Biodata Samantha Ronson Dating -

Biodata Samantha Ronson Dating

biodata samantha ronson dating

I have biodata samantha ronson dating him to remove the irrelevant comments dating website profile questions for and focus only on the issues of the RfC. If he does so, I will remove this comment. Ward talk Wikimancer needs to provide unequivocal evidence that the blogs in datiny The portion of the WP: BLP policy that I pointed out to him fully expresses the meaning of policy, which is that for contentious material and this certainly is contentious there should be little or no dispute that the source s used are samnatha.

biodata samantha ronson dating

Ronson's stepfather Mick Jones contributed to a childhood surrounded by music. She then studied creative writing and philosophy at New York University. Today she spins at some of the most high-profile gigs around the world. However, inauspicious timing and the dissolution of the Roc-A-Fella Records led to her first album never being released.

The album showcased her songwriting abilities, drawing inspiration from events in her life. In an interview with American Songwriter , she stated, "I grew up in the studio with songs. My stepdad wrote some pretty f—ing incredible songs. My brother [producer and musician Mark Ronson ] made his records because he likes making songs.

So, the standard was set pretty high for being true to what you want to do. I'm not just going to hand my song over to a producer; I want to be there every step of the way I feel like when you're doing what you love, instead of fitting yourself into somebody else's box, that comes across".

The album was produced by former Goudie guitarist Jimmy Messer, with Ronson herself sharing co producing credits. Her brother Mark produced one track, "Skyscrapers", which was co-written by the siblings with Santigold. Police found a "small amount" of cocaine in her car and blogger Perez Hilton posted on his blog that the drugs belonged to Ronson, using another celebrity gossip blog as a source for the story.

In the mean time, Wikipedia policy is clear that biographies of living persons are to be written conservatively. Making statements about a relationship that neither Lohan nor Ronson have acknowledged is not writing conservatively.

Wikimancer characterizes this dispute about WP: BLP as trivial and tries to shift the focus to me rather than the issues. He accuses me of uncooperative conduct, ignoring the fact that I am the one who posted this RfC to seek the opinions of the Wikipedia community.

Wikimancer has made misleading statements, not only to me but even here in this RfC, some so misleading that they can be described as lies. I could accuse him of uncooperative conduct, but my suggestion is that we focus on the important issues in this RfC rather than trying to bolster our opinions with mudslinging. In fact, the only response from either of them is: It shows Ronson and Lohan holding hands. This topic has been in a whole bunch of magazines that I have honestly lost count. In "People" magazine, they have both confessed to dating and even went into a few deatils I will not mention right now and Ronson has even both Lohan a 22, dollar ring.

How could this be a violation when it's been confirmed many times in many different magazines? Give us a link to the People article that confirms "they have both confessed to dating" and the "22, dollar ring". If there is no serious objection in a few days, I will add this to Ronson's page: So why isn't this now in the article?

I'm giving editors a chance to respond to my proposal here. Please have a bit of patience. It will go in the article if there are no objections in a couple of days.

Thank you. TheGifted1 talk I'm not sure what happened, but I know that the section on Lohan has been vandalized several times, so it may have been inadvertently left out when the vandalism was fixed. I restored it. Thanks for pointing that out. I wish to contribute the following to this discussion page. This is for the simple reason that box ticking and quoting rules at one another should not take precidence over the obvious.

Again- not in the article- simply here in the discussion page. We can argue semantics all day, but the fact is, there is not the slightest doubt in view of the media coverage about Samantha Ronson or Lindsay Lohan lately today is 30th March or their myspace entries that they are romantically involved.

Paparazzi videos show that they are cohabiting and have been for some time. They make no effort to hide this at present and have been repeatedly photographed kissing, embracing etc. Of course, wikipedia should protect itself from being sued, however, I would also like to point out that in light of the numerous media articles, reports and photgraphs it is inconceivable that either Ronson or Lohan would sue anybody for reporting that they are involved and even more inconceivable that such a case would be entertained by a court of law.

Various academic studies collate ephemera - such as evolving online resources, like wikipedia and it should be reported for the sake of correctness- if only here- that it is common knowledge that Lindsay Lohan and Samantha Ronson are romantically involved with one another. If the editor decides to dispute this, I will be happy in knowing that there is an alternate agenda being operated in editing these pages. Jones Uh Did you happen to read the article before you made this comment? Did you happen to notice that there is an entire section in the article devoted to their relationship?

While tabloids may call her a lesbian, I have never actually read that she has ever come out or otherwise acknowledged her sexuality to the press. Should these categories be removed for WP: BLP reasons?? It seems that the policy editors are wrapped up their own little squabbles and refuse to allow the fact that MANY people present company included didn't even know who Samantha Ronson was until the main stream media reported sightings of the two together.

For me and I'm sure many others, the only reason Ms Ronson is notable at all is because of her affiliation, even if just as a friend, to Ms. Shouldn't that be addressed in the article somewhere? Even if it is just mentioned as a friendship that was reported in the press?

dating married but separated woman

adult asperger friendship dating