Talk:Kat Von D

Jewish

Is she? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.120.93.246 (talk) 14:54, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Apparently not. ;-) 64.142.90.34 (talk) 09:57, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Picture

someone should put up a picture of her...she's a nice looking woman

her real Name ?

are there more details about her name ? I mean, according to the article, her real name is Katherine von Drachenberg, while her father is named René Drachenberg. Where does the "von" come from ? Or is her real name just Katherine Drachenberg, without the "von" ? Also, it would be interesting to know, if she has some german ancestors, because Drachenberg is a german Name (translated into english the name means Dragon-Mountain) --87.177.223.142 22:53, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Tattoos

How do people get a tat from Kat? :-D -Maria —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 4.153.29.65 (talk) 03:37, 10 April 2007 (UTC).

Every episode gives instructions for applying to get a tattoo on the show. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.146.184.9 (talk) 13:42, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Divorce

I believe that she and Oliver Peck are now divorced. 209.74.0.248 03:52, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Is there any source of this? I've looked around the net and found nothing saying they were divorced. It seems that they may be in the process of getting divorced, but I haven't found anything stating they are.

She discusses it somewhere during an interview with Tom Green currently on her myspace,

http://profile.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=user.viewprofile&friendid=554683&MyToken=6b8ade61-db4d-4dae-a2ea-be6ff4d13d8d

and on Green's blog,

http://tomgreen.com/blog/

She says in the opening of her show "I'm single now..."

And, for what it's worth, her MySpace profile says singleSeaphoto 04:12, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

She straight up said she was single on one of the first (if not the first) episode of LA Ink. I heard it from her lips! --Naha|^(talk) 04:14, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

She is no longer dating Orbi! They split, and now she is seeing Nikki Sixx and claims she has never been so in love. Check out her myspace picures for proof. 3/7/08 sarah s

MySpace is gossip, guys. She may be proclaiming to the world that he "owns her heart", but it's still gossip, whether there are pictures or not. We all know they're together, but until it meets Wiki's source standards, it should be left out. Sugarnova (talk) 13:52, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Ethnic identity

People have been inserting everything from "Mexican" and "Mexican-American" to "Argentinian-American" here. Barring some statement from her about what she would like to be identified, I think the following are in order from least to most true:

1. Mexican
2. Mexican-American
3. German
4. Argentinian
5. American
6. German-American
7. Argentinian-American
8. German- and Argentinian-American

It seems to be the last one is the most consistent with conventions on identifying a person's ethnicity but perhaps other people have different views. -- fourdee ᛇᚹᛟ 00:33, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.32.10.62 (talk) 15:43, 16 February 2008 (UTC) 

fix please!

This page is severely screwed up this morning -- it starts out looking like vandalism but then perhaps just some severe coding issues -- someone with more experience please fix! -JR 74.223.3.210 13:07, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Miami Ink dismissal

It is speculated that Von D was summarily dismissed from Miami Ink by Ami James due to personality conflicts.

It's not speculation--it took place over several episodes of the show and was explicitly stated. Andchimeras 16:14, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

That line, I suspect, is the remnant of something from the Miami Ink article. There was a rumor that her dismissal was staged so TLC could start a new program. -- Jelly Soup 08:00, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism

I'm thinking that we might need some temporary page protection action around here. There has been a steady rash of IPs vandalizing the article. -- Jelly Soup 08:42, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

COI edits

As several edits made by a user whose name include Kyanna, such as the claim that Kat is dating someone named Kyanna, were made and without any reliable sources, I feel it is imperative to reverse such conflict of interest edits. Please provide verification of any factual claims, and make sure not to violate Wikipedia's rules regarding editing subjects which you are personally connected to. Thank you, VanTucky ^talk 03:02, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism or over-the-top PR?

There is more in the entry about KvD than many people might really want to know. Hard to tell whether it's the work of a detractor (see the second paragraph of the Biography section) or an obsessive fan. 68.53.88.245 (talk) 16:36, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Appearances section

This section needs major work - can someone more skilled than me try to sort out the coding, maybe using some tables? Thanks.--ukexpat (talk) 01:44, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Pregnant?

In the commercial for the next LA Ink season on TLC, it shows her telling everyone she is pregnant. Should this be added? 65.95.196.18 (talk) 19:34, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism

24.253.51.173 (talk) has twice added vandalism to this page such as "Kat also has a tat of a black and white penis on her left butt cheek. The tat is a life size replica of Afro-American porn star Alex Steele's anatomy. Kat briefly hooked-up with Steele whom she met at the Adult Video Awards. " and other nonsense. I reverted him (I'm taking a wild guess that this is a 'him') again. Keep an eye out for this as it seems to be happening a bit. Rabbi Jesus Muhammed (talk) 14:03, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I also reverted a bunch of porno comments, can someone please protect this site so the sad people with too much time on their hands can't vandalize it anymore?

Thanks, Rhian Gittins —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.128.192.8 (talk) 21:57, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I got rid of the Alex Steele comment...the meth comments should be gone as well. Sugarnova (talk) 15:42, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Handling the bio of a living person is a delicate job, and the bio page should not be subjected to vandalism. The trouble right now is that due to the claims of other people -- not wikipedia vandals -- Von D is embroiled in a controversy about antisemitic remarks, and even if attempts are made to protect the page from porn vandlaism and mentions of drug abuse, the newsworthy controversy should remain online. 64.142.90.34 (talk) 08:43, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Controversy

they claim Chris Garver is saying it's true..Kat gave Chris that picture. so who knows...sad if it's true —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.32.10.62 (talk) 15:45, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

The fact that Chris Garver made the accusation has been deleted from the article speedily, every time it was put in. Garver has a wiki page, and the mention of him is legitimate and is also linked to his wiki page. I think that the Kat Von D article is ready to be overseen by an administrator who can check it for Conflict of Interest, because the repeated deletions look like CoI, especially when they are edited by Kat von D herself. I realize that reality TV thrives on fake controversy, but, alas for Ms Von D, this controversy is a bit too real for her to handle gracefully, and by deleting Garver's name, it appears that she or her helpers are hoping to make it seem as if the accusation of antisemitism came out of nowhere. But it did come out of somewhere -- Chris Garver's mouth. 64.142.90.34 (talk) 08:38, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Removing content

Neutral, sourced content should not be removed because one person doesn't agree with it. If someone has an issue with the inclusion of the alleged antisemitic section (ie "Controversy"), those issues should have first been raised on the talk page before removing it. Comparing this article to Britney Spears' is hardly a great argument because her article does in fact cover her numerous personal problems. Those problems just don't happen to included alleged antisemitism. The present content regarding Von D's alleged comments present both sides and, like it or not, is worthy of mentioning. Pinkadelica (talk) 02:32, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I just removed the stuff sourced to TMZ. TMZ is not a reliable source. It's a source of gossip. Re-inserting such material without *reliable* sources violates WP:LIVING and is a blockable offense. The onus is on those wanting inclusion to discuss first, and cite sources, before adding it back. --Rob (talk) 05:51, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Who says TMZ cannot be a reliable source? Whether what they write is newsworthy is completely separate from whether or not it's true. In their article on the allegations they have the following:

TLC gave TMZ this statement: "A publicity photo was brought to the network's attention eight months ago that contained extraordinarily offensive language. A full investigation was immediately conducted to determine whether anyone associated with the network was involved. Kat vehemently denied authoring the text and after completing the investigation, it was determined that insufficient evidence existed to conclude that she had. Therefore, no disciplinary action was taken. The network always takes these matters seriously and follows what we believe to be an appropriate course of action as dictated by the circumstances and available information."

Are you suggesting they invented this quote from TLC? Obviously it's true that there were allegations made against Kat Von D. There's absolutely no justification for removing this section from the page. And excluding TMZ as a source does not make any sense.68.72.108.110 (talk) 23:01, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

I have replaced the controversy section. It belongs in the page, and the reference is perfectly acceptable. 68.72.97.159 (talk) 01:33, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Mad TV sketch

Add to page?: She appeared on MADtv on April 5, 2008 in a sketch with Bobby Lee and Arden Myrin. -Herenthere (Talk) 20:07, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Although trivia is interesting, for some reason it is frowned upon here. Many articles have had their trivia sections removed by Admins, although a few people continue to add tidbits of trivia to an article every now and then. -Sweet Pinkette (talk) 10:06, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Neutrality

Under the Controversy heading, this portion was slightly impartial. By using words like "accused" and conveniently failing to include other facts that were made public, readers, like me, will gather that she was definitely framed.

If this portion is reverted I will slap a notice on the main page about this article not being neutral. Again, you do not use words like "accused" when being impartial and then leave important pieces of information. This is not your own personal web page and others have the right to know everything that was reported, not just the parts that make your idol seem less guilty. -Sweet Pinkette (talk) 10:06, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

While I have no problems with your edit, I'm not completely sure what was wrong with it the way it was. I think all the information was in there. The real issue with this page is that the Controversy section keeps disappearing altogether, with editors giving various flimsy reasons for the removal. It had been missing for awhile until I replaced it. If someone chooses to revert your edit that's one thing, but if the section vanishes again an administrator definitely needs to step in. 68.72.97.237 (talk) 03:56, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, I haven't been to the main article since my last edit in 2006 and I don't follow the celebrity gossip, so I didn't even hear about this news story. When I read it here it gave me the impression that she was just outright accused, with little or no evidence. I felt it was slightly one-sided, omitting the fact that both Garver and James, who have worked with her for years, confirmed her involvement.

Also, there is no valid reason to remove the Controversy section. Completely removing a section of an article, especially when it is cited and significant to the article, is considered vandalism. From personal experience, there is only so much the Admins can do except warn or suspend the user(s). But I can assure whoever is removing the section that every time it gets taken down it will be reverted and they risk being IP banned. -Sweet Pinkette (talk) 08:58, 18 April 2008 (UTC)