User talk:MiamiManny

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome!

Hello, MiamiManny, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{helpme}} before the question on your talk page. Again, welcome! The Rambling Man (talk) 11:27, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Image tagging for Image:Celebrity centre promotional photo.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Celebrity centre promotional photo.jpg. You don't seem to have said where the image came from or who created it. We requires this information to verify that the image is legally usable on Wikipedia, and because most image licenses require giving credit to the image's creator.

To add this information, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the information to the image's description. If you need help, post your question on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 03:06, 9 December 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Celebrity centre promotional photo.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Celebrity centre promotional photo.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 19:03, 22 December 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Zimmerman Mugshot.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Zimmerman Mugshot.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 03:51, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

The explanation (this is a government mug shot released to the public under Florida's Public Records Law, Ch. 119 of the Florida Statutes) is more than suitable for Image:Zimmerman Mugshot.jpg. You need to fix your bot. This is an unwelcome annoyance.--MiamiManny (talk) 04:09, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Zimmerman Mugshot.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Zimmerman Mugshot.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. Pascal.Tesson (talk) 04:46, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

This is another annoying message after the issue has been already been addressed. I wish admins and editors who care about Wikipedia would put their efforts on ways to include photos instead of focusing on deleting as many as possible. Their overzealous deletion efforts are ruining Wikipedia.--MiamiManny (talk) 17:35, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Image:Zimmerman Mugshot.jpg

The image was used only on a deleted article, so there's no point in restoring it; you can appeal at deletion review but I can tell you right now that there's no chance of success. If you're interested by the way, I've uploaded lots of free videos and images. east.718 at 04:04, February 25, 2008

That's pretty disingenuous since it was you, east718, that deleted the article, Al Zimmerman, in which it was included. It is curious that you have removed any reference to this accused sex offender/political appointee. It is inappropriate of you to dissuade me from using the appeal process, and I will pursue this matter and a review of your actions aggressively. --MiamiManny (talk) 04:17, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
Whoops, just got your second message. I deleted the article under a policy that allows purely negative biographies to be deleted on sight (WP:BLP). Again, you can start a discussion at WP:DRV to contest this. Cheers! east.718 at 04:05, February 25, 2008
Isn't there also an opportunity to have your actions reviewed as an admin as well? Can't admins who abuse their powers have them removed? Where do I lodge a complaint against you? --MiamiManny (talk) 04:17, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
I would hardly label this as an abuse of power, but the administrators' noticeboard is always available if you want to make an informal complaint. east.718 at 04:20, February 25, 2008
Thank you for information on the noticeboard. Your explanation for deleting the article was: "I deleted the article under a policy that allows purely negative biographies to be deleted on sight (WP:BLP)." You are misstating wikipedia policy. The policy, (WP:BLP), says: "Administrators encountering biographies that are unsourced and negative in tone, where there is no neutral version to revert to, should delete the article without discussion." The Al Zimmerman article was sourced, so your basis for deleting the article was incorrect. The reason negative biographies with sources are allowed in wikipedia is because some biographies can't help but be negative. For instance, it would be very difficult to make the bios of Adolf Hitler or Jeffrey Dahmer appear positive. The bio of Al Zimmerman, an accused child pornographer, may present a similar challenge. Wikipedia policy allows these articles to exist, as long as they are sourced. --MiamiManny (talk) 04:45, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
I am going to sleep, so it will be best to start a discussion on DRV. My abbreviated thoughts are that the quality of sourcing doesn't matter, but the notability of the person aside from a single unfortunate event does: Hitler was a chancellor who was responsible for a world war; Dahmer is the iconic American serial killer. The last deletion I performed of this nature, of Corey Worthington, [1] [2] had a similar set of circumstances: widespread international news coverage for one negative event, but little to put in an article aside from that. By the way, that quote that you pulled from WP:BLP doesn't reflect the best practices of the community anymore, but the results of this July 2007 arbitration case does. Thanks, east.718 at 05:26, February 25, 2008