User talk:RatWeazle/Archives/2013/February

Melanie and Martina Grant
I've removed some overly-specific information from this article that I believe comes too close to being "contact information" in the sense used in BLPPRIVACY, and I've deleted the revisions in question to remove it from the article history. Please do not restore it again. -- The Anome (talk) 22:56, 10 June 2012 (UTC)


 * can you clarify what the basis is for saying that information is private when, in addition to the citation the subject of the article stated that information herself on national television? see https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S0IKD-4LuMw around 3:38. R at  W eazle  23:26, 10 June 2012 (UTC)


 * It still doesn't belong in an encyclopedia article. Putting information about someone's work location, if that location is publicly accessible, counts as contact information, and we don't, by policy, put information about how to contact people in their biographies, regardless of whether or not it is in the public domain. -- The Anome (talk) 23:55, 10 June 2012 (UTC)


 * ok, thanks. R at  W eazle  23:57, 10 June 2012 (UTC)


 * You're welcome! Sorry for the incovenience: I hope you have a good time editing here. -- The Anome (talk) 23:59, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Disputed non-free use rationale for File:Martina Grant in The Meaning of Life.jpg
Thank you for uploading File:Martina Grant in The Meaning of Life.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this file on Wikipedia may not meet the criteria required by Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the file description page and adding or clarifying the reason why the file qualifies under this policy. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your file is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a non-free use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for files used under the non-free content policy require both a copyright tag and a non-free use rationale.

If it is determined that the file does not qualify under the non-free content policy, it might be deleted by an administrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. – sgeureka t•c 15:50, 14 June 2012 (UTC)


 * I have reviewed and extended the fair use explanation of this file. I apologise if my initial efforts were not good enough, it is the first time i have uploaded a file. If there is anything else that needs doing please let me know. R at  W eazle  20:54, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Edit-warring
As you may already know, I declined your report at WP:ANEW with an explanation. I see that you have reverted the IP. No more reversions without discussion. You can take it to the talk page, or the IP can take it to the article talk page, but the two of you need to discuss the content issue. Any resumption of the war, and I will block as appropriate.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:17, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
 * as you said yourself the link only points to a bunch of old newspaper articles, i cannot understand how you can possibly think this is in any way relevent to the article. i agree that the article could do with some proper references but i don't see any way that adding false references helps with that.
 * I never said "old". In any event, the only exemption applicable here for you to remove the reference is if it's obvious vandalism (see WP:3RR), and at this point you haven't demonstrated that. So, my warning stands.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:32, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
 * ok, i'm not looking to start an argument here. i have seen the warning you gave him on his page and as long as thats the case i'm ok with that. it is not impossible he may be trying to add relevent information and is just doing it wrong, if he explains that i'd be happy to try and help him put it right. i am curious however to know what you get when you click on the link because i get a bunch of newspaper articles from the 1930's which is pretty old as far as i am concerned. if this link is actually showing different things to different people that may explain how this problem is happening. R at  W eazle  00:44, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Yeah, it's a weird link . When I click on it, on the far left of my screen, I see editions from the 1910s, and then as you go right, it goes up in decades. The last one on the far right of my screen is the 1990s. There are no decades available after that if you click on the big right arrow. If you don't see the 1990s decade, it may be a function of your browser or your monitor, but just click on the right arrow, and you should see that decade.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:49, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
 * you must have a bigger screen than me, i do get up to the 90's if i click the right arrow often enough. i also note that the url does not change if you click on an article. i suspect he simply does not realise this and thinks he is linking to the actual page he is looking at. hopefully he will go on the talk page so i can explain things a bit better as it seems this may be an honest mistake. i think we may of found the problem here, i may of been incorrect to suggest this was vandalizm but i have to say i stand by my original point that the link as it stands is not valid. thanks for your help, i hope it may still be possible to sort this out amicably. R at  W eazle  01:00, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
 * This is why it's a good idea to discuss content disputes on the article talk page and not battle in the article itself (or in edit summaries).--Bbb23 (talk) 01:23, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
 * He is now doing it again from a different ip and still refusing to use the talk page. R at  W eazle  22:50, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Not clear to me it's the same individual, but you still haven't opened up a topic on the talk page. If you get started doing that and express your concerns, and the IP or IPs refuse to discuss the issues you raise, I may then be able to take some administrative action, but without that it's no one talking about it.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:03, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
 * it seems he has now been identified by someone else as a sockpuppet of a notorious vandal called darkness2005. the fun house page has now been protected and hopefully this can now be dealt with. now i know that it's him again i know where to report it if he does anything else. R at  W eazle  00:33, 18 October 2012 (UTC)