Carrie prejean free sex tape. Carrie Prejean Sex Tape - Part 2.



Carrie prejean free sex tape

Carrie prejean free sex tape

I know one person really, really disagrees with this, but I can't see there being many objections if it is put back in there. I don't think there will be objections from many people. TharsHammar Bits and Pieces The objections boggle the mind, since including the quote in no way endorses Hilton's view or states it as fact. Lavandeira's comments as obscene without using the obscenity and left the full quotes for the page devoted to the controversy.

I think Exploding boy made a convincing case for why the actual quote should be included but the opposition does have a case. It's already mentioned in the entry, so what's the point of this section?

Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? Maybe she'll be Sarah Palin's running mate in Or maybe she'll go back to selling shoes, or whatever it was she did before this brouhaha. She's obviously good at handling tough questions. This is a forum for improving the article, not for making tongue in cheek remarks about her politics. It was argued that she merited an article because she's Miss California.

She's not Miss California anymore. Hence, she doesn't merit an article. Her being fired from the organization adds more notability, in my opinion, but feel free to take this to AfD. But it's worth bringing up. She has become a well-known figure now and losing the crown does not mean the article should be deleted.

This section is really petty and pointless. Any reason why it's being allowed to continue? The reigning Miss California is Jackie Geist. Big difference buddy so please do your homework. But you're making a case for her being even less notable.

Since there are about 20 of those listed in the References section, I think you're digging up the wrong carrot patch. USAs about whom we have articles. By rights all three articles should be deleted, but I doubt it will ever happen, so we're stuck with them. The only thing to do is clean them up, make them as streamlined and non-breathlessly adoring as possible, and carry on.

Exploding Boy talk You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means. Williams lost her notability upon being forced to resign as Miss America.

In fact, Williams' resignation as Miss America and the surrounding circumstances made her more notable than other Miss Americas of her era, even before she achieved success in her singing and acting careers. I think someone just has a chip on their shoulder over what Miss Prejean represents and wants to shut her up any way they can. Actually, a lot of someones on and off WP obviously want that.

Prejean has stated that the head of K2 wanted her to pose for Playboy, while the head of K2 is saying he was just passing along all offers per her email instructions "I expect you to be forwarding me ALL email requests and interview requests to me. I know how you are and its not right if you are selecting things for me.

This is, quite literally, much ado about nothing. She did not pose for Playboy and will not. These arguments about who asked for what when seem to me to be non-notable. The Squicks talk The loss of her crown will continue to fuel her notoriety -- not the same thing as 'notability,' but certainly the chief factor in Prejean's notability has been scandal.

Trump says she was fired for behavior, Pejean says she behaved as she did beause they were cheapening her with Plaboy and reality show offers. Trump's people respond that she wantd her offers unfiltered. If Carrie Prejean is notable at all, the controversy is as well. It seemed to be a pretty cut-and-dry explanation. As for the other tags, I do not think the quality of the article is any worse than most other articles we have.

And of course it's slanted to recent events, she's primarily famous for them. Anyone object if we remove these ugly tags? Magog the Ogre talk I see you made the same type of "ugly looking HARM -- heck, most of the content has been added to harm her! Disruptive editors inappropriately canvas. Meatpuppets that "may be treated as one entity" to the article that wp: A gang member then unilaterally declares " consensus " [5] to violate Wikipedia policies and guidelines. The tag team violates WP: Own and puts and keeps unencyclopedic content in the article via WP: The tag team is not discussing those concerns in good faith, and is completely ignoring them when it comes to the editing of the article.

It's pretty disgusting to see people's activism amounting to attacking a living person with every derogatory thing that appears in a newspaper somewhere but not one like the New York Times or Washington Post , gossip website, Google Docs [8] , or on TV! If enough Wikipedians hate her, we score-settlers can break every rule and make her pay for stating that marriage is something that only a man and a woman do. There is currently both an RfC and a second BLP notice in progress, as you two act as though there's no pound gorilla in the room.

The talk page contains a quarter megabyte of acrimonious debate over most of what's in the article. There's been no clear or unequivocal consensus on anything. The tag team has zero interest in consensus-building.

I learned that when I asked, "So we quote [Hilton's] groundless opinion, and then the substantiation that doesn't substantiate it? When in doubt, biographies should be pared back to a version that is sourced to good quality sources, neutral, and on-topic. This may have attracted a Most Interested Person demographic to this article. A Wikipedia biography of a living person is not the place to vilify someone because you hate them, or the opinion they gave -- when asked -- or because you consider her your collective's 'enemy'.

National Organization for Marriage. They are disproportionately attracted to this page, and merely want -- as a group -- content that makes Prejean look bad in the article. No reasonable person would believe that all these editors -- that are so interested in homosexuality or same-sex marriage -- are here by random chance. And it is not a stretch of the imagination to suggest, given the time of their arrival here, that they are here because Miss Prejean stated that marriage is exclusively between a man and a woman.

Some editors have tried to put things in the article to 'balance' the article and turn an attack page into a simple coatrack, but the tag team is extremely tendentious, and will rarely part with cherry picked content that slags Prejean. In the tag team's penultimate campaign event, to drive away a productive contributor that doesn't share its POV -- if a predilection for disparagement can even be called a POV -- one administrator wrote, "I think there are serious problems with the article at least in some of its recent incarnations.

Any action on this needs to be considered in the light of the BLP issues. InaMaka obviously hugely thinks there are problems with the article. Caden wrote, "Too many editors are not being neutral whatsoever in regards to Carrie Prejean and are not following Wikipedia policy. John Darrow wrote, "we haven't ever truly established consensus regarding quoting the remarks in the article," so -- since this is a biography of a living person, why are they still in there?

I've stated I don't agree with them being there. BLP policy states, In order to ensure that biographical material of living people is always policy-compliant, written neutrally to a high standard, and based on good quality reliable sources, the burden of proof is on those who wish to retain, restore, or undelete disputed material. Before adding or restoring material, the editor committing the edit must ensure it meets all Wikipedia content policies and guidelines, not just verifiability of sources.

BLP policy Schrandit opposed putting the "dumb bitch" quote in the article. If somebody says something hateful, misogynist and untrue about a living person, it shouldn't be in that person's biography. Can someone provide a reliable source that she has a low IQ, or that she's a female dog?

According to Hilton, he misspoke. Wouldn't it make more sense to put his own correction into the article, rather than his mistake? Breast Implants InaMaka described the breast implants as unworthy of inclusion, and wrote, "Its only purpose is to make a mountain out of a molehill over something that Prejean did and place her in the worst possible light. We're writing her biography and this is a pretty non-notable event.

Imagine it's ten years from now. Will this really be a notable development"? AniMate also wrote, "the implants still aren't exactly notable in the grand scheme of things"? John Darrow wrote, concerning the issue of Carrie Prejean's breast implants appearing in a related article, "singling out Prejean's implants seems calculated to cast a negative light on Prejean, implying e.

The possibility of harm to living subjects is one of the important factors to be considered when exercising editorial judgment. It's definitely not taboo. Breast implants today among young women today is very common. There is neither clear nor unequivocal consensus for the inclusion of the breast implants in this or related articles, yet they are included. Any that may believe that this is a just cause, that the goal of demeaning Miss Prejean is noble, or that it's achieving something, may want to think again.

Content fork for the controversy, but most of the article is made up of the controversy anyway -- and most of that, is negative. Material that may adversely affect a person's reputation should be treated with special care. BLP policy From both a legal and ethical standpoint it is essential that a determined effort be made to eliminate defamatory and other undesirable information from these articles as far as possible.

Video by theme:

miss california carrie prejean caught with naughty photos



Carrie prejean free sex tape

I know one person really, really disagrees with this, but I can't see there being many objections if it is put back in there. I don't think there will be objections from many people. TharsHammar Bits and Pieces The objections boggle the mind, since including the quote in no way endorses Hilton's view or states it as fact. Lavandeira's comments as obscene without using the obscenity and left the full quotes for the page devoted to the controversy.

I think Exploding boy made a convincing case for why the actual quote should be included but the opposition does have a case. It's already mentioned in the entry, so what's the point of this section? Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? Maybe she'll be Sarah Palin's running mate in Or maybe she'll go back to selling shoes, or whatever it was she did before this brouhaha. She's obviously good at handling tough questions.

This is a forum for improving the article, not for making tongue in cheek remarks about her politics. It was argued that she merited an article because she's Miss California. She's not Miss California anymore. Hence, she doesn't merit an article.

Her being fired from the organization adds more notability, in my opinion, but feel free to take this to AfD. But it's worth bringing up. She has become a well-known figure now and losing the crown does not mean the article should be deleted.

This section is really petty and pointless. Any reason why it's being allowed to continue? The reigning Miss California is Jackie Geist. Big difference buddy so please do your homework. But you're making a case for her being even less notable.

Since there are about 20 of those listed in the References section, I think you're digging up the wrong carrot patch. USAs about whom we have articles. By rights all three articles should be deleted, but I doubt it will ever happen, so we're stuck with them. The only thing to do is clean them up, make them as streamlined and non-breathlessly adoring as possible, and carry on.

Exploding Boy talk You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means. Williams lost her notability upon being forced to resign as Miss America. In fact, Williams' resignation as Miss America and the surrounding circumstances made her more notable than other Miss Americas of her era, even before she achieved success in her singing and acting careers.

I think someone just has a chip on their shoulder over what Miss Prejean represents and wants to shut her up any way they can. Actually, a lot of someones on and off WP obviously want that. Prejean has stated that the head of K2 wanted her to pose for Playboy, while the head of K2 is saying he was just passing along all offers per her email instructions "I expect you to be forwarding me ALL email requests and interview requests to me.

I know how you are and its not right if you are selecting things for me. This is, quite literally, much ado about nothing. She did not pose for Playboy and will not. These arguments about who asked for what when seem to me to be non-notable. The Squicks talk The loss of her crown will continue to fuel her notoriety -- not the same thing as 'notability,' but certainly the chief factor in Prejean's notability has been scandal.

Trump says she was fired for behavior, Pejean says she behaved as she did beause they were cheapening her with Plaboy and reality show offers. Trump's people respond that she wantd her offers unfiltered. If Carrie Prejean is notable at all, the controversy is as well. It seemed to be a pretty cut-and-dry explanation. As for the other tags, I do not think the quality of the article is any worse than most other articles we have.

And of course it's slanted to recent events, she's primarily famous for them. Anyone object if we remove these ugly tags? Magog the Ogre talk I see you made the same type of "ugly looking HARM -- heck, most of the content has been added to harm her!

Disruptive editors inappropriately canvas. Meatpuppets that "may be treated as one entity" to the article that wp: A gang member then unilaterally declares " consensus " [5] to violate Wikipedia policies and guidelines. The tag team violates WP: Own and puts and keeps unencyclopedic content in the article via WP: The tag team is not discussing those concerns in good faith, and is completely ignoring them when it comes to the editing of the article. It's pretty disgusting to see people's activism amounting to attacking a living person with every derogatory thing that appears in a newspaper somewhere but not one like the New York Times or Washington Post , gossip website, Google Docs [8] , or on TV!

If enough Wikipedians hate her, we score-settlers can break every rule and make her pay for stating that marriage is something that only a man and a woman do. There is currently both an RfC and a second BLP notice in progress, as you two act as though there's no pound gorilla in the room. The talk page contains a quarter megabyte of acrimonious debate over most of what's in the article. There's been no clear or unequivocal consensus on anything. The tag team has zero interest in consensus-building.

I learned that when I asked, "So we quote [Hilton's] groundless opinion, and then the substantiation that doesn't substantiate it? When in doubt, biographies should be pared back to a version that is sourced to good quality sources, neutral, and on-topic.

This may have attracted a Most Interested Person demographic to this article. A Wikipedia biography of a living person is not the place to vilify someone because you hate them, or the opinion they gave -- when asked -- or because you consider her your collective's 'enemy'. National Organization for Marriage. They are disproportionately attracted to this page, and merely want -- as a group -- content that makes Prejean look bad in the article.

No reasonable person would believe that all these editors -- that are so interested in homosexuality or same-sex marriage -- are here by random chance.

And it is not a stretch of the imagination to suggest, given the time of their arrival here, that they are here because Miss Prejean stated that marriage is exclusively between a man and a woman. Some editors have tried to put things in the article to 'balance' the article and turn an attack page into a simple coatrack, but the tag team is extremely tendentious, and will rarely part with cherry picked content that slags Prejean.

In the tag team's penultimate campaign event, to drive away a productive contributor that doesn't share its POV -- if a predilection for disparagement can even be called a POV -- one administrator wrote, "I think there are serious problems with the article at least in some of its recent incarnations. Any action on this needs to be considered in the light of the BLP issues. InaMaka obviously hugely thinks there are problems with the article. Caden wrote, "Too many editors are not being neutral whatsoever in regards to Carrie Prejean and are not following Wikipedia policy.

John Darrow wrote, "we haven't ever truly established consensus regarding quoting the remarks in the article," so -- since this is a biography of a living person, why are they still in there? I've stated I don't agree with them being there. BLP policy states, In order to ensure that biographical material of living people is always policy-compliant, written neutrally to a high standard, and based on good quality reliable sources, the burden of proof is on those who wish to retain, restore, or undelete disputed material.

Before adding or restoring material, the editor committing the edit must ensure it meets all Wikipedia content policies and guidelines, not just verifiability of sources. BLP policy Schrandit opposed putting the "dumb bitch" quote in the article. If somebody says something hateful, misogynist and untrue about a living person, it shouldn't be in that person's biography. Can someone provide a reliable source that she has a low IQ, or that she's a female dog?

According to Hilton, he misspoke. Wouldn't it make more sense to put his own correction into the article, rather than his mistake? Breast Implants InaMaka described the breast implants as unworthy of inclusion, and wrote, "Its only purpose is to make a mountain out of a molehill over something that Prejean did and place her in the worst possible light.

We're writing her biography and this is a pretty non-notable event. Imagine it's ten years from now. Will this really be a notable development"? AniMate also wrote, "the implants still aren't exactly notable in the grand scheme of things"? John Darrow wrote, concerning the issue of Carrie Prejean's breast implants appearing in a related article, "singling out Prejean's implants seems calculated to cast a negative light on Prejean, implying e. The possibility of harm to living subjects is one of the important factors to be considered when exercising editorial judgment.

It's definitely not taboo. Breast implants today among young women today is very common. There is neither clear nor unequivocal consensus for the inclusion of the breast implants in this or related articles, yet they are included. Any that may believe that this is a just cause, that the goal of demeaning Miss Prejean is noble, or that it's achieving something, may want to think again. Content fork for the controversy, but most of the article is made up of the controversy anyway -- and most of that, is negative.

Material that may adversely affect a person's reputation should be treated with special care. BLP policy From both a legal and ethical standpoint it is essential that a determined effort be made to eliminate defamatory and other undesirable information from these articles as far as possible.

Carrie prejean free sex tape

De mangler ikke noget, men frer forventer noget, og det er ikke nok, by the side of du har en BMW. Senere kom hi5. Men det er klart, on facebook. Datingsider i Thailand.

.

3 Comments

  1. In fact, Williams' resignation as Miss America and the surrounding circumstances made her more notable than other Miss Americas of her era, even before she achieved success in her singing and acting careers. Regardless, the fact of the matter is that this article is heavy on material that portrays Prejean in a bad light.

  2. Prejean has stated that the head of K2 wanted her to pose for Playboy, while the head of K2 is saying he was just passing along all offers per her email instructions "I expect you to be forwarding me ALL email requests and interview requests to me. She dared to say marriage was between a man and a woman, so she had to be destroyed. Exploding Boy talk

  3. You see nothing in the BLP that suggests that we shouldn't include the information about the breast implants.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *





5173-5174-5175-5176-5177-5178-5179-5180-5181-5182-5183-5184-5185-5186-5187-5188-5189-5190-5191-5192-5193-5194-5195-5196-5197-5198-5199-5200-5201-5202-5203-5204-5205-5206-5207-5208-5209-5210-5211-5212