User talk:Deneuve15

Nomination for deletion of Template:Independent

Template:Independent has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 20:13, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Lana Del Rey D.OB.

If those 2 articles are in fact correct, then that must mean that in the article of October 7, 2011 with her interview, Lana lied about her age being at the time 25 cos if she was then she would have been born in 1986. The link with her interview from that date is in the Early life and career beginnings section, read this and follow this up to see if what she says in this interview is true.

It's not surprising she lied about her plastic surgery and her back story it's what a lot of artist do for example Paloma Faith is 5 years older than she claims she is but her label want her to appeal to a younger market. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Carlablu (talk • contribs) 14:52, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes I know about the whole plastic surgery thing, so is 1986 a totally misinformed year? IMDb says that year, usually they are more accurate.

Correction made to D.O.B Elizabeth Grant was born June 21, 1985. She logged three copyrights with the United States copyright office. Two made in 2005 and one made in 2012. You have to submit your D.O.B as a copyright claim is a legal government document and Elizabeth Grant submitted her date of birth: go to http://cocatalog.loc.gov and search for; grant elizabeth woolridge select 'search by' option of name. Wikipedia is source for accurate and factual information and the source is a copyright government agreement. Deneuve15 (talk) 20:48, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Deneuve15 (talk) 21:37, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

You were given reasonable opportunity to adjust your behaviour before I blocked. I gave you a very explicit warning as to what would happen if you made that change again without consensus and you proceeded to make the change anyway. At what point did you not have the opportunity to not make the edit?—Kww(talk) 21:53, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Hi, I noticed you have been blocked and in your unblock request, you state that Lana del Rey was born in 1985 and have linked to the US Copyright Agency as evidence. I've reviewed this and see that they list Lana del Rey as Grant, Elizabeth Woolridge, 1985- but cannot find an actual birth date, do you have a link to this at all, or are you basing your edits on the name details in the database ? Do you have any other sources ? Just trying to verify we have the correct date of birth and if it's the case you're correct, I'm sure you'll be unblocked, you'll probably need to serve something like a 24 hour block to dissuade you from edit warring in future but I don't see any reason why you'll remain blocked indefinitely. Kind Regards, Nick (talk) 22:05, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

yeah I've seen Kww's comment that he thinks I have another account in which I've tried to change the D.O.B but I haven't, you just came to that conclusion I'm sure you can find out from the IP. So why don't you a d the. Unblock me. Thanks a lot Deneuve15 (talk) 01:42, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

You were given reasonable opportunity to adjust your behaviour before I blocked. I gave you a very explicit warning as to what would happen if you made that change again without consensus and you proceeded to make the change anyway. At what point did you not have the opportunity to not make the edit?—Kww(talk) 21:53, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Hi, I noticed you have been blocked and in your unblock request, you state that Lana del Rey was born in 1985 and have linked to the US Copyright Agency as evidence. I've reviewed this and see that they list Lana del Rey as Grant, Elizabeth Woolridge, 1985- but cannot find an actual birth date, do you have a link to this at all, or are you basing your edits on the name details in the database ? Do you have any other sources ? Just trying to verify we have the correct date of birth and if it's the case you're correct, I'm sure you'll be unblocked, you'll probably need to serve something like a 24 hour block to dissuade you from edit warring in future but I don't see any reason why you'll remain blocked indefinitely. Kind Regards, Nick (talk) 22:05, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Lana del Rey Birthdate

Hi, I noticed you have been blocked and in your unblock request, you state that Lana del Rey was born in 1985 and have linked to the US Copyright Agency as evidence. I've reviewed this and see that they list Lana del Rey as Grant, Elizabeth Woolridge, 1985- but cannot find an actual birth date, do you have a link to this at all, or are you basing your edits on the name details in the database ? Do you have any other sources ? Just trying to verify we have the correct date of birth and if it's the case you're correct, I'm sure you'll be unblocked, you'll probably need to serve something like a 24 hour block to dissuade you from edit warring in future but I don't see any reason why you'll remain blocked indefinitely. Kind Regards, Nick (talk) 22:05, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Actually, all he has to do is promise not to change the birthdate again without consensus to do so. Until he makes that promise, he will remain blocked.—Kww(talk) 22:09, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Hi the information I changed was year of birth which is the date 1985 submitted with the copyright claims made by Elizabeth Grant which include her year of birth. The most recent one for the copyright of a song on the Born to Die album "this is what makes us girls" I had previously added an article written by a close family friend to Elizabeth Woolridge Grant by Publisher Ron Jackson in which he states her age and also a newspaper interview with Ms Grant and her father which also states her age. There are more articles which confirm Elizabeth Grant was born in 1985 but felt the US copyright was the most credible source of her year of birth as she would have submitted this herself and is really the only factual account of her year of birth other that a birth certificate. It also doesn't violate BLP guidelines, which according to Kww I have. I also haven't been warring, I added credible sources in the edits made but have all been removed with no reason ThanksDeneuve15 (talk) 23:00, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

I was in the process of consensus until Kww blocked me. Not sure why I got blocked and other editors were not when they were deleting edits without supplying credible sources or giving reasons for the edits seems quite strange behaviour for an administrator to block someone following guidelines and not block editors that aren'. I assume administrators are following wiki guidelines and not being biased. Deneuve15 (talk) 23:18, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

The warning was "you need to get consensus on the talk page that you have sources that are sufficient to warrant changing Lana del Rey's birthdate. If you change it again before that, I will block you from editing". Why did you think that you should change it first and then talk about it later, given the text of that

warning?—Kww(talk) 23:27, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Not sure why I got blocked and other editors were not when they were deleting edits without supplying credible sources or giving reasons for the edits seems quite strange behaviour for an administrator to block someone following guidelines and not block editors that aren't. I assume administrators are following wiki guidelines and not being biased. Are you following the guidlines?Deneuve15 (talk) 23:43, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

And I'm not certain why you won't simply promise to stop changing the date until there is a consensus to change it.—Kww([[User

talk:Kww|talk]]) 23:49, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm currently disputing your credibility as an administrator, you aren't following wiki guidelines yourself. Deneuve15 (talk) 23:58, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Good luck with that. You were clearly warned, and have clearly been edit-warring. Another admin will come by eventually and review this situation.—Kww(talk) 00:01, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

I was not edit warring, I followed the guidelines, another editor was warring and left no sources or reasons for deleating sources but you did not warn or block them, why? Do you have an issue with the correct and reliable source information? as you seem to prefer that editors leave no source or reasons for edits which doesn't follow wiki guidelines. Luckily other administrators can see this was biased and you didn't follow the guidelines.Deneuve15 (talk) 00:13, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

I have in fact noticed that she did not start writing until she was 18 but there is no particular year set for this, all there is that her first year active is 2005, yes I have seen those sources there, and I actually stopped changing that birth date but I'm not the reason you got blocked, it was Kww who blocked you for it cos you need consensus, and if you change it again without consensus he will block you permanently, I read his message, however I can see there is misinformation about the age, it is confusion but I see birth dates should not be changed all the time, her year of birth is set to 1986 and can no longer be changed cos the page is now secure, but really nobody's birth date at should be getting changed a lot, usually IMDB is more accurate, you need to stop messing around with this, but really I'm sick of seeing them play with us like this.Zak Hammat (talk) 00:43, July 14 (ASST)

I hate to tell you this, no offence but I'm with Kww on this, I highly doubt he has any problem, it's you, because like I said birth dates should not be messed with, there is now a new source about her upcoming video "Tropico" and it still states her with her mostly confirmed age right now 27, so it in fact should just be left to alone, it's up to the owners of the page.Zak Hammat (talk) 1:16 July 15 (ASST)

Zak Hammat I hate to tell you this but you don't seem realise no one owns the page? This is clearly stated by Wikipedia "All Wikipedia content is edited collaboratively. No one, no matter how skilled, or of how high standing in the community, has the right to act as though he or she is the owner of a particular article." What Wiki is concerned about is the source and how reliable it is. What concerns me is the extent that you and Kww have gone to to try and stop the source being used which is why it is going to admin to sort out. Even after seeing the United States copyright agreement which clearly states the correct year of birth and previously agreeing it is correct you now have changed your mind? Wiki is about facts not preferences. Also if you are going to mention sources at least cite them so they can be determined as valid ...or not.Deneuve15 (talk) 21:18, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

I didn't realise no one owns this page? ok no I didn't but if no one owns this page then no one owns any Wikipedia page at all from what you are saying here, things just should be left as is for now. Zak Hammat (talk) 1:33 July 27 (ASST)

Blocked for adding a credible source that Kww believes is "a strange looking source" it's actually a legal US copyright agreement which is open to the public

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

Deneuve15 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I seem to have an administrator that has taken a dislike to my edits on a credible source that proves by law Elizabeth Grants D.O.B is 1985 not 1986. It was a minor edit with a very reliable source. I added two other reliable sources that were removed. The account administrator Kww is claiming as my 'other' login is nothing to do with me it is not my account and I hope you can actually prove this. I think the administrator is missing a vital point here and that is the source is very reliable and can't be disputed. I can't understand why they have resorted to this second block when they have already blocked me for reasons out of the guidelines and now most Likely through coincidence is now claiming I have been tactically editing the page, I don't need to the source is credible. I really thought wiki was about factual information but it is actually impossible to add factual information with administrators like this. Just to clarify the account darkparadise? is not mine perhaps they can confirm this. Anyone got advice on making a complaint about a dodgy administrator?

Accept reason:

Per agreement to not reinsert the birthdate change into the article until there's a consensus that the birthdate should be changed.—Kww(talk) 21:09, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Deneuve15 (talk) 01:32, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

that's really low but it doesn't surprise me you seemed quite intent on making sure I was blocked for good and all because I added a truthful credible

source! I noticed you removed my discussion from the talk page! You really don't seem to want that information up there you've gone to great lengths. Deneuve15 (talk) 01:49, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

You made no contribution to the talk page, and any admin can verify that. The checkuser report confirmed that I was wrong about Darknessparadises, but did show that you abused Carlablu (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), an account that purported to be someone making supportive comments on your talk page but was, in fact, you.—Kww(talk) 01:57, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

No sweetie you are wrong I made a truthful contribution with a credible source which is what wiki is meant to be for but with people like you manipulating the facts it's no wonder wiki has a reputation for being full of shite. I'm sure someone else will try and inform people of the true facts but obviously wiki isn't the place to do that enjoy your crap administration job you're really good at it.Deneuve15 (talk) 02:08, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

I will ignore the personal comments made about another administrator; had you simply agreed to await consensus on this wholly trivial editing conflict we would not be here now. But as the problem has escalated you now need to explain your relationship to Carlablu and Clarablu; also I note that your claim to have discussed your change on the article talk-page is without foundation - deleted pages remain accessible, and there are none of relevance.--Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 11:49, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, I added a reply in response to Kww's admin threat, I possibly put the reply in the wrong place. I have one account on wiki, this one, the computer is shared in our rented house so it's possibly someone's account if the IP is the same I don't know. To be honest I just can't be bothered; if it's this much hassle to make a small credible edit it's really not worth it. The Administrator Kww is out of hand and clearly biased he did not react in the same way to any of the 'warring' over an image on the same page (which was nothing to do with me) or people deleting/undoing sources and edits without even giving a reason or leaving a credible source in place, I didn't even realise I was warring and after checking the guidelines I don't believe I was as it seemed to be the norm so what's all that about? Wiki is an on-line encyclopedia it's meant to be factual not made up rubbish or incorrectly managed by self appointed admin/judges. CheersDeneuve15 (talk) 17:03, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

The other edits didn't involve biographical information. FWIW, I located the edit you have been complaining about and restored your comment. The funky formatting confused King of Hearts when he was processing your unblock request, and he apparently trimmed part of your response.—Kww(talk) 19:24, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

The other edits made did involve 'biographical information' as it was the same thing I had edited; the year of birth, which you even stated in your 'investigation log' to try and prove I was another editor/sockpuppet changing the same thing; you didn't stop them making the changes, threaten or block their account and we made the same amount of edits on the same issue the only difference was I supplied a reliable source where others did not and you blocked me claiming "strange looking source" (it's actually the most reliable source that has been found); then took out another block against me, which after just reading the guidelines on sock puppetry checking; it seems to have been carried out outside of the context of being an administrator/checker; you and King of Hearts both agreed "it didn't look like a duck" but still went ahead "if it's not a duck it's not a duck". Wiki quote "What's more, reliable sources that are believed to be accurate are what make true winners" Because at the end of the day that's what wikipedia is about, not administrators playing out a God or Hitler fantasy behind a black screen and suffering Grandiose delusions or Messiah complex it's about 'Factual Information' which you completely disregarded in your 'job' as an administrator. Deneuve15 (talk) 20:02, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Darkparadises quit inserting it after four reversions, reversions where he had tried to come up with a better and better source each time. You, on the other hand, went six rounds with the same source, including doing so when you had been specifically warned to stop. Have you not yet grasped that all you have to do is get other people to agree that your source is better? I didn't reject your source. I simply told you that you needed to get other people to agree to your change rather than keep reverting back to your preferred version. At this point, I will still unblock you if you simply agree to not change the birthdate again without getting consensus at the article talk page that the sources for your change demonstrate that it is more likely to be correct.—Kww(talk) 20:15, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

I would have been happy to do that, I thought that as the source is so credible it would be fine to leave it, you didn't have to resort to the tack ticks you have. I don't have any faith in wiki or the administration after this experience you and King of Hearts both know you didn't adhere to the guidelines. But what does matter to me is factual information and "if I can" contribute to that great I'd like to post my source information on the article talk page; although I'm sure it will be disputed the impression I'm getting is wiki isn't reliable for factual information as I have been told many times before. I still don't agree with your argument in your last reply; because I added 3 different sources so you obviously didn't check properly, still think this was biased and for what reason? I have no idea.Deneuve15 (talk) 21:02, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm interpreting that as an agreement to the original unblock terms. If you insert the information again before you get a consensus to change the date, you will be reblocked, and I doubt that anyone will unblock you after that.—Kww(talk) 21:09, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

edit warring

You really seem to be having difficulty grasping the concept of edit warring, so I'll try again. An editor that continually makes identical (or very similar) changes that are being reverted by other editors is edit warring. So, if editor A makes a change which is reverted by editor B, puts it back and is reverted by editor C, puts it back and is reverted by B again, puts it back and is reverted by D, puts it back and is reverted by E, puts it back and is reverted by C again, only A has been edit warring and only A will be blocked. Any further questions?—Kww(talk) 17:23, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes you didn't block other editors who have done this as I discussed with you before. I'd also like to know why you are "Merely correcting" my comments but you don't merely correct comments made by other editors like "you can never change the date of birth only the owners of the page can" as an administrator do you agree with that comment or should you merely be correcting it? Deneuve15 (talk) 17:27, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Show me another editor that has made similar edits to the article despite being reverted six times by multiple editors, and proceeded to do so after receiving a block warning. The "owners of the page" comment is simply newbie ignorance, and I don't generally bother to run around correcting every statement made by newbies out of ignorance.—Kww(talk) 17:57, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

The same newbie Zak Hammat that undid my edit 5 times and eventually stopped and agreed on the source which then lead to you reverting the edit? oh and Darkparadises who made 5 continual edits Deneuve15 (talk) 18:16, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

I replied to your post on my talk page before seeing this discussion. I already mentioned Zak Hammat in it, as for Darkparadises, they only made 3 edits (edits made in immediate succession only generally count as one when it comes to edit warring because they could indeed be made in one edit). And they have not edited since 21st June stopping after they were warned, so I don't get why you even bring them up, I didn't even notice them personally. I suggest you also read WP:Blocking policy which explains blocks are preventative not punitive. Nil Einne (talk) 18:43, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

He brought up Darkparadises because the original SPI was run based on my belief that Denueve15 and Darkparadises were the same editor. That belief did, indeed, lead to my decision to warn only Deneueve15 in the edit war.

I will agree that I erred on one point: I blurred the edit war between Darkparadises and Deneuve15, and did not notice that the only editor that had been reverting Deneuve15 was Zak Hammat. I should have warned Zak at that same time I warned Deneueve15. I don't know how much difference it would have made: I still would have reverted the article to the wrong version in Deneuve15's eyes, he probably still would have made his change again, and I would have still blocked him.—Kww(talk) 19:13, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

This is the point I wanted to get to on the noticeboard why undo the edit if the primary source was valid and had been backed up by two secondary sources didn't it warrant a bit of investigating rather than putting all your effort into what you did i.e blocking and shaming? you put a lot of effort into that. After reading about primary sources I still dispute what the administrators have said:

For a start Gamaliel (talk · contribs) stated "It's not a legal document, it's a web catalog" it is an on line catalogue of a legal document.
Gamaliel (talk · contribs) also stated "all sorts of issues involving personal interpretations, misreadings, and original research" would arise from using a primary source.
What wiki says about primary sources;

Original research refers to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist - the secondary source I added was a newspaper publication.

Primary sources are often difficult to use appropriately. While they can be both reliable and useful in certain situations, they must be used with caution in order to avoid original research. While specific facts may be taken from primary sources, secondary sources that present the same material are preferred. Large blocks of material based purely on primary sources should be avoided. All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors.

I did reference 2 secondary sources that backed up the primary source.
The primary source did not effect large blocks of material.
I was taking a specific fact from the primary source.
The secondary sources that are currently being used in the article are not backing up the primary source.
The secondary sources I used that were reverted, did back up the primary source.

It seems to be understood by wiki that celebrities often change there real date of birth for whatever reason that might be, normally to appear younger than they are and most of the secondary sources being used on the article have the same incorrect biographical information - so my issue is that the information wiki currently has is incorrect.Deneuve15 (talk) 20:06, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

It may well be true that the information distributed is incorrect. We have some articles that display two dates of birth with an explanation of why we can't decide which is right, some that display one with a footnote about another, and some that display none at all. The value of your sources in determining that is a matter for discussion at the talk page. If you think you can't get wide enough examination at the talk page, I can help you set up an RFC that will bring in a group of independent editors to look at your sources. The way to do that, though, is not to argue that you are being unfairly treated. It's to gather sources for each date, and explain why you think the sources for one date are substantially better. Keep in mind the problems with WP:SYNTH, as well: your sources that list only fragments of dates or her age at the time of an interview aren't going to be persuasive.—Kww(talk) 20:29, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Okay lets do that otherwise how can I or anyone else know that what they are reading on wikipedia is correct when available sources say something different.Deneuve15 (talk) 20:56, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

I think there are two things which you don't seem to understand about Wikipedia:

• Wikipedia is based on reliable secondary sources. Your claims about an unseen, unknown, alleged legal document are not backed up by anything except a web catalog entry. We can't dismiss those (six, as of this writing) solid, reliable secondary sources because of dubious reasoning based on an unseen document. Truth is a matter for journalists and historians, and Wikipedia is based on their work, not our own reasoning and discovery.

• Edit warring is not acceptable. Even if you were 100% correct, that does not justify your edit warring. Otherwise Wikipedia would become a battle ground for competing truths, because after all most people think they are correct. The proper procedure would have been to bring your concerns to the talk page or a noticeboard instead of edit warring, not as a supplement to it. If you were 100% correct, likely other editors would notice this and support your edits.

Gamaliel (talk) 20:31, 15 July 2013 (UTC)]]

I haven't done much editing on wiki and this edit purely came from a heated group discussion about some basic fact; the year of birth being incorrect. It's been made very clear to me what edit warring is, I have been told enough times and as you can see I have not reverted to my edit. BUT wikipedia does state 'specific facts may be taken from primary sources'. I think the main issue here is that the birth date that is being used is for 'Lana Del Rey the persona' as this is when the year changed to 1986, prior to that when Elizabeth Woolridge Grant was known as Elizabeth Woolridge Grant the birth date was 1985. There are a couple of published articles where her producer stated that a whole new persona was created which would explain the confusion over the year of birth, so which is correct, which is factual. Given that the specific part of the article is about Elizabeth Woolridge Grant and not the persona Lana Del Rey shouldn't the real year of birth be used. Also how would you suggest you cite a legal document on Wikipedia?Deneuve15 (talk) 20:56, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 2

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Young and Beautiful (Lana Del Rey song), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Paradise (EP) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:59, 2 January 2014 (UTC)