Talk:Chase Masterson

message: :Image:ChaseMasterson.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 Wikipedia articles 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 insure 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 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 uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 05:02, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:ChaseMasterson.jpg

message: I removed a reference to 'Digital Man' being her only nude appearance on screen.  She also appeared nude in Songwriter, under the name Christi Carafano.  --StarGeek (talk) 21:48, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Only" nude scene 

message: I have added a quality assessment rating and importance rating to this article. Feel free to change them as the article improves! Also, feel free to add more issues to the list below, and strike them out (strike) when they're completed. — OranL (talk) 04:06, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment

message: Regardless of whatever "consensus" may have been reached elsewhere, sites like "Chickipedia" aren't reliable sources and can't be cited as Wikipedia references. Discussions of contentious/sensitive material like litigation involving the article subject must be sourced under the BLP policies. Please don't keep edit warring on this, and provide reliable sources meeting our policy if you reinstate the latter. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 18:45, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: You are the one engaging in edit-warring. Post your concerns to an admin noticeboard of you don't like the results of previous consensus.76.176.166.241 (talk) 21:35, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

text: Hullaballoo, let me just start out by saying that it's usually not the best way to state your case on Wikipedia by starting with a statement to the effect of you're going to edit a page "regardless" of the consensus reached previously on the admin boards. Not a way to endear yourself to the admins or win brownie points in your argument, IMHO. Just sayin'. :)  Anyway... I made some edits on the page that will hopefully address your concerns. But I have to wonder why you didn't do the same. First of all, regarding Masterson's birth year, the "citation needed" tag has no place on a biography of a living person.  Per WP:BLP, if you feel that there is poorly cited or uncited material, you should either cite it, or remove it. Secondly, re: the Carafano vs. Metrosplash sentence that you keep removing... Why? This is not "controversial" information (the case is taught in every modern law school), it does not relate to ongoing litigation, and the sentence in question contained a link to the primary Wikipedia article about the court case. If this is not sufficient citation for you, then why not simply add a citation, like I have? Removing the sentence entirely strikes me as an unhelpful thing to do.Smokefree (talk) 00:07, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Ignore him. Hullaballoo has a reputation for trolling Wiki articles and deleting absolutely anything and everything that isn't cited, rather than simply citing it himself. All the while continually invoking various Wikipedia policies to defend his agenda, and making statements like "our policy," as if to suggest that he is somehow more directly affiliated with Wikipedia than other editors. This is referred to as "gaming the system" (WP:GAME), and he is what we call a destructive, rather than constructive, editor. In reality he has no affiliation with Wikipedia, despite his implications, and he has been banned by admins in the past; he likely will be again.  Best way to deal with him is simply to revert his edits.Cubert (talk) 19:39, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[WP:BLP]], [[WP:RS]] issues 

message: A sockpuppet complaint was filed here, the results of which were:
: the following appear to be matches:
:# 
:# 
:# 
:# 
:# 
:# 
Therefore, any supposed "consensus" reached above as a result of discussion between these accounts is, in fact, bogus. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:12, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sockpuppet-induced "consensus"