Talk:Katee Sackhoff/Archive 1

Archive 1

links, etc.

the SACKHOFF.com page that was on here as a link bombed my computer with non-stop pop-ups that Windows couldn't entirely block. I've spent the better part of an hour removing all the ad/spyware crap that self-installed.

So much for the Windows, Firewalls, pop-up blockers...

The link has been removed (once I finally got my computer stable enough to work for 5 minutes without being attacked by more ads or crashing altogether).

VigilancePrime 02:44, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

I just went there in Firefox and wasn't assaulted by any popups, ads or spyware. --Fxer 01:52, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Admittedly, I'm still in the dark ages of Micro$oft's Internet Explorer. Sure, it COULD have been coincidental (though I was not browsing multiple sites in multiple windows), but I doubt it. As I recall, it wasn't the main page that started the problems, but the first link internal to the domain that I clicked.

What WAS real was the hours I spent trying to clean it all up.

VigilancePrime 02:06, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps the link could be restored, but with an appropriate warning. For example, "link may result in multiple pop-ups, adware, and spyware," or something like that. -- Scjessey 13:27, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Kind of like drug commercials? "This drug has been known to cause serious side effects in many people, including death. But use it anyway."

I think that's a bit of a stretch. BUT, surely there are other websites out there for Sackhoff... VigilancePrime 15:55, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

For the record, the sackhoff.com domain apparently expired and has been snapped up by a speculator. It now hosts a search engine page. --Dhartung | Talk 10:14, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

JLH 3/16/06: I was hoping for more acting background, as opposed to location/meaning/filmed evidence of her tattoos... :)

publicity photo

It's a publicity photo, just like most every other current actor has on their page, designed for this stuff...feel free to elaborate on talk page before re-removing. Last I checked the images, publicity photos were specifically addressed as acceptable for WikiArticles. VigilancePrime 16:29, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Only with a detailed fair-use rationale, and the image you tried to add back to this page was marked for speedy deletion as the license the user added when uploading the image specifically prohibited its use on the Wikipedia. --Yamla 16:36, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Note also that the image was deleted before you tried adding it back. I had to revert your change. --Yamla 16:37, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

I have amended the photo and as far as I have researched on wikipedia it fits with the guidelines of copyright and fair use. It is a screenshot from my dvd set which I personally took. I'm new to comtributing to wikipedia and apologize for not adhering to said guidelines. TheLarryArms17:03, 31 August 2006

Oh, that's good. Great photo of Sackhoff; better than either the original two. Thanks! VigilancePrime 14:18, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Katee Sackhoff/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

Add Filmography section outlining all her acting work and I'll upgrade this to a "start" class. Morphh 23:22, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Last edited at 23:22, 2 September 2006 (UTC). Substituted at 15:11, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Trivia

I AGREE that the Trivia section needs to come out, but IAW the Wikipedia Trivia guidance page, it needs to be Incorporated into the article and not wholesale deleted. This article might as well be a stub... it only has two sections past the opening summary. Tattoos can go into UNIQUE TRAITS or into the BACKGROUND, or it and the Thumb Ring into a QUIRKS section. It is good information in need of a more permanent home. VigilancePrime 04:13, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

I added "Mixed Martial Arts fighter Julie Kedzie has been said to resemble Katee by EliteXC announcers on the Showtime network." But I can't find a good picture of kedzie to add... I was hoping for a side by side shot of Julie & Katee; I'm open to any suggestions!Frog47 22:09, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

There's been a recent back-and-forth regarding the unsourced "Trivia" section. Wiki's TRIVIA policy states that Trivia sections "SHOULD" be avoided. I believe that this is acceptable in this article so long as these lines are trying to be absorbed into other areas of the aticle, IAW Wiki policy. Wiki's policy on BIOGRAPHIES states, as it petaines here, that "Editors should remove any contentious material about living persons." I believe that these are not contentious and thus do not require immediate removal. There is no reason I can see for not allowing a reasonable amount of time to source these. I totally agree that they need to be sourced or removed, but in that order, not removed or later sourced, ya know what I mean? Let's keep them here for at least a couple weeks now that they have the Citation Needed tags, and see what happens. Perhaps in that time we can also edit them around the article to lessen or even eliminate the "Trivia" section altogether. VigilancePrime 17:27, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Those are reasonable points. However, I note above that you made a similar argument 4 months ago. Perhaps we can agree on a specific date by which to either (1) cite and incorporate, or (2) delete the material. How about April 1?

In the meantime, I would argue that your representation of WP:TRIV isn't entirely accurate. If information is to be kept, then it needs to be incorporated into the article. Much trivia, however, is unencyclopedic and can indeed be sticken wholesale. I don't foresee adding information about the specific tattoos belonging to every actor, musician, or otherwise notable person; and while the thumb ring might be of remote interest in the context of the Kara Thrace article, I don't think it merits inclusion in an article about the actress herself. Point being, WP:TRIV doesn't suggest that all trivia is encyclopedic or mandate that all trivia be kept — only that, if it is to be kept, it must be incorporated into the article instead of set off as a separate section. Cribcage 19:00, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

WP:BLP takes precedence over WP:TRIV;

Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material — whether negative, positive, or just highly questionable — about living persons should be removed immediately, and without discussion from Wikipedia articles, talk pages, user pages, and project space.

As such, it's gone. CovenantD 20:22, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

You fail to poperly read the section. This is not contentious. What is contested about her having three tatoos? Why is that so hotly contested? It's NOT. This is not "HIGHLY CONTENTIOUS," and if you understood the words used in the sentence, you would know that. Why do you insist on mis-reading this? VigilancePrime 03:35, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not. It's very presence is contentious because it voilates a couple of other guidelines, namely WP:TRIV and WP:A. If a source hasn't been found since November, then they should be removed. No, strike that; they never should have gone in. CovenantD 04:55, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

So in other words, it should be removed because you say so. The policies you keep listing have been explained over and over and this sction does not qualify under that section. That sort of irrational behavior points to only a limited number of causes; I'm not going to get into those now (I had thought about it). The bottom line is this: You are wrong, but I don't care to fight this fight (which is why, you'll notice, I'm not re-placing the text everytime you gut it). I just wish more people would actually read policies and then apply them literally rather than fabricate meanings that are clearly contrary to the words in the policies... you know, like you're doing. VigilancePrime 16:47, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Page format

The page formatting needs to be changed. I sourced all the so-called contentious stuff (happy now, CD?) but the page does need to be wholly reformatted to not only accomodate the information, but also for simple clarity. I would recommend something like this:

Intro

Background

Growing up

Qualities and quirks

Television and movies

Battlestar Galactica

etc, etc, etc...

External links

This would accomodate most of the "trivia" stuff by way of Background (ballet, swimming, dogs, high school), Battlestar Galactica (thumb ring, quit smoking), Qualities (thumb ring, tattoos, dogs), etc. Have fun with that! VigilancePrime 17:24, 10 March 2007 (UTC)