User talk:Aminorex
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Cf. page history for earlier content
Please do not make unconstructive edits, as you did recently to Jim Bell. Wikipedia articles contain images that illustrate the topic in a manner that text cannot, and the presence of a limited number of free, relevant, non-obscene images is always preferable to their absence. If you have difficulty understanding this, you may wish to consult Wikipedia:IMAGE#Image_choice_and_placement. Regards, Skomorokh 03:58, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
I think the edit was constructive. The policy you reference states: "Images must be relevant to the article they appear in and be significant relative to the article's topic", but Bob Murphy's picture is neither.Aminorex (talk) 21:57, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
- With respect, I think you will find you are mistaken; Jim_Bell#.22Assassination_Politics.22. Regards, Skomorokh 21:59, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
-
- Consider the history of the page. Others have removed the photo as being out of place and misleading. The mere mention of Mr. Murphy, which is of questionable relevance, since his critique is not original, but rather is derived from the Kay critique, is not grounds to include his photo, when it is misleading. I think it's spam, but let's keep this on the discussion page for the article henceforth, so that it is not a personal exchange, but rather a constructive dialog in the context of the community of interest for that page -- agreed?Aminorex (talk) 22:09, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
- I was about to suggest the same thing; this Kay business is new to me, so if you have a reliable source for it, please add it to the article. Regards, Skomorokh 22:17, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
- Consider the history of the page. Others have removed the photo as being out of place and misleading. The mere mention of Mr. Murphy, which is of questionable relevance, since his critique is not original, but rather is derived from the Kay critique, is not grounds to include his photo, when it is misleading. I think it's spam, but let's keep this on the discussion page for the article henceforth, so that it is not a personal exchange, but rather a constructive dialog in the context of the community of interest for that page -- agreed?Aminorex (talk) 22:09, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
