Template:Independent has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Sfan00 IMG ( talk) 20:13, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
If those 2 articles are in fact correct, then that must mean that in the article of October 7, 2011 with her interview, Lana lied about her age being at the time 25 cos if she was then she would have been born in 1986. The link with her interview from that date is in the Early life and career beginnings section, read this and follow this up to see if what she says in this interview is true.
It's not surprising she lied about her plastic surgery and her back story it's what a lot of artist do for example Paloma Faith is 5 years older than she claims she is but her label want her to appeal to a younger market. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Carlablu (
talk •
contribs) 14:52, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
Yes I know about the whole plastic surgery thing, so is 1986 a totally misinformed year? IMDb says that year, usually they are more accurate.
Correction made to D.O.B Elizabeth Grant was born June 21, 1985. She logged three copyrights with the United States copyright office. Two made in 2005 and one made in 2012. You have to submit your D.O.B as a copyright claim is a legal government document and Elizabeth Grant submitted her date of birth:
go to
http://cocatalog.loc.gov and search for; grant elizabeth woolridge select 'search by' option of name. Wikipedia is source for accurate and factual
information and the source is a copyright government agreement. Deneuve15 (talk) 20:48, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
Deneuve15 ( talk) 21:37, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
Hi, I noticed you have been blocked and in your unblock request, you state that Lana del Rey was born in 1985 and have linked to the US Copyright Agency as evidence. I've reviewed this and see that they list Lana del Rey as Grant, Elizabeth Woolridge, 1985- but cannot find an actual birth date, do you have a link to this at all, or are you basing your edits on the name details in the database ? Do you have any other sources ? Just trying to verify we have the correct date of birth and if it's the case you're correct, I'm sure you'll be unblocked, you'll probably need to serve something like a 24 hour block to dissuade you from edit warring in future but I don't see any reason why you'll remain blocked indefinitely. Kind Regards, Nick (talk) 22:05, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
Hi, I noticed you have been blocked and in your unblock request, you state that Lana del Rey was born in 1985 and have linked to the US Copyright Agency as evidence. I've reviewed this and see that they list Lana del Rey as Grant, Elizabeth Woolridge, 1985- but cannot find an actual birth date, do you have a link to this at all, or are you basing your edits on the name details in the database ? Do you have any other sources ? Just trying to verify we have the correct date of birth and if it's the case you're correct, I'm sure you'll be unblocked, you'll probably need to serve something like a 24 hour block to dissuade you from edit warring in future but I don't see any reason why you'll remain blocked indefinitely. Kind Regards, Nick (talk) 22:05, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
Hi, I noticed you have been blocked and in your unblock request, you state that Lana del Rey was born in 1985 and have linked to the US Copyright Agency as evidence. I've reviewed this and see that they list Lana del Rey as Grant, Elizabeth Woolridge, 1985- but cannot find an actual birth date, do you have a link to this at all, or are you basing your edits on the name details in the database ? Do you have any other sources ? Just trying to verify we have the correct date of birth and if it's the case you're correct, I'm sure you'll be unblocked, you'll probably need to serve something like a 24 hour block to dissuade you from edit warring in future but I don't see any reason why you'll remain blocked indefinitely. Kind Regards, Nick ( talk) 22:05, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
Hi the information I changed was year of birth which is the date 1985 submitted with the copyright claims made by Elizabeth Grant which include her year of birth. The most recent one for the copyright of a song on the Born to Die album "this is what makes us girls" I had previously added an article written by a close family friend to Elizabeth Woolridge Grant by Publisher Ron Jackson in which he states her age and also a newspaper interview with Ms Grant and her father which also states her age. There are more articles which confirm Elizabeth Grant was born in 1985 but felt the US copyright was the most credible source of her year of birth as she would have submitted this herself and is really the only factual account of her year of birth other that a birth certificate. It also doesn't violate BLP guidelines, which according to Kww I have. I also haven't been warring, I added credible sources in the edits made but have all been removed with no reason Thanks Deneuve15 ( talk) 23:00, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
I was in the process of consensus until Kww blocked me. Not sure why I got blocked and other editors were not when they were deleting edits without supplying credible sources or giving reasons for the edits seems quite strange behaviour for an administrator to block someone following guidelines and not block editors that aren'. I assume administrators are following wiki guidelines and not being biased. Deneuve15 ( talk) 23:18, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
warning?— Kww( talk) 23:27, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
Not sure why I got blocked and other editors were not when they were deleting edits without supplying credible sources or giving reasons for the edits seems quite strange behaviour for an administrator to block someone following guidelines and not block editors that aren't. I assume administrators are following wiki guidelines and not being biased. Are you following the guidlines? Deneuve15 ( talk) 23:43, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
talk:Kww|talk]]) 23:49, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
I have in fact noticed that she did not start writing until she was 18 but there is no particular year set for this, all there is that her first year active is 2005, yes I have seen those sources there, and I actually stopped changing that birth date but I'm not the reason you got blocked, it was Kww who blocked you for it cos you need consensus, and if you change it again without consensus he will block you permanently, I read his message, however I can see there is misinformation about the age, it is confusion but I see birth dates should not be changed all the time, her year of birth is set to 1986 and can no longer be changed cos the page is now secure, but really nobody's birth date at should be getting changed a lot, usually IMDB is more accurate, you need to stop messing around with this, but really I'm sick of seeing them play with us like this. Zak Hammat ( talk) 00:43, July 14 (ASST)
I hate to tell you this, no offence but I'm with Kww on this, I highly doubt he has any problem, it's you, because like I said birth dates should not be messed with, there is now a new source about her upcoming video "Tropico" and it still states her with her mostly confirmed age right now 27, so it in fact should just be left to alone, it's up to the owners of the page. Zak Hammat ( talk) 1:16 July 15 (ASST)
I didn't realise no one owns this page? ok no I didn't but if no one owns this page then no one owns any Wikipedia page at all from what you are saying here, things just should be left as is for now. Zak Hammat ( talk) 1:33 July 27 (ASST)
Deneuve15 ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
I seem to have an administrator that has taken a dislike to my edits on a credible source that proves by law Elizabeth Grants D.O.B is 1985 not 1986. It was a minor edit with a very reliable source. I added two other reliable sources that were removed. The account administrator Kww is claiming as my 'other' login is nothing to do with me it is not my account and I hope you can actually prove this. I think the administrator is missing a vital point here and that is the source is very reliable and can't be disputed. I can't understand why they have resorted to this second block when they have already blocked me for reasons out of the guidelines and now most Likely through coincidence is now claiming I have been tactically editing the page, I don't need to the source is credible. I really thought wiki was about factual information but it is actually impossible to add factual information with administrators like this. Just to clarify the account darkparadise? is not mine perhaps they can confirm this. Anyone got advice on making a complaint about a dodgy administrator?
Accept reason:
Deneuve15 ( talk) 01:32, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
source! I noticed you removed my discussion from the talk page! You really don't seem to want that information up there you've gone to great lengths. Deneuve15 ( talk) 01:49, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
You really seem to be having difficulty grasping the concept of edit warring, so I'll try again. An editor that continually makes identical (or very similar) changes that are being reverted by other editors is edit warring. So, if editor A makes a change which is reverted by editor B, puts it back and is reverted by editor C, puts it back and is reverted by B again, puts it back and is reverted by D, puts it back and is reverted by E, puts it back and is reverted by C again, only A has been edit warring and only A will be blocked. Any further questions?— Kww( talk) 17:23, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
Yes you didn't block other editors who have done this as I discussed with you before. I'd also like to know why you are "Merely correcting" my comments but you don't merely correct comments made by other editors like "you can never change the date of birth only the owners of the page can" as an administrator do you agree with that comment or should you merely be correcting it? Deneuve15 ( talk) 17:27, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
The same newbie Zak Hammat that undid my edit 5 times and eventually stopped and agreed on the source which then lead to you reverting the edit? oh and Darkparadises who made 5 continual edits Deneuve15 ( talk) 18:16, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
This is the point I wanted to get to on the noticeboard why undo the edit if the primary source was valid and had been backed up by two secondary sources didn't it warrant a bit of investigating rather than putting all your effort into what you did i.e blocking and shaming? you put a lot of effort into that. After reading about primary sources I still dispute what the administrators have said:
For a start
Gamaliel (
talk ·
contribs) stated "It's not a legal document, it's a web catalog" it is an on line catalogue of a legal document.
Gamaliel (
talk ·
contribs) also stated "all sorts of issues involving personal interpretations, misreadings, and original research" would arise from using a primary source.
What wiki says about primary sources;
I did reference 2 secondary sources that backed up the primary source.
The primary source did not effect large blocks of material.
I was taking a specific fact from the primary source.
The secondary sources that are currently being used in the article are not backing up the primary source.
The secondary sources I used that were reverted, did back up the primary source.
It seems to be understood by wiki that celebrities often change there real date of birth for whatever reason that might be, normally to appear younger than they are and most of the secondary sources being used on the article have the same incorrect biographical information - so my issue is that the information wiki currently has is incorrect.
Deneuve15 (
talk) 20:06, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
Okay lets do that otherwise how can I or anyone else know that what they are reading on wikipedia is correct when available sources say something different. Deneuve15 ( talk) 20:56, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
I think there are two things which you don't seem to understand about Wikipedia:
Gamaliel ( talk) 20:31, 15 July 2013 (UTC)]]
I haven't done much editing on wiki and this edit purely came from a heated group discussion about some basic fact; the year of birth being incorrect. It's been made very clear to me what edit warring is, I have been told enough times and as you can see I have not reverted to my edit. BUT wikipedia does state 'specific facts may be taken from primary sources'. I think the main issue here is that the birth date that is being used is for 'Lana Del Rey the persona' as this is when the year changed to 1986, prior to that when Elizabeth Woolridge Grant was known as Elizabeth Woolridge Grant the birth date was 1985. There are a couple of published articles where her producer stated that a whole new persona was created which would explain the confusion over the year of birth, so which is correct, which is factual. Given that the specific part of the article is about Elizabeth Woolridge Grant and not the persona Lana Del Rey shouldn't the real year of birth be used. Also how would you suggest you cite a legal document on Wikipedia? Deneuve15 ( talk) 20:56, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Young and Beautiful (Lana Del Rey song), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Paradise (EP) ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 08:59, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
Template:Independent has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Sfan00 IMG ( talk) 20:13, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
If those 2 articles are in fact correct, then that must mean that in the article of October 7, 2011 with her interview, Lana lied about her age being at the time 25 cos if she was then she would have been born in 1986. The link with her interview from that date is in the Early life and career beginnings section, read this and follow this up to see if what she says in this interview is true.
It's not surprising she lied about her plastic surgery and her back story it's what a lot of artist do for example Paloma Faith is 5 years older than she claims she is but her label want her to appeal to a younger market. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Carlablu (
talk •
contribs) 14:52, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
Yes I know about the whole plastic surgery thing, so is 1986 a totally misinformed year? IMDb says that year, usually they are more accurate.
Correction made to D.O.B Elizabeth Grant was born June 21, 1985. She logged three copyrights with the United States copyright office. Two made in 2005 and one made in 2012. You have to submit your D.O.B as a copyright claim is a legal government document and Elizabeth Grant submitted her date of birth:
go to
http://cocatalog.loc.gov and search for; grant elizabeth woolridge select 'search by' option of name. Wikipedia is source for accurate and factual
information and the source is a copyright government agreement. Deneuve15 (talk) 20:48, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
Deneuve15 ( talk) 21:37, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
Hi, I noticed you have been blocked and in your unblock request, you state that Lana del Rey was born in 1985 and have linked to the US Copyright Agency as evidence. I've reviewed this and see that they list Lana del Rey as Grant, Elizabeth Woolridge, 1985- but cannot find an actual birth date, do you have a link to this at all, or are you basing your edits on the name details in the database ? Do you have any other sources ? Just trying to verify we have the correct date of birth and if it's the case you're correct, I'm sure you'll be unblocked, you'll probably need to serve something like a 24 hour block to dissuade you from edit warring in future but I don't see any reason why you'll remain blocked indefinitely. Kind Regards, Nick (talk) 22:05, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
Hi, I noticed you have been blocked and in your unblock request, you state that Lana del Rey was born in 1985 and have linked to the US Copyright Agency as evidence. I've reviewed this and see that they list Lana del Rey as Grant, Elizabeth Woolridge, 1985- but cannot find an actual birth date, do you have a link to this at all, or are you basing your edits on the name details in the database ? Do you have any other sources ? Just trying to verify we have the correct date of birth and if it's the case you're correct, I'm sure you'll be unblocked, you'll probably need to serve something like a 24 hour block to dissuade you from edit warring in future but I don't see any reason why you'll remain blocked indefinitely. Kind Regards, Nick (talk) 22:05, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
Hi, I noticed you have been blocked and in your unblock request, you state that Lana del Rey was born in 1985 and have linked to the US Copyright Agency as evidence. I've reviewed this and see that they list Lana del Rey as Grant, Elizabeth Woolridge, 1985- but cannot find an actual birth date, do you have a link to this at all, or are you basing your edits on the name details in the database ? Do you have any other sources ? Just trying to verify we have the correct date of birth and if it's the case you're correct, I'm sure you'll be unblocked, you'll probably need to serve something like a 24 hour block to dissuade you from edit warring in future but I don't see any reason why you'll remain blocked indefinitely. Kind Regards, Nick ( talk) 22:05, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
Hi the information I changed was year of birth which is the date 1985 submitted with the copyright claims made by Elizabeth Grant which include her year of birth. The most recent one for the copyright of a song on the Born to Die album "this is what makes us girls" I had previously added an article written by a close family friend to Elizabeth Woolridge Grant by Publisher Ron Jackson in which he states her age and also a newspaper interview with Ms Grant and her father which also states her age. There are more articles which confirm Elizabeth Grant was born in 1985 but felt the US copyright was the most credible source of her year of birth as she would have submitted this herself and is really the only factual account of her year of birth other that a birth certificate. It also doesn't violate BLP guidelines, which according to Kww I have. I also haven't been warring, I added credible sources in the edits made but have all been removed with no reason Thanks Deneuve15 ( talk) 23:00, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
I was in the process of consensus until Kww blocked me. Not sure why I got blocked and other editors were not when they were deleting edits without supplying credible sources or giving reasons for the edits seems quite strange behaviour for an administrator to block someone following guidelines and not block editors that aren'. I assume administrators are following wiki guidelines and not being biased. Deneuve15 ( talk) 23:18, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
warning?— Kww( talk) 23:27, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
Not sure why I got blocked and other editors were not when they were deleting edits without supplying credible sources or giving reasons for the edits seems quite strange behaviour for an administrator to block someone following guidelines and not block editors that aren't. I assume administrators are following wiki guidelines and not being biased. Are you following the guidlines? Deneuve15 ( talk) 23:43, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
talk:Kww|talk]]) 23:49, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
I have in fact noticed that she did not start writing until she was 18 but there is no particular year set for this, all there is that her first year active is 2005, yes I have seen those sources there, and I actually stopped changing that birth date but I'm not the reason you got blocked, it was Kww who blocked you for it cos you need consensus, and if you change it again without consensus he will block you permanently, I read his message, however I can see there is misinformation about the age, it is confusion but I see birth dates should not be changed all the time, her year of birth is set to 1986 and can no longer be changed cos the page is now secure, but really nobody's birth date at should be getting changed a lot, usually IMDB is more accurate, you need to stop messing around with this, but really I'm sick of seeing them play with us like this. Zak Hammat ( talk) 00:43, July 14 (ASST)
I hate to tell you this, no offence but I'm with Kww on this, I highly doubt he has any problem, it's you, because like I said birth dates should not be messed with, there is now a new source about her upcoming video "Tropico" and it still states her with her mostly confirmed age right now 27, so it in fact should just be left to alone, it's up to the owners of the page. Zak Hammat ( talk) 1:16 July 15 (ASST)
I didn't realise no one owns this page? ok no I didn't but if no one owns this page then no one owns any Wikipedia page at all from what you are saying here, things just should be left as is for now. Zak Hammat ( talk) 1:33 July 27 (ASST)
Deneuve15 ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
I seem to have an administrator that has taken a dislike to my edits on a credible source that proves by law Elizabeth Grants D.O.B is 1985 not 1986. It was a minor edit with a very reliable source. I added two other reliable sources that were removed. The account administrator Kww is claiming as my 'other' login is nothing to do with me it is not my account and I hope you can actually prove this. I think the administrator is missing a vital point here and that is the source is very reliable and can't be disputed. I can't understand why they have resorted to this second block when they have already blocked me for reasons out of the guidelines and now most Likely through coincidence is now claiming I have been tactically editing the page, I don't need to the source is credible. I really thought wiki was about factual information but it is actually impossible to add factual information with administrators like this. Just to clarify the account darkparadise? is not mine perhaps they can confirm this. Anyone got advice on making a complaint about a dodgy administrator?
Accept reason:
Deneuve15 ( talk) 01:32, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
source! I noticed you removed my discussion from the talk page! You really don't seem to want that information up there you've gone to great lengths. Deneuve15 ( talk) 01:49, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
You really seem to be having difficulty grasping the concept of edit warring, so I'll try again. An editor that continually makes identical (or very similar) changes that are being reverted by other editors is edit warring. So, if editor A makes a change which is reverted by editor B, puts it back and is reverted by editor C, puts it back and is reverted by B again, puts it back and is reverted by D, puts it back and is reverted by E, puts it back and is reverted by C again, only A has been edit warring and only A will be blocked. Any further questions?— Kww( talk) 17:23, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
Yes you didn't block other editors who have done this as I discussed with you before. I'd also like to know why you are "Merely correcting" my comments but you don't merely correct comments made by other editors like "you can never change the date of birth only the owners of the page can" as an administrator do you agree with that comment or should you merely be correcting it? Deneuve15 ( talk) 17:27, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
The same newbie Zak Hammat that undid my edit 5 times and eventually stopped and agreed on the source which then lead to you reverting the edit? oh and Darkparadises who made 5 continual edits Deneuve15 ( talk) 18:16, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
This is the point I wanted to get to on the noticeboard why undo the edit if the primary source was valid and had been backed up by two secondary sources didn't it warrant a bit of investigating rather than putting all your effort into what you did i.e blocking and shaming? you put a lot of effort into that. After reading about primary sources I still dispute what the administrators have said:
For a start
Gamaliel (
talk ·
contribs) stated "It's not a legal document, it's a web catalog" it is an on line catalogue of a legal document.
Gamaliel (
talk ·
contribs) also stated "all sorts of issues involving personal interpretations, misreadings, and original research" would arise from using a primary source.
What wiki says about primary sources;
I did reference 2 secondary sources that backed up the primary source.
The primary source did not effect large blocks of material.
I was taking a specific fact from the primary source.
The secondary sources that are currently being used in the article are not backing up the primary source.
The secondary sources I used that were reverted, did back up the primary source.
It seems to be understood by wiki that celebrities often change there real date of birth for whatever reason that might be, normally to appear younger than they are and most of the secondary sources being used on the article have the same incorrect biographical information - so my issue is that the information wiki currently has is incorrect.
Deneuve15 (
talk) 20:06, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
Okay lets do that otherwise how can I or anyone else know that what they are reading on wikipedia is correct when available sources say something different. Deneuve15 ( talk) 20:56, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
I think there are two things which you don't seem to understand about Wikipedia:
Gamaliel ( talk) 20:31, 15 July 2013 (UTC)]]
I haven't done much editing on wiki and this edit purely came from a heated group discussion about some basic fact; the year of birth being incorrect. It's been made very clear to me what edit warring is, I have been told enough times and as you can see I have not reverted to my edit. BUT wikipedia does state 'specific facts may be taken from primary sources'. I think the main issue here is that the birth date that is being used is for 'Lana Del Rey the persona' as this is when the year changed to 1986, prior to that when Elizabeth Woolridge Grant was known as Elizabeth Woolridge Grant the birth date was 1985. There are a couple of published articles where her producer stated that a whole new persona was created which would explain the confusion over the year of birth, so which is correct, which is factual. Given that the specific part of the article is about Elizabeth Woolridge Grant and not the persona Lana Del Rey shouldn't the real year of birth be used. Also how would you suggest you cite a legal document on Wikipedia? Deneuve15 ( talk) 20:56, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Young and Beautiful (Lana Del Rey song), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Paradise (EP) ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 08:59, 2 January 2014 (UTC)