Wikipedia

Talk:Lauren Wolkstein

Latest comment: 3 years ago by Zedembee in topic 'Deletion' nomination: undone in the belief this is now vandalism
Learn more about this page
edit
Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Lauren Wolkstein. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:29, 12 May 2017 (UTC)Reply

edit
Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 9 external links on Lauren Wolkstein. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:56, 18 December 2017 (UTC)Reply

Promo edits

edit
Latest comment: 6 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion

Ive removed the promotional crap from the article .... Not sure this really warrants a discussion but if anyone disagrees with my removal please come here first. –Davey2010Talk 19:04, 12 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

@Davey2010: I've locked the page temporarily to prevent further disruption. At a glance, I don't think that what Nwatts2018 has been adding is overly promotional. Some of it on the fluffy side and reads a little like a resume, but the sources, in the career section at least, seem okay. The films section definitely doesn't need a list of every film festival a film was in, but the previous version of the article didn't discuss in detail anything after 2010. The photo will probably be deleted from Commons as a copyright violation.
@Nwatts2018: you need to bring your concerns about the article to the talk page instead of constantly reverting to your preferred version. Other editors have expressed concerns that your edits are promotional, so it's now on you to explain why you think your changes should stand. Also, if you have some connection with the subject, you need to declare that and take a look at our policies on conflicts of interest. clpo13(talk) 22:18, 12 June 2018 (UTC)Reply
Scratch that last bit. Nwatts2018 has been blocked for abusing multiple accounts. clpo13(talk) 22:22, 12 June 2018 (UTC)Reply
Many thanks, Unfortunately I do disagree with you on the promo bit but really had that editor came to me first off or atleast used the edit summaries we all could've perhaps resolved it amicably, Ah well many thanks for your help anyway, –Davey2010Talk 22:25, 12 June 2018 (UTC)Reply
No worries. I took a closer look at some of the additions and sources and I've changed my mind about their usefulness. The article could still use an update but those edits are no good. clpo13(talk) 22:28, 12 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

edit
Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 23:36, 24 May 2019 (UTC)Reply

Photo

edit
Latest comment: 3 years ago13 comments3 people in discussion
 
Photo that gets removed from the article repeatedly
 
New 8 degrees rotated crop

Comments from myself (Alexis Jazz) and Zedembee copied from User talk:Zedembee#Photo permission:

Don't upload photos without a publicly viewable free license or WP:OTRS permission. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 08:37, 28 April 2021 (UTC)Reply

First of all, your tone could be friendlier and less patronizing. Second, I have both the permission of the actual subject of the photo and the photographer. I'm pretty sure I set that up correctly when I posted the photo. But I'll check the data and amend accordingly. Zedembee (talk) 06:09, 29 April 2021 (UTC)Reply
To follow up, I've set in motion the formal release of the photograph via email to Wikipedia. I've also suppressed any photo for now, because the colored photograph to which you reverted in the Infobox is of dubious provenance to the subject and arguably itself ought to be removed from Wikimedia. Please allow 7 days for the formal release to be processed by Wikipedia. Zedembee (talk) 06:35, 29 April 2021 (UTC)Reply
Zedembee, the photo has been messed with since long before you registered here. It was removed by Isabella221 (WP:SPA), Sarahcolombie (WP:SPA), 86.20.177.170 and I wouldn't be surprised if you also have either a WP:COI or have been WP:PAID. The article was created in 2013 as a copyvio of [1] by Kama sk who I suspect had a COI or was paid given their edit history. File:Lauren Wolkstein Montclair film festival 2017.jpg is not "of dubious provenance". Wolkstein doesn't like it, that message is clear, but that's too bad. It's a properly licensed photo. And it's not unflattering, she just happens to look like that. (I already checked that years ago) All the copyvios that have been inserted over the years are less accurate as they try to hide what she really looks like. Even with permission, that's a good reason to still prefer File:Lauren Wolkstein Montclair film festival 2017.jpg. Davey2010, glad to see you're still around. Am I overreacting? I've also informed OTRS to be careful here. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 09:23, 29 April 2021 (UTC)Reply
Hey Alexis Jazz, No long time no see - hope you're doing well, Nope I personally don't believe you're overacting - It would seem various people have been instructed to remove her photo as well as change the content either by herself or people related to her.
(Without offending her or violating BLPVIO) Personally I think the photo is very unflattening however I sort of feel the "new" picture is hiding her face (It looks more obvious in these photos 1, 2 and 3) - I'm not saying we should shame her but we should represent the real subject but then again consensus elsewhere has allowed for these sorts of images.
If the new image comes back as being okay my suggestion would be to start an RFC and people (including the subject) can have their say on which image is best. Thanks, –Davey2010Talk 12:02, 29 April 2021 (UTC)Reply
Davey2010, thanks for your input. I've taken another look, I remember having some difficulty extracting that crop back in 2018. Her face is a bit unusual and the original photo didn't make that easier. Typically I just put everything upright, but in this particular case that may not be optimal. Here's a new crop, rotated 8 degrees compared to the existing crop. I think it makes quite the difference. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 14:56, 29 April 2021 (UTC)Reply
No worries Alexis Jazz thank you for asking for my input, Totally agree the rotation has IMHO made a stark difference (thank you for doing this), I would hope the subject is happy and that a RFC wont have be done tbh, Waste of time and resources. Thanks, –Davey2010Talk 15:52, 29 April 2021 (UTC)Reply
The permissions file for the [much more recent and lifelike] photo has been submitted to Wikipedia, whose advisory wait time is given at 24 hours. Please observe basic Wikipedia etiquette and allow 24 hours to pass before you revert edits. Multiple images exist of many subjects on Wikipedia; I'm not sure why you guys think you have the authority to choose which is the "best" image. Multiple attempts to remove a photo don't prove very much beyond there being an informal consensus that better, more lifelike images exist. Let's revisit this issue after 24 hours have passed per Wikipedia protocol/etiquette. Thanks, Zedembee (talk) 21:59, 29 April 2021 (UTC)Reply
Davey2010, Alexis Jazz Believe it or not, you people don't get to sit on the internet and decide whether a picture of a woman (or man for that matter) is "unflattering" or "best". I'm amazed that you openly type such things without shame. The issue is, I would contend, that the image is poor quality and looks nothing like the subject. The black and white image that has duly been removed for now until the permissions file has been attached is a photo that was taken with more skill and more recently, and therefore is more lifelike. Like I say, you have already broken Wikipedia etiquette by repeatedly reverting my edits fewer than 24 hours after they were made. So please... off your high horses, and go cool off for 24 hours. Thanks, Zedembee (talk) 22:08, 29 April 2021 (UTC)Reply
Zedembee, how much more recent is the black and white photo? — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 22:15, 29 April 2021 (UTC)Reply
Alexis Jazz Please take a break on this discussion for 24 hours, per Wikipedia etiquette and allowing the permissions file to be attached. Thanks, Zedembee (talk) 22:28, 29 April 2021 (UTC)Reply
Finally, Davey2010, Alexis Jazz both of you please stop impugning the subject (implying that she or people related to her have some kind of deep state thing going on and are coin-operating content edits here). You have zero evidence and are utterly wrong. I'm pretty sure that groundlessly impugning the subject of a Wikipedia article, on a public forum no less, is not fit conduct for editors. Zedembee (talk) 22:36, 29 April 2021 (UTC)Reply
Please consider that multiple people may have tried to replace that photo in recognition that it looks nothing like Lauren! What you call a conspiracy could equally be a consensus among people with more authority than you on what defines "lifelike" in a photo of the subject. Your bad faith is astonishing and the manner in which you speak of the subject, her face and your theories about same in these comments is creepy at best and potentially reprehensible. Zedembee (talk) 22:46, 29 April 2021 (UTC)Reply

'Deletion' nomination: undone in the belief this is now vandalism

edit
Latest comment: 3 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The nomination to have this page deleted is completely ridiculous and potentially unhinged. I propose that Alexis Jazz's edits to this page have now advanced into vandalism. Lauren Wolkstein is a PRODUCING DIRECTOR on a five-season major TV series created by Ava DuVernay. She has won awards for her short and feature films prior to then. Her work has appeared at ALL of the top film festivals in the world (among then: Cannes, Sundance, SXSW). She has accomplished more credits in the last five years alone than some directors profiled on Wikipedia have achieved in their entire lifetimes.

What on Earth does a director have to do exactly to qualify for notability on Wikipedia if that doesn't qualify her? I wish to propose that Alexis Jazz be banned from editing Lauren Wolkstein's page. He or she has shown stunningly poor judgment with this absurdly unwarranted move. Zedembee (talk) 17:08, 1 May 2021 (UTC)Reply

Add topic
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Lauren_Wolkstein&oldid=1209820741"