Talk:Air Force Amy

Air force career
I am tempted to just delete this section unless citations can be provided--Dmz5 03:39, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Dmz5, don't be a skeptic. she's definitely a highly decorated veteran and counterterrorism specialist and international body guard and prostitute. cmon.  cmon... ok, yeah let's delete it. -Taco325i 02:08, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
 * It would do a disservice to decorated veterans and counterterrorism specialists if a prostitute falsely claimed to be such. As the article stands, we have no way to show that the assertions are true.  Without sources which meet WP:ATT the unsupported claims can be removed. Edison 19:55, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
 * The "John L. Levitow" award is not a decoration, there is no ribbon. It is an award given to the top grad at the NCO Perpetory Course. As such, bizzilions of these are given out every year. I have one, as it happens. In any case, the sources of this section are highly suspect. Her own website is cited, but clearly it is an unreliable source filled mostly with fiction. Shortly, I will remove the entire section. Proxy User (talk) 17:18, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

She claims on her website that in only one enlistment she was an Air Base Ground Defense Instructor AND a "counter-terrorism specialist [which is really vague and doesn't really say much]." Jersey John (talk) 07:05, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Jersey John (talk) 07:06, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
 * It is not possible to rank higher than Senior Airman on one's first enlistment, and don't think as a non-NCO a Senior Airman would be teaching much because they are generally in "upgrade training" themselves. It's not a believable story, although I'm sure it works with some guys for the fantasy. She is "interesting" to look at... Proxy User (talk) 04:00, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
 * That's not true. I tested for Staff (E-5) in 3 years.  Maybe today it isn't possible - I wouldn't know because I got out in '91.  But back in the 80's it was.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.145.59.90 (talk) 00:58, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

First, I am an Agent of the Diplomatic Security Service. We've never opened a case with her, and we would never work with a SrA (no offense AF types). Also, the one holy grail here...she has absolutely zero air force record. She never enlisted. She's never served a day in her life in the military. I've been in the military for 10 years before I became a DS Agent. There is no way in holy hell that she has such a record. Her ribbons are fake, she wasn't involved in nearly anything she claims. Here is a link to her DD-214 military records service request...which unsurprisingly came up "nope" : http://thisainthell.us/blog/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/Donice-Armstrong-FOIA.jpg

Air Force Amy, just be a good hooker. Stop the charades. You slap us all in the face by your lies. Records don't lie. Neither does our internal record system of cases or individuals we've worked with in DSS. You are pathetic.72.66.111.204 (talk) 12:34, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
 * This seems to be legit: “Air Force Amy”, paragon of integrity and Nevada hooker is to be trusted! I’m super, super cereal! 31.51.45.198 (talk) 18:43, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

RfC Date of birth and birth name
Over the past few months, DOB & birth name has been multiple times, mainly by an IP but on 1 occasion by. Myself and other editors have reverted these changes. The edit summary (where given), started with "showing my DOB is destroying my business" and has grown into "I implore you to remove my real name and DOB. None of my work is cited as Deanne Salinger. This whole page is about my stage and work name Deanne Salinger. Please see this article to see some of the dangers of having my really famous prostitute name published along with my stage name. i feel in danger due to this. If you can't remove my name and DOB, remove my page altogether."

Her name and DOB are freely available online, for example and, so any stalker/wrongdoer could easily obtain them whether they are on WP or not.

Should this information be included on the article? --John B123 (talk) 20:43, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
 * WP:DOB covers this and I don't see why you need to go straight to a full-blown thirty-day formal RfC when I see no indication that the suggestions at WP:RFCBEFORE have been followed let alone exhausted. -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 22:41, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
 * If removal has been requested by the person, then remove it. WP:BLPPRIVACY and WP:BLPKIND and WP:BLPCOMPLAIN  Whether others show it does not make it right or necessary for us to show it.  Cheers Markbassett (talk) 05:07, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
 * The subject of the article is requesting that her name and date of birth be omitted on the basis of privacy concerns and concerns for her safety. I think the request is a valid one and should be respected. Bus stop (talk) 15:00, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
 * WP:BLPPRIVACY sums it up: "Wikipedia includes full names and dates of birth that have been widely published by reliable sources, or by sources linked to the subject such that it may reasonably be inferred that the subject does not object to the details being made public. If a subject complains about our inclusion of their date of birth, or the person is borderline notable, err on the side of caution and simply list the year, provided that there is a reliable source for it." Has this information been widely published?  Do we AGF that the listed connected contributors are AFA?  Do we even have an acceptable reliable source for her year-of-birth alone, as the policy requires?  —   Fourthords  &#124; =Λ= &#124; 17:26, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

adminhelp
The first reference [1] was put there by a disgruntled journalist(Mitchell Sunderland). He replaced the correct and original reference with that of his tabloid "Vice" article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DeanneSa (talk • contribs) 00:05, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
 * That isn't the case. I changed the ref on 25 August 2018 as part of routine maintenance as the previous link was dead and hadn't been archived. Nothing to do with Mitchell Sunderland. --John B123 (talk) 00:50, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
 * You have not indicated any administrative task that you want performed. If this is a dispute over whether a source is reliable, as it seems to be, then administrators have no more say than anyone else, and the thing to do is to post to Reliable sources/Noticeboard. If you do so, then please explain why yo think the source is unreliable, rather than making comments about other editors, such as saying that they are "disgruntled". JBW (talk) Formerly JamesBWatson 16:53, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Also, for what it's worth, there is no consensus that Vice is an unreliable source for the English Wikipedia, much less that its a tabloid. As for the Vice article itself, it appears to be well-researched and include snippets of an interview with Air Force Amy herself, nothing I see any reason to exclude as a source on the topic.  —   Fourthords  &#124; =Λ= &#124; 17:10, 16 December 2019 (UTC)