Talk:Amber Benson

Archive1

Semi-protection time?

Shouldn't we request semi-protection for this page now? The vandal just seems to be switching IP adress and coming back all the time. - Duribald (talk) 10:10, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

• Which has been done <G>. Tabercil (talk) 21:04, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

• Should this article be protected again? The vandal is back. Web Warlock (talk) 14:46, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

• Hits about once a week. Similar IPs to all the rest (58.161.14x.xxx). Give him an immediate final warning on the first and WP:AIV report on next. IMHO not enough vandalism to justify a protect as this page is watched and it is caught fast. Just don't play around and give the full 4 warning sequence - not necessary here on a roving IP vandal. Might consider a longer term range block on the IP as it seems pretty small. --NrDg 14:56, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

• Sounds good to me! Web Warlock (talk) 15:00, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Facebook

For the record, http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1235011957, is in fact her facebook page. I know her personally, communicate with her on the page and we have talked on the phone. Not sure what 3rd party supports are needed here. Web Warlock (talk) 12:18, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Third party sources are always necessary in BLP:s. Furthermore: Please consult Wikipedia:External_links#Links_normally_to_be_avoidedpoint 10. A Facebook page is not an official page of the article subject, and should not normally be linked in an article. -Duribald (talk) 15:06, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Sounds good. Thanks! Web Warlock (talk) 15:57, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Ghosts of Albion

I don't think I'm doing this right, however the only place I saw edit was next to these two headers. So, I'm putting it here. Sorry for the confusion, I'm new here. It's frustrating for me too.

I put in Illusions, Legacy and Astray under Benson's Ghost of Albion works, as well as links to the BBC site where they are. I know Ghost of Albion is under Books, however these three are important to the series and should be listed. If someone has a better idea for organizing, I hope you'll share it. Cboyechko (talk) 07:41, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

"Fan like"?

An editor is adding the "fan" tag to this article, and I have reverted it. I have examined the article closely, and I see nothing that is fan-like about it. It seems to me to be a straight-forward and neutral presentation of Benson's career and accomplishments. I have asked the editor to describe here his specific objections to the article as written. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:56, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Photos

An editor removed photo #1, a picture of Benson at a book signing in 2010, and replaced it with photo #2, a far shot of Benson at a book signing in 2011. As an attempt at compromise, I cropped this photo to make photo #3, but the editor reverted to #2. Opinions are needed as to which photo is best for the article. All the photos were taken by the editor in question, and are on Commons.

• 

  PHOTO #1
  (2010 book signing, closeup)

• 

  PHOTO #2
  (2011 book signing, far shot)

• 

  PHOTO #3
  (2011 book signing, two-shot)

• 

  PHOTO #4
  (compromise)

Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:40, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

For the record, I took that particular photo, and chose it for the article, because I wanted to show the entire scene that included Benson's fans at the table, as it goes to her notability as a novelist. Although I personally tend to favor medium shots of the waist up for the main Infobox portrait, I don't think every photo in an article needs to be one. Since the first two photos in the article are such medium shots, having a more scene-oriented one seemed reasonable, given the aforementioned context.

Beyond My Ken not only removed that information by cropping it, but even removed mention of the location, claiming that mentioning the article is not "about" the signing, and that mentioning the location only serves to "promote" it. Beyond My Ken previously gave this rationale a year ago when completely removing a photo of a previous store appearance I added to that same section, which seems more like a case of WP:OWN than a legitimate editorial concern. Photos of notables at public events, and captions and describe them, are not used because the article is "about" the event, nor to "promote" the location, as these are Straw Man arguments. Captions are used for the purpose of description, nothing more, and are legitimately used across Wikipedia. I describe locations and events in photos, whether it's the Brooklyn Book Festival, a comics convention, a store appearance, political speaking engagement, or whatever. This is perfectly reasonable, and not intended by me to "promote" those events. Merely reporting or documenting something does not automatically serve to promote them, and care should be taken when leveling such an accusation. Beyond My Ken not only removed mention of the store, but even the geographic location. What reason is there for this? Does Beyond My Ken think we're "promoting" Manhattan by mentioning it?

Even odder, BMK changed the caption so that it read, "Benson with Anton Strout at a book signing for Serpent's Storm (March 11, 2010)". In the first place, Strout was there to promote his own novel, Dead Waters, and not Benson's novel, Serpent Storm. In the second place, the date of the event was yesterday, March 5, 2011, and not March 11, 2010, which was a year ago.

To further illustrate his WP:OWN behavior, he advised me on my talk page "Please do not make any changes to the article involving the dispusted photo until we have some additional input and, hopefully, a consensus.", yet apparently could not resist making such a change himself. Nightscream (talk) 01:21, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

My goodness, I made a typo! That's never happened before!!

Look, my take is quite straightforward: the article is about Benson, and images in the article should show Benson to good effect. In my opinion, at the size the article allows it to be presented your long shot (Photo #2) doesn't really show Benson to any appreciable extent. True, it shows the store and some fans waiting, but it does not show the subject effectively. This is why I cropped it down to a two-shot (Photo #3). Clearly you disagree, and that is why we're here. I'd like to hear what other people have to say not about any conflict between you and I, which is not really relevant, but about which image best serves the article.

One final matter: you noted on my talk page that I had reverted to my preferred photo, then posted this talk page discussion request, then asked you not to revert. Your interpretation of why I did that was not unreasonable, if perhaps lacking in AGF, but it was incorrect. In fact, I reverted, then realized that I should be opening a discussion instead -- the time stamps will bear that out. In the interest of fairness, I've reverted back to your long shot while the talk page discussion is ongoing.

So, now, if we can put aside the rest of this stuff, let's hear what others have to say. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:36, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

I believe that Nightscream and I have agreed on the compromise cropping, Photo #4 above, so I'm going to restore that to the article, along with the previous caption. If anyone disagrees, please discuss it here and we can see how that proceeds. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:50, 7 March 2011 (UTC)