This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Jenna Haze article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives:
Index,
1Auto-archiving period: 90 days
![]() |
![]() | Jenna Haze was one of the Media and drama good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake. | ||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
Current status: Delisted good article |
![]() | This article was nominated for deletion on 1 January 2020. The result of the discussion was keep. |
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
![]() | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article's Good Article promotion has been put on hold. During review, some issues were discovered that can be resolved without a major re-write. This is how the article, as of January 25, 2008, compares against the six good article criteria:
This close to GA, and is far better than many porn star bios. Thanks for your hard work, and your patience with the currently-slow nominations process. If you have the time and inclination, please consider helping to reduce the GAC backlog by reviewing an article. If you have any questions about the reviewing process, don't hesitate to ask me.
Please address these matters soon and then leave a note here showing how they have been resolved. After 48 hours the article should be reviewed again. If these issues are not addressed within 7 days, the article may be failed without further notice. Thank you for your work so far. Van Tucky 02:31, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
For readability, please place any comments or questions pertaining to the hold below rather than within the body of the review. Thank you!
Thank you, VanTucky for your review. As per Purplehayes2006's points, citation were provided, but later in the paragraph. Although, for clarity, I've now placed them at the ends of the stated the sentences as well. I have removed "Having always enjoyed pornography" per your promotional concerns, plus I doubt she was always a big fan of porn. You welcome to change the photo if you know of a better one. If there are any other concerns, we'd be pleased to fix them. Thanks. Epbr123 ( talk) 15:56, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
This is listed as a "Good article" so could someone add some summary content to the lead to negate the need for a "Short lead" tag? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Otr500 ( talk • contribs) 18:15, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The link in reference 18 is permanent dead link, and can be swapped with the following link which is a working article about the topic. Hitalicktwice ( talk) 12:51, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Reference 18 leads to a 404 page, I've found similar content in the following link: https://ispa.co.il/adult-film-industry-might-determine-the-victor-in-hd-dvd-format-wars/ FutureBoi ( talk) 13:54, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Starts GA Reassessment. The reassessmment will follow the same sections of the Article. -- Whiteguru ( talk) 01:30, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
Result: Delisted. Legitmate concerns, no opposition or improvements made. -- Whiteguru ( talk) 00:09, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
Article was listed GA on January 27, 2008, and assessed against the following depreciated SNG :
WP:PORNBIO
WP:PORNSTAR
The following criteria are relevant only to people involved in pornography (and should not be raised with regard to actors and models outside the pornography industry):
(RfC Closed 25 March 2019 Remove.)
Reassessment is now done against GA Criteria and consideration of meeting: WP:BASIC, WP:BLP, WP:NACTOR, WP:ENT, WP:GNG
Pageviews
Rate | Attribute | Review Comment |
---|---|---|
1. Well-written: | ||
![]() |
1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct. | |
![]() |
1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. |
|
2. Verifiable with no original research: | ||
![]() |
2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline. |
|
![]() |
2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose). |
|
![]() |
2c. it contains no original research. | |
![]() |
2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism. | |
3. Broad in its coverage: | ||
![]() |
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic. |
|
![]() |
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). |
|
![]() |
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. | |
![]() |
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. |
|
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio: | ||
![]() |
6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content. |
|
![]() |
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. | |
![]() |
7. Overall assessment. |
Unstable page, unreliable sources reported, and lacking notability in mainstream media. |
On Jenna Haze's verified official twitter account, she lists her full DOB [2] of February 22, 1982. @ Sangdeboeuf insists on only including her year of birth. We had a discussion here User Talk:Sangdeboeuf#Recent_revert but were not able to reach an understanding. I'd appreciate other experienced editors providing their input to reach a consensus on whether her full DOB should be excluded or not. IPIPIPIP ( talk) 06:19, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
the reference is not limited to her tweeting it out just once. Her birthday February 22 is literally listed on her main profile page. She has also tweeted her birth year multiple times. Sources like these that do not include the full date of birth and/or birthday plus age should not be combined to extrapolate the full birth date per WP:DOB. — Sangdeboeuf ( talk) 08:57, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
...in addition to her entire combined birthdatewhich is mentioned entirely in a single source. Other sources are supportive/supplemental and I'm not extrapolating the full DOB from them for this article since the primary cited source that I've previously mentioned and shared multiple times already completely satisfies the criteria provided in the BLP policy. IPIPIPIP ( talk) 09:32, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
the standard for inclusion of personal information of living persons is higher than mere existence of a reliable source. Once again, the onus is on those wanting to include the material to establish consensus for inclusion. — Sangdeboeuf ( talk) 11:00, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
The purpose for having a higher standard for inclusion of personal information of living persons beyond the mere existence of a reliable source is to consider potential privacy concerns and err on the side of caution in situations where an isolated third-party source independent of the subject is publishing private information for which it can be inferred that the living person may object to its publication. This is not the case here as the source of personal information is self-published in which Jenna Haze herself is disclosing her own personal information to the public on her official social media profile and tweets. With that being said, I disagree with your attempt to justify its exclusion by debating borderline notability. In my view, I believe the onus for its inclusion is met but since it doesn't seem that we'll come to an agreement, I've already requested a 3rd party opinion and will consider other arbitration methods to resolve this dispute to reach a consensus. IPIPIPIP ( talk) 11:57, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
The purpose for having a higher standard for inclusion of personal information of living personsis to avoid inadvertent harm to the subject of a BLP. Once again, the subject is borderline notable, so there's little reason to include the full DOB. — Sangdeboeuf ( talk) 12:21, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
social media platforms. There are many reasons to exclude this info, identity theft and harassment to name a couple. The fact that the subject once tweeted her full DOB almost a dozen years ago doesn't mean they don't object to it being publicized now. Wikipedia has a global reach and is seen, rightly or wrongly, as authoritative. We must use extra care when dealing with BLPs. — Sangdeboeuf ( talk) 12:48, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
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. There are two conditions here that militate against including a person's the full birth date: either they complain about the inclusion, or they are borderline notable. Either one may justify exclusion. Even if the first doesn't apply to this subject, the second definitely does. — Sangdeboeuf ( talk) 12:55, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
the most recent GA assessment specifically said the subject was lacking notability in mainstream media. This refusal to get the point is frankly becoming disruptive. — Sangdeboeuf ( talk) 13:19, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
There are two conditions here that militate against including a person's the full birth date: either they complain about the inclusion, or they are borderline notable.In what way does this statement diverge from the intended meaning of WP:DOB in your opinion? — Sangdeboeuf ( talk) 13:32, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
![]() |
Hello @
IPIPIPIP and @
Sangdeboeuf, I am responding to the third party request initiated in this matter. The policy in
WP:DOB is helpful. From an encyclopedic standpoint, the article's subject is only marginally notable (but this, I do not intend to cast doubt on the article as a whole, but only to address marginal notability in the context of
WP:DOB).
WP:NOTEVERYTHING is also helpful to the analysis: "A Wikipedia article should not be a complete exposition of all possible details, but a summary of accepted knowledge regarding its subject." It is unclear what the exact day of birth useful in this context. Finally, social media is a disfavored source, even where published by a subject of an article themselves. Self-published material is not always reliable. Indeed, there are many good reasons to think someone in this line of work would not post her accurate, down-to-the-date birthday online. For these reasons, my third opinion is that you should not include the full birthdate. I hope this third opinion is helpful in resolving your disagreement.
JArthur1984 (
talk)
23:12, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
|
Should the full date of birth be included in the article? 01:08, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
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.I think that applies here, the subject of this article is borderline notable. There are also reasons to believe the date of birth may not be reliable -- Tristario ( talk) 08:01, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
The purpose for "erring on the side of caution" with regards to birth date is to consider potential privacy concerns in situations where an isolated third-party source independent of the subject is publishing private information ...Can you link to a discussion establishing this as the intent of the policy? Or is this just a guess? — Sangdeboeuf ( talk) 02:16, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
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. It was found at Talk:Jenna Haze/GA1 that the subject has questionable mainstream notability. There are plenty of
legalsources that are not suitable for use on Wikipedia. — Sangdeboeuf ( talk) 01:25, 31 January 2023 (UTC) edited 03:55, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
err on the side of cautionfor potential reasons of privacy, safety, and harassment. There is no reason to "err on the side of caution" in this case because the source of personal information is not an isolated independent third-party source, but Jenna Haze herself, meeting BLP WP:DOB criteria for self-published sources. IPIPIPIP ( talk) 04:58, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
literally every other biography. We even have a policy ( WP:DOB) that says to omit the full date in certain cases. Are we really saying that porn stars and other celebrities have no reason to obfuscate their true birth dates? — Sangdeboeuf ( talk) 07:02, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
date is in the publicdoesn't mean it belongs on Wikipedia. — Sangdeboeuf ( talk) 19:42, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
Rotten Tomatoes is considered generally reliable for its review aggregation and its news articles on film and TV. I disagree that its celebrity profile pages are necessarily reliable. Like the Times of India, they seem to just be copied from the wider web with no indication of authorship, let alone editorial oversight. — Sangdeboeuf ( talk) 01:17, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Her birthday is 02/22/1982 74.102.50.243 ( talk) 08:56, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Jenna Haze article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives:
Index,
1Auto-archiving period: 90 days
![]() |
![]() | Jenna Haze was one of the Media and drama good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake. | ||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
Current status: Delisted good article |
![]() | This article was nominated for deletion on 1 January 2020. The result of the discussion was keep. |
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
![]() | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article's Good Article promotion has been put on hold. During review, some issues were discovered that can be resolved without a major re-write. This is how the article, as of January 25, 2008, compares against the six good article criteria:
This close to GA, and is far better than many porn star bios. Thanks for your hard work, and your patience with the currently-slow nominations process. If you have the time and inclination, please consider helping to reduce the GAC backlog by reviewing an article. If you have any questions about the reviewing process, don't hesitate to ask me.
Please address these matters soon and then leave a note here showing how they have been resolved. After 48 hours the article should be reviewed again. If these issues are not addressed within 7 days, the article may be failed without further notice. Thank you for your work so far. Van Tucky 02:31, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
For readability, please place any comments or questions pertaining to the hold below rather than within the body of the review. Thank you!
Thank you, VanTucky for your review. As per Purplehayes2006's points, citation were provided, but later in the paragraph. Although, for clarity, I've now placed them at the ends of the stated the sentences as well. I have removed "Having always enjoyed pornography" per your promotional concerns, plus I doubt she was always a big fan of porn. You welcome to change the photo if you know of a better one. If there are any other concerns, we'd be pleased to fix them. Thanks. Epbr123 ( talk) 15:56, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
This is listed as a "Good article" so could someone add some summary content to the lead to negate the need for a "Short lead" tag? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Otr500 ( talk • contribs) 18:15, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The link in reference 18 is permanent dead link, and can be swapped with the following link which is a working article about the topic. Hitalicktwice ( talk) 12:51, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Reference 18 leads to a 404 page, I've found similar content in the following link: https://ispa.co.il/adult-film-industry-might-determine-the-victor-in-hd-dvd-format-wars/ FutureBoi ( talk) 13:54, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Starts GA Reassessment. The reassessmment will follow the same sections of the Article. -- Whiteguru ( talk) 01:30, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
Result: Delisted. Legitmate concerns, no opposition or improvements made. -- Whiteguru ( talk) 00:09, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
Article was listed GA on January 27, 2008, and assessed against the following depreciated SNG :
WP:PORNBIO
WP:PORNSTAR
The following criteria are relevant only to people involved in pornography (and should not be raised with regard to actors and models outside the pornography industry):
(RfC Closed 25 March 2019 Remove.)
Reassessment is now done against GA Criteria and consideration of meeting: WP:BASIC, WP:BLP, WP:NACTOR, WP:ENT, WP:GNG
Pageviews
Rate | Attribute | Review Comment |
---|---|---|
1. Well-written: | ||
![]() |
1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct. | |
![]() |
1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. |
|
2. Verifiable with no original research: | ||
![]() |
2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline. |
|
![]() |
2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose). |
|
![]() |
2c. it contains no original research. | |
![]() |
2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism. | |
3. Broad in its coverage: | ||
![]() |
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic. |
|
![]() |
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). |
|
![]() |
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. | |
![]() |
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. |
|
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio: | ||
![]() |
6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content. |
|
![]() |
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. | |
![]() |
7. Overall assessment. |
Unstable page, unreliable sources reported, and lacking notability in mainstream media. |
On Jenna Haze's verified official twitter account, she lists her full DOB [2] of February 22, 1982. @ Sangdeboeuf insists on only including her year of birth. We had a discussion here User Talk:Sangdeboeuf#Recent_revert but were not able to reach an understanding. I'd appreciate other experienced editors providing their input to reach a consensus on whether her full DOB should be excluded or not. IPIPIPIP ( talk) 06:19, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
the reference is not limited to her tweeting it out just once. Her birthday February 22 is literally listed on her main profile page. She has also tweeted her birth year multiple times. Sources like these that do not include the full date of birth and/or birthday plus age should not be combined to extrapolate the full birth date per WP:DOB. — Sangdeboeuf ( talk) 08:57, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
...in addition to her entire combined birthdatewhich is mentioned entirely in a single source. Other sources are supportive/supplemental and I'm not extrapolating the full DOB from them for this article since the primary cited source that I've previously mentioned and shared multiple times already completely satisfies the criteria provided in the BLP policy. IPIPIPIP ( talk) 09:32, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
the standard for inclusion of personal information of living persons is higher than mere existence of a reliable source. Once again, the onus is on those wanting to include the material to establish consensus for inclusion. — Sangdeboeuf ( talk) 11:00, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
The purpose for having a higher standard for inclusion of personal information of living persons beyond the mere existence of a reliable source is to consider potential privacy concerns and err on the side of caution in situations where an isolated third-party source independent of the subject is publishing private information for which it can be inferred that the living person may object to its publication. This is not the case here as the source of personal information is self-published in which Jenna Haze herself is disclosing her own personal information to the public on her official social media profile and tweets. With that being said, I disagree with your attempt to justify its exclusion by debating borderline notability. In my view, I believe the onus for its inclusion is met but since it doesn't seem that we'll come to an agreement, I've already requested a 3rd party opinion and will consider other arbitration methods to resolve this dispute to reach a consensus. IPIPIPIP ( talk) 11:57, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
The purpose for having a higher standard for inclusion of personal information of living personsis to avoid inadvertent harm to the subject of a BLP. Once again, the subject is borderline notable, so there's little reason to include the full DOB. — Sangdeboeuf ( talk) 12:21, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
social media platforms. There are many reasons to exclude this info, identity theft and harassment to name a couple. The fact that the subject once tweeted her full DOB almost a dozen years ago doesn't mean they don't object to it being publicized now. Wikipedia has a global reach and is seen, rightly or wrongly, as authoritative. We must use extra care when dealing with BLPs. — Sangdeboeuf ( talk) 12:48, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
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. There are two conditions here that militate against including a person's the full birth date: either they complain about the inclusion, or they are borderline notable. Either one may justify exclusion. Even if the first doesn't apply to this subject, the second definitely does. — Sangdeboeuf ( talk) 12:55, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
the most recent GA assessment specifically said the subject was lacking notability in mainstream media. This refusal to get the point is frankly becoming disruptive. — Sangdeboeuf ( talk) 13:19, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
There are two conditions here that militate against including a person's the full birth date: either they complain about the inclusion, or they are borderline notable.In what way does this statement diverge from the intended meaning of WP:DOB in your opinion? — Sangdeboeuf ( talk) 13:32, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
![]() |
Hello @
IPIPIPIP and @
Sangdeboeuf, I am responding to the third party request initiated in this matter. The policy in
WP:DOB is helpful. From an encyclopedic standpoint, the article's subject is only marginally notable (but this, I do not intend to cast doubt on the article as a whole, but only to address marginal notability in the context of
WP:DOB).
WP:NOTEVERYTHING is also helpful to the analysis: "A Wikipedia article should not be a complete exposition of all possible details, but a summary of accepted knowledge regarding its subject." It is unclear what the exact day of birth useful in this context. Finally, social media is a disfavored source, even where published by a subject of an article themselves. Self-published material is not always reliable. Indeed, there are many good reasons to think someone in this line of work would not post her accurate, down-to-the-date birthday online. For these reasons, my third opinion is that you should not include the full birthdate. I hope this third opinion is helpful in resolving your disagreement.
JArthur1984 (
talk)
23:12, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
|
Should the full date of birth be included in the article? 01:08, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
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.I think that applies here, the subject of this article is borderline notable. There are also reasons to believe the date of birth may not be reliable -- Tristario ( talk) 08:01, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
The purpose for "erring on the side of caution" with regards to birth date is to consider potential privacy concerns in situations where an isolated third-party source independent of the subject is publishing private information ...Can you link to a discussion establishing this as the intent of the policy? Or is this just a guess? — Sangdeboeuf ( talk) 02:16, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
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. It was found at Talk:Jenna Haze/GA1 that the subject has questionable mainstream notability. There are plenty of
legalsources that are not suitable for use on Wikipedia. — Sangdeboeuf ( talk) 01:25, 31 January 2023 (UTC) edited 03:55, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
err on the side of cautionfor potential reasons of privacy, safety, and harassment. There is no reason to "err on the side of caution" in this case because the source of personal information is not an isolated independent third-party source, but Jenna Haze herself, meeting BLP WP:DOB criteria for self-published sources. IPIPIPIP ( talk) 04:58, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
literally every other biography. We even have a policy ( WP:DOB) that says to omit the full date in certain cases. Are we really saying that porn stars and other celebrities have no reason to obfuscate their true birth dates? — Sangdeboeuf ( talk) 07:02, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
date is in the publicdoesn't mean it belongs on Wikipedia. — Sangdeboeuf ( talk) 19:42, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
Rotten Tomatoes is considered generally reliable for its review aggregation and its news articles on film and TV. I disagree that its celebrity profile pages are necessarily reliable. Like the Times of India, they seem to just be copied from the wider web with no indication of authorship, let alone editorial oversight. — Sangdeboeuf ( talk) 01:17, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Her birthday is 02/22/1982 74.102.50.243 ( talk) 08:56, 1 April 2024 (UTC)