Talk:Tammy Lynn Leppert/Archive 1

Archived discussions

There is nothing notable of being an "extra" in a movie. Making it into the credit of a movie would be verification of "notable".

Little Darlings, Tammy hit the cutting room floor. She did not make it into the finished movie in any notable manner. Scarface, a walk on extra. Probably never personally saw the bloody chain saw bath tub set, considering how films are done. Also not a "notable" part. Video Wars, was it ever released?

There is a difference between being a cover girl model and working for cover girl. There is no verification she worked for Cover Girl.

Christopher Wilder was ruled out by the police as a matter of knowing Wilder's path and timing of events.

The article obviously contains errors and bias.

There is reason to believe she intentionally vanished to personally get out of the lime light, News paper articles do mention and suggest this possibility. And there are those who believe it, including family members who actually knew Tammy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.166.12.69 (talk) 04:39, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

One Cover Girl magazine cover picture on a Tammy Lynn Leppert site does not make verification for "many swimsuit issues for different magazines" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.166.12.69 (talk) 04:43, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi of course you are entitled to your opinion. But their are verifications on most of the articles claims. I however dont find a single source to prove your claim that she disappeared by own free will. And as you yourself point out its only one of many "possibilitys". So it goes both ways. And no where in the article its claimed that she was a covergirl, it only says that she worked for covergirl and that is proven by the covergirl cover my friend. She has notability in a number of ways. And by the way, landing small parts in big movies is what every actors dreams of, you also has to remember that she was only 18 and she had been offered bigger parts in movies and had planns to leave for Hollywood in persue. Also landing a modelling job at Covergirl at all is also any models dream, having a cover of a major magazine gives Tammy notability in any case.--MarkusBJoke (talk) 12:34, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And please create an account, and learn how to sign your comments. You claims get more serious if you take the wikipedia rules more seriously. And as earlier stated by someone this is not a Forum for general discussion and claims concerning Tammy lynn leppert. You might believe she is missing on free will, but that might not be everyone elses opinion, and should not be expressed on the discussion page in the future.Thanks--MarkusBJoke (talk) 12:31, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Provide verification. Being on the cover of a magazine does not mean you worked for the magazine (what article are you referring that claims she worked for Cover Girl magazine? And how old was she when that cover was done?). Evidence of notability in a movie is that of being listed in the credits, check the credits of these movies for her name. There is no evidence Tammy had plans to "go to Hollywood" nor any evidence of her being offered bigger parts. There is however, evidence of conflicting stories indicating intentional fabricated story spin which is consistent with what a talent agent and media hype are expected to do. However, perhaps you can at least name the movies she was being offered bigger parts for, as a first step towards verification?

It has been recently noted that Wikipedia has a problem regarding verification strength. An error was placed in a wikipedia article, a reporter then used wikipedia and the error as his unidentified source and when editors of wikipedia wanted verification they were pointed to the article that was written in error of sourcing wikipedia. Fabrication of false verification can be exposed.

This wikipedia article would be far more correct to identify Tammy as a former child & teen model and actress (she was never an adult model/actress) who gain her notability not in what she did in modeling or acting but in how well her "missing" was promoted by her mother/agent. As such it would also be relevant to point out how this promotion is contributory to the "missing white woman syndrome" which does have a wikipedia article to link to. And perhaps even link from, as there are other missing white women mentioned and linked to in that article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.166.12.69 (talk) 07:13, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You seem mostly interested in telling your own personal theories in different cases. I have answered your latest claims accordingly on your talk page. Hope to see you doing meaningful edits in the future. And as i have told you before, create an account and learn how to sign your comments. cheers.--Judo112 (talk) 14:09, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If my edits are so bad, then why is the majority of article as it currently stands, mostly of my writing? So what exactly what edit am I being threaten with being blocked from editing for? If it is that she is mostly known for "disappearing" then it is verifiable so, what she is most known for. There is no bias, just verifiable fact. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.166.12.69 (talk) 00:53, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As to citations needed in two places.... Florida Today Newspaper these articles are posted on the internet but can be had from the newspaper itself. from one article "Was Tami the architect and star of the perfect getaway or the victim of a perfect crime?" accessible at http://icaremissingpersonscoldcases.yuku.com/topic/408/t/Tammy-Lynn-Leppert-missing-since-Jul-6-1983-from-Fla.html on the same web page do a search for "nurse" for the second citation in the message text quoting another article. I don't know about how to add a citation and in consideration of the wrongful threat of being blocked from editing.... why should I? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.166.12.69 (talk) 01:19, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you had shown me those directly like on my talk page etc etc.. we wouldnt have gone trough all this problems. Fixed your request. You still need to read trough Wikipedias rules on references,signature, behaviour etc etc... Their is no need to have "known for" when its not agreed on what to have, and their is no need to use the "threat" accusations in the future. Their is a difference between threats and suggestions. And No i have actually made most of the article, all the parts with references on disappearance and work, plus i had to fix up the Suggestion section from some bad grammar and speculation. You most of all need to understand how to make references. Its not hard if you just take the time to look it trough, it will also help you from being blocked in the future. Cheers.--Judo112 (talk) 13:30, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would also once again suggest that you create an account on Wikipedia not using your Ip-adress, i would also suggest that you stay away the Tammy article until you have learned all that i told you above. Hope to see you be productive in the future. Cheers.--Judo112 (talk) 13:34, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Seems I know more about the case than you give me credit for. Maybe I know more than where to find it on the internet. References don't have to point to an internet accessible location. references and citations are two different words... perhaps that is the confusion. There is no requirement for creating an account, you should know this by now. The subtitles for "Work and disappearance" and "suggestions" are supposed to fit the text below them in what way? There is no "agreed on what to have" in terms of what you are referring to, policy, for who agreed on those subtitles? "Publicity of Disappearance" would be far more fitting. Edit history shows enough for anyone of any authority to make a proper judgment call regardless of your vandalism claims. Perhaps you'd like to read up on that subject here in regards to what is considered vandalism. Perhaps you'd like to remove your threats (personal attacks) to have my editing blocked? 01:28, 3 April 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.166.12.69 (talk)

Time to read.. this advice on your very heated use of tone, and while your on it this one to. I believe this is the final word in this discussion. The blame-game is not and will never be productive, i would however advice you to read trough the wikipedia guidelines as you seem to be a bit lost concerning rules of editing and behaviour on Wikipedia 74.166.12.69. Wikipedia is not a place for unsourced editing and speculation and will probably never be.--MarkusBJoke (talk) 16:25, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]