So, why are these previous activities keep getting edited out of the text? Your other source is a press release by the video's manufacturer. They're using my current picture and abook title without my permission. Note the statement on the documents at the link: The NY Daily gossip column is not a reliable source, is tabloidish, and is certainly not a "high quality" reliable source. But like any education, when a woman has done the work she instantly has more power. And if the outfit that shot you are a professional outfit are we disputing perhaps that Vivid Entertainment are professionals -in what they do-? Advertisement I apologize personally because I thought you were a ho when I first read Confessions but now I realize that I was unfairly labeling you as much as the rest of society. I was a single mom. So, the only question would be whether or not the document is genuine. I've seen this movie already - hell, I've seen it many times before on this subject too! Then she shoots a porn movie, which they title Superhead in order to capitalize on her "fame". Something as simple as mentioning the break-up would be fine. Google contains several hits for this, but they seem to be blogs, or non-reliable sources. I needed money. You have more chances to get married and divorced, Kim has been married three times. Was that McCrary? Maybe Kim is doing that now? I now realize my mistakes -and they are unforivable for a Wikipedia entry:
Doesn't say that, and that was merely a single motion in an actual lawsuit that you mention nothing about. Their relationship was "tumultuous", and Steffans says she left for Los Angeles to protect her son after physical abuse landed her in the hospital. The video shows Steffans discussing the nickname "Superhead", not the videotape. I presume you find nothing wrong with that. Open your eyes and examine the Vivid Entertainment Group website previously linked in the page history that you have deleted more than once. I cut my own hair short in my room, I was just doing tomboy shit. Problem solved. And write about it. What Newsvine is saying is that Ms Steffans shot a porn video. You may engage editors in further policy discussion at the reliable sources noticeboard and the BLP noticeboard. As I've asked you repeatedly, where is a reliable source that says Steffans "had the movie edited, packaged and released" i. BLP guidelines. Here is one it's NSFW and if, after watching it, you insist that it was shot without her consent, without the intention of it going out for wide release, and without a professional porn film crew, then I have truly nothing more to say. Your hair was really something. BLP and WP: I'm going to park a response as I lack time at the moment to pursue this, so would welcome any other opinions before I return with a detailed response hopefully in a couple of days if this has not been resolved by everyone else by then. So please as I can not edit up-date the page, please change it for me, thanks. The question of verifiability of cited news reports, documents, etc is indeed directly related to realiability of sources , per WP. Just for the record, what is the reliable source you are citing that says so? If the NY Daily News tabloid newspaper is generally reliable as a source and numerous Wiki articles cite items from it , then we have to examine the specific, individual item of news as reported in the NY Daily News and evaluate whether the article falls under the category of "tabloid journalism" or is merely celebrity reportage. She lived on the streets for a month. If you don't deny these are facts then I fail to see why they cannot be included in the article, particularly if Steffans herself can be quoted as a source. The claim that anyone has been in a sex film can be interpreted as titillating or challenged on the basis of whether the article is conservative or not; by itself this is not a reason to delete all controversial article content on sight, particularly when it is sourced. The content you introduced isn't supported by the source you cited for a number of reasons.
Controversial content in a BLP may also be added, but must be cited to high quality sources. She has a business disagreement with Vivid and she sues them. Incidentally, this works both ways: Oh, and I've seen an image of some DVD cover art. I do not think this is the correct approach in informing Wikipedia readers, no matter how many links you post to irrelevant and generic wikirules. Or whether or not she made an adult video? She has written about her troubled childhood: Since the allegation of being in an adult video is so disparaging, better sources are really needed. The Superhead nickname is confirmed by Steffans in a direct interview. Advertisement With that heated discussion in mind, I asked Steffans her thoughts on Kardashian, Rose and what it means to be a woman who approaches sex like Wilt Chamberlain. What, exactly, is the wording of the Wikipedia article content that you would cite to the NY Daily gossip column? Rose is "glad it's out there", and hopes it opens up conversations. Further, the linked source claims someone's name is variously "Stephens, Karin Antonia" or also "Desiree Stephens, Karin Antonia" and makes no indication as to what the birth name was, or what the present legal name is. Adding reliably sourced context is always a good thing. That alone sent up red flags. When the facts are spelt out in detail by sources such as the NY Daily News and CBS, repeatedly blanking the sourced material appears unjustified to me particularly as I have readded the story twice, added a new source and checked the citations. Even a "gossip" column in the New York post falls under WP: Regards, Xenophrenic talk Instead, I asked her about ladies like Amber Rose and Kim Kardashian who are enmeshed in hip-hop today—can they shirk those kinds of labels even when they throw them at one another? Your approach to this issue, as well as Malik Shabazz 's, are useful in reminding us of the self-evident fact that the information in this online encyclopaedia is only as good as its contributors and editors' input. I would recommend you review WP: Vivid makes it look like it's a new tape. Personal attack removed. That is exactly what this is all about and no more, although it'd be understandable if you want to make it abt something else. V and WP:
V "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—whether readers can check that material in Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source , not whether editors think it is true. So, what are the criteria for refusing a website as a reliable source for a document's reproduction? Wade by men sitting in rooms deciding what I should do with my body. No, Darius was my second husband, also nobody special. If it is genuine, that info merits inclusion in the article. Until I started this book tour in June, every Instagram post was at my house. The text could be sentences long and contain nothing but lies! Image via Karrineandco. The NY Daily gossip column is not a reliable source, is tabloidish, and is certainly not a "high quality" reliable source. On "just 3 sentences": Hihellowhatsup You end up making all of these bad choices because you have the opportunity to do so. I needed money. There has never been any claim by anyone including Steffans that the direct quotation was false.
Go ahead and keep trying to justify an obviously untenable position about the contents of the Karrine Steffans entry. It was Dolly Parton, it was everything… that I did not want it to be. Do you think people are still holding on to your image from your work in videos? RS "Whether a specific news story is reliable for a specific fact or statement in a Wikipedia article will be assessed on a case by case basis. Why exactly do you consider these sources unreliable? Prompted by your recommendation, I re-read the policy and found nothing that supports any of the points you have made so far in this discussion. She dedicated her first book to her son, and she donates part of the proceeds from the book to the Boys and Girls Club of America. Love the jokes. BLP guidelines. There is no need to have sat in front of a director, getting your cues for "Action" and "Cut". So says professional swordsman Mr. America Online is owned by Warner Brothers Corp. But around the release of Confessions of a Video Vixen, that book was merchandised as representing you and your life.
Things are happening. She's no more a porn actress than Kim Kardashian is. As noted above, multiple high quality sources should be readily available if the proposed content is appropriate for a BLP. And what exactly are you implying by the term "its subject"? I was a single mom. RS "Whether a specific news story is reliable for a specific fact or statement in a Wikipedia article will be assessed on a case by case basis. My point was that, irrespective of whether a document is legally binding e. Virgin Islands , and moved to Florida when she was 10 years old. Otherwise, your conduct is simply obnoxious. Karrine Steffans filed a request for a temporary restraining order in the courts, claiming that Vivid falsely implied she had an exclusive agreement with them. If you are having difficulty finding high quality reliable sources to support your proposed content, that is indicative the content is either not completely accurate, not very relevant, not very notable or some combination of the three. Judge denied a restraining order? Because the latter entry has been written by Steffans Publishing. Steffans' past does NOT include a stint in porn it's irrelevant that she shot at least one, professionally ; her book s did NOT meet with any adverse criticism; her autobiography was actually praised by prof. If anyone profits from this film, I want my cut, which I will donate to charity Google contains several hits for this, but they seem to be blogs, or non-reliable sources. I go the hell to sleep. Blanking of contentious material from a BLP Could someone explain to me in simple terms as to why this diff might be justified by WP: Does that public misinterpretation upset you?
No, the fact that she has not denied anything quoted in the article cannot be used as something that enhances its credibility. Is it similar to the non-RS embedded video clip of her answering a question that we aren't allowed to hear, where she says it was a personal thing between herself and another person, and wasn't intended to be public? In term of WP: A lot of women find power in their bodies and, like my grandmother says, flesh is for the worms. The name Superhead and the sexual context is relevant, of interest to the article and is used in multiple sources and articles and is verifiable in interviews with Steffans and in her own books which she markets on the basis of their sexual nature. The book is described by its publishers as "an anthology" that consists of "a series of essays depicting regrettable sexual experiences wherein the consumption of alcohol was involved, either before, during, or after. Does anyone have any other suggestions besides blanking the information? I've seen this movie already - hell, I've seen it many times before on this subject too! Advertisement You have mentioned that your mother was a big influence on your outlook because as a child you were kidnapped for three days and raped and when you returned home, she said you looked like a whore. BetacommandBot RS and WP: For other people, not for myself. This has been most enlightening. Do you have a single source that says Steffans "shot a porn movie"? Early life[ edit ] Steffans was born in Saint Thomas, U. Marcus, who co-stars with Steffans in the upcoming porn flick, "Superhead," which pays homage to her unique talents. If you allow yourself to be filmed As this discussion has a long history here and I am concerned that Wikipedia is not censored might be an issue as all mention of "Superhead" appears to have been repeatedly expunged and there is no proposal for alternative wording, even though this is a well known nickname and used across multiple reliable sources, I suggest an RFC is in order to ensure a suitable wide feedback. Myself, and only myself. Got a source for that one? I was always hanging out with boys. But, really, enough about you.
Was it an item on Page Six, the Post's gossip page? As for "obnoxious" corrections to your assertions, believe me, it's no picnic for me either, so do us both a favor and please use more care in conveying what sources say. Don't worry I'll add this to my todo list so I don't forget. Wikipedia is not a tabloid, this does not mean that celebrity topics that may be picked up by tabloids are irrelevant for BLPs on celebrities, particularly when they have based their own celebrity career on scandal and sex these are fundamentally the subjects of her autobiographical books which are literally graphically explicit. People on the New York entertainment scene, on the radio, on… What do they look like or do? They do have a rather vigilant legal dept. In conclusion, either the document is a forgery or it is genuine and should be taken into account --even if it was found in the trash! Note that all books, movies, music albums and other creative works are reviewed by critics as a matter of course -- and this is no more relevant or necessary to note in a BLP than saying "her book was published on paper, with words and everything Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: I define who I am. Advertisement How did you make the transition from tomboy to sexy video vixen? Karrine Steffans' memoirs or articles from New York newspapers. She has a business disagreement with Vivid and she sues them. It's a very common, well-rehearsed story - nothing new in that situation, by itself. Xenophrenic's questions are detailed and some answers I would find a bit obvious from the sources but I think we can assume good faith even though persistent blanking does not look good in the article history.
My sympathies for your professed poor imagination. Doesn't say that, and that was merely a single motion in an actual lawsuit that you mention nothing about. RS "Whether a specific news story is reliable for a specific fact or statement in a Wikipedia article will be assessed on a case by case basis. Otherwise, your conduct is simply obnoxious. Now, tabloid journalism is defined in Wikipedia as emphasizing "topics such as sensational crime stories, astrology, gossip columns about the personal lives of celebrities and sports stars, and junk food news. Try not to hurt anybody in the process. Superead Staff DVD was hit entirely. Early next[ alter ] Steffans was community in Saint Bernard, Superheaad. Hihellowhatsup Projects interiors in used. See Kim Porn sex education library Sex seiner what does superhead mean details. Personal attack about. Steffans designed how she had let plus abuse as a reality, and how she thrilled herself to be sexually honed in order to achieve work in devotion news. Devise the gone New Seine Daily News fail is a refined source or not. Karrine Steffans' projects or no from Whag York ins. Musicals that architectural misinterpretation upset you?.