Talk:Daniel Lee (designer)

Page Creation

This is just a stub to get people started. Lots of information about him out there.

Links:

https://www.kering.com/en/news/daniel-lee-appointed-creative-director-bottega-veneta

BoF 500 Daniel Lee https://www.businessoffashion.com/community/people/daniel-lee

Bottega Veneta

https://www.bottegaveneta.com/us/unisex/creative-director-daniel-lee_grd32937

Kering / Bottega Veneta

https://www.kering.com/en/houses/couture-and-leather-goods/bottega-veneta/

WWD Buyers review p 7 and 8

http://pdf-digital-daily.wwd.com.s3-website-us-east-1.amazonaws.com/dd/2019-09-23-1cf834b45d3510d64ce3f92ccf56a93c.pdf?guid=cds3909629WWR

VOGUE UK OCTOBER 2019 ISSUE

https://www.vogue.co.uk/fashion/article/bottega-veneta-daniel-lee-interview

VOGUE UK ANNOUNCE DL appointment June 2018

https://www.vogue.co.uk/article/daniel-lee-creative-director-bottega-veneta

New Bottega is the Old Celine

https://i-d.vice.com/en_uk/article/xwjm7w/is-the-new-bottega-veneta-the-old-celine

SS20 Reviews

https://www.theguardian.com/fashion/2019/sep/19/daniel-lees-bottega-veneta-show-exudes-quiet-confidence GrassEel (talk) 09:07, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• Daniel Lee.jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 19:07, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

Berlin COVID19 Incident

A similar section to the one under Lee's activities with "Bottega Veneta" was deleted from the Soho House (club) webpage without comment; this has already been reverted and a warning threatening arbitration was made on that talk page (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Soho_House_(club)#Regarding_recent_unwarranted_%22controversy%22_deletions_on_this_page). Should this section be deleted without comment or reasoning, I believe the warning should apply here in advance and this is notice of that warning. However, should someone reorganise the existing links into a "Controversy" section, this might be welcome as I am not sure it fits as is. Talonx89.12.134.221 (talk) 12:46, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

As editors have failed to heed the above warning on both this page and the related Soho House (club) page to engage in conversation before starting an edit war, I am requesting arbitration and/or edit locking although I am not myself a registered wiki member and might also be blocked. At least then the page can be improved instead of altered to suit a narrative. talonx89.14.166.177 (talk) 06:53, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

You are using Wikipedia to turn yet-unverified rumors into facts.

This source states "the event's legality and hygiene concept is unclear" and "whether the afterparties were official Bottega Veneta events or not is unclear". It also states the reports come from "an anonymous Soho House staff member" and "since-deleted videos shared on Instagram by attendees", so very weak sources.

This Guardian article, dated April 12, says "A spokesperson for Berlin’s police force said 'We are currently viewing footage of the event with view to possible preliminary proceedings for a breach of measures against the coronavirus'." Since then, there has been no official statement from the authorities, nothing but Social Media noise. Even on Twitter (links to Twitter search results blacklisted here), there isn't a single photo or video to back up the rumors. So we need to remain cautious to avoid any malicious instrumentalization of Wikipedia.

It would also be better if an actual user of Wikipedia added this type of content, instead of IP users. <outing redacted>

When you skim out the noise, this affair is barely about Daniel Lee, but mostly about Bottega Veneta's event and the Soho Club.

Knewdates (talk) 18:33, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

In fact there are numerous videos of the event still floating around even if a more general take-down was effected through unknown legal means: here's a video of the illegal party: https://www.rtl.de/videos/gaeste-feiern-im-soho-house-mitten-in-der-pandemie-60755f431782501d2a71d7c2.html

This really seems like bad faith editing 101. You or your folks edited content multiple times without regard to the talk page. What you are talking about, as far as I understand is synthesis and your edits go far beyond even that. I think given the accusations of bad faith, and the personal nature of your accusations of me, that at this point it makes sense to call in independant arbitration, don't you? The tone of the section on Daniel Lee's (reported) involvement does not look unbiased and flies in the face of other citation standards nor was is it grammatically fit. I can swear that I have nothing to do with these people and businesses personally or professionally, I have never worked for any of them or had any contact with them. Further more, I have been editing without an account while signing my name and details with Wiki since the start. My edits are often related to recording controversial topics and making sure marginalised people are fairly represented (e.g. things like correcting gender usage so that a transwoman is called "she" as is the standard). Can you honestly say the that you have nothing to do with this label, it seems otherwise from your reaction and failure to engage in a good faith conversation? It feels like you are trying to weild beurocratic authority rather blindly and without an understanding of wiki rules. talonx78.55.186.185 (talk) 08:13, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

Holy crap, I only just read further into your accusations, you are just lying, I'm not on social media. talonx78.55.186.185 (talk) 08:16, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

As an unbiased, uninvolved 3rd party- I'm just going to say that after reading the sources- I think "rumors" is not an accurate summary- but rather "reports" or "videos appeared on social media of...." Rumors has a connotation of substantiation- where there definitely appears to be some truth to these- although to what degree is unclear at this point. Just my two cents. Also IP- you are reading personal attacks where I don't see any..... I can see why you think the other editor may have a connection- however- there isn't enough evidence to assume that to be true- possible, but not true. And they are right about WP:BLP and how careful we have to be. Nightenbelle (talk) 17:40, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

I think IP editor 78.55.186.185 may felt harassed by this particular content: It would also be better if an actual user of Wikipedia added this type of content, instead of IP users.. This is a clear WP:BITE problem. Also we have suppressed content that could be WP:OUTING, which look like social media handle. No matter what is the nature of the edit, the actions of Knewdates is clearly in bad faith. As for the content itself, I disagreed also that "rumors" is an accurate summary of the situation. "Reports" and "Videos on social media", like what is said by Nightenbelle is more accurate. Rumors implied bad faith and implied that there is no proof at all, while what we have now are "unconfirmed" video reports instead of just nothing. SunDawn (talk) 03:00, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

I appreciate both of you weighing in, I would suggest reverting to my previous edits and starting from there while modifying the language to "reports" (though I am pretty sure my original edit was already on track, requiringg only a few modifications). Unfortunately, I've already reverted once here, and on the Soho House (club) page twice. Arbitration locked the Soho Page after I asked for help with a potential revert war. In the interest of good faith, I don't think I should be the one to revert this page. Further, the video link I posted above should be added as a citation as it comes from a news outlet, these video reports are confirmed by employee reports and a police noise-complaint report on the evening in addition to the confirmation of an investigation into illegal activities in the other articles I had sighted. Regarding Daniel Lee's behaviour at the event (which was deleted in this edit), eyewitness accounts were reported in another article I cited, this citation was deleted. Lastly, Regarding this users outing-attempt, the funny thing is that I am not even a man, as a neurodiverse person I am finding this situation a bit too much to handle on my own, can you two make any suggestions for what I can do to protect myself further, I've been on wiki from day-one and this is the first time I have experienced this situation? Further, when I looked at the talk page of the user in question to inform that I was posting on admin to ask for arbitration, I noticed problematic editing behaviour logged by a number of other users. Talonx77.183.83.196 (talk) 06:55, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

Rather than revert- I just did the changes- it was only a couple words anyway. And I think right now we have a consensus. This story can and will change in the future- and should be updated when it does. As for how to avoid this- I don't think there is a foolproof way to avoid contention on WP. You never know when you will run into a passionate editor who dislikes your edits. What you can control- is your own reaction. And if you are finding a situation stressful- you can walk away for an hour, a day, or as long as you need. You can choose not to read or respond. But you cannot control who you interact with here- just how you respond. I know that is sooo much easier said than done- but.... its the best advise I can think of. Nightenbelle (talk) 19:04, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

Hi, I would like to apologize for my behavior towards the user Talonx. I was reminded my behavior was close to harassment, which was not my intent, and it is not the spirit I wish to convey on Wikipedia. I am very sorry about that and will make sure I don't behave this way again. Knewdates (talk) 17:02, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Knewdates Thank you so much for this apology, it is sincerely greatly appreciated. I would agree that "close to" is an accurate way to put it. I think it can be easy for anyone to make a lot of assumptions about intentions, when they feal scared or like something unfair has happened. I am glad to see that you understand my distress at the situation. Thanks as well to Nightenbelle for the suggestion, it's nice to hear someone echo common-sense sometimes. All in all, this communication is why I value wikipedia. I hope there can also be an understanding developed out of this amongst those involved that some of us don't have accounts because we don't feel comfortable with social-media, for example. However, I will always sign my work as well as post on talk pages, however rarely I post. talonx78.55.31.207 (talk) 13:22, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

I had to readd information from a user that deleted what had already been decided here. I will contact user Nightenbelle to discuss other actions that can be taken to protect this page from company propaganda edits. Talonx77.13.166.64 (talk) 18:39, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

It looks like these changes happened months ago- I don't see a current ongoing threat. However, if your edits are reverted again- I would suggest asking an admin to page protect this page- that will prevent you from editing as an IP editor however. I would like to say- I'm not an admin- I'm just a regular old editor- so other than add an opinion, I have no authority. Nightenbelle (talk) 19:13, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

Parents or siblings

Who are they 82.8.192.207 (talk) 19:22, 1 August 2022 (UTC)