Jump to content

Talk:Gillian Keegan: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
No edit summary
Line 25: Line 25:
:::::Well, there is one alternative: she supplies a suitably licensed photo for use in the article (and thus eventually many other places). However, we're not here to massage egos etc, so I don't actually see a pressing need to change it to a preferred alternative. - [[User:Sitush|Sitush]] ([[User talk:Sitush|talk]]) 14:40, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
:::::Well, there is one alternative: she supplies a suitably licensed photo for use in the article (and thus eventually many other places). However, we're not here to massage egos etc, so I don't actually see a pressing need to change it to a preferred alternative. - [[User:Sitush|Sitush]] ([[User talk:Sitush|talk]]) 14:40, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
::::::I'm with Sitush. -[[User:Roxy the dog|'''Roxy''' the dog.]] [[User talk:Roxy the dog|'''bark''']] 14:43, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
::::::I'm with Sitush. -[[User:Roxy the dog|'''Roxy''' the dog.]] [[User talk:Roxy the dog|'''bark''']] 14:43, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

I am the official Gillian Keegan and I do not like this photo. No one else has used this photo for this purpose and I was not asked permission for the photo to be taken. I am in the process of having a new photo taken in September and will change it then.


== Rogate councillor ==
== Rogate councillor ==

Revision as of 15:03, 22 August 2017

Official portrait

My addition of the official parliamentary portrait of Gillian Keegan in the inbox has now been reverted twice by User:GillianKeegan. I've made this section to explain why I've re-reverted, and re-included the photo.

The photograph is a high-quality, free-use, official portrait of a public figure and should certainly be included in this article, which has no other images of its subject – unless there is a better image which is available to be used (and even then, the official portrait would probably be worth including).

Beyond this, I'm guessing that User:GillianKeegan is an account owned by the subject of this article. As the account has only been created recently, and has no other activity beyond these reverts, it's likely they are not aware of Wikipedia's various rules – but: the subject of an article editing that article is strongly discouraged as a conflict of interest, as per WP:AB. Issues regarding articles about yourself are best resolved via this talk page, or via WP:BLPN.

Hope that all makes sense :) Charlie A. (talk) 15:39, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Assuming it isn't some sort of official cock-up whereby the photo has been labelled as her when in fact it is not, there are no legitimate grounds for removing a public domain image of her. She is a public figure and her photographic image will appear all over the place. - Sitush (talk) 12:56, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, but at the same time there is no requirement that an image has to be included in this or any article regardless of whether it's in the public domain. As pointed out above, GillianKeegan and MG Keegan 1 both seem to have been created simply to remove this image. Assuming the accounts were created by Keegan herself and her husband Michael, there might be a reason they would prefer not to use the image which has nothing to do with the file's copyright status. Of course, I'm not suggesting we have to acquiesce to their wishes and not use the file, but only that we don't the reasons why it was being removed and that simply re-adding it might lead to edit warring. These are new accounts who are probably not familiar with Wikipedia's various policies and guidelines, especially WP:OWN. So, at least now, they can discuss their reasons here and give others the chance to respond. -- Marchjuly (talk) 13:33, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nonsense, sorry. She is a public figure and this is an official photo. If she doesn't like it then get another official photo taken because she sure as hell isn't going to be able to stop newspapers etc from using it. Edit warring can be sorted out anyway. - Sitush (talk) 13:57, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure what is nonsense about trying to engage these two editors to see what their concerns are. Again, I'm not suggesting that image needs to be removed, but only that images are like textual content in that they may need to be discussed when there are disagreements about whether they should be used. Unless you going to claim that the repeated removal of the image was just vandalism, it seems good faith to assume that there might be a reason behind the edits. Anyway, they've both been pinged, so perhaps one of them will notice this discussion and respond. -- Marchjuly (talk) 14:15, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It appears that this Tweet may explain why they removed the photo. -- Marchjuly (talk) 14:35, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It may be nice to play happy-clappy but it won't make any difference. If she doesn't like it, get the official photo changed. The existing one will already be out in newspapers etc. It's a waste of our time and hers. - Sitush (talk) 14:38, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Well, there is one alternative: she supplies a suitably licensed photo for use in the article (and thus eventually many other places). However, we're not here to massage egos etc, so I don't actually see a pressing need to change it to a preferred alternative. - Sitush (talk) 14:40, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm with Sitush. -Roxy the dog. bark 14:43, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am the official Gillian Keegan and I do not like this photo. No one else has used this photo for this purpose and I was not asked permission for the photo to be taken. I am in the process of having a new photo taken in September and will change it then.

Rogate councillor

It is rare for a councillor to stay in office once elected as an MP. Is our information out of date or has there not yet been a by-election? - Sitush (talk) 12:54, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]