Jump to content

Talk:Michelle Rodriguez/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Old comments

Themongrel 21:53, 24 November 2006 (UTC) Dead in the show

I removed the Lost spoiler because her biography does not need details about the Ana-Lucia character, that's what the Ana-Lucia page is for. cf. Maggie Grace's talk page. DAF 04:36, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Hey, whoever put the spoiler without a warning on this page: thanks for ruining the second season of LOST for me!!!!! ugh. Crap like this is why some people hate Wikipedia. Sleeper99999 03:39, 4 October 2006 (UTC)


It does not seem right to have a mugshot of her in this article. The article on Cynthia Watros, her Lost co-star who was also arrested that night, does not have a mugshot. Please see the discussion on that article. --71.146.0.135 17:49, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Death

I heard that the real actor is death from car accident few days ago is it true? 62.0.142.121 19:25, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

No CynicalMe 23:26, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Themongrel 21:55, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

defamation

whoever keeps listing Michelle as bisexual should be ashamed.she has not commented yet and it's unlikely to happen.unless she says so,please stop the slander.thank you.the mongrel 15:57 11-24-06

I checked the source and it barely says that the subject has "experimented" with both sexes. It doesn't say she is bisexual. Until we have a source which says so, let's please not include it as a category. And before we include it as a category we should mention it in the article. -Will Beback · † · 02:08, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

In fact it clearly says she has experimented with both sexes. And K. Loken has admitted they are having an affair - if a one can say yes with a smile and a nod and a wink (one certainly can). "You can print it" she said!!! And M.R. said she is not gay. Conclusion: she is bisexual - by any reasonable standard of evidence.

The policy is: Category tags regarding religious beliefs and sexual preference should not be used unless two criteria are met:

  • The subject publicly self-identifies with the belief or preference in question
  • The subject's beliefs or sexual preferences are relevant to the subject's notable activities or public life

She has talked in interviews about her same-sex activity. She brought it into the public domain herself. The progress of the open public self-identification of bisexuals/homosexuals clearly relevant to public life. [text deleted by Will Beback] 62.64.227.85 10:59, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Who's K Loken? "Experimenting" is too vague to rely upon: it could be as little as a kiss that wasn't enjoyed. Please place a sentence in the article covering this, with the citations. Otherwise it's unsupported. -Will Beback · † · 11:07, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
OK, I see it's in the article - I must have missed it before. It seems to meet the requirements of WP:LIVING. -Will Beback · † · 11:23, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

defamation

You do not know she is bi!!! Just because Kristanna Loken says she did have relations with Michelle doesn't mean anything without Michelle backing it up and so far she hasn't !!!!! And Gwernol? Neutral point of view ? If that were true,then why put Michelle in the bisexual category when she clearly hasn't backed up Kristanna's vague statement made in the Advocate? Neutral? I think not! Sounds like you're on the gossip squad's side than the side of truth !! Everybody sees the article and it's all ,"huzzah,huzzah !! she's out!!" NO! She's not out until she is ready to !!!Themongrel 19:41, 30 November 2006 (UTC)13:43 11-3-2006 — Themongrel (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Poor grammar and excessive exclamation only suggest unprofessionalism and heated opposition which make your statements POV. "Female actors who are not lesbian but who experiment with and date women" would be a much better category name, right? ~ZytheTalk to me! 16:52, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
if that was meant to be cute Zythe..... it wasn't.and my use of exclamation points is none of your business. i was angry and i still am,so back off.putting her in a category which she doesn't belong in is criminal and this site should be ashamed.i saw this website talked about this morning on CBS and i'd like to take this opportunity to totally disagree on all the stuff said except the inaccuracy part.that one they got right on the nose.Themongrel 19:43, 10 December 2006 (UTC) — Themongrel (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Agreed, she has made no statements, but actions speak louder than words. If her sexuality is undefinable, would LGBT actors suit better? Saying that, you have displayed an intense opinion on the subject. Be calm, be collect, be apathetic if need be. WP:CALM, WP:CHILL, WP:POV. Please don't become Michelle's personal defense, please understand statements are not defamation, and please understand Wikipedia is not regarded as a source of incredible accuracy, although it should attempt to be such.
What would you like to see changes? What is your problem with the category? Can you think of a substitution? I'm not out to get you or piss you off, I was simply pointing out that getting angry over something like this and thinking it's a total disgrace lets a few of your personal opinions obscure any valid points you may be making. ~ZytheTalk to me! 20:34, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

OOowww shhh you two! Who gives a shit, I mean really! So what, she likes to drink from the hairy cup from time to time, who doesn't, I do! And what's someone else's sexuality got to do with you, or me for that matter. No no no, LABELS that's all they are, like whatever, people like you two have to intellectualise and scrutinise everything. Just get on with it will yer. GET A LIFE! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.10.204.128 (talk • contribs) 20:23, May 10, 2007

Ishkadada

shouldn't there be something about her clothes line, and her designer Dana Young? [1] --andrew|ellipsed...Speak 03:10, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

no substituitions at all

actions are all they were.she did them 1:she was curious, and 2,to get a rise out of the people.she wasn't even in love with them at all.if she was she wouldn't have said what she said in that magazine interview earlier. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Themongrel (talk • contribs) 19:30, 11 December 2006 (UTC).

there is not end to looking into people's minds - words and actions are sufficient anyway. Did you finish HS? 62.64.227.74 20:14, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

categorization

There seems to be an edit war going on regarding categorization as a lesbian. Please ensure that contributions adhere to policy shown at WP:LIVING#Use of categories. In this case, it is fairly clear from the article that the subject does not publicly self-identify with that sexual orientation. Such a categorization is therefore against policy. Thanks, Sześćsetsześćdziesiątsześć 20:17, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Bisexual, not lesbian. If you can't tell the difference then I'm not sure you making any judgements on sexual orientation categorizations what so ever. The policy clearly states "this does NOT allow for categorization based on sexual orientation which is alleged by third parties but denied by the subject". The subject in question, Michelle, has NOT denied Kristanna Loken's comments and as it as been several months since it was published, I believe that her silence on the subject is an admission that Loken's comments were in fact true. Pinchofhope 00:48, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
Apologies that was an error, I should have said bisexual. Sześćsetsześćdziesiątsześć 16:03, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Request for comment: categorization in Category:Bisexual American actors

There is a dispute regarding whether the categorization in Category:Bisexual American actors is in accordance with policy. 16:58, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Statements by editors previously involved in dispute

  • Statement from Sześćsetsześćdziesiątsześć
The policy relevant to the dispute is WP:LIVING#Use of categories, which states:
Category tags regarding religious beliefs and sexual preference should not be used unless two criteria are met:
The subject publicly self-identifies with the belief or preference in question
The subject's beliefs or sexual preferences are relevant to the subject's notable activities or public life
The dispute is in particular regarding the first of these. An argument is being put forward (see above) that the subject's lack of denial of third-party allegations can be interpreted as a tacit admission. The opposing viewpoint, which I hold, is that this is not sufficient to satisfy the criterion, and that the categorization should therefore be removed.
A number of recent edits (from various IP addresses) in which the categorization is re-added after removal by others are described in the edit summary as reversion of vandalism, or words to that effect. I believe this to be unhelpful.
I have created this RfC in order to get a little wider input into this discussion from more experienced users. Having done so, I myself will step well back from this article, and trust that others will sort it out. Anyone wishing to contact me should use my talk page, as I might not be following the discussion. Thank you. Sześćsetsześćdziesiątsześć 16:58, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Comments

"Publicly self-identifies" is pretty strong language. I don't think it's fair to characterize refusing to contradict the identification of another as self-identification. Rodriguez's own web site, under "significant other," states that she is "single." Combine the extremely weak nature of any claim that Rodriguez has "publicly self-identified" as bisexual with the extremely limited relevance of her sexual preference to her "notable activities or public life," and I think the category tag is inappropriate. PubliusFL 19:19, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Considering that she publicly said that she had "experimented," it is now a question of whether that fulfils criteria of being bisexual. Given the flexible nature of the definition on that page, I can see why it would be difficult to settle the matter, but I'd say the best way to tell if Ms. Rodriguez is bisexual is if she were to use the word in reference to herself; failing any such references, I agree with Publius. V-Man737 00:28, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
I concur with Publius and V-Man. The sources are too "thin" to support the categorical assertion. -Will Beback · † · 02:40, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
Add my support to the above views - a category does not allow the nuance that a case like this requires. Unless she explicitly self-identifies with it, it should not go in. Assertions from other people is not the same as self-identifying, and saying that a lack of response is a tacit admission strays well into the grounds of original research. Trebor 00:01, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Sześćsetsześćdziesiątsześć brought this to a RfC weeks ago. The results seem clear to me. Rodriguez has not publicly self-identified as bisexual, and her sexual preference is not relevant to her notable activities or public life Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons#Use of categories. Furthermore, unsourced or poorly sourced controversial material must be immediately removed from biographies of living persons Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons#Remove unsourced or poorly sourced controversial material. However, anonymous editors persist in reverting while steadfastly ignoring the talk page. I'm not sure where to go from here. PubliusFL 18:36, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, it's a tough one. Dispute resolution relies on both sides at least being willing to talk. And this change is coming from changing IPs. If they change it again, perhaps try posting something at WP:ANI. Trebor 18:41, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
Ok, editor came back again so I did. Trebor 23:53, 1 February 2007 (UTC)


In fact it clearly says she has experimented with both sexes. And K. Loken has admitted they are having an affair - if a one can say yes with a smile and a nod and a wink (one certainly can). "You can print it" she said!!! And M.R. said she is not gay. Conclusion: she is bisexual - by any reasonable standard of evidence.

The policy is: Category tags regarding religious beliefs and sexual preference should not be used unless two criteria are met:

  • The subject publicly self-identifies with the belief or preference in question
  • The subject's beliefs or sexual preferences are relevant to the subject's notable activities or public life

She has talked in interviews about her same-sex activity. She brought it into the public domain herself. The progress of the open public self-identification of bisexuals/homosexuals clearly relevant to public life. [text deleted by Will Beback] 62.64.227.85 10:59, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

OK, I see it's in the article - I must have missed it before. It seems to meet the requirements of WP:LIVING. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 62.64.211.163 (talk • contribs).

She has not self-identified as one though. To have it admitted by someone else is not self-identifying; to talk about same-sex activities is not self-identifying; not refuting accusations of it is not self-identifying. It is not for us to judge whether or not she is bisexual, based on the evidence; the guidelines are clear. The issue is covered in the article, and is given enough space to explain the full situation. To put her in a category implies she has publicly self-identified, which she has not. Trebor 00:21, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
Exactly. I came across this at ANI, and thought I'd offer my thoughts. It doesn't matter if she talks about her same-sex activity; she hasn't declared she is though. Bisexual (to me) implies sexual attraction to both sexes. If she only just experimented, how can anyone else know that she was actually attracted to it normally, without directly coming out and saying "I'm bisexual"? Analogy: someone can have "relations" with a tree, but that doesn't indicate arbourphilia until the tree itself arouses said person because it's a tree. --Dayn 00:44, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
Agree 100% on self-identification. The only argument the anonymous editor has with respect to the "self" part, apparently, is Rodriguez admitting to unspecified experimentation. This could mean just about anything, including a kiss. Admitting to experimentation is not the same as identifying with a particular sexual preference. I imagine there are out gays (self-identified homosexual orientation) who have admitted to experimentation at some point in their lives with members of the opposite sex. That would not constitute self-identification as a bisexual. And self-identification is only one of the two criteria that must be met. The other is relevance to the subject's notable activities or public life. The anonymous editor's argument is that "the open public self-identification of bisexuals/homosexuals (is) clearly relevant to public life." This amounts to arguing that self-identification is always relevant, which does away with the second criterion altogether. PubliusFL 00:53, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
Agree with above view of PubliusFL. CyberAnth 04:36, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
And I like the tree analogy ;) Trebor 07:53, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Removal of cited but "potentially controversial" material

CyberAnth (talk · contribs) recently removed a good deal of material from this article. Some of the material was uncited, and was removed appropriately. However, some of the material was cited to reliable sources, and probably should not have been removed. Cyberanth cited WP:Undue weight as the justification for the removal of the cited material; however, I think that reducing the "personal life" section to a crush on Colin Farrell is probably more disproportionate than making mention of the controversy over Rodriguez's sexuality (with appropriate citations). Similarly, it's misleading to suggest that the Hawaii DUI was Rodriguez's first run-in with the law. I'm going to restore some of the cited material that had been deleted. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 03:33, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Information restored, with full citations. I condensed the info about the Hawaii arrest slightly: I don't think that we need to give a minute-by-minute account of the night of the arrest. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 04:56, 4 February 2007 (UTC)


Perez Hilton as "journalist"

The article has Perez Hilton as a "journalist." Last time I checked Hilton had no actual journalistic credentials to be considered a "journalist." I would call him a gossip blogger in this article. THE evil fluffyface 15:14, 4 May 2007 (UTC)


personal life

someone needs to rewrite the entire personal life section, it doesn't make sense. its a hobblepodge of noncontiguous writing. someone just needs to make it one fluid thought, either way, it has to be rewritten. 68.105.218.232 10:31, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Personal Life/Curve magazine Reverts

Can someone please explain to me why this article continues being reverted to the following inaccurate and misleading sentence?

"On her blog, Rodriguez revealed that she had not come out because of concerns it would damage her career, saying the following:"

This sentence implies that Rodriguez acknowledged being in the closet in her blog post and that's simply not the case.

She did seem to imply that (i.e. her being motivated by career concerns). Perhaps because she doesn't seem to have a good command of written English. Did she have a relationship with K. Loken or not? I believe KL. How much 'experimenting' can someone do and still maintain this preposterous position? - insulting to everyone's intelligence and many people's identity. I can only guess she is frightened of the reaction of people she knows. It is not as if anyone is putting labels on her or making anything up. I think she is damaging her career and certainly her reputation by coming across as selfish. 62.64.214.18 16:46, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Rodriguez has acknowledged experimenting with women in the past(which she alludes to in the post) but she's never defined her sexual orientation much less revealed that she's in the closet. In fact, she repeatedly criticizes those who attempt to force those labels upon her: "but when people come out of nowhere and put words in my mouth or call me Gay, they should really think for one second How they could truly affect my life by doing such things. You don't know what producer, director, would be husband or future audience member may be influenced by these opinions and media content."

The comments she made in her blog were in response to Curve magazine's attempt to "out" her (her claim)and that fact should be made clear because stating that she's admitted to being "in the closet" is putting words in her mouth.

Yeah, I juts looked this over the "seeming to suggest" line needs to go, its OR and the excerpt speaks for itself. Quadzilla99 09:25, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
OR is introducing information that originates with the writer - claiming to be a 'source'. As far as I can see the sentence in question only directs the reader's attention to what the significant tenor of the quote is (otherwise they may be put off by the rambling). JenAW 18:45, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I have just revised this section in an attempt to finally rid the page of any POV issues either way. As is, there should be no more issue. LBear08 (talk) 22:02, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Accent

The article is currently named "Michelle Rodríguez", where it was moved a couple of months ago. However the subject's official website does not use an accent in the name.[2] Pending proof that the accented name is more commonly-used, I'm going to move it back to the unaccented "Michelle Rodriguez". ·:· Will Beback ·:· 06:59, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Well WhatEVER sexuality she may Be, she's Beautiful as HELL and it's gonna Be a SHAME she' be spending the next 6 months in lockdown. I wish her the best. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shyjayb (talk • contribs) 08:32, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to know why the name continues to be accented, as the person above stated? Her website does not list the accent, nor does any other source of information. I can't say I've seen a single source in which her name was accented. There's no reason to do it here, so for all intensive purposes we should probably leave the accent out until it is proven to be needed via her website or some other accurate database. LBear08 (talk) 16:12, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Speculation and POV

I have just undone this edit. Here are the details:

  • Editor added "after Rodriguez was widely thought to have been outed by Kristanna Loken". Unsourced.
  • Added "by many". Unsourced.
  • Added "The prospect of an interview immediately received extensive media attention." Unsourced.
  • Added "at length". Unsourced POV.
  • Added "Taken together, Curve's website and the magazine's later comments imply that while not attempting to out her as a lesbian, they were declaring, accurately or not, that she is bisexual. Rodriguez herself has not responded to this specific claim." Synthesis/unsourced POV.

Mdsummermsw (talk) 18:13, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

In fact read the previous section and you will see sources - and a simple google news search for the period back them up. 410,000 results for her and K Loken.
Read the blog entry. It is lengthy. She went on for several hundred words.
it is not POV it is unavoidable factual conclusion of what was said. People seem not to understand what POV is. 62.64.212.17 (talk) 20:33, 31 December 2007 (UTC) — 62.64.212.17 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Please thread your comments.
"She went on for several hundred words." The total blog entry was 957 words. In your opinion, this is lengthy for a celebrity blogging about a magazine's controversial assertion about her private life. ...unless you have a source.
"read the previous section and you will see sources". Please see WP:BLP. To ensure that contentious material is well-sourced, proved cites for the material in-line with that material.
"a simple google news search...410,000 results for her and K Loken." Searches are not sources. Google +"angelina jolie" +"jennifer aniston" for 1,590,000 hits. Would that support a claim of "after Jolie was widely thought to have been outed by Jennifer Aniston"?
Here's some of the POV, OR/synthesis: "Taken together, Curve's website and the magazine's later comments imply that while not attempting to out her as a lesbian, they were declaring, accurately or not, that she is bisexual. Rodriguez herself has not responded to this specific claim. "
  • "Taken together..." Per WP:SYN "'A and B, therefore C' is acceptable only if a reliable source has published this argument in relation to the topic of the article."
  • "...imply..." You inferred that meaning. That's original research. The implication would have to originate with the authors of the website and article stated this indirectly. In your point of view, they did. You need a source saying the authors did this.
  • "...not attempting...they were declaring..." You are interpreting their motives. How do you know what they were "attempting"?
  • "...has not responded to this specific claim" That you are unaware of her responding to this specific claim does not mean that she has not. You need a source. Further, through claiming this lack of response, there is an implication that there is meaning relevant to the context.
Mdsummermsw (talk) 14:37, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I am unsure if User:L8ear08 = User:LBear08 = User:62.64.212.17 = various others. However, I have just reverted one by L8ear08 which undid my earlier edits. As all of these are new Spas for this article I cannot really tell when they're actually on wikipedia and may respond. There are, as noted in numerous earlier discussions, serious WP:BLP issue here, so I have reverted the changes pending substantial discussion. If anyone feels it is warrented, I would welcome a 3O on this. Mdsummermsw (talk) 18:57, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Please familiarize yourself with wikipedia's talk page guidelines. Adding your comments into another's comment is confusing for later editors reading the discussion. - Mdsummermsw (talk) 16:19, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

For clarity, I have added notes at the beginning of each comment in italics. - Mdsummermsw (talk) 16:42, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

(re "several hundred words") This is stupid. POV is about controversial value judgements. It is not about simple statements that anyone of good faith would agree with.62.64.214.17 (talk) 11:46, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
(re "previous section and you will see sources") It is62.64.214.17 (talk) 11:46, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
(re "a simple google news search") Search for the story.62.64.214.17 (talk) 11:46, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
(re "Here's some of the POV, OR/synthesis") Not POV at all. If you call some one a "bad bi girl", you are declaring that they are bi. You are not stating that they are lesbian. Simple 62.64.214.17 (talk) 11:46, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
(re "'A and B, therefore C'") It is not an argument, it is a statement of what has been stated by Curve!!!62.64.214.17 (talk) 11:46, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
(re "You inferred that meaning") NO. It is simply statement. If I call you a fool, I am implying you lack common sense. It is analytic not synthetic.62.64.214.17 (talk) 11:46, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
(re "You are interpreting their motives") No. Just not assuming they were unaware of the general acceptation of their words.62.64.214.17 (talk) 11:46, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
(re "you are unaware of her responding...does not mean that she has not") It points out that she does not respond to what is said about her - in her blog (or elsewhere).

She was called a bad bi girl - but she simply complained about an attempt to "out her". She did not disagree with the label used about her. Her blog simply shows concern about what it would do to her career. 62.64.214.17 (talk) 11:46, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

The section on the article on Curve is straightforward.

1. She said she had experimented with women 2. It was widely reported that Kristanna Loken had tacitly they were in a relationship. Nearly 1/2 million results on google show that. Look at them. 3. She did not issue a correction of that 4. Curve called her a bad bi girl. This also all over the internet. 5. She complained about their attempting to out her with a non-existent interview. 6. They said they were not attempting to out her or call her a lesbian. 7. She did not issue a correction of the bi label despite the fact that that is all they called her. Your behavior is unhelpful and perverse. You have got a bee in your bonnet for some reason. Take a break and get things in perspective. 62.64.214.17 (talk) 11:54, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

As is RIGHT NOW, the content is as accurate and non POV/biased as possible. Leave it. There is no reason to continue to undo edits in which I remove useless information, reference overkill, and biasd vocabulary and summaries. I don't speak wiki language but I am familiar with Ms. Rodriguez and as is right now, the page is complete and efficient and as accurate as it could be. Any other edits, undos, etc will screw up the page. - LBear08 —Preceding unsigned comment added by LBear08 (talk • contribs) 14:05, January 3, 2008 — LBear08 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Assume good faith

I suggest that editors refrain from perverse and misconceived carping and concentrate on producing articles which serve readers. 62.64.214.17 (talk) 11:58, 3 January 2008 (UTC) — 62.64.214.17 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Thank you for the suggestion, "62.64.214.17". I suggest that we all follow WP:TALK. Additionally, I suggest that we source all material to verifiable, reliable sources and not synthesize new ideas.
Also, the smell of socks is getting rather strong in here. Maybe I'll do another load of laundry.
Mdsummermsw (talk) 16:33, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Sock spa

Over the past year and a half, numerous single purpose accounts have been commenting here/editing the article as if they are separate individuals. Here are a few (see if any patterns jump out at you in those IP addresses...): Special:Contributions/LBear08 Special:Contributions/L8ear08 Special:Contributions/24.22.8.202 Special:Contributions/62.64.200.71 Special:Contributions/62.64.200.82 Special:Contributions/62.64.203.78 Special:Contributions/62.64.203.135 Special:Contributions/62.64.203.164 Special:Contributions/62.64.205.107 Special:Contributions/62.64.210.244 Special:Contributions/62.64.211.54 Special:Contributions/62.64.211.163 Special:Contributions/62.64.212.5 Special:Contributions/62.64.212.17 Special:Contributions/62.64.214.17 Special:Contributions/62.64.214.18 Special:Contributions/62.64.214.67 Special:Contributions/62.64.214.90 Special:Contributions/62.64.227.74 Special:Contributions/62.64.227.85 Special:Contributions/66.27.139.22 Special:Contributions/66.139.221.201 Special:Contributions/69.155.209.160 Special:Contributions/69.155.217.106 Special:Contributions/69.234.141.123 Special:Contributions/70.242.97.18 Special:Contributions/70.242.97.73 Special:Contributions/70.242.97.250 Special:Contributions/70.242.98.117 Special:Contributions/70.242.107.70 Special:Contributions/70.243.221.67 Special:Contributions/70.244.185.222 Special:Contributions/216.195.97.10 All repeatedly include claims and insinuations about bisexuality, refusing any discussion involving wikipedia's policies and standards. A while back, this resulted in an AN and a RfC. Before I take this back to AN and pulling out WHOIS, Traceroute, socks and blocks, do any of the contributors wish to aknowledge any connection to any of the "other" contributors? Mdsummermsw (talk) 19:31, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I post as LBear08 when I can, and simply do what I can to make sure Ms. Rodriguez's page is as accurate as possible. You want to fix format (technicalities) then more power to you, but I know this particular subject well, hence my revisions which are always 100% necessary to keep the content as accurate as possible. My edits as LBear08 aren't at all spamming, inaccurate, nor cause for you to start massive lists and silly accusations. LBear08 (talk) 18:58, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
Plain English: Please don't delete any additions to the talk page.[3]
Don't you find it odd that immediately after you decided to signup for wikipedia to edit this article (and no others) someone else signed up with a very similar user name to edit this article (and no others)? - Mdsummermsw (talk) 21:19, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
Incidentally, are those annonymous edits from just over five minutes after your last comment here really yours? - Mdsummermsw (talk) 21:28, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Don't you have something better to do? Take off the wannabe admin hat and go edit some pages for which you know about their topics. LBear08 (talk) 12:53, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Interesting: Special:Contributions/62.64.202.145 appears to likely be Mdsummermsw due to the fact that this IP reverted an edit back to that of Mdsummermsw, therefore by his/her own original rules (see above) everything he/she does should be called into question as "Sock Spa". Seems we have a bit of a pot calling the kettle black situation going on here. Interesting! Let it go and get back on track now Mdsummermsw, thanks. LBear08 (talk) 17:02, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

One of the "patterns" I mentioned above was the number of edits from 62.64.200.0 - 62.64.239.255. This includes the two recent IP edits by 62.64.202.145 [4] and 62.64.210.37 [5]. All of these IP addresses are registered to Tiscali UK Limited.
Here are a few articles I've edited recently: Italian Market (Philadelphia)‎, Frank Palumbo‎, List of Pennsylvania firsts‎, Cheesesteak‎, Mummers Parade‎, Betsy Ross‎, Cultural depictions of Philadelphia‎, Philadelphia Slang‎, Pat's King of Steaks‎, Robert Morris (financier), First White House‎, George Washington and slavery‎, George Washington‎, Betsy Ross House‎
By looking at my edits, it's clear that I edit a whole lot of articles, many of which are connected to Philadelphia, where I live. Tiscali, to the best of my knowledge, does not provide service anywhere near where I live. I could be wrong, it's a big city.
By looking at the article you edit, it's clear that you edit an article about Michelle Rodriguez and tell me I should contribute to other articles.
Mdsummermsw (talk) 18:49, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

By looking at everything you've said and done, I'd say you need a life. Time to move on now my friend. Find a new obsession. Now on with life we both go. LBear08 (talk) 03:34, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Understanding "wikispeak"

This article is about a living person. That makes it a "biography of a living person". As a result of this, wikipedia requires "really, really good" sources for anything the article says about the person that they might not like. These rules are at this link: WP:BLP. Details on what a "really, really good" source would be can be found at this link: WP:RS.

Does this mean you can't just do a google search and count up the number of hits for something and call it a source? Yes.

Does this mean you can't put something in the article that you know is true without listing a "really, really good" source that specifically says it's true? Yes.

Does this mean you can't read two different sources (even two different issues of the same magazine), figure out what the authors were doing/trying to do/saying/trying to say and include that? Yes.

This is wikipedia. Wikipedia has rules. To continue using wikipedia you have to follow those rules. Saying you don't understand the rules as a defense to explain why you broke the rules doesn't cut it. Mdsummermsw (talk) 21:36, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I understand the Wikipedia rules completely. I was talking about your use of constant Wiki phrases as if you were a robot. Your reversion of my edits are usually based on POV and assumptions, which is against the rules. Read them yourself. Just leave the edits. As of my last edits the article is accurate and fully backed up by legitimate references. My advice to you is to stop backseat admining. I've done nothing wrong in my edits as LBear08. You taking numerous IP address and listing them in some attempt to catch something that doesn't exist is pathetic and pointless, and suggests your time would better be spent contributing to articles instead of trying to find some sort of rule break that doesn't exist where someone else is simply trying to make articles as accurate as possible, thanks. LBear08 (talk) 21:45, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Olivier Martinez

I am removing this section entirely: "Most recently, Rodriguez was linked to Kylie Minogue's ex Olivier Martinez after the two were seen dining at Chateau Marmont. Rodríguez reportedly spent the night at his hotel room, and the two have been spotted together several times over the course of the last 4 years.[15]"source cited

Here's why:

"Most recently" = January 2007.

"linked to" = had dinner with. I've been linked to my mother, brother, son, George Thorogood... (I do not know Thorogood, I met him twice. Seemed nice enough, I guess.)

"spent the night at his hotel room" = stayed in the same hotel, not "same hotel room", "same hotel". To think of the hundreds of people I spent the night with in one night at a Holiday Inn...

"spotted together several times over the course of the last 4 years" = once in the January 2007 article and it mentions once two years earlier. I've been spotted several times over the past 5ish years with George Thorogood (who I do not know)... Mdsummermsw (talk) 14:36, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Why would you want to remove the entire section on Olivier yet keep the Kristanna Loken pieces? She has been linked to Martinez NUMEROUS times over the last several years especially in 2004 and 2007. It should be included in some capacity, especially if you include the parts on the other RUMORED relationships. You leave in references to Loken's teases which never even named Rodriguez, yet remove info on another relationship for which there is far more evidence both photographic and in print. The Martinez snippets are even sourced. There's no reason to delete sourced information whatsoever. You're getting into POV symantics and it appears as if you are trying to present some sort of gay/bisexual bias by reducing the references to men she definitely dated meanwhile constantly expanding on possible relationships with females. The Martinez info is sourced and abundant and should be mentioned in this article if we're trying to be exact. 216.195.97.10 (talk) 16:17, 8 January 2008 (UTC) — 216.195.97.10 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Another spa!
I removed that section because the text was not supported by the cite, as explained. If you would like to return that section, reworded to actually agree with the cited source, go for it.
If you have a problem with other material in the article, edit it. I haven't reviewed all of this mess.
Mdsummermsw (talk) 18:16, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

If you haven't reviewed it, then you shouldn't remove it. It should be left in until it can be fixed to be more precise. 216.195.97.10 (talk) 18:50, 8 January 2008 (UTC) — 216.195.97.10 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

I have not reviewed the entire article Michelle Rodriguez. As my detailed comments on the Courier Mail source should have made quite clear, I have read that article and reviewed the section in the wikipedia article that cited it. - Mdsummermsw (talk) 19:25, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Michelle Rodriguez. 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:

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 IITalk to my owner:Online 03:44, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Michelle Rodriguez. 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:

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 IITalk to my owner:Online 19:11, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Michelle Rodriguez. 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:

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 IITalk to my owner:Online 12:24, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Michelle Rodriguez. 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:

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 05:56, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on Michelle Rodriguez. 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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:46, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 16 external links on Michelle Rodriguez. 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) 00:03, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Michelle Rodriguez. 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) 13:07, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Michelle Rodriguez. 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) 00:17, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Michelle_Rodriguez/Archive_1&oldid=1137009181"