File talk:Nudist woman.jpg

Woman's name and capitalization

1) What's going on here? I added the woman's name. And Mattbuck deletes this addition?

The woman has a name; it is a name she goes by. She has a booth, she has a business, she has a website.

Why do you disrespect her by purging her name?

Wikimedia is supposed to be about facts. And there are few facts related to a picture more significant than the person in the picture.

Please restore her name!

2) I also started the first sentence of the description with a capital letter. The last time I checked sentences start with capital letters.

So since when is correcting a sentence with a capital letter subject to deletion?

Edits to the wikipedia are supposed to make the body of knowledge more accurate and correct. Our goal is to improve the expression of language, and that includes using correct punctuation and sentence structure.

Judson Rosebush

(Above message from Edge Interactive Publishing Inc. (talk · contribs), 18 April 2014)

It might be that Mattbuck (talk · contribs) thought there might be special issues with adding a specific person's name to a nude photo unless there was evidence that was the correct name. For what it's worth: http://www.sexy-suz.com/travel.php (may do awful things to your browser if you have JavaScript on — I don't know) has a headshot of Sexy Suz at the top and an announcement that starts "2011-07-16 NUDES-A-POPPIN Sexy Suz will be attending NUDES-A-POPPIN on Saturday and Sunday, July 16th and 17th!" in the text, which matches the dates on the photos. This also affects File:Nudes-A-Poppin' 2011-Sun198.jpg I assume. I'll leave a message at User talk:Mattbuck. --Closeapple (talk) 10:55, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Quite right, without knowing that the subject was a minor celebrity, I considered it prudent to remove the name. -mattbuck (Talk) 11:42, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Thank you Closeapple, for demonstrating that research and scholarship continue to have a role in the wikipedia, and for confirmation of data which I added in passing, if only because my company also has photos of her and is aware of her presence. Absence of knowledge and prudency should not be guiding factors in making edits, and your augmentation is welcomed. But now that the facts have been doubly established, whose job is it to ndo the lack of knowledge, and replace prudency with the restoration of fact? --Judson