Jump to content

Talk:Megan Hauserman

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

March 2008

[edit]

Sorry for deleting the tags; I'm new to this and kind of just wanted to see what would happen. Thanks for restoring them. As per the notability concern, isn't a Playboy model and reality television persona acceptable under the guidelines? Briaberger (talk) 18:53, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Why does it say she is a HERMAPHRODITE? Unfounded so I'm deleting it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bberger89 (talk • contribs) 04:42, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Page Deletion

[edit]

I have nominated this page to be suggested for deletion. You may visit the "Articles for Deletion" entry for this page to make your voice heard. To visit this articles entry, just click on the relevant link in the box at the top of the article. Please do not remove the tags that facilitate this process; if the article is kept, the tags will be deleted. Thanks! Redrok84 (talk) 04:47, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What is the purpose of deleting this page?? The page doesn't hurt anything. It only adds to other articles and wikipedia as a whole. NO reason to delete it. (NEEDS TO BE SIGNED)

  • Please don't take anything personal about having the page deleted. I have worked on pages in the past that ultimately were deleted or merged with other pages. I am not recommending this article be deleted on personal grounds to start with. I just don't see the purpose of having an entire page for someone who really is not notable. I did look into the reality shows and other things she has appeared in to establish notability or lack thereof and I could not find anything that sets her apart from the other girls and guys she appeared with. If you go to wiki pages for other reality tv shows there are sections about what the guests are doing now (that is after the series is over) with short summaries that go something like: Jane Doe - after the series was over she returned to Uni to resume studies in biology; she also takes part in the university theatre. So this has been my recommendation the entire time to delete her page and just add the summaries to the reality tv series page with all the other girls and guys she appeared with. Redrok84 (talk) 20:13, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not notable? Are you nuts? This woman has one of the highest Q ratings of women on reality TV in the past year. OK, she might be a Jane Doe in Geekville, but not among the millions who watch reality TV. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.143.31.51 (talk) 00:01, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Websites

[edit]

I don't believe that the site listed as the official Megan Hauserman site is in fact the official site. When you follow the link it goes to a random, networking type. Missjessica254 (talk) 20:25, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

lock this page

[edit]

Someone vandlised this page saying that she didnt not win, but was in the final four. People already know she's in the final four, but how do they know if she lost? They havent even showen who won and who lost. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 08wwe (talk • contribs) 02:23, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Catfight/Assault

[edit]

Why the need to add something like this [1] to a BLP? The continued re-addition without discussion is prohibited on Wikipedia as per Edit warring. In particular, I count 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 attempts to include this gossip, all of which have been reverted by other editors. As I stated in my last edit, please discuss here before reverting something which has already been reverted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Plastikspork (talk • contribs) 04:01, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore it's already been established, some time ago, that TMZ probably isn't an appropriate source for this sort of thing in BLPs. See here for the relevant discussion. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 05:44, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I added the LA Times article, which is a WP:RS. It is a highly notable event cover by VH1 news, The Guardian, the New York Daily News, and two articles in the LA Times. Search http://news.google.com/ for "Megan Hauserman" and "fight," I get 27 hits, substitute "fight" for "assault" and its 18 hits. This reporting is more than all her other press for a single event.Tgreach (talk) 19:49, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is silly. User:Rlogan2 removed the one sentence mention of the "fight" writing "may be in times article but previously mentioned it wont be listed here." This user did not explain this revert. Thus, I replied with the above.
Since there is around thirty press mentions from WP:RS, I readded the material. This same userremoved it for a second time, again failing to explain why a one sentence sourced claim on an on-going news issue is not included. Removing sourced material without discussion is not helpful. Can that user explain why the following single sentence:

According to the Los Angeles Times, Osbourne is being investigated for assaulting Megan after she described Ozzy Osbourne as a "brain-dead rock star" during the taping.[1]

was removed from the charm school section? Tgreach (talk) 22:21, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "Is the LAPD investigation of Sharon Osbourne for real?". Los Angeles Times. December 16, 2008. Retrieved 2008-12-17.

Date of Birth

[edit]

Is there a reliable source for the date of birth? Some sources say 1982 and some say 1981. Plastikspork (talk) 15:27, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Because I can't edit right now.....

[edit]

Citation #4 says she got a degree in accounting. 75.72.221.172 (talk) 03:42, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]


I want to colocate the photo

[edit]

please i can? its my photo!!!--Luisrafael7 (talk) 21:49, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Are you the actual photographer? Please provide evidence. Plastikspork (talk) 22:23, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do not delete the reality television scorecard!

[edit]

It has been used for other reality television contestents as well. If a reality television contestant's wikipedia page does not have one, add one. It simplifies the information for the viewer. Andrew097 (talk) 4:09, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

I believe it's WP:TRIVIA and should be contained in the summary section as prose, as per WP guidelines. Plastikspork (talk) 02:46, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"This guideline does not suggest always avoiding lists in favor of prose. Some information is better presented in list format." In this case, some of the information is not listed in the article and is "better presented in list format" to quote the little page you attached. "This guideline does not suggest the inclusion or exclusion of any information; it only gives style recommendations. Issues of inclusion are addressed by content policies." KEY WORD: RECOMMENDATIONS. By deleting it you are excluding information and you are in violation of wikipedia guidelines. "A trivia section is one that contains a disorganized and "unselective" list." Is this list disorganized? unselective? I don't think so.

So please stop deleting the table, I think I have made it obvious that this table can be included. THANKS Andrew097 (talk) 03:41, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Again, I disagree. This is a WP:BLP, and this "scorecard" is not a notable characteristic of the individual. VH1 is not keeping score. Scoring is not part of the shows in question. It's either WP:TRIVIA or WP:OR or WP:LISTCRUFT. If you wish to pursue dispute resolution, I would be happy to participate. Plastikspork (talk) 14:49, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Go ahead then, the fact of the matter is that you can rename it to call it a "table" instead of a "scorecard" if you really want to. It doesn't matter if VH1 is not keeping score, WIKIPEDIA keeps scores on their websites such as the I Love Money website. It's not a matter of keeping score, it's is a matter of including information. Also, because people like you who think that your way is the only way, you leave out information about the person's progress in shows and why they are the select few who deserve Wikipedia pages. Once again I'll pull out these quotes to prove my point: "This guideline does not suggest the inclusion or exclusion of any information..." "This guideline does not suggest always avoiding lists in favor of prose. Some information is better presented in list format." In this case, the information that you are so opposed to, but actually only adds to the article, and you insist on leaving this valuable information out, is better presented in list/table format. Andrew097 (talk) 03:35, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Seeing as though I was the person who deleted the table in the first place, sparking such a ridiculous debate, I figured I might as well weigh in as to why. Not only does this " scorecard " look simply ridiculous, it is clearly unneeded. As it was in the summary of the shows she was in is fine. Are we personally going around to every reality " star " and input their scorecard?? No, we're not and the reason we won't is because there is no reason whatsoever. You say that it makes viewing easier, however it truly doesn't. In fact, I would be so bold as to call the scorecard junk. Namaste. --Cheers----EmperorofPeopleEverywhere (talk) 01:06, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Model?

[edit]

Where has this woman modeled? Is there any proof to this? I'm not sure reality TV character equates model. 74.11.248.50 (talk) 21:38, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

She is a Playboy Cybergirl and a Benchwarmer girl, two well-established modeling companies.Andrew097 (talk) 03:34, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

She appears in two calendars published by Planet Beth LLC under the title "Sexiest Women of Reality TV." (www.realitytvstuff.com) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.143.31.51 (talk) 23:58, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

'Trophy Wife' becomes 'Megan Wants a Millionaire'

[edit]

...and its all easier said than done. I don't see where VH1 has said that this is the name of her show according to the references supplied. The only ones relate back to casting call websites for "Trophy Wife" and I cannot find this 'direct link' where VH1 said in their blog that this is the name of the show. I saw the name change, noticed all the replacements titled, and noticed the show's wiki page was even shifted to Megan Wants a Millionaire but I cannot find a substantial source for the whole change other than the Scandalist.com's article. Scandalist.com is not a viable source for such a drastic name change induction and I think it was a bit hasty so please tell me the source or explain why it was changed.Tjd319 (talk) 20:15, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I found no reason for it to be moved either. I thought it was quite suspect that a totally random page change gave way to this unreliable switch. I figured someone else would see the same and change it back, but clearly that hasn't happened. Yes, the Blog is completely unreliable and it's a shame this wasn't discussed before it was moved. Something called "counting your chickens before they hatch" kind of comes to mind with this one.--EmperorofPeopleEverywhere (talk) 14:35, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I changed it back until a WP:RS is produced. Plastikspork (talk) 20:19, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I Love Money season 1 poster

[edit]

Can i put the poster by her I Love Money section instead of in the table with all her info? And the caption would be "Megan Hauserman is the center of the I Love Money (Season 1) poster. Is this alright? Andrew097 (talk) 00:21, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sure 76.20.70.23 (talk) 06:47, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it's appropriate. And, it appears 76.20.70.23 and Andrew097 are the same person, so giving yourself approval isn't appropriate either. Thanks! Plastikspork (talk) 18:39, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
yeah it sounded a bit fishy that the same photo with the same caption showed up but under a anon user...ah well--EmperorofPeopleEverywhere (talk) 18:44, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
sorry I hate waiting haha, but why not?76.20.70.23 (talk) 21:17, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's trivia and as such should be stricken entirely from the article. ArcAngel (talk) 07:08, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why does everyone keep refering to trivia about every little fact one wants to include? I understand some things should be stricken. The poster, however, is the only photograph we currently have of her. I know it defintely should not be included as her table photograph but I think it's acceptable under her I Love Money section because it refers to the show and has a clear picture of her. Some wikipedia pages have pictures about certain sections for example The Sims 3 has pictures to show the viewer what it is refering to. If you didn't notice, it says "Megan is also the center of the I Love Money (Season 1) poster." or something similar. If that can be included, wouldn't including the poster rather be showing the poster to show what the section is talking about? Thanks, please respond.

Andrew097 (talk) 02:12, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I Love Money Poster

[edit]

I understand some things should be stricken from the page. The poster, however, is the only photograph we currently have of her. I know it defintely should not be included as her table photograph, but I think it's acceptable under her I Love Money section because it refers to I Love Money and has a clear picture of her. Some Wikipedia pages have pictures about certain sections for example The Sims 3 has pictures to show the viewer what it is refering to. The section says "Megan is also the center of the season 1 poster." (or something similar). If that can be included, wouldn't including the poster rather be showing the poster to show what the that is refering to? Thanks, please respond. Andrew097 (talk) 03:02, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Plastikspork for helping editing the poster, I'm sorry I'm so arguementative =) Andrew097 (talk) 06:34, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Disappearance

[edit]

Um, there is no information about her disappearance and death? Karrmann (talk) 16:19, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

She wasn't the one who got killed... 69.226.188.65 (talk) 18:14, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Megan Hauserman. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:14, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Megan Hauserman. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:05, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Megan Hauserman. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:01, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 23:06, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Talk:Megan_Hauserman&oldid=1207589536"