Talk:Norma Stitz
 | This article was nominated for deletion. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination:
|
| This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
 | This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
SLY1111
editNorma Stitz is an important artist on the current scene, in my estimation. Particularly in a culture that denigrates the big beautiful woman (BBW), the full-figured woman (think Mae West), and the fertility goddess from cultures beyond western European (though Peter Paul Rubens would admire Norma), her career is a prize to her admirers. Helmut Newton nods knowingly from heaven or hell.SLY111 (talk) 16:46, 26 June 2011 (UTC)SLY111
- I am sorry, but I think, articles must not and can not be written from a neutral point of view about problem of pedophilia. - Also, she, as a lot of known people or ex-supermodel Nadja Auermann]][1][2] counteracts against latent propaganda of "pedophilia's beauty ideal" in "fashion industry", because in fact only the natural harmonious variety of really existent standards of beauty is able to be the obstacle and prevent against degeneration and degradation of humanity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.71.114.103 (talk) 19:25, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
- Why I see sabotage of the exact and objective editing, if I write scientific information? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sergeispb-10 (talk • contribs) 19:54, 29 July 2011
STOP VANDALISM And AGGRESSIVE IGNORANCE - because these facts are well-proven! (Redacted) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.55.26.126 (talk) 17:09, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
- All that has zero relevance to the article about Norma Stitz. As such, it will be pulled out on sight and you're treading very close to being blocked because of it. Tabercil (talk) 11:56, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
- What, I must to think, that has zero relevance (in relation to your report) to you? Sense of actions and public declarations of any known person have relevance direct to him!Sergeispb-10 (talk) 15:42, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
- Uh-huh. And another policy violated - WP:SOAPBOX:Wikipedia is not a soapbox or means of promotion. Tabercil (talk) 16:29, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
- I see, as you even can not understand, as The variety of standards of beauty can be the external proofs of genetic variety. What do you have problems with education? as professor, I can estimate you as unsatisfactorily!SergeySPb (talk) 16:52, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
World Records
editThis should be incorporated: http://www.guinnessworldrecords.com/world-records/size/largest-natural-breasts 86.169.68.53 (talk) 19:50, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
Illustration please
editApparently Ms Stitz is principally notable for some aspects of her physical appearance. While these are described in the text, I feel the inclusion of an illustrative picture would greatly improve the article and inform the reader, — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.139.230.73 (talk) 23:04, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
- And who wouldn't love seeing those ENORMOUS boobies... damn I wanna lick em — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.203.17.103 (talk) 20:50, 5 March 2016 (UTC)