Talk:Angelique Fawcette

DOB etc
, to answer your questions from this edit summary (referring, I assume, to this edit): And as a note about It is unfair to discriminate against women and minorities for their work - this has absolutely nothing to do with race or gender, but entirely about the absence of reliable sources that provide verification for the information in a biography of a living person. If there are reliable, independent sources that support the information you wish to see in the article, then there is zero issue with adding it (assuming it's not just trivia). Primefac (talk) 19:10, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Why was birth-date removed? it was not sourced
 * And Activist work removed? - I'm assuming you're referring to the Nichols information - the source is entirely "according to Fawcette", and for something that is a potential WP:BLP violation, we need independent sources (not PRIMARY sources like interviews)


 * I'm with you on the rest, but I think you may have been slightly overzealous on removing the Nichols information. While most of that Fox News article is simply repeating Fawcette's own claims, that isn't the case for the information about her involvement in the Nichols lawsuit:
 * "According to August 2018 court documents obtained by People magazine, Fawcette objected to Johnson’s petition to be named Nichols’ conservator. Fawcette argued that the star was “perfectly able to manage her financial and personal affairs,” pointing to the 2013 video as evidence that Nichols is “well, spoken, coherent and articulate,” noting her “active, current involvement in the film industry, including frequent visits to many ‘Star Trek’ entertainment conventions, acting roles in new films and interviews with the largest U.S. newspapers.”"
 * That seems to me like it supports the claim of her involvement in the lawsuit specifically enough to pass WP:BLP muster, and I think it's noteworthy enough to mention. Although perhaps we should just cite the People article directly. -Elmer Clark (talk) 06:49, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I understand the concern (and I'll admit I missed the People mention), but even that article is 99% "according to Fawcette". I think maybe a sentence or two could be included, but I don't think it can be much more than "she is friends with Nichols and objects to the son trying to be her conservator". Primefac (talk) 15:31, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Agreed. I've re-added as much as I think should be there. -Elmer Clark (talk) 22:55, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Looks good, thanks. Primefac (talk) 13:00, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Photo copyright issues
I am new to Wikimedia and Wikipedia and I am still learning my way around with some help from a few users notes and messages. Otherwise, I received a message from you today stating that there are copyright violations on two photos that I uploaded onto WikiMedia. I own both photos, I paid both photographers personally for these mentioned photos, although they appear on the internet already, myself and my company is the actual owner of both. Can you possibly undo this deletion as it is unfortunately not accurate, if I didn't add the copyright name, my company name to them, then possibly I can do that now, my apologies. But alas these photos were immediately removed without a thorough check. Grateful for your help. TryMe99 (talk) 17:57, 21 October 2020 (UTC)TryMe99
 * For the record, this was answered at the Teahouse; in summary, the images uploaded were purchased but the copyright is still with the photographer. Primefac (talk) 15:27, 22 October 2020 (UTC)