User talk:AquilaUK

Hello AquilaUK, and Welcome to Wikipedia!

Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. Also, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement.

Happy editing! Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 22:14, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Getting started
Introduction The five pillars of Wikipedia How to edit a page
Finding your way around
Table of contents Department directory
Editing articles
How to develop an article Manual of Style

Getting help
Frequently asked questions Cheatsheet Where to ask a question Help pages New contributors' help page
How you can help
Contributing to Wikipedia Community Portal Follow Wikipedia etiquette Practice civility

May 2008

Hi. With regards to your most recent changes to DJ Sassy, removing references to leave material unverified is not consistent with policy. If you would like to suggest alternative reliable sources that are independent of the subject of the article, it may be appropriate to substitute. As to some of the other changes you seem to be proposing, there are factors to consider before implementation. With regards to the subject's name, for instance, while the article is appropriately located in the most popularly known name, it is Wikipedia's standard to use a subject's name in the lead paragraph in biographical articles (see Wikipedia:Manual of Style (biographies)). If the name is not widely disseminated, there may be some cases where it can be withheld for privacy concerns, as set out at the biographies of living persons guidelines, but that is not the case here. This is a situation encountered, for instance, with victims of crime or natural disasters. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 15:38, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for contacting me about this. :) I've responded at my talk page. I hope we'll be able to reach an agreement that will satisfy both your needs and Wikipedia's. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 17:04, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, as an addition, please note that the first response on the page was made by somebody else. I'm sure you'll realize that when you see the signature, but it isn't my tone of discussion, and I do not want to get our conversation off on a bad foot. Even though it is my talk page, it is open for expressions of opinion by others. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 18:22, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You have a response. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 22:14, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Just wanted to let you know that our conversation has been automatically archived for inactivity. You can still read it and my last response, here. If you wish to discuss it further, please open a new section on my user talk page as I may not see any additions to the archive. Thanks. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 11:50, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Blanking legitimate content

Hi. Removing references from articles is not regarded as productive. Please don't blank legitimate content, as you did to DJ Sassy. Thanks. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 20:24, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Spam in Sassy Pandez

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Sassy Pandez, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Sassy Pandez is blatant advertising for a company, product, group, service or person that would require a substantial rewrite in order to become an encyclopedia article.

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Sassy Pandez, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. To see the user who deleted the page, click here CSDWarnBot (talk) 23:10, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion of Sassy Pandez

A tag has been placed on Sassy Pandez, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article seems to be blatant advertising which only promotes a company, product, group, service or person and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become an encyclopedia article. Please read the guidelines on spam as well as the Wikipedia:Business' FAQ for more information.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you. Quartermaster (talk) 21:01, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Some clarification: I'm not sure why a separate article for Sassy Pandez is even needed, since one already exists for the same person under DJ Sassy (and you've even edited it). Do you mean to create a re-direct so that when someone searches for Sassy Pandez they'll go to the existing DJ Sassy article? If you need help to do that, just ask. --Quartermaster (talk) 21:14, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

August 2008

If you have a close connection to some of the people, places or things you have written about on Wikipedia, you may have a conflict of interest. In keeping with Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy, edits where there is a conflict of interest, or where such a conflict might reasonably be inferred from the tone of the edit and the proximity of the editor to the subject, are strongly discouraged. If you have a conflict of interest, you should avoid or exercise great caution when:

editing or creating articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with;
participating in deletion discussions about articles related to your organization or its competitors;
linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam); and,
avoid breaching relevant policies and guidelines, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, verifiability of information, and autobiographies.

For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have conflict of interest, please see our frequently asked questions for businesses. For more details about what, exactly, constitutes a conflict of interest, please see our conflict of interest guidelines. Thank you. Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 21:45, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have created a redirect from Sassy Pandez to DJ Sassy. With respect to your ongoing edits at DJ Sassy, given your official interest in the subject of this article, as you expressed to me here, please read and follow the steps above. If you wish to discuss controversial edits to the article, you should do so at the talk page. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 21:53, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your note

Since you may not come back before my response to your note is automatically archived, I'm duplicating my response here. If you'd like to discuss the matter further, please let me know at my talk page. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:19, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Given your connection to her, you might create new information in a sandbox in your userspace or at the article's talk page as suggested here and seek feedback first, either at WP:COI or from an editor who has contributed to the article in the past. I'd be happy to help. It is certainly possible to move her article to a new name if there is sufficient widespread independent sourcing to verify that the new name is how she is widely known. (see Wikipedia:Naming conventions (common names)) However, while it would be great to update with new information, there's no reason to remove older, reliably sourced material just because she has rebranded herself. We should be able to make that amply clear by the text to help avoid confusing her with other DJs. For example, Steven Demetre Georgiou became famous as Cat Stevens before renaming himself Yusuf Islam. He is still best known as Cat Stevens, and his article is located there. If you look up Yusuf Islam on Wikipedia, though, it will take you to that article, and the article itself sets out the history of his names. If you decide to use a sandbox, let me know, and I'll explain how this is done. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:10, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Duplicating again, just in case. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 01:36, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've created one for you at User:AquilaUK/sandbox. Feel free to work on your version there, and I'll be happy to offer feedback when you're done. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 01:35, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, AquilaUK. You have new messages at Moonriddengirl's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Continuing conflict

I have restored the article to its state prior to your removal of sourced information in September and addition of self-published and promotional material. Since it is not sourced to the subject herself, I have restored the reference to Nelly's Apple Bottom line. I will ask you one last time to abide by the conflict of interest guidelines. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 00:27, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but I don't understand what you mean by self-published and promotional material. As far as I am aware, all of the material included was published by other people originally, although some of it is now hosted on Sassy's website. Can you give me some examples of what the problem is?

And I don't know what you mean by the comment about Apple Bottoms "not sourced to the subject herself"?

Maybe I am just completely missing the point, but I was merely trying to update the page with new information and references to give an accurate representation of what is happening in Sassy's career, rather than including lots of old, out-of-date information and references that are of little relevance. And I thought that would not be a problem in terms of a Conflict of Interest, since I did my best to keep the page as factual and non-promotional as I could.

I would appreciate your clarification on all this, since I am thoroughly confused. Thanks very much. AquilaUK (talk) 02:42, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that the material is hosted on Sassy Pandez's own site. If it is originally published elsewhere, it needs to be sourced to that original publication. Self-published sources are not reliable, as we cannot verify their accuracy. This is not a "reliable source."

Another problem is that you are again removing sourced material. I have explained to you in the past that Wikipedia creates a comprehensive biography of its subjects; we are not a resume site hosting information on what she is currently doing. Her previous activities and sources that discuss them do not lose relevance because she is not doing them now.

The guideline sets out the kinds of edits that are noncontroversial from individuals who have a conflict, as you do. It can be found at Wikipedia:COI#Non-controversial edits. These include

Removing spam and reverting vandalism.
Deleting content that violates Wikipedia's biography of living persons policy.
Fixing spelling and grammar errors.
Reverting or removing their own COI edits. Cleaning up your own mess is allowed and encouraged.
Making edits that have been agreed to on the talk page.
Adding citations, especially when another editor has requested them.

Otherwise, you should not be directly editing the article, but requesting edits at the article's talk as set out here. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 16:47, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wherever possible, I have tried to use references and links to other websites, but the problem I have is that most of Sassy's work is not published on the internet at all, or is only present on the relevant websites for a short period of time until the event has taken place. There is then no record of Sassy's involvement in the event, apart from the publicity material which the clients have produced, and that is why all of the flyers are on Sassy's website as a permanent record. Most of them simply do not exist anywhere else online. How can I address this?

You say that Wikipedia aims to create a comprehensive biography of its subjects, but unless there is a way to include information which was produced by third-parties, but is not currently hosted by them online, then the restricted information that can be used creates a distorted impression, which is in fact far from comprehensive or balanced, and is quite possibly detrimental.

I would be grateful for your feedback on the above. AquilaUK (talk) 17:05, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I may have inadvertently misled you with the term comprehensive. What our biographies are intended to comprehend is the scope of an individual's activities related to his or her notability. To determine that, we look to reliable, uninvolved sources. If a newspaper or magazine has covered a show, then it can be presumed to be notable enough for inclusion...as, say, with the television appearance on Poor Little Rich Girls, which can be cited to many sources. If no reliable source has covered the event, then it may not be appropriate to include it. Publication on event websites does not help. These are not "third parties", as they, too, are connected to the event. Flyers are inherently promotional.

To take a specific example, if Sassy's djing at 2009's "City Alive" is notable within the context of that event, it should be referenced by somebody who has no interest in promoting her or it: and, in fact, a check of google news shows me that it is. If you are interested in developing the article, you should note such information at the article's talk page with a link to the reliable source that reported on it. Add {{edit request}}, and somebody who does not work for her will review it and add it if they agree it is proper.

The article here must conform to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. You are welcome to help ensure that it remains current so long as you do so within those policies and guidelines. As her webmaster, you can of course put whatever you like on her website, which is — as you know — linked from our article. Any reader of Wikipedia interested in her is able to go to her website and see what information she may have chosen to put on the website about her activities.

Having found a reliable source, I'll add the City Alive! information back into the article, as I did the Apple Bottom representation. If there are other notable events that have received media coverage, they can also be included...but you should note them at the article's talk. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 17:26, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

One point that should be changed in the article is the inclusion of the name "DJ Sassy P". Although this name was used by Sassy some years ago, it is not any more, and you will note that it is not mentioned in any recent articles on the internet. As I mentioned before, she stopped using that name because of potential conflicts with a number of other DJs around the world, who used very similar names. Sassy is therefore now only referred to as Sassy Pandez in all of her events, although the other name does still come up from time to time, and I strongly suspect that this is because it is in this Wikipedia article and comes up in search engine results.

I do find the restrictions imposed by the Wikipedia guidelines quite frustrating, and in my opinion (whic is worthless, I know) the article does suffer as a result, and therefore ultimately so does Sassy. Clearly that is not your problem, but if so much of Sassy's best work is to be excluded from the article, then it might actually be better to just get remove all of the details in the article and simply reduce it to the very first sentence (minus DJ Sassy P).

Sassy Pandez of London is an international Hip hop, RnB, Reggaeton, Dancehall and Club Classics DJ and model.

Keep the link to her website, the ChannelNewsAsia link you just found, and the Metro "Apple Bottoms" link, but get rid of everything else. In this case, there will still a Wikipedia entry for Sassy Pandez, albeit with minimal information, and the single statement is general enough to require little or no updates, and so the issue of my Conflict of Interest will not arise.

I would be interested in your thoughts on the above. AquilaUK (talk) 18:04, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The name is referenced in a number of the sources used, for instance [1]. However, there should be no problem with altering that first line to read "formerly known". If Sassy's best work has coverage in reliable sources, we can certainly include that. But we can't exclude work that is reliably sourced just because she does not regard it as her best. If she is notable enough to be included on Wikipedia, then our coverage is meant to reflect what those reliable sources do say. If the material is neutral, reliably sourced and all related to her notability, then it belongs in the article.

There is nothing currently in this article that I can see that is not neutral. I fear some of the sources are still not reliable, but I expect that they are not the ones to which you object. This, for example, quite probably fails our reliable sources guideline. However, you are welcome to detail the material to which you object and the reasons why at the article's talk or at one of the fora created for addressing such issues. Biographical material such as her working as an advice columnist or appearing on a television show is unlikely to be removed without very good reason. She evidently accepted both jobs, they are sourced, they are related to her notability, and there's nothing in our biographies of living persons policy that makes neutrally reporting them problematic.

In addition to the recommendations at WP:COI, there is also Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Help which may explain a little more how biographies develop and what to do about concerns related to their content.

In the meantime, in case it will be of use to you, I will be happy to again invite additional feedback from the conflict of interest noticeboard. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 19:01, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The biggest problem that we have is the continued use of the "DJ Sassy P" name. It's difficult to explain in a forum like this, but it does cause us some issues, which is why we have been trying to make sure it is not referenced in highly visible sources on the internet, like Wikipedia. It's continued inclusion in the Wikipedia article, especially so close to the top of the page, means that it shows up in search engine results, and that just continues to make things difficult for us : people see it and then continue to use that name, even when we ask them not to. Even just changing the text to "formerly known as" I don't believe will really help, given the lack of basic English skills of many of our clients.

If that name were removed, along with the older references that include it, then I think that most of the rest of the article would not be a problem. The first paragraph (minus "DJ Sassy P") would be fine. The DJ section is ok. And the first paragraph of the modelling section is ok as well. If we were to remove the second paragraph and the "Other Work" section then that would work.

Note that I did amend a couple of the reference links in my edits yesterday, because those URLs have changed since last January, so those will need to be restored. The Maxim cover link is one example, since the website no longer has that cover on the front page, although the image is still included within the website itself. AquilaUK (talk) 19:33, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So, your current problem is that you do not want any reference to the name she primarily used for the first part of her career, and you want to eliminate reference to some of her jobs? With respect to the latter, why? As to the former, do you realize that the 2nd top hit on Google for "DJ Sassy P" is her website? This does make it difficult to understand what issues there may be. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 19:40, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The issues with the name are legal ones, which is why I cannot discuss them. Sorry, but that is just how it is. And the older jobs obviously link to that name, which is the problem.

I wasn't aware of the Google hit for "DJ Sassy P". djsassy.com is the old website, which is not used or updated any more, and everything from there should be re-directed to the new website sassypandez.com : type in www.djsassy.com and see what happens - it takes you straight to the new website. The site is only still active because we do still get some clients using the old email addresses and so the site has to be live to re-direct these to the new emails addresses. I will have to look into why that page is still showing up. Interestingly enough, if you just type in dj sassy p into Google (without the "quotes", like most people would), sassypandez.com comes up first and the old djsassy.com biography is at number 5. AquilaUK (talk) 20:10, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As I said I would, I have brought up the matter at the conflict of interest noticeboard. We'll see what feedback may follow. I doubt that there will be consensus to remove sourced information on the basis of an unspecified legal concern. If you think these concerns are pressing, you may wish to contact some of the volunteers at the private channels set up for addressing such matters. See Wikipedia:Contact us/Article problem/Factual error (from subject) for more information. While this is not a concern about an error, that is still the point of contact for issues too sensitive to publicly disclose. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 21:22, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How long does this "conflict of interest noticeboard" process take? Hours? Days? Weeks?

The legal concerns are not "pressing", otherwise I would have raised them earlier, but it is an ongoing issue and the continued presence of the DJ Sassy P name in the article does not help with this, especially when other people see it so prominently displayed in Wikipedia. Maybe we could consider a compromise, at least in the short term, and move the "DJ Sassy P" name from the opening sentence to further down the article. Maybe at the end of the DJ section, with a comment like "In her early career she was known as DJ Sassy P"? That potentially goes some way to addressing both of our concerns on this issue. Could that work? AquilaUK (talk) 21:42, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is entirely variable. The people who address issues there are, like most parts of Wikipedia, volunteers who choose where to contribute. Typically, alternate names are included in the lead. People who search for "DJ Sassy P" on Wikipedia will wind up at the article, and it is generally preferred to let them know why soon after the article opens. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 23:13, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Given the shortness of the article, moving "DJ Sassy P" from the start of the first sentence to the DJ section is not a big change for the reader, but it makes a big difference when using a search engine and looking for "Sassy Pandez", because typically it is the first line or so from a web page that is displayed in the search engine. So that would really help me. And in practice, how many people will be searching for "DJ Sassy P" in Wikipedia, compared to "Sassy Pandez"? Probably very few I suspect, as that is not the name that she now uses in her work. It is also in fact misleading to include that name in the first sentence at the start of the aricle, because that imples it was used for all of her work, when in fact it was only ever used for DJing (not modelling) : as such, it would be more appropriate to include it in the DJ section anyway. AquilaUK (talk) 23:59, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Conflict of Interest noticeboard feedback

All right. Another administrator has reviewed the matter. To briefly summarize, while finding it a reasonable compromise to lower the prominence of the alternate name by moving it to the DJ section, he does not believe the removal of sourced content is appropriate. He points out "the law of unintended consequences"; unfortunately, once an article is secured on Wikipedia it may not develop in ways that the subject would prefer. As long as the information is neutral, reliably sourced & related to the subject's notability, Wikipedia is likely to include it.

Since I'm sure you've read it thoroughly, as we have discussed it now for more than a year, but I'll note that the COI guideline does contain resources for dealing with problems. It includes a link for dealing with factual errors: Wikipedia:Contact us/Article problem/Factual error (from enterprise). And it sets out the procedure by which you may contribute to the article: "An editor with a conflict of interest who wishes to suggest substantive changes to an article should use that article's talk page. When making a request, please consider disclosing your conflict of interest to avoid misunderstanding." I thought you were familiar with this when you made your note here, but evidently based on your subsequent edits to the article I misunderstood you. Please follow this procedure for future substantive changes. (The kind of changes that do not require this procedure would include reverting vandalism; removing unsourced attacks on her or negative information from unusable sources like personal bogs; correcting typos; adding citations to reliable, unrelated sources.)

Just to make sure that there are no misunderstandings on the other side, I'll note that it is not my approval you need. While I do monitor the article to ensure that it remains compliant with policies, I do not own it any more than any other editor. If you put your requested changes at the article's talk page with {{requested edit}} (brackets and all), any contributor who does not have a conflict may note it and respond.

I'll go ahead and move her alternative name to the DJ section.

I'll keep your talk page on my watchlist for a time, but I do sometimes miss responses. I watch over 2000 pages on Wikipedia. I appreciate your giving me the heads up on your first note above, which I had overlooked. You are welcome to nudge me at my talk page any time you see I am active and not responding. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:18, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to misunderstand the purpose of Wikipedia

We are trying to compile a reference work here, with complete and accurate information about the full range of human activities. The fact that the subject of an article has changed their branding or marketing strategy is of massive indifference to us, unless the change is itself taken notice of by the broader world.

Like any other encyclopedia, our biographical articles are written in an historical manner, beginning with the early life and career of the subject, and proceeding to the later years afterwards. There is no justification for removing or trimming back material just because it refers to an earlier stage of the subject's activities.

If an article is inaccurate, anybody (even a person with your obvious conflict of interest) has the right to ask that it be corrected. But nobody, least of all the subject of an article and her/his agents, should expect us to remove accurate, properly sourced historical information from an article in order to facilitate the marketing of the rebranded subject. That is the path which leads to the memory hole of Nineteen Eighty-Four. --Orange Mike | Talk 22:18, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I do fully understand the purpose of Wikipedia, and it's intention to be a biographical reference source. However, it is unreasonable for Wikipedia to include articles without the permission of the subject, especially if the information proves to be financially detrimental to that person. As I stated previously, the original page was posted by a third party, without Sassy Pandez's permission, and as such it would in fact be preferable for the page to be deleted. AquilaUK (talk) 22:35, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are wrong. Full stop. Wikipedia is not censored, nor do we need "permission" to report matters of public notice in full and without clearing it with the subjects' press agents. --Orange Mike | Talk 21:26, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Given that you have no appreciation of the complex legal issues associated with this particular situation it would be better for you to keep your opinions to yourself. I am not interested in using Wikipedia as a marketing tool for my client, it causes us nothing but problems, and I wish that my client had never been included in the index. If there was a way to get the page removed I would not hesitate to take it, and I am about to begin discussing this with the OTRS team, on the advice of another (more sympathetic) Wikipedia Admin. AquilaUK (talk) 22:35, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. The reference that includes her name was not just added, but has been there. Her name was removed from the article, but not sources that used her name. I have always told you that her name would still be visible in reference. See, for example,here and here: "With respect to her real name, during our earlier conversation I did note here that this information would still be visible in references, including her IMDb profile. If there are other reliable sources that discuss these events that do not use her name, then we should be able to substitute. But if these are the only reliable sources (by Wikipedia's definition) to substantiate these notable biographical details, we really don't have any other options." The new references were added because somebody inexplicably removed the information on this activity with the edit summary that it was "False information". They were provided to verify that it is not false information. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 23:39, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I agree that there will inevitably be some articles on the internet that contain her name, and that in isolation is not so much of an issue. The problem arises when Wikipedia links all of those articles and names together, as is the case with these references. Linking DJ Sassy and Sassy Pandez is almost unavoidable, but linking DJ Sassy to her real name is a problem. As I explained, she has been the victim of stalkers in the past, and this is an unpleasant experience that we wish to avoid. I am almost certain that two of the references from the Sun were not there the last time that I looked at the page - I only remember there being two links to the Sun newspaper, not four. Of these, two include her real name and two do not, so these ones are ok as validation of her work as a columnist for the Sun ... http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/woman/sexandlove/sassy_sex_surgery/article46098.ece and http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/features/life/article54638.ece As for the Kylie Minogue article, there is an alternative source, a copy of an article from the Scottish Daily Record Newspaper that does not use her real name http://www.thefreelibrary.com/The+Razz%3A+Sassy%3A+My+bum's+more+classy+than+Kylie's-a0119431830 Based on the above alternative links, I hope that you agree that we can remove the two "problem" references http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/article89748.ece http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/woman/sexandlove/sassy_sex_surgery/article171950.ece Please get back to me with your thoughts on the above. Thanks. AquilaUK (talk) 00:29, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This one includes the announcement of her taking the job and establishes the date when she took it. It is not replaced by the other two, which only serve to establish that she still had the job two years later. The article on Kylie could be added, but it doesn't even mention LastMinute.com. I'm afraid it also is not a good replacement. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 00:50, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What about this one ?? http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/features/life/article54638.ece It talks about Kylie, lastminute.com and was the precursor to the newspaper column which was launched just afterwards. This must come very close to meeting the requirements. Surely all we need is one "good" reference to validate any facts on the page, and it seems to me that this article does that, covering a number of items in one article, which is ideal. AquilaUK (talk) 01:25, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Where does it mention lastminute.com? Or Kylie? (Not that Kylie matters, since she's not mentioned in the article.) It identifies Sassy as "Sun Online sexpert DJ Sassy" and then talks about kissing. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 01:30, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, my mistake, wrong link !! Should be this one !! http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/showbiz/webchats/article169711.ece AquilaUK (talk) 01:34, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

All right; I've replaced the one. It does not mention her starting the column, though. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 01:42, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thanks for that. But it still leaves the problem with the name in http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/woman/sexandlove/sassy_sex_surgery/article171950.ece Does it really matter when she started that column or how long it ran for? We have two other references that show that she was writing definitely writing the article, and that is presumably sufficient. And in fact it's not correct to assume that because there was one article in 2004 and one in 2006 that she continued with the articles for a period of two years. In fact, that's not the way it happened at all - there was an initial series of articles, but writing the column proved to be too time-consuming after a while so it was discontinued, although it was brought back some time later "by popular demand" for a second run. On that basis, the articles from 2006 alone should be sufficient to verify that she did write the column. AquilaUK (talk) 02:03, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid that there is not compelling reason to remove the link. It establishes the commencement of a notable element of her career. If you have sources to indicate that it was a stop-and-go, we can certainly expand that. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 02:09, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The compelling reason to remove that link is the personal safety of my client. There must come a point at which Wikipedia needs to exercise some kind of moral responsibility and accept that if the inclusion of a particular article or reference or link has the potential to cause the subject to be placed in personal danger then that link should be omitted. And this is especially true when there other links which are almost as good that can be used as alternatives. And why do we need to have a specific start date for this activity? There are no other specific start dates for any other aspects of her career, so why does this warrant special attention? If it had led to a whole new career in journalism then maybe it could be considered more important and noteworthy, but it was a one-off activity that has zero relevance to any of the work that she now does. AquilaUK (talk) 02:19, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your client is a public individual. I am very sorry if she feels unsafe. We have already made an effort to accommodate that in removing her name from the article, even though her name is widely publicized and the inclusion of widely publicized names is our common practice. If you do a google search of her real name, Wikipedia does not even come up. There are, however, plenty of news items and web pieces that do use it. ([2]) People who care to dig will be able to identify her real name, and it will not require that they dig through Wikipedia. What you are suggesting is compromising the article in an effort to accommodate an extraordinary request. If you have submitted compelling reasons to OTRS, it may be that they will suggest removing all references that include mention of her legal name. However, since there is no indication whatsoever that she made an effort to guard her real name early in her career, we cannot help that the references we rely upon use it. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 11:43, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sassy Pandez Page

Hi Moonriddengirl,

I contacted info-en-q@wikimedia.org a couple of weeks ago regarding my concerns with the Sassy Pandez page as you suggested, but I have not had a response. I therefore wanted to follow up with you again on this matter.

I have been reviewing the Sun Online articles and would like to suggest some alternative references to [19] [20] and [21] that are on the current page. The Sun Online column ran from October 2004 to May 2006, with a gap during the summer of 2005. So it would not be unreasonable to use the first article from October 2004 as reference [19] http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/woman/sexandlove/sassy_sex_surgery/172353/Sassys-sexual-healing.html the article from when the column resumed at the end of summer 2005 as reference [20] http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/features/life/212024/Sexpert-Sassy-is-back.html and the final article from May 2006 as reference [21] http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/woman/sexandlove/sassy_sex_surgery/48102/Become-a-sexy-seductress.html

Changing reference [19] removes the issue with the former name that causes me so much concern, while indicating the start date of this work. The alternative reference [20] shows that the column continued through 2005. The current reference [21] is actually not part of the series of articles from the column, and so is slightly misleading if included, and I think that the proposed alternative is therefore better, but I'm really not too worried about that one.

I would appreciate your feedback on the above. Thanks. AquilaUK (talk) 22:58, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. It can take several weeks in usual circumstances to get a reply from the Wikimedia e-mail team, as it receives hundreds of letters every day. Given the recent US Thanksgiving Holiday, there may be a little more backlog than usual. I would expect a response to your e-mail soon. I would prefer to discuss the matter after that. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:06, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh - I see - I didn't realise it would take that long to get a reply from the email team. I expected to get at least an initial response confirming receipt of the email, even if the final decision takes longer. I understand that you would prefer to wait for their decision, but I would prefer to be able to update the references as soon as possible and it seem that the email team may not reply before the end of the year. Do you agree in principle that the alternative references I suggested are suitable? AquilaUK (talk) 17:35, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I'm sure that they'll reply before the end of the year. I'm afraid that I don't think that this reference, announcing that she has taken the job and giving a brief overview of her career, is easily replaceable by a column, particularly since somebody has already tried to remove the information from the article, claiming first that it was "false information" and then that "Her DJ name is DJ sassy pandez. There are many DJ'S with the name 'DJ Sassy' Who are not the same person." The first link makes it amply clear no matter where that confusion may have come from that she is the same person, not some random "DJ Sassy". I think given that the information has been challenged that sources backing up her job title are necessary. This one works for me just as well as this one; it has the same job title and both of them link to her current website. This one does not. Can you explain what's bothersome about this? It is included because it is not part of the column, but confirms her job title: "Sun Online sexpert DJ Sassy agrees a sexy snog is a major turn on." --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 18:33, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]