Talk:Aubrey O'Day/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions about Aubrey O'Day. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Hawaiian

She is of Hawaiian decent? Sources please... Coojah 02:30, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

implants

I think that she had some work done. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.13.130.37 (talk) 16:23, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

LGBT category? Possibly open to being with women romantically?

See, Talk:Natalie_Portman#bisexual.

Portman stating what she stated about being open to a romantic relationship with a woman was removed due to Wikipedia's policy that it is not a significant part that defines Portman's life. Well, an editor recently added a quote from Aubrey O'Day into this article basically saying the same thing, and I was/am wondering what to do about that, or if to do something about that at all. When I saw the addition that was added to O'Day's article about sexuality, I immediately thought of the Natalie Portman article and how editors kept having to battle people putting Portman in the bisexual category. I can imagine that people will start trying to put O'Day into the bisexual category as well. O'Day has already been added to the LGBT category by the editor who added the part discussing her sexuality. Taking into account what has been stated above (such as on the Natalie Portman talk page), it seems that just as what Portman stated about sexuality was removed, what O'Day has stated should be removed as as well. Flyer22 (talk) 01:48, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

I've removed the category for now: currently, as Aubrey O'Day has not stated that she is bisexual, any information saying that she is violates our policy on living persons and our policy on original research. Speculation on her sexuality (and any unsourced speculation about her) should be removed. There is nothing wrong with the material regarding what she said, however, as it's sourced, but to speculate on it is against policy. Acalamari 01:53, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply, Acalamari. I'm just wondering if the statement should be included, since Portman's, which was similar, was removed for the reason stated on Portman's talk page. I still feel that we will have to battle people trying to include O'Day in the bisexual category. But oh well. Flyer22 (talk) 03:21, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

I would not object to a removal of that material for now: at least until this issue is ever expanded upon by Aubrey O'Day in the future. Acalamari 15:45, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Someone wrote in the article that Fox News reported that O'Day had outed herself. That's not supported by the Fox News article cited. The Fox News article reports that an anonymous friend in attendance at a party said the woman who accompanied O'Day was her girlfriend and said that O'Day is "out and proud". There's an important difference there. I've modified the language in the article accordingly. Quacks Like a Duck (talk) 16:31, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Good looking out, Quackslikeaduck. Though I do feel that it needs a little more, just in case some people feel that we are simply reporting on O'Day and an actual friend of hers. Women use the word "girlfriend" all the time for their female friends, as we know. And not everyone who visits Wikipedia knows to click on the reference. Flyer22 (talk) 21:00, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

She is very out and the cats need to be put back. Based on her statements she is bisexual, and currently has a girlfriend. http://www.afterellen.com/blwe/12-19-08?page=0%2C4 No one should remove such at cat without doing research to see if it is true. Bisexuals are real, they do exist, in all shapes and forms.--Sugarcubez (talk) 20:07, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

At the time the category was removed, there was no AfterEllen.com article about this. And even this AfterEllen.com article (which only appeared on the day you provided a link to it; December 19, 2008) is only reporting this as a rumor and is skeptical itself on whether O'Day is genuinely romantically/sexually interested in women. Thus, I do not see how she is "very out" at all. Obviously, it was correct to remove O'Day from the LGBT and bisexual categories. Personally, I always do research before removing a category (not that I remove categories often), and I have no problem with O'Day being sexually/romantically interested in women (believe me). But unless she specifically states that she is "bisexual," an argument can be made that she does not belong in the LGBT category. Sexual experimentation does exist. And so do publicity stunts.

That said, if she states to a valid source (she, not a so-called friend of hers) that she is dating a woman, then it would be fine to put her in the LGBT category, since that would still be LGBT territory, even if it is sexual experimentation. But a very strong argument can still be made against putting her in a category signaling her as bisexual. Flyer22 (talk) 00:24, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Several minutes ago, I added another recent valid article about the gay rumors out there about her. It's from MTV.com. But like in others thus far, O'Day still does not specify her sexuality; she basically says the same thing she said in her broadway.com interview about this, though this MTV article I'm referring to is titled "Aubrey O'Day Addresses Gay Rumors, Says She Has No Sexual Preference."

Anyway, when it becomes "very clear" that O'Day is dating a woman (though I know some already see it as "very clear"), we can surely put her in the LGBT category, sort of like it was clear that Beyoncé was dating Jay-Z even though neither would talk about/confirm their romance (unless you count how Jay-Z basically would through songs). Flyer22 (talk) 23:50, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Did you not bother to click the link? It shows her kissing her girlfriend and sources to links of comments she has made about her girlfriend and about lesbianism and Prop 8. [1]--Sugarcubez (talk) 17:46, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Did you not bother to read what I said above? Kissing a woman does not make someone gay or bisexual and there is no valid confirmation that that woman is her girlfriend/lover. And, I mean, as for the comments, there are valid sources, after all, saying that O'Day was just "joking" and "acting out" in response to Proposition 8. Really, everyone who knows or is familiar with O'Day knows that she is all for LGBT rights. That does not mean that she is gay or considers herself bisexual. Every valid source is asking, not confirming, that she is a lesbian.

For similar conflict about putting stuff like this in articles, check out the Lindsay Lohan talk page. For the record, I have put way more information in this article than what was originally allowed to go in that one regarding gay rumors, and it was quite clear that Lohan was dating a woman at that time (as she still currently is). Flyer22 (talk) 01:18, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree with what Flyer22 has said above. Until there is further and clearer information from Aubrey O'Day regarding her sexuality and her relationship with the woman she was kissing, the categories should not be added, in accordance with out policy regarding living persons. I read the AfterEllen article thoroughly, and I too, do not see a confirmation of bisexuality or lesbianism, only speculation, and speculation is inappropriate, especially on a BLP. If Aubrey O'Day ever states exactly what her preferences are, then it can be added, but speculating violates policy. Like Flyer22, I don't object if Aubrey O'Day is interested in women: I just want information that is accurate and doesn't violate policy, and if we have material stating that she a lesbian or bisexual, and if she then stated that she is in fact neither of those, our information would be wrong, and could have negative consquences. That's why it's important for the information to be more than just speculation. Acalamari 18:19, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, Acalamari, for weighing in on this. And I also point out that O'Day herself says that she cannot say "one way or another" what her sexual preference is at this point in her life. To take that to mean that she considers herself bisexual is still off, especially considering that even people who consider themselves bisexual have a sexual preference, as the Bisexuality article notes. Flyer22 (talk) 20:39, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

The category seems unnecessary to me. Wikipedia isn't a paper encyclopedia, so we have the luxury of waiting to see what if anything comes of these rumors. If we don't put it in today, it can always be put in tomorrow or somewhere down the road. (Full disclosure: Flyer22 asked me to weigh in here, but I don't consider it canvassing to support her position as we almost never agree. Besides her note was quite neutral.) AniMate^talk 20:48, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Comment. Categories putting people as sexuality minorities and also designating religions have a higher threshold of sourcing. The content needs to be in the article and well sourced to have a category added. -- Banjeboi 00:26, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Benjiboi, I was wondering if it is okay to put her in the LGBT category as you have done, though another editor perfected it, when she does not self-identify as any part of LGBT. I get that her article is within the scope of the LGBT project (which is why this talk page is tagged as such), but so is Madonna's. Madonna, for example, has had sexual relationships with women, but is not any LGBT category. Flyer22 (talk) 00:02, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

She has discussed her romantic involvement with both men and women on national TV prompted by being asked about it. This tells me that not only is it a significant part of who she is, at least publicly, but also that she simply is avoiding being boxed in as "only a lesbian." Her statement alluded that she was let go from Danity Kane because she was not strictly or mostly heterosexual. When that was followed up she avoided both bisexual and lesbian labels - as well as any other labels and said she simply is looking to find love in other people wherever that leads. In the same interview she discussed only her relationships with women. Or current categorizing systems are imperfect but I feel "LGBT people" is both accurate and fine for now. -- Banjeboi 01:50, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

What statement from her do you feel alluded that she was let go from Danity Kane because she was not strictly or mostly heterosexual? If you mean the statement about her not being herself, where she says she would rather be hated every damn day of her life for being real than loved for being something she is not, she was talking about her new image. Her new image is what she felt/feels is simply "the real her" or rather a part of "the real her" instead of a persona and was not about being seen with women in the romantic sense. It entailed a new look and a new way of carrying herself...such as acting more wild in public before she was even seen with a woman in the romantic sense. Sean Combs fired her because he felt that she had become too wild, and that her image was now too sexy. Basically, he fired her due to feeling that she was no longer the same girl he signed (personality-wise). That is...if you consider that as the whole reason, seeing as the initial reason was quite clearly due to her speaking her mind and him taking that as her being disrespectful and "backtalk" to him (her boss).

That said, I do not have a huge problem with her being listed in the LGBT category, since, as I stated, she is within that scope whether she labels her sexual orientation or not. I just wanted to get thoughts regarding listing her there when she has not self-labeled her sexual orientation and when someone like Madonna is not even there. Flyer22 (talk) 05:43, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

I've not seen the interview you're referring to, in the one I saw she opined she was fired because she is into women as much as or more than men and Combs didn't like that personally. Now whether he was personally interested in her or personally thought she should have kept that information more under wraps I'm not sure; it was ambiguous enough to be more problem that it's worth to use it. -- Banjeboi 10:30, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Whoa, I would ask you to find that interview, so that we can add a bit of that to this article, but that may be overkill...since we have enough in this article already about her being fired from Danity Kane; it may also be too gossipy...since it is "heated" or provocative speculation on O'Day's part. I am not sure that she was saying that Combs was romantically/sexually interested in her, though him being romantically/sexually interested in her has been highly speculated since her first singing/dancing performance in front of him; all the male judges felt that she was very physically attractive and probably would have been open to being with her sexually. She was likely saying that Combs did not like her being into women as much as or more than men because he felt it added to her "wild girl" image. After all, he did state that he did not like her being all promiscuous "out there"...even though O'Day has said that she is not promiscuous. But who knows what she meant in that line you quoted?

The part I was talking about was not an interview per say or rather not solely an interview; it was the October 14, 2008 episode of Making the Band, the part in this article which currently says, "In the live section of the episode, Combs explained that the reason he let O'Day go was that she was not the same person he signed, that the fame had changed her.[12][11] When O'Day came on to reply, she stated: 'I would rather be hated every damn day of my life for being real than loved for being something I'm not.'" Flyer22 (talk) 22:15, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

I suggest leaving things as they are for now. She has talked openly about these issues so I think she'll end up doing a more in-depth print article soon which is less open to interpretations. -- Banjeboi 03:46, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree not to add the part you mentioned at this time. Flyer22 (talk) 20:52, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Too Long

I put the tag back because I feel like this article goes into far too much minute detail while at the same time using a fairly limited number of sources. If we step back and examine who the subject is, I think the attentiveness to relatively insignificant events damages the article. We don't go into this much detail for Jimi Hendrix, not because it doesn't exist but because its disproportionate and unnecessary. We definitely shouldn't do it for a pop star with just a few years in the public eye under her belt. It's my opinion that this piece essentially is a diary of Aubrey's day to day life in the media and that's not what wikipedia is for. If we want to send them off to a separate article that might work. Mayhaps "Aubrey O'Day in the Media" or whatever. I don't think the tag should be removed until the article undergoes some changes Mcoogan75 (talk) 08:49, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. And have removed the tag again. Simply putting a tag on the article without pointing out what you feel needs to be removed or cut down does not solve anything. I do not feel that the article is too long at all, nor do I feel that there are "insignificant events" in the article, or that it's a "diary of Aubrey's day to day life in the media." The article has been separated into two more sections since the first time you put a "too long" tag on the article, and I certainly do not see how it may be "difficult to navigate through" now. The article notes her early life first. Then her career, and only mentions a little bit about O'Day in the media, thus I do not see how it's "all about "O'Day in the media." If by the media, you mean things like her posing for Blender Magazine...well, that's part of her career (or rather what contributed to her fame while she was competing in Making the Band 3. It's not like this article is focusing on everything or even a lot of what the tabloids say about her. It notes her career, then parts of her career, like what happened with her in Danity Kane (as a link takes people to the full story about the Danity Kane issue) and other side projects. That's all this article does. It is a fact that O'Day's fame is not as limited to Danity Kane as the other womens' fame is. It is a fact that this "pop star with just a few years in the public eye under her belt" has done all these other things. They are not insignificant. If this article was naming all sorts of tabloid fodder, then I would get your point. But it is not. And so I do not. Part of her Personal life section is from interviews she did with the media, yes. And the problem? I'm really not seeing the problem you are seeing with this article. Other pop stars have far longer articles than this. O'Day's should not be discriminated against simply because she has not been on the pop scene for as long. All of the information in this article is relevant, except for mentioning exactly what fans stated about her departure from the group; I will go cut that down right now.

I do not feel that the "too long" tag needs to be placed back on this article, unless other editors agree with you about this. And if they do, then I propose they propose an alternate version of this article to see if we can agree that that is the better version. Just like I propose you propose an alternate version of this article, instead of just placing a "too long" tag on it, where it seems as though I am supposed to keep editing this article down until you are satisfied with it. Flyer22 (talk) 18:53, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Hey, I'm sorry. You're right and I didn't mean to say that. I'll poke around and make some changes myself and if you disagree, we'll work it all out! Mcoogan75 (talk) 04:36, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Okay, Cool. I'll look over your changes now. Flyer22 (talk) 19:48, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

I love your changes. I added this part back to the Personal life section, though:

In addition, she declared then-bandmate D. Woods her best friend and porn legend Jenna Jameson one of her good friends.

<ref>Aubrey O'Day, ''[[Wendy Williams (radio host)|The Wendy Williams Show]]'' ([[2008]]-[[08-12]]). Retrieved on [[2008]]-[[10-09]].</ref>

I would not mind removing the part about D. Woods, but since Jenna Jameson is mentioned in that section as her favorite porn star, I feel that it makes sense to establish that she is one of O'Day's good friends as well. Flyer22 (talk) 20:03, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the article is way too long. IMO, detailing her supposed friendships and fights is failing the notability test. Not to mention, a lot of it seems like Original Research. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.187.172.64 (talk) 05:26, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

How is this article very long, say compared to Lady Gaga's and many other Wikipedia articles on musical artists? Is it because some don't consider O'Day to be that famous, etc.? As for the friendships, O'Day's friendship with Aundrea Fimbres is notable in regard to their careers with Danity Kane. There isn't too much detail on it in the article, and those details are reliably sourced. But I agree about removing information on her relationship with Melissa Molinaro, which isn't notable and ventures into original research. Flyer22 (talk) 18:22, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Relationship with Poker Player David Williams

http://perezhilton.com/2009-02-19-aubrey-oday-watches-porn-with-her-parents-breaks-up-with-boyfriend-after-discovering-he-did-foot-fetish-porn —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.229.35.13 (talk) 06:05, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Unlabeled Sexual Orientation (bisexuality)

On the Chelsea Lately show, when asked about being bisexual, she replies "generally i don't like to label myself". The interview can be seen here. I will be adding this to the article.--cooljuno411 17:37, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

We are not allowed to use YouTube as a source on Wikipedia, unless it is an article about YouTube or an article about a YouTube video. Furthermore, the fact that she does not label her sexual orientation is already made clear in the article, and where you placed the Chelsea Lately part was out of place. Flyer22 (talk) 05:29, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, you will need to reference a wikipedia policy stating that we may not use YouTube videos. Until then, i am re-adding that claim.... I don't see the logic in trusting a written article found on the internet over an actual video, on a network tv show, of her flat out saying i dont label myself... And please tell me where in the article she says "i do not label my sexual orientation"..... because "i do not label my sexual orientation" and refusing to answer questions about being bisexual are two different things....--cooljuno411 06:27, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

The reference is at WP:Reliable sources. And where in the article does she say that she does not label her sexual orientation? Right there in the Personal life section, where she makes it clear that she feels she cannot say what her sexual preference is at this point in her life. She makes it clear that she has not specified her sexual orientation. Thus, how does your addition add to this article, when it is redundant? If your addition were to be allowed, it should go right after the part where she talks about sexual orientation. It does not make sense to go back to the sexual orientation topic after having moved away from it, which is why I said your placement of that addition was off. Flyer22 (talk) 06:49, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Saying i am "~unsure~" ( cannot say what her sexual preference is at this point) is different from "~i don't label my sexual orientation~".... It like you asking "what's your favorite zombie movie?".... me saying "i am not sure..." would be a COMPLETELY different reply then "i don't want to pick one, i like too many"...... it is the same with concept as the whole "unsure" or "unlabeled" thing.--cooljuno411 08:47, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

O'Day does not simply say that she is unsure. She has made it clear that she feels she does not look at gender. In an August 2008 interview, O'Day stated she was increasingly irritated with people pigeonholing her sexuality; stating that she looks for "incredible passion and honest love" and not at gender." On December 15, 2008, Fox News reported that O'Day attended a party accompanied with her girlfriend/lover, according to an anonymous friend in attendance. When questioned by UsMagazine.com regarding the gay rumors, O'Day did not confirm or deny the speculation about her sexuality, and once again stated that she could not say "one way or another" what her sexual preference is at this point in her life.

O'Day's complete response, which is the exact same quote to both sources, was saying that she does not go by gender and rather the person. This is why I find your addition redundant. Her sexual orientation was already unlabeled, and she made it clear that she does not label it. Read the entire quote in the reference where she first responds about sexual orientation. She basically says that she does not want to choose. Flyer22 (talk) 19:27, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Here's a discussion about using YouTube on Wikipedia: Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 36#Youtube as a source. There have been plenty of debates/discussions about its use here at Wikipedia. It is sometimes permitted, but is more often prohibited. There used to be a section about it at WP:Reliable sources or at WP:Verifiability, but that is no longer the case.

If other editors here feel that your YouTube addition is fine, then I have no problem with it...except for the fact that I feel that it is redundant. And again, I'd rather it be placed at the part where she already talks about sexual orientation if it is to be used at all. Flyer22 (talk) 07:09, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Oh, and you can cite the source without the link, like I did with The Wendy Williams Show source in this article. You should go back and do that with the addition you made about this to the Unlabeled sexual orientation article. If you do not, someone will eventually remove it. Trust me. Flyer22 (talk) 07:32, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

I will repost it in the section you mentioned.--cooljuno411 08:51, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Okay, that's fine. I tweaked it. But it would be better to add the date she appeared on that show and stated that. If you don't, I'll try to find the date. Flyer22 (talk) 19:16, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

I also replied to your other response above. Flyer22 (talk) 19:25, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

I got the date of the episode from your YouTube link about this, and I added the date to the reference. I also tweaked and added the date to the same addition you made to the Unlabeled sexual orientation article. Flyer22 (talk) 19:57, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Columbia Law School

The comment about dropping out of college and "declining going to Columbia law..." really irks me. Anyone who has actually been to college knows that it is IMPOSSIBLE to decline a school that you are not even eligible to apply to, much less attend. If she dropped out of college, then she obviously never received a bachelors degree, which is required for any law school, including Columbia. Taken from information on the Columbia website: the 2011 class received almost 8,000 applications for only 381 vacancies. Of those 381 people accepted, every one of them had a bachelors degree (as required) and 43 of them had advanced degrees, including medical degrees, PhDs, and several types of masters degrees. The idea that this girl is such a prodigy that she can skip college altogether and get accepted into such a prestigious school, which is notoriously difficult to get admitted to; is ridiculous, and a thinly veiled lie. I wish that uneducated people would refrain from telling such incredulous lies, that are so obviously false. User: PalomaNegra —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.243.109.140 (talk) 01:29, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

There are no uneducated people editing this article. The dropping out of college and Columbia Law aspects got mixed up because O'Day has said that she dropped out of college, but it was also said that she was going to attend Columbia Law. The "declined going to Columbia Law" part apparently got mixed up with that, since she clearly changed her mind about finishing college and attending Columbia Law. I'll go tweak that bit now. Flyer22 (talk) 21:02, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Really? N.B. "She is of Hawaiian decent,Sorces pleasess..", supra. Yappy2bhere (talk) 18:32, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Why did you copy what is stated in the #Hawaiian section? This article has not stated that she is Hawaiian in quite some time. Flyer22 (talk) 22:45, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

LGBT Category

I don't see how O'Day can be included in the Category:LGBT people from the United States. From the article, she's stated that she doesn't want to label herself with a sexuality, which means she's not L, G, B, or T. I can understand having the LGBT WikiProject banner, if the editors of the article agree that she's "of interest to" the WikiProject, but per WP:BLP, until and unless she states that she's lesbian or bisexual, she shouldn't be in that category. Other opinions? -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 17:22, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Hmm. I'm not sure. Because if she is truly romantically/sexually interested in both sexes, how is she not a part of the LGBT community? (I say "truly," -- in other words, "significantly" -- because people sometimes sexually experiment with both sexes, but truly or later identify as heterosexual or homosexual.) A person may not want to be labeled an ethnicity, but we still give them one. It is not as though we are speculating that she is romantically/sexually interested in both sexes. She has stated that she is.

I'll ask Banjeboi to weigh in on this. Flyer22 (talk) 22:46, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

For others, the beginning of this discussion can currently be seen on SatyrTN's talk page. It is brief, though. Flyer22 (talk) 00:16, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Comment. After too much searching I did find Wikipedia:Categorization/Ethnicity, gender, religion and sexuality which is pretty clear that categories for LGBT BLP follow sourced content supporting inclusion. Although O'Day may have been in the (no pun intended) fence I think her openly and publicly discussing how she's dating men and women seems a slam dunk. This MTV interview may help, and here she discusses taking over Tila Tequila's Shot of Love. IMHO, this article's section should be cleaned up some as it feels tabloidy when that's not needed, Here's a few sources that may help. -- Banjeboi 03:17, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Personally, I'm just not comfortable putting her in the "bisexual" category. The second MTV article looks good, except for two points - it's gossipy, and the phrase "I'm America's favorite bisexual" links to the first MTV article - where (even though the writer calls her bisexual) she says "I'm figuring it out." My opinion? Let her figure it out. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 05:08, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't think we need to, leave her in the parent category as we have this outing her as lesbian and other sources that she is bisexual. Here she comes out as dating regardless of gender and it's pretty clear it's the label itself she's avoiding not the subject. -- Banjeboi 19:27, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, some people simply don't like sexual orientation labels. Some don't even like gender labels. But I look at this situation this way: What if this article was about a gay man who is open about only dating/having sex with men, but says that he does not want to label his sexual orientation? Would we keep him out of the gay category, simply because he does not want to be labeled gay? Flyer22 (talk) 21:16, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Would we put someone in Category:American Jews if they kept Kosher and had a Jewish mother, but didn't want to be labeled Jewish? -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 22:21, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Aubrey O'Day. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 08:14, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Aubrey O'Day. 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

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) 05:58, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Heh, heh! A nice relief from the day to day

Heh, heh! A nice relief from the day to day: yer celebrity career's flagging, ya put on the outrageously emblazoned tee, carry-on no excess clothing, and wear a synthetic jacket over it -- which a secret confederate dumps it into a toilet, where it dissolves in the flushing solution (or any additive that proved necessary in the planning stage). Oh, yeah, and ya decry the outrageous violation of your free expression. Oh, you can't imagine why that little old lady (yer agent's mom?) could be upset in the slightest ... what a HORRIBLE bitch!
I can recall, six decades ago, when our parents bought the Sunday NY Daily News so the comics would entertain us kids while they engaged themselves with the Times; I (a male) would find opportunity to clip, and hide, even such a tame prose clip as that, to further stimulate my own burning imagination. Oh, and clip articles from the NYT science section, i'd almost forgotten!
--JerzyA (talk) 02:39, 28 September 2019 (UTC)