reliable 3rd party sources for biographies of living persons. Until those sources are provided, the text concerning Ms. Adams fiscal situation does not belong in this article.--Isotope23 01:50, 12 February 2007 (UTC)


Me thinks Miss Stephanie Adams is hoping this page (The discussion page) will be search engine spidered.

BTW stephanieadams.com is NOT a playboy affiliated website. I emailed and asked, they claim no responsibility nor knowledge of such a site and point out many models who appeared in playboy have PERSONAL websites. Anyone want to know why she labeled it "Playboy Afilliated"? Because it's where most of the useless junk on this page she references to points too.

Stephanie Adams says she just became the first ever lesbian playboy bunny to sue a taxicab. Prove she isn't. See here? She wrote all about it on her own page. This entire article is a joke with SA with multiple PROVEN sock puppets coming to her aid. 90% of the appearing items on here should not be and this is nothing but a junked up resume that is 1% truthfull. 1% truth: She WAS in Playboy 15 YEARS ago. EOS. (End of Story) LexiLynn 04:07, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Time for a banning

Can we just have a checksum for her known ip addresses and sock puppets and finally ban her per Wikipedia rules or aren't you guys tired of playing this game with her yet. I kind of understand, it's like looking at a car wreck. LexiLynn 04:09, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

These rather similar-speaking and admiring editors (IPs and special-purpose accounts) that you seem to be talking about: precisely what putatively bannable offense(s) have they committed? If there is such an offense, you may wish to bring it up on WP:ANI. What WP doesn't provide for is the banning -- certainly not the instant banning, without warning -- of editors or IPs for edits that are in some way, to some people, irritating. And if you want to see a real [well, a real metaphorical] car wreck, then try the combination of Talk:African American Vernacular English and Talk:Ebonics. Ugh. -- Hoary 04:26, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
  • No, not time for banning. Even though the "game" is way past boring, banning would not be fair at this point. Someone needs to tag each of her Talk pages with a warning, though, and remind her that using sock puppets as meat puppets and using them to bolster a position/point is not allowed; it just won't be me doing the warning. -- Richard D. LeCour (talk/contribs) 06:12, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
I agree with Richard. Warnings are appropriate at this stage. This has a strong appearance of WP:VANITY and WP:SOCK and WP:COI. Suggested reading: WP:DE. DurovaCharge! 21:56, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
I too agree. There is nothing here that has gotten close to a WP:BAN being warrented. Durova's links apply and should be read.--Isotope23 21:58, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

"There is nothing here that has gotten close to a WP:BAN being warrented." Remember Christina Marie Ritter? LOL This reads just like it. SA has been messing with every person here for almost a year about this article, multiple usernames, threats, various sock puppets, personal attacks. C'mon guys... LexiLynn 22:03, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I've never heard of Ritter and Christina Marie Ritter is a red link. When your laughter has subsided, read and digest WP:BP, argue the need for a block coherently and persuasively here, and provide a link to your argument from WP:ANI. -- Hoary 23:21, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
Sysops can view deleted pages. This is a different matter: Playboy centerfolds do meet the site's pornography notability guidelines. So the article will remain, although if the surrounding antics continue the likely course of events is as follows:
  1. Continued warnings, requests, and suggestions to conform to site standards.
  2. User block.
  3. If user evades block, WP:RFCU and block of sockpuppets.
  4. More warnings, longer blocks.
  5. If no improvement, community siteban.
I repeat one final time my recommendation for the editors here to seek options through dispute resolution. If the suggestion is ignored again I will conclude that none of the regulars at this page are interested in productive collaboration and handle things accordingly. DurovaCharge! 23:30, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
I suppose that I am something of a regular here. I have no intention of seeking options through WP:DR. (At the same time, I don't want to dissuade anyone else from doing so.) I'd resent any inference that I am not interested in productive collaboration. Moreover, looking at the other comments close above, I see a number of other editors who seem interested in productive collaboration. ¶ As for the idea that being a "Playmate" confers notability, personally, I'd disagree. (There are hundreds of these "Playmates"; they've taken their clothes off, been photographed, airbrushed, and paid. Big deal, not.) However, I accept that their notability is the majority opinion and I'm not going to challenge it. What I do challenge are: (a) the notion that anything a "Playmate" verifiably does is thereby notable, as well of course as (b) a number of the factual claims that have been made within this article. -- Hoary 00:30, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

(outdent) See Wikipedia:Notability (pornographic actors). Playboy playmates are specifically included in the guideline as notable. I'd like to see the editors at this page reach consensus, but I really don't have time to cover these issues in detail. If you want to collaborate productively, then collectively you have to take the initiative. The ratio of sysops to registered accounts at this site is fewer than 1:3000. Any experienced editor who volunteers with dispute resolution can point you to that sort of thing. While I don't mean to come across as curt, I'm simply spread too thin to devote my time this way. I'll check in as necessary to mop up of things get messy, but I assume you're all adults here (otherwise why would you know about Playboy centerfolds?) I hope you arrive at consensus. I've pointed you to the assistance this site can provide. If you choose not to take the hints, that's your decision. DurovaCharge! 22:03, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

My god, what a train wreck. :| I think it's important especially in cases like this to fall back on Wikipedia policy over the individual whims of editors. If something is true, and verifiable, we can write about it. This doesn't mean that we HAVE to write about it, especially if it is non-notable. With the way things are trending on here, though, myself and quite a few people I know could well have articles by now. And I'm saying that's not a good thing. Also, banning is not a punitive but a preventive measure - I fail to see what banning (blocking, actually) anyone in this situation would achieve. Orderinchaos78 13:41, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Request for Comment: "the police are being investigated"

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Article Regarding NYPD Assault

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

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

72.89.106.24 17:48, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

Reference to being the first Playmate to become a spokesmodel

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Stephanie Adams is a spokesmodel for the LGBT community and Playboy

A spokesmodel is a model who acts as a spokesperson.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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


I didn't respond to her "public relations department", unless you're suggesting they and User:71.167.239.60 are one and the same.
Sure anyone can have such a "public relations department". I have one. You can contact them at PublicRelationsSM@gmail.com.
Does she have such a dept, or is she just represented by Playboy's? Minor point, perhaps, but there is a difference.
If everything written about SA is "under her control as well as the people who she gives the power to handle her business" they you've pretty much proved my point. Her three websites are ultimately controlled by her and claiming her say-so substantiates any claim she makes is as valid as accepting my claim that I'm a spokesperson for Wiki and self-made billionnaire by 25 just because I say I am. You can contact my public relations department to confirm it. They'll even issue a press release saying so. (Silly, right?)
To see that "any other celebrity news" clearly does not come "from [them] or a reliable source that has interviewed [them] or reviewed [their] official web sites" you only need to look at any tabloid. VAST amounts of celebrity news is published without coming from (and often is objected to by) the celeb themselves. (Nice to know "you" consider "her" a celebrity, BTW.)
Not all "facts" about someone are relevant. That she's turned on by Nintendo and likes tall men [5] may be a facts, but are not worth noting in an article of this type.
Glad it isn't a debate. I enjoy discussing things, but this topic seems to have run its course. Sean Martin 18:32, 24 February 2007 (UTC)


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

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

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

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

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

Commented out ref

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

Final Notes?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Well, then, to support SA's recent discovery of a desire to be a private person perhaps we should cut the article down to the bare bones of "She was Playboy's Miss November 1992 and is now a private person." similar to the entries for several others from her year [6][7][8]. -- Sean Martin 19:35, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

And, apparently, that is all you came here to do. [9] Vwat 09:56, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

No More Personal Attacks People

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

Sock Puppets

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

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

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

Ignore the nonsense and it will eventually go away.

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

Semi-protected

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

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

Biography assessment rating comment

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

Last appearence

Article: ..."who continues to appear in Playboy (last Playboy appearance in 2003)."
"66.108.144.31": "What??? Adams still makes appearances. Her last one was not that far back. Article was reverted back to previous edit."

Rather than always reverting, why not just adjust the text to include a mention of your actual latest appearance? -- Sean Martin 22:29, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Financial Investor

Is this really necessary to include in the article? If there are no objections, I'll remove it. Wandering canadian 20:59, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Ok, its been a week; seeing no objections, I'm removing the "financial investor" reference in the article. Wandering canadian 16:42, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

The fact that Miss Adams is an avid financial investor has been documented since her November 1992 Playboy centerfold issue, including mentionings in Playboy's "Playmate News" updates, her "Playmate Review", a candid interview last month for BET (with the interviewer noting that she is a "financial investor" who used her business saavy to become a "self-made millionaire") and a recent docmentary about her life for Women's Entertainment television noting her success from investing.
Playboy even makes a note of her being an investor with Merrill Lynch on Playboy's web site under the "Current Interests" section of her Cyber Club page and if that isn't enough, it is also documented in an upcoming 2008 calendar tribute to her (which is mentioned in the calendar as well as the editorial review).
Article has been reverted to previous edit. 72.89.119.89 12:20, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
Gee, SA, what took you so long? That edit stood for almost 5 days. Sean Martin 16:16, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

"Gee" ? Sounds like you are calling someone here Stephanie Adams. It also sounds ridiculous. This is a talk page, not a celebrity talk show. 66.108.144.31 18:49, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Fact or no fact, the point is that it's irrelevant. Everyone is an investor. Re-removed. Valrith 20:07, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
Well, I don't know about everyone being an investor. But an awful lot of people seem to be Stephanie. Sean Martin 22:31, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Not everyone is an investor and not everyone made millions of dollars investing. It's even mentioned online via a few links, which can be provided if necessary. I took a look at the link in the Playboy Cyber Club and am going to re-add it. 66.108.144.31 18:24, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Actually, maybe it makes more sense to note the fact that she became a "millionaire" from her success in modeling and investing. That has been documented and you can find the links if you google "Stephanie Adams millionaire" [10] 66.108.144.31 18:49, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I clicked on the Google link immediately above. Even the links that are relevant are junk: SA's own site, gossip, etc.
What authoritative link says she became a millionaire from investing (or from anything else)? And if she's a millionaire, why does she take taxis instead of a chauffeur-driven limo? -- Hoary 22:50, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
Agreed. The current link is a poor source, so I'm removing the claim again... Valrith 21:25, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

The same claim was reintroduced in the edit on 9 Feb. First link provided as proof is broken, the second is not a reputable source. I am removing the section again. Wandering canadian (talk) 11:31, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Have again had to remove this reference. It does not meet criteria for WP:RS and WP:V. If one of the anonymous editors who seem to like this particular section can produce a source that meets these criteria, I would have no problem with its inclusion. Simply reposting the same claims with the same poor sources is not productive. Open to any discussion on this. Wandering canadian (talk) 23:20, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Her being a millionaire and a financial investor is all over the internet, including Playboy. So just as her other well-known information does not have to have citations, neither does this one really. Don't know why it seems to bother only you (and apparently the people she sued) "Wandering Canadian", but perhaps you should be more objective and less personal about your "feelings" for the famous person in this subject. 71.167.230.166 (talk) 16:55, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. Not only is it a well-known fact, but it's also been reported on Playboy.com, as well as a recent feature on her for Sirius Satellite Radio on March 11, 2008 (Playboy - Channel 198) and several other reports on the internet. Like her being a Playboy playmate, which is a well-known fact, citations for other common facts about her are actually not even needed. This is a brief bio to begin with, so the facts added contribute valuable information about the subject and should remain. Swiksek (talk) 17:42, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
I do understand that there are some who would like this information included, however, as I mentioned before, the sources cited (including an Amazon.com bio and a blog) do not meet standards for WP:RS and WP:V. If the information were indeed "all over the internet", it would be possible to cite a reputable source. I have no particular "feelings" about the article, but believe that, given the controversial history of this page, all information presented should be adequately sourced so as to avoid the fighting that has happened before. To be fair as well, discussion prior to this current round resulted in the removal of the information by consensus, and so I have removed it again, and will until good sources are cited. Wandering canadian (talk) 00:46, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
FYI, Wandering Canadian, the "some" who would like the info included are all pretty much SA and various sockpuppets. While you're perfectly right that the references cited don't meet Wiki's requirements, that won't carry much weight with "some" who is determined to claim herself a self-made millionaire by 30. You can be pretty much assured the duration of your changes can be timed with a stop watch and anonymous puppets will start coming out of the woodwork to chastise you for trying to follow Wiki's clearly stated standards. Personally, I'd love to see "them" reply to you with reason and a real attempt to find suitable references and would have no objection to the info being included if they are provided. But, alas, "they" have not followed that route ever before and I don't expect "they" will do anything different this time. Brace yourself.Sean Martin (talk) 17:22, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Sean Martin, you are part of a lawsuit Miss Adams filed against you friend, who apparently lost. Personal issues against the subject matter should remain just that, personal, and are not welcome on an objective web site. 71.167.230.166 (talk) 19:06, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh, Stephanie. Do you really want to start with the lies again? I am not named in any lawsuit. I have no knowledge of the state "apparent" or otherwise of any lawsuit. And I have said (again) that I have no objection to the info being included as long as references that meet Wiki's clearly state requirements are provided. But, thank you so much for demonstrating (as I said you would) my point that you will resort to personal attacks rather than discussing rationally the topic at hand and providing any such references. -- Sean Martin (talk) 21:16, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Seriously dude, this is not a blog. You were the first to make a personal attack about the subject of the article and the last thing she is doing is conversing with you. If you have an issue with her, even though you do not know her, you should edit a page about someone else you can actually be objective, not bitter, about. And by the way, she sued your friend and he lost. 71.167.226.96 (talk) 04:33, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Keep hating, and the day you die, she'll still be famous and you'll still be a nobody.

"Oh Stephanie"?!?! Hey sicko, do you really think you are talking to the real Stephanie Adams on an amateur talk page? Dream on retard. And speaking of millions, you must have refreshed this page millions of times waiting for someone to respond to your bitter frustrated miserable obsession. Judging from her wikipedia profile and photo, this woman is clearly a beautiful black business woman and poor trash like you can never be with her. "Oh Stephanie, Oh Stephanie, Oh Stephanie". You took your hand off your little thing between your legs long enough to type, and you're without a doubt upset over the fact that you know of her, but she could not care less whether you live, breathe or die. You are pathetic. This venue is for everyone, which is clearly the only way an amateur like you can write about her because you can never get the opportunity to write about her professionally. And the last thing she is thinking about is you because her life is busier and better than yours will ever be. So keep hating, and the day you die, she'll still be famous and you'll still be a nobody. Oh and by the way, the fact that she is a celebrity millionaire is all over the internet, including her web sites, which are all listed on wikipedia. So nothing you can say or do will ever change that. Get a life. Roughridehome (talk) 07:48, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Ah yes, wandering meat head, I didn't forget about you. You are just some flunky pretending to be objective, but at the end of the day, you are just as bad as the idiot who typed in his full name, which is obviously another desperate attempt for attention. So here's your five minutes of attention, because neither one of you will ever have five minutes of fame. I'd refresh this page to see the responses, but I have better things to do with my life. Roughridehome (talk) 07:58, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Sean Martin could not possibly think that he is conversing with Stephanie Adams. Seriously, does he? I mean, dude, this is a wiki page about this celebrity, not a blog for her to write to her fans.
I agree, it's not although I suspect Ms Adams isn't clear on the distinction. But, yes, I seriously do believe that the postings are from Ms Adams herself. Despite the variety of IP addresses used most (like yours) trace back to Verizon in NYC and (like yours) have edits only related to this or other pages on which Ms Adams is mentioned. And the style of writing is perfectly consistent (almost verbatim) with emails I have received directly from Ms Adams. -- Sean Martin (talk) 17:48, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Just wondering if Stephanie Adams is really notable enough to warrant a Wikipedia article...she seems to be more notorious than famous. Is there any way to get this puff piece deleted once and for all?209.167.67.130 (talk) 01:40, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes: Anyone's free to nominate it for deletion. Here are exact instructions.
Such a nomination would almost certainly fail, because a large number of rather vociferous editors will insist that appearing in a Playboy centerfold confers notability and encyclopedia-worthiness. (I don't know how it does this, but there you are.)
A reasonable reaction to that might be: "So OK, she 'notably' appeared in Playboy. But this doesn't confer notability on anything and everything she does." However, a lot of usernames and IP numbers would disagree with that, saying that Goddessy: Historical Figures and Their Ties to the Occult (Dubsar House Publishing), etc., are noteworthy. (Incidentally, the en:WP appearances of Dubsar House Publishing seem limited to the Adams article and this one.) -- Hoary (talk) 02:19, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Whatever. I know it's hard for a few of you, but keep your personal opinions, bizarre gripes and other bitterness (about a lady you do not even know) to yourself. First of all, no one here, not even you "Sean Martin" has had direct contact with Miss Adams, because if you did, you would not be trying to get a reaction from it. Second, regardless of how anyone feels about her (including you "Hoary") she is still noteworthy, newsworthy and famous. And finally, nothing anyone on this little discussion page can say or do to remove her from this site or anywhere else in history. She is and will forever always be known as a playmate, author, and celebrity. Stop hating someone who does not even know you. There's a fine line between love and hate. Or should I say obsession and jealousy. Cheers! 66.108.146.77 (talk) 07:38, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

First of all, who are you to know whether I've had direct contact with Ms Adams or not? (I have.) Second, "Stop hating someone who does not even know you."?? Interesting comment from someone who seems to be so angry at a bunch of people she doesn't know. -- Sean Martin (talk) 18:04, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Dream on...You may want to, but you do do not know Stephanie Adams. And you never will so just accept that and stop trying to get attention from a publicly edited page about her. She doesn't even know or care about your existence, but obviously you care so much about hers. Now according to the digging I did on you after reading your "personal attacks" on her article, it turns out that you were named as an affiliate to the person she sued and beat in court. And the judge thought you were both crazy and told the other retard to leave her alone. It was also stated that she does not know you and referred to you as an online stalker. Now I do not know her, but from what I've read about you thus far, she is right and I'm glad she won. I guess beautiful celebrities will always have some sort of animosity and bitterness from their demented fans. SomethingYouShouldKnow... (talk) 22:49, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

What do you expect from a complete nut? He thinks everyone he is in contact with is Stephanie Adams because obviously he is obsessed with her. Get a life. Find a girlfriend. 66.108.4.133 (talk) 23:19, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Two wrongs don't make a right, so do not feed into his animosity. He's obviously desperate for attention, even moreso the attention of Stephanie Adams. She's not on here pal. It's just an article about her. So stop ranting. Anyways, just ignore him and he will go away. 69.204.224.140 (talk) 00:16, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
"you do do not know Stephanie Adams" Never said I did. I said I've had contact with her. (Specifically, in the form of unsolicited emails she sent directly from her email account to mine.) "after reading your "personal attacks" on her article" Review any of my postings and you won't be able to provide even one example where I've made a personal attack. "it turns out that you were named as an affiliate to the person she sued and beat in court" Again, not true. "And the judge thought you were both crazy and told the other retard to leave her alone." Speaking of personal attacks, what do you call that, exactly?
"obviously he is obsessed with her" "He's obviously desperate for attention" No. Just interested in responding to any lies posted about me, no matter how many IPs you use to do so. -- Sean Martin (talk) 01:20, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Jealousy anyone???

None of you bitter souls have an article on Wikipedia or anywhere else on the internet for that matter. Maybe that's your problem. Don't be mad because you're not famous. And don't edit a page about someone if you're clearly hating her for some bizarre reason. By the way, any loser can edit on this site, so that does not say much about your writing skills. Try writing and getting one book published, let alone sixteen. You'll die before you give any proper credit, but how you feel does not matter in the grand scheme of things. As a matter of fact, you do not matter at all. So besides that, what's your real problem? Racist? Vagina envy?? Jealousy anyone??? Whatever your case, it's quite weird. So is ranting on a discussion page about someone you do not know personally. Get therapy. 66.108.4.133 (talk) 08:16, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Dear 66.108, thank you for reminding everybody not to rant. It's not bad advice: you may wish to take it yourself. (I'll refrain from suggesting that you too might get therapy.) Incidentally, are you, editing on this site, also a "loser"? -- Hoary (talk) 08:27, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Who cares? And why are you taking anything anyone says personally Hoary? From what I read about you, Jim Wales told you once before to refrain from editing this article. 71.167.226.96 (talk) 09:19, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Who cares indeed? And where on earth did you read this about me? -- Hoary (talk) 09:26, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Adams's site the best source about her?

In this edit, 71.167.226.96 removes a FACT flag and re-adds Adams' own website for the claim that Adams also continues to dedicate most of her time now as a financial investor and philanthropist, and does so with the edit comment that There's no better source for an update on an individual than the official source about her.

I find this claim extraordinary. For example, whitehouse.gov is the official source for Dubya, and on its top page I today read that The President and the Holy Father continued discussions, which they began during the President's visit to the Vatican in June 2007, on their common commitment to the importance of faith and reason in reaching shared goals. These goals include advancing peace throughout the Middle East and other troubled regions, promoting inter-faith understanding, and strengthening human rights and freedom, especially religious liberty, around the world. Putting aside the holy papa for a moment, if you believe that Dubya is committed to the importance of reason in advancing to the goal of "strengthening human rights and freedom [...] around the world", then I have a charming bridge for sale at a low price.

That little matter aside, Adams is a philanthropist, we're told. Well, who benefits? Quote them. -- Hoary (talk) 09:26, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Aside from it being mentioned by way of various sources and official press releases, photos at the benefits she donated funds to include TJ Martell, GLSEN, Heritage of Pride, The Gay Center, etc., all of which are viewable from the links in the "notes" section of the article about her and are dated over a decade after her appearance in Playboy (which means they are recent). Obviously you do not get into those benefits without donating $$. Also, her speaking at non-profit events such as Heritage of Pride (noted on the NY1 News link on her) for several consecutive years (noted on the HOP web site as well as her own) means she is not only donating funds, but her time towards worthy causes. Regardless, if her three official sites, her calendar, her books, her editorial reviews, and her latest interview on Playboy.com as well as Playboy radio says that she dedicates most of her time doing that, then that is what she must be doing. And by definition, that is what you call a philanthropist. I'm sure you already know this, but by adding as much valuable information and updates about the subject matter as possible, it is improving the quality of the article. Swiksek (talk) 09:53, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
And by the way, all the sources that have written about Adams (ABC, CBS, NY1 etc.) rely upon the source herself for the articles. Even so, they are not as accurate as the source herself. Media is never accurate and often distorts the truth, yet most people foolishly go by every single thing they say. They all, in fact, wrote articles based upon what the source herself said, so obviously the source herself (along with her web sites) is the one who holds the power of knowledge about her. It's not like we are writing something defamatory about her. It's merely an update on the current facts about her life. Swiksek (talk) 10:03, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for the calm reply. However: if her three official sites, her calendar, her books, her editorial reviews, and her latest interview on Playboy.com as well as Playboy radio says that she dedicates most of her time doing that, then that is what she must be doing. I don't buy it. If she's a notable donor to a charity, then that charity should mention it either directly or in a tip-off to a news source that shows some sign of independence. The description above is less of a philanthropist than a socialite. Of course being a socialite is compatible with being a philanthropist, but I'd like to see evidence of philanthropy before this encyclopedia article calls her a philanthropist.
Your description of the media makes you sound even more cynical about them (and their unthinking consumers) than I am. Quite an achievement! If the infotainment industry is doing little more than recycling her PR, I suppose one might as well recycle the PR directly, cutting out the middleman.
It's not like we are writing something defamatory about her. It's merely an update on the current facts about her life. Indeed it's not defamatory. It's laudatory. And are these the current facts, or is it just an unthinking repetition of whatever's the latest PR release?
How about this compromise. Rather than "Adams is now [doing XYZ]", "Adams now claims that she is [doing XYZ]"? Of course the latter can all be sourced to her site. -- Hoary (talk) 10:43, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Great team work!

Great idea User:Hoary. As well as the mentioning of her being a socialite. That does seem to be the route most celebs take when involved in philanthropy, although she not only appears at the events, but speaks at them as well. Both should actually be noted. Team work is always good. Best Regards, An-Apple-A-NY-Day (talk) 17:04, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

The phrase "charity events" makes an intriguing appearance within this article. -- Hoary (talk) 00:30, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

This article is being discussed at the Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard

Editors who are interested in this article are welcome to join the discussion there. EdJohnston (talk) 02:48, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Learning Annex course

In her first removal edit of the Learning Annex info Swiksek wrote "According to Goddessy, Adams filed a lawsuit regarding this incident and therefore, it should not be added due to it's defamation of character." Does the filing of a lawsuit about an incident immediately mean that incident can't be included in an article? If that is so, then shouldn't any mention of the lawsuit filed against NYC also be removed? Perhaps someone, "Swiksek" in particular since she was the one to make the comment, could explain this further.

Wiki policy certainly doesn't prohibit the inclusion of information that the subject of the article finds unflattering, as long as it is properly sourced, as this info on the Ms Adams' lecture at the Learning Annex appears to be. Perhaps Swiksek could explain what is meant by her comment in a subsequent edit: "the sources were false ... I have the e-mail and the sources were false." One is the course description at the Learning Annex's own site, the other is the article about the course at NY Press's own site. How are they "false"? Just looking for clarification here.

As a last note, "Swiksek" claims to have been in contact with Goddessy.com ("I contacted Goddessy.com"), Ms. Adams' personal web site, and appears to be aware of actions taken by Goddessy that would not be common knowledge ("According to Goddessy, Adams filed a lawsuit regarding this incident" (info not findable anywhere on the Goddessy web site), "Goddessy contacted Wiki"). Perhaps Swiksek can clarify her relationship with Goddessy and Ms Adams because it certainly appears there can be some conflict of interest here. Again, just looking for clarification. -- Sean Martin (talk) 16:20, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

The NY Press has not been established as long and is not as well-known as USA Today, CBS, ABC, Fox 5 News, The New York Post, and so on. It was more of a rant than an article and is too questionable to be noted, at the risk of libel. Ladysekhmet (talk) 17:46, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
Goddessey.com also has not been established as long and is not as well-known as USA Today, CBS, ABC, Fox 5 News, The New York Post yet seems to be frequently cited as a source for information in the article. NY Press, BTW, has been around for 20+ years. How long is needed before something can be considered "established"? By that measure Ms Adams, for example, has not yet established herself as an author. -- Sean Martin (talk) 17:48, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

This is not a debate, nor will it ever be. It is a fact that Goddessy.com is the official site of Stephanie Adams and Stephanie Adams is an established author. That is a given. Ladysekhmet (talk) 18:17, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Wasn't arguing either of those points. Yes, Goddessy is her official site. Yes, she is an author (I'll even spot you the "established"). It's the double standard you apply that I find troublesome. Complimentary items supported only by Ms Adams (via Goddessy) you defend. Other items that don't speak glowingly of her you remove with the claim they aren't supported by an "established" source (even one that has been around for twice as long as Goddessy). -- Sean Martin (talk) 19:41, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

"Ladysekhmet" has already announced that the beautiful, successful, lovable, millionaire playboy playmate, Stephanie Adams is in charge of this article. Really. I didn't make this up. -- Hoary (talk) 23:53, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Removal of information

I have removed some information with regards to sourcing. Before reinserting, please find independent multiple, and reliable sources for the assertions I have removed. Please be mindful of the biography of living persons policy here on the English Wikipedia. If there is any question I can answer, or any way I can help, please as on my talk page. Warmly, NonvocalScream (talk) 00:35, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

According to WP:BLP STYLE, "The article should document, in a non-partisan manner, what reliable third party sources have published about the subject and, in some circumstances, what the subject may have published about themselves. The writing style should be neutral and factual, avoiding both understatement and overstatement. Biographies of living persons should not have trivia sections. Instead, relevant sourced claims should be woven into the article."
And according to the wiki founder: "Real people are involved, and they can be hurt by your words. We are not tabloid journalism, we are an encyclopedia." –Jimmy Wales
According to WP:SELFPUB, "Self-published material may be used in BLPs only if written by the subject himself. Subjects may provide material about themselves through press releases, personal websites, or blogs. Material that has been self-published by the subject may be added to the article..."
Also, "Anonymous edits that blank all or part of a biography of a living person should be evaluated carefully."
And most importantly, "Basic human dignity: Wikipedia articles should respect the basic human dignity of their subjects. Wikipedia aims to be a reputable encyclopedia, not a tabloid. Our articles must not serve primarily to mock or disparage their subjects, whether directly or indirectly. This is of particularly profound importance when dealing with individuals whose notability stems largely from their being victims of another's actions. Wikipedia editors must not act, intentionally or otherwise, in a way that amounts to participating in or prolonging the victimization."
Now in regards to this as well as prior discrepancies, let us continue to improve the quality of articles on wikipedia by constructively adding valuable information to them, and not create a campaign to harass the subjects of the articles or cause overall destruction to them. Chances are, we do not know the people we are writing about personally, and if we were the ones being written about, we would want other people to show some respect for us too. Ladysekhmet (talk) 05:49, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Very selective use of emphasis there, "Ladysekhmet". You claim that

According to WP:SELFPUB, [...] Subjects may provide material about themselves through press releases, personal websites, or blogs. Material that has been self-published by the subject may be added to the article...

The first ellipsis is mine, the second yours. Wondering what they stood for, and went to WP:SELFPUB to take a look. What you quote simply isn't there. (It may have been in a recent version; I can't be bothered to check. Here's something that is there:

Self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources in articles about themselves, so long as: / 1. the material used is relevant to their notability; / 2. it is not contentious; / 3. it is not unduly self-serving [...]

The first of these is very problematic as it's hard to know what Adams is notable for, other than appearing in Playboy and, it seems, getting into arguments with people. Let's accept for the sake of argument that anything and everything about her is notable. But everything cited from her websites points toward how wonderful she is. It may not be unduly self-serving for vanity/commercial websites, but it's pretty self-serving when regurgitated into an encyclopedia article.

And then you quote from somewhere or other:

Wikipedia articles should respect the basic human dignity of their subjects. Wikipedia aims to be a reputable encyclopedia, not a tabloid. Our articles must not serve primarily to mock or disparage their subjects, whether directly or indirectly. This is of particularly profound importance when dealing with individuals whose notability stems largely from their being victims of another's actions. Wikipedia editors must not act, intentionally or otherwise, in a way that amounts to participating in or prolonging the victimization.

This is good stuff; I fully agree with it. The penultimate sentence is very obviously irrelevant to Adams. The last one is too, as nobody is victimizing anybody. What you have been so keen to excise is the most demure of mentions that Adams got a bad review for her paid effort at telling women how to snag rich men. It's only a single bad review, and it seems to be the only review: the press does not seem to have been much interested in this activity of Adams's. It's a trivial aspect of her career. What's remarkable, however, is how much better sourced the claim that she is a (mediocre) occasional teacher is than the much greater claim that she's devoting herself to philanthropy -- the latter being the kind of claim you've been happy for the article to make.

NonvocalScream has removed the bit about Adams's class for golddiggers, which I think is a great pity, but he (or she) has also removed quite a bit of unrelated junk. Meanwhile, two notes cite the NY Post. Is the NY Post (apparently the publisher of "50 Most Eligible Babes in N.Y.", though this seems to have gone missing) more credible than the NY Press (publisher of "GOLD-DIGGING 101 The Playboy Playmate with the sugar-daddy tip sheet"); and if so, how? -- Hoary (talk) 08:08, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

"Basic human dignity: Wikipedia articles should respect the basic human dignity of their subjects." - Wikipedia

You may not like her, but you will respect her, according to Wikipedia. Now I'm not sure why there is so much animosity here over this intelligent, beautiful woman (bingo!), but defamatory rants written about her in a meaningless article is neither newsworthy nor substantially needed information for the article. Ladysekhmet (talk) 07:10, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps this is related to this edit of yours. Your edit summary for it reads:
Content added was highly defamatory, does not have anything substantial to do with the subject of the article, and has again been removed. Reverted to previous edit. Refer to discussion page.
The content was:
In 2004, Adams taught a course at the Learning Annex entitled "How to Marry Rich: The Rich Are Going to Marry... Why Not to You?"
followed by two notes, each simply containing a link. Are you saying that the content of that one sentence was "highly defamatory"? Or that provision of one or both of the links was "highly defamatory"? Or that the page to which a link pointed was "highly defamatory"? What you write above suggests the second or third; if so, you'd be well advised to phrase your edit summaries more carefully in future: your fellow editors may not be happy to be accused of defamation.
You say above that:
defamatory rants written about her in a meaningless article is [sic] neither newsworthy nor substantially needed information
I'm not sure how an article can both (a) include defamatory rants against an identifiable person and (b) be meaningless. Still, we'll put that aside. You seem remarkably sure that the content of an article (presumably this one, as the other says virtually nothing) is defamatory and a rant (or rants). Neither is obvious to me. You may wish to explain here. -- Hoary (talk) 08:45, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
I really think that my summary of the review of the Learning Annex course given by Ms. Adams was quite neutral. I didn't include the fact the author of the article demanded a refund of his money, or the other criticisms that were levelled in the article. I only noted that he gave the course a negative review. I think that it is a valid addition, and merits inclusion. Will re-add. Wandering canadian (talk) 13:50, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Protection

In case it was no obvious, edit-warring with an OTRS volunteer who is endeavouring to clean up WP:BLP issues is a very bad idea, and that's why I protected the article. Guy (Help!) 15:49, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

That's fine except now we don't have any way to get things done with the article. How long does this lock last? Dismas|(talk) 16:04, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
Edit-warring is always a bad idea. But what "WP:BLP issues"? The SPAs are very keen to avoid any link to this, but Wandering canadian mentioned this in such a neutral way that the only objection I can think of to it is that the whole non-event is of trivial importance. Now, I'm all in favor of cutting trivia; but if the Learning Annex incident is too trivial to mention then why does the article say that Adams is a direct descendant of President John Adams and why does it devote a paragraph to her one-eleventh part of a single "cameo appearance" in a TV show? -- Hoary (talk) 16:10, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
I have received communication regarding this article thru the otrs system. I will work with you all on this talk page, with regards to BLP, that is fine. We can still get things done with this article. Make a new section underneath this one, for anything (except unduly unbalances unsourced contentious things, and apparent libel of course) and we can discuss it. Basically, anything I removed was due to sourcing issues, they need independent multiple sources. Once you have worked that out, there is an edit protected tag that can be used to have an administrator add the changes for you. If there are any questions, add it in a section below this one, I'll do my best to answer them. Your time is valuable, I understand that, but all in all - we need to get BLP articles right. There is no deadline. Regards, NonvocalScream (talk) 16:33, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
It's a good and valid question. If mention of Ms Adams's speaking at the Learning Annex is trivial and deserves removal how is it that mention of her few seconds as one eleventh of a cameo appearance isn't and deserves to remain? The real answer, which becomes apparent pretty quickly to anyone who attempts any noticeable edits to this article, is simply that Ms Adams doesn't want anything in this article that isn't complimentary and promotional of herself or supportive of her personal world view and will throw a hissy fit if it doesn't go exactly as she wants. (OK, let's allow for moment that despite all her actions that would lead any reasonable person to think so (as I'm on record as saying I do) that it isn't Stephanie Adams herself who is making these edits. Since they're mostly posted by Someone Anonymous, let's just use the initials "SA" for short.) Favorable information will generally be poorly sourced and vehemently defended by "SA" and the variety of accounts and SPAs "SA" utilizes to berate, insult and attack. Information "SA" sees as unfavorable will be quickly deleted. -- Sean Martin (talk) 20:38, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
PLease refer to my above comment. NonvocalScream (talk) 21:14, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
Where in your comment above do you answer Sean Martin? -- Hoary (talk) 00:31, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

learning annex info

This section is sourced and not libelous: In 2004, Adams taught a course at the Learning Annex entitled "How to Marry Rich: The Rich Are Going to Marry... Why Not to You?"[1] New York Press reporter A.J. Daulerio gave the class a negative review.[2] Can it please be added back in? Thank you, Dismas|(talk) 16:49, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Scratch that... I see by the edit protected tag, which by the way is {{editprotected}} for anyone who doesn't know (I didn't until I guessed at it), that this information can be seen as "controversial" since a couple single purpose accounts keep removing it. So now what? Do I call for a consensus? Dismas|(talk) 16:49, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
Basically, it is negative. Are there more independent reliable sources (two or three), if so, they need to be cited. One thing to consider, does it add undo weight? NonvocalScream (talk) 20:39, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure what your question about undue weight is referring to. Though I found a couple more sources: this and this
All of the sources regarding this ridiculous "learning annex" piece of information are rants and therefore neither objective nor factual. Wikipedia has already made it clear that they do not want libellous mentionings in articles that give the article absolutely no benefit, other than to insult and defamr someone, and will remove such mentionings in the long run. Why are you some of you so adamant about adding such nonsense, given more important facts that need to be added back again, such as her highly publicized date of birth, which is included on her playmate data sheet in Playboy magazine? Like all of the other playmates, she specifically confirmed her date of birth as 7-24-70 and all of the other playmates have their birthdays listed without the need for such a commotion or citation. Removing it is obstructing the article and indirectly maliciously abusing the rights to maintain proper information. Why keep fighting a battle you will inevitably lose? Come on people, you all know that is her date of birth. A losing battle...Think about it. Swiksek (talk) 22:27, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

indepentent sources

I'm afraid that without a couple or three //independent// reliable sources for this, the learning annex piece won't be included. NonvocalScream (talk) 23:25, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I can understand your decision to a point, but to be fair, the first source cited is the website of the institution at which the course was delivered, and the second was included in the context of the review it offered. The way the section was written simply stated that the New York Press reporter gave the class a bad review; I did not make any generalization about the course or Ms. Adams' teaching abilities. I still think that it was very neutral, and that the sources provided should be sufficient, but I do respect your decision in this. Thanks for stepping in to bring some order to the discussion. Wandering canadian (talk) 00:27, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Sources are available and can be found the same way I found them.

People, do not request to remove information that has been on here for a very long time and can easily be confirmed the same way it was obviously confirmed quite some time ago, by just looking it up the same way I did. Playboy.com. Google. You can easily prove it before you hastily remove it. Swiksek (talk) 23:43, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Sources should not be questionable They can be challenged. On BLP's, I usually remove some of these, and post on the talk page, so we can work on citing sources. Regards, NonvocalScream (talk) 23:47, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

::Why do you insist on avoiding the issue? Why do you feel that the official website of the publication in which this woman was featured, thus giving her the notability to appear on Wikipedia, is a questionable source? I could understand your argument if the information that you're challenging was not listed there, but it is. So, explain yourself, please. --InDeBiz1 (talk) 01:00, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I don't mean to be evasive. I don't think that site is really a good independent source. Is there at least an authoritative source for her measurements. NonvocalScream (talk) 01:16, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

::::You are still missing the point. The subject of this article gained her fame as a Playboy playmate. Playboy.com is the Internet arm of Playboy Magazine, which is where this individual was featured. Therefore, anything referenced on that website would hold the same value as a reference as if the information were attributed specifically to the magazine with a photo of the page containing the information. If Playboy.com were a fan site for fans of Playboy Magazine, I could see your argument about an "independent source." But since it's the official website of the publication, your argument is not valid. --InDeBiz1 (talk) 03:00, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

one of fifty babes

We read:

A few years later, the New York Post named her one of the "50 most eligible babes in NY" in 1998<ref>[http://www.pagesix.com/term/Revlon?page=5 "50 Most eligible babes in N.Y."]", [[Richard Johnson]], ''[[New York Post]]'', 17 January 1998.</ref>

(Before we go further, try clicking on Richard Johnson. Yes, he is indeed listed in this disambig page: "Columnist for the New York Post, listed on the International Best Dressed List for 2006". Tasty! Further, NY redirects to New York, which is about the state. Would the catchment area really have been the state, and not the city? Had the Post or the exquisite Johnson really been evaluating the babes out in Rochester, etc?)

The link is dead, and there isn't a copy at Wayback. Quite aside from the triviality and [to my mind] unencyclopedic nature of the claim itself, I find this description of the claim somewhat implausible. I don't claim familiarity with NYC tabloid editorial procedures, but wonder if (a) the editorial board of the Post would have stood behind this listing and Johnson would merely have written it up, or if instead (b) the Post merely printed some listing by Johnson. If the latter, wouldn't it be

In 1998, Richard Johnson named her one of the "50 most eligible babes in NY".<ref>Richard Johnson, "[http://www.pagesix.com/term/Revlon?page=5 50 Most eligible babes in N.Y.]", ''[[New York Post]]'', [[17 January]] [[1998]].</ref>

? (Change "Richard Johnson" to "the superlatively dressed Richard Johnson" if you wish.)

We'd then have one claim by one writer in one NYC tabloid that SA was one of the "50 most eligible babes in NY" (the city? the state?). Would this be so very much more significant/credible/encyclopedic than a demure link to one article-length description by one writer in one NYC free paper of how SA did in a class she taught? -- Hoary 00:57, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

PS I wondered how many of the other "babes" might have fans who'd point to some kind of copy of this article, and I therefore googled "["50 most eligible babes" "richard johnson" post 1998 http://www.google.co.jp/search?hl=ja&q=%2250+most+eligible+babes%22+%22richard+johnson%22+post+1998&btnG=Google+%E6%A4%9C%E7%B4%A2&lr=]" (pardon the exotic language). Quite remarkable: there are just five hits: this article, a commercial scrape of it, something put out by Adams, and two deads link to Post pages.

I pursued one of the Post pages -- though dead, it's google-cached here. This confirms that yes, the story existed, and that it was written "By Richard Johnson, Jeane Mclntosh, Sean Gannon and a cross- section of some of the most choosy guys in New York". It says: In a very unscientific but exhaustive survey of experts in various fields, Page Six has come up with a list of the 50 most eligible single women in New York. And yes, Adams is listed: Stephanie Adams, 27. Graceful New Jersey native has been living on the Upper East Side since becoming Playboy's Miss November '92. Pro: Listed first because of alphabetical order on Playboy's Cyber Club. Con: Has no ambition to be an actress, author or painter.

So yes, there was such an article, and Adams is on it. But it doesn't represent the Post, but instead its gossip section. And the readership of the Post have been so thrilled by it that a grand total of none (0) of the other 49 people listed appear to bother, or to have fans who bother, to mention it. -- Hoary (talk) 01:21, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Protected? Good!

See that? All you hungry animals want to maliciously add and remove information about someone you do not even know. I thought I was defending her article, but judging from your bizarre animosity towards her as a person, I am defending her as well. In the end, all of your energy towards trying to take away the gracious knowledge about her that is and will always be on the internet (maybe not all on this site) will only be in vain. Remember, her official links are on here and every search engine imaginable when you look her up. So enjoy your weekend fighting. At the end of the day, I have a feeling it will be in vain. :) Swiksek (talk) 00:35, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Hello, I was responding to an OTRS communication on this article. I don't hate her, and I'm not trying to remove anything. I am only attempting to strengthen sources on a couple of points. I'm not asking for the universe here, and I'm willing to help. I don't want to fight you. Regards, NonvocalScream (talk) 00:39, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
Swiksek, it is generally considered unladylike to refer to your fellow editors as "animals", or (via "maliciously") to impute bad motives to them. -- Hoary (talk) 00:59, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

edit protected

{{editprotected}}

Can the assertion Adams met and married an Italian investment banker, who she later divorced. be removed as it details a private part of her personal life and is at this point, unsourced? Regards, NonvocalScream (talk) 16:48, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

  • Y Done Guy (Help!) 16:59, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, NonvocalScream (talk) 17:03, 26 April 2008 (UTC)