Talk:Rachel Parris

Radio credits need an addition

The section subtitled "Television and radio credits" does not point out that she has been on I'm Sorry I Haven't a Clue.Vorbee (talk) 18:51, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Image

@Jeff G. and Serols: can either of you explain the situation going on with the image and supposed COI issues? It looks to me like Parris or a representative is attempting to release a photo under a Commons-compatible license, for use in the infobox, as the current photo is indeed out of date. If this is the case, why is this not desirable, and what are with these efforts to remove it? File:Rachel Parris 2021.jpg remains on Commons with no tags/issues raised. — Bilorv (talk) 17:58, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

@Bilorv: the user deleted the whole infobox. --Serols (talk) 18:43, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

@Serols: So? I noticed. Why wouldn't you re-add the rest of the infobox and keep the new image? Remember that you're responsible for every change you make. — Bilorv (talk) 19:33, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Alright I've readded the new image, as nobody seems to have an explanation for the edits they have made. — Bilorv (talk) 14:56, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

@Bilorv and Serols: On 25 January 2021, between 19:03 and 19:57 UTC, Alpsintegral tried 11 times to upload a photo of Rachel Parris to Commons as their own work. Nine minutes after that started, at 19:12 they filed this report. At 19:41, they made this "minor" edit to BLP Rachel Parris, adding unsourced info. At 03:21 on 26 January, I noticed the above activity and reverted that edit as unsourced in this edit and tagged the page as a COI in this edit (the latter because someone with unsourced info about the subject who had met her face to face had added that info to the article, admittedly I didn't explain that at the time and it wasn't really necessary given that I had removed the offending text). Two minutes later at 03:23, I noticed the user with Template:uw-coi in this edit and warned them with Template:uw-unsourced1 in this followup edit. Two minutes after that at 03:25, I posted this reply and this warning. I'm sorry I wasn't as forthcoming earlier.   — Jeff G. ツ 22:21, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

@Jeff G.: so someone associated with Parris is trying to update the poor-quality, outdated picture we have? Or is the COI editor unrelated to Alpsintegral? (I don't think you actually linked the "subject who had met her face to face" info because I can't see anything that falls in this category.) At what point did you explain the best process for someone professionally related to Parris to go about donating a free image that we can use (maybe WP:OTRS, this tool)? — Bilorv (talk) 22:30, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

@Bilorv: This was all about Alpsintegral. I mentioned redirect c:OTRS on Commons in this edit; that page links to the release generator, while WP:OTRS here does not. Alpsintegral claimed the photo was own work while trying to upload it 11 times, but inconsistently claimed "I have been asked by Rachel Parris to change the image of her" and "She has supplied the image for me to replace it, she owns the image" in this report. If there was a copyright transfer, since the US Copyright Office insists that transfers of copyright be in written form, we need written evidence of copyright transfer via OTRS.   — Jeff G. ツ 02:29, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

@Jeff G.: Well, based on this edit, it seems the person still hasn't got the message. I think it's pretty likely that the person is telling the truth about being associated with Parris so it would be good if we could successfully communicate with them somehow. — Bilorv (talk) 10:24, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

@Bilorv: It appears pinging them was ineffective. I tagged the new photo as a copyvio and reported them at m:srg#Global lock for Alpsintegral.   — Jeff G. ツ 11:03, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

@Bilorv: It appears the user changed name to Richybeno, uploaded copyvio File:Rachel Parris Press Shot.jpg to Commons, and vandalized the article with it.   — Jeff G. ツ 13:37, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

@Jeff G.: I don't understand your use of "vandalism", which presupposes malicious intent. You're treating this as a game of whack-a-mole but the picture we have is seriously out of date and the article will be much improved if we can successfully communicate with this person and get them to donate a free image. I just don't understand what you think is happening. If the user has a conflict of interest, as you've said they do, then they have a connection to Parris and are therefore able to make a productive, much-needed, long-overdue change to the article if we help them go about this the right way. They have now indicated that they've at least read the message I just left them, so why don't we see if the situation changes rather than throwing the book at someone for not understanding a message you left on commons:Commons talk:Abuse filter#Report by Alpsintegral that begins "In addition to the above, I am sorry to inform you that you have triggered Special:AbuseFilter/153 by trying to cross-wiki upload a smaller (<50,000 bytes or <2,000,000 pixels) jpg photo ..." (do you seriously think a non-Wikimedian can understand that?) — Bilorv (talk) 13:56, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

@Bilorv: Yes, I do think a non-Wikimedian can understand that. The photos they have been uploading are not even acceptable on this project per WP:F. I consider removal of an infobox without explanation to be vandalism.   — Jeff G. ツ 14:40, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Editing an infobox is not straightforward for people new to Wikipedia, and calling the removal of one in such a situation is a disappointing failure to assume good faith. Richard Nevell (talk) 18:26, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

True - with regard to infobox editing, but outright removal of an infobox is not the same as editing it in a confused manner which you would expect to generate spurious results as bits of it were broken or chopped out. Given that the editor in question had already made some edits to this page - which were reverted - I would have to agree with @Jeff G.: that a certain amount of intent or premeditation was present in this particular edit, so vandalism is a harsh but not an unreasonable accusation to level.

The editor should have used preview to see what they were doing, or at the very least when the page reloaded they should have noticed the rather that the infobox was missing and done something about it. A failure to do that in an article they've shown interest in is - to be honest - a little suspicious. Chaheel Riens (talk) 21:34, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Suspicious how exactly? What is meant to have been gained by removing the infobox? If an editor doesn't know how to change an image in an infobox it is fair to assume they won't know how to re-add one once it's removed. Perhaps we could all try to find something else to snack on than newbies. Richard Nevell (talk) 21:49, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Well, suspicious for the reason I outlined above, I suppose. Removal of the infobox is a big change to an article and given its location in the article one that would be instantly obvious - even to a newbie - once the page had been reloaded. Factor in that the editor in question had already made changes to the infobox so it can be reasonably assumed they know of its existence, and yet they completely removed it from the page and saved changes. If it was an accident, why didn't they revert? I find it hard to believe (for reasons stated earlier) that they just didn't notice an entire block had disappeared after they'd made changes to said block. As to the gain from this, I would suppose it was a big-bang solution to removing the image that they wanted to be taken out of the page.

I'm all for supporting newbie editors, but that doesn't exclude them from responsibility when intentional disruption can be inferred from their actions. Chaheel Riens (talk) 11:04, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Image 2: Electric Boogaloo

@Dsoul78: can you please explain where the image you added in this edit comes from? Is it from Instagram (then it's a copyright violation)? Or did you take it? It looks like a selfie, so Parris legally owns the copyright and she (not a representative) needs to upload it in the way that has been explained to the last person who claimed to be her representative (though we can explain again if you want). We would be delighted to be able to use this image, but less delighted to be breaking copyright law. @Jon698: I notice that you removed the image but didn't nominate it for deletion on Commons—what do you know about it? — Bilorv (talk) 18:58, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

• @Bilorv: I don't know how to nominate images for deletion. Jon698 (talk) 19:30, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

No, understood - just trying to help a girl out! Remove and delete as necessary. Dsoul78 (talk) 19:32, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

Alright, no harm done. Nominated for deletion—this is how by the way, Jon698, for future reference. — Bilorv (talk) 19:40, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

@Bilorv Just re-reading your last post, it sounds like if Rachel wanted to change the picture herself, there is more to it than her just uploading her picture to her own account in the same way that I did? Is that the case? Apologies - I know you offered to provide this information in your previous message. Dsoul78 (talk) 04:26, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Yes: to prevent impersonation (anyone can claim to be Parris), the Release Generator is the simplest way she could do this. (To ping someone, you don't necessarily need an "@" sign but you do need to link their userpage, which {{Ping|Bilorv}} or [[User:Bilorv]] will do.) — Bilorv (talk) 05:49, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

@Bilorv: Ah thanks - I knew I’d done something wrong when it just came up as text! I had been messaging her and kind of generally had her permission to use ‘a photo’ of hers (if I could!), so I’ll upload that one again to Wikimedia Commons and see if she goes for it! If not, I give up! Thanks for your help. Dsoul78 (talk) 07:21, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

@Dsoul78: okay, looks good. There'll be a delay after she fills out the Release Generator because a volunteer has to manually review it. Because there's sensitive information involved, there's not a huge number of people who are able to process that queue, and I'm not sure how long it is at the moment. Parris must understand that she is not just permitting a photo to be used in Wikipedia, but releasing a photo under a Creative Commons license so that anyone can reuse the image and create derivative versions for any purpose (with attribution). — Bilorv (talk) 17:37, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Thanks User:Bilorv. Yes I believe she’s aware that the photo would be made available for anyone to use. I’ve pointed her in the right direction anyway and she’s going to give it a go. Dsoul78 (talk) 20:23, 4 October 2021 (UTC)