Jump to content

Talk:Laura Kightlinger

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Comment

[edit]

Man, did she get the shaft. Dated what's his name for YEARS then dumped and he immediately marries his h.s. sweetheart. Wassup with dat? Rude.

Leaves more of her for me. Fuck yeah. CalG 23:15, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

relate

[edit]

I figure that we are all related somehow,...

However, I do wonder about a known relation to Jeff Kightlinger, General Manager, Metropolitan Water District, Southern California, who supports Proposition #Eighty-four, regarding water & other issues.

If there is a known connection, then this could be included.

Here is the one place where their names are together {today}:

< http://angelfire.com/film/battmans_dvds/catalog_family.html >.

Thank You.

hopiakuta ; [[ <nowiki> </nowiki> { [[%c2%a1]] [[%c2%bf]] [[ %7e%7e%7e%7e ]] } ;]] 15:59, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]



You are awesome Kightlinger! love your humor!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

giovanny

Birth Date

[edit]

It seems that her birth date on the top of the page and on the bottom dont match up, one say 1964, and the other says 1969, what is the deal with that brother? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.60.19.98 (talk) 23:38, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any RS for the 1964/65 dating. Given the verified college graduation date, it's very plausible speculation, but still speculation. And the high school graduation date appears unsourced, as does the footnote discussion of the nndb dispute. I see, therefore, several items that appear subject to BLP removal. Them imdb source for the 1969 birthdate is, of course, presumptively unacceptable. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 01:09, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. I went ahead and removed the speculation about her date of birth and her highschool graduation date. If someone finds a RS for these claims they can be re-added. TDL (talk) 21:01, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If she was graduated from high school in 1982, as our article currently states, then it's likely she was born in 1964, possibly in 1963 or 1965, depending on the local school district's policy. I cite my own example. I was born in May of 1964, and I was graduated from high school in June of 1982. I was 18.

Best regards TheBaron0530 (talk) 19:13, 30 March 2016 (UTC)theBaron0530[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Laura portrait 0.jpg

[edit]

Image:Laura portrait 0.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 this Wikipedia article 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 ensure 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 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 lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 22:50, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

relationship to jack black

[edit]

This article should include the fact that she dated Jack Black for seven years. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.193.59.111 (talk) 20:57, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

DOB

[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The birth date in the article is listed incorrectly; no matter what the source claims. We have received an WP:OTRS ticket which I am happy demonstrates the inaccuracy. As I cannot source the correct DOB it has been removed. This is about the third time I have had to do so; if I have to do it again I will be fairly hacked off. WP:BLP applies. --Errant (chat!) 08:04, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's not surprising you have had to do this repeatedly. Omitting basic biographical info that is easily found in the first source cited seems like an easily fixed oversight. That there was no mention of it on the talk page is fairly baffling. As it stood, the talk page left it at "speculation" being removed, due to a lack of a reliable source. As it stands now, we have well sourced basic information that is being omitted. While I understand the confidential nature of the OTRS, how are we supposed to know that this well sourced basic information has been demonstrated as inaccurate? - SummerPhD (talk) 13:03, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well you trust my judgement, or you don't. I have indicated to the correspondent that long term the full solution will be to get the source to redact or correct the information. Usually when queried over dates of birth WP:DOB applies. However, as the problem here relates to the year I removed everything to be on the safe side. The information is far from "well sourced". (I noted the OTRS ticket in my first removal edit summary - that should have been enough) --Errant (chat!) 13:48, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I sourced the DOB to [http://www.amazon.com/Biography-Kightlinger-Contemporary-Authors-Online/dp/B000RYA1C6 this] from Contemporary Authors by Gale (as per its wiki-article, the American Library Association described this source as "one of the most distinguished reference titles published during the last 25 years") and the date of graduation to numerous sources published by the university itself ([1],[2]). Which of these is not "well sourced"? At the very least I don't see any reason to remove the date of graduation. TDL (talk) 14:30, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's a tertiary source that doesn't cite its own sources. Those sources are very often the authors themselves. It's a source to use with caution. At the end of the day, there is no rush, and we can always add it back in the future if other sources emerge. If consensus is to restore this information then I can't act against that. But I believe it to be inaccurate. --Errant (chat!) 14:43, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I also saw the OTRS ticket and believe that in such cases we should defer to our subjects if they make reasonable requests. You have to ask yourself what the date of her graduation actually adds to the article? It also gives an opportunity to determine a year of birth. As for the birthdate itself, it is absolutely clear to me that if requested to remove this information by the subject then we should do so as a matter of personal security. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:57, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
First and foremost, prior to this discussion, there was no indication that there was any problem here. As to the actual date, I do believe it was well sourced: Contemporary Authors is certainly reliable.[3] Given the apparent desire to have her born in 1969, is her well sourced graduation date (1986[4]) from Emerson also in need of "correction"? I get it. Honest, I do: We need to stay legal on what we say. The privacy concerns outlined at WP:DOB might support trimming the DOB to the year. That said, this is not a privacy concern, this is a "I'm not that old" concern. Are we really just biding our time waiting for claims of more recent birth dates for every actress who isn't in her twenties or should we just remove all of them now? (cf. Sharon_Leal, Audrey Tautou, Lily Cole, etc.) - SummerPhD (talk) 15:34, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
First and foremost, the subject made a discreet enquiry at OTRS. That's where the problem stems from. This then renders the "accuracy" of the actually DOB irrelevant. Finally, if we are asked to help a subject out then we tend to do that. What benefit to the reader does her birthday provide? And saying "other stuff exists" is not helpful in the slightest. You have access to OTRS? You know this is a "I'm not that old" claim? If so you shouldn't really be discussing the content of OTRS like that here. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:38, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
SummerPhD; we can reasonably disagree over inclusion of the DOB. However, we are talking about a living person here and BLP policy applies to your comments also. Please bear that in mind when speculating. --Errant (chat!) 15:51, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It seems you are misreading my comment. WP:DOB, the section of WP:BLP being cited here, specifically refers to identity theft and similar concerns in marginally notable people, recommending trimming the cited DOB to the year. This does not seem to be the issue being discussed here. Rather than protecting personally identifiable information, this is about her age, a fairly basic piece of information. From time to time we do run across the no-longer-20-something actress whose earlier interviews clearly state a birth date. Later claims to be a handful of years younger then conflict with the solid sources. In cases with reliable sources disagreeing (see my above examples), we've typically given both dates. This particular case, however, does not fit that mold. We have one -- and only one -- reliably sourced date of birth and a reliably sourced college graduation date that is in line with that date. With no verifiable source to the contrary, that birth date is being removed, along with the graduation date that doesn't fit with the preferred DOB. As justification, policy about marginally notable people wishing to avoid identity theft is cited. This doesn't seem to fit. What seems to fit is that the subject's representative does not want the DOB in the article, which -- to me -- seems to be irrelevant. There is and always will be content that someone doesn't like. I can find no reason for supporting that as a basis for removal. - SummerPhD (talk) 16:30, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"the subject's representative" once again, are you able to access OTRS? Once again, if so, you shouldn't be discussing it in these terms here. If not, your speculation as to any particular motives of the subject are just that, speculation. Yes, there will be content that some people don't want to include, but in this case, it doesn't cause any harm to remove it per the request. Your insistence on trying to include is, well, baffling. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:36, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No, this is not from the OTRS. Publicly available information ([http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/RRIESQ outlined here) indicates that someone claiming to be Kightlinger's representative is behind the push for removal. Wikipedia includes verifiable information about people's ages, criminal convictions, sex life, drunken escapades, past political alliances, etc. That someone's representative asks us to remove this information places us at a fork in the road: Do we present verifiable, encyclopedic information or do we present verifiable, encyclopedic information that passes muster with the subject's representation? Your insistence that there is no harm in the latter is baffling. - SummerPhD (talk) 16:50, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for clarifying that you are not abusing the OTRS. The SPI doesn't actually back your position at all, it just has "claims". OTRS is very different. When asked to remove information which causes no harm to Wikipedia but could (could) cause harm to our subjects, then we should just remove it. Perhaps you've forgotten what this project is all about, what its ethos is, how it's supposed to make the internet not suck. Blatantly disregarding reasonable requests to remove trivial information is just plain stupid. Baffled why you'd think otherwise. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:58, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Please watch the personal attacks. I warned the user about an apparent COI. They responded from an IP that resolves to "lavely-and-singer.demarc.cogentco.com". The request claiming to be from Kightlinger's rep geolocates to the same location. In an article, this would be original research. This is not an article. Facts, whether they "suck" or not, are still facts. I've removed the lingering DOB from the bottom of the article and added our standard category requesting it. - SummerPhD (talk) 17:29, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I concur with just abandoning birth date. This is the two clocks problem - we as editors have no responsibility, and no way, to determine which is right. Too many public figures obfuscate and change their publicly given age, that once there's the slightest doubt or conflict of sources, it's best to just give up. Too many articles end with this result anyways, after literally years of argument. This article needs improvement in too many other ways; there's no need to bother with ambiguous, indeterminate, and conflicting details. --Lexein (talk) 16:00, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
We do not have two verifiable clocks here. We have one. All verifiable information fits that clock. - SummerPhD (talk) 16:32, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
And a subject who has politely requested the information be removed. What's the obsession here? We have many tens of thousands of BLPs which have no DOB. Just because something can be included, it doesn't mean it should. Maybe all editors should publish their birthdates? The Rambling Man (talk) 16:39, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As soon as all editors are public figures with biographies on Wikipedia, that will be the goal. Until then, we have a number of guidelines that don't seem to fit our filters, stating that "Dates of birth and death are provided in articles on people"MOS, infoboxes calling for DOB, categories specifically designed to single out biographies lacking this basic info, etc. Maybe instead of removing unsourced or poorly sourced information we should remove all information that someone wants to remove? - SummerPhD (talk) 17:00, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Please refrain from unnecessary hyperbole. We removed the birthdate. BIG deal. Anyway, this conversation is going nowhere, I'll continue to uphold the original values of Wikipedia and maintain the integrity of the project. You can do otherwise. Cheers. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:03, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Please avoid the personal attacks. - SummerPhD (talk) 17:30, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Unsourced claim wack

[edit]

Sixty Spins Around the Sun didn't win at Beverly Hills Film Festival 2008 (or 2003), but it did in 2005, sourced now. grrrr. --Lexein (talk) 02:27, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Give it up, she was born in 1964.

[edit]

Her boyfriend Garrett Sutton posted a picture of her AARP form on his instagram last year. He even edited this page a few months ago. It's safe to say that she was born in 1964. Also, the Emerson College site lists her as a graduate of '86. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.230.120.192 (talk) 01:01, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Is Laura Kightlinger a Saudi Prince Of The Royal Blood? Is WikiP a Saudi newspaper?

[edit]

There IS NO SUCH THING as "politely requesting" to remove information (if it is true and was lawfully obtained) when the removal is sought because the information is a truth that someone doesn't want posted. When Vladimir Putin wants his article edited so that he comes off more like Albert Schweitzer, is WikiP going to lick HIS shoes as subserviently as you licked Kightlinger's to make her younger? The invitation to find reliable sources for Kightlinger's birthdate is not issued in good faith. No matter what we might find, you are at liberty to say it's "not reliable". You don't say "find a birth-certificate" because then when we find a birth-certificate you are boxed in and must say "Uncle". Since you don't SPECIFY what is "reliable", you can, ex post facto of our finding anything, simply label it "not reliable". I'm not getting sucked into that game again. Multiple DISINTERESTED sources say she was born in 1964. The ONLY sources that say she was born in 1969 are those who, to increase her marketability, want the public to think she is 46, not 51. And when these two parties, one of which is manifestly operating with neither disinterest nor good faith, contest an issue, YOU CALL IT A DRAW and say you can't find EITHER side to be discredited? Her COLLEGE is just as likely to falsify her graduation five years EARLIER as SHE is to falsify her birth five years LATER? How dare you spout such Orwellian nonsense, WikiP!

There is no privacy-issue argued in good faith here. It's not relevant that she was born on June 13th. Her age (within a year) IS relevant to interpreting her place in comedy's substance and history. If you wanted to thwart identity-theft you'd conceal her birthday, not her birth year. And there's a free-press issue. When someone wants to conceal relevant, true, and lawfully-obtained information, it should be revealed if for no other reason than that someone felt sufficient sense of entitlement to attempt to conceal it. Blacken their eye, defy them. Put them in their place, let them know they are not God On High with a right to ask that their own career interests take precedence over the freedom of the press.

I'm reading her book "Quick Shots of False [False something-or-other, like maybe False Age Reports or False Hope?]" right now. So in the Spring of 1978, you say she was EIGHT YEARS OLD, turning 9 in the summer after that school-year ended. 1978 is the year in which she danced "in high school" to the song "Car Wash". Eight or nine years old in high school. She refers to the song as "one of 1978's most popular". I suppose now you can make the argument that the dance occurred in the 1982-83 school year, using "one of 1978's most popular" songs. The problem with THAT is that if that's what she meant she'd have referred to "Car Wash" as one of Nineteen-Seventy-SEVEN's most popular songs, because early 1977 is its chart peak. (I'm going by WikiP on that, so maybe I'm brain-dead, given WikiP's standards. Someone probably said "Our song would appear, to modern audiences, more current if you said it was 1977 when it was really 1970" and you obligingly re-dated it for them so they could make more dollars on more record-sales, because, in your eyes, THEIR self-interested money-motive trumps truth-telling.) The only reason for Kightlinger to refer to the song as "one of 1978's most popular" instead of "one of 1977's most popular" is that 1978 is when the dance occurred and the song was, though past its chart peak by then, still one of that time's most popular songs. And if 1978 is when the dance occurred she was eight or nine years old if she was born in 1969.

I tell you I'm GOING to find more stuff like this in her book, and I'm going to bludgeon this WikiP talk-page with it. There is not even a hypothetical set of circumstances under which I will prevail and get the 1964 birthdate re-established on this page, because it's already been established that you will use any argument necessary to maintain the fiction that there's insufficient evidence to report (or some other reason NOT to report) her year of birth. I won't win, but I can blacken your eye when you won't blacken Kightlinger's for her Machiavellian censorship, and I can show people who read WikiP talk-pages that the game is rigged by ideologues who start from the conclusion they prefer and then reverse-engineer a line of reasoning back to premises that will hold up that conclusion, and who hide behind WikiP's myriad byzantine and arcane rules that can be invoked selectively, cherry-picked, this rule, that rule, to invalidate ANY argument and ANY evidence that is contrary to what those who control WikiP want said. Case in point, my observation about the "Car Wash" dance in 1978. Am I stating a fact and citing HER OWN BOOK as a source? Nope. I already know someone's going to say "When WE do that, it's stating a fact and giving a source. When YOU do it, it's 'original research' and not permitted".76.8.67.2 (talk) 07:28, 8 November 2015 (UTC)Christopher L. Simpson[reply]

The relevant rule under the "original research" umbrella would be the one related to synthesis: "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources." There are also a lot of assumptions in your third paragraph, but there's no need to catalog those, the synthesis rule is sufficient for this to be original research, no matter who is "doing that". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.44.112.170 (talk) 15:42, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

More Original Research

[edit]

"Big" came out in 1988, and her book says her audition was 1987, the year in which SOME say she turned 18. So she was either 17 or 18 at the audition for "Big". Absent any other data, that can't be ruled out. But the chronology in the book, and the dates at which she acquired "college friends" before this audition, make it impossible that she was still in or just out of high-school at the "Big" audition, before which she had extensive post-high-school experiences. She is 51 and claims to be 46 not because it is true but because it's advantageous to her to so claim. And WikiP is acting in furtherance of her getting away with that lie, by refusing to acknowledge that there is more credible thought that contradicts her being 46 than there is credibility behind her own self-serving insistence that she IS 46. The idea that it does "no harm" (as floated above) to allow her to censor this data is absurd. In the precedent that it sets, it does the greatest possible harm, harm that has nothing to do with impairing the usefulness or quality of this article. It impeaches and discredits WikiP utterly. WikiP is depraved in allowing itself to be used as a vehicle for the spreading of misinformation and falsehood that its subjects find convenient to have WikiP spread.76.8.67.2 (talk) 08:48, 8 November 2015 (UTC)Christopher L. Simpson[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Laura Kightlinger. 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:

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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 15:37, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Laura Kightlinger. 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:

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) 06:57, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Laura Kightlinger. 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:

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) 04:28, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

COI tags

[edit]

Can the 9 COI tags at the top of this page be merged together? ---Another Believer (Talk) 21:35, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Another Believer, unless there's any objection (?) from Widefox, who placed the tags here, I can't see why you shouldn't combine them. The syntax for that is documented at {{Connected contributor}}. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 23:21, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Justlettersandnumbers, Thanks! ---Another Believer (Talk) 23:46, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, AFAIR the combo version allows up to 10, so sometimes I've needed more :) Widefox; talk 00:41, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Laura_Kightlinger&oldid=1207973868"