131:
encyclopedia" needs to be addressed -- I actually do understand that, and if you read my nomination, you would see that I never suggested that my agreement with a particular message was a criterion for images. I appreciate your input, but I just wanted to clarify that your accusation that the nomination was "pure POV" is false and attributes bad faith to me. There are many images on
Knowledge (XXG) that I don't necessarily agree with (including several almost exactly like this), but this image in particular was suggested for deletion by multiple editors on the talk page of an article where the photographer was edit warring to promote one of those images. Knowledge (XXG) is an encyclopedia, not a showcase for amateur photographers, and I don't think we have a place for images that appear libelous or violate the basic rules of appropriation (images of individuals used without explicit permission). On top of it, the photography is atrocious, and the photographer is clearly using the image descriptions to push a POV that we cannot verify (I don't see any evidence these photos were taken at a "protest," for example). Files for deletion may not be the right forum for these objections, but to say that my nomination was a "political POV" attack is false. Cheers,
149:
are weak and as far as the “borderline stalking” statement is concerned, somewhat hysterical. The photos are fine, if you object to how they are being used on
Knowledge (XXG) then take your argument to that article’s talk page. Knowledge (XXG) is not censored and you cannot get images deleted because you do not agree with the message they portray. Images of individuals can used without explicit permission, if taken in a public place or a place that the public have access to on payment or otherwise there are also other exceptions. These images are very clearly taken on a public road.
31:
168:
certainly illegal to post such pictures without permission (you are dead wrong about that, at least according to US law). You may think my arguments are weak but that is no reason to accuse me of intentions I never had. Besides, what the hell is there to "agree" or "disagree" with in the photo anyway?? It's a picture of a kid in a car.
148:
Your edit history on anti-Semitism etc. proves that you do indeed have a political POV on the subject matter, are not being objective in nominating these images for deletion; and I was correct in my assessment of the reason you want these photos deleted. Purely objectively your arguments for deletion
130:
Greetings; I just wanted to follow up on the comments you made on my deletion proposal for two images. The discussion is moot since I was not in the right forum. But your comment "Nominator needs to understand that not agreeing with the message an image conveys is not a critrea for deletion on this
375:
Is that quote something you fight against or aspire to? Because this is precisely what you did to parts of the Heaven 17 page, which did not consist of "spam" and "excess commentary", but important information describing the contents of certain releases. What's there now is incomplete and factually
351:
Please do not list birth names for porn performers unless the name is specifically, and reliably, sourced. It is considered contentious information, there are multiple OTRS proceedings from it. We've already had one stalker that outed someone's birth name into the media through her article, because
202:
a paragraph of sourced content saying that it was POV. I have to ask: what POV are you talking about? It describes how the political and social ambient helped to to create and popularize the New
Romanticism. I already provided sources, and they don't look biased to me, so if you think that the info
107:
I've submitted my opinion to that debate, but I doubt that it is going to save your work… sorry. Fairly shocking behaviour in my mind. The two admins involved in getting your image deleted seem to be a pair of idiots who work as a double act . So I’m going to watch them like a hawk and have them
167:
for details on why your accusations are completely out of line. As I said there are plenty of images I don't like and I don't submit them for deletion. And frankly I don't think it's "hysterical" to compare taking pictures of little kids in cars without permission to borderline stalking; it's
406:
is constructive. I can see no sign of homophobia in any of the deletion comments, and I would consider it a personal attack if you meant to include my nomination as being homophobic. Could you please strike out that comment? I would argue that it is a form of homophobia that has lead to the
311:
219:
Three editors on that articles talk page consider this political POV pushing, your sources do not provide an independant apolitical viewpoint of the subject; and as this edit is against consenus will no doubt be removed by another editor shortly.
203:
is incorrect, then please find sources describing the correct social influences instead of deleting those just because they sound wrong to you. Please, wikipedia articles have to be verifiable from sources, not from editors opinions. --
416:
282:
For every category you create, you should specify parent categories to which it belongs. You do this by listing the parents near the bottom of the page, each enclosed in double brackets like so:
85:
328:. Rescue Squadron members are focused on rescuing articles for deletion, that might otherwise be lost forever. I think you will find our project matches your vision of Knowledge (XXG).
88:
has deliberately gone against the consensus of the IFD discussions for some images! In effect totally ignoring our submissions and deleting the images anyway when consensus was to
62:
92:. This is against the rules of wikipedia and needs addressing. If you feel aggrieved about an image that was unjustly deleted you should raise the issue here
412:
254:
I accept that it was a good faith edit not pushing your own personal POV, but it gave a political aspect to a culture that was apolitical at the time.
65:
has caused some confusion. It might be an idea to return to it and clarify what you meant. Thanks, and thanks for contributing to the discussion.
314:
383:
420:
321:
84:
I notice that you contributed to IFD debate on 02 Jan 09. You might be aware that the closing admin of most of the images on
424:
436:
93:
38:
173:
136:
70:
108:
de-admin'd if they step out of line by closing each others nominations against consensus again, all the best
371:
Re : "If you delete more from
Knowledge (XXG) than you add then you are a vandal, nothing more, nothing less"
428:
387:
379:
361:
243:
208:
235:
169:
132:
403:
296:
66:
276:
259:
225:
154:
113:
47:
17:
408:
417:
Bridget Mary Nolan, Karen Louise Ellis, Sarah Jayne Vercoe, Heidi Choat, Cindy Leanne Howell
357:
239:
204:
325:
164:
427:, Helen Goddard's case has gained additional headlines only because the pupil was female.
234:
My excusses, I had missed that you had already started a discussion at the talk page at
335:
310:
292:
255:
221:
150:
109:
345:
96:
441:
391:
365:
339:
300:
263:
247:
229:
212:
177:
158:
140:
117:
99:
74:
46:
If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the
402:
I don't think your suggestion that homophobia is involved in arguing to delete
331:
309:
288:
25:
86:
Knowledge (XXG):Images and media for deletion/2009 January 2
80:
Knowledge (XXG):Images and media for deletion/2009 January 2
238:, I'll comment there. Sorry about my harsh comment here. --
63:
Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/Venezuelan
British
199:
61:
Hi. Just to let you know that a comment you made at
407:exaggerated coverage of this case. Compared to say
306:
You maybe interested in the
Article Rescue Squadron
291:if you have questions about this. Best regards,--
352:journalists have a habit of copying from WP.
8:
324:. I would like you to consider joining the
44:Do not edit the contents of this page.
7:
236:Talk:New_Romanticism#Political_POV
24:
322:Category:Inclusionist_Wikipedians
29:
356:IMDB is not a reliable source.
94:Knowledge (XXG):Deletion review
442:23:39, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
392:18:06, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
320:I notice that you are part of
1:
340:00:28, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
301:20:32, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
193:== another POV accussation ==
75:21:16, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
264:20:52, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
248:00:15, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
230:21:29, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
213:19:14, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
178:17:11, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
159:12:26, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
141:01:01, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
118:19:25, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
100:08:42, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
457:
366:21:05, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
188:sorry, you acted correctly
326:Article Rescue Squadron
315:Article Rescue Squadron
317:
376:inaccurate. Cheers!
313:
42:of past discussions.
318:
277:Category:Heaven 17
57:Venezuelan British
18:User talk:Archivey
398:Helen Goddard AfD
382:comment added by
54:
53:
48:current talk page
448:
439:
435:
431:
413:Madeleine Martin
394:
33:
32:
26:
456:
455:
451:
450:
449:
447:
446:
445:
437:
433:
429:
400:
377:
373:
349:
308:
286:
280:
190:
128:
82:
59:
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
454:
452:
399:
396:
372:
369:
355:
348:
343:
307:
304:
284:
279:
274:
273:
272:
271:
270:
269:
268:
267:
266:
189:
186:
185:
184:
183:
182:
181:
180:
127:
126:POV accusation
124:
123:
122:
121:
120:
81:
78:
67:Cordless Larry
58:
55:
52:
51:
34:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
453:
444:
443:
440:
432:
426:
422:
418:
414:
410:
405:
404:Helen Goddard
397:
395:
393:
389:
385:
384:74.138.230.41
381:
370:
368:
367:
363:
359:
353:
347:
344:
342:
341:
337:
333:
329:
327:
323:
316:
312:
305:
303:
302:
298:
294:
290:
283:
278:
275:
265:
261:
257:
253:
252:
251:
250:
249:
245:
241:
237:
233:
232:
231:
227:
223:
218:
217:
216:
215:
214:
210:
206:
201:
195:
194:
187:
179:
175:
171:
166:
162:
161:
160:
156:
152:
147:
146:
145:
144:
143:
142:
138:
134:
125:
119:
115:
111:
106:
105:
104:
103:
102:
101:
98:
95:
91:
87:
79:
77:
76:
72:
68:
64:
56:
49:
45:
41:
40:
35:
28:
27:
19:
409:Alison Smith
401:
374:
354:
350:
346:Katie Morgan
330:
319:
287:
281:
197:
196:
192:
191:
163:Please read
129:
89:
83:
60:
43:
37:
425:Rachel Holt
378:—Preceding
358:Horrorshowj
240:Enric Naval
205:Enric Naval
36:This is an
289:Contact me
421:Jo Gorman
293:Stepheng3
380:unsigned
256:Archivey
222:Archivey
151:Archivey
110:Archivey
438:Windows
200:removed
97:andi064
39:archive
430:Fences
170:csloat
165:WP:AGF
133:csloat
434:&
423:, or
16:<
388:talk
362:talk
336:talk
332:Ikip
297:talk
285:] ]
260:talk
244:talk
226:talk
209:talk
198:You
174:talk
155:talk
137:talk
114:talk
90:Keep
71:talk
419:,
415:,
411:,
390:)
364:)
338:)
299:)
262:)
246:)
228:)
211:)
176:)
157:)
139:)
116:)
73:)
386:(
360:(
334:(
295:(
258:(
242:(
224:(
207:(
172:(
153:(
135:(
112:(
69:(
50:.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.