Talk:Livvy Dunne

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Olivia Dunne.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 22:52, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

 This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Brianjd (talk) 05:36, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

‘Childhood home’ image

This article contains the image File:House in Hillsdale, New Jersey in 2022.jpg, currently captioned as: The childhood home where Dunne was raised in Hillsdale, New Jersey. This image was previously called File:Olivia Dunne.jpg; it was nominated for deletion, as noted above.

This information lacks a source (despite my request for a source at the file’s deletion request); I cannot find this information elsewhere on the web. The file was nominated for deletion on the basis that it was ‘obvious doxxing’. This raises WP:BLP and WP:DOX concerns.

This information was added by the same user who uploaded the file: Paulthelawyer. As I wrote this, I discovered that this edit had actually been reverted already by Hipal, then repeated by Paulthelawyer.

Pinging @KENGRIFFEY24FAN, Kai Burghardt, Infrogmation as other involved users. Brianjd (talk) 08:18, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

Added in Special:Diff/1121130002. Reverted in Special:Diff/1124813592. Added again in Special:Diff/1125077426.

@Hipal: Why do you say that there is a COI here? Brianjd (talk) 09:15, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

I have actually never seen a source for an image: [[Image:Foo|thumb|caption]]<ref>Source</ref> If there was some text: OPD has lived at address XYZ you could reasonably demand and theoretically produce a written source corroborating name + address XYZ (but we would remove such information for privacy concerns). I think by “COI” Hipal meant “don’t use self-published sources” in biographies on living people, from which images are exempt, though.

I cannot share any harassment concerns. Reportedly this is her childhood home. We have reason to believe that as an adult Baton Rouge resident she does not frequent this place anymore, hence probability of harassment is marginal. Certainly, to some extent privacy does also encompass next of kin (presumably her parents/former guardians live there), but then the intensity of privacy invasion must be even stronger.

As it stands, I would only remove this image as an editorial choice. The encyclopedic value it adds is negligible. You could, for instance, deduce “Her parents/legal guardians weren’t filthy rich, but also not dirt-poor.” yet for accessibility such information is better provided in text. ‑‑ K (🗪 | ✍) 18:12, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

At the very least, Paulthelawyer is promoting their own work across multiple BLPs, of which this is just one. --Hipal (talk) 18:32, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

I've removed it again. Sanctions apply. If someone wants to make a strong case for it's inclusion, please properly verify the information and demonstrate it is of encyclopedic value for inclusion in this article. --Hipal (talk) 18:39, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

This image involves a picture of a house visible from a public road, and no one entered on to anyone else's private property to take the picture. Anyone can walk or drive past this residence and take a picture with their personal phone or camera. The address information is readily verifiable through official government data sources, including documents from the Bergen County Clerk's website, to verify that Olivia Dunne's parents are indeed the owners of this property. So any decision pertaining to this picture would purely be an editorial choice, not a matter of "doxxing" or disclosure of personal information. Nothing would prevent other people from driving past this residence and taking their own pictures to post on Wikipedia. The current/former personal residences of many famous people are already on Wikipedia. Paulthelawyer (talk) 23:02, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

As I wrote, "Sanctions apply". Please drop it. --Hipal (talk) 01:52, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

@Hipal The image is back up, so perhaps it’s time to enact those sanctions. Brianjd (talk) 12:25, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

I removed the picture. If it goes back up, perhaps someone should bring this issue to ANI. Michael60634 (talk) 20:48, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

@Hipal and Michael60634: The ever-efficient Paulthelawyer has put it back up, as their third reversion in 28 hours. Brianjd (talk) 02:02, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

@Brianjd I've reverted it and left a notification on their talk page. Michael60634 (talk) 02:07, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

And the edit warring continues. Looks like we are going to ANI with this.... Michael60634 (talk) 02:54, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

User indefinitely blocked: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1118#Paulthelawyer adding personal info and edit warring. Brianjd (talk) 05:35, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

 This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Brianjd (talk) 05:36, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

Rizzed up Baby Gronk

Olivia has been popular the past week for being involved in a viral clip with a little league football player. Or something like that, I don't really know. Anyway, there's an article from a reliable source about it, but the whole thing is pretty clearly a joke and doesn't belong in the article. But since it is RS, I'm posting here to try and establish consensus that it shouldn't be added to the article because I guess technically an argument could be made to add it. WPscatter ^t/_c 23:46, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

This is a significant part of her internet fame and should be added. 2601:244:4000:DC10:9B4:BB77:8EFF:24E6 (talk) 03:05, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

It's too early to say whether this is a significant part of her internet fame. Things like this come and go unbelievably quickly. If it does stick, then I'm not opposed to a paragraph about it written in an encyclopedic tone. But we shouldn't just state that she "rizzed up Baby Gronk" in the article since that's nonsense. WPscatter ^t/_c 03:52, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

But she did rizz up baby gronk. 2.30.72.138 (talk) 19:03, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

I mean, I know you're (at least half-) joking, but just because it happened doesn't mean it belongs on Wikipedia. WPscatter ^t/_c 19:15, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

@Wpscatter, well I've now made an article on Baby Gronk, soo... - Knightoftheswords (Talk · Contribs) 23:33, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

this is true Scrufflordd (talk) 00:17, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

New picture needed

An updated picture of Livvy is sorely needed. Bdavid1111 (talk) 03:50, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

Yes it’s really creepy to have a picture so old when there are so many more current ones 2600:1003:A010:BE39:3D61:5AC1:C750:F4AE (talk) 00:09, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

It might even be fair to use a fair use argument to use a copyrighted portrait for the infobox if there aren't any recent free use portraits available simply because of how downright wrong it seems to use a picture of Livvy as a minor when she has since become a sex symbol of sorts. RyanAl6 (talk) 22:10, 5 October 2023 (UTC)