User talk:Mikedotnet

Welcome!

Hello, Mikedotnet, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of your edits have not conformed to Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View policy (NPOV), and have been reverted. Wikipedia articles should refer only to facts and interpretations that have been stated in print or on reputable websites or other forms of media.

There's a page about the NPOV policy that has tips on how to effectively write about disparate points of view without compromising the NPOV status of the article as a whole. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type   on your user page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few other good links for newcomers: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! ··coe l acan 08:05, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

Please state which items were reverted for allegedly violating the NPOV requirement. Mikedotnet 19:09, 3 June 2007 (UTC)


 * That would be your oh-so-clever photograph of Rosie O'Donnell with a sneer, that "captures the spirit of Ms. O'donnell perfectly". Don't take potshots with bad photos. ··coe l acan 19:16, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually, your own point of view that the photograph is a "bad photo" actually violates the NPOV requirement. It's only your opinion that the photograph is "bad".  It is a photograph of Rosie O'Donnell.  Plain and simple.Mikedotnet 19:33, 3 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Good luck with that. ··coe l acan 19:36, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

When I said "sneer" I was referring to the look on her face, not anything you've said. I suggest you actually read WP:NPOV again. My evaluation that the image violates NPOV is not in itself unacceptable POV. I am well within the boundaries of the policy by saying so. In any case, if you upload the image again, I will delete it again. So I suggest you move on. ··coe l acan 19:43, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
 * The simple fact that you use my evaluation in your response indicates a violation of the neutral point of view requirement. Perhaps you ought to change "Neutral Point Of View" to "Coelacan's Point Of View."Mikedotnet 19:48, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
 * That's a brilliant idea. I think I'll propose that policy change immediately. In the meantime, you should actually read WP:NPOV. ··coe l acan 19:56, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I did. The Let the facts speak for themselves section is what inspired me to upload the image in the first place.  I made no disparaging statements about Ms. O'Donnell.  I merely selected a photograph that allows the readers to make an informed opinion about her.  Be it a good or bad opinion- I don't really care.  I merely presented a fact (a press photograph).  I'm a bit disappointed in your unprofessional attitude regarding this matter.Mikedotnet 20:02, 3 June 2007 (UTC)


 * That is my usual reaction to anyone who makes the silly claim that offering an editorial opinion is a violation of NPOV. It is not. If you're ready to drop that canard, I'll happily address the rest of what you say. Such an image violates the undue weight clause of NPOV, in that it blows out of proportion one look that she had on her face at one moment of her life and presents it as representative of the woman or her appearance. The notion that this is a representative or notable "look" for her would violate WP:NOR unless you could come up with multiple reliable sources that made substantial issue of this photograph or photographs like it. It would have to be the subject of significant commentary before it could pass NOR. Finally, we simply do not allow fair use images of living people, because they are replaceable and they fail WP:NONFREE. That was the reason the image was deleted. You were warned for NPOV, on the other hand, for your rather transparent attempt to disparage the article subject. ··coe l acan 20:27, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Please refrain from further slander against me ("for your rather transparent attempt to disparage..."). Your insinuation is extremely childish, offensive, and completely without factual basis.  As stated previously (please read above), I made no statements at all regarding Ms. O'Donnell.  I merely presented a widely circulated image that is far more representative of her day-to-day appearance than the current posed picture presented on her biography.  If you perform a simple image search, you will find that this particular image is far more prevalent than any other single non-posed image of Ms. O'Donnell (barring pictures of her kissing her partner):, , , , , , and  are just a few examples.

Mikedotnet 20:43, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Your comment on the image's talk page suggests otherwise to me. But in any case, the image violates WP:NONFREE, so the question is moot. The original welcomenpov message was just to make sure you were aware of the policy. Have a nice day. ··coe l acan 21:03, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I will attempt to locate a free version of the photograph, upload it, and thus resolve this issue. Thank you for your time.Mikedotnet 21:17, 3 June 2007 (UTC)


 * The only way to do that will be to find the original photographer and ask them to change the license for you. You may be lucky, but my experience with professional photographers has been that most are unwilling to do this. Nevertheless, there is some advice at Finding images tutorial, if it helps. ··coe l acan 21:50, 3 June 2007 (UTC)