Talk:Pippa Black

Age

It's hard to believe she was born in 1989. That would make her the same age as Eliza Taylor-Cotter and she's probably 2 to 4 years older. Ramseystreet 04:06, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Yea you're right (she's around 24 from recent media articles). SeK612 22:30, 11th April 2006 (GMT)

The article now states 1982 as her year of birth. Jatkins 10:48, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Does anyone know/or can find out the exact date of her birth? Jatkins 10:50, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

And in the meantime, the person is categorized as 1985-births. 80.65.195.132 11:43, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

So does that need changing (the article says 1982 still)? As I say 1982 seems closer to the age most put her at (1985 would make her 21?). SeK612 16:12, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Left-handed

Citation needed? Just watch her on Neighbours and you’ll see it yourself.91.107.95.213 (talk) 18:14, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

External link

External links should not be to sites that violate others' copyrights, therefore this link is not appropriate for Wikipedia. See WP:C and WP:EL. Robwingfield ^(talk) 08:28, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't suppose you feel up to revealing exactly what you feel has been infringed upon and why you're choosing this particular article to protest against copyright violation (looking at the two sites you have removed they contain nothing worse than most of the sites out there). SeK612 ^(talk) 11:00am, 16 June 2006 (GMT)

If you look at the "Media" section of that site, there are lots of vidcaps and videos taken from Neighbours. These are obviously copyrighted. If you take a look at WP:C and WP:EL, Wikipedia policy is not to link to sites that contain copyright violations. If you'd like to change that policy, fair enough, but for the moment, the links can't remain in this article. Robwingfield ^(talk) 11:47, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

I'd suggest fair use on those images as the official sources which they are from have yet to complain about their use. It also seems strange you are singling out this article. Most fan sites will contain similar content so why pick up on Pippa Black as a stage to make a protest? For example why not removed most of the sites listed under Neighbours (some of which specifically point out that they offer screen captures from the show) as most her contain similar screen captures used without the permission you seem to require. I'm sure I can continue to supply plenty more examples of such sites too so I'm stuggling to see why you feel you have a right to remove content freely from this article when it is being accepted elsewhere on Wikipedia. SeK612 12:07, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Just because there are lots of articles that flout WP policy doesn't mean we shouldn't make a start on cleaning them up... Robwingfield ^(talk) 12:12, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

This is getting ridiculous. As I understand it you have no special authority here and your motives for continously removing content could also be flagged as damaging Wikipedia. The fact remains that the linked site is of relavence to the article (with it containing much more information about the article in question that the article itself) yet you continue to remove it. SeK612 12:14, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I'm not going to remove it again for the moment, as I don't want to break WP:3RR as you've just done... however, I'll probably discuss this elsewhere to gain a consensus. Robwingfield ^(talk) 12:16, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Is there no way to get a straight answer from Wiki themselves and would there be any official complaints channels if you do continue to remove the link? I'd accept the changes I guess if such sites weren't accepted elsewhere on Wikipedia so readily (and if Wikipedia wasn't churning out marginal articles such as this one which dominate Search Engine result pages). -- SeK612 12:27, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

You and I are Wikipedia. Wikipedia is the users. Users adhere to policy unless they disagree with it, in which case they try to get it changed. If you don't like the policies I cited then fair enough, but just ignoring them isn't fair enough. Robwingfield ^(talk) 13:33, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

The problem is your citing a rule which doesn't seem to be enforced in anyway across Wikipedia and yet your insisting it must be upheld on this page (again I'm confused as to why you seem hell bent of enforcing the rule on this Pippa Black page). The more I read into it as well the more I come across the argument that screen caps can be used under the terms of "fair use" which seems to lessen any arguments you have anyway.

I appreciate the passion some have for editing Wikipedia and the satisfaction they may get from it and agree that rules are needed but I'm still frustrated at your continuing removal of a handful of sites from this article and this article alone.

If anything I doubt people would even bother adding links to Wiki however it is this site which is thrusting up these small articles which benefit from the power of the rest of Wikipedia to rank well in search engines (for example search Google for "Pippa Black" and it will return this article yet this article is not the most comprehensive Pippa Black resource) and pull people in which creates the need to add links at the bottom of articles. -- SeK612 14:10, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

A small number of low-resolution screen caps are fine. I agree. But the site you're linking to has a large number of them, and videos as well. Do you think they are fair use?

Why did I choose this article to edit? I don't think I should have to justify which pages I edit... but if you insist, it's because I saw it spring up on my watchlist, and decided to act. I may or may not go through other pages and apply the same WP policies, but that's my preprogative. Others may decide to do it instead of me. But just because a policy and laws are being flouted doesn't mean that we should let that situation continue, nor does it mean that we should exacerbate the situation. Robwingfield ^(talk) 01:13, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

My comments about picking on this article is your using a tiny platform to try and push a massive issue. You're also picking on two very small new sites which seems a little unfair (why should they be caught in the crossfire just because you decide in your opinion certain content is wrong). The facts are for the moment screen captures are used across the internet (and on wikipedia) and for fan sites, which support actors and shows and help boost their profiles, a degree of leeway is given.

Again the sites add to the article and expand on the content which is there and provide more resources for fans of the actor in question (it's not as if these sites are offensive or misleading in anyway). You point on video clips is actually wrong as neither site appears to offer them at the moment. If they do they will no doubt be small (again the focus is the actor in question not defrauding the show or the project they're working on) as things like bandwidth and copyright issues do come into it. -- SeK612 11:01, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Pippa Black. 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/20120929212122/http://news.ninemsn.com.au/article.aspx?id=326948 to http://news.ninemsn.com.au/article.aspx?id=326948
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091028183636/http://www.cosmopolitan.com.au/funfearlessfemale.htm to http://www.cosmopolitan.com.au/funfearlessfemale.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:06, 9 January 2018 (UTC)