Talk:IJustine/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Prior deletion

According to the page log, on 03:33, 31 May 2007 Pascal.Tesson (talk · contribs) deleted "Justine Ezarik" ‎for the following speedy deletion reason:(CSD A7. content was: '{{db-bio}} Justine Ezarik (aka iJustine) is a 23-year-old Pittsburgh graphic designer in Pittsburgh. She is the host of the 24/7 iJustin...') .--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 23:45, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Real name?

Either she is the only person on this planet with the surname Ezarik or that is not her real name. Does anyone know her real name for the article?

If you look at the sources, Ezarik's has been known by that name at least since high school. Just because a name isn't widespread doesn't mean it doesn't exist. --wL<speak·check> 19:30, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Internet meme?

It did not come from /b/, I don't think it is one. 97.99.27.99 02:49, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Age/Birth?

Anyone know? --Recoil42 22:39, 13 August 2007 (UTC)


Deleted word "slut" after visit to "georgia aquarium". I dont think there is such a thing as a slutfish. Maybe I'm wrong though. --Greenboy84 20:35, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Merge with iPhone?

Shouldn't this article be merged with either iPhone or 300 Page ATT Bill ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.251.225.15 (talk) 22:56, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Nope, she's notable independently of them too --lucid 18:48, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

It should be merged with the Iphone article or just deleted. Most of the article is talking about her origins and the Iphone, I don't think she is notable enough to have her own article. 97.99.27.99 19:32, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

You've missed the converation about it. It seems nobody can make a solid consensus to delete the article. Because she's involved in more than the iPhone meme. Some people say that because she just became notable, she isn't notable enough. Well unless nothing changes in the future, it could go up one more time. But with her role in that SpikeTV shoot, I feel it's set in stone. --wL<speak·check> 05:40, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree this article should be merged or deleted... -Tracer9999 02:09, 10 October 2007 (UTC)


Sections of this article relating to the bill and its receiver should be merged into the iPhone or AT&T articles. The notability resides with the bill, the whole world does not need to know about Jtsines personal activities as she herself lacks the notability for such. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.187.194.114 (talk) 14:04, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

You're an unregistered anon! What do you know about Notability guidelines at Wikipedia? --wL<speak·check> 17:24, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
The very large number of sources about "Justine Ezarik", as a person, and the consensus of Wikipedia editors unfortunately disagrees. She is notable. • Lawrence Cohen 15:03, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Fair use images are NOT acceptable

As the tag says, WP:FUC's #1 criteria and Wikipedia:Non-free_content#Unacceptable_images's #12 both say in extremely clear terms that fair use images are unacceptable in articles on people that are still alive. --lucid 18:48, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Great.

Now wikipedia has become a personal vanity/advertisement/publicity host. Just great. If anyone can have a page, or anything, then it's not an encyclopaedia anymore is it? 84.254.51.121 01:37, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

In that case, lets nominate it for an afd and make sure this one get deleted into oblivion. Mr McLovin 19:21, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
Based on what? Personal opinion, or objective criteria? Dhaluza 00:07, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

This page is personal advertising. If everyone got a Wikipedia page for having huge bills, there would be 20million instead of 2million articles on English Wikipedia.

This person is not notable and this is simply a vanity page. The first page of a google search on "Justine Ezarik" turns up - her website, her myspace page, her facebook page, her personal ad on Wikipedia (this page), etc. If she had any significance there would be something there other than her own content. Sbs9 (talk) 05:59, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

I cannot be bothered creating an account, but can be bothered to say this person is NOT notable, this entry is pure vanity. Look at the style of the writing, look at the non-existant relevance to anything. ~~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.170.50.134 (talk) 12:38, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. 82.25.130.155 (talk) 10:39, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

The girl has been featured in about a hundred different forms of media. "Vanity" and "Advertising" are far from what this article is for. This page is describes many, many accomplishments and does not in any way try to sell what Justine does. Just because she embraces a new-age type of publicity does not make her unimportant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.2.125.176 (talk) 07:34, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

These posts were relevant back in 2008 when there was nothing notable about this woman and it really was just shameless self-advertising. She has been plastered across the web enough that she's a relevant enough web figure to warrant an article.24.179.133.201 (talk) 10:36, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Possible Good Article?

Reading this article over, it isn't half bad. Once the current mistakenly began AfD is closed as a Keep, I think I will nominate this for GA review. • Lawrence Cohen 05:31, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Good articles need to be well written. It is not in-depth enough as well, hence its notability issues. --wL<speak·check> 21:13, 18 October 2007 (UTC) I'd fail it based on that. --wL<speak·check> 21:13, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
I can definitely agree on the scope, and I wouldn't mind taking a crack at rewriting it from scratch. What notability issues, though? Multiple international coverage of two distinctly notable things, the videos and the iPhone bill event. • Lawrence Cohen 21:25, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
Mostly the videos and the importance of her contributions to lifecasting in general. --wL<speak·check> 21:45, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
That could be a problem for the writing to reach GA/FA status, from the angle of it being a well-written, or simply being a good article (not GA, just not a crappy one). But the notability itself simply for the extended and constant coverage isn't an issue or question. From the purely objective standpoint, I mean. I agree that without half again as much new content this might be enough diverse material to make it a great article. But notability, itself, I can't see any question. • Lawrence Cohen 21:50, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Reply to User:WikiLeon....her importance to the "lifecasting movement" is that she's a pretty girl and has therefore gotten the mainstream media to cover the movement. Lifecasting would struggle for notability without her contributions. --Rocksanddirt 23:05, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Maybe it is, maybe it isn't. But she's she did bring lifecasting in the public eye, and that's all that matters when it comes to notability. Next time you want to reply, just use a ":" below my note so it comes indented. --wL<speak·check> 23:16, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
Have we seen any sources yet that credit her with this? That would be a great line in the article lead. • Lawrence Cohen 23:18, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
I have not, but I have never come across lifecasting that didn't include her. --Rocksanddirt 23:30, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

For an article to be on Wikipedia, it must be about someone or something notable. And while Justine is certainly well known as being the receiver of a very large AT&T bill, the fact remains that the notability resides first and foremost with the bill itself and AT&T for dispatching such a ridiculous bill. I move for one of the following: 1. Merge it into another more relevent article such as the iPhone or AT&T articles. 2. Create an article for the 300page bill, but not for Justine. --****

WHY is this person notable

WHY is this person notable, because she is one of the hundreds of people who are "lifecasters" and she got a big phone bill... so??Blaze33541 23:29, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Because she has a significant amount of independent coverage from reliable sources, over a long period of time, for making videos, then for the iPhone fiasco, then for her lifecasting work and promotion. • Lawrence Cohen 23:39, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Images

Image:Justine Ezarik.jpg was in the article yesterday, and got changed to Image:Justine Ezarik making faces.jpg I humbly propose that the first is more representative of the subject, so more deserving to be the lead image of the article. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 14:05, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the first one definitely is better given what she is known for. Lawrence Cohen 16:27, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Assessment

I've just re-assessed this article on behalf of WikiProject Pittsburgh. I have moved it up to B-class for quality, and kept it at low-class for importance. A couple pointers:

  • This article has barely seen any edits of substance this year. This is the main reason that the article of "low" importance. There's no way she's going to get "high" importance -- that's reserved for major Pittsburgh icons like Myron Cope -- but she might be "mid" importance if there's evidence she is constantly doing notable things. Also, if this article is to become Featured-class, it needs to be clear that we are tracking her career closely.
  • The citations are thorough and cite reputable sources. My only suggestion would be to use {{cite news}} instead of {{cite web}} when citing to newspapers and magazines.
  • It's wonderful that there is a free image on the top of the page -- free images are always better than images under copyright. But if someone could please find a free picture that doesn't have the photographer's thumb in the way, that would be even better. :) (For example, maybe use Image:Justine Ezarik.jpg?)

--M@rēino 19:55, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Images

I am going to add some new images. Which do you like better:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/briansolis/2608843563/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/briansolis/2608876209/

What about these? Which do you prefer:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/briansolis/2436114592/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/briansolis/2435295323/

These two are also properly licensed for WP: and I may include both http://www.flickr.com/photos/insidetwit/2358941191/ and http://www.flickr.com/photos/briansolis/2593081888/ .--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 17:19, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I know hat 2358031191 is a picture that is used in Ezarik's marketing material (see the http://www.ijustine.tv/ logo), so I doubt that's a free image. As for the rest, I'll upload them to Wikimedia Commons, so the can be used here in the future. --wL<speak·check> 06:20, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Article too long

This article has too many details about non notable minor appearances etc. It needs to be trimmed to the notable biographical facts, and not try to cover every ongoing minutiae and soundbite. There are a lot of quotes from Justin Kan - these are borderline self referential really. Mfield (talk) 04:15, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

There is information that adds context to her life. If we are not pressed for space, there is no reason not to WP:PRESERVE it.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 19:14, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Pictures

This article also really needs only one or two images, probably a infobox portrait image and one showing her with her lifecasting equipment. A biographical article does not need 6 nearly identical images. They add nothing and make it look like a fanpage. Mfield (talk) 19:02, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

I am switching the top image to the lifecasting one as it show more of her face plus lifecasting is what made her notable and thus it has higher enc value. I am moving the party shot with the iphone down to the relevant section, and removing three other random shots that add nothing informational. Mfield (talk) 19:14, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
The images are hardly identical. An article does not need any images, but when they exist there is no reason not to use them.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 19:12, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
The other images do not add anything, they do not illustrate anything in the text any better. She does not look any different in any of them, they are nothing more than eye candy. This is an encyclopedia, not Hello magazine. There is a commons category link for people who want to see more pictures. Mfield (talk) 19:14, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
The only thing the images have in common is that they have here in them. They are not identical. Even the two with the iPhone are very different.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 19:19, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
Please point to two images that you think look alike.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 19:22, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
Let me see...
  • Ooh, a blurry, partially obscured blonde girl
    Ooh, a blurry, partially obscured blonde girl
  • ooh look, another
    ooh look, another
  • Oh, here she is with a phone again
    Oh, here she is with a phone again
  • Wow, here she is talking, fascinating
    Wow, here she is talking, fascinating

They are all party style head and shoulder portraits - why does a biographical article need 6 images of the subject in unidentifiable surroundings - please provide an example of a featured biographical article that contains multiple portraits with no context like this. It does not make for a good article, it looks like a fansite. Mfield (talk) 19:26, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Another good yardstick would be - if she was an overweight middle aged man, would we have this many pictures of her posing for the camera doing nothing special. I am pretty certain that the answer would be no. There may be a lot of images of her that are CC and I am sure that is something that she encourages given a good amount of her notability derives from accessibility and publicity but that does not mean that they all need to be used. What do they add? Mfield (talk) 19:48, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
As far as policy goes, from WP:IMAGES - "Articles that use more than one image should present a variety of material near relevant text. Three uniformed portraits would be redundant for a biography of a famous general." Hence why I put the lifecasting one at the top, moved the iphone one next to the iphone section and left the images showing her discussing at conferences etc. and removed the extra ones that show her doing nothing at all. Mfield (talk) 20:09, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
Pictures that capture her resemblance are not all the same. One depicting her at an Intel Insider conference or another at a Myspace party are both informative of part of her image.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 20:12, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
I contacted a dozen people at www.flickr.com to give consent to relicense their images properly and these are the ones that have responded favorably. Feel free to try to contact people with more varied images for consent.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 20:14, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
I do not understand how you can even argue that these extra images add any information at all. Please explain what extra information they are conveying to the reader. All they are doing is increasing the size of the page and taking up bandwidth where more substantive content/third party opinions/comments would no doubt be more useful. I am hovering on revert at this point having explained my reasoning and policy on duplication of images fully and heard nothing persuasive in response. Can you point me to an FA bio that has this many similar images. I would love to hear some other opinions. Mfield (talk) 20:20, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
I just explained myself. These images are certainly as different as all the pictures at Barack Obama that show him speaking. Since that is probably the most highly viewed page on WP, that should serve as guidance.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 20:59, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
Maybe lets not put Ezarik and Obama in the same category, 99% of the real world knows who Obama is and what he has done, 99% of the real world has no idea who Ezarik is and these extra images are doing nothing to convey any information about her except that she is blonde and pretty, which is covered by image #1. Please answer my question above..."what extra information they are conveying to the reader" Mfield (talk) 21:19, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
I have asked for some extra opinions over at EAR. Mfield (talk) 21:26, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
It seems to me that your argument suggest that Ezarik is in more need of images than Obama since no one knows who she is.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 22:40, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
That is twisting my point. There are an undue amount of images for the size of the article when one posed party snap conveys the same information as 5. Mfield (talk) 22:52, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
And once again please I ask, "what extra information they are conveying to the reader" and what is your response to "Three uniformed portraits would be redundant for a biography of a famous general."? I haven't had an answer on either other than what seems to be "i found them, I added them and I like them". Mfield (talk) 23:00, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
Did you mean WP:EAR? I do not see a thread.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 22:43, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
I messed up, it's there now. Mfield (talk) 22:52, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

While we are waiting for some more opinions, I also feel that the external link to a Flickr image of her and her sisters is fairly inappropriate too. They are not notable and irrelevant to this article (I take some issue with them being mentioned in the article to the degree they are), quite apart from any fair expectation they may have of privacy. It is not normal to have pictures of the family of the subject of a bio article linked in. Mfield (talk) 05:32, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

For the sake of professionalism, I WP:BOLDly changed the image to the one where she's speaking. The other images already have a place in the article, and having a pic of her at a party makes her look more like a socialite than anything else. We now have a wealth of updated images, which was the reason I used that party image in the first place --wL<speak·check> 04:45, 9 December 2008 (U

There doesn't need to be that many pictures of her. You don't see that many pictures on real famous people who are well known. This feels like a Myspace page or some deranged fanpage.

One pic is all that's needed for someone who's "fame" is Youtube vanity.--seattlehawk94 (talk) 17:40, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

It seems to me that you are a Justine-hater. Try to think of this as an international encyclopedia rather than a place for a personal stamp of approval.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 00:34, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Glass houses...As a Justine lover try to think of this as an international encyclopedia rather than a glorified Myspace page for Justine.--seattlehawk94 (talk) 01:10, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Some suggestions for comments from third parties

"she is a Web 2.0 version of the American everygirls with bleached teeth and fake tans who have enjoyed reality-show notoriety for a decade."[1]

  1. ^ Gould, Emily (Nov/Dec 2008). "MIT Technology Review - iTube, Why 23,201 people care that Justine Ezarik just ate a cookie". MIT. Retrieved 2008-12-07. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)

Mozy

I was watching an episode of the Colbert Report on Hulu.com when a commercial for Mozy came on. The spokesperson for Mozy is none other than iJustine! We should add that to the article.PokeHomsar (talk) 17:50, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. I don't care enough about Justine to write it but somebody definitely should! -yoshUT 04:37, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Streamy Awards image

File:20090328 Justine Ezarik at 1st Annual Streamy Awards.jpg How can I best crop this image for use in this article? Should I crop out the entire arm and half of the reporter or the entire reporter?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 10:52, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

N.B. ther is no sourced content about her involvement in the show. Including this picture is the only way to link her to it.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 10:59, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Ethnicity of name

Yes, i know, i saw that she is american... but what nationality is her name? Where are her parents from??

Your question is nonsensical. Names do not have "nationalities". I believe what you meant to ask is her ethnicity. The name is Slavic, but I don't know if it's Polish or Lithuanian. But given that she is from Pittsburgh, I would guess it's one of the two.

As for your asking where her parents are from, you are posting on WIkipedia and you can't bother to actually read her entry to determine that???

I went ahead and corrected the heading from the faulty one. (75.69.241.91 (talk) 05:54, 17 July 2009 (UTC))

Length of Article

I understand and agree that she meets the notability factor (just barely), but I really do not understand why a subject who is a very minor public personality at best, has such a voluminous entry. She hardly needs an article that is almost as lengthy as President Obama's. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.69.241.91 (talk) 06:00, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

The length of her encyclopedic content does not compare to Obama's. Obama has twenty articles on WP with one summary article. This is her only article.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 06:29, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

She's gettin' more popular!

After just 3 months she got another 100k YouTube subscribers... that's over 200k in total! Em27 (talk) 20:42, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

What does she do??!!

Apart from vlogging about the banal events of her daily life, and thus accumulating vast numbers of junior high school-aged followers on social networking websites, what does this person actually do? It seems she is popular solely on the merits of her own self promotion and self content, not based on her accomplishments as reported by journalistic sources. It seems clear that she doesn't posses any distinguishable talents, but is rather, a fairly pretty computer geek who likes to talk about herself in spite of the fact that there isn't much to talk about. She doesn't comment on news or politics, she's not funny, she doesn't appear abundantly intelligent, she doesn't DO anything of note on these videos, etc. It just seems like there should be more of a yardstick with Wikipedia to filter out non-notables. The article alone is clearly self-created vanity promotion (the fact that it mentions the number of facebook friends she has in the introductory paragraphs is laughable on the most grandiose of junior high school yearbook scales). To say nothing of the fact that a google search on this person reveals hit after hit of her own self-created content (facebook, myspace, flicker, twitter etc) Run a search on me and the first things you find will be articles in Variety and other publications, but you don't see me creating a wikia article for myself, and I've actually DONE THINGS that have been reported by the press. See the point I'm making? It seems absurd that she should be listed here at all when it is obvious that her only notability is the number of fans she has racked up on social networking sites for talking about what she ate for breakfast. If she gets a reality show because of her social networking popularity (i.e. Tila Tequila) than she will be notable but until she does SOMETHING with her life, it doesn't fit. She wouldn't be listed in a legitimate encyclopedia; and I think you need to be more than just the most popular girl in school to be listed in this one. Look, we all pay cell phone bills and drink coffee for breakfast....what else you got?

I see her Mozy ads on CNBC. Feel free to take a third stab at WP:AFD. In order to get a broad opinion make sure to notify WP:POST about this third attempt at Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/Newsroom/Suggestions and they will put it in their Discussion report for this week. You could even add it directly at Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2009-11-02/Discussion report or any multiple of seven days later. Now that Post is announcing these types of discussions it will get a larger audience and more responses than usual. This would probably settle things once and for all.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 14:10, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Price is Right appearance

Does anyone know which games she played.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 03:02, 18 November 2009 (UTC) She played the Double Prices game TonyTheTiger. —Preceding unsigned comment added by CheapTee (talk • contribs) 03:52, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

TV appearences?

Shouldn't TV appearences by Justine be featured? She has made a cameo on "Law and Order: SVU Episode: User" and has also appeared on "The Price Is Right" recently. I'm sure there's more, but those are the most recent appearences on TV. EDIT: Mozy commercial now! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.186.150.94 (talk) 18:13, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Image selection

There has been an IP who has been contesting image selection on this page. I concede that I have reverted for a third time, but it is reversion of an IP and there has been no talk page discussion. If that person will sign in as a registered user, I will consider his opinion on content removal. There are four images that he would like to remove. I am against removing at least two of them. I feel that given her life story, an image of her in lifecasting gear is essential to the article. Also, an image of her with an iPhone is pretty important. I.e., File:IJustine on I-394.jpg and File:20081114 Justine Ezarik and iPhone.jpg are imperative for the article. We can discuss File:20081106 Justine Ezarik.jpg and File:20081102 Podcamp AZ.jpg as well as consider any new images that may have become available recently.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 07:51, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

I've read all of the prior discussion, from which there was no consensus. I submit that you are being indiscriminate with your addition of pictures to this article. You compared Ezarik to Obama in the prior discussion. Let's go the other way and compare her to a rock. There are a nearly infinite number of free images of rocks available; they are not all needed for rock. As I said in my first edit, this article is not a photo gallery. What's important is to show her appearance and to show what she's notable for. Additional images are redundant and do nothing but distract the reader from the text. Additionally, her "lifecasting equipment" is a common digital camera, of a make and model likely to change. An image of her holding a digital camera in a car provides very little additional illustration for the reader. 99.93.102.146 (talk) 08:30, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
I am not sure if you understand wikipedia ettiquette, but debate/discussion opinions of IPs are highly discounted. Could you please register. Then explain why you do not think a person who became famous for lifecasting should not have an image of herself in full attire.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 09:16, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
One image, sure. Not a dozen. And let's let IPs discuss matters also, please. Drmies (talk) 05:33, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
The article has plenty of encyclopedic content to adequately host the number of images currently included in the article.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 06:31, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Terms of Relevancies

Request deletion because of missing relevance —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.226.55.126 (talk) 17:54, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

This has been discussed many times; please scan this page a little more thoroughly. EricLeb01 (Page | Talk) 00:34, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Main image

I prefer the old main image to the new one. Am I alone in this opinion?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:54, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

  • I thought all the possible images of this woman were already in the article. Drmies (talk) 03:46, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

The old image was taken in 2008. I think we should have a more updated image, and that was the only one I could find at the time. The commons mostly holds pictures of her from 2007-08. --wL<speak·check> 09:52, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Why do some dates under pictures have SQL format? Is that ok? --200.115.64.250 (talk) 15:16, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

GA Reassessment

This discussion is transcluded from Talk:Justine Ezarik/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the reassessment.

1) Well-written:

  • Why does it say she is an actress and a 'freelance graphic/web designer' in the lead, when she is clearly not known for that?
    • Although we are not sure where all of her current income may come from I guess it is fair to say that this is a former occupation and I have changed the WP:LEAD accordingly.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 20:06, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

2) Factually accurate and verifiable:

3) Broad in its coverage

  • MacBreak Weekly and eJustine only have primary sources, are they really worth mentioning?
    • According to WP:PRIMARY, as long as we do not interpret and strictly present facts that would be unchallenged, they are presentable for WP.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:30, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
      • "who acts as a sort of antagonist against protagonist iJustine. In contrast to iJustine's blond hair and normal looks, eJustine is portrayed as a brunette with a wild hairstyle and strange-looking eyeglasses" is an opinion conjured out of thin air, not fact.--Tempest429 (talk) 15:54, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

6) Illustrated, if possible, by images:

Lots of unrelated, apparently random images.

  • 20081114_Justine_Ezarik_and_iPhone.jpg/220px-20081114_Justine_Ezarik_and_iPhone.jpg - this image adds nothing to a section called '300-page iPhone bill'. Unnecessary.
    • Ezarik has been closely associated with the iPhone. This is a valuable image for the project.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:46, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
      • According to the article, she is only related to it by her 300 page iphone bill video, making Image:300 Page iPhone bill.png a more suitable image, though I don't think that would be ok because it is copyrighted. Unless you can back up your claim with an RS and add it to the section, then it doesn't add anything still.--Tempest429 (talk) 15:54, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
  • The three images in the 'New Media Expo 2008' box is not relevant. New media expo is not discussed in the text, only one of the other people in the photo is mentioned in the previous section. Adds nothing to article.
    • Ezarik is an internet personality and images of her doing internet related professional appearances is relevant. Images of her at a barbecue, walking her dog or on the beach would be irrelevant. This is related to her personality. It would be like a picture of a football player playing football in a game not mentioned in his article.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:43, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
      • You need to discuss the images in the text, the reader doesn't know what a "New Media Expo 2008" is.
  • Two images together are captioned with 'myspace party' and 'podcamp', neither of which is discussed in the article. Adds nothing to article.
    • Marginal. If you can get consensus of other interested editors to remove these, I would not contest, but there is little reason to remove them given that the article has plenty of real estate for images without cramping. These are internet related events of challengable professional relevance.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:43, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
      • Needs to be discussed in text, otherwise they are just meaningless images. You don't just put images in the article for the sake of it, or because they look nice.--Tempest429 (talk) 15:54, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Same with the final image, captioned with 'Intel insider event', which is not discussed in the text. Adds nothing.--Tempest429 (talk) 19:18, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
    • I think this is like the expo and should be kept.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:43, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
      • What's a Intel insider event? Was it a pivotal moment in the subjects career? Who knows, because the reader certainly doesn't. Needs to be discussed in text.--Tempest429 (talk) 15:54, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

If the images are not depicting anything very noteworthy in the subjects career/life, which is what it looks like, then they should probably be removed.--Tempest429 (talk) 15:54, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

All the comments I responded to in my previous edit appear to remain unresolved (ejustine original research and images), I'm not sure how WP:FAC would help in this situation, as these are all Good Article requirements.--Tempest429 (talk) 00:10, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

All of your comments are basically about WP:WIAGA 6 (b) which reads "images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions." We are in disagreement on what relevant means in terms of free use images, which is much looser than WP:NFCC. I see three possible resolutions
  1. an informal image review by a third party
  2. a WP:RFC regarding each of the images in question
  3. closing this individual assessement and seeking a broader community assessment at WP:GAR.

There's nothing wrong with the images themselves, they just don't add anything to the article. Not quite sure what else there is to discuss. If you must insist in having pictures for the sake of having pictures, then it can no longer hold its GA status.--Tempest429 (talk) 17:37, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Let me be clear. Here are the choices
  1. You can delist and force me to challenge the delist at WP:GAR in a community reassessment that I start challenging your delisting with the images remaining in the articie.
  2. You can close this without delisting and start a community reassessment at WP:GAR yourself stating your reasons for objecting to the current quality rating and your perception of my objection to your request to remove the images.
  3. You can accept my offer of a WP:RFC in which we enumerate images in question and request opinions.
  4. You can accept my offer to seek an image reviewer from those individuals who review images for WP:FAC.
  5. There are other WP:THIRD party resolutions to that I don't think we really need to get into.
  6. You and I can war about the images until an admin takes some sort of action (not recommended).--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:05, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
It sounds like you are inclined to pursue choice 1, but I hope you would consider choices 2 through 4.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:09, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

I have delisted it because I attempted to fix the problems in the article myself, but got reverted twice. I made clear to the editor the problems with the article and linked to the relevant parts of the GA criteria. When the image and original research issues are fixed, then it can be reassesed to become a GA again. The talk page suggests the image problem is a long term issue which has been lingering for some time.

So currently fails criteria 2c and 6b.--Tempest429 (talk) 20:04, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Justine Ezarik

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
Result: Relisted This article was originally delisted primarily due to 6a concerns with the relevance of the images. The individual reassessment was disputed by the editor so it progressed to a community reassessment. The community reassessment identified some fixable issues that were eventually fixed. There has been no meaningful discussion in several weeks, and at least 3 uninvolved parties have voted for a relist. There seems to be no compelling argument remaining to keep this article from being relisted. Aaron north (T/C) 05:14, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

I am challenging the propriety of the Talk:Justine Ezarik/GA2 delisting decision that was supposedly based on WP:WIAGA 2c and 6b. The bulk of the disagreement was based on a disagreement on removal of images from the article. I requested an outside party give a third opinion on the issue. The following are the image issues

  1. File:20081114 Justine Ezarik and iPhone.jpg was stated that it "doesn't add anything"
  2. three images (1, 2, and 3) in the 'New Media Expo 2008' box were deemed as not relevant because the text does not discuss them
  3. two internet event images labeled as 'myspace party' and 'podcamp' were stated to add nothing because the text does not discuss their relevance.
  4. File:Intel Insider Kickoff - Justine Ezarik.jpg was similarly described as adding nothing because the text does not discuss them.

The basic argument against these images was that "If the images are not depicting anything very noteworthy in the subjects career/life, which is what it looks like, then they should probably be removed."

  • My argument is that "Ezarik is an internet personality and images of her doing internet related professional appearances is relevant".--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 01:57, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

There is also a disagreement about WP:PRIMARY in terms of two elements of the article that only have primary sources. The reviewer feels that primary sources necessarily mean WP:OR.

These are the only two items that led to the delisting. I do not believe either is valid.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 01:57, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

I won't claim to be an expert on images and GARs, but looking at the article, I'd argue that:
  • ...given that Ezarik is an internet personality, and the pictures relate to her doing internet activities, the argument that these are the equivalent to a sports personality playing in a particular game or match would seem to have some validity. The MOS notes that images ..."must be relevant to the article that they appear in and be significantly related to the article's topic"; IMHO, I'd say that these probably are.
  • ...that said, there are a lot of pictures in the one section "Viral video career and Internet celebrity status" (six I think), and in terms of presentation, they might usefully be edited down to two or three - it does look quite busy at the moment.
Hchc2009 (talk) 20:07, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
  • I am trying to interpret what you are saying. I am reading that you agree that delisting for irrelevant images was probably an incorrect interpretation of WP:WIAGA although you might prefer fewer images. Let me know if I am understanding you correctly.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 20:44, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
  • You've interpreted me correctly! Hchc2009 (talk) 21:00, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
  • If you care to express an opinion that will count you would state in bold something like. "Overturn with encouragement to reconsider images (possibly specifying a number or two from the four above)" and state that you do not feel the images caused the article to controvert WP:WIAGA.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:15, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

How are they related to the internet? As a reader, I don't know what a 'New Media Expo 2008', 'myspace party', 'podcamp az' or 'Intel insider event' is. I don't know what they are because they are not mentioned in the text.--Tempest429 (talk) 21:41, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Her images are like the images in Manny Harris. They are all basically from games not mentioned in the text, but since he is a basketball player, we accept those images as representative of him although their significance is not explained in the text.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:00, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
Not at all, the images in that article are explained in the text. Basketball player x, played in league y, here is image z showing an example of one of those games in league y. The images in this article are just her standing in front of the camera. They add absolutely nothing by themselves. I feel like I am repeating what was already said at Talk:Justine_Ezarik#Images. If you didn't understand why it was wrong then, I don't think the chances of you understanding it now are any better. --Tempest429 (talk) 23:41, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Recommend Overturn with encouragement to reconsider the number of images (see below) and to improve captioning (see below). The images themselves appear relevant to the topic, as per GAR.

In detail: I suspect that we need to distinguish clearly the questions of the relevance of the image to the topic, and the suitability of the captions. Referring back to the GAR standard: "every included image must be relevant to the topic, and must have a suitable caption. Purely decorative images, such as an image of a butterfly in a psychology article about emotions, should be removed." also, "A good caption explains why a picture belongs in an article."

a) As noted above, to me the images themselves appear relevant to the topic of the article, an internet personality.
b) The number of images in "Viral video career and Internet celebrity status" seems high. Given the length of the section, my advice would be to go for three; it were me, I'd choose ; ; .
c) Captions. The quality of the captions isn't quite GAR - too brief - but very easily sorted. I don't know anything much about Ezarik other than from this article, so play with the wording, but you could easily have, say:
  • 20081102 Podcamp AZ.jpg: "Justine in her eJustine persona, speaking at a Podcamp technology conference."
  • 20080815 New Media Expo at twitter.jpg: "Justine taking part in an online promotional spot for the web podcaster TWiT.tv."
  • Intel Insider Kickoff - Justine Ezarik.jpg: "Justine starting the debate at an Intel technology conference."

That way, all would link back to a point in the text (her eJustine persona, and her earning money through online promotional events and technology conferences respectively). Hchc2009 (talk) 09:18, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

How is a portrait of the subject with her hands open, or holding a glass related to internet activities?--Tempest429 (talk) 17:39, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Are you referring to the Intel insider event?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 19:16, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
I am referring to the portrait ones which have nothing happening in them.--Tempest429 (talk) 22:28, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Comment: I'm just looking at the two issues mentioned above and making a good-faith assumption that everything else satisfies the GA criteria. I cant vote for it yet as-is, but I think this is fixable. Aaron north (T/C) 05:57, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

1. Images - of the three images mentioned by Hchc2009, I am fine with the first 2, but not the 3rd. Given her "lifecasting" and youtube channels, an appearance speaking to an audience at podcamp and an appearance with a panel at the New Media Expo are both relevant. The other 4 images should be removed. We don't need more than one new media expo image, I don't understand why a face shot with a glass supposedly taken at a myspace party is relevant (what does she have to do with myspace re: the text?), and I have no clue why I am looking at her speaking at an intel insider event. What is she doing with intel? Looks decorative. Aaron north (T/C) 05:57, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

2. OR - I do agree that a primary source can be used when a good secondary source can not be found, but it can only be used for data (where were you born, how old are you, what is your job, etc). Saying that there are two characters and describing what they look like can be fine if done carefully. Describing eJustine's behavior and speculating on her motivation requires an analysis of a primary source, and thus OR. I assume you can't find a reliable secondary source, so I believe this flaw can be easily cured by removing the bolded text in: (In a few of her YouTube videos, in addition to her common persona as iJustine, she played the role of an additional character eJustine, who acts as a sort of antagonist against protagonist iJustine.) The sentence following that is a bit iffy (subjective descriptions of "normal", "wild", "strange-looking"), but that is pretty minor compared to the OR in the preceding sentence. (incidentally now that I notice, is it permitted to bold a subject's alternative name or identifier outside the lead?) Also, now that I step back from this one little tree and look at the entire forest, is this silly side-story with ejustine even relevant? Due to source questions its inclusion is problematic anyway, I might recommend just removing that whole thing and be done with it. Aaron north (T/C) 05:57, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

checkY This concern has been fixed. Aaron north (T/C) 21:18, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Since we are getting feedback on the photos as I had hoped in the original debate, I would like to understand why neither image with fellow internet personality Gary Vaynerchuk is considered relevant. I am removing the one with several unnamed subjects, but the The one with fellow internet personalities Vaynerchuk and Leo Laporte seems to represent something relevant. In fact, I am tweaking the image header to say the following: "New Media Expo 2008 images with internet personalities". Can I get some feedback.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 11:18, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

OK, that does make sense. I am fine with the two New Media Expo images with the title and captions as they are now in the imagebox. Aaron north (T/C) 16:29, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

I am fine with removing all of the eJusting stuff and have done so.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 11:18, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

I am travelling and don't have time to fully respond to the Myspace and Intel images, but she is widely associated with many internet and technology brands. In some of her more notable early career highly-viewed youtube videos she did painted the logos of several dozen brands on easter eggs one year. I am travelling today and do not have time to discuss further. Will respond later tonight.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 11:18, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Even if an argument could somehow be made that the other 2 images are relevant to the article (and that myspace party photo doesn't even show her doing anything), there are 9 images in a 2,300 word article. I'd think that was more than enough, and if a couple images should go, those 2 probably have the weakest connection to the subject. Aaron north (T/C) 16:35, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

If I were to cut two images they would be the two that are currently in a Template:Multiple image template as the Myspace and Podcamp images. The intel images is the best image at showing what the everyday Justine looks like in the whole article. The first that I would chop would be the podcamp image because she does not often wear glasses. As I said earlier, she use to do videos linking her to many tech/internet brands and example is the Egg 2.0 video (I can not find the original egg video). I am going to remove the podcamp image because she just does not usually look like that, so the image is not really representing her.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 20:01, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure what purpose the myspace picture serves. Regarding the intel picture, I'd think that several of the earlier pictures are an example of "everyday Justine", and the intel connection seems weak when considering the text of the article in relation to that picture. Anyway, I would also be interested in seeing what others think of the images. Aaron north (T/C) 20:13, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
If there were one remaining image I would not have trouble letting go, it would be the myspace one because it appears to be a social image. The intel image is seemingly a professional tech event, which I think makes it worth keeping.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:31, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
There is no reason to have more than one 'everyday' image of the subject. If the new media expo images are relevant, where is the accompanying text explaning what a new media expo is?--Tempest429 (talk) 21:20, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
Well, as far as the Blogworld and New Media Expo 2010 goes, the random "man on the street" might not know a lot about it, but within the realm of of bloggers, podcasters, and internet celebrities, there is not a bigger annual event. It is the biggest gathering of the medium. If Justine is expected to appear anywhere, it would be there. Perhaps it could be worth a sentence or two mentioning her appearance since the event isn't as well-known as the oscars, but I would cut a lot of other pictures (intel, myspace, etc) before I cut a picture of Justine as an internet celebrity standing next to Leo LaPorte. Aaron north (T/C) 22:46, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
I just added some content.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 17:27, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Until the above issues are fixed, here are some more:

  1. The lead says she is a 'voice actress, spokesperson and actress as well as a former freelance graphic/web designer', whilst the lead is suppose to only list her occupations she is known for. Seeing as she has voiceacted in a one-off video, and had two guest appearances on tv, she certainly can't be known for that. Spokesman for who, or what? What notable 'freelance graphic/web designer' work has she done? Should all be deleted unless it can be justified.
    Agreed. Aaron north (T/C) 23:45, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
    As I understand it, Annoying Orange is far more than a one-off.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:33, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
    I changed the lead as well as cited the occupations. I believe that her role of spokesperson (for companies such as Mozy) is a result of her status as an Internet personality. Annoying Orange is a comedy web series, so her voice acting on that show is part of her being a comedian. Ezarik was only noted for being a designer because that was her major in college and her occupation during her lifecasting run on Justin.tv. Her work as a designer has not been noted by the media, so I removed it entirely. I may mention it in the lifecasting section. --wL<speak·check> 08:18, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
    At what point do we add actress to the LEAD given sources such as TV.com and IMDb.com?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:37, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
    I wouldn't think a total of two guest appearances would merit a first-sentence lead "she is an actress", but it certainly should be mentioned in one of the first sentences of the lead that she has appeared in a minor role on two television shows. Aaron north (T/C) 16:38, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
    Since she has only played two dead bodies so far, I think the mention at the end of the second paragraph of the LEAD is probably O.K. for now.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 17:02, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
  2. Similar to first issue, she is in the categories 'American people of Slovak descent' and 'American graphic designers'. Need a RS for her Slovakian background, and as I said above, what notable graphic designer work has she done?
    Are the categories part of a GA review? I don't remember seeing that. Either way, removing a dubious category should be easy if necessary. Aaron north (T/C) 23:45, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
    Categories removed.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:33, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Both above makes it fail criteria 1(b) and possibily 1(c). But I'd suggest you fix the images problem first. If you don't want to fix them, then this discussion can be closed and the article can remain as B class.--Tempest429 (talk) 18:19, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Somehow this discussion fell off of my watchlist. I did not see the discussion for the last week and am just responding now.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:33, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Weak Do not list I could change my mind on this, but this GAR has been up for a while and the criteria 6 image concerns I have are not yet satisfied. I also believe the lead has a small problem as Tempest429 noted above. Aaron north (T/C) 23:45, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Please consider my recent response. This fell of my watch list for a week and it may have seemed I was ignoring feedback.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:33, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
The article is better now than when we started. I would still be interested in seeing more feedback from others on the use of images, but lacking that I still have 6b concerns on the myspace picture. Aaron north (T/C) 16:38, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
I am not too averse to removing the picture of her at the myspace party, but also request feedback on just cropping out the drink to make it look more encyclopedic.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 17:02, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
The drink isn't really the problem to me, I just don't see the relevance of the picture in any form. The event isn't noteworthy, and we have plenty of other pictures to show what she looks like. Aaron north (T/C) 17:35, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
Image removed.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 20:28, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
Relist All of my concerns are satisfied. Aaron north (T/C) 21:14, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Only remaining issue is Image:Intel_Insider_Kickoff_-_Justine_Ezarik.jpg still has nothing to do with the content it is placed with no. No mention of what an 'intel insider event' is.--Tempest429 (talk) 18:07, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

I have added an article noting that Intel is a client of hers.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 19:36, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
It doesn't explain what the Intel inside event is. Might be able to use [1] if you could get a hold of the full article.--Tempest429 (talk) 22:48, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
What about changing the caption from "Ezarik involved in discussions at the Intel insider event (2008-06-24)" to "Ezarik, who counts Intel as a client, involved in discussions at the Intel insider event (2008-06-24)"--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:56, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
I have expanded the caption and text to reflect the link ref that you identified.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:20, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Relist The last picture has a purpose in the article, as do all the others. Diderot's dreams (talk) 06:03, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Semi-Protected

umm why is this semi-protected? please remove the protection, people should be able to edit.HITMANactual666 (talk) 01:20, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

It is semi-protected because a series of IP address users were vandalising the article by adding information that violated the Biographies of living persons policy. If you have edits you would like made add a new section to the bottom of the page with {{edit semi-protected}} and someone will come along and evaluate the request. Ensure when doing so that you make a specific request as to what you want done and why. Also supplying a reliable source with any new information is required. Let me know if you need any help. ~~ GB fan ~~ 01:52, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Yeah no thx, I actually have a life than sit around editing. I just came here from a comment on her video where it said to vandalise her page. It had like a bazillion thumbs ups.HITMANactual666 (talk) 11:01, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Criticism

Her end malaria video is quite and contraversal one due to the fact that A your making money off a problem. B we have no idea if using adsence she will ever give the money to charity. Try looking at an archfiend video and theres one about the end malaria video and another about her Rate this comment method used to game the system. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.14.37.180 (talk) 00:53, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Justine's guest appearance on CW's hit show The Vampire Diaries

Please add another bit of info under Filmotography and television about Justine doing a guest appearance on The Vampire Diaries Episode 3.10 - The New Deal as she will be a guest star as a bartender in that episode. Proof should be on any website, this was gotten from a episode synopsis on The Vampire Diaries Online. Here is the web address http://vampirediariesonline.com/vampire-diaries-synopsis/vampire-diaries-episode-3-10-the-new-deal-synopsis/

207.6.125.62 (talk) 13:36, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Done. If you'd like any further help, contact me on my user talk page. You might instead want to put a {{help me}} template up on your own user talk, or put the {{edit semi-protected}} template back up on this page and either way someone will be along to help you. :) Banaticus (talk) 08:48, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Links

Why f*ck are there so many links in the article. An example. Justin Bieber, is far better known and there is only 1 link to social site, of which the rest of the links in the article is purely factual. This article is all 11 (!) Links to her social website, and none of them are purely factual. Sorry guys but I can not get it to make sense ... --80.161.143.239 (talk) 13:47, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

iJustine in The Guild

She appeared in The Guild as NPC named Sabina. Season 6 Episode 7

I would add it myself, but I have no idea when it was released. --TakeruDavis (talk) 16:28, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

89.249.2.53 (talk · contribs) called me to this talk page. I assume it is for this discussion. My advice: When you can properly cite this topic (and not before) add it to the article.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:07, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Source for updating

Does anyone want to update the article from this reliable source?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 20:30, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

YesY Done, if anybody wants to expand, go ahead. --wL<speak·check> 04:54, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
I was thinking you might want to update the article for all the sourced counters (views, subscribers, etc.) as well as all her spokesmanships.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 14:55, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

IJUSTINE IS AWESOME — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ksb27 (talk • contribs) 17:18, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Social media stats

If you want to update the social media statistics, please source each one with a WP:IC. Since these are objective numbers, either a secondary source such as a magazine or newspaper article could serve WP:RS or the primary source could be used. We can not have these numbers be continually updated without any ability to WP:V. I am sure there is a primary source page where one goes to see how many vine posts/followers and such she has. Make an IC for each such number if you don't want to use secondary sources.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 15:46, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Known for section is incorrect, and needs correction!

Hello good people of Wikipedia! I am a member of Justine's management team and we would like to ask the iJ army to help us correct her wikipedia page. The KNOWN FOR section right now includes Sex Videos. As we all know, Justine is very tech/gaming focused and has 0 sex videos connected to her in any way. Would you please chime in and help correct this error? Thank you! 75.82.93.210 (talk) 03:24, 31 July 2015 (UTC)Talent@addition-llc.com

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on IJustine. 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.

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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 IITalk to my owner:Online 19:18, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Referred to as "iJustine" or "Ezarik"

Should she be named as "iJustine" or "Ezarik" in the article? The article is named "iJustine" with "Justine Ezarik" redirecting to this page.

I would think that it should be "iJustine", using Jenna Marbles as precedent, but the article seems to currently favor "Ezarik" which goes against the article title, and most of her media appearances are split between "Ezarik" & "iJustine"

Which is it to be? I'm not bothered which is decided upon, but I am bothered by the current use of both in the article with equal aplomb. Chaheel Riens (talk) 14:09, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

No comment, so I've made the change. Chaheel Riens (talk) 06:00, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on IJustine. 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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 16:57, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:IJustine/Archive_1&oldid=1136270913"