User talk:Calperniaaddams

Your article

Hello Ms. Addams, and welcome to Wikipedia!

Per a posting on the Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard, I noticed that you have requested the Wikipedia article on you be deleted. Whether that will occur or not is questionable, but I encourage you to participate in the discussion there. The BLP Noticeboard is staffed by administrators and other volunteer editors who are very experienced in these kinds of privacy-versus-notoriety issues, and they can advise you on relevant Wikipedia policy and the best course of action. Thank you. — Satori Son 18:12, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Don't take this the wrong way but how can we know you are really who you say you are?

I mean this is the net you could be anyone at all. You could be some random person masquerading online. I think it is only fair that you prove to the rest of us Wikipedians that you are who you say you are. For my money if User:Jokestress says you are who you say you are that will be sufficient. Please don't take this as me calling you some kind of a liar but really how could I possibly know from some text that you are who you say you are? --Hfarmer (talk) 04:05, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've read her comments ands I believe it is her. If she wishes to email me ( she has my personal email ) I can verify it but, it's her. I'm sure. DarlieB (talk) 12:16, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Questioning my identity is understandable

Anyone with the authority to help move my article toward deletion should feel free to contact me at calpernia@calpernia.com, a site I've owned and operated for many years now. I don't want to become embroiled in one of Wikipedia's notorious fights. I'm not angry. I explain my wishes in more detail on my article's entry on the Articles for Deletion page:

I'm just a single tiny person, and my article doesn't say anything bad about me, or anything that I disagree with. I'm not "demanding" deletion, which would be useless. But it's like discovering that your next door neighbor has erected an enormous dry-erase board with a detailed breakdown of your activities in the years you've lived next door, with an invitation for anyone in the neighborhood to add or change whatever they like. Legal? Maybe, but incredibly creepy. While I enjoy being an entertainer, and I was in the news for various events, and I'm on the web here and there, I'm calmly, plainly saying that I do not want to be in Wikipedia specifically. I know several Wikipedians, and I know that it becomes a pastime that they enjoy and to which they devote a lot of time. At times, I've seen it almost become an obsession, and if something like that is in play here, I hope that whomever can pull out of the conviction that every webpage must be filled with correctly sourced and formatted text enough to realize that there are consequences to this hobby. Surely, everyone began their time here as someone devoted to simply maintaining a useful resource. But when Wikipedia becomes a horde of judging, faceless strangers voting on what to do with me, who I can't fight or influence, it really disturbs me. I'm asking politely, not to remove some embarrassing exposé article on me, but just to leave me out of your project. Take down the creepy giant dry-erase board detailing my life. This isn't the Enquirer or TMZ.com, people who make a living from writing about others who'd prefer to be left out of their publications. When I was a child, one had to be dead or have their footprints on the moon to be in the encyclopedia. If Wikipedia is a benign and positive resource with intent to make the world a better place, then I would hope that my wishes to be left alone by it could be respected. If there is some other purpose for Wikipedia, such as to punish me for being on a reality show (Metropolitan90?) by denying my essentially insignificant-to-Wikipedia request, or to generally punish wrongdoers by nailing a list of their sins to the town hall door (as seems to be an argument for keeping the OJ Simpson type articles, which I won't defend or join since it's on an entirely different level), Wikipedia becomes a much more sinister seeming entity to me. I ask again, please, just leave me alone and out of it. Must I be bullied by people to the end of my days via every newly available medium? Write me at calpernia@calpernia.com if anyone doubts that I am "me". --calperniaaddams (talk) 04:24, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

calperniaaddams (talk) 05:02, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Anyone with the Authority to move your article towards deletion". A supposedly nice thing about wikipedia is that anyone can do anything to it. You yourself could delete all of the content of the article just leaving an empty page.... then someone (not me I have other fish to fry here) would likely revive it. :-? What's worse is that even if this incarnation of the article is taken down there is nothing to stop it from coming back latter. This place is anarchy at it's most brutal.--Hfarmer (talk) 15:44, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia and Me

I don't want to just delete my article's content, because I know that is impermanent and would only lose the possible empathy of the Wikipedia community. I understand that I will eventually be steamrolled under by a hard and uncaring... encyclopedia... but I wanted to make my feelings known. It stymies me that I am being forced into participating and being defined by something that is supposed to be a helpful resource. Wikipedia should be helping people, not hurting them. I will probably note my feelings on the talk page of the undesired article about me eventually, but I won't take a lot of time to fight this. If my feelings are unimportant here, there is little I can do about it with my limited resources, sigh. But why can't I not be in Wikipedia? Has it been decided on some cosmic level that I "just have to"? --calperniaaddams (talk) 11:34, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Willam belli.jpg

Copyright problems

Hello. Concerning your contribution, Image:Willam belli.jpg, please note that Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted text or images obtained from other web sites or printed material, without the permission of the author(s). As a copyright violation, Image:Willam belli.jpg appears to qualify for deletion under the speedy deletion criteria. Image:Willam belli.jpg has been tagged for deletion, and may have been deleted by the time you see this message.

If you believe that the article or image is not a copyright violation, or if you have permission from the copyright holder to release the content freely under the GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL) then you should do one of the following:

If you have permission from the author, leave a message explaining the details at [[Talk:Image:Willam belli.jpg]] and send an email with the message to "permissions-en (at) wikimedia (dot) org". See Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for instructions.
If a note on the original website states that re-use is permitted under the GFDL or released into the public domain leave a note at [[Talk:Image:Willam belli.jpg]] with a link to where we can find that note.
If you own the copyright to the material: send an e-mail from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en(at)wikimedia(dot)org or a postal message to the Wikimedia Foundation permitting re-use under the GFDL, and note that you have done so on [[Talk:Image:Willam belli.jpg]].

However, for textual content, you may simply consider rewriting the content in your own words. Thank you. Asher196 (talk) 12:28, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

July 2008

If you have a close connection to some of the people, places or things you have written about in the article Calpernia Addams, you may have a conflict of interest. In keeping with Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy, edits where there is a conflict of interest, or where such a conflict might reasonably be inferred from the tone of the edit and the proximity of the editor to the subject, are strongly discouraged. If you have a conflict of interest, you should avoid or exercise great caution when:

editing or creating articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with;
participating in deletion discussions about articles related to your organization or its competitors;
linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam); and,
avoid breaching relevant policies and guidelines, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, verifiability of information, and autobiographies.

For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have conflict of interest, please see our frequently asked questions for businesses. For more details about what, exactly, constitutes a conflict of interest, please see our conflict of interest guidelines. Thank you. Please propose changes and sources on the talk page of the article and refrain from editing the article itself. -MBK₀₀₄ 22:40, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

August 2008

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Calpernia Addams. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. -MBK₀₀₄ 04:31, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits

Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. If you can't type the tilde character, you should click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot (talk) 04:44, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AFD nom

I have completed your incomplete nomination and the discussion may be found [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Calpernia Addams (2nd nomination) |here]]. Otto4711 (talk) 18:00, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was not even allowed to finish submitting the form before you denied it. Unbelievable. Perhaps someone else will at least hear me out before continuing this harassment. Calperniaaddams (talk) 18:05, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The incomplete nomination was in place for almost an hour before I completed it. It is standard practice upon finding an incomplete nomination to complete it. You really need to get over the notion that everyone and everything associated with Wikipedia exists to persecute you. Otto4711 (talk) 12:12, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Callie, it's Dars. I've been on here trying to make sure that Bailey's book is kept to the facts and not to Annes, Alices or Baileys biases. It was horribly one sided and it's a constant trying to get neutrality so I understand your concern. Anyway I came accross you name and read the request for deletion.

To Otto4711 , you need to get over yourself because I read the talk page for that article on her. People trying to print her old male name ? I have no problem putting the entire article up for deletion myself simply on the basis of invasion of privacy. She doesn't think "everyone" on wiki is "persecuting" her but after reading that page it's no wonder she wants it off. Wiki can be used just as much for invasion of privacy as it can for knowledge. If there is anything I can do to help let me know Callie. DarlieB (talk) 12:12, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]