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 C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The section subtitled "Television and radio credits" does not point out that she has been on I'm Sorry I Haven't a Clue. Vorbee ( talk) 18:51, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
@ Jeff G. and Serols: can either of you explain the situation going on with the image and supposed COI issues? It looks to me like Parris or a representative is attempting to release a photo under a Commons-compatible license, for use in the infobox, as the current photo is indeed out of date. If this is the case, why is this not desirable, and what are with these efforts to remove it? File:Rachel Parris 2021.jpg remains on Commons with no tags/issues raised. — Bilorv ( talk) 17:58, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
True - with regard to infobox editing, but outright removal of an infobox is not the same as editing it in a confused manner which you would expect to generate spurious results as bits of it were broken or chopped out. Given that the editor in question had already made some edits to this page - which were reverted - I would have to agree with @ Jeff G.: that a certain amount of intent or premeditation was present in this particular edit, so vandalism is a harsh but not an unreasonable accusation to level.
The editor should have used preview to see what they were doing, or at the very least when the page reloaded they should have noticed the rather that the infobox was missing and done something about it. A failure to do that in an article they've shown interest in is - to be honest - a little suspicious. Chaheel Riens ( talk) 21:34, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
@ Dsoul78: can you please explain where the image you added in this edit comes from? Is it from Instagram (then it's a copyright violation)? Or did you take it? It looks like a selfie, so Parris legally owns the copyright and she (not a representative) needs to upload it in the way that has been explained to the last person who claimed to be her representative (though we can explain again if you want). We would be delighted to be able to use this image, but less delighted to be breaking copyright law. @ Jon698: I notice that you removed the image but didn't nominate it for deletion on Commons—what do you know about it? — Bilorv ( talk) 18:58, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
No, understood - just trying to help a girl out! Remove and delete as necessary. Dsoul78 ( talk) 19:32, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
@Bilorv Just re-reading your last post, it sounds like if Rachel wanted to change the picture herself, there is more to it than her just uploading her picture to her own account in the same way that I did? Is that the case? Apologies - I know you offered to provide this information in your previous message. Dsoul78 ( talk) 04:26, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
{{Ping|Bilorv}}
or [[User:Bilorv]]
will do.) —
Bilorv (
talk) 05:49, 4 October 2021 (UTC)@ Bilorv: Ah thanks - I knew I’d done something wrong when it just came up as text! I had been messaging her and kind of generally had her permission to use ‘a photo’ of hers (if I could!), so I’ll upload that one again to Wikimedia Commons and see if she goes for it! If not, I give up! Thanks for your help. Dsoul78 ( talk) 07:21, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
Thanks User:Bilorv. Yes I believe she’s aware that the photo would be made available for anyone to use. I’ve pointed her in the right direction anyway and she’s going to give it a go. Dsoul78 ( talk) 20:23, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
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 C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The section subtitled "Television and radio credits" does not point out that she has been on I'm Sorry I Haven't a Clue. Vorbee ( talk) 18:51, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
@ Jeff G. and Serols: can either of you explain the situation going on with the image and supposed COI issues? It looks to me like Parris or a representative is attempting to release a photo under a Commons-compatible license, for use in the infobox, as the current photo is indeed out of date. If this is the case, why is this not desirable, and what are with these efforts to remove it? File:Rachel Parris 2021.jpg remains on Commons with no tags/issues raised. — Bilorv ( talk) 17:58, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
True - with regard to infobox editing, but outright removal of an infobox is not the same as editing it in a confused manner which you would expect to generate spurious results as bits of it were broken or chopped out. Given that the editor in question had already made some edits to this page - which were reverted - I would have to agree with @ Jeff G.: that a certain amount of intent or premeditation was present in this particular edit, so vandalism is a harsh but not an unreasonable accusation to level.
The editor should have used preview to see what they were doing, or at the very least when the page reloaded they should have noticed the rather that the infobox was missing and done something about it. A failure to do that in an article they've shown interest in is - to be honest - a little suspicious. Chaheel Riens ( talk) 21:34, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
@ Dsoul78: can you please explain where the image you added in this edit comes from? Is it from Instagram (then it's a copyright violation)? Or did you take it? It looks like a selfie, so Parris legally owns the copyright and she (not a representative) needs to upload it in the way that has been explained to the last person who claimed to be her representative (though we can explain again if you want). We would be delighted to be able to use this image, but less delighted to be breaking copyright law. @ Jon698: I notice that you removed the image but didn't nominate it for deletion on Commons—what do you know about it? — Bilorv ( talk) 18:58, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
No, understood - just trying to help a girl out! Remove and delete as necessary. Dsoul78 ( talk) 19:32, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
@Bilorv Just re-reading your last post, it sounds like if Rachel wanted to change the picture herself, there is more to it than her just uploading her picture to her own account in the same way that I did? Is that the case? Apologies - I know you offered to provide this information in your previous message. Dsoul78 ( talk) 04:26, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
{{Ping|Bilorv}}
or [[User:Bilorv]]
will do.) —
Bilorv (
talk) 05:49, 4 October 2021 (UTC)@ Bilorv: Ah thanks - I knew I’d done something wrong when it just came up as text! I had been messaging her and kind of generally had her permission to use ‘a photo’ of hers (if I could!), so I’ll upload that one again to Wikimedia Commons and see if she goes for it! If not, I give up! Thanks for your help. Dsoul78 ( talk) 07:21, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
Thanks User:Bilorv. Yes I believe she’s aware that the photo would be made available for anyone to use. I’ve pointed her in the right direction anyway and she’s going to give it a go. Dsoul78 ( talk) 20:23, 4 October 2021 (UTC)