User talk:MiamiManny

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Re: Image:Zimmerman Mugshot.jpg[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

Ileana Ros-Lehtinen[edit]

If you wish to introduce information linking Ileana Ros-Lehtinen to Scientology, you will need to find a suitable reference for it, and that personal website you had referenced before is not a suitable reference. I see a picture (which is likely to be deleted again) that shows her at a Scientology event; that only shows that she attended said event. Horologium (talk) 14:02, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1rr friendly warning[edit]

Just a friendly warning to remind you that 1rr is in effect on this article. You have not violated this rule yet, but since you added the info, i removed, and you re-added, it has been removed again. If you re-add the information, you would be in violation of the 1rr which can result in a block. There has been a significant amount of discussion regarding the biographies of the participants. If you would like to discuss it further, please bring it to the talk page. Gaijin42 (talk) 20:46, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oh please. You were unjustified in removing legitimate and sourced material. You also damaged the article. I will continue to include relevant and sourced information (and fix grammatical errors) in accordance with wiki rules. MiamiManny (talk) 21:02, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I may or may not have been justified. Its not really relevant. the 1rr rule applies regardless of reason. If I damaged the article, that was obviously accidental, and can be repaired by anyone. Gaijin42 (talk) 21: 13, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Blocked[edit]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring, as you did at Shooting of Trayvon Martin. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. MBisanz ^talk 21:29, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It has been several years since I edited Wikipedia, however I can see that not much has changed. It's still infested with editors and admins engaged in wikibullying, pov-pushing, and censorship. What a shame. MiamiManny (talk) 16:00, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what you are complaining about. There was a very clear rule in place on the page, you were warned ahead of time about the rule, you broke the rule anyway saying you were going to do what you wanted. A one day time out seems entirely appropriate. Gaijin42 (talk) 16:06, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You damaged the article twice with your sloppy edit and made deletions claiming a consensus when there was none. Please stop writing on my talk page. It is unwelcome and unwanted. MiamiManny (talk) 19:18, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring[edit]

You are edit warring again. What you reverted was removed because of prior consensus just a few days ago. Please stop making this a fight. So far, you are the only editor who has been blocked for edit warring. Why do you want to get blocked again? Rollo V. Tomasi (talk) 21:26, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your comments on my talk page are unwelcome and unwanted. Go wikibully someone else. --MiamiManny (talk) 22:19, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Magistrate[edit]

Hi. Could you get together links to articles that discuss the relation between his father having been a magistrate and the case? I think that would help your cause. --Bob K31416 (talk) 21:27, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Don't you think the four reference links I provided are enough? It is absolutely ridiculous that any editor wants to keep a basic relevant fact out of the article. --MiamiManny (talk) 23:55, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry. I haven't been following it that closely. Could you direct me to where those links are or copy them here? --Bob K31416 (talk) 23:57, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked[edit]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of five days for continued edit warring, as you did at Shooting of Trayvon Martin. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution. MBisanz ^talk 21:56, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What on earth are you talking about? I made a first time single edit on an article. With whom do you claim I am warring? Is there another party also blocked? MiamiManny (talk) 06:50, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Elizabeth Warren[edit]

For your support of politically motivated hypocrisy at List of Native American women of the United States. Did you even read the cited source? Binksternet (talk) 18:26, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I consider your comment and offensive graphic to be wikibullying, which is clearly rampant within Wikipedia. Your edits on my talk page are unwelcome and unwanted. MiamiManny (talk) 18:40, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How about this then: you seem to love tendentious editing. I suggest you start considering our BLP policy as more than toilet paper. The above trout was well-deserved; it could have been a templated warning for soapboxing. If you find a trout offensive, maybe you should play on another website, where your feelings are more important than the offensive edits you made in an encyclopedic article regarding living people. Drmies (talk) 03:46, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your comments are also unwelcome and unwanted. Please do not post on my wall again. MiamiManny (talk) 04:37, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Straw poll at Shooting of Trayvon Martin[edit]

This notification is to inform you of a straw poll being conducted at the talk page of Shooting of Trayvon Martin, your comments would be welcome and appreciated on the allegations of witness #9. [3] Note: If you choose to comment, please mention you were contacted via this notification. Thanks!-- Isaidnoway (talk) 07:50, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly unfree File:Turtleboy with scarf.jpg[edit]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Turtleboy with scarf.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you object to the listing for any reason. Thank you. Ronhjones ^(Talk) 23:20, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is no copyright infringement because the statue is in the public domain. All copyrightable works published in the United States before 1923 are in the public domain. It is undisputed that Boy with a Turtle (aka the Burnside Fountain) was created and installed in Worcester’s Central Square in 1912. I have also posted this reply on the Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files discussion page. MiamiManny (talk) 03:13, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for March 1[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Trent Lott, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Liberal. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:58, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, DPL bot! I fixed it! MiamiManny (talk) 15:22, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2017 election voter message[edit]

Hello, MiamiManny. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message[edit]

Hello, MiamiManny. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message[edit]

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:33, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Racist cartoon[edit]

No, no, not whitewashing, on the contrary. What I'm saying is the racist cartoon shouldn't just be reproduced without appropriate critical comment, because that can give the impression of condoning it. Jcejhay (talk) 23:41, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

But I see that you also did add the contextualization and commentary it required. I thank you for that, though I can't thank you for misconstruing my intentions. Anyway, I'm glad the article has now been improved, thanks to our combined attentions. Jcejhay (talk) 00:05, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

April 2023[edit]

Hello, I'm Beccaynr. I noticed that you made a comment on the page Talk:Murders of Abigail Williams and Liberty German that didn't seem very civil, so it may have been removed. Wikipedia is built on collaboration, so it's one of our core principles to interact with one another in a polite and respectful manner. If you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. In this comment [4], you appear to refer to other editors as "WikiNazis", so I encourage you to edit your comment to help avoid what may be interpreted as a personal attack. Thank you, Beccaynr (talk) 05:01, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Beccaynr Your comments here aren't just annoying; they are unwelcome and unwanted. Please DO NOT post on my wall again. MiamiManny (talk) 08:00, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Anton Lupeski moved to draftspace[edit]

Thanks for your contributions to Anton Lupeski. Unfortunately, I do not think it is ready for publishing at this time because it needs more sources to establish notability. I have converted your article to a draft which you can improve, undisturbed for a while.

Please see more information at Help:Unreviewed new page. When the article is ready for publication, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page OR move the page back. Paul Vaurie (talk) 01:00, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

October 2023[edit]

Hi, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you tried to give a page a different title by copying its content and pasting either the same content, or an edited version of it, into Anton Lupeski. This is known as a "cut-and-paste move", and it is undesirable because it splits the page history, which is legally required for attribution. Instead, the software used by Wikipedia has a feature that allows pages to be moved to a new title together with their edit history.

In most cases for registered users, once your account is four days old and has ten edits, you should be able to move an article yourself using the "Move" tab at the top of the page (the tab may be hidden in a dropdown menu for you). This both preserves the page history intact and automatically creates a redirect from the old title to the new. If you cannot perform a particular page move yourself this way (e.g. because a page already exists at the target title), please follow the instructions at requested moves to have it moved by someone else. Also, if there are any other pages that you moved by copying and pasting, even if it was a long time ago, please list them at Wikipedia:Requests for history merge. Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:22, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your concern, but your understanding is incorrect. I was creating and building a new page, not moving a previous page or attempting to merge two pages. I also made that clear in my editing notes. Thank you, and have a great day! MiamiManny (talk) 12:22, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message[edit]

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:27, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Film audience ratings[edit]

@MiamiManny: there's really nothing to discuss. Longstanding consensus is to not post user generated content. Also see WP:FILMAUDIENCE. There are rare exceptions, as laid out for you here. This film is not one of them. Mike Allen 14:38, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Got it. I don't like the policy, but you recited it correctly. No problem. MiamiManny (talk) 04:46, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Concern regarding Draft:Anton Lupeski[edit]

Hello, MiamiManny. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Anton Lupeski, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 13:06, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Killam and Marsden[edit]

Please note that reliable, significant coverage is needed to include a mention of what Killam and Marsden said or wrote 20 years ago. Entertainment websites all mentioning the same bit right now is not WP:LASTING. For now, please stop adding the bit in. It is highly controversial and we need to treat this delicately. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 08:47, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

April 2024[edit]

Hello, I'm Meters. I noticed that you made a comment on the page Talk:Lee Mroszak that didn't seem very civil, so it may have been removed. Wikipedia is built on collaboration, so it's one of our core principles to interact with one another in a polite and respectful manner. If you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Meters (talk) 04:22, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]