Talk:Dawn Marie Psaltis

Finishing and Signature Moves

I replaced three signatire finishing moves that had been removed by an IP user who also added the work slap to the article randomly. Therefore, I was skeptical of their removal. If they needed to be removed for legit reason, please do so. I would appreciate it. Thanks. -- Psy guy ^(talk) 13:48, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

No Rumors?

No Rumors? Certainly it bears mentioning, as it was reported by several credible sources, rumors or not.

Credible sources which you failed to cite. Moreover, news websites are not reliable sources where potentially libellous rumours are concerned. Wikipedia deals in verifiable fact, not gossip and speculation. McPhail 14:44, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Ok fine, but it still deserves mention, even if you can't drop names. I re-wrote it to be more vague.

Incorrect Link

The link to Al Wilson leads to the NFL Linebacker, with no mention of the wrestling angle whatsoever. I removed the wiki link from his name for the time being. Genocidal 08:38, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

I wrote a small article on Al Wilson and relinked. MartinSL 07:10, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

how did she get the name Beulah Mcgillslutty anyways?

Ok someone put on this page that she died. I dont know if its a joke or real but if she really is dead, then we need proof.

Dawn Marie Wilson

I have correct where it said Dawn MArie-Wilson to Dawn Marie Wilson. There would be no hyphen, as Marie is not her last name, but part of her first. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Xxbulldogxx (talk • contribs) 21:50, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Dawn vs Torrie.jpg

Image:Dawn vs Torrie.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 00:46, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Block quote

Moves

Should a headbutt to the mid-section be added to her moves list as she done this quite alot throughout 2002. Lee 18 January 2008, 11:07 (UTC)

Pre-GA Review

Ok I haven't done this in a long time, but I am noticing a few things with the article :) Overall its really good, just some minor tweakage is needed.

• This is very trivial and doesn't apply just to this article but while I'm here... It would be nice to be able to link to where sports entertainment is mentioned in the lead. However, that article is hardly even a stub right now, has no references, and would detract from any article it was linked to in its current state. I'll try to bring this up at WP:PW in the near future, because that article would be an asset to the project.

Early Life section

• 1st paragraph
  • The first two sentences are a bit short/choppy. Could they be combined?
  • Four out of the Five sentences here only refer to Psaltis as "she" so lets try to mix it up and alternate the terms.
• 3rd paragraph
  • Five out of the seven sentences here only refer to Psaltis as "she" so lets try to mix it up and alternate the terms.

Professional wrestling career

• 1st paragraph
  • Lets start off this section by immediately mentioning her name instead of "she". It won't sound as awkward here after the first section has been altered as mentioned above. At least I don't think it will. It is just best to introduce new sections with the actual name whenever possible.
  • Who is Jeff Jones? If his name is mentioned, there needs to be some info given about him if we can't link to an article about him.
• World Wrestling Entertainment section
  • 2nd paragraph
    • Despite this, as part of the storyline, she developed feelings for Al and the two got married on an episode of SmackDown! in the underwear. I think "the underwear" should read "their underwear."
  • 3rd paragraph
    • (1st sentence) Psaltis later began a feud with Wilson for the second time. might read slightly better asLater, Psaltis began a second feud with Wilson.
    • (4th sentence) After being on hiatus from SmackDown! programming, she began a new storyline with Miss Jackie, involving whether she and Jackie's fiancée Charlie Haas had an affair - should there be commas around Charlie Haas' name?

There might be some more nitpicking I can do, but I'd like to see these changes implemented if possible first, because the others might be non issues if the rest is altered. Great work! --Naha|^(talk) 15:55, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Naha! I'll get to this after work tonight. Nikki311 21:02, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Fixed. Let me know if there is anything else. Nikki311 04:51, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

I also looked over the article. It's looking good, but I wanted to mention a few things as well:

1. In the second paragraph of the "World Wrestling Entertainment" section, the word "storyline" is used three times. Could the second mention be changed to "Despite this, as part of the angle, she developed feelings for Al..."?
2. Just to clarify, Hardcore Homecoming: November Reign is not officially affiliated with WWE/ECW, correct?
3. For the "Personal life" section, do we know her husband's last name? I know that sort of information is sometimes impossible to find, but I thought it was worth asking about.

That's all I could find. I made a few minor changes for clarification, but the article is well done. GaryColemanFan (talk) 17:24, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to look over the article. Here are the fixes I made:

1) changed to your wording

2) It is not affiliated with WWE. I clarified that in the article.

3) I never found anything about his last name.

Nikki311 18:51, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

GA review

After going through the article I feel that it meets the GA criteria and I have decided to pass it. I have fixed up spelling errors and redirects as I read through it. The only way I feel this article could be better was if it contained more current information on Psaltis and also if her ring name in the infobox should still be in boldface, because bold should only be used if the person is still wrestling. If she is, perhaps include some information about that but if not then the name should not be in boldface. Anyway, congratulations to everyone who helped turn this into a good article. - Deep Shadow 00:12, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the review and cleaning up the spelling and redirects. Currently, Psaltis is only doing a few shows here and there. From what I read about her, she is still trying to lose the baby weight, and then she is going to hopefully begin training/wrestling again. Since she is not wrestling on a regular basis, I unbolded the ring names. Nikki311 19:01, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Wrestlers Rescue

It seems like there are accusations about her embezzling from her organization. I know that rumors are not to be addressed, but she has felt strong enough to address them and will be dealing with them in court. Inevitably someone's going to have do the work to cite them. I would, but I got better things to do.69.243.42.251 (talk) 13:16, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Age fuctionality

Is not working. It lists Psaltis as 40. She is 41 now. Friosurely (talk) 11:26, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

DmpdJuly2010.jpg photo

An image used in this article, File:DmpdJuly2010.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations What should I do?

Speedy deletions at commons tend to take longer than they do on Wikipedia, so there is no rush to respond. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs. A further notification will be placed when/if the image is deleted. This notification is provided by a Bot, currently under trial --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 16:07, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Hi. Regarding Keraunoscopia's removal of the Infobox photo, please see this discussion at the Commons Help Desk (which is also linked to on the photo's page, right under the licensing information). It's not a copyvio image. Marie's manager, Michelle Mupo, took the photo herself. I met Ms. Marie and Ms. Mupo at the Big Apple Con last weekend. She asked me for help regarding the issue of the photo, as she and her manager, Michelle Mupo, have some grave concerns about the placement of this photo in the Commons, which was previously being used at the main Infobox photo in the article, and prefer this far more professional-looking photo that Ms. Mupo took. I've contacted Jimmy Wales, and in response, community liaison Maggie Dennis has contacted me, and asked me to have Ms. Mupo fill out this form letter and email to the Wikimedia Foundation to clear this up. Nightscream (talk) 16:46, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

The image was uploaded illegally to Commons and licensed as public domain by MarkDBSkinsFan, who is not the manager and who did not have permission to upload the image, nor does he have the right to license the image. It is a copyvio image. Just because you're in contact with the manager—which was in regards to another entirely unrelated image—doesn't, in any way, make File:DmpdJuly2010.jpg right to use. The fact that an admin undeleted it is cause enough for complaint on that end as well. But I don't edit war, so I will not remove the image from the article, since undoubtedly you will simply revert it right back. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 17:21, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

File:DmpdJuly2010.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

	An image used in this article, File:DmpdJuly2010.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations What should I do?
	Speedy deletions at commons tend to take longer than they do on Wikipedia, so there is no rush to respond. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 21:08, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Use of YouTube video as sources in matter of controversy

This accusation against the BLP subject was added ... with youtube video as RS??? If I'm not mistaken that's huge policy violation. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 12:51, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

If you would like to change the link to one of the dozens of news stories that have covered this story, go ahead. (Although I have seen many Youtube videos used as sources, especially when they're direct from the source, and don't see the problem) But the accusation itself is a relevant one that has received major coverage and featured a rebuttal by the main subject herself. ChessPlayerLev (talk) 00:57, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

I think Nightscream has addressed this in a very satisfactory manner with his most recent edit. ChessPlayerLev (talk) 02:38, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Several issues here. First, you revert my revert, then you post here? Is that supposed to constitute a "discussion" and "consensus"? Please explain the order of your actions, User:ChessPlayerLev.

Second, the accusation against the BLP subject is an "RS" that is a Youtube video made by the accuser. I reverted this according to my understanding of BLP policy. You restore it and encourage me to find a better RS? Your idea is that meanwhile, the Youtube video "RS" stands? How does that make any sense? According to WP BLP policy, charges or accuses against a BLP subject which could cause them harm, can & should be reverted on-sight, even without an edit summary, to protect the BLP subject, and in turn to protect WP. Instead, you reinstate the accusatory Youtube vido reference, saying it can stand in the article, and advise me to go research a better source for the accusation? How is that possibly consistent w/ WP BLP policy? Please explain.

Third, the additional "RS" added by User:Nightscream, from CagesideSeats, looks to be a wrestling blogsite/gossip/news site. The author of the article is a member user of the site and looks to be a voluntary contributor. The article informs the reader that the Harris Youtube video exists, and what it is about. Then he postulates about the topic (i.e., an opinion piece). That's journalism? That's "reliable source" by Wikipedia terms & policy? For inclusion in a BLP? For including accusatory content against the BLP subject? I doubt very much that source constitutes "reliable", and, it doesn't add anything, other than affirming that the vidio exists, and the blogger member's feelings about it. Please explain your justification rationale for this.

Fourth, your argument that since the Youtube video was made by Harris, that makes it stronger as an RS, for including in the BLP. What logic is there in that argument?: Person 'A' has a BLP article. Person 'B' makes an accusatory Youtube video, an attack against the integrity of person 'A', that person 'A' has cheated person 'B'. The fact person 'B' made the video, and not someone else having made it, strengthens it for inclusion in the BLP? How does that argument work? Please explain.

Ihardlythinkso (talk) 04:58, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Honestly, I'm not interested in indulging another one of your endless back-and-forth arguments, Ihardlythinkso. If you have a problem with the way the article is presently written, address it to Nightscream, not me. I would also be more circumspect about continually following me around Wikipedia and starting an argument/reverting my edit each time. You have been given a million second chances on Wikipedia, and there were no fewer than 3 different admins who wanted to block you last time. Only the last-second plea of an admin on your behalf for yet another "second chance" saved you. Do you really want to start this nonsense all over again? I would suggest ignoring me (as I try to do with you), instead of going out of your way to spar with me on my every edit, including topics you clearly have no interest in. ChessPlayerLev (talk) 05:43, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

There are rules for BLPs. You can ignore them? On what basis? You're the editor who reverted my revert without discussion prior, not User:Nightscream. So I don't follow your logic to write "address it to Nightscream, not me". Ihardlythinkso (talk) 06:20, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

User:ChessPlayerLev, please revert the Youtube ref you re-reverted. For the policy reasons above, which you haven't addressed at all. (Or is it your intention to make a continued dispute over it? I really don't have an interest to invest more time in this, but I will if necessary. Please revert to save others' time. Ok?) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 06:26, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Revert what to what, exactly? The most recent (and by far the largest) edit of the page was done by Nightscream, not me. In fact, the text I reverted to a week ago was also something written by Nightscream, with no involvement from me. Once again, if you feel there is a problem with the article, feel free to address those concerns to Nightscream. ChessPlayerLev (talk) 06:33, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Huh? "Revert what to what, exactly?"? Your revert here. The issue isn't the smallness or bigness of the text, but whether it belongs in the BLP. You re-added it thru a revert action, so it is material addition you're accountable for, regardless who added it originally. FYI, because of the reluctance here, I've opened a query at WP:BLPN. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 07:02, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Don't you ever get tired of this? The most recent edit of the page was done by Nightscream. I have absolutely nothing to do with it. If you would like the page to be reverted back to your edit a week ago, ask him. ChessPlayerLev (talk) 08:10, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

I question both the material you re-added, and the add'l ref added by User:Nightscream. (His add'l ref did not justify the Youtube ref, it seems to be nothing more than a blog site user reporting that the Youtube video *exists*, then giving his personal feelings about it. As already explained, that does not rectify the Youtube reference, if that is what you thought. User:Nightscream did not re-add the offending material, you did. He simply added an add'l ref, to the material you restored. IMO the material you restored is counter BLP policy, and the add'l ref added by User:Nightscream did not change that, it simply added another ref that is also not a reliable source.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 09:12, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

I must agree that I don't follow the logic of telling an editor with whom you disagree to take it up with a different editor either. An implicit part of discussion, which is required in editorial conflicts, is that you explain your own position. Just because I made edits that seem to be consistent with your position, Chess, doesn't mean that you have no obligation to respond to Ihardlythinkso's statements regarding your arguments, since you also made edits he disagreed with. Saying "take it up with someone else" comes across as stonewalling, which I find to be shady behavior to exhibit during editorial conflicts, particularly when one has only been participating in it for less than a day. Editors should be able to explain their positions during such conflicts. If they don't, then discussions cannot proceed, which means that others have to called in to help resolve the conflict. While that is often the case, some effort should be made to resolve the conflict amongst the original parties themselves before that becomes necessary. Otherwise, the problem is just being passed off to other editors. There may be no policy or guidelines requiring editors to stick things out a bit in a discussion, but I think that there is a transcendent ethical one.

Ihardlythinkso, regarding your statement "Person 'A' has a BLP article. Person 'B' makes an accusatory Youtube video, an attack against the integrity of person 'A', that person 'A' has cheated person 'B'. The fact person 'B' made the video..." Relying on YouTube videos created by people who are not themselves considered RS's or notable is not appropriate, and I have indeed removed such videos when cited as sources. But when the creator of the video is themselves a notable person, that makes it appropriate, IMO (unless someone disputes that the person in the video is indeed that notable person). Another factor is the fact that Dawn Marie herself responded to the charges. How can we cite the sources in which she responds to the charges without making available the video in which Kamala makes the charges in the first place? Another factor is the fact that I cited what I thought was an RS in which Kamala's video was embedded, but which you say is a blog. I'm sorry if I didn't notice it as a blog; I'm not really that familiar with pro wrestling. I only first happened upon Dawn Marie's article after I photographed her for it, and tried to help her with her complaints regarding a previous photo in the article that was taken without her consent while she was pregnant, and was not flattering. In any event, I welcome your suggestions on how to improve the article, and to find better secondary sources. Nightscream (talk) 15:25, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Heh, Nightscream, I completely agree with you about providing reasons for editorial decisions. However, Ihardlythinkso is a unique case. Once the guy gets it in his head to incessantly argue about something, he is allergic to any logic or argument, and will keep writing reply after reply, repeating the same things that have already been answered. To him, Wikipedia is a warzone and every editorial discussion is a battle to the death. These aren't just my views; these are the views of the admins who blocked him before and were very, very close to blocking him again less than a month ago.

Trying to "prove" or "show" anything to him is a waste of both time and energy. After multiple failed attempts, I now know better. Thus, I figured a less exhausted editor like yourself, who he does not (yet, anyways) stalk around Wikipedia with reverts could be more successful. :)

If you really want me to provide my reasons more fully, I can. In fact, I briefly noted them above; I don't see the problem with Youtube videos as sources when they feature the person they are discussing. James "Kamala" Harris posting a video of himself making accusations seems like a relevant source for a Wikipedia statement about James "Kamala" Harris making accusations, no? ChessPlayerLev (talk) 20:45, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Well, maybe it's me, but I didn't get that sense about his arguments here. You provided an explanation, and he was impeaching it because he felt it did not held up. Whenever I falsify another editor's arguments, and they stonewall on the matter, it isn't just irritating, it brings the question at the heart of the disagreement to a grinding halt. I understand that you there comes a point when one tires of a discussion, and I'm not saying you should have to answer every single bit of minutiae your opponent brings up, but you expressed that you were tired of the discussion in only your second post here, which I find a bit disappointing. But I'm not trying to come after you or anything, and I don't mean to be accusatory or anything. I appreciate your responses. Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 23:17, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

User:Nightscream, thanks for your response, I have some followups, and would like to move them to your user Talk for discussion with you there, feeling it'd more appropriate there, than here. (Is alright w/ you? We could copy any conclusions arrived there, to here then.) Ok, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 02:29, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

If they pertain to this article, then we might as well discuss them here. If they pertain to other matters, then you can ask me them on my talk page. :-) Nightscream (talk) 12:37, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

But I don't know. In the end it will pertain to the current status of the article. To get there, I'd like to discuss the status when I opened this thread. (A past status at the time of my revert of the accusatory Youtube vid, before you changed it to include a ref regarding the BLP subject's response.) I mentioned I thought it would be more appropriate to start on your user page. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 13:50, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

User:Nightscream, please respond. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 10:45, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

I have made a request at the BLP Noticeboard for editors there to join this discussion.

I hardlythinkso, what aspect of BLP policy do you feel calls for the removal of that YouTube video on sight?

In answer to your hypothetical question on my talk page, I do not see what would be wrong with use of multiple YouTube videos of notables airing their viewpoints, though obviously, Wikipedia does prefer secondary sources to primary ones, where the former are available. Nightscream (talk) 16:29, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Nightscream, you have a fundamentally flawed understanding of how policy requires sources to be used in Wikipedia. There is no "preference" for secondary sources. All articles are required to follow the NPOV pillar. This means that any conclusions drawn, any POV expressed or implied (by the article), any DUE weight, etc, *must* derive from a source that is not primary. Fact-checking for accuracy of quotes or statistics would benefit from primary sources. But that isn't the 'meat' of articles. You cannot simply say "Famous Guy X said he was cheated" and use that as a basis for material here. How do you know it is accurate? Because the guy said so? What if his accountant is lying to him? What if he doesn't realize what the terms were? What if he thinks he's being cheated but he has a bad memory? You could say "BUT I KNOW BETTER!", and yes, any of us can, in good faith, say the same thing. And yet later... we'll all get burned. NPOV is a Pillar and a policy, but let's also look at what BLP says. It requires high-quality sources. So not only do we have the verification requirements and the reliable source requirements that standard content requires, we have a HIGHer standard for BLP. We don't just print "Famous Guy X said he was cheated" because Famous Guy X said so. In the real world, that is called slander or libel. And if we blithely repeat it, we're libelling as well. I'm frankly baffled how you have 70,000 edits and seem to have completely missed the mark on this. -- Avanu (talk) 16:47, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Avanu, when you say, "How do you know it is accurate?", are you referring to the mere fact that the other notable made the accusation in question, or do you mean the substance of the accusation? The former is illustrated by the video in question, while the latter is not part of Wikipedia's mission, since the standard that Wikipedia strives for is Verifiability and Attribution, not truth, since Wikipedia cannot make statements about "truth". As far as your hypotheticals in general, they are not precluded, in and of themsevles by the use of secondary sources, since those scenarios can and do indeed occur with secondaries. Moreover, slander and libel are not defined as merely "Famous Guy X saying so". Those crimes have requirements that you omitted, and have nothing to do with whether a source is primary or secondary.

I will say that I think you're placing slightly more emphasis than is warranted on my use of the word "preference", since for the most part, I think you and I are in agreement--at least more than you might imagine. Perhaps my choice of words wasn't the best, then again, I think this is a rather subtle point. I don't think that YouTube videos are an ideal source. Secondary sources for such material are the better ones to use. One would think, after all, that secondary sources would report on Kamala's accusation. But at the same time, I question the wholesale prohibition of YT, particularly if it contains a legitimate grievance from another notable whose omission from an article may be omitted. You argue that we have no way knowing if the assertion is accurate. Putting aside my aforementioned counterargument that this happens with secondary sources too (Jayson Blair, anyone? Stephen Glass?), I don't see the merit in questioning whether Kamala is able to be accurate when stating he received zero funds from a charity that used his name. Are we questioning his ability to count to zero? And what if we do find secondary sources, ones which do not imbed the YouTube video? If the secondaries reference the video, would it still be inappropriate to include then, in addition to the secondary sources? I hope that secondary sources can be found for Kamala's position, but it disturbs me that if they cannot be found, that his views on a charity using his name will be essentially censored.

Ihardlythinkso, let's keep this discussion here on this page. It's not a good idea to split it up into multiple fronts. I don't see anyone violating CIV, AGF or NPA toward you, and if they do, be assured that I will address it.

My response the hypothetical question you posed on my talk page is this: I think the laws that we have against libel and slander tend to make people cautious in making public accusations against a public figure. That said, if a group of notables all made individual YouTube videos leveling a particular accusation against one notable in particular, I would imagine that secondary sources would report on it, and that we could cite those secondary sources. But then again, perhaps you're asking me if we should cite those videos in the absence of secondary sources? I don't know. The hypothetical scenario you propose is so bizarre that it's difficult for me to entertain. I have a hard time believing that if 24 different notables made an accusation against me, that there wouldn't be secondary coverage of it, but at the same time, I'm not sure about completely prohibiting citation of any of those videos, especially if they were cited by secondary sources themselves. Nightscream (talk) 20:59, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Someone thowing wild (or even mild) accusations from a video in you-tub is completely unacceptable as a "source". If you dont understand that, you need to stop editing content related to living people NOW. -- The Red Pen of Doom 21:04, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

What you and Avanu seem to be missing is that the video is used to make a statement in the article about an accusation, not an actual fact. It clearly stated (before the most recent revert) "Retired wrestler James "Kamala" Harris accused Dawn Marie and Wrestler's Rescue in 2012 of claiming to raise money on his behalf that he has yet to receive." and NOT "Dawn Marie and Wrestler's Rescue in 2012 stole money on James "Kamala" Harris's behalf". Is a video from James "Kamala" Harris making an accusation insufficient evidence for a statement about James "Kamala" Harris making an accusation? You will respond by saying "these types of statements, even as accusations, don't belong in a BLP", but at the end of the day, how else can any controversy make it in there? I don't know much about pro wrestling, but I can't imagine it gets nearly the coverage in respected news sources that something like politics or other forms of entertainment do. Thus, the best secondary sources available might in fact be something like cagesideseats or whatever, simply because no one else is interested enough. ChessPlayerLev (talk) 23:52, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

I came here in response to Nightscream's request at BLPN. I have just skimmed the above discussion, and I don't know all the ins and outs of the secondary sources some people allude to. Let's assume that all we had was the YouTube video. Use of that video would be a violation of WP:BLPSPS. The issue as to whether you can include it simply because Psalties denied it is harder because that seems to give additional legitimacy to the accusation, but I disagree with Nightscream that that makes it reportable in our article. Essentially, the media is picking up on it because both parties are sufficiently notable and it's juicy. Does that make it now reportable in Wikipedia? My editorial judgment (not policy) says no, but I can see both sides of that particular argument (does someone have a link to the secondary coverage of Psaltis denying it? - sorry if I missed it). BTW, is Kamala accusing Psaltis of a civil or a criminal wrong? If it's the latter, then we have an issue with WP:BLPCRIME, although that particular policy also engenders disagreement about the spectrum of notability. Anyway, those are my musings, for what they're worth.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:22, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

As far as I know, James "Kamala" Harris is merely expressing his frustration at the situation. There is no indication that any legal action has been or will be taken. As for the article, it was "this one". Actually, if you search on Google, there are DOZENS of secondary sources about this story in addition to the primary source of the video. The problem is that none of these secondary sources come from respected news organizations. But as I noted above, I believe this is true of virtually every pro wrestling story except when some wrestling tragedy, like death, occurs. Only that makes into the mainstream press. Lesser controversies, like this one, would never make into any pro wrestler bio by the standards expressed by Avanua and RedPenofDoom above. Which seems far from optimal. ChessPlayerLev (talk) 00:42, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

@ChessPlayerLev, an accusation can be as damning as anything else. We don't use primary sources (for this). Repeating a bit of gossip or scandal because someone notable started it doesn't make us any less culpable. We use high-quality secondary sources, and the primary sources can serve as reference or verification for the quality or accuracy of a secondary source. We don't draw conclusions or implicitly or explicitly push a point of view. Primary sources alone would create these scenarios. We recount what our reliable secondary sources tell us. Suppose we just used primary sources to write an article, and in one "Famous Guy X" says "that guy stole $500 from me", and in another primary source, we show "that guy" just deposited $500 in the bank on the same day the money was supposedly taken. If we write:

"FamousGuyX says ThatGuy stole $500 from him around 2 p.m. on December 15th. Bank records show ThatGuy made a $500 deposit on December 15th at 3 p.m."

We've just led the reader to a conclusion by placing primary sources near one another. What if FamousGuyX regularly loses $500 at the casino and blames it on people to cover himself? What if ThatGuy has a monthly social security check in the amount of $500 that always arrives on the 15th? We've said nothing except what our primary sources tell us, yet we may have completely misrepresented the situation. This is why we don't use primary sources. We use reliable secondary sources that have good publishing standards, good editors, and good authors. We don't simply take one guy's word for it. (with certain exceptions, of course, and those don't apply here) When in doubt, leave it out. WP:BLP doesn't mean we have to whitewash a person's record. It simply means that we need to be VERY sure of our information before we add it to an article. The stuff that was in this article was of a fairly poor standard. -- Avanu (talk) 00:47, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Avanu, I agree with you in principle. However, as noted above, the problem with biographies on pro wrestlers is that no reliable secondary source ever covers this stuff at all! Seriously, what reliable secondary source is going to waste its time on a monetary dispute between two has-been pro wrestlers, a marginal entertainment field? Only a major tragedy, like a death or steroid allegations will get any main-stream run. As a result, you're left with the absolute bare bones on most of these biographies, and most controversies are taken out as a result. Honestly, I don't care a great deal about this issue, so you can leave it without that section. But it does seem like a problem when applied to this entertainment field. ChessPlayerLev (talk) 01:28, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Bbb23: "Use of that video would be a violation of WP:BLPSPS." Thanks for pointing that out, Bbb23. I almost forgot about SPS's.

TheRedPenOfDoom: "Someone thowing wild (or even mild) accusations from a video in you-tub is completely unacceptable as a "source". If you dont understand that, you need to stop editing content related to living people NOW." I am more than able to accept that the community may decide against using that particular source. The fact that I don't often come across articles in which controversial statements are sourced solely to self-published sources may be why it was necessary for this nuance to be clarified, and has no bearing on my editing of BLP articles in general. One clue to my good faith here is the fact that I invited other editors to join this discussion at BLPN, in order to clarify these points. If you doubt my ability to edit BLPs, feel free to check my edit history for my BLP editing; you might be surprised at how often I removed material that is either unsourced or sourced to sites with user-generated content. But if you cannot express yourself to a fellow editor in good standing without that condescending tone, then you need to stop participating in discussions with editors you disagree with until you have familiarized yourself with WP:CIV, WP:AGF and WP:NPA. Take care. Nightscream (talk) 01:45, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

User:Nightscream, I think you are minimizing your mistake here. Even I knew better, inexperienced WP editor as I am, that inclusion of a Youtube video by aggrieved person impugning the reputation of the BLP subject, is contrary to WP policy. When I asked you the logical conclusion of your argument, ... if you yourself were notable person with BLP article, and other notable persons piled on with self-made Youtube videos accusing you of wrong-doing, without limit to the number of said Youtube videos, it was a thought experiment with only one conclusion: that your justification for keep was a slippery slope that leads to BLP catastrophe. (Instead, you gave me answers that you "didn't know", "weren't sure", and tried to change the parameters of my thought experiment, adding contingency that there should be reliable secondary sources present under the circumstances of the experiment, when clearly my experiment meant to copy and parallel this article, where there are no reliable secondary sources associated.) I agree with User:Avanu, that you have fundamental misunderstanding of WP BLP policy, and to minimize that now by characterizing it as "nuance" is a bit beyond the pale. It is clear to me by your minimizations and inability to give answer to my thought experiment question (instead calling it "bizarre", which deflects and disenfranchises the point driven home by it), you are in damage-control mode vis-a-vis your reputation as admin by your glaring mistakes re understanding of BLP material inclusion criteria. I'm sure you've learned something here, but this was no "nuance", and jumping on User:TheRedPenOfDoom is scapegoating, you are responsible for glaring mistakes in policy comprehension and IMO should admit as such instead of the behavior you have chosen here to minimize and marginalize. (You've just been "spanked" by a lowly editor; you are admin. You've questioned me and tried to turn my thought experiment upside-down, when you should have apologized to me instead. I agree with Malleus: WP:CIV is not about tone or words chosen, but ideas perpetuated that are inappropriate and unfair.) Cheers, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 02:57, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

I think we're all guilty of messing up and being thoughtless from time to time. It sounds like Nightscream gained some degree of insight from this, and hopefully will take extra time on BLP's in the future. I don't know if we're going to get anywhere with shaming anyone in the debate here, so let's see if we can just work on making the article better. Of course, if anyone feels like dropping a thoughtful comment on any other editor's page as a token of apology, that wouldn't hurt. ChessPlayerLev did make a rather good point that the more obscure a person is, even if they are potentially notable, the harder it is to find good sourcing on them. But this kind of makes it all the more important that we get these articles right, and take extra care when we include anything that affects someone's reputation, after all, how many sources will bother to correct it if we get it wrong? -- Avanu (talk) 03:10, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

If User:Nightscream is puzzled why I brought up outstanding apology, ... I can send to him/her a list, if necessary. Regarding CPLs observation that secondary source converage of wrestling is far and few between ... he's probably right; I also agree. (But, CPL, that's no excuse for including potentially damaging accusations against a BLP subject. Clearly, that's why there's policy against it.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 03:43, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Removal of Charity Section

This entire section is a collection of poor sources and primary sources. As a reminder, Wikipedia requires reliable secondary sources. Primary sources may be used as reference for research, but they may not be used as they have been here. In addition, these sources are being used to support criminal fraud allegations which definitely fall into the realm of BLP, and as such, our standard is even higher. To quote our WP:BLP policy: We must get the article right. Be very firm about the use of high-quality sources. This is *not* optional.

Before any of this gets re-added to the article, whether it is positive or negative, it needs to be vetted here by the community and receive a consensus to absolutely ensure that the material we are adding is supported by reliable secondary sources is not defamatory or problematic in any way. Thanks. -- Avanu (talk) 15:39, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Dawn Marie Psaltis

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Dawn Marie Psaltis's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "owow":

• From Cynthia Lynch: "Bobcat's Profile". Online World of Wrestling. Retrieved 2008-04-19.
• From Sable (wrestler): "Official Women of Wrestling: Sable 1999 Updates". Retrieved 2006-07-04.
• From Stacy Keibler: "Stacy Keibler's profile". Online World of Wrestling. Retrieved 2008-03-11.
• From Torrie Wilson: "Torrie Wilson's Profile". Online World of Wrestling. Retrieved 2007-11-10.

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 07:44, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Dawn Marie Psaltis. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20071012120330/http://slam.canoe.ca:80/Slam/Wrestling/PPVReports/2004/05/17/463112.html to http://slam.canoe.ca/Slam/Wrestling/PPVReports/2004/05/17/463112.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 03:14, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Dawn Marie Psaltis. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071012120352/http://www.firetank.com:80/smashwrestling/interview-dawnmarie.shtml to http://www.firetank.com/smashwrestling/interview-dawnmarie.shtml
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071012120352/http://www.firetank.com:80/smashwrestling/interview-dawnmarie.shtml to http://www.firetank.com/smashwrestling/interview-dawnmarie.shtml

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:56, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Dawn Marie Psaltis. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150525034455/http://www.marcelusive.net/2003-royal-rumble-review/ to http://www.marcelusive.net/2003-royal-rumble-review/
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.firetank.com/smashwrestling/interview-dawnmarie.shtml
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.firetank.com/smashwrestling/interview-dawnmarie.shtml

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:05, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Dawn Marie Psaltis. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071012091634/http://mikemooneyham.com/pages/viewfull.cfm?ObjectID=ECE58748-D1D5-4414-813AF6D89DFFB969 to http://www.mikemooneyham.com/pages/viewfull.cfm?ObjectID=ECE58748-D1D5-4414-813AF6D89DFFB969
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071212072838/http://gerweck.net/dawnmarieinterview.htm to http://www.gerweck.net/dawnmarieinterview.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:58, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Dawn Marie Psaltis. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120414125917/http://www.dawnmarieonline.com/ to http://www.dawnmarieonline.com/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:37, 10 December 2017 (UTC)