Talk:Janelle Pierzina

mistaken afd process
The afd had no consensus. I realize some "keep" votes were tossed, as they were anons, but there was not sufficient majority for re-direct. --rob 00:17, 9 September 2005 (UTC)


 * As the closing admin, I have to disagree. Standard operating procedure is to discount the votes of inexperienced users, as per this section of the deletion guidelines. The bar for that is generally 300 edits.


 * I disallowed the following votes due to lack of edits: Peeper/User:Pperos (less than 200 edits at time of vote), User:Firedrake (less than 20 edits at time of vote), User:66.149.92.242 (less than 20 edits at time of vote), User:OldRight (less than 200 edits at time of vote), User:Gian89 (less than 300 edits at time of vote) and User:PatadyBag (less than 100 edits at time of vote).


 * I disallowed User:Youngamerican's vote as he supplied no rationale for his vote. Guide_to_deletion explicitly states: Votes without rationales may be discounted. I always disallow votes that have no rationale whatsoever.


 * My interpretation of Paul99's vote reads as a weak keep or redirect.


 * So, we are left with 5 votes to keep, of which one is a weak keep, 9 votes to redirect and 3 votes to delete, including Zoe's nomination. I interpreted this as a rough consensus to redirect, and I still do having revisited it now.


 * I assure you that I have never seen Big Brother and that I have no vested interest at all in the outcome of this AfD; I am simply making what I think is the most rational decision. I'm more than happy to entertain any further questions you may have. --Fernando Rizo T/C 00:56, 9 September 2005 (UTC)


 * As a new user, let me just thank you for letting me know just how useless you feel my opinions are here. Not much incentive to do articles when one admin can decide it's not important enough and put it up and another will push through that decision. Just makes new users leave and entrenches the old school. What a crock.--Firedrake 02:09, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia is a serious encyclopedia
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)


 * 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)


 * 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)


 * 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)


 * 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)

So is Wikipedia a serious encyclopedia or not? I used to think it was, but now it has an article on a nobody like Ashlea Evans and no article on a notable person like Janelle Pierzina. This makes absolutely no sense. Also, what about all the hard work that was put into creating the Janelle article? Why just throw this away, what is the purpose? I know that the admins don't respect some of the contributors by not counting their votes, but what about the people who spend a lot of their personal time trying to improve Wikipedia by contributing to it... why kill their work? People are saying here that you need to CONTRIBUTE for your vote to be counted but when you contribute in this article, you get your work deleted, so what's the point?

I think that as long as the Ashlea article is there, the Janelle article must remain. Reverting. 32.97.110.142 14:43, 9 September 2005 (UTC)


 * 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)


 * 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)


 * 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)

I'm surprised and disappointed at everything that has happened with this article. I have learned a lot about Wikipedia from this and it is not good. My vote was "interpreted" as weak so it was not counted, that was very surprising and I don't understand. I never even used the word redirect and the administrator thinks that's what I meant? Strange. I think everyone is important, not just certain people. I don't know what it takes to be considered as a useful Wikipedian who deserves respect, but by learning that I am not one of them, I am starting to wonder if contributing to articles on Wikipedia, spending hours working here is time well spent. Paul99 02:53, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

Requesting numeric change
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)

Unencyclopaedic non-biographical content
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)


 * 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)

Full Disclosure of illegal activities, arrest warrants and accuracy of the biography
Because this is supposed to be a biography (i.e., a written account of someone's life) and Wikipedia aims to be a serious encyclopedia, why were the documented references to Pierzina's previous illegal activities removed? This article is supposed to be biographical, NOT a fan tribute. Someone has requested page protection and then the verifiable and well documented public records of Pierzina's legal troubles were deleted. There is NO justification for those edits, in fact, the short one sentence reference to these matters that was removed by the Janelle fan Hellataz 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.

should be expanded on, not deleted. The facts are not just that she was convicted of theft and DWI, but also that she avoided appearing in court to face the charges. Many different warrants were issued in both cases and in the theft charge it took more than 3 years before she finally returned to California to appear in court. It is clear from the timeline that she only returned because she needed to in order to compete in Big Brother 6. That show was filmed in LA.

Do the editors of Wikipedia want only fan tributes or do they want a full and accurate biography with verifiable and documented sources? ItsGottaBeRight 16:55, 21 May 2007 (UTC)


 * To respond to the person who keep adding in Janelle's criminal past. I removed it because it is not associated with her career, it was an incident in her past that neither her nor her fans want dug up over and over. Regardless of it's factual content it does not belong in this area of her page. Hellataz 01:46, 26 May 2007 (UTC)


 * First, thanks for finally responding and following WP guidelines. WRT the topic, there is no justification for removal of that info based on what Janelle or her fans want.  These biographies are not meant to be autobiographical, nor biased nor are they meant to be fan tributes.  Your response clearly indicates such bias and is therefore not in keeping with Wikipedia's position of maintaining a neutral POV.  Many biographies listed on Wikipedia contain information on the legal troubles of celebrities much more well known than Pierzina (e.g., Paris Hilton is just one of many I could list).


 * From your last sentence it appears that one of the issues is what section the info appears in. Is it your position that if a new section is added detailing her illegal activities that would be better? Bear in mind, that would probably require a more in depth description than the mere two sentences that were devoted to the subject.  Also, the information that you unilaterally decided to delete was there for months and months (I checked and it existed as far back as Nov. 19, 2006 but it's likely older still) and had been review by many readers, fans, and editors before you removed it. ItsGottaBeRight 02:11, 26 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Janelle is most widely known for her popularity on the TV show Big Brother. Posting of her one time arrest, years ago, for an incident that Janelle has publicly expressed regret over serves no purpose other than to cause friction in the community. She has stated that she does not wish for this information to be on her Wikipedia page.  The person that is attempting to add this info is doing so out of spite, knowing that she was one of the most popular houseguests on the TV show. These edits will repeatedly be deleted. The relentlessness and determination of trolls to post such trivial information, which has little relevance in Janelle's life serves no purpose other than to provide controversial information and friction. ALmost the entire basis of her bio is the point that she was chosen for awards by her FANS.  Wikipedia guidelines state that wikipedia operates by building consensus. IF the matter cannot be resolved through consensus in this discussion area, perhaps it can be resolved via another avenue/ dispute process by Wikipedia? Factual22 08:43, 26 May 2007 (UTC)


 * The purpose it serves is to present a factual, NON-biased biography it would seem someone with the username containing the word "factual" would understand and grasp that fact.


 * Part of having a discussion is actually responding to the points of previous posters. You have igonored that courtesy. I have already pointed out that it is not up to Pierzina or her fans to determine the content of the Wikipedia article except if statements are not factual or potentially libelous.  In the case of her legal troubles, however, the statements are factual, verifiable, and sourced. I've made this point not only on Pierzina's talk page, but also on Malin's and on Kirby's pages as well. These articles are not autobiographical or made for the purpose of self-promotion. Your suggestion that the edits are out of spite is nothing but an unsubstantiated ad hominem designed to attack the poster and not the soundness of his arguments.  In fact, the opposite case (i.e., removal of the long standing information) for less than honest motivations of the other editor is better supported. I've already shown that the now redacted info existed for many months.  This is clear in the page's history log. It existed through many edits, reviewers, and readers until a well known Janelle fan decided to remove it without any justification or discussion or familiarity with WP guidelines concerning neutral POV. Also, as I pointed out, information on legal troubles of celebrities is common here (see Paris Hilton for just one example. Do you want more?).  This information is noteworthy, but that is for unbiased readers to decide not Janelle fans with non-neutral POV's. The information is factual and should be presented so readers can form their own opinions. Censorship is not in keeping with Wikipedia policies. I also dispute the claim that it happened many years ago.  First, under the section on filmography it lists info dating back to 2001.  Pierzina did not resolve these legal troubles until years later. In fact, the court records show she did not return to California to face bench warrants for her arrest (3 were issued for the theft charge) including a $30,000 bond until just before she entered the house as a contestant on Big Brother 6 in 2005.


 * The record of the article's history shows clearly that a consensus was reached, it existed for many months until rather obvious Janelle fans deleted it without discussion or justification. ItsGottaBeRight 15:10, 26 May 2007 (UTC)


 * With regard to your specific question about dispute resolution, I already provided the link to the guidelines previously. For those who missed it, it is: WP Resolving disputes. Also, familiarize yourself with other Wikipedia cornerstone policies, particularly the one concerning neutral POV. ItsGottaBeRight 15:28, 26 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Regarding neutral POV. I find it odd that someone so determined (based on the history of edits) to post such information that has little relevance in Janelle's career (and for which she has publicly apologized for) in her wikipedia Bio.  The numerous references to "Janelle's fans" and hostile tone also shows the non neutral attitude of this editor. As well as the devotion and energy of maintaining the wishes of Dr. Will who requested that his profile be updated. The many edits and suggestions to portray Dr. Will in a positive light and continually post information on Janelle's bio page that has little relevance to her career demonstrates the extreme bias and non neutral POV of this editor. Factual22 23:57, 26 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Regarding the point that others such as Paris Hilton have mention of their criminal backgrounds in their profiles, it is not anywhere near comparable. Paris Hilton's rise to fame and media attention is largely a result of her repeated encounters with the law.  Why is this poster not repeatedly entering the criminal background of Mike Malin on his site? Also the same could be said for former BB player Shannon Dragoo, whom has made no public apology for her offense which resulted in the death of another human being.  These are not mentioned on their wikipedia pages and I do not see this person, who has demonstrated EXTREME bias, trying to post that info on their pages as it is irrelevant to their careers and fame on Big Brother.Factual22 08:54, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Edit-warring
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 - A l is o n  ☺ 14:03, 8 June 2007 (UTC)


 * 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)
 * The article has been protected to end the disruption, of which there has been plenty! It was requested on WP:RPP - A l is o n  ☺ 15:39, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)

Why are the criminal pasts of other BB houseguests not mentioned on their sites? Mike Malin's Warner Bro arrest where he was charged with five misdemeanors, including burglary, malicious mischief, and trespassing. This info, that was properly sourced, was deleted by the same people who were adding Janelle's offense. Factual22 23:12, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)

POV
editprotected Requesting that an admin add a POV template to this article until issue is resolved. BaldPete 15:08, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
 * [[Image:Yes check.svg|20px]] Done. Cheers. --MZMcBride 23:02, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

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. Lara Love  T / C  15:44, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Agree with the above. Any well-sourced information can be included. It is important not to unbalance the article though. Itsmejudith 14:47, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
 * It should be included. Wikipedia isn't a fansite, all relevant aspects of her life should be fair game.--Groovyman 06:36, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Agree with all of the above. We come not to praise individuals, but to write sourced articles on them. If she was convicted and if her conviction is supported by reliable sources, then it's as notable as anything else about her. -- Charlene 07:14, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
 * While the information, if sourced properly, is fine. Does a report of conviction for minor crimes really add to the article?  Does it help to explain the character of an actress/model?  --Rocksanddirt 16:49, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Absolutely include it. Anything and everything on anyone notable.  Cherry pick the subjects, not the details of those subjects. 85.210.154.147 10:44, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Recent Edits
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)


 * 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)
 * 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)

I believe the contested information (on arrests and so forth) should not be included in the article. The veracity is not is dispute but these are trivial offences of no great import and recording them in an encyclopaedia article gives them undue weight. What next, including a list of a subject's parking tickets? CIreland (talk) 00:27, 19 November 2008 (UTC)


 * 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)


 * 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)


 * 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)


 * 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)


 * Yeah, but that's all... well... your personal view... Master of Puppets  Call me MoP! :)  01:01, 19 November 2008 (UTC)


 * 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)
 * 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)


 * 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)


 * 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)

I have this on my watchlist because I had reverted what I felt was vandalism. Now that I have read through the article, I find myself agreeing with Cireland. I think this person's arrest record would be more important to include if it had in some way directly interfered with her career (interrupting filming or something), or maybe if she were more famous. I don't want to whitewash her record but I don't think it needs to be described in such detail either.

A related question: I looked at the IP's contributions, and they seem to be concentrated on this article and another Big Brother contestant (Will Kirby), repeatedly deleting content here and adding something else there despite what other people say. Isn't there something on Wikipedia against that? Thanks, Loves  Macs  (talk) 01:54, 19 November 2008 (UTC)


 * The subject is one of those TV-manufactured celebs who reflects the same sort of tabloid journalism which so many are obsessed with; her offenses are part and parcel of "Janelle Pierzina", and I wouldn't be surprised if the show's producers chose her because of and not in spite of these offences on the chance it would make the show more interesting. You are correct that the same party is in action editing both articles, attempting to flatter or otherwise removing potentially embarrassing material. First off, the article is covered by WP:BLP, and administrators are vested with the most draconian powers where stuff cannot be substantiated. It is clear to me that this party is closely associated with Kirby or Pierzina, and their actions are covered by WP:COI. If this continues, it can be semi-protected. For now, we need to persuade the IP editor to sign up and engage in constructive dialogue as to what xhe considers an appropriate tone/content for the article. Ohconfucius (talk) 06:36, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
 * 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. Loves  Macs  (talk) 18:16, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
 * 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)

Use of blog as a source
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)
 * 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)

Current employment and privacy concerns
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)


 * I challenged (removed) it per WP:RS and privacy when the information was first posted without a source. Then a source was introduced. I didn't realise it had been removed once again. Ohconfucius (talk) 15:52, 20 April 2009 (UTC)


 * 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)

Removal of small parts of Filmography
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)

News from Twitter
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 [|here]. The information sourced to "Pierzina's Twitter account" has therefore been removed. Ohconfucius ¡digame! 01:16, 28 November 2009 (UTC)


 * 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)


 * 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)


 * 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)


 * 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)

Self Published Sources
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)

In these edit summaries, Administrators Diannaa and  Mike Rosoft have expressed concern over the sentence in question.  

BaldPete (talk) 00:30, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Peacock words
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)

real estate
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&region=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)

additional supporting cites
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)


 * 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)

Reliable Sources
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)

Gave Birth
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)

External links modified
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)

External links modified
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)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 August 2020
Janelle’s date of birth was removed a week ago because there was not a reference, however in the following article. 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)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg 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)