Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 72.229.137.132 (talk) at 23:47, 22 July 2006. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

This article was nominated for deletion on 2006-04-27. The result of the discussion was speedy keep.

The archives of this page can be fat:

• 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 Misplaced Pages 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. Every single book cover written by Adams that has GODDESSY on its cover reads "GODDESSY" , 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 Misplaced Pages. -- Hoary 08:40, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Well if "it's not important to Misplaced Pages", 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 as well as the book covers , 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 Misplaced Pages, 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 00:04, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Also commented on my talk page; I completely agree with Bottesini. AnonEMouse 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.

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 Misplaced Pages 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 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 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 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 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 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 Misplaced Pages (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 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 false comments made on there named RichardsRamblings.com (who incidentally took the libelous comments down) and is on a mission to do the same with other web sites that produce false 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 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 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 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 Misplaced Pages. Thank you. -- Hoary 16:06, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

BLP

I do not believe the blognyc bit is appropriate per WP:BLP. However, her suit against the NYPD is per . 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 Misplaced Pages 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. Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 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 Misplaced Pages. Fair enough, I'll try again: Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages! fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 16:01, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Presumption in favor of privacy

Misplaced Pages: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 Misplaced Pages 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)

Misplaced Pages: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 | /_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 Misplaced Pages (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 Misplaced Pages/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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages. 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 Misplaced Pages 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)

• Biography articles of living people