Jump to content

Talk:Hannah Witton: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
Book(s): resolved
Line 17: Line 17:


Something else in need of a 2nd opinion, please remove two [[Special:Diff/901457893/901468431|obscure UK awards]] imported from [[w:de:Hannah Witton|dewiki]] if they are on the wrong side of NN spam. –[[Special:Contributions/84.46.52.223|84.46.52.223]] ([[User talk:84.46.52.223|talk]]) 02:48, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
Something else in need of a 2nd opinion, please remove two [[Special:Diff/901457893/901468431|obscure UK awards]] imported from [[w:de:Hannah Witton|dewiki]] if they are on the wrong side of NN spam. –[[Special:Contributions/84.46.52.223|84.46.52.223]] ([[User talk:84.46.52.223|talk]]) 02:48, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

{{resolved|Got a [[Special:Diff/912231202|2nd]] opinion by [[User:Starklinson|Starklinson]] et al. –[[Special:Contributions/84.46.53.160|84.46.53.160]] ([[User talk:84.46.53.160|talk]]) 22:56, 23 January 2020 (UTC)}}


== Book(s) ==
== Book(s) ==

Revision as of 22:56, 23 January 2020

Why does it mention her height?

Why does the Wikipedia article mention her height? Without a citation, I might add. She's not a basketball player, it doesn't matter. I'm not going to remove it, but it seems inappropriate. Fluoborate (talk) 18:19, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Fluoborate: Remove it if you hate it, I spent my ammo against "weight"/"mass" on Sasha Grey+d:Q2709, and anybody trying "cup size" on (don't say) without a Guardian reference is dead. At least "height" is no moving target, but still requires a solid reference.
Unrelated, this article needs an image, e.g., a cropped frame extracted from the added video. –84.46.52.142 (talk) 08:31, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved
 – by direct action after some meep tried to add a "mass" on d:Q2709 again. –84.46.52.63 (talk) 10:23, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

CoI

Personally I hate religious categories; maybe because I'm from Germany: The next step after tagging people could be to "collect" those you don't like. Therefore I agree with this edit, but she explicitly mentioned it as (quote) secular (unquote) in a self-published "assumptions" video yesterday.[1]84.46.53.29 (talk) 23:06, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Something else in need of a 2nd opinion, please remove two obscure UK awards imported from dewiki if they are on the wrong side of NN spam. –84.46.52.223 (talk) 02:48, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved
 – Got a 2nd opinion by Starklinson et al. –84.46.53.160 (talk) 22:56, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Book(s)

JFTR, Doing It: Let's Talk About Sex now exists and ends up here. When the 2nd book is published please get rid of the WP:TWITTER "announcement", it needs an ISBN and a redirect and (ideally) a review in RS. Or any primary source better than Twitter. –84.46.53.249 (talk) 06:49, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved
 – The 4th page in my search hits had a non-seller review, skipping a Chloe Metzger review as WP:UGC. –84.46.52.63 (talk) 14:51, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]