Talk:Melissa Francis

Requested move
Can some admin please help me change Missy Francis to Melissa Francis? I had attempted to do it but it stopped me. I don't know how to contact an admin or propose an article title change. Some idiot wanted to use her child name to name the article. I had seen a YouTube clip in which Howard Stern slammed Francis in what allegedly got the info in this article. She also apparently is against Wikipedia, and I am too, and I would like the title to change to Melissa Francis so there isn't any issues publically. She's a respectable journalist and therefore the article should be change dramatically. This will be my last edit on Wikipedia. Steven312 03:05, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

She goes by and is known as Melissa Francis. WBcoleman 02:46, 22 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Support - I'm supporting this one. She certainly does appear to go by that name now. -- Tλε Rαnδom Eδιτor  ( tαlk ) 20:17, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

This article has been renamed as the result of a move request. --Stemonitis 05:14, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Missy Francis.jpg
Image:Missy Francis.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure 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 there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and 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.

BetacommandBot 11:24, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Fair Use Rationale met
Criteria for Fair Use has been met. Noles1984 14:24, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Missy Francis.jpg
Image:Missy Francis.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure 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 there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and 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.

BetacommandBot 02:07, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Publishing Rumors as Encylopedic Information?
Regarding the alleged reason for subject's absence from television appearances: Is it now an acceptable Wikipedia standard to publish unconfirmed biographical information so long as the conjecture can be cited by a notable publication (even though cited material is not verified fact but publication's own speculation based on anonymous third-party assertions)? I know such practice has long been acceptable in news and gossip publishing, but for Wikipedia? Does "it was reported" or that something "likely" happened have any place in an encyclopedic article? PizzaAddict (talk) 23:18, 13 December 2020 (UTC)