Talk:Stephanie Adams

The archives of this page can be found at: Talk:Stephanie Adams/archive 01

Semi-protected

This article and talk page are semi-protected for one week. Editors who wish to contribute may register an account and participate after four days. I recommend this because I would reimpose semi-protection after this protection expires if the edit warring resumes.

Editors here may wish to review WP:AUTO, which specifically warns that people who start articles about themselves do not own content and may be dismayed to find reliably verified negative facts brought to the public's attention by other editors. The article itself should be WP:NPOV neutral in tone. Durova^Charge! 20:36, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Biography assessment rating comment

The article may be improved by following the WikiProject Biography 11 easy steps to producing at least a B article. -- Jreferee 19:24, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Last appearence

Article: ..."who continues to appear in Playboy (last Playboy appearance in 2003)."
"66.108.144.31": "What??? Adams still makes appearances. Her last one was not that far back. Article was reverted back to previous edit."

Rather than always reverting, why not just adjust the text to include a mention of your actual latest appearance? -- Sean Martin 22:29, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Financial Investor

Is this really necessary to include in the article? If there are no objections, I'll remove it. Wandering canadian 20:59, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Ok, its been a week; seeing no objections, I'm removing the "financial investor" reference in the article. Wandering canadian 16:42, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

The fact that Miss Adams is an avid financial investor has been documented since her November 1992 Playboy centerfold issue, including mentionings in Playboy's "Playmate News" updates, her "Playmate Review", a candid interview last month for BET (with the interviewer noting that she is a "financial investor" who used her business saavy to become a "self-made millionaire") and a recent docmentary about her life for Women's Entertainment television noting her success from investing.

Playboy even makes a note of her being an investor with Merrill Lynch on Playboy's web site under the "Current Interests" section of her Cyber Club page and if that isn't enough, it is also documented in an upcoming 2008 calendar tribute to her (which is mentioned in the calendar as well as the editorial review).

Article has been reverted to previous edit. 72.89.119.89 12:20, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Gee, SA, what took you so long? That edit stood for almost 5 days. Sean Martin 16:16, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

"Gee" ? Sounds like you are calling someone here Stephanie Adams. It also sounds ridiculous. This is a talk page, not a celebrity talk show. 66.108.144.31 18:49, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Fact or no fact, the point is that it's irrelevant. Everyone is an investor. Re-removed. Valrith 20:07, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, I don't know about everyone being an investor. But an awful lot of people seem to be Stephanie. Sean Martin 22:31, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Not everyone is an investor and not everyone made millions of dollars investing. It's even mentioned online via a few links, which can be provided if necessary. I took a look at the link in the Playboy Cyber Club and am going to re-add it. 66.108.144.31 18:24, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Actually, maybe it makes more sense to note the fact that she became a "millionaire" from her success in modeling and investing. That has been documented and you can find the links if you google "Stephanie Adams millionaire" [1] 66.108.144.31 18:49, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I clicked on the Google link immediately above. Even the links that are relevant are junk: SA's own site, gossip, etc.

What authoritative link says she became a millionaire from investing (or from anything else)? And if she's a millionaire, why does she take taxis instead of a chauffeur-driven limo? -- Hoary 22:50, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. The current link is a poor source, so I'm removing the claim again... Valrith 21:25, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

The same claim was reintroduced in the edit on 9 Feb. First link provided as proof is broken, the second is not a reputable source. I am removing the section again. Wandering canadian (talk) 11:31, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Have again had to remove this reference. It does not meet criteria for WP:RS and WP:V. If one of the anonymous editors who seem to like this particular section can produce a source that meets these criteria, I would have no problem with its inclusion. Simply reposting the same claims with the same poor sources is not productive. Open to any discussion on this. Wandering canadian (talk) 23:20, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Her being a millionaire and a financial investor is all over the internet, including Playboy. So just as her other well-known information does not have to have citations, neither does this one really. Don't know why it seems to bother only you (and apparently the people she sued) "Wandering Canadian", but perhaps you should be more objective and less personal about your "feelings" for the famous person in this subject. 71.167.230.166 (talk) 16:55, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. Not only is it a well-known fact, but it's also been reported on Playboy.com, as well as a recent feature on her for Sirius Satellite Radio on March 11, 2008 (Playboy - Channel 198) and several other reports on the internet. Like her being a Playboy playmate, which is a well-known fact, citations for other common facts about her are actually not even needed. This is a brief bio to begin with, so the facts added contribute valuable information about the subject and should remain. Swiksek (talk) 17:42, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

I do understand that there are some who would like this information included, however, as I mentioned before, the sources cited (including an Amazon.com bio and a blog) do not meet standards for WP:RS and WP:V. If the information were indeed "all over the internet", it would be possible to cite a reputable source. I have no particular "feelings" about the article, but believe that, given the controversial history of this page, all information presented should be adequately sourced so as to avoid the fighting that has happened before. To be fair as well, discussion prior to this current round resulted in the removal of the information by consensus, and so I have removed it again, and will until good sources are cited. Wandering canadian (talk) 00:46, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

FYI, Wandering Canadian, the "some" who would like the info included are all pretty much SA and various sockpuppets. While you're perfectly right that the references cited don't meet Wiki's requirements, that won't carry much weight with "some" who is determined to claim herself a self-made millionaire by 30. You can be pretty much assured the duration of your changes can be timed with a stop watch and anonymous puppets will start coming out of the woodwork to chastise you for trying to follow Wiki's clearly stated standards. Personally, I'd love to see "them" reply to you with reason and a real attempt to find suitable references and would have no objection to the info being included if they are provided. But, alas, "they" have not followed that route ever before and I don't expect "they" will do anything different this time. Brace yourself.Sean Martin (talk) 17:22, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Sean Martin, you are part of a lawsuit Miss Adams filed against you friend, who apparently lost. Personal issues against the subject matter should remain just that, personal, and are not welcome on an objective web site. 71.167.230.166 (talk) 19:06, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh, Stephanie. Do you really want to start with the lies again? I am not named in any lawsuit. I have no knowledge of the state "apparent" or otherwise of any lawsuit. And I have said (again) that I have no objection to the info being included as long as references that meet Wiki's clearly state requirements are provided. But, thank you so much for demonstrating (as I said you would) my point that you will resort to personal attacks rather than discussing rationally the topic at hand and providing any such references. -- Sean Martin (talk) 21:16, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Seriously dude, this is not a blog. You were the first to make a personal attack about the subject of the article and the last thing she is doing is conversing with you. If you have an issue with her, even though you do not know her, you should edit a page about someone else you can actually be objective, not bitter, about. And by the way, she sued your friend and he lost. 71.167.226.96 (talk) 04:33, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Keep hating, and the day you die, she'll still be famous and you'll still be a nobody.

"Oh Stephanie"?!?! Hey sicko, do you really think you are talking to the real Stephanie Adams on an amateur talk page? Dream on retard. And speaking of millions, you must have refreshed this page millions of times waiting for someone to respond to your bitter frustrated miserable obsession. Judging from her wikipedia profile and photo, this woman is clearly a beautiful black business woman and poor trash like you can never be with her. "Oh Stephanie, Oh Stephanie, Oh Stephanie". You took your hand off your little thing between your legs long enough to type, and you're without a doubt upset over the fact that you know of her, but she could not care less whether you live, breathe or die. You are pathetic. This venue is for everyone, which is clearly the only way an amateur like you can write about her because you can never get the opportunity to write about her professionally. And the last thing she is thinking about is you because her life is busier and better than yours will ever be. So keep hating, and the day you die, she'll still be famous and you'll still be a nobody. Oh and by the way, the fact that she is a celebrity millionaire is all over the internet, including her web sites, which are all listed on wikipedia. So nothing you can say or do will ever change that. Get a life. Roughridehome (talk) 07:48, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Ah yes, wandering meat head, I didn't forget about you. You are just some flunky pretending to be objective, but at the end of the day, you are just as bad as the idiot who typed in his full name, which is obviously another desperate attempt for attention. So here's your five minutes of attention, because neither one of you will ever have five minutes of fame. I'd refresh this page to see the responses, but I have better things to do with my life. Roughridehome (talk) 07:58, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Sean Martin could not possibly think that he is conversing with Stephanie Adams. Seriously, does he? I mean, dude, this is a wiki page about this celebrity, not a blog for her to write to her fans.

I agree, it's not although I suspect Ms Adams isn't clear on the distinction. But, yes, I seriously do believe that the postings are from Ms Adams herself. Despite the variety of IP addresses used most (like yours) trace back to Verizon in NYC and (like yours) have edits only related to this or other pages on which Ms Adams is mentioned. And the style of writing is perfectly consistent (almost verbatim) with emails I have received directly from Ms Adams. -- Sean Martin (talk) 17:48, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Just wondering if Stephanie Adams is really notable enough to warrant a Wikipedia article...she seems to be more notorious than famous. Is there any way to get this puff piece deleted once and for all?209.167.67.130 (talk) 01:40, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes: Anyone's free to nominate it for deletion. Here are exact instructions.

Such a nomination would almost certainly fail, because a large number of rather vociferous editors will insist that appearing in a Playboy centerfold confers notability and encyclopedia-worthiness. (I don't know how it does this, but there you are.)

A reasonable reaction to that might be: "So OK, she 'notably' appeared in Playboy. But this doesn't confer notability on anything and everything she does." However, a lot of usernames and IP numbers would disagree with that, saying that Goddessy: Historical Figures and Their Ties to the Occult (Dubsar House Publishing), etc., are noteworthy. (Incidentally, the en:WP appearances of Dubsar House Publishing seem limited to the Adams article and this one.) -- Hoary (talk) 02:19, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Whatever. I know it's hard for a few of you, but keep your personal opinions, bizarre gripes and other bitterness (about a lady you do not even know) to yourself. First of all, no one here, not even you "Sean Martin" has had direct contact with Miss Adams, because if you did, you would not be trying to get a reaction from it. Second, regardless of how anyone feels about her (including you "Hoary") she is still noteworthy, newsworthy and famous. And finally, nothing anyone on this little discussion page can say or do to remove her from this site or anywhere else in history. She is and will forever always be known as a playmate, author, and celebrity. Stop hating someone who does not even know you. There's a fine line between love and hate. Or should I say obsession and jealousy. Cheers! 66.108.146.77 (talk) 07:38, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

First of all, who are you to know whether I've had direct contact with Ms Adams or not? (I have.) Second, "Stop hating someone who does not even know you."?? Interesting comment from someone who seems to be so angry at a bunch of people she doesn't know. -- Sean Martin (talk) 18:04, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Dream on...You may want to, but you do do not know Stephanie Adams. And you never will so just accept that and stop trying to get attention from a publicly edited page about her. She doesn't even know or care about your existence, but obviously you care so much about hers. Now according to the digging I did on you after reading your "personal attacks" on her article, it turns out that you were named as an affiliate to the person she sued and beat in court. And the judge thought you were both crazy and told the other retard to leave her alone. It was also stated that she does not know you and referred to you as an online stalker. Now I do not know her, but from what I've read about you thus far, she is right and I'm glad she won. I guess beautiful celebrities will always have some sort of animosity and bitterness from their demented fans. SomethingYouShouldKnow... (talk) 22:49, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

What do you expect from a complete nut? He thinks everyone he is in contact with is Stephanie Adams because obviously he is obsessed with her. Get a life. Find a girlfriend. 66.108.4.133 (talk) 23:19, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Two wrongs don't make a right, so do not feed into his animosity. He's obviously desperate for attention, even moreso the attention of Stephanie Adams. She's not on here pal. It's just an article about her. So stop ranting. Anyways, just ignore him and he will go away. 69.204.224.140 (talk) 00:16, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

"you do do not know Stephanie Adams" Never said I did. I said I've had contact with her. (Specifically, in the form of unsolicited emails she sent directly from her email account to mine.) "after reading your "personal attacks" on her article" Review any of my postings and you won't be able to provide even one example where I've made a personal attack. "it turns out that you were named as an affiliate to the person she sued and beat in court" Again, not true. "And the judge thought you were both crazy and told the other retard to leave her alone." Speaking of personal attacks, what do you call that, exactly?

"obviously he is obsessed with her" "He's obviously desperate for attention" No. Just interested in responding to any lies posted about me, no matter how many IPs you use to do so. -- Sean Martin (talk) 01:20, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Jealousy anyone???

None of you bitter souls have an article on Wikipedia or anywhere else on the internet for that matter. Maybe that's your problem. Don't be mad because you're not famous. And don't edit a page about someone if you're clearly hating her for some bizarre reason. By the way, any loser can edit on this site, so that does not say much about your writing skills. Try writing and getting one book published, let alone sixteen. You'll die before you give any proper credit, but how you feel does not matter in the grand scheme of things. As a matter of fact, you do not matter at all. So besides that, what's your real problem? Racist? Vagina envy?? Jealousy anyone??? Whatever your case, it's quite weird. So is ranting on a discussion page about someone you do not know personally. Get therapy. 66.108.4.133 (talk) 08:16, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Dear 66.108, thank you for reminding everybody not to rant. It's not bad advice: you may wish to take it yourself. (I'll refrain from suggesting that you too might get therapy.) Incidentally, are you, editing on this site, also a "loser"? -- Hoary (talk) 08:27, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Who cares? And why are you taking anything anyone says personally Hoary? From what I read about you, Jim Wales told you once before to refrain from editing this article. 71.167.226.96 (talk) 09:19, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Who cares indeed? And where on earth did you read this about me? -- Hoary (talk) 09:26, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Adams's site the best source about her?

In this edit, 71.167.226.96 removes a FACT flag and re-adds Adams' own website for the claim that Adams also continues to dedicate most of her time now as a financial investor and philanthropist, and does so with the edit comment that There's no better source for an update on an individual than the official source about her.

I find this claim extraordinary. For example, whitehouse.gov is the official source for Dubya, and on its top page I today read that The President and the Holy Father continued discussions, which they began during the President's visit to the Vatican in June 2007, on their common commitment to the importance of faith and reason in reaching shared goals. These goals include advancing peace throughout the Middle East and other troubled regions, promoting inter-faith understanding, and strengthening human rights and freedom, especially religious liberty, around the world. Putting aside the holy papa for a moment, if you believe that Dubya is committed to the importance of reason in advancing to the goal of "strengthening human rights and freedom [...] around the world", then I have a charming bridge for sale at a low price.

That little matter aside, Adams is a philanthropist, we're told. Well, who benefits? Quote them. -- Hoary (talk) 09:26, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Aside from it being mentioned by way of various sources and official press releases, photos at the benefits she donated funds to include TJ Martell, GLSEN, Heritage of Pride, The Gay Center, etc., all of which are viewable from the links in the "notes" section of the article about her and are dated over a decade after her appearance in Playboy (which means they are recent). Obviously you do not get into those benefits without donating $$. Also, her speaking at non-profit events such as Heritage of Pride (noted on the NY1 News link on her) for several consecutive years (noted on the HOP web site as well as her own) means she is not only donating funds, but her time towards worthy causes. Regardless, if her three official sites, her calendar, her books, her editorial reviews, and her latest interview on Playboy.com as well as Playboy radio says that she dedicates most of her time doing that, then that is what she must be doing. And by definition, that is what you call a philanthropist. I'm sure you already know this, but by adding as much valuable information and updates about the subject matter as possible, it is improving the quality of the article. Swiksek (talk) 09:53, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

And by the way, all the sources that have written about Adams (ABC, CBS, NY1 etc.) rely upon the source herself for the articles. Even so, they are not as accurate as the source herself. Media is never accurate and often distorts the truth, yet most people foolishly go by every single thing they say. They all, in fact, wrote articles based upon what the source herself said, so obviously the source herself (along with her web sites) is the one who holds the power of knowledge about her. It's not like we are writing something defamatory about her. It's merely an update on the current facts about her life. Swiksek (talk) 10:03, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the calm reply. However: if her three official sites, her calendar, her books, her editorial reviews, and her latest interview on Playboy.com as well as Playboy radio says that she dedicates most of her time doing that, then that is what she must be doing. I don't buy it. If she's a notable donor to a charity, then that charity should mention it either directly or in a tip-off to a news source that shows some sign of independence. The description above is less of a philanthropist than a socialite. Of course being a socialite is compatible with being a philanthropist, but I'd like to see evidence of philanthropy before this encyclopedia article calls her a philanthropist.

Your description of the media makes you sound even more cynical about them (and their unthinking consumers) than I am. Quite an achievement! If the infotainment industry is doing little more than recycling her PR, I suppose one might as well recycle the PR directly, cutting out the middleman.

It's not like we are writing something defamatory about her. It's merely an update on the current facts about her life. Indeed it's not defamatory. It's laudatory. And are these the current facts, or is it just an unthinking repetition of whatever's the latest PR release?

How about this compromise. Rather than "Adams is now [doing XYZ]", "Adams now claims that she is [doing XYZ]"? Of course the latter can all be sourced to her site. -- Hoary (talk) 10:43, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Great team work!

Great idea User:Hoary. As well as the mentioning of her being a socialite. That does seem to be the route most celebs take when involved in philanthropy, although she not only appears at the events, but speaks at them as well. Both should actually be noted. Team work is always good. Best Regards, An-Apple-A-NY-Day (talk) 17:04, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

The phrase "charity events" makes an intriguing appearance within this article. -- Hoary (talk) 00:30, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

This article is being discussed at the Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard

Editors who are interested in this article are welcome to join the discussion there. EdJohnston (talk) 02:48, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Learning Annex course

In her first removal edit of the Learning Annex info Swiksek wrote "According to Goddessy, Adams filed a lawsuit regarding this incident and therefore, it should not be added due to it's defamation of character." Does the filing of a lawsuit about an incident immediately mean that incident can't be included in an article? If that is so, then shouldn't any mention of the lawsuit filed against NYC also be removed? Perhaps someone, "Swiksek" in particular since she was the one to make the comment, could explain this further.

Wiki policy certainly doesn't prohibit the inclusion of information that the subject of the article finds unflattering, as long as it is properly sourced, as this info on the Ms Adams' lecture at the Learning Annex appears to be. Perhaps Swiksek could explain what is meant by her comment in a subsequent edit: "the sources were false ... I have the e-mail and the sources were false." One is the course description at the Learning Annex's own site, the other is the article about the course at NY Press's own site. How are they "false"? Just looking for clarification here.

As a last note, "Swiksek" claims to have been in contact with Goddessy.com ("I contacted Goddessy.com"), Ms. Adams' personal web site, and appears to be aware of actions taken by Goddessy that would not be common knowledge ("According to Goddessy, Adams filed a lawsuit regarding this incident" (info not findable anywhere on the Goddessy web site), "Goddessy contacted Wiki"). Perhaps Swiksek can clarify her relationship with Goddessy and Ms Adams because it certainly appears there can be some conflict of interest here. Again, just looking for clarification. -- Sean Martin (talk) 16:20, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

The NY Press has not been established as long and is not as well-known as USA Today, CBS, ABC, Fox 5 News, The New York Post, and so on. It was more of a rant than an article and is too questionable to be noted, at the risk of libel. Ladysekhmet (talk) 17:46, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Goddessey.com also has not been established as long and is not as well-known as USA Today, CBS, ABC, Fox 5 News, The New York Post yet seems to be frequently cited as a source for information in the article. NY Press, BTW, has been around for 20+ years. How long is needed before something can be considered "established"? By that measure Ms Adams, for example, has not yet established herself as an author. -- Sean Martin (talk) 17:48, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

This is not a debate, nor will it ever be. It is a fact that Goddessy.com is the official site of Stephanie Adams and Stephanie Adams is an established author. That is a given. Ladysekhmet (talk) 18:17, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Wasn't arguing either of those points. Yes, Goddessy is her official site. Yes, she is an author (I'll even spot you the "established"). It's the double standard you apply that I find troublesome. Complimentary items supported only by Ms Adams (via Goddessy) you defend. Other items that don't speak glowingly of her you remove with the claim they aren't supported by an "established" source (even one that has been around for twice as long as Goddessy). -- Sean Martin (talk) 19:41, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

"Ladysekhmet" has already announced that the beautiful, successful, lovable, millionaire playboy playmate, Stephanie Adams is in charge of this article. Really. I didn't make this up. -- Hoary (talk) 23:53, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Removal of information

I have removed some information with regards to sourcing. Before reinserting, please find independent multiple, and reliable sources for the assertions I have removed. Please be mindful of the biography of living persons policy here on the English Wikipedia. If there is any question I can answer, or any way I can help, please as on my talk page. Warmly, NonvocalScream (talk) 00:35, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

According to WP:BLP STYLE, "The article should document, in a non-partisan manner, what reliable third party sources have published about the subject and, in some circumstances, what the subject may have published about themselves. The writing style should be neutral and factual, avoiding both understatement and overstatement. Biographies of living persons should not have trivia sections. Instead, relevant sourced claims should be woven into the article."

And according to the wiki founder: "Real people are involved, and they can be hurt by your words. We are not tabloid journalism, we are an encyclopedia." –Jimmy Wales

According to WP:SELFPUB, "Self-published material may be used in BLPs only if written by the subject himself. Subjects may provide material about themselves through press releases, personal websites, or blogs. Material that has been self-published by the subject may be added to the article..."

Also, "Anonymous edits that blank all or part of a biography of a living person should be evaluated carefully."

And most importantly, "Basic human dignity: Wikipedia articles should respect the basic human dignity of their subjects. Wikipedia aims to be a reputable encyclopedia, not a tabloid. Our articles must not serve primarily to mock or disparage their subjects, whether directly or indirectly. This is of particularly profound importance when dealing with individuals whose notability stems largely from their being victims of another's actions. Wikipedia editors must not act, intentionally or otherwise, in a way that amounts to participating in or prolonging the victimization."

Now in regards to this as well as prior discrepancies, let us continue to improve the quality of articles on wikipedia by constructively adding valuable information to them, and not create a campaign to harass the subjects of the articles or cause overall destruction to them. Chances are, we do not know the people we are writing about personally, and if we were the ones being written about, we would want other people to show some respect for us too. Ladysekhmet (talk) 05:49, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Very selective use of emphasis there, "Ladysekhmet". You claim that

According to WP:SELFPUB, [...] Subjects may provide material about themselves through press releases, personal websites, or blogs. Material that has been self-published by the subject may be added to the article...

The first ellipsis is mine, the second yours. Wondering what they stood for, and went to WP:SELFPUB to take a look. What you quote simply isn't there. (It may have been in a recent version; I can't be bothered to check. Here's something that is there:

Self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources in articles about themselves, so long as: / 1. the material used is relevant to their notability; / 2. it is not contentious; / 3. it is not unduly self-serving [...]

The first of these is very problematic as it's hard to know what Adams is notable for, other than appearing in Playboy and, it seems, getting into arguments with people. Let's accept for the sake of argument that anything and everything about her is notable. But everything cited from her websites points toward how wonderful she is. It may not be unduly self-serving for vanity/commercial websites, but it's pretty self-serving when regurgitated into an encyclopedia article.

And then you quote from somewhere or other:

Wikipedia articles should respect the basic human dignity of their subjects. Wikipedia aims to be a reputable encyclopedia, not a tabloid. Our articles must not serve primarily to mock or disparage their subjects, whether directly or indirectly. This is of particularly profound importance when dealing with individuals whose notability stems largely from their being victims of another's actions. Wikipedia editors must not act, intentionally or otherwise, in a way that amounts to participating in or prolonging the victimization.

This is good stuff; I fully agree with it. The penultimate sentence is very obviously irrelevant to Adams. The last one is too, as nobody is victimizing anybody. What you have been so keen to excise is the most demure of mentions that Adams got a bad review for her paid effort at telling women how to snag rich men. It's only a single bad review, and it seems to be the only review: the press does not seem to have been much interested in this activity of Adams's. It's a trivial aspect of her career. What's remarkable, however, is how much better sourced the claim that she is a (mediocre) occasional teacher is than the much greater claim that she's devoting herself to philanthropy -- the latter being the kind of claim you've been happy for the article to make.

NonvocalScream has removed the bit about Adams's class for golddiggers, which I think is a great pity, but he (or she) has also removed quite a bit of unrelated junk. Meanwhile, two notes cite the NY Post. Is the NY Post (apparently the publisher of "50 Most Eligible Babes in N.Y.", though this seems to have gone missing) more credible than the NY Press (publisher of "GOLD-DIGGING 101 The Playboy Playmate with the sugar-daddy tip sheet"); and if so, how? -- Hoary (talk) 08:08, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

"Basic human dignity: Wikipedia articles should respect the basic human dignity of their subjects." - Wikipedia

You may not like her, but you will respect her, according to Wikipedia. Now I'm not sure why there is so much animosity here over this intelligent, beautiful woman (bingo!), but defamatory rants written about her in a meaningless article is neither newsworthy nor substantially needed information for the article. Ladysekhmet (talk) 07:10, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps this is related to this edit of yours. Your edit summary for it reads:

Content added was highly defamatory, does not have anything substantial to do with the subject of the article, and has again been removed. Reverted to previous edit. Refer to discussion page.

The content was:

In 2004, Adams taught a course at the Learning Annex entitled "How to Marry Rich: The Rich Are Going to Marry... Why Not to You?"

followed by two notes, each simply containing a link. Are you saying that the content of that one sentence was "highly defamatory"? Or that provision of one or both of the links was "highly defamatory"? Or that the page to which a link pointed was "highly defamatory"? What you write above suggests the second or third; if so, you'd be well advised to phrase your edit summaries more carefully in future: your fellow editors may not be happy to be accused of defamation.

You say above that:

defamatory rants written about her in a meaningless article is [sic] neither newsworthy nor substantially needed information

I'm not sure how an article can both (a) include defamatory rants against an identifiable person and (b) be meaningless. Still, we'll put that aside. You seem remarkably sure that the content of an article (presumably this one, as the other says virtually nothing) is defamatory and a rant (or rants). Neither is obvious to me. You may wish to explain here. -- Hoary (talk) 08:45, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I really think that my summary of the review of the Learning Annex course given by Ms. Adams was quite neutral. I didn't include the fact the author of the article demanded a refund of his money, or the other criticisms that were levelled in the article. I only noted that he gave the course a negative review. I think that it is a valid addition, and merits inclusion. Will re-add. Wandering canadian (talk) 13:50, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Protection

In case it was no obvious, edit-warring with an OTRS volunteer who is endeavouring to clean up WP:BLP issues is a very bad idea, and that's why I protected the article. Guy (Help!) 15:49, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

That's fine except now we don't have any way to get things done with the article. How long does this lock last? Dismas|^(talk) 16:04, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Edit-warring is always a bad idea. But what "WP:BLP issues"? The SPAs are very keen to avoid any link to this, but Wandering canadian mentioned this in such a neutral way that the only objection I can think of to it is that the whole non-event is of trivial importance. Now, I'm all in favor of cutting trivia; but if the Learning Annex incident is too trivial to mention then why does the article say that Adams is a direct descendant of President John Adams and why does it devote a paragraph to her one-eleventh part of a single "cameo appearance" in a TV show? -- Hoary (talk) 16:10, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I have received communication regarding this article thru the otrs system. I will work with you all on this talk page, with regards to BLP, that is fine. We can still get things done with this article. Make a new section underneath this one, for anything (except unduly unbalances unsourced contentious things, and apparent libel of course) and we can discuss it. Basically, anything I removed was due to sourcing issues, they need independent multiple sources. Once you have worked that out, there is an edit protected tag that can be used to have an administrator add the changes for you. If there are any questions, add it in a section below this one, I'll do my best to answer them. Your time is valuable, I understand that, but all in all - we need to get BLP articles right. There is no deadline. Regards, NonvocalScream (talk) 16:33, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

It's a good and valid question. If mention of Ms Adams's speaking at the Learning Annex is trivial and deserves removal how is it that mention of her few seconds as one eleventh of a cameo appearance isn't and deserves to remain? The real answer, which becomes apparent pretty quickly to anyone who attempts any noticeable edits to this article, is simply that Ms Adams doesn't want anything in this article that isn't complimentary and promotional of herself or supportive of her personal world view and will throw a hissy fit if it doesn't go exactly as she wants. (OK, let's allow for moment that despite all her actions that would lead any reasonable person to think so (as I'm on record as saying I do) that it isn't Stephanie Adams herself who is making these edits. Since they're mostly posted by Someone Anonymous, let's just use the initials "SA" for short.) Favorable information will generally be poorly sourced and vehemently defended by "SA" and the variety of accounts and SPAs "SA" utilizes to berate, insult and attack. Information "SA" sees as unfavorable will be quickly deleted. -- Sean Martin (talk) 20:38, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

PLease refer to my above comment. NonvocalScream (talk) 21:14, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

learning annex info

This section is sourced and not libelous: In 2004, Adams taught a course at the Learning Annex entitled "How to Marry Rich: The Rich Are Going to Marry... Why Not to You?" New York Press reporter A.J. Daulerio gave the class a negative review. Can it please be added back in? Thank you, Dismas|^(talk) 16:49, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Scratch that... I see by the edit protected tag, which by the way is {{editprotected}} for anyone who doesn't know (I didn't until I guessed at it), that this information can be seen as "controversial" since a couple single purpose accounts keep removing it. So now what? Do I call for a consensus? Dismas|^(talk) 16:49, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Basically, it is negative. Are there more independent reliable sources (two or three), if so, they need to be cited. One thing to consider, does it add undo weight? NonvocalScream (talk) 20:39, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure what your question about undue weight is referring to. Though I found a couple more sources: this and this

All of the sources regarding this ridiculous "learning annex" piece of information are rants and therefore neither objective nor factual. Wikipedia has already made it clear that they do not want libellous mentionings in articles that give the article absolutely no benefit, other than to insult and defamr someone, and will remove such mentionings in the long run. Why are you some of you so adamant about adding such nonsense, given more important facts that need to be added back again, such as her highly publicized date of birth, which is included on her playmate data sheet in Playboy magazine? Like all of the other playmates, she specifically confirmed her date of birth as 7-24-70 and all of the other playmates have their birthdays listed without the need for such a commotion or citation. Removing it is obstructing the article and indirectly maliciously abusing the rights to maintain proper information. Why keep fighting a battle you will inevitably lose? Come on people, you all know that is her date of birth. A losing battle...Think about it. Swiksek (talk) 22:27, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

indepentent sources

I'm afraid that without a couple or three //independent// reliable sources for this, the learning annex piece won't be included. NonvocalScream (talk) 23:25, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Birthdate

Since Playboy doesn't post the birth date portion of their monthly data sheet on the Playmates online, the birth date can't be found on their site. Although, this source which is the source for information here states that her birthday is July 24, 1970. That is the same date that was removed in this edit. So can that be added back in? Dismas|^(talk) 22:11, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Well as much as you and I might not agree on things, I totally agree with you here on this one. And if you need further resources, other than the biographies on Goddessy.com, StephanieAdams.com and Sapphica.com, just google "Stephanie Adams July 24, 1970" and you'll find this. This one's a no-brainer. Swiksek (talk) 22:32, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, we agree here but just so you know... Google searches aren't admissible as a source. A lot of sites get their info from Wikipedia, therefore we'd be referencing ourselves. As an aside, IMDb is unreliable as well since the data there is mostly user contributed like Wikipedia. Dismas|^(talk) 22:42, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I disabled the edit protected, give me few to make the cites and I'll re enable it. NonvocalScream (talk) 22:46, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

1st ref: born on 24 July, 1970

I actually just went thru the first 6 pages of the search query, and did not run across anything I would call reliable. However, since the birthdate is not otherwise contested, I think this will be fine. It would be helpful if someone could help come up with one or two more additional sources. NonvocalScream (talk) 23:11, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

One excellent source is the Playboy November 1992 magazine. In it the data sheet has her month, day, and year of birth. However, most of you cannot access the pay site to Playboy unless you are a member and the datasheet is no where it can be seen online. But it's in there.

Here are a few online sources:

Which Celebrity Shares Your Birthdate?

Gay, Lesbian & Bisexual People

And the most reliable sources are:

Stephanie Adams: Biography.

GODDESSY: About The Author

It's ok to obtain information from the subject's biography, as long as the information is not controversial or self-promoting. A birth date is hardly either.

Incidentally, how can you prove the other playmate's dates of births and why aren't they all questioned/removed? Swiksek (talk) 23:31, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

measurements

{{editprotected}}

Can the measurements section be removed until independent reliable sources can be found? Thanks, NonvocalScream (talk) 23:15, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Done. - Jredmond (talk) 23:25, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Regards, NonvocalScream (talk) 23:26, 25 April 2008 (UTC)