Talk:Kat Von D

Jewish

Is she? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.120.93.246 (talk) 14:54, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Apparently not. ;-) 64.142.90.34 (talk) 09:57, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Picture

someone should put up a picture of her...she's a nice looking woman

her real Name ?

are there more details about her name ? I mean, according to the article, her real name is Katherine von Drachenberg, while her father is named René Drachenberg. Where does the "von" come from ? Or is her real name just Katherine Drachenberg, without the "von" ? Also, it would be interesting to know, if she has some german ancestors, because Drachenberg is a german Name (translated into english the name means Dragon-Mountain) --87.177.223.142 22:53, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Her father is of german ancestry,but born in Argentina. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.216.32.118 (talk) 09:33, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Tattoos

How do people get a tat from Kat? :-D

Go to the high voltage website, you can sign up for a tattoo off camera, If you want to do it on-camera go to the website of the station that her show is on (TLC I think). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.72.100.2 (talk) 15:16, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

-Maria —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 4.153.29.65 (talk) 03:37, 10 April 2007 (UTC).

Every episode gives instructions for applying to get a tattoo on the show. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.146.184.9 (talk) 13:42, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Her father is of german ancestry,but born in Argentina.

Divorce

I believe that she and Oliver Peck are now divorced. 209.74.0.248 03:52, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Is there any source of this? I've looked around the net and found nothing saying they were divorced. It seems that they may be in the process of getting divorced, but I haven't found anything stating they are.

She discusses it somewhere during an interview with Tom Green currently on her myspace,

http://profile.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=user.viewprofile&friendid=554683&MyToken=6b8ade61-db4d-4dae-a2ea-be6ff4d13d8d

and on Green's blog,

http://tomgreen.com/blog/

She says in the opening of her show "I'm single now..."

And, for what it's worth, her MySpace profile says singleSeaphoto 04:12, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

She straight up said she was single on one of the first (if not the first) episode of LA Ink. I heard it from her lips! --Naha|^(talk) 04:14, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

She is no longer dating Orbi! They split, and now she is seeing Nikki Sixx and claims she has never been so in love. Check out her myspace picures for proof. 3/7/08 sarah s

MySpace is gossip, guys. She may be proclaiming to the world that he "owns her heart", but it's still gossip, whether there are pictures or not. We all know they're together, but until it meets Wiki's source standards, it should be left out. Sugarnova (talk) 13:52, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Ethnic identity

People have been inserting everything from "Mexican" and "Mexican-American" to "Argentinian-American" here. Barring some statement from her about what she would like to be identified, I think the following are in order from least to most true:

1. Mexican
2. Mexican-American
3. German
4. Argentinian
5. American
6. German-American
7. Argentinian-American
8. German- and Argentinian-American

It seems to be the last one is the most consistent with conventions on identifying a person's ethnicity but perhaps other people have different views. -- fourdee ᛇᚹᛟ 00:33, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.32.10.62 (talk) 15:43, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

fix please!

This page is severely screwed up this morning -- it starts out looking like vandalism but then perhaps just some severe coding issues -- someone with more experience please fix! -JR 74.223.3.210 13:07, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Miami Ink dismissal

It is speculated that Von D was summarily dismissed from Miami Ink by Ami James due to personality conflicts.

It's not speculation--it took place over several episodes of the show and was explicitly stated. Andchimeras 16:14, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

That line, I suspect, is the remnant of something from the Miami Ink article. There was a rumor that her dismissal was staged so TLC could start a new program. -- Jelly Soup 08:00, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism

I'm thinking that we might need some temporary page protection action around here. There has been a steady rash of IPs vandalizing the article. -- Jelly Soup 08:42, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

COI edits

As several edits made by a user whose name include Kyanna, such as the claim that Kat is dating someone named Kyanna, were made and without any reliable sources, I feel it is imperative to reverse such conflict of interest edits. Please provide verification of any factual claims, and make sure not to violate Wikipedia's rules regarding editing subjects which you are personally connected to. Thank you, VanTucky ^talk 03:02, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism or over-the-top PR?

There is more in the entry about KvD than many people might really want to know. Hard to tell whether it's the work of a detractor (see the second paragraph of the Biography section) or an obsessive fan. 68.53.88.245 (talk) 16:36, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Appearances section

This section needs major work - can someone more skilled than me try to sort out the coding, maybe using some tables? Thanks.--ukexpat (talk) 01:44, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Pregnant?

In the commercial for the next LA Ink season on TLC, it shows her telling everyone she is pregnant. Should this be added? 65.95.196.18 (talk) 19:34, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism

24.253.51.173 (talk) has twice added vandalism to this page such as "Kat also has a tat of a black and white penis on her left butt cheek. The tat is a life size replica of Afro-American porn star Alex Steele's anatomy. Kat briefly hooked-up with Steele whom she met at the Adult Video Awards. " and other nonsense. I reverted him (I'm taking a wild guess that this is a 'him') again. Keep an eye out for this as it seems to be happening a bit. Rabbi Jesus Muhammed (talk) 14:03, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I also reverted a bunch of porno comments, can someone please protect this site so the sad people with too much time on their hands can't vandalize it anymore?

Thanks, Rhian Gittins —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.128.192.8 (talk) 21:57, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I got rid of the Alex Steele comment...the meth comments should be gone as well. Sugarnova (talk) 15:42, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Handling the bio of a living person is a delicate job, and the bio page should not be subjected to vandalism. The trouble right now is that due to the claims of other people -- not wikipedia vandals -- Von D is embroiled in a controversy about antisemitic remarks, and even if attempts are made to protect the page from porn vandlaism and mentions of drug abuse, the newsworthy controversy should remain online. 64.142.90.34 (talk) 08:43, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Controversy

they claim Chris Garver is saying it's true..Kat gave Chris that picture. so who knows...sad if it's true —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.32.10.62 (talk) 15:45, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

The fact that Chris Garver made the accusation has been deleted from the article speedily, every time it was put in. Garver has a wiki page, and the mention of him is legitimate and is also linked to his wiki page. I think that the Kat Von D article is ready to be overseen by an administrator who can check it for Conflict of Interest, because the repeated deletions look like CoI, especially when they are edited by Kat von D herself. I realize that reality TV thrives on fake controversy, but, alas for Ms Von D, this controversy is a bit too real for her to handle gracefully, and by deleting Garver's name, it appears that she or her helpers are hoping to make it seem as if the accusation of antisemitism came out of nowhere. But it did come out of somewhere -- Chris Garver's mouth. 64.142.90.34 (talk) 08:38, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Removing content

Neutral, sourced content should not be removed because one person doesn't agree with it. If someone has an issue with the inclusion of the alleged antisemitic section (ie "Controversy"), those issues should have first been raised on the talk page before removing it. Comparing this article to Britney Spears' is hardly a great argument because her article does in fact cover her numerous personal problems. Those problems just don't happen to included alleged antisemitism. The present content regarding Von D's alleged comments present both sides and, like it or not, is worthy of mentioning. Pinkadelica (talk) 02:32, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I just removed the stuff sourced to TMZ. TMZ is not a reliable source. It's a source of gossip. Re-inserting such material without *reliable* sources violates WP:LIVING and is a blockable offense. The onus is on those wanting inclusion to discuss first, and cite sources, before adding it back. --Rob (talk) 05:51, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Who says TMZ cannot be a reliable source? Whether what they write is newsworthy is completely separate from whether or not it's true. In their article on the allegations they have the following:

TLC gave TMZ this statement: "A publicity photo was brought to the network's attention eight months ago that contained extraordinarily offensive language. A full investigation was immediately conducted to determine whether anyone associated with the network was involved. Kat vehemently denied authoring the text and after completing the investigation, it was determined that insufficient evidence existed to conclude that she had. Therefore, no disciplinary action was taken. The network always takes these matters seriously and follows what we believe to be an appropriate course of action as dictated by the circumstances and available information."

Are you suggesting they invented this quote from TLC? Obviously it's true that there were allegations made against Kat Von D. There's absolutely no justification for removing this section from the page. And excluding TMZ as a source does not make any sense.68.72.108.110 (talk) 23:01, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

I have replaced the controversy section. It belongs in the page, and the reference is perfectly acceptable. 68.72.97.159 (talk) 01:33, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't think all the details are necessary. Can't we just say that the photo included anti-Semitic comments? The details can be found on the links; I don't think it needs to be explicitly repeated on this page. Aryder779 (talk) 23:04, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, ok. Your sentence was a bit awkward though so I (hopefully) improved it. 68.72.106.175 (talk) 04:10, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Mad TV sketch

Add to page?: She appeared on MADtv on April 5, 2008 in a sketch with Bobby Lee and Arden Myrin. -Herenthere (Talk) 20:07, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Although trivia is interesting, for some reason it is frowned upon here. Many articles have had their trivia sections removed by Admins, although a few people continue to add tidbits of trivia to an article every now and then. -Sweet Pinkette (talk) 10:06, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Trivia sections are frowned upon. Rather, it's best to try and work the information into the body of the article itself. -- Jelly Soup (talk) 01:44, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Neutrality

Under the Controversy heading, this portion was slightly impartial. By using words like "accused" and conveniently failing to include other facts that were made public, readers, like me, will gather that she was definitely framed.

If this portion is reverted I will slap a notice on the main page about this article not being neutral. Again, you do not use words like "accused" when being impartial and then leave important pieces of information. This is not your own personal web page and others have the right to know everything that was reported, not just the parts that make your idol seem less guilty. -Sweet Pinkette (talk) 10:06, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

While I have no problems with your edit, I'm not completely sure what was wrong with it the way it was. I think all the information was in there. The real issue with this page is that the Controversy section keeps disappearing altogether, with editors giving various flimsy reasons for the removal. It had been missing for awhile until I replaced it. If someone chooses to revert your edit that's one thing, but if the section vanishes again an administrator definitely needs to step in. 68.72.97.237 (talk) 03:56, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, I haven't been to the main article since my last edit in 2006 and I don't follow the celebrity gossip, so I didn't even hear about this news story. When I read it here it gave me the impression that she was just outright accused, with little or no evidence. I felt it was slightly one-sided, omitting the fact that both Garver and James, who have worked with her for years, confirmed her involvement.

Also, there is no valid reason to remove the Controversy section. Completely removing a section of an article, especially when it is cited and significant to the article, is considered vandalism. From personal experience, there is only so much the Admins can do except warn or suspend the user(s). But I can assure whoever is removing the section that every time it gets taken down it will be reverted and they risk being IP banned. -Sweet Pinkette (talk) 08:58, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Outside of getting in an all out revert war, the controversy section is constantly being removed. It is completely valid, and deserves to stay. Whether or not TMZ is considered 'reliable', it is completely fair to keep it in. I'm a fan...I hate to see any negative things written about her because of my geek fandom, but it happened...it needs to be there. Sugarnova (talk) 19:02, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

TMZ seems to be some kind of scandal blog. The story on that site, such as it is, shows that there's nothing in the story (the solitary opinion of a "handwriting expert" isn't much in the face of a clear denial by the alleged author that she wrote the words.) If only scandal blogs and the like are reporting this story, that's because it's a non-story. Carrying it in this article would be giving it undue weight. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 19:39, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

You say "Whether or not TMZ is considered 'reliable...'". Well, whether a source is reliable is the essential question. We can only use reliable sources, especially in BLPs. Re-adding contentious claims without proper sources is a blockable offense. I've re-removed them, and suggest you get solid sources before re-adding them. --Rob (talk) 05:43, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Sure, I understand your point...and I'm certainly not trying to poke the bear,(Wiki rookie...be gentle) I just believe that it should have at least a mention. I agree, reliable sources are a must...I was the idiot that went on about MySpace being unreliable...I'm still learning, guys. Sugarnova (talk) 12:21, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

As I said above in the "removing content" section, there is nothing unreliable about the TMZ story. In it, they have statements from Ami James, from The Learning Channel and from Kat von D herself. They did not invent the story, and they did not make up the quotes! You are confusing reliability and newsworthiness. You can certainly argue that most of their stories should not be considered "news", but that is completely separate from whether or not they are true. Simple as that. The source is perfectly fine, the story is relevant to her biography, and the section is going back.68.72.81.73 (talk) 07:29, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Surprise surprise, the section is gone again. This is really getting ridiculous. 68.72.109.176 (talk) 15:02, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Why won't the person that keeps deleting it participate in a discussion? I'd like to hear why they feel it needs to be gone. Sugarnova (talk) 16:36, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I suspect it's because he or she does not have a good reason. Kat's supporters have tried several invalid arguments in this talk page, and it now appears that one of them has simply chosen to make it a revert war.128.135.28.7 (talk) 18:00, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Let me see if I can clear up why this section is being removed. The entire section is based on an article at tmz.com and does not appear to have been picked up in any reliable news outlets. So first, you have the section being based on a sub-standard source and second, you are giving a lot of weight to a mention from a single non-mainstream source. Both of these reasons are grounds for immediate removal, especially since this is a biography of a living person (please see the policy at WP:BLP for more details).

That said, if someone wanted to include material of this type, there's a couple of things you can do to keep it from being removed: Choose things that are reported by multiple, high quality (think New York Times) sources that covered the information; make sure you cite these sources when including the information. Avoid "Controversy" as a heading - work information in to the article in an appropriate section. Remember that not every incident that gets reported somewhere is going to be notable enough for inclusion in an encyclopedia and when it is, it needs to be included in appropriate balance to the remainder of the article.

Anyways, hope that helps out. Shell ^babelfish 18:37, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Are you the one doing the deletion? I really think this needs reconsideration. The only reason this story was not reported in the New York Times is because Kat von D is not a big enough celebrity. If she were as famous as Mel Gibson, this story would have got the Mel Gibson treatment, no question about it. If you search the New York Times site, you will find no stories about Kat von D at all, save for one very brief mention of her show in a television column. And there's no mention of her at all on cnn.com. By your logic, the article should be nominated for deletion entirely because Kat von D does not have enough mentions in enough sources that somebody arbitrarily considers mainstream. What is the real issue here? People keep using the word "reliable", but this implies that the TMZ story about the accusations may be somehow false. It's obviously not false given that TLC and Kat von D herself issued statements about it. Do you really think TMZ fabricated all those quotes? Is the issue that the accusations may be false? That is certainly possible, but Chris Garver (who claims to have been an eyewitness) and Ami James are evidently sticking to their story, so I don't see any reason to favour her side by censoring the story here. Is it that the story is not newsworthy? It is certainly newsworthy as far as Kat von D and her fans, and therefore this Wiki page, are concerned. It may not rise to the level the New York Times, but that does not make sense as a blanket standard.68.72.109.176 (talk) 19:29, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I did the last removal, but Shell did a good job explaining the reasoning for removal, and how some material may be re-added. A quick search at Google and Google News, suggests Kat von D receives ample coverage beyond TMZ. TMZ is not a reliable sources (especially when used as the sole source). NY Times is just one of many reliable sources. Also, the lack of reliable sources is never an excuse to cover something without them. See WP:BLP for our standards on coverage of contentious material on living people, as well as our blocking policy for those who violate it. --Rob (talk) 20:56, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

You keep repeating that TMZ is not "reliable" but you do not elaborate on what you think that means. Do you actually believe that the story is, or could be, false and that the quotes from TLC, Kat von D, and Ami James are fabricated? 68.72.109.176 (talk) 21:49, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

No and in fact, generally when writing articles, you'll find that its not about true or false, its about a concept called neutral point of view. When someone here says that a source is not "reliable", this doesn't actually refer to what the source is reporting at all, it means that we don't think the source meets the editorial standards that the Wikipedia community has decided on. In general, the more people engaged in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the writing, the more reliable the publication - TMZ, an online gossip rag, doesn't really meet any of those criteria, so its use, especially in a biography is going to be suspect. Again, I'd suggest that reading the biography of living people policy and even the policies on sourcing might help explain this in a bit more detail. Shell ^babelfish 23:02, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I did read the policies, and there is nothing in there that excludes TMZ as a reliable source for this story. You say "the more people engaged in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the writing, the more reliable the publication - TMZ, an online gossip rag, doesn't really meet any of those criteria", but where in the world do you get that? How do you know how many people they have fact-checking and how big their legal department is? In fact, I would argue that being primarily a celebrity "news" site (and associated television program), they would take extra care that their stories are not libelous and that anything that is presented as a fact is actually true, considering the multiplying number of lawsuits they would face otherwise. At any rate, they certainly do not have a reputation for publishing factually inaccurate stories and to me, that's the definition of reliable. Anyway, most of the TMZ story consists of actual quotes from the people involved on both sides! Seems perfectly reasonable to me. And the argument that it should be excluded because we can't find it on any of the major news sites is a bit of a red herring here. The New York Times, CNN, and their ilk obviously do not much care about ANY of the doings of Kat von D. 68.72.109.176 (talk) 03:18, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I can understand that you might feel that way, but since you have multiple regular Wikipedia editors removing this section and several here trying to explain why this isn't appropriate for the article, please take a moment to consider that perhaps, by Wikipedia's standard, this isn't appropriate at this time. Saying things like "[they] obviously do not much care about ANY of the doings..." really makes it look like you have a bias or at least strong feelings that lead you to want this particular information in the article. Its important to understand that the majority of incidents that happen to or about celebrities will get coverage somewhere in the media, but this doesn't necessarily rise to the level of being pertinent to an encyclopedia article. Shell ^babelfish 03:43, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I think it is self-evident that I believe the information should be in the article, but that certainly doesn't mean I have some personal animus against her. I certainly don't. That statement I made was to reiterate the point I made earlier: I could not find any stories of any kind about Kat von D on either CNN or the New York Times (except a very small mention of her show on NYT). However, this does not lead anyone to conclude that the whole article should be deleted. Yet I believe this is the logic being employed to exclude the section about the controversy. Anyway, it seems that our disagreement really comes down to word definitions. Not only do we not agree on the definition of the word "reliable", it would seem we also have different notions of "multiple" and "several". Dhris (talk) 05:15, 28 May 2008 (UTC) (sorry, I kept forgetting to log in earlier)

Well, the more I look, the more I agree that there's a broader problem of lousy sources. A signficant amount of material could be removed. For instance, her ancestry is badly sourced, and if you remove stuff like that, I'll support you. Perhaps, this explains why Italian Wikipedia deleted her bio. Anyway, my priority is material that could be deemed defamatory (e.g. stuff people can and do sue over). --Rob (talk) 05:56, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Those are different issues that can be discussed separately. I agree that the article would benefit from some serious edits. But your concern about defamation or a lawsuit is absolutely misplaced the case of the controversy section. But since I'm clearly not going to convince either of you, and I certainly don't find the vague "TMZ is unreliable" argument remotely convincing, it's probably time to solicit some other opinions.Dhris (talk) 19:07, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

(out-dent)Here's some other thoughts: This "controversy" was only covered on a website that bills itself as celebrity gossip and rumor. Again, there's several problems there - your looking at only one source, the source clearly defines itself as presenting gossip and rumor and you've tried to devote an entire section, with the dubious "controversy" heading to this marginal incident. I'm pretty sure this has all been said before during this discussion, but you seem to have missed that while latching on to the fact that TMZ is unlikely to meet the standard for sources on biographies of living people. If you'd like some other opinions, I'd suggest an article RfC might be a good way to go - this and other ideas on how to engage more editors from the community can be found at WP:DR. Shell ^babelfish 20:36, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

No, I have not missed any of these points. In fact, I have responded to all of them more than once in the course of this discussion, as you can (I assume) clearly read above. It is obvious that at this point any continued discussion will just mean repeating ourselves, even if we do bill our further rehashes as "other thoughts". Dhris (talk) 22:11, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Unless I've missing something, you've disputed the assertion that TMZ is unreliable by Wikipedia standards and you've argued that the information should be included because you aren't going to be able to find better sources. The first, you're welcome to get more opinions on - there's even a reliable sources noticeboard that offers a quick way to get other people's thoughts. The second is not a defensible position, a lack of coverage on a subject doesn't mean that the standards for sources can be lowered, it means that less is included. Shell ^babelfish 23:55, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

LA INK on DVD?

Does anyone know if La Ink is available on dvd yet?143.216.49.250 (talk) 05:20, 2 June 2008 (UTC)Marc.S

According to Amazon.com, yes. -- Jelly Soup (talk) 23:23, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

MySpace

Should a MySpace link to a fan page be included in the external links? It's not her official page...and the link that I included for Sephora was taken down...what constitues a good link? Sugarnova (talk) 16:33, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I removed it. Definitely not appropriate. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 16:53, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Also abuse

Can someone please rewrite this article and remove the 1,263 occurrences of the word "also"? 97.81.249.107 (talk) 04:41, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

I removed some of them, there still several. --FailureAtDeath (talk) 23:23, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Von or von

Just a minor detail, but is "Von" really capitalised? In German it never is and her name does seems to be of German descent. --Soetermans | is listening | what he'd do now? 08:15, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Kat's make up

How can I find out make about her make up line? Sandy 10/29/08

Kat Von D's Book

Has Kat Von D's book been released yet, if so will it have an article on wikepedia?143.216.49.250 (talk) 00:02, 22 January 2009 (UTC)Marc.S

It's out...it's also $30...but worth it. It's put together very well, and encompasses her life and career. Sugarnova (talk) 12:40, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Biography

I was wondering if anyone could improve the biography section, the one in this article tells nothing about Kat Von D's child life or anything. Thanks--FailureAtDeath (talk) 01:28, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Children

I just wondered if Kat has any children, I remember seeing a photo of her a few years ago looking very pregnant and I think (but not sure) that she confirmed her pregnancy at the time. Many thanks 86.29.227.30 (talk) 16:12, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Like? Like? Maybe do you think she's an idiot? Watch one episode of her nonsense and you'll realize she's a pop culture waste of skin.

-Peter S. CANADA —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.238.221.92 (talk) 04:37, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

And that answers my question how? 86.9.248.175 (talk) 15:40, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure Kat has never been pregnant. She has said before that she doesn't want children. How is she an idiot, though, Canada? Or a "pop culture waste of skin?" I mean, I'm not some diehard fan of hers but she seems intelligent to me and she's recognized as one of the best tattooers in the business. Especially for portraits. 67.187.245.33 (talk) 23:17, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Wikiproject Body Modification

I'm trying to start a Wikiproject on Body Modification, if anyone wants to join go here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Council/Proposals/Body_Modification ScarTissueBloodBlister (talk) 02:33, 16 July 2009 (UTC)