Talk:Julia Allison/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This page is an archive. Please do not edit the contents of this page. Direct any additional comments to the current talk page.

Contents

WP:AUTO

Please see Wikipedia's autobiographical policy before editing pages, in order to conform to Wiki's WP:NPOV policy, a pilar of Wikipedia. Bearly541 23:20, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi - I did in fact read the policy, and since I neither wrote any of this biography nor have I edited anything other than incorrect facts, I'm not sure how it's fair to say it's an autobiography. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Lillster (talk • contribs).
Hi Lillster and Bearly. I've been mostly observing the editing of this article from the sidelines aside from one edit so far. Lillster, the relevant portion of Wikipedia's autobiography guideline is this one: Wikipedia:Autobiography#If Wikipedia already has an article about you. This subsection of the guideline says "It is difficult to write neutrally about yourself. Therefore, it is considered proper on Wikipedia to let others do the writing. Instead, contribute material or make suggestions on the article's talk page and let independent editors write it into the article itself. . . . Similarly, you should feel free to correct mistaken or out-of-date facts about yourself, such as marital status, current employer, place of birth, and so on. However, be prepared that if the fact has different interpretations, others will edit it."


Perhaps this is a situation in which there are a few rumors floating around that have little resemblance to objective fact. The plagiarizing claim might be an example, as Gawker is probably not considered a reliable source per Wikipedia policy (I have no opinion on the truth of the claim). The Glamour magazine report, however, is verifiable. Thus, at least for now, the plagiarizing claim should not be in the article unless a reliable source is found, and the Glamour report should stay. My suggestion, Lillster, is to discuss edits to this article on this discussion page instead of merely editing the article. Actually, that's not a bad suggestion for all of us to follow. My experience here tells me that discussion always leads to better articles.
On to the pictures, which seem to be another source of dispute. Wikipedia has strict image use policies that are in place to ensure that Wikipedia is careful in regard to copyrights. The "green dress" picture (this one) was taken from Gawker, it seems. It is copyrighted, and is currently incorrectly tagged. The picture could be used here only under a correct image tag and fair use rationale. Until such a rationale is given per WP:FU, it shouldn't be used here (I'm commenting it out for now). You claim to own the copyright in the "white shirt" picture (this one), right Lillster? That's great, as Wikipedia prefers to use freely-licensed images over fair use (copyrighted) images. However, to use the image in the article under a free license, it must be released as such in accordance with Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission. I realize all of these rules are a bit overwhelming, and I know from experience that copyright is a complicated issue. If either of you have any further questions or suggestions, feel free to post them here. · j e r s y k o talk · 16:04, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
First, I put the correct, fair use image on the page (the one that she uploaded). Second, this article is a stub, and I have finished expanding this article. I find it ironic, but strangely weird, that she comes to edits her own article rather than contibutes to another person's/subject's article -- i.e. Jessica Cutler -- who has more slander and libel in her article than hers. I guarantee, that this article will not be a featured article (FA) anytime soon due to the lack/limited amount of information and notibility of the subject. If, (and I do mean a BIG IF), the subject garners BIG publicity in the future, this article might be promoted to a Start or a B article. But, until then, I and many other editors will treat this article as a stub. Bearly541 23:45, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Correct Birthdate

Since we can't seem to come to an agreement on my birthdate, I've removed it, for this reason, also for privacy concerns (like identity theft). I've put instead my year of graduation from Georgetown. That should be sufficient. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Lillster (talk • contribs).


Based on this article, Julia posted that "I have Mars in Pisces and Neptune in House 7 and Pluto in House 5." If you put in the year 1982 on this site, the information is wrong. But, if you put in 1981, the information is right. Thus, the correct date of birth should be February 28, 1981. Bearly541 03:01, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Last Name

Should we put her last name in the article even though many links refer to her with that name? Bearly541 03:01, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Forgot, last name should not be included due to WP:BLP. Bearly541 03:08, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

If her birth name really is Julia Baugher, and there are several sites that confirm this fact, why cannot we post it in the main article?

Former Contributor

I added former contributor to AM NY, due to this admission by the source and per Gawker. Cheers! Real96 07:39, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Update

Even though the subject admits she is 25and says her birthday, I am not going to update that information due to the BLP policy. I have placed reference tags on the article instead of just the plain bracketed links. When this article is considered B-class, I will replace the references with cites. I have also added an infobox to the article, since this article belongs to the Biography project. Cheers! Real96 01:40, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Nah, it's just a stub. I am not going to fool with reference links right now. Real96 02:24, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

This is Josh Zumbrun

The person claiming to be me is, in fact, not. It should be easy to verify from my IP address that I am an employee of the Washington Post. If my IP doesn't verify it, the fact that the person claiming to be me wrote "plaigerized" should be proof enough. Please disregard any edits made by user:70.17.89.33 who is a fraud and will be reported to the wikipedia administrators. If anyone still doubts this is me I may be e-mailed here. --65.193.99.4 19:03, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

removal of image

the removed image is placed back. the cc license was set in flickr. a simple note to me would have resolved this issue. :) Sacredhands —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 13:12, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

The second picture is copyrighted. If you are the owner of the picture contact permissions at wikimedia dot org in order to attain permission to upload the file. M.(er) 15:45, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
Okay. I see the correct licensing. I will upload the pictures to Commons, Wikimedia's free image hosting site. IMHO, one picture should suffice now, as it is only a stub article. M.(er) 16:38, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
I thought the first showed her in a playful way, the second showed her at work. your call. Sacredhands 20:57, 21 September 2007 (UTC)