Talk:Tami Erin

I am currently watching a documentary with Tami about Hollywood

...So I looked her up. It never fails to amaze me that people don't hire someone to professionally write their Wiki-entry. I read this and was like: "are you serious?" 66.26.95.207 (talk) 02:08, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Paid editing is very controversial, as this is a volunteer project. Paid writers have a very hard time adhering to the neutral point of view, as their income depends on portraying the subject in a favorable light. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 16:27, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

San Francisco Category

The article doesn't mention why she's considered to be from the San Francisco Bay area. Why is she in this category? Leah 08:53, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

She appears to have lived in the Bay Area since at least the time you wrote this. she is in news, had been living in area now. I dont know if there is a source for all this aside from the news stories this week. i have added her to the SFBA project/california wikiproject.76.254.34.67 (talk) 05:53, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Tamierin.gif

Image:Tamierin.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 08:06, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

BLP issues

This article has been the subject of edit warring over unreferenced promotional content, and also over addition of what I consider to be trivial negative information that violates WP:BLP. FreeRangeFrog agrees with me. The matter is now being discussed at WP:BLPN. Before adding any more contentious content, I encourage editors to discuss the matter here and at that noticeboard. Thank you. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:34, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

The content has been added again, sourced to gossip mags. Based on this, and the fact she was never charged, I'm removing it. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 23:04, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

One source, The Daily Mail (U.K.)[1] sums up two separate, but related events, and it should be newly discussed whether it is appropriate for the bio. Maybe not. But with national, and now international coverage, considering also that yesterday's readership of the this article was nearly 12,000, it's worth serious consideration. The topics mentioned above do not relate to the latest issue about the "sex tape," so should not be simply removed without explanation of the recent story. The combined effects of small and easily concealed cameras, the internet, social media, and porn, should not be taken too lightly, i.e. [2]. --Light show (talk) 23:23, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Both sources (the Daily Mail which we try to avoid using and the other, a gossip blog) base their reports on TMZ which we do not use in BLPs without a very good reason why. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 23:45, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

None of the sources you've discussed are reliable sources for the purposes of sourcing a controversial, titillating or scandalous claim about a living person. Wikipedia is not a gossip-spreading tabloid and our well-founded policy on biographical writing demands that we require a more substantive and editorially-responsible source for such reports. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 01:30, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

My god, it still cracks me up how you people think Wikipedia is somehow the "paper of record" for real shit. This site is a global joke. It's laughed at over and over again on TV and film for being full of lies and nonsense, teachers won't even let their students use it to write papers in school. This site is NOT the New York Times. It is an amusement site where people go to see how old celebrities are, and who they're screwing. The fact that a small group of you people take yourselves so seriously and really believe that Woodward and Bernstein would have gone here for scoops is just beyond sad. Make peace with what Wikipedia is, and what it isn't. 108.49.92.251 (talk) 05:26, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Well, you were motivated to take the time to make a comment. People have been ridiculing Wikipedia for almost 12 years, and it has become the #6 or #7 most popular website in the world, and clearly #1 in terms of originally written content. We don't do original news reporting and we certainly don't try for "scoops", as we summarize what reliable sources say instead. And why the heck should any student reference any encyclopedia in a school assignment? Encyclopedia articles are useful summaries with lists of references and further reading. Our articles are a possible beginning point for serious research, and hundreds of millions of people find value in our work. So you go ahead and mock freely. Have fun. We will continue trying to improve this free encyclopedia. To each, his or her own. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:38, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

multiple cameramen?

The referenced article states that the assault charge came as a result of a strike against her "male roommate" and not her boyfriend; it says nothing about a sex tape and leads one to believe that the roommate was a peeping tom.

The sex tape is filmed openly -- she looks right into the camera as she does it.

I think the Wiki article takes two separate filming incidents and combines them into one. 66.102.80.99 (talk) 09:20, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Arrested

Erin was arrested for DUI.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/12/16/pippi-longstocking-tami-erin-arrested_n_4452482.html?ncid=txtlnkusaolp00000592

Majinsnake (talk) 06:50, 17 December 2013 (UTC)majinsnake

See WP:BLPCRIME - No conviction has been secured for this "not-major" offense. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:04, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

That link was useless. DUI and Felony HIT AND RUN are considered major. Especially the HIT AND RUN. Majinsnake (talk) 11:40, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

DUI is not considered "major" - it might be if there was an injury-involving accident, but there wasn't in this case.

Our job is not to be "first" and I agree that the material should remain out until/unless she is convicted of a crime. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 18:41, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

By now Erin has been sentenced in connection with the DUI case, but for reasons similar to the above I have removed the assault charges that apparently came to nothing. Huon (talk) 09:34, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

"sentenced to misdemeanor DUI"

I have removed this phrase which is incorrect. People do not get sentenced to an offense. They get sentenced to a punishment for the offense. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 21:43, 29 July 2019 (UTC)