Talk:Stephanie Adams

The archives of this page can be found at:

• Talk:Stephanie Adams/archive
• If you want to reply to an old topic, please move it back to this page.

"GODDESSY" or "Goddessy"?

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

Capitals

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

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

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

Capitalization

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

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

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

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

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

And in answering to the question of if the name "GODDESSY" is so complex that it requires mediation, you just answered your own question by bringing the subject back up again. GODDESSY is legally registered as a business as "GODDESSY" and the explanation to why GODDESSY is placed in all caps is provided. [1] Every single book cover written by Adams that has GODDESSY on its cover reads "GODDESSY" [2][3][4][5][6][7], so "GODDESSY" is accurate.

No further comments and thank you for your time.

-GODDESSY

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

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

Well if "it's not important to Wikipedia", but it is important to the founder of GODDESSY who clearly places the explanation for the name being in all caps (something SANYO does not do) on the web site [8] as well as the book covers [9][10][11][12][13][14], then it should remain.

Also, we took at look at the SANYO page and noted that the name change was not disputed. In the case of GODDESSY, it is.

Keep in mind that there is not one voice for Wikipedia, so your feeling about this might not be the same as others.

Regards,

-GODDESSY

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

Treading cautiously

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

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

user:65.184.17.216

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

Also commented on my talk page; I completely agree with Bottesini. AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 01:50, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Didn't comment on my talk page, but yeah, me too. I've removed the attacks that 65.184.17.216 posted to this page. FreplySpang 13:56, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Are Adam's "books" really books?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

That's not a joke.

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

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

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

added at 07:51, 27 May 2006 by 65.184.17.216

Yes, I know that an ISBN can be acquired easily (even for a work that doesn't exist in any form whatever). And nobody has claimed that Adams is a Stephen King. If you think you're being persecuted, there are other places where you can complain about it; here, please stick to the subject.

Please click this link (Amazon). Do you or do you not read: Availability: Usually ships within 24 hours. Ships from and sold by Amazon.com. / Only 1 left in stock--order soon (more on the way). and below this Product Dimensions: 8.2 x 6.0 x 0.5 inches / Shipping Weight: 7.2 ounces. If you do read this, how do you square it with your assertion that it's a mere download? -- Hoary 08:11, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

NONE of her books are real valid print books, NONE

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

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

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

That means ALL books.

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

Not eBooks, which is what hers are.

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

From the page above

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

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

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

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

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

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

Let's try to be concise.

Let's sign our comments. (This is easy: "~~~~".)

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

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

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

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

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

I can't believe that international law would dictate that the LoC should keep worthless books. (In addition, the US seems uninterested in any application of international law to what it does.) However, you may be onto something. I've had a little websurf for truly awful books that verifiably exist in physical form. One author is Helen Ritberger. Amazingly, the LoC lists four of her publications (sample title: Your personality, your health: connecting personality with the human energy system, chakras, and wellness). It also has Harlequin romances, and indeed every crappy sub-book that I can think of. For whatever reason (and surely it's some kind of obligation, not any desire to preserve, uh, intellectual riches), the LoC gives the impression of truly dedicated barrel-scraping. And yet it provides no space for Stephanie Adams, US citizen, resident and self-described author. This strikes me as a non-trivial reason to remove her "books", whatever media they are transmitted in.

I note that you confirm that Adams is a playboy playmate (a fact that you disputed on my talk page). I don't know if that means she'll have "rabid fans": there are, after all, hundreds of ex-playmates. Anyway, please start by assuming that people who disagree with yourself aren't rabid or idiotic. Thank you. -- Hoary 09:15, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

You bring up an interesting point - are eBooks not deserving of mention in an article about their author? I would argue that they are; they're important to the author, they're how the author has been making a living for several years, they're selling well enough to be listed by Amazon and Barnes and Noble. Our rules are not the same as those of the Library of Congress; they collect books, we write an encyclopedia. I have never seen a Wikipedia rule or guideline saying that eBooks should not be listed in an article about their writer; if there is such a thing, please point it out. True, individually they're probably not notable enough to get an article in and of themselves, but they're notable enough to get a line each in the article of a person who has an article otherwise. The same is true of the aforementioned Stephen King, for example - he's got paragraphs about his car accident, which, by itself, would not be notable enough to get him an article, but, given that we do have an article about him, should certainly be covered. Similarly with these publications. However, it is probably worth while to mention that these are eBooks. That seems to be the way WP recommends we get around content disputes - list the facts, both sides. AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 13:01, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

First, a factual point. I don't see that availability via Amazon and B&N says anything about volume of sales. As I understand it, such retailers will list anything for which information is already at one or other of a small number of databases; putting something into one of these databases requires that the publisher has a certain small amount of knowledge and effort but again says nothing about sales or sales potential.

Secondly, I don't think that eBooks are inherently less noteworthy than dead-trees books. But (1) Is every book (regardless of medium) noteworthy? I'd say that these aren't. And (2) If a person is noteworthy in some way (e.g. having been a "playmate"), does that mean that every verifiable fact about her is noteworthy? Again, I'd say that no it isn't.

Third, how about the products of, uh, willing publishers? According to the list, Adams's most recent book is Happenings. I clicked on the ISBN and Amazon told me that it was published by "Infinity Publishing". Googling for that took me here: we have created a self publishing system which allows authors total creative control, total rights ownership, and a bookstore quality book; a one-stop solution for authors seeking a destination for their work etc etc. Two of Adams's books have similar ISBNs. A commoner ISBN pattern is that exemplified by Sapphica: 2006 Astrological blah blah blah. By a similar route, I learn that this was published by "Dubsar House", another name that was new to me. Unlike Infinity Publishing, Dubsar House doesn't simply offer to publish what you pay them to publish, but their page "How to Publish with Us" seems unusually open to manuscripts: none of the usual publishers' stuff about how they're swamped by submissions, but instead such advice for novices as "Please spell-check the entire document, correcting all spelling, punctuation and the grammatical structure, when appropriate." (And how many times have they been mentioned by the NYT? Look here.)

These books -- if they are books, and actually I think that most are -- don't seem to have survived the whittling process that produces the kind of books that are reviewed, discussed, or bought. This is publishing of a very low order. -- Hoary 03:56, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

At 06:54, User:151.202.15.218 (contributions) deleted the note about publishers (and a link to IMDb) with the comment: "On the contrary, Adams got paid for all of her books to be published. Don't post something you do not know about." Perhaps the IP could present evidence that Adams was paid; otherwise, this would seem to be original research. -- Hoary 07:10, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

Annual publications

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

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

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

Good idea. That should condense the list, hopefully reducing objections from our anon, without reducing useful information. However, it's not easy to get from a 2007 ISBN link to a 2005 one, in case a user wants it, and I do want to keep the publisher info, since that was such a big issue just recently. Since there aren't hundreds, how about something like:

• The Goddessy series of yearly astrological forecasts: 2004-2006 Dubsar House Publishing, ISBN 1111, ISBN 2222, ISBN 3333; 2007 Infinity Publishing, ISBN 4444.

Reasonable compromise? AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 13:57, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Hmm. You're right, keeping the publisher info is good. I'm not entirely convinced that the past ISBN info is all that useful, though. The highlighted ISBN links are visually distracting. It doesn't seem like many people would be interested in past editions, and I'd be happy to let that small number of people do a title and author search on Google, Amazon, B&N, etc. FreplySpang 14:13, 2 June 2006 (UTC) Hm, I suspect that you are about to say "people might want the book for the current year." Good point. Maybe we could list the ISBN's in reverse chronological order, then. FreplySpang 14:15, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

WP:BOLD time. Take a look at the current condensation, and see if you like it. If not, edit it according to your counter-suggestion, and we'll if others like it. :-). AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 15:08, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

What is this, a wiki? :-) Looks good. I tried rearranging it a couple of ways, but the changing publishers make it a bit messy. FreplySpang 15:16, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm taking the tag off

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

semi protected

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

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

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

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

Once again, someone is posting false comments on the Stephanie Adams page.

According to an archive posting from her legal department, Adams sued another web site for potentially libelous comments made on there named blognyc.net and is on a mission to do the same with other web sites that have produced potentially libelous comments about her.

THE TRUTH: Her books are not all ebooks and they are all available via Barnes & Noble as well as Amazon. Only one book was published by Publish America (her first book) and it wasn't vanity publishing because she got paid for the publication.

Suggestion

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

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

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

Erratic behaviour

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

I went to that URL and saw no details.

If her behavior is odd in some remarkable and noteworthy way, and if you can specify authoritative sources for this, then you're free to add it to the article. -- Hoary 02:35, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

If you have anything coherent to say, say it directly. And provide sound evidence for any claims you make, and have the guts to sign it. But if you just want to add tidbits of innuendo, please do it somewhere other than Wikipedia. Thank you. -- Hoary 16:06, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

I second what Hoary has said. To call Adams such names is to violate the "avoid personal attacks" policy and is just flat-out rude besides. RobertAustin 14:31, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

BLP

I do not believe the blognyc bit is appropriate per WP:BLP. However, her suit against the NYPD is per [15]. Hipocrite - «Talk» 17:35, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

What's inappropriate about it? Ben-w 18:46, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

"Material from primary sources should generally not be used. " Hipocrite - «Talk» 19:02, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

And how does the section violate this guideline exactly? Ben-w 19:27, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Don't you think the statements by one half of a lawsuit qualify a primary source with respect to the lawsuit? Wait for someone else to write about it then include it. Hipocrite - «Talk» 19:28, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

No, that's not what "primary source" means. Ben-w 19:31, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

primary source- "In historical scholarship, a primary source is a document or other source of information that was created at or near the time being studied, often by the people being studied." Check, check - primary source. Hipocrite - «Talk» 19:46, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

This is not historical scholarship. In this context, a primary source would be the actual court record itself. The guideline you quoted, if you continue to the end of the sentence, is intended to discourage people from doing original research: here, trolling through FindLaw or Pacer, pulling court documents, and using them as sources for an article. In this instance, the case has attracted public comment both from the defendant and from others -- the blog's message boards, Fark.com, etc. -- The information presented about the case is accurate, is relevant, adheres to NPOV, and is verifiable with cited sources. Ben-w 21:12, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

You are wrong. I have requested a third opinion. Hipocrite - «Talk» 21:47, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

The guideline you state is under the heading "Presumption in favor of privacy", and specifically mentions that "Material from primary sources should generally not be used. For example, public records may include personal details such as home value, outcomes of civil court cases, traffic citations, arrest records, and vehicles and real estate owned." A primary source, here, is a document such as the court filing. The guideline is an effort to dissuade people from using Wikipedia to "out" information about someone which they have gleaned from primary sources. This is not the case here -- the case has been the subject of public comment and discussion on several fora, and there is nothing inaccurate, defamatory, or contentious about what is written: Ms. Adams is suing BlogNYC, that is public knowledge, it is under discussion, verifiable, sourced, cited. End of story. Ben-w 21:59, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Could you cite a reliable source that mentions the lawsuit please? Blogs are not WP:RS. Hipocrite - «Talk» 22:59, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

And then what spurious reason for removing references to the case will you come up with for your third trick? Just let it go. Ben-w 23:27, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

PDF versions of the actual complaint are available widely on the web and linked to. Your BLP argument is in error. There is no conceivable reason to remove this information. Leave it. Ben-w 00:04, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

PDF versions of the complaint would be primary sources. Get a newspaper to write about it. Hipocrite - «Talk» 00:08, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes -- and the primary source provides a perfect verification of the case. You are taking the line about "material from primary sources" out of context. It is not that primary sources cannot be used or referred to. The information is relevant, public, and verified. Your attempt to subvert it by claiming it violatse the presumption in favor of privacy as specified in BLP is absurd and it is noteworthy that, although you said you'd get a third opinion, you did not. I don't know why you are trying to suppress this information but you should attempt to go through a dispute resolution channel first. Ben-w 00:11, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I filed at WP:3o here, and have have only reverted when you stopped discussing. I must insist on an apology. I dispute that the material is verified. There is no WP:RS who has mentioned the suit except for the filings, and the filings are primary sources, and not acceptable per WP:BLP. Hipocrite - «Talk» 00:14, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

"Stopped discussing"? What do you mean? I did not accept any of your arguments about BLP and I have explained why. I maintain that the information is public, it is the subject of much public discussion, it is verified with documentary evidence, and it is relevant. Ben-w 00:18, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

You wrote the following "And then what spurious reason for removing references to the case will you come up with for your third trick? Just let it go." I ignored your assumption of bad faith, and there was nothing left to respond to. So I determined that you had realized I was right. Please note that BLP requires there be realiable secondary sources for the article - I have asked repeatedly for a reliable secondary source - you have declined to provide this. Do you intend to provide a source, or are you just going to insist that such a source exists? Hipocrite - «Talk» 00:20, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

"If it is not documented by reliable third-party sources, leave it out.... Material from primary sources should generally not be used. For example, public records may include personal details such as home value, outcomes of civil court cases, traffic citations, arrest records, and vehicles and real estate owned. Use material only from reliable third-party sources. If X's arrest records are relevant to his notability, someone else will have written about them." That's what I'm looking for. Some reliable third-party source who has written about it. Hipocrite - «Talk» 00:22, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

That is a wilful misinterpretation of what I said. You are not right; I explained why and I did not retract what I said. Your invocation of the 'primary source' guideline is inappropriate for reasons which I have explained several times now; the person, the story, and the lawsuit are being volubly discussed in public; the primary source document is not the origin of this story, but it does support it. That is an entirely appropriate use of a primary source and one that does not violate BLP in any way.

I find it hard to assume bad faith when you claim that you interpreted my comment as an admission of error when it was quite clearly anything but, and you are insisting on removing accurate, sourced, cited, relevant content. Stephanie Adams did file that lawsuit. That is a fact, and it's relevant, it's being widely discussed and commented on, and it's supported by documentary evidence. Ben-w 00:30, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Please read BLP again - specifically this unbroken paragraph - "Material from primary sources should generally not be used. For example, public records may include personal details such as home value, outcomes of civil court cases, traffic citations, arrest records, and vehicles and real estate owned. Use material only from reliable third-party sources. If X's arrest records are relevant to his notability, someone else will have written about them." What is the reliable third-party source in this case? Hipocrite - «Talk» 00:33, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I can only explain it to you. I can't understand it for you. Ben-w 00:34, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

A link or harvard citation to the reliable source will be fine, please. Hipocrite - «Talk» 00:36, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

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

The fact that newspapers haven't yet found Ms. Adams's litigation the stuff to hold the front page for doesn't change either the facts or the evidence. Yes, a reliable third-party citation would be preferable, and one should generally use them for preference, but the absence of one does not invalidate anything of what I have said. The case I have made, and which you have failed to address, stands. The information is true: Stephanie Adams is suing BlogNYC for the reasons mentioned. It is relevant to an article on Ms. Adams -- that's beyond dispute. There is documentary evidence for this. The BLP guideline which you have invoked to censor the information is not appropriate here for reasons I have expressed, clearly, several times and which you have not attempted to refute. Your attempted justifications for censoring this information fail on every count. If you can provide a reason to delete this accurate, verified, relevant information from the article, do so. To date, you have not.

If we have an article about Ms. Adams at all -- and VfD says we do -- then this information unquestionably belongs here. Ben-w 00:44, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to be clear - since you appear to believe that WP:BLP does not apply, I intend to follow the rules as required per WP:BLP - I must remove the poorly sourced negative information from the page - "Editors should remove any unsourced or poorly sourced negative material from biographies of living persons and their talk pages, and may do so without discussion; this is also listed as an exception to the three-revert rule." While I intend to revert this information untill you follow WP:BLP and provide a reliable third-party source, I will report you for a violation of 3rr shortly. Hipocrite - «Talk» 00:49, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

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

Request for Assistance Filed

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

Revionist History

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

Where is the source? I only see a link to that blog? That's not a reliable source. Garion96 (talk) 03:24, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Here's something. You say some way above: The fact that newspapers haven't yet found Ms. Adams's litigation the stuff to hold the front page for doesn't change either the facts or the evidence. . . . If we have an article about Ms. Adams at all -- and VfD says we do -- then this information unquestionably belongs here. Another fact, as I hazily understand it (I don't claim to have read all the above) is that no newspaper yet identified has yet found this litigation the stuff to hold any part of any page. Yet another is that WP isn't a newspaper. So where's the urgency? (It's not as if a new cure for AIDs has been reported.) Why not wait, see what happens, and then, if/when it gets into the newspapers, edit accordingly? Yes, Adams passed AfD (probably on the strength of appearing in Playboy over a decade ago); I don't see how this means that her melodramas as a minor celeb must be added in "real-time" even if they're verifiable. As it is, WP comes off looking even more voracious for titillating trivia than the tabloids do. -- Hoary 03:30, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Correct, so she sued someone, and only the blog she supposedly sued mentions it. What's the hurry here. I know the strength of a wiki can be to be up to date, but in this case we should wait till or if a reliable source mentions it. (which should actually always be the case) Garion96 (talk) 03:36, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Set aside who "has" to do what, our sense of urgency, how titillating this is, how "voracious" WP might look, what the strengths of the wiki format are, what the nuances of a sentence in what policy could be and how deeply we gave into our own navels. Focus. Relevant and significant factual information about the subject of a legitimate article has been introduced to that article, supported by solid documentary evidence. You wish to delete that information. That is not right. Ben-w 04:02, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

What is the third-party reliable source per WP:BLP? Hipocrite - «Talk» 04:27, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

We are obliged to rely on the court document in this case. WP:BLP states that one should generally not do so, but we have no other reliable, documentary evidence. Further, WP:BLP's caution against relying on a primary source relates to issues which do not apply here, as is made clear by its position and context in that policy. Maybe if I explain it again you might try to understand. You will, of course, continue to parrot your one line of WP:BLP out of context and continue to claim that as justification for removing factual, verified and relevant information. It is not. You will not attempt to refute what I'm saying, you'll just bleat WP:BLP again and delete information that you know full well to be accurate and verified. Ben-w 05:12, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Focus. Relevant and significant factual information about the subject of a legitimate article has been introduced to that article, supported by solid documentary evidence. Our focuses produce different results. Mine tells me that, whatever the relevance of this information and the solidity of its documentation, it's of dubious significance. A few months, weeks, or conceivably even days from now, its significance may be a lot clearer, and the evidence for it a lot more compelling. So relax till then. -- Hoary 06:41, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Protected (again)

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

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

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

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

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

User's first contribution. Hipocrite - «Talk» 15:51, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I dunno about you, but I'm not too concerned about whether or not a contribution is a user's first or fifteen thousandth. If they've got something worthwhile to say, I look forward to reading it; if they don't, well ... that's not so good (and we've got a couple of users with 10k+ edits who make the ol' peepers glaze over, so that's not pure rhetoric). fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 16:01, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

It's not a matter of "caving [in to] bullying tactics", Thinkfreely. I was a bit flippant in my earlier note, so I can see how it might have been misunderstood by someone not familiar with Wikipedia. Fair enough, I'll try again: Wikipedia and its contributors have tremendous power to cause an individual a lot of damage through carelessness or, in some cases, malice. We strive to be sensitive to the feelings of those we write about, not merely because it avoids complaints and lawsuits, but also because It's The Right Thing To Do. If there are true, verifiable comments that one would expect to find in an encyclopaedia's biography of an individual, then we'll include them whether that individual likes it or not — but until it's proven that potentialy defamatory comments are true, verifiable, and necessary for a biography, we play the "better safe than sorry" game, particularly when we know the subject of an article reads the article and is liable to get upset if we spread rumours about her.

If you still think that's somehow objectionable behaviour on our part, well, I'm sorry to hear that, but there's not much I can do to help you. We strive to write an encyclopaedia, not a gossip sheet, and we aren't in the business of printing whatever J. Random Blog says about someone unless it can be proven to be true, independent, verifiable, and significant. Welcome to Wikipedia! fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 16:01, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Presumption in favor of privacy

Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons says:

Presumption in favor of privacy

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

Public figures

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

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

Wikipedia:Third_opinion

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

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

IF you really are Neal Johnston, then it would be easier for you to get an online magazine/tabloid to cover the story in order to facilitate having a reputable source and third party coverage that would satisfy all of the policies here. Then again, your IP is just a Speakeasy IP, so there's no validation that you're the real Mr. Johnston. ju66l3r 20:50, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Oh? I don't call "an online magazine/tabloid" "a reputable source". If you really are Neal Johnston, I suggest you ignore the rather feverish speculation and tittle-tattle here at Wikipedia (which, incidentally, lacks a central authority for verifying claims) and instead concentrate on the legal task in front of you. -- Hoary 21:01, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

I was unable to find any record of the case on the state's Unified Court System as of one week after it was allegedly filed, so either their system is broken or the case doesn't exist. The system is supposed to be "updated" 4 times daily. Searching for Mr. Johnston returns a single New York County case from a few years ago. If this search engine found the case, would that qualify as a verifiable and reputable third-party source? It certainly would be distinguishable from the court filing itself, so I suggest that it is at least a third-party source. --Beefyt 01:13, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

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

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

1. Please sign your contributions. (Just hit the "~" key four times in a row.)
2. The usual spelling is "kowtow".
3. Your suggested name is rather verbose. That aside, what is it that you are suggesting should be so renamed?
4. You seem to miss the point that this melodrama in the life of a very minor celeb is still unfolding, and that Wikipedia doesn't even purport to be a tabloid newspaper with up-to-the-moment celeb gossip. Moreover, the melodrama is unfolding in the US, where affronts to dignity and related litigation are routine. This is not to deny that developments might become hilarious, even noteworthy; let's wait and see if that happens. -- Hoary 03:49, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

1. I was suggesting you change the name of Wikipedia itself. As I still think it's deplorable that this article was changed.
2. Normally I may even agree with you and fuddlemark, but the point is and I believe the point of the other people adding this lawsuit is that it seems apparent that Stephanie Adams, or someone acting on her behalf spends a great deal of time on the internet trying as hard as she possibly can to bully and intimidate anyone who writes anything about her that she does not agree with. She has done it to Wikipedia. She has done it to Richard LeCour. She is now doing it with BlogNYC and the last part is a fact, verifiable by court documents.
3. I believe that is exactly the kind of information that belongs on Wikipedia and should be protected by the admins BECAUSE you may not find it anywhere else, not in spite of it. I believe that was the goal of Bill W.'s original editing. If you can't see that then yes, I do believe that is a very sad side to take on what I once believed to be an open minded publication that sought to publish truths, rather than half-truths and mystery based on ignorance, and fear of libel. --Thinkfreely 23:46, 22 July 2006 (UTC) ... contributed by 72.229.137.132

1. Adams doesn't seem to have any interest in Wikipedia other than its article on her. Renaming the whole of Wikipedia because of alleged lack of resistance to her alleged influence on this one, very minor article on a subject of very minor importance seems a bit extreme. (If so-called "creation scientists" succeeded in degrading the article on evolution into unscientific silliness, that would be important. If that happens, let me know.) Or anyway I think that the subject of this article is of very minor importance -- do you perhaps disagree?
2. For the sake of argument, I'll agree with you. The verifiability will not decrease if we wait a few months, weeks, even days. So where's the rush?
3. Wikipedia doesn't claim to publish truths. It also doesn't purport to be a newspaper. It tries (though of course it often fails) to publish verifiable facts, as an encyclopedia.

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

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

Deleting the list of (e)books

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

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

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

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

The article is about Adams as a person, not just her Playboy appearance. Once a person's notability is established, information that is not notable in itself, but is important to describing the person, can be appropriate and even important to put in the article - for example, everyone has a date of birth, which, except for a millenium baby or royalty order of inheritance, is generally not notable in itself, but is certainly very important to their article. Since her Playboy appearance, Adams seems to be making her living as a spirituality author. (Don't know how successful she is, but she certainly seems to be making a serious effort at it, she has clearly written a lot.) That makes a list of her works sufficiently important to the article. They're not trivia, because they're not trivia to her. They may be trivia in the global sense, but then so are 90% of the individual sentences in most articles. Is G.W.Bush's birthplace the reason for his notability? Surely not - but should we then strike it from his article?

The reason the list of books looks like it takes up most of the article is that there isn't much else in . There was more, once, (compare [16] or [17]) but it was apparently the subject of edit warring and controversy, and Jimbo blew it away with instructions to start afresh, with carefully verifiable info only.[18] That threw cold water on the serious editing effort. The reason the books made it back and the rest hasn't yet, is that the existence of the books is easily verifiable, per multiple reliable sources (major vendors, including Amazon). The rest that can be easily found is info from her site, and, essentially, gossip columns, the reliability of which has been attacked. For most articles that might be enough, but the specter of the heavy hand of our founder has, so far, discouraged other people from adding it. Maybe you'll be the first to add better information? AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 14:16, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree with AnonEMouse. If she has an article, then it seems pointless to remove her books section. Garion96 (talk) 19:41, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

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

Please sign your contributions to discussion here. This is easy: just hit "~" four times in a row.

While I agree that most of these books seem to be self-published (and would add that their content seems to be complete tripe), I don't think that either "public benefit" or "valuable information" is a criterion for inclusion in WP. Consider for example the featured article for 1 October. -- Hoary 02:34, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

True, I didn't realised there was more discussion on the books, I thought it only was this section. But see also the section below, Wikipedia is not a democracy. Concerning the books, I see no point on removing them, we do have an article on her, so why not mention the books. She did wrote them. Garion96 (talk) 01:45, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Not a democracy

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

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

Biography

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

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

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

Fair use?

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

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

Another's:

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

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

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

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

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

The image in question comes with the comment

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Disable Anonymous Editing?

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

There's something in what you say, O contributor who would thereby ban him/herself.

Certainly the edit summaries are screwy. Consider this one: Reference 5 and several other media acknowledge lawsuit is against taxi, police & city. Due to his personal vendetta against the subject matter, Sean Martin should in fact be banned from editing. If somebody (registered user, mere IP) thinks that somebody else should be banned from editing, then that person should follow the regular channels. -- Hoary 23:00, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I realized that I would ban myself with that policy, but I don't plan on spending any more time on this page, so I'm OK with that. I think it would be quite fair. :) 205.158.128.2 01:56, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

We don't permanently semi-protect any pages from anonymous editing; it goes against the spirit of wikipedia.--Isotope23 21:01, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

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."[[19]]
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:[[20]]

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. [[21]] "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, Durova^Charge! 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. Durova^Charge! 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. 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.[22] 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. Durova^Charge! 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. Durova^Charge! 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)