Talk:Jane Morgan

message: The article link for "The Troubadours" goes to the article about a current UK band and should be fixed.  I suggest someone should research the Kapp Records group that backed up Jane on "Fascination" (and are heard without Jane on the flip side of the original 45 doing "Fascination"), and also the late 20's group led by Hugo Frey which recorded numerous sides for Victor, both acoustic and Orthophonic.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.28.229.129 (talk) 05:17, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see your groups mentioned at Troubadour (disambiguation) either. Is there any chance you could be the "someone" who doea the research? I'd be happy to work with you to put the material in an appropriate article and sort out the naming. Franamax (talk) 05:31, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: The Troubadours

message: "... an elegant Juilliard sound"? With a link to the article on that music school? Does the music school acknowledge that sound ("with little sense of rhythm or beat"), and that Jane Morgan used it? Isn't a word of explanation in order?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by JohnOFL (talk • contribs) 04:20, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jane Morgan "Singing Style" section. 

message: This is the publicity image in question
Some time ago, after a diligent search, I added an image of Jane Morgan to the infobox, for the obvious reasons.  Because there were no available free images images that conformed to our license, I used a publicity picture, and labelled the image with the proper rationale for using a publicity picture. (Here is a Google Image search showing that there are no images of Jane Morgan with a compatible license available: ) Now an editor has tagged the picture as not being compliant with NFCC #1 as being apicture of a living person, about whom it is presumed a free image can be found.  However, because as explained above, in actuality there are no compatible free images, I have disputed the tagging.
So far, so good.  The problem is that the editor who tagged the image removed it from the article, and, despite the fact that I have disputed the tagging, and that we are awaiting adjudication about who is correct about the usability of the article, the editor continues to remove it, on the theory (I guess) that once he has tagged it, there is no question that it is a violation and therefore must be removed.  However, there has been no decision made concerning the status of the image, it remains available; the image can be removed from the article once (and if) it is deleted, but in the meantime, because the NFCC tagging has been disputed, it should remain in the article.  After all, we don't delete articles after they've been tagged to be speedied or prodded or AfD'd, we wait for the outcome of that process to delete them.  The same should be true here.  The tagging of the image represents the opinion of a single editor that the image is non-compliant, and that is not sufficient to remove the image from the article. It must be confirmed by the result of the process, whether that is the decision of an admin, or the outcome of a community discussion.
Perhaps the editor believes that his word is law, and cannot be challenged, perhaps he believes that by removing it, the orphaning of the image from any article gives a second bite at the apple in getting it deleted, I don't know.  But I do think that the editor should be told to have a little patience and await the outcome of the process that he started with the tagging of the image, and not presume that his judgment will automatically be upheld. Since he has done the same kind of thing for many, many other images, he should also be told to do a little WP:BEFORE-type investigation before he assumes that every image conforms to the presumption of NFCC. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:01, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: *The claim that she was deceased was a simple mistake, which I corrected myself once I noticed it.  HW said in g=his last removal that discussion was running against my dispute of his claim.  Where is that discussion>  I cannot find any indication of it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:03, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: * The point being you're both well aware of the edit warring policy and well aware this was wholly unnecessary. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:55, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Infobox image 

message: Due to a fairly belligerent and completely useless edit war in the last few days, a request for full protection has been forwarded. 87.19.188.227 (talk) 18:12, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Request for full protection of the Jane Morgan's article

message: Please restore the infobox image :File:Jane Morgan headshot.jpg.  As noted above, there has been no decision made as of yet whether it is in violation of NFCC #1, simply a claim of such by one editor, and a disputing of that claim by me.  As noted above, a Google search shows that there are no available images of this person with licenses compatible with Wikipedia's. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:10, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: This is the edit that the edit war the page protection was supposed to stop is about, yeah? May be more advisable to discuss this with  rather than to drag admins into the dispute. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:21, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: His position is unmoveable, his attitude dismissive, his arrogance supreme.  What he does not have is the authority to keep the image removed when that removal is disputed.  Admins are here to deal with problems such as this.  I have stated a case for the image to be restored until such time as its status is determined, and have presented a prima facie case for the disputation of his tagging.  This, it seems to me, should be sufficient to have the image restored. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:47, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll note that another editor -- not myself -- removed HW's NFCC tag and my disputing tag from the photo in question, and suggested the issue go to FfD.  Certainly in that case, the file should be restored to the article until there's a determination in that venue about deletion. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:09, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

text: Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the  template. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 14:20, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: All very well, but there's no impetus for HW to discuss further, since the article is protected without the image in it, which makes the image orphaned, which means it will be deleted in a week without HW lifting a finger. This systemic problem is an interesting one, in that as soon as any editor claims that an image is an NFCC violation, all the tools and presumptions are on that editor's side, and there's little or nothing an editor who disagrees with the tagging can do. This is unlike any other situation on Wikipedia I am aware of, even BLP. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:54, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

text: * That it was protected has nothing to do with the image's status as a non-free file. The edit war is what caused the protection, not its copyright status. One thing has nothing to do with the other. For what its worth (see above), this is a cut and dry case of where a non-free image must be deleted. Whether it's deleted via F5 or F7 is immaterial. F5 actually benefits you as F7 under RFU wait period is only two days, as opposed to the seven days of F5. --Hammersoft (talk) 22:18, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

text: * Also, you could convert the orfud to an ffd. I believe (not sure, but think) the bot honors that. Then you could have your discussion. --Hammersoft (talk) 22:21, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

text: That's what prompted me requesting a protection rather than two blocks. 87.19.188.227 (talk) 11:01, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

text: *  Though I agree with you regarding WP:NFCC#10c removals, there is not a clear consensus I'm aware of that establishes that is a clear exemption from 3RR to keep removing failures. In fact, I remember Betacommand running afoul of this very problem, and getting some very serious pushback on the issue. In the future, I would (1) remove, (2) if it's re-instated educate the editor in question regarding the NFCC policy and how it must be adhered to, and then (3) remove again. IF it gets put back again, take it to a noticeboard somewhere or even WT:NFC. Inform the editor of your actions on the noticeboard. --Hammersoft (talk) 02:26, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Request for edit

message: Could an admin either drop the protection, since there's unlikely to be any further edit warring, or else add the PD image :File:Jane_Morgan_Mike_Douglas_Show.jpg to the infobox? Thanks. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:29, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Done I've added the image.  may want to comment on whether protection is still required — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:36, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thank you! Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:48, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Request for edit (2)