Talk:Pauley Perrette

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Pauley Perrette. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20081030211415/http://www.ncis.navy.mil/app/news/articles/175.pdf to http://www.ncis.navy.mil/app/news/articles/175.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 11:32, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

checked and true. --Omotecho (talk) 14:38, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Religion in infobox

According to Template:Infobox person#Parameters, the religion parameter (or in this case, "denomination") should only be used if relevant/significant to the article subject (meaning: if it's notable to her career or persona). There's been a discussion on the Elvis Presley talk page as to whether to include religion in his IB, so if there's a question about its notability for him, then I would say that it definitely wouldn't notable for her. —Musdan77 (talk) 00:52, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

She has mentioned on her official Twitter account and in a couple interviews that she is UMC Methodist. She has been interviewed for local LA stations while doing activities at her church. She has a "Chucks at Church" feature on her Twitter account as well. Featuring people wearing their Chucks (she wears them too) at church. She has even participated in church services. I'm not sure what the UMC calls it, but at my church (ELCA Lutheran) we call it an "Assisting Minister" (even though those who assist aren't really ministers).

So Religion is very big for her and is referenced numerous times in various articles and reports, even which church she goes to church at. In this case, this is notable and easily referenced. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 17:26 on September 16, 2016 (UTC)

Virginia Slims

Pauley was the spokesperson for Virginia Slims cigarettes, why is this not in there? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.54.50.20 (talk) 01:04, September 25, 2017 (UTC)

Probably because it is not notable, or there are no reliable sources to support the claim. - FlightTime (open channel) 02:17, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Struggling actress booked by advertising agency for X commercial is not exactly my concept of spokesperson for X. How many of the other products for which she appeared in commercials are listed in the article? That is why it's not there and should not be. -- Naaman Brown (talk) 16:31, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Coming out on Twitter

Consensus is needed for this adition, also see following reverts and summaries. - FlightTime Phone (open channel) 19:11, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

• WP:TWITTER is part of WP:V, which is policy. Since she said it on her official Twitter account, it's like we are quoting her directly. Same goes for official Facebook and Instagram (and other social media) accounts as well. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 19:20 on January 20, 2020 (UTC)
• Full disclosure, I have asked for outside advice from the BLP noticeboard. Since this is a BLP, I thought their advice would be worthy of inclusion in this discussion. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 19:28 on January 20, 2020 (UTC)
• I know responses to the tweet are interpreting it as a declaration, but it isn't clear that it is one. The way it's worded (Aces, it is actually me.) can be read as a tweet directed to Aces, especially since the prior tweet was For the BILLIONTH TIME: I am NOT ON @instagram! That @realpauleyp and all other "PAULEY" accounts are FAKE!!!Please report them and do not follow.They're stealing my @twitter content.I am also NOT ON @FACEBOOK THIS @PAULEYP @TWITTER account is my ONLY social media account. I would want either a clearer self-declaration or independent coverage before putting it in a BLP. Schazjmd (talk) 19:56, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
• Pauley Perrette also updated her twitter bio to include "Ace", which is the very excepted shortening of Asexual. Official Tweets of Actor Pauley Perrette Civil Rights/Community Activist, singer/songwriter Insomniac. Human. Ace.. For me this very clearly states her coming out as asexual. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.234.97.66 (talk) 15:33, January 21, 2020 (UTC)

• The word "ace" has many meanings. We need an unambiguous self-identification. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 23:02, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

@Neutralhomer: Why are you adding unsourced content to a BLP and while there's an ongoing discussion and editwarring. Stop it. - FlightTime (open channel) 23:23, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

• I have readded the sentence with the Twitter reference...BUT, I have commented the entire section out. Saying that it's addition is currently being discussed here and the need for secondary third-party reliable sources. I hope, for the time being, this will quell outside editors from adding and readding the section over and over while we are discussing this here. @FlightTime:, if you would have given me more time than say, 10 seconds, what I was doing would have been made clear. Also, I said what I was doing on your talk page. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 23:24 on January 21, 2020 (UTC)

I have fully protected the article for 24 hours. I have decided to leave the article in the state without any of the information under dispute, commented or not, which is my understanding of policy (WP:PREFER - "When protecting a page because of a content dispute, administrators have a duty to avoid protecting a version that contains policy-violating content, such as ... poor-quality coverage of living people") and not intended to favour any side of the debate. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 23:27, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

Why add something unsourced toa BLP then comment it out, seem like a pure case of POV pushing to me, drop the damn stick. - FlightTime (open channel) 23:28, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

@FlightTime: It stops people from adding it, edit warring about it, and moves them to this discussion. It shows them, it is added, but we need to discuss it and what the discussion is about so it doesn't go sideways like 2J14 thought that we have a problem with people who are asexual, but that we need more sources, references.

@Ritchie333: It wasn't a content dispute, but that FlightTime wouldn't let me finish what I was doing without going to warp speed typing. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 23:34 on January 21, 2020 (UTC)

@Neutralhomer:Damn it, you don't fuck around with a BLP. - FlightTime (open channel) 23:44, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

Might want to dial it back a little bit. Had you listened to what I said on your talk page and gave me a minute, none of this would have happened. But it did, so, it gives us more time to discuss. So, let's discuss. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 00:05 on January 22, 2020 (UTC)

• I recently made an account. I'm the one who made the initial edit adding her statement of sexuality. Ace does not have many terms when referring to yourself. What would need to be provided for this to be accepted? Does she need to make a post stating asexual instead of ace? —RadiationGhoul(UTC) (talk • contribs) 16:46, January 21, 2020‎ (UTC)

• @RadiationGhoul: Yes, that would be perfect. Short of media coverage, a second tweet with clearer language would be perfect. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 00:03 on January 22, 2020 (UTC)

• @Neutralhomer:Perfect, thank you. The reason why people are so adamant is because asexuality has a history of being erased, told its not real. There are several asexual groups she has already been speaking directly with, who are reaching out to her to see if she would be willing to make a statement that would be accepted as "clear" by wiki. If she does I'll a note here. —RadiationGhoul(UTC) (talk • contribs) 16:46, January 21, 2020‎ (UTC)

• @RadiationGhoul: *I do want to make this clear: We aren't trying to erase her statement, we are trying to confirm it in the clearest sense of the word...literally. I do see where people are coming from where "ace" could be considered other things, but I know it's basically one thing. So, with BLPs (Biographies of Living Persons) we have to sometimes wait for better sources. I appreciate your help on this as does everyone else. :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 00:17 on January 22, 2020 (UTC)

• @Neutralhomer:I do, somewhat, understand the hesitance. However given the context of having it in her bio, I don't see how it could have any other meaning. I saw in the BLP board someone said it could mean a guitar or a plane. She has in her bio on twitter that she's "Insomniac. Human. Ace.". She's not saying she's a biplane, she's not saying she's a guitar. She's saying she's asexual. Even here on wiki, the first sentence of the asexual page states the term "ace". I do understand that you aren't trying to erase her statement. I'm trying to help shed light on why the exclusion of this, when it's a statement that came directly from her, is causing anger in the ace community. If you look at who she's following on Twitter, directly after making the tweet she began following multiple Asexual accounts. I highly doubt media will cover her asexuality, as it's something usually overlooked and ignored. —RadiationGhoul(UTC) (talk • contribs) 00:58, January 22, 2020‎ (UTC)

@RadiationGhoul(UTC): It has been 24 hours since Wikipedia's temporary lockout of Pauley Perrette's Twitter statement, an exclusion you claim "is causing anger in the ace community." Later in this thread, Neutralhomer alleged that "there is a community out there who is seeing this as 'Asexual erasure.'" Assuming, arguendo, that there is an appreciable community of asexual persons who express themselves online, I have searched but found no evidence that they are up in arms over this matter. On Twitter, for example, a mere handful of accounts (significantly not including @PauleyP herself) have criticized Wikipedia for not immediately certifying her declaration of asexuality. Nor have any non-editors expressed displeasure here on this Talk page, which has remained open for public comment despite the BLP blockage. Either you and Neutralhomer are misrepresenting the extent to which asexuals as a community are irate about this, or said community is so miniscule that its rage cannot be detected by outsiders. NedFausa (talk) 23:37, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

• @RadiationGhoul: I understand and I am actively trying to communicate with the asexual community on Twitter right now to help them understand the goings-on here at Wikipedia. But you raise a good point, since it is in her bio (of a verified account) that should be enough. I want to bring in Ritchie333 on this (since he is an admin): Since Pauley has added this to her Twitter bio and clearly she isn't saying she is a guitar or plane and she is following asexual Twitter accounts, could we consider that enough for inclusion? - Neutralhomer • Talk • 01:55 on January 22, 2020 (UTC)

Neutralhomer, I am actively trying to communicate with the asexual community on Twitter right now to help them understand the goings-on here at Wikipedia Where on Twitter are you telling people what's going on here? As both a Wikipedian and an ace, I'd be interested to see what the ace community has to say about this. Adam9007 (talk) 05:15, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Never mind; I found it. Adam9007 (talk) 19:09, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

• Note: An agreeing Admin does not equal consensus. Just to be clear. - FlightTime (open channel) 01:58, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

• An agreeing admin would move things along to consensus. Let me be clear. This entire thing was started by you. We had a reference, with in WP:TWITTER (through WP:V), but that wasn't good enough. You edit-warred instead of letting me edit, and having a comment-out version of the edit with a note explaining the reason for it's current non-inclusion wasn't good enough for you. You come to this page and bash me and tell me Damn it, you don't fuck around with a BLP when that's all you've been doing. The page gets temp-blocked, I work for a solution, and instead of working together, you decide to throw that nonsense in there about having an admin agree with me isn't consensus. I'm sorry, but Jimbo didn't die and he didn't make you in charge. Everything that has taken place on this page since that first addition of the edit can be traced back to you. I believe you need to step away from this article. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 02:11 on January 22, 2020 (UTC)

What did I start ? A consensus discussion ? maybe you should take me to ANI. - FlightTime (open channel) 02:15, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

But when you were told that WP:TWITTER/WP:V was in effect, you didn't let it go. Now it's a mess. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 02:23 on January 22, 2020 (UTC)

An agreeing admin would move things along to consensus. Not necessarily. An admin's opinion carries no more weight than that of a normal editor. Admins just implement consensus. Adam9007 (talk) 02:16, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

@Adam9007: Perhaps I wasn't clear (happens), normally when an admin !votes/decides one way, it kinda sways people to go in that direction. Especially in a discussion such as this one. Not saying that's what is going to happen. But since Ritchie was the blocking admin, it would help. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 02:23 on January 22, 2020 (UTC) 02:23, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

This thread has generated more heat than light. Instead of angrily demanding which editor did what and when, we ought to focus on the issue at hand. To support adding "Perrette came out as asexual," can we rely on a 5-word tweet from her verified account ("Aces, it is actually me") and a single descriptor in her Twitter bio ("Ace")? To me, that seems thin. RadiationGhoul contends, "I highly doubt media will cover her asexuality, as it's something usually overlooked and ignored." If so, we'd have to rely on Twitter. But Pauley Perrette is a celebrity. As noted in our lede, she's an actress best known for co-starring in a hit TV series for 15 years (!), a published writer, singer, and civil rights advocate. To assume that the media will not cover her newly announced asexuality is unwarranted. Accordingly, I commend admin Ritchie333 for fully protecting the page for 24 hours. If by then no WP:RS has reported Perrette's coming out, we can decide the issue based on WP:BLPSPS, which allows self-published sources such as tweets when written by the subject of the article. However, the absence of independent coverage might also implicate WP:NOTEWORTHY. In other words, are we forcing something into an encyclopedia article that is not noteworthy enough to be covered by the media? NedFausa (talk) 04:00, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

@NedFausa: I think what RadiationGhoul meant by "I highly doubt media will cover her asexuality, as it's something usually overlooked and ignored is that it won't be covered as it isn't covered like say someone coming out as gay, or bi, or lesbian, or trans. You just don't hear it. To be honest, I've never heard of media coverage of a celeb announcing that they were asexual. I don't think it's really understood either.

I think we should rely on WP:TWITTER, an extension of WP:V, and go from there. WP:BLPSPS wouldn't come into play since the "unless written or published by the subject of the article" clause is in effect. Her Twitter account is verified, so we can confirm that it is indeed her that wrote it. I believe (as does the Asexual Community who is actively watching this) that this is NOTEWORTHY. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 04:13 on January 22, 2020 (UTC)

• I would also like to bring this to everyone's attention. Pauley began following 11 seperate Asexual accounts very recently. Taking this into account, I believe that should take any shred of doubt in anyone's mind and throw it out. The "ace" reference is indeed for "asexual" and not for anything else people have come up with (ie: guitar ace, World War I flying ace, etc.). - Neutralhomer • Talk • 04:18 on January 22, 2020 (UTC)

You're repeating yourself. This is the second time you've pointed out how Pauley is following asexual Twitter accounts and denied that she's a guitar or WWI fighter pilot. In an already cluttered thread, such repetition is not helpful. NedFausa (talk) 04:29, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

@NedFausa: Ya think? No one is responding and when they do respond, they respond to this. Be helpful if people would discuss what is important except for me repeating myself. Otherwise, I'm going to keep repeating myself. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 04:54 on January 22, 2020 (UTC)

• For what it's worth, I don't see how 'ace' in her tweet could mean anything other than asexual. 'Ace' in its other senses tends to be accompanied by a modifier (or the modified word), and there is none here. Adam9007 (talk) 04:47, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

*I'm done for the night, if anyone has questions or concerns for me, I will be back up after 12 Noon EST (I work tomorrow, 1/22). I will check this page and respond to what I can before I leave. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 05:07 on January 22, 2020 (UTC)

I don't think we should include it until we can provide an unambiguous reference that any reader can check and confirm. An abbreviation known to a small subset of readers in a twitter bio doesn't meet that standard. And if we don't find independent coverage, then it isn't WP:DUE. Schazjmd (talk) 15:21, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Schazjmd is the first in this thread to mention WP:DUE, and it deserves consideration. Specifically, WP:PROPORTION directs: "An article should not give undue weight to minor aspects of its subject, but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight proportional to its treatment in the body of reliable, published material on the subject." Editors who are themselves openly asexual naturally insist that Perrette's self-identification as Ace is a big f'ing deal. Yet when Perrette unambiguously revealed (in five tweets between May 2017–September 2019) her decision "to be celibate and single for life," Wikipedians did not rush to include it in her BLP. Nearly three years after she came out as celibate, we still have not added that minor revelation, and for good reason. It is not particularly noteworthy within the overall context of her personal life, which in my opinion is already given disproportionate attention in this BLP. Adding her asexuality, absent independent coverage from WP:RS, would be equally unwarranted. NedFausa (talk) 16:39, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

NedFausa and Schazjmd: One's coming out, though, is warranted of coverage in Wikipedia because it is a big deal in someone's life. When someone comes out as whatever, they are saying "this is me, this is who I am" and they should be covered. What no one is willing to accept is she did this on her own, personal, verified Twitter account. Now, you all need to accept that there is a community out there who is seeing this as "Asexual erasure". They see two clear references to it (the tweet, and her bio) and they don't understand why an "unambiguous reference" when "ace" is understood by so many. People in this very discussion have said they understand it (outside of me). So, with the ace world looking on, I think we need to try harder and do better. Because right now, we are failing miserably! - Neutralhomer • Talk • 18:02 on January 22, 2020 (UTC)

Neutralhomer, I haven't seen anyone dispute that it's Perrette's verified Twitter account. Schazjmd (talk) 18:13, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

@Schazjmd: How about we address the rest of what I said too. The rest is kind of important. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 18:21 on January 22, 2020 (UTC)

No, we are not failing miserably. We are coming with BLP policy, which is mandatory. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 18:29, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Neutralhomer, you're merely repeating yourself over and over throughout the thread. You have not addressed the concern that we do not have an unambiguous source that the general public can use to validate the information. Her tweet is not a clear reference; to me, it clearly is addressing the audience of "Aces". Note the comma after the word. It's equivalent to "Friends and followers, it is actually me." Her bio is not a clear reference either as it requires familiarity with a neologism that is not commonly known except by those within that community or aware of it. Schazjmd (talk) 18:36, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

@Cullen328: I believe we are. Would we do the same for a gay person? A lesbian person? A trans person? If they used a nickname for identity, would we, basically, make them send another tweet confirming what we already know? Is Wikipedia suffering from a little aphobia? Maybe we are being different to one group of people when we wouldn't to another? I think we need to look at ourselves, a good hard look. Because we wouldn't do this to anyone in the LGBT community, so why the IAQ part? It makes zero sense and yes, we are failing.

No one is even willing to have a real conversation. Focus on the 11 asexual accounts Ms. Perrette followed. Nope, it's gotta be something else. Would we do that to someone who just announced that they were gay? No! Wikipedia would be slammed with tweets, protests, and everything else calling us every word in the book. But we are, basically, forcing a woman to tweet again what her identity is? Why? Yes, that's failing. That's "eraser" in my book. We can do better, we just need to discuss it! - Neutralhomer • Talk • 18:40 on January 22, 2020 (UTC)

@Schazjmd: Maybe if someone was willing to have a real conversation on the real issues instead of focusing on the same thing over and over and over and over and over, I wouldn't have to repeat myself (which I hate doing). - Neutralhomer • Talk • 18:40 on January 22, 2020 (UTC)

@Neutralhomer: Will you please stop with the "aphobia" bullshit, nobody (except you) is concerned about what people are. This is about BLP articles and what claims are made and the sources that support those claims, not how people/article subject are or how they live, jeez drop that damn stick. - FlightTime (open channel) 19:20, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

@Neutralhomer: you continually obfuscate the issue by misrepresenting what others have said. Two days ago, on a different page, NatGertler observed that Ace, "lacking some sort of adjective like 'guitar ace' or 'World War I flying ace,'" is not particularly unclear. Yet, to score debating points, you have repeatedly treated his endorsement of Ace as if he were absurdly challenging it. Now you contend, "What no one is willing to accept is she did this on her own, personal, verified Twitter account." In fact, as Schazjmd says, no one has denied that she did this on her own, personal, verified Twitter account. That is simply not at issue. What is at issue is whether or not to accept her own, personal, verified Twitter account as the sole source for adding asexuality to her BLP. Please stop putting words in other people's mouths. NedFausa (talk) 18:46, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

@NedFausa: What I have also said is "[why hasn't anyone focused] on the 11 asexual accounts Ms. Perrette followed"? But no one has given me an answer tot hat. People are stuck on the verified account (missing the point completely that it is fully in complience with WP:TWITTER, an extension of WP:V) and the "World War I flying ace" (missing the point entirely that she wasn't calling herself that with the 11 accounts she followed and she doesn't own a Sopwith Camel). Get it now...or must I repeat myself again? - Neutralhomer • Talk • 18:55 on January 22, 2020 (UTC)

Neutralhomer, what you appear to consider "the real issues" are not the real issues in my view, in the light of Wikipedia policies. Three letters in a twitter bio do not equal WP:V. Looking at twitter accounts that Perrette has following is WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. The claimed outrage of an amorphous community does not dictate article content. Failing to include information in a biography of a living person that has not been reported on by any independent source nor is supported by an unambiguous SPS is what we're supposed to do. Schazjmd (talk) 18:49, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

@Schazjmd: "Claimed outage"? "Amorphous community"? Yeah. (bad choice of words there, dude) You are missing the point too. Read my response to NedFausa above yours, so I don't have to repeat myself. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 18:55 on January 22, 2020 (UTC)

Neutralhomer, I'm female, not a "dude". You've claimed some people are outraged; I'm taking your word for it. Amorphous community describes a loosely connected group of individuals based on some shared interest or characteristic but lacking a formal structure or point of contact. Perrette follows 2,015 accounts; whether some of them are asexual doesn't prove anything. Schazjmd (talk) 19:02, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

I am beachbum, everyone is a "dude", but I apologize. First accounts at the top. To me, it proves alot. I will ask (after work), if these groups would like to be linked on here. I will not link them without permission. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 19:07 on January 22, 2020 (UTC)

Warning
@Neutralhomer: since you have acknowledged "contacting multiple groups on Twitter (along with Ms. Perrette) who are in an uproar over this," and that you "outed my own Wikipedia account on Twitter," I am compelled to share with other editors your attack today via Twitter on our colleague Schazjmd. By quoting her comments made at this page, you leave no doubt whom you mean by "people with hard heads and closed minds." Please get a grip. Off-wiki personal attacks against another editor are unacceptable and may lead to sanctions against you. NedFausa (talk) 19:23, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

This is not a battle or an attempt to erase or hide anything. This is where I'm coming from: When Mrs. Long, owner of the neighborhood grocery store and fan of NCIS, reads the article about the actress who played her favorite character on the show and sees that it says Perrette has said she's asexual, and Mrs. Long wants to know more about what exactly did she say and in what context so she clicks the reference, then that reference needs to be something Mrs. Long understands. Schazjmd (talk) 19:38, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

No, it doesn't. We have plenty of articles including BLPs that source to articles in foreign languages. We have plenty of articles that source to medical and scientific journals not intended for the lay community. There are times when more easily comprehended sources are preferred, but it is not at all a requirement. --Nat Gertler (talk) 20:26, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

I disagree, although my example is probably not very good. What I'm trying to get at is that an uninvolved reader can verify what the article says. Schazjmd (talk) 20:32, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

If you're claiming that we are required to do something, can you point to that policy? Because it sure looks like a policy that you are just making up. It does not have to be comprehendible to any given individual who can't be bothered to look up "ace" in the dictionary. --Nat Gertler (talk) 21:20, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Our interpretations of The cited source must clearly support the material as presented in the article. (WP:V) differ. Schazjmd (talk) 21:31, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

That certainly does not require us to build our sourcing around the least-competent possible reader. --Nat Gertler (talk) 21:56, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Agreed, and I've already said my example was not very good. Schazjmd (talk) 21:59, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

@NatGertler: I am not the least-competent possible reader. Yet before yesterday, I had no idea that Ace = asexual person. Why don't you cite the Wikipedia policy or guideline requiring me to consult the Urban Dictionary in order to understand a source in a show-business celebrity's BLP? NedFausa (talk) 22:04, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Indignation

Why do you remove a paragraph from where you say you are asexual? problem with that? 2J14 (talk) 23:24, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

There is no problem, it's the language. She used the word "ace". Now, I understand it clearly, but others, not so much. So, we are waiting on secondary third-party reliable sources (ie: media coverage or another tweet confirming the first in clearer language). - Neutralhomer • Talk • 23:28 on January 21, 2020 (UTC)

The exact words of her tweet two days ago were "Aces, it is actually me." That is a highly ambiguous sentence with several possible interpretations. "Aces" has many meanings including slang for close friends as well as slang for asexual people. In addition, the phrasing implies that she is addressing people she calls "Aces" instead of self-identifying with the word "ace", whatever its definition. As far as I know, there have been no follow-up stories about this matter in reliable sources. Since then, she has tweeted about unrelated matters promoting her current TV show. This tweet by itself is not adequate to report, in Wikipedia's voice, that she has announced that she is asexual. The relevant policy is Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons and it will be enforced. The burden is on those who want to add this to the article to gain consensus by explaining in detail how this proposed content complies with policy, winning over editors who have objected. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:11, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 22 January 2020

Within reference citation template following "In addition to acting, Perrette is a poet,"
please change
title=https://www.washingtonpost.com › ... Naval Gazing With Pauley Perrette
to
title=Naval Gazing With Pauley Perrette

AND change
url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/
to
url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/lifestyle/tv/2005/08/21/naval-gazing-with-pauley-perrette/f7e9af82-fda7-47c9-8b48-a0a00a4fa4c0/

Thank you. NedFausa (talk) 00:38, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

 Done Izno (talk) 01:23, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 22 January 2020

She was added to Category:Asexual women just before the page was fully protected, she needs to be removed. - FlightTime (open channel) 04:21, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

I disagree. Discussion is ongoing. Also, you are not impartial and should not be asking. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 04:24 on January 22, 2020 (UTC)

OMG, what? it's a valid edit request. You're starting to walk on the grounds of WP:WIKIHOUNDING. - FlightTime (open channel) 04:28, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Further, the discussion was started before this addition and the discussion is ongoing that's exactly why it should be undone. Not to mention it's still unsourced. - FlightTime (open channel) 04:33, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Disagree. Wikihounding is if I followed you to other pages on the project. I'm not. I've been here for 14 years, I know the rules. Please, don't try to spin them on me. I know when someone is being impartial, using the community to push an ideal (you seem to be quite eager to remove anything regarding "asexuality" from this page), and not willing to work together. Sorry, I don't agree, I'm entitled to my opinion. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 04:58 on January 22, 2020 (UTC)

Yes you do have that right, just like anyone else and you could not be more wrong, I couldn't care less about "asexuality" my concern has always been about a poorly sourced claim on a BLP, which looks like you need to read up on. - FlightTime (open channel) 05:15, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

• Support edit request. Considering lack of consensus, this category is premature and misleading. NedFausa (talk) 04:36, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

 Done To enforce WP:BLP policy, I have removed this contentious category until there is policy-based consensus to add it back. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:49, 22 January 2020 (UTC)