Talk:Janelle Pierzina

message: I've reverted Fernando Rizo's deletion because it makes no sense for Wikipedia to have an article on Ashlea Evans who was in the house for only 12 days and on only three episodes and no article on Janelle Pierzina who has been in there for over two months, won a bunch of prizes and is the favorite of most of the fans of the show.
We must not forget that Wikipedia is a serious encyclopedia, not a crappy one.  32.97.110.142 12:27, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Please don't do that.  In the future, this issue may be revisited, but for now, the consensus must stand, since nothing's changed since the decision.  If supporters would stop crying, and sign-up for accounts, make *good* solid edits on *multiple* articles, they would be able to participate in voting, and have their votes counted.  Also, if articles you liked were improved, they would be more likely to be kept.  Unilateral actions are destructive and harmful.  It was wrong when User:Zoe unilaterly re-directed this and other articles, but it's equally wrong to unilaterly remove the re-directs against a vote.  Abuses of wiki rules on both sides of the issue are wrong.  I'm not an admin, and am only speaking for myself.  --rob 12:39, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I have to agree with the poster that is makes no sense at all to have pages for Ashlea or Eric or Maggie and not have one for Janelle who has done so much more in the game and has done so many other notable things. As for myself. I can't recommend that foks sign up for names and do edits to get taken seriously by some of these wiki folks because thats a load of crap. You need to have more than 300 edits before bothering to vote? Please. But Zoe got her way, so I guess that's whats really important to folks here.--66.149.92.242 13:39, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I'm not advocating people with no interest in editing, just edit for the sake of voting.  But, if people care about part of wiki content, then contributing, is better than complaining.  Also, the 300 is not the norm.  Typically, somebody is excluded if they're brand new, or just contributing to what they're voting on.  But, even though the 300 threshold was used here (unfortunately), to be fair, both sides had to meet the same requirement.  --rob 13:54, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd have to say there's not much point to contributing when someone like Zoe can just get what you've done yanked. I AM glad to hear that 300 is not the norm, that looked just rediculous to me. Yes, both sides had to be over that, but given that sort of thing attracts two types 1) people who are familar with Janelle's accomplishments and 2) folks that don't like reality TV and/or contestants thereof, the deck it is stacked as the latter have been around this place longer. I'm not advocating undoing admin changes though as it's useless, as someone in the old boys network will just revert it. And really, I'm no longer certain this place is worth the time and effort. --66.149.92.242 14:19, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

text: Dude, your heart is in the right place, but I'm afraid that the horse tends to be expired so you may wish to cease flogging it. Mayhaps Janelle will win, or do something else (as I expect she will) and then a new bio can be added. But right now the deck is stacked against her page, unfair and unreasonable as that may be. I'll admit, I was tempted to post about this to TWOP or HamsterTime and bring a few hundred enraged fanatics over here to fight the good fight, but for right now have decided to hold off a bit. Perhaps justice can be done without resorting to slash and burn tactics.--66.149.92.242 14:58, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: An example where fans have been successful:  I've learned, once a music band is notable, every album they make, no matter how minor, even it's burned at home and sells 5 copies, gets it's own article, with no question.  Now, in theory once a hugely successful TV show starts, its top people should at least be treated as well as a self-produced obscure low-selling album.  What's the difference?  Many music fans have ongoing named accounts on wikipedia with established edit histories.  Every time somebody noms an obscure album, they jump to its defense and save it.  But, on reality-tv, people come in to create the article as an anon, try to vote on it, complain bitterly when it's deleted, and then leave; having no effect whatsoever.  Wikipedia is more open than most organizations, but like most it tends to favor "insiders", but anybody is allowed to be an insider, *if* they follow the rules.  --rob 22:24, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I understand and even expect a certain amount of cronyism on sites like this. After a bit a certain community starts to form thats invariably hostile to outsiders. But unlike many sites where the outside is just ignored or flamed, here their work is either destroyed or tcuked away so it's difficult to find. I can understand why folks, upon seeing how hostile this place can be to the information they think is important and/or interesting, simply pick up and find someplace more to their liking. Of course, as you pointed out, that makes this place the poorer, as it misses out on information that folks might be looking for. And if they discover they can't find it here, they'll soon stop looking for information here. I had been intrigued by the whole concept of this place, but now am not so sure about staying and contributing as it's ideals are pretty much only that, ideals. I'm going to try to hold off a bit and see how things play out.--Firedrake 23:19, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikipedia is a serious encyclopedia 

message: Requesting change to section 3 Big Brothers 7
Current:  "In fact, this belief has spawned more than 50 Janelle and Will tributes on the site Youtube.com"
should read "more than 150"
Information can be verified at http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=bb7+will+janelle+tribute&search=Search
The URL search above shows 144 videos with the word "tribute" included in the title or description. Many of their music videos do not have the word tribute so "150" is a very conservative number.
Thank you
All taken care of for you.Gamer83 00:14, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requesting numeric change 

message: An editor objected to my deletion of chunks out of both the BB6 and BB7 sections in the subject's bio. Whilst I concede it may have relevance in the context of an article centred on BB, such as Big Brother USA season 6, Big Brother: All-Stars or List of Big Brother 2006 housemates (UK), I do not see this content having a place in the person's biography. Just because it was seen or happened on TV, and millions saw it, doesn't necessarily warrant a section on the episode - it is still a primary source, and its use potentially violates also WP:BLP. Ohconfucius 07:47, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed, particularly since more relevant things aren't properly addressed.  Her legal troubles are dismissed in a one sentence, and her gaffe that likely caused her to miss the finals isn't mentioned. BaldPete 20:41, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Unencyclopaedic non-biographical content 

message: This article has now been fully protected due to the protracted edit-warring that has been going on for months now. This doesn't endorse any one particular version. Folks - please discuss your differences here & try to come to some consensus. Thanks - Alison ☺ 14:03, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There's very little to discuss.  The deleted passage is relevant, sourced and accurate, as  ItsGottaBeRight has stated.  I can understand your reason for protecting the page, but similar info is not an issue on other pages, and should not be here. 199.20.68.40 15:07, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  The article has been protected to end the disruption, of which there has been plenty! It was requested on WP:RPP - Alison ☺ 15:39, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please don't take my comment personally.  As I said, I'm not questioning your decision to protect, that protection was requested, or even that there has been continuous disruption.  I'm only stating that IMHO this issue needs little discussion, as similar info has been entered on other pages without issue. 199.20.68.40 15:44, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

text: A consensus was reached several months ago, when a short paragraph dealing with the subject was reduced to two sentences.  It existed in that form for several months before these sentences themselves were deleted. BaldPete 14:54, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Rather argumentative.  The solution to edits that were removed from another page is not to vandalize this one.  It can be discussed on its own page.  For the record, this editor has never deleted anything from that page. BaldPete 18:28, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not "argumentative".  I just find it really odd that someone is so obsessed with adding this info to Janelle's page, but there are other BB houseguests that have criminal records in their past and they are left off or removed from their pages. Factual22 19:00, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Look, as much as I love Janelle, you have to understand the rules of Wikipedia.  It's a Red herring fallacy for you to point at other articles that lack the criminal histories as an excuse to exculde Janelle's history here.  If you can properly source those other cast member's criminal histories, then go to those pages and add the informaion.  It is not however an excuse to exclude the information here.  I don't know how else to explain this. As was stated so eloquently below by LaraLove "The article is a biography of Janelle Pierzina, not just her career. Information not regarding her career is relevant to the article. Her Big Brother appearances establish her notability, but do not limit the content." Gamer83 19:20, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit-warring 

message: Requesting that an admin add a POV template to this article until issue is resolved. BaldPete 15:08, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. Cheers. --MZMcBride 23:02, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: POV

message: === Disputed content ===
The following was removed on May 20:
:Early in her career, Pierzina ran afoul of the law with two minor offenses, misdemeanor theft and a DWI infraction; Pierzina eventually pleaded guilty to both offenses.  
The question is whether or not such information should be included in the article.
=== Uninvolved editor comments ===
* The article is a biography of Janelle Pierzina, not just her career. Information not regarding her career is relevant to the article. Her Big Brother appearances establish her notability, but do not limit the content. I believe that the removed information should be restored. If it is preferred that only information relating to Big Brother be included, then this article needs to be merged into a Big Brother article. LaraLoveT/C 15:44, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request for comment 

message: * The article is a biography of Janelle Pierzina, not just her career. Information not regarding her career is relevant to the article. Her Big Brother appearances establish her notability, but do not limit the content. I believe that the removed information should be restored. If it is preferred that only information relating to Big Brother be included, then this article needs to be merged into a Big Brother article. LaraLoveT/C 15:44, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Uninvolved editor comments 

message: Explanation for two recent edits.
Reinsertion of additional details regarding Janelle's arrests.
These details do not violate WP:BLP  They are accurate and the sources are given.  They are presented without POV. 
Removal of a sentence describing Janelle as 'technically' the second place finisher of All-Stars.
CBS's own official web site specifies Erika Landin as the runner up.  Therefore, trying to characterize Janelle as the second place finisher is at best misleading and POV and at worst an intentional attempt at deceiving readers.  It also conflicts with text earlier in the paragraph.
http://www.cbs.com/primetime/bigbrother7/show/vh.shtml
BaldPete (talk) 15:25, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi there. I do think the information about Pierzina's arrests does violate WP:BLP because the two cited sources do not meet the standards of reliable sources necessary. The Smoking Gun is essentially a blog, which is automatically discounted, and I don't think "Reality News Online" would qualify as a source that's good enough for a biography page. If the details of Pierzina's arrest are well-known, then there should be some better mainstream sources that reported the information. As for the information about her being the runner-up, I would definitely have to agree with you that the CBS source provided directly contradicts that statement. However, that paragraph needs to be sourced anyway. Doing so might help alleviate the back-and-forth on that point. Best, epicAdam(talk) 16:43, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The Smoking Gun link does however, include reproductions of actual court documents and arrest records which justify the statements.  Also, at one time I had a third link which I believe was from E! Online.  I'll search for it and include it. BaldPete (talk) 16:57, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

text: Well, if the press reported it then there's no problem in including it. Master of Puppets Call me MoP! :) 00:42, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: There are two principle content policy, verifiability and neutral point of view. Being verifiable is not enough. Had there not just been a massive edit war (see WP:AN3) I would be minded to remove the section myself and claim a BLP 3RR exception. CIreland (talk) 00:47, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I can see where you're coming from. However, I'd say it isn't exactly minor; E! reported on it, and as I've stated before, I don't think a source would be reporting on this if it wasn't important (in relation to this article, at least). Master of Puppets Call me MoP! :) 00:55, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The press report all kind of trivial stuff, especially about minor celebrities for which there just isn't that much interesting stuff. We should be taking an overview of their entire life and career; driving offences are borderline irrelevant in the context of a person's life. CIreland (talk) 00:58, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, but that's all... well... your personal view... Master of Puppets Call me MoP! :) 01:01, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It's my interpretation of WP:NPOV, yes, but I don't think it's an unusual interpretation. It may or may not be a minority view, hard to say. CIreland (talk) 01:07, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

text: *I do have sympathy for your view. However, the repeated vandal edits by IP editors also violate WP:UNDUE in the opposite direction because they not only purge these misdemeanours, they fill the article with the sort of unencyclopaedic and non-biographical chaff about what she did and with whom on Big Brother X Y or Z. These are wild pendulum swings that need to be addressed. There is seriously nothing noteworthy about this person except that she won half a million dollars, and I believe the version which exists now is in some sort of dynamic equilibrium. I would add that the misdemeanours are just the sort of stuff the tabloids are filled with, and if Mel Gibson DUI incident is worth an article (and I'm not saying I agree), Pierzina's misdemeanours are certainly worth a paragraph. Ohconfucius (talk) 01:24, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Ohconfucius pretty much summarizes my view. What is worth inclusion is relevant to the subject. Master of Puppets Call me MoP! :) 01:49, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

text: *With all due respect, I take issue with your claim that it is 'hard to say' whether yours is the minority view.  If you look above, you will see that the question of whether the material should be included has already been the subject of a  request for comments, where responses from uninvolved editors were strongly in favor of keeping the material, with one POSSIBLE exception that was more neutral than support for removal.  In view of such consensus, I would hate to think we are seriously considering removal of the only cited material in the article. I further take issue with your characterization of DUI as a 'trivial offense'.  Also, if you are in fact genuinely worried that the inclusion of such 'minor' material as misdemeanor convictions will result in a recital of every parking offense ever committed by the subject, you needn't be.  There are any number of articles within this project that include similar or identical information without resulting in the excesses you describe.  BaldPete (talk) 17:13, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

text: I hadn't thought of a TV show potentially casting someone because of notoriety. In that light, it makes more sense to include the information. LovesMacs (talk) 18:16, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

text: *Would it make for boring 'reality TV' if everyone was a law-abiding citizen without secrets or without a murky past? I remember several cases of BB contestants chosen for this sort of reason, only revealed as the season unfolded. Ohconfucius (talk) 02:09, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent Edits 

message: According to WP:BLP: "Never use self-published books, zines, websites, webforums, and blogs as a source for material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject of the article". I have therefore removed one piece of text recently added which relies on such a blog as source. Kindly do not replace it unless an source of an acceptable standing can be found to support it. Ohconfucius (talk) 05:52, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, the statement that Janelle won by two million votes is not present in the cited entry on the "Tabloid Whore Blog Spot".   I wish the anonymous editor would consent to explaining contentious edits on this discussion page. BaldPete (talk) 17:56, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Use of blog as a source

message: I don't see why her current job should be left out.  It's on the company's public web site, so it's not a secret.  I'm not aware of any wiki policy that would prohibit its inclusion. BaldPete (talk) 14:16, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I see it's gone again.  I've got no desire to get into an edit war over this, but will mention my opinion that the removal of cited and biographical text does not improve the article.  BaldPete (talk) 14:40, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Current employment and privacy concerns

message: Once again, I find myself on the talk page for this article.  The explanation for the recent removals.
Several sources, including  wiki's own article, define a 'cameo' appearance as that made by a known person.  Janelle's uncredited appearances were made BEFORE she was on Big Brother.  Cameo appearances are not made by extras.
The claim about her Big Brother stipend needs to be  cited by a reliable source.   Reviewing my editing history, I find that I first requested this cite back in March .  Eight months is a long enough time to wait for this claim to be proven.  BaldPete (talk) 16:19, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal of small parts of Filmography

message: Please note that, unless the account can clearly be identified to the individual, postings on Twitter are not considered "reliable" within our definition of the word. Please see discussion []. The information sourced to "Pierzina's Twitter account" has therefore been removed. Ohconfucius ¡digame! 01:16, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Seeing as how Janelle Pierzina, herself, not only excitedly posted about her engagement on her Twitter page, but also posted a photograph of herself wearing her engagement ring, I'd say it's TOTALLY reliable.  Also, she posted several times about her wedding plans.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.200.39.145 (talk) 04:04, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Correction: someone posted a picture of a hand wearing a wedding ring on a Twitter account in the name of Janelle Pierzina. There is now nothing on that twitter page, the comments which were there before made little sense. Ohconfucius ¡digame! 13:36, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: CORRECTION:  Janelle, herself, posted the photo of herself on her Twitter page and the photo is still there!  This person, Ohconfucius, seems to have some hidden agenda where Janelle Pierzina is concerned.  It's preposperous to claim that Janelle's Twitter page is not legitimate when she posts there constantly.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.200.39.145 (talk) 19:10, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Welcome to the discussion page.    It appears that from the link to the Reliable Sources Noticeboard given above that using Twitter as a source must be done with caution.  To verify if your edits are valid and to familiarize yourself further with the collaborative editing process, I suggest you create a new entry on that discussion board explaining what you would like inserted and explaining your rationale to see whether other editors feel it should be permitted in this case.  It is hoped that you will make continued use of this discussion page.  BaldPete (talk) 22:49, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  News from Twitter 

message: WP:SPS states that "self-published media, such as books, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, personal or group blogs, Internet forum postings, and tweets, are largely not acceptable as sources"
BaldPete (talk) 01:24, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Self Published Sources

message: WP:PEA  cautions against using words "to promote the subject of an article, while neither imparting nor plainly summarizing verifiable information", particularly when these words are used with attribution.  
Also, citation request shouldn't be removed without explanation.
BaldPete (talk) 01:31, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Peacock words

message: Hi, is this verified on this site - I am not getting any results for her there?
She is now an agent for Corcoran New York Real Estate Brokerage.http://www.corcoran.com/agents/profile.aspx?userid=JPIERZINA®ion=NYC - has anyone else verified this? If she was working there she appears to have been removed. from the site agent details.Off2riorob (talk) 17:05, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: My own feeling is that sources that aren't 'very reliable' are useless, but my recommendation is that you do what I've done when there is uncertainty about a source, which is to create an entry on the reliable sources noticeboard.  BaldPete (talk) 16:32, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  real estate 

message: This isn't very reliable but sources are scarce - http://www.realitytvcalendar.com/shows/bb8/preseason/comps-2002-p2.html - thoughts? Off2riorob (talk) 18:20, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: My own feeling is that sources that aren't 'very reliable' are useless, but my recommendation is that you do what I've done when there is uncertainty about a source, which is to create an entry on the reliable sources noticeboard.  BaldPete (talk) 16:32, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: additional supporting cites

message: Discussion at noticeboard indicates that  Reality Nation is not a reliable source.
Discussion in the  section immediately preceding this indicates that Famous Celebrity Weddings is not a reliable source. 
Twitter can be used a source per WP:TWITTER although a secondary source is recommended per discussion at live help chat.
Bald Pete(talk)(contribs) 22:46, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Reliable Sources

message: Janelle gave birth to her son, Lincoln on August 10th 2013.
https://twitter.com/JanellePierzina/status/366345920356429824  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.11.125.24 (talk) 03:44, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gave Birth 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Janelle Pierzina. 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140318083208/http://realitytvmagazine.sheknows.com/2005/07/04/janelle-pierzina-a-cocktail-waitress-on-big-brother-6/ to http://realitytvmagazine.sheknows.com/2005/07/04/janelle-pierzina-a-cocktail-waitress-on-big-brother-6/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:28, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Janelle Pierzina. 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120426055358/http://tvrealitycentral.com/bigbrother/big-brother-all-star-janelle-pierzina-births-a-baby-girl.html to http://tvrealitycentral.com/bigbrother/big-brother-all-star-janelle-pierzina-births-a-baby-girl.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:59, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Janelle’s date of birth was removed a week ago because there was not a reference, however in the following article http://www.thesmokinggun.com/documents/crime/big-brother-contestant-was-wanted-woman. The arrest warrant photo states Janelle’s date of birth as January 10, 1980. Please re add her date of birth. 2A02:C7F:7A9B:A100:917B:5813:8987:AD3E (talk) 20:26, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. See WP:BLPPRIMARY. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:37, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 26 August 2020