Jump to content

Talk:Stephanie Adams

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by OnlyGodTheFatherKnows (talk | contribs) at 10:39, 9 August 2011 (→‎Adams' sites: How's your iPad holding up with this obsession?). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

publishing

In this edit, 74.68.113.251 changes

a self-published spirituality author

to

a spirituality author

with the edit summary:

Removed false and kind of condescending info. Adams' books were actually published by four separate companies (Dubsar House, New Age World, Publish America. etc.) before Goddessy became a publishing company.

An old version of the article tells me that the fourth is Infinity Publishing. Well, let's look at these four:

It seems that "four separate companies" is a slight exaggeration, and that each of the four imprints is a way for people to have published books that most publishers wouldn't bother with, or more bluntly a vanity publisher. "Self-published author" seems kinder than "vanity-published author". -- Hoary (talk) 00:28, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted the edit made by an IP address user back to the one made by Hoary. Some publishers charge fees and some pay authors fees. No where online or in interviews does it say that her books were "self-published" so it is best not to add comments that have not been verified as facts. 74.101.6.188 (talk) 11:12, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Request for comment

The article Stephanie Adams has a user who repeatedly adds "self-published" about this subject matter, without having any sources or links in support of that comment. It has been removed by myself as well as few others, yet is repeatedly added by one IP address. It's best to not mention something unless it can be proven about a living person's biography, especially if it's condescending or highly questionable. Cheers! 74.101.6.188 (talk) 16:17, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why is the term "self published" condescending? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.143.27.28 (talk) 20:42, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not only is the term "self published" condescending, but in her case, it is false. Adams is a published author by three companies that are not vanity publishing companies, one company that sometimes do not charge authors fees (as in the case of Playboy Playmates Stephanie Adams, Victoria Zdrok, etc.) and one company that she founded. 108.41.21.144 (talk) 19:50, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't the key thing here the verifiability of the term? If it cannot be verified that Adams is "self-published", moreover if it can be verified that Adams is published by "other companies", then "self-published" should most definitely not be in the lead. It's pretty simple from my perspective. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:55, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe it depends on the meaning of "self-published". A couple of decades ago, it might have necessitated contacting a printing company, handing over a wodge of money for the production of several hundred copies, storing these, mailing them out, and so forth. It might therefore have implied "do the whole damn process yourself". By contrast, these days, blurb.com invites you to "Make your own book": as long as you can deliver them a PDF, payment isn't required (as copies are printed on demand). Sorry, I know nothing about astrology and the like; however, in other areas, self-publishing certainly isn't a dirty word: see not only "Self publish, be happy" but the praise for both that site and self-publishing in (among various articles I could point to) this piece in the Guardian. ¶ Rambling Man, it can indeed be verified that Adams has been published by three companies (under four imprints), but if you look above, you'll see me write that "that each of the four imprints is a way for people to have published books that most publishers wouldn't bother with, or more bluntly a vanity publisher". Should she be described as self- or vanity-published? I don't really know, but without some qualifier of "published" I tend to think of the world of Wiley, Harcourt, Doubleday, Dalkey Archive, New Press, etc: a publishing process that, if it doesn't provide an advance, at least involves a commissioning editor and various quality checks. -- Hoary (talk) 00:47, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

At least two of those publishing companies are not vanity publishers. Those links are clearly from one poorly designed web site, and not the actual individual web site of the publishing companies describing who and what they are exactly. Perhaps every single author who is "self-published" in the world should have a revised page saying they are "self published" ??? It just doesn't make sense.

Not every author has the same cookie cutter contract from publishers, as the monies they receive from the book deals are just as diverse as well. No one can verify the details of this lady's book deals and it is not mentioned in depth in any of her interviews, other than the fact that she is "published." Therefore, it's best for questionable statements or comments as such prior, that are NOT verified, to not be placed in an article that is supposed to contain biographical facts. Apparently, it's just one person who keeps continuously posting this phrase in question anyway and he/she cannot provide a valid link to a reliable source that supports this odd claim over eight years after she became a published author. 108.41.21.144 (talk) 14:18, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The publishers are Dubsar House, New Age World, PublishAmerica, and Infinity Publishing. Dubsar House describes itself as Purveyors of the Finest in Chivalric Regalia / Gateway to Contemporary Fraternal Orders of Excellence, it seems no longer to publish books. New Age World (Specializing in Books about the Unknown and Mysterious, the Beautiful, and the Enlightening!) is indeed rather mysterious. PublishAmerica says that it doesn't charge; it's a print-on-demand arrangement that has had its problems. Infinity Publishing provides you with the easiest and most comprehensive self-publishing experience. -- Hoary (talk) 01:05, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

All of the subjects works are either self published under Gossippy or use vanity publishers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.143.17.59 (talk) 21:17, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Adams' sites

By the way, I just finished visiting her web site stephanieadams.com and it is linked to two other web sites goddessy.com and theseraphsadvocate.com which have so many other real facts on there that are not even mentioned on here. Just a thought. 108.41.21.144 (talk) 14:35, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's a matter not of the reality of the facts but of their verifiability via reliable sources. -- Hoary (talk) 01:08, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Her Chickapedia article states that she engages in some odd practices. I take it that's not reliable enough? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.143.17.59 (talk) 21:34, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Very odd statement. Everything about her on Chickapedia is normal and it's a combined copy of her web site as well as Wikipedia. SanMike7 (talk) 16:16, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So first "69.143.17.59" does a "google" to go on the Goddessy site at 8:30 yesterday in the morning. Then a few hours later, "69.143.17.59" does another "google" to visit that site with the waterfall on top. I bet all you noticed was that lovely couple's photo below it. How's your iPad holding up, with this obsession? Can Safari allow you to "refresh" Wikipedia pages as quickly and often as you do? Don't answer. Only God the Father knows, right? Ha ha...I do too. And the worse thing I can do from this point on is to ignore you. On here, at least. Did you get some sleep? Barely. Remember, that bright light from your Apple screen - especially when you try to secretly do things in the dark - always reveals your shadow. :) OnlyGodTheFatherKnows (talk) 10:39, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Misrepresentation of sources

In this edit, the Stephanie Adams–preoccupied 69.143.17.59 alters

In November 2009, Adams announced her engagement<ref>"Playboy bunny Stephanie Adams playing straight" by Richard Johnson with Emily Smith and Neel Shah, ''New York Post: Page Six'', [http://www.nypost.com/p/pagesix/playboy_bunny_stephanie_adams_playing_5sj6MOktHIe1kehzQScw7O November 9, 2009], ''italics retained from source''</ref> to a doctor,</nowiki> was married to him shortly thereafter, and dedicates most of her time now with her husband and son.[1] </nowiki> [my emphasis]

to

In November 2009, Adams announced her engagement<ref>"Playboy bunny Stephanie Adams playing straight" by Richard Johnson with Emily Smith and Neel Shah, ''New York Post: Page Six'', [http://www.nypost.com/p/pagesix/playboy_bunny_stephanie_adams_playing_5sj6MOktHIe1kehzQScw7O November 9, 2009], ''italics retained from source''</ref> to [REDACTED]</nowiki> was married to him shortly thereafter, and dedicates most of her time now with her husband and son </nowiki>[REDACTED]<ref name="Goddessy - Press Release">[http://www.goddessy.com/PressInformation/PressRelease.htm Goddessy - Press Release]</ref> [my emphases]

This clearly implies that these additional tidbits are sourced from http://www.goddessy.com/PressInformation/PressRelease.htm.

They are not. I looked in that web page and they are not there. To imply as directly as in this edit that they are there is to lie. If:

  • her husband is indeed "[REDACTED]"
  • one or both parents talk about their son to the outside world and name him [REDACTED]
  • the editor has one or more sources for this

then the editor may go ahead and add the information and the source(s). But any editor who adds factoids -- even factoids that happen to be true -- and who implies that they come via this or that source when they do not will get clobbered for malicious addition of misinformation. -- Hoary (talk) 07:49, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I thought I included the reference — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.143.17.59 (talk) 22:08, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

One of your "references" is a Stephanie Adams web site that does not mention her husband and son's name. The other "reference" is a doctor's web site and does not mention "Stephanie Adams" on it at all. 108.41.21.144 (talk) 22:49, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I removed some of the names after a request via OTRS to do so - if we discuss this further can it be done without using names unless a RS records them. --Errant (chat!) 10:19, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(1) I have no objection to "redaction", as it's quaintly termed, but could this "redaction" be done more carefully? The "redaction" above has rendered what I wrote entirely meaningless. (2) Although 108.41.21.144 claims that "The other 'reference' is a doctor's web site", it is not, unless "doctor" has a much broader meaning than is normal. (3) All of this personal/family/"orientation" stuff strikes me as trivial and dispensable, even if it's well sourced (which it isn't). -- Hoary (talk) 23:49, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with Hoary, if it's trivial, there's no reason to argue about whether or not it's sourced properly. Just get rid of it, it's non-encyclopedic. Dayewalker (talk) 00:01, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(1) Sorry, I just killed names as this was the major concern raised - my apologies if it confused matters. Feel free to tweak anything to make sense :) (3) You are dead on - in fact we strongly prefer privacy for family members of BLP subjects - specifically if they make a point of keeping them private. In this case the subject has clearly stated in public sources she intends to keep these details private. So, yes, you are right it is not worth recording. @Dayewalker; the content is now gone from the article after an OTRS request - I am still considered a RevDel of the material. --Errant (chat!) 00:04, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No, sorry, I misunderstood slightly. ErrantX, you did a good job. By contrast, it was this additional "redaction", with no edit summary, by 71.183.68.231 (contributions) that rendered what I wrote entirely meaningless. ¶ Although 108.41.21.144 (contributions) claims that "The other 'reference' is a doctor's web site", it is not, unless "doctor" has a much broader meaning than is normal. ¶ Each of the IP numbers involved seems exclusively interested (one way or another) in Adams; I wonder why. -- Hoary (talk) 00:12, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Someone's Obviously Trying To Stalk/Vandalise The Stephanie Adams Article

It sounds like 69.143.17.59 is trying to stalk "Steph" and "Goddesy" but I am neither so that is not the case.

And speaking of "sock puppetry" 69.143.17.59 apparently is a big "fan" of this celebrity and, according to Comcast in VA, has gone by the following multiple IP addresses:

69.143.17.59 69.143.27.28 69.143.1.59 69.143.8.198

Apparently, this person has attempted and failed to harass this subject page for the past year now. Way too much time on your hands. Tell everyone your name so you can be "famous" on here. The truth is going to come out. SanMike7 (talk) 16:16, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm simply editing an article to include facts and remove uncited references. Marriage licenses and birth certificates are public record, so if procured those documents could be refenced here in the future. Bring out the truth! Incidentally, the truth is a valid defense for libel.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.143.17.59 (talk • contribs) 14:31, August 7, 2011 (UTC)
No they can't, not unless they are backed up with secondary sources. In that case we can discuss it but the answer still may be "no". As far as "bringing out the truth", that's not our job. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:13, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, they are public record - on the other hand we tend to prefer privacy of nono-notable people (especially children) in the articles of living people. So it is fine to make an editorial decision to not include these names. --Errant (chat!) 00:14, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
ErrantX is completely correct here. First, do no harm. There's no need to include trivial details, especially names of children. Dayewalker (talk) 00:21, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The subjects marriage to a doctor seems trivial (is a chiroopracter really even a doctor?). In fact this article is full of trivial details. It seems to be a vanity page. Perhaps all non Playboy related facts should be removed? Other Playmate articles don't have such useless facts. The only exceptions are for real celebrity Playmates like Anna Nicole Smith.69.143.17.59 (talk) 01:06, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Welcome to Wikipedia, SanMike7. (I see that you made your first edit yesterday.) One thing that you say interests me. How is it that you know that "according to Comcast in VA", one IP number "has gone by" this or that other IP number? -- Hoary (talk) 00:26, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure about the other editor, but I looked into this through an in-depth investigative resource and found that those IP numbers are, in fact, linked to one person. I will not expose that person's full name and other details on here, and it took a while to find, but it is indeed one person who's been trying to slander Stephanie Adams' name since 2010 on Wikipedia, probably because this is the only source that allows anyone who has computer access to try and do so. Advice to that person, whatever your issue is with Adams, you need to find peace within and let it go. Apparently Wikipedia top editors will not allow false, questionable or derogatory edits about living people to happen. OnlyGodTheFatherKnows (talk) 13:44, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hello brand new user "OnlyGodTheFatherKnows". Your mention of "an in-depth investigative resource" sounds terribly exciting. Would you care to name it? -- Hoary (talk) 13:50, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Not on here, you'd have to give me your e-mail address for me to tell you this one. Plus, it's off topic. Nice to cyber meet you Hoary. Back to work for me now. OnlyGodTheFatherKnows (talk) 14:00, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This sounds more and more exciting! Your username makes me guess that you got it from GodTheFather. (Unfortunately, he's not regarded as a "reliable source" for Wikipedia.) Ah, no, perhaps it was plain old ungodly Whois. -- Hoary (talk) 14:17, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Funny. OnlyGodTheFatherKnows (talk) 19:37, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request from SanMike7, 7 August 2011

The Stephanie Adams subject page contains highly personal and questionable information on it that needs to be removed immediately, specifically the names of her alleged husband and son. No where on her web sites (StephanieAdams.com, GODDESSY.com, TheSeraphsAdvocate.com) her alleged husband's web site, or in any media interview does she or he mention that they are husband and wife. And the mention of her son's alleged name is probably extremely personal and a touchy subject, which is why his name and photo are not made public. (Many celebrities do everything in their power to protect their family, especially when they purposely shield their family from the public by purposely not briging up details about them, especially when it comes to their child.) This personal information, even moreso because it's in a semi protected page that cannot be easily edited, needs to be removed by an editor right away or it can cause a major issue by/to the person in the biography. SanMike7 (talk) 09:38, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In addition, the IP address user 69.143.17.59 has clearly, from the edit history notes, vandalised this page repeatedly with this inappropriate/non-public information, in addiition to several attempts to degrade the subject matter. Perhaps all traces of these particular edits should be removed as well. He/She should definitely be permanently banned from editing. SanMike7 (talk) 09:44, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Biographies are touchy subjects. If it is not public or verified in the media, it is "private" and must be respected, which is actually part of the user guidelines on Wikipedia. Hope this gets resolved, as I'm sure editors are on here 24/7. SanMike7 (talk) 09:47, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

SanMike7 (talk) 09:38, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

More sock puppetry from Goddesy. BTW, archive.org shows your original edits Steph.

Not only do you not sign your posts (which later get recorded) you call me "Steph" and "Goddesy". Who are you, "Mr./Ms. Hiding In VA"??? Your edits got removed. SanMike7 (talk) 15:08, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Marking as answered as dealt with in above section. Jnorton7558 (talk) 15:10, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Learning Annex Lecture

I know this was discussed ad nauseum in the past, but could someone provide a concise summary as to why the subjects Learning Annex class was not germane to the article? Was it because there was only one source? --69.143.17.59 (talk) 01:16, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I also looked into that and found that Adams sued The Learning Annex because she wanted to do a course on Astrology but when they asked her do a course like this one, she later turned the class message towards being a success yourself, not looking for it in someone else. This case was quickly settled. Best not to post information about questionable personal and legal matters. OnlyGodTheFatherKnows (talk) 13:44, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well well, "OnlyGodTheFatherKnows", you've got me interested. What was it that you looked into and there found that Adams sued the Learning Annex? -- Hoary (talk) 13:59, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Back to the original question. There are links at the top to the archives of this talk page. Your editing history suggests that your degree of interest in Adams is second to none; I'm sure that you can find the energy to look through the talk archives yourself. -- Hoary (talk) 13:59, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
thank you for your interest in my interest! I did look through the history, but couldn't find any consensus on why the LA is not referenced. Rather than add it back I thought I would discuss it here first. --69.143.17.59 (talk) 14:49, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It was obviously removed for a reason. You cannot add anything while the page is protected, which is obviously because of you. OnlyGodTheFatherKnows (talk) 19:37, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If you know the reason, please share. Also share with us your sources about her lawsuit against Learning Annex.
Did I forget to add that I have to get back to work again? Some of us have to do that, you know. OnlyGodTheFatherKnows (talk) 19:39, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
By all means, don't let me keep you from your broom. --69.143.17.59 (talk) 19:45, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, Hoary is a better comedian. I guess if you call it a "broom", it's pretty small and shiny. Someone who has an "in" with God knows more than you think. Hope you find something meaningful to do soon. And try to get some sleep. Back to my "broom" now... OnlyGodTheFatherKnows (talk) 20:04, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  1. ^ Goddessy - Press Release
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Stephanie_Adams&oldid=443849204"