Talk:Jimmy Flynn

The famous Winter Hill Gang?
Would be what, exactly? Other than not famous enough to be able to be referred to in such an offhand way without further explanation. --Tagishsimon (talk)
 * The Winter Hill Gang Dwain 00:50, May 20, 2005 (UTC)

Copyright infringement claims
User:24.147.103.146 Blanked page, claiming copyright of the image on this article to www.whiteywatch.com. Although this image might be from whiteywatch.com, the image is also clearly a Mug Shot, and as such is in the Public Domain. I have updated the image's copyright status accordingly, and have now reverted this page. -Lanoitarus 05:13, 10 December 2005 (UTC)


 * The image stolen has the same dust marks as the image on whiteyworld.com. Just becasuse you think it's in the public domain does not give you the right to take it from a copywrite website.  Get your own source.  Please state the source of this photo on Wikipedia. &mdash;The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.147.103.146 (talk &bull; contribs).


 * I don't know that it's "clearly taken from whiteywatch.com". It also appears on a WRKO site . -- Mwanner | Talk 16:50, 10 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Both sites are written by the same person Howie Carr. &mdash;The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.147.103.146 (talk &bull; contribs).


 * I'm not sure if the image is or is not taken from the site you allege, however, as a public domain image (mug shot), no provider can allege copyright over it, even if it WAS taken from your site directly. Public domain images remain in the public domain. Please stop vandalising wikipedia. If you have a copyright arbitrarion issue please list it at Copyright problems. Continued blanking of this article is considered Vandalism and may result is you being blocked from editing. -Lanoitarus 19:04, 10 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I have reported this violation to the hosting company Congent. You must provide your source of material in order to use this image, which is clearly taken from one of Howie Carr's websites.


 * Actually, the source is listed, even though it isnt clear to me that that really was the source. And since the image is in the public domain, we don't have to list its source, although we do anyway as a courtesy. -Lanoitarus 19:41, 10 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I added "This image exists at " to the image when this all started; I intentionally didn't call it the source-- I have no idea where the uploader got it. On reflection, I can understand Howie Carr's frustration at seeing this image here, especially if it was difficult to get.  But I think Lanoitarus is quite right-- PD is PD is PD.  Carr's probably unaware of Bridgeman vs Corel. &mdash;The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mwanner (talk &bull; contribs) 15:15, December 10, 2005.


 * Thanks for that precedent reference, I have added that link to the Request for immediate removal as well. -Lanoitarus 20:22, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

I call BS and bias
Until someone gets me a source that says Jimmy Flynn was convicted on any charges regarding the snack-truck incident, I'm editing the page to include the "reputedly", "allegedly" and "reported" disclaimers. Innocent until proven guilty. Furthermore, the fact that one of the sources is the notoriously anti-union National Right to Work Foundation calls into question the neutrality and credibility of the author(s) of the article. Also neglected is the fact that the "owner-operator" of the snack truck was also a union member-- of IATSE. I corrected that, but it's further evidence of the "all unions are evil" bias of the author(s) of that portion of the article. Jimmy Flynn may well be a gangster and a thug, and the history of corruption in Teamsters Local 25 is, lamentably, true (I speak as a former Local 25 member), but an article that aims to smear the entire labor movement based on notoriously biased anti-labor sources such as the Boston Herald and the National Right to Work Foundation just doesn't cut it in terms of Wikipedia's NPOV policy. Despite the corrupt elements, there are many good members and leaders in that Local and certain editors here mean to defame all of them through their patently anti-union propaganda.