Talk:Louise Lucas

message: I just reorganized this article into traditional sections, after noticing its substantial variation from the article for a state senator from a nearby district. Obviously, it needs more than one citation, and that from an article about a scandal nearly a decade old. However, none of the external links would load.Jweaver28 (talk) 12:53, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  citechecking needed 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Louise Lucas. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20051220104015/http://sov.state.va.us/SenatorDB.nsf/be032c3005b9a5bb85256bf3006d57e2/99002e6c5b8346dd85256aa000719972?OpenDocument to http://sov.state.va.us/SenatorDB.nsf/be032c3005b9a5bb85256bf3006d57e2/99002e6c5b8346dd85256aa000719972?OpenDocument
*Added  tag to http://www.vote-smart.org/bio.php?can_id=5105
*Added archive https://archive.is/20071020010336/http://projects.washingtonpost.com/votersguide/2007/va/races/va-senate-district-18/ to http://projects.washingtonpost.com/votersguide/2007/va/races/va-senate-district-18/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:41, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Today I chatted with the Library of Virginia and uploaded two digital photos to replace the photo of Sen. Lucas in an Obama cap that keeps getting replaced here. Clearly, that photo is dated, as well as unflattering. Currently, the photo is that from her official Virginia Senate website. Since it is from a state not federal government, copyright issues are not easy, as the librarian was aware. I'm not about to parse them. However, if that's not considered fair use, I've also uploaded her official 2016 portrait, cropped from the official Virginia Senate portrait, which I think would easily fit into the fair use criteria. That's Louise_Lucas_Official_portrait_2016_session.jpg. Clearly she has chosen to alter her hairstyle in the last four years, which is her right. Since I'm neither in her district nor political, I really hope that the repeated use of the 2008 photo is neither sexist nor partisan, intended to portray the legislator in an unfavorable light.Jweaver28 (talk) 21:49, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Please provide a better explanation for removing the image.  :File:Louise Lucas 2008-08-28.jpg is a freely licensed image of the subject.  The fact that photo is from 2008 doe snot mean we cannot use it.  There is no mandate in an encyclopedia article that an image must be current.  As well, I fail to see why it is unflattering.  I see no good reason put forth to remove a perfectly valid image as you have done repeatedly. -- Whpq (talk) 17:53, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: The Obama hat photo is more than a decade old, was taken without the living subject's consent, and most definitely does not reflect her current position. She is now the president pro tempore of the Virginia senate, one of Commonwealth's very few statewide offices. As a Canadian (per your talk page), you may not appreciate the racial sensitivities in this Commonwealth, particularly as a result of Massive Resistance to education integration in the 1950s and 1960s. Still, surely even if you are of a different race, gender and generation from the subject, you can understand from the article history that the Senator objects to the photo. Of course, President Obama was never a Virginian. Frankly, I haven't seen any other politician's article illustrated with a photograph to which the subject objects, nor such a casual photo. I've spoken with people who weren't aware that official state photos are not public domain (unlike U.S. government photos), and tracked down the copyright issue through the Library of Virginia, clerk's office of the Virginia senate and twice spoken with the senator's chief of staff. I'm not doing this for political reasons--I am an independent and rather than vote in any primary on Super Tuesday physically posted the photo from the Library of Virginia which is celebrating the centenary of woman's suffrage in the U.S.--but out of common decency. Several people suggested the fair use rationale, and I've told the chief of staff about how wikipedia now wants an email from his office since I took the photo from the Senator's official senate page, giving the appropriate consents. Frankly, I went to Stanford Law School long ago and this wikipedia near-bullying process is why I stopped uploading images (in addition to hacking threats, which again seemed warranted since within a half hour of uploading it, my phone navigation went crazy twice and kept switching me to the toll Pohick expressway when I had specified non-toll roads and just wanted to drive 3 miles in a nearly straight shot on Broad street from Richmond's fan district to its Church Hill). I'm also disturbed that the gist of wikipedia's "higher" standard seems to protect future commercial possibilities, rather than living subjects. Furthermore, the last time the offensive photo was re-uploaded, it was from Utah and the other photos I saw uploaded all had the subjects (mostly Republicans) in professional attire and poses.00:17, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  photo broughaha 

message: I removed an odd sentence in the article, which referred to a different person, but I don't have time to edit or research further, given my headcold, the library closing and my other obligations. It already has an additional citation flag. For what its worth, the photo lucas2018.jpg already on wikipedia is Australian politician Rob Lucas.Jweaver28 (talk) 21:58, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  more work needed