User talk:Jonrev
WELCOME TO THE JUNGLE
Piss me off and expect Hell. I am an American and will gladly use my First Amendment rights while we still have it. If that is too much then please do us all a favor and reconsider your comment.
AfD nomination of Max Headroom broadcast signal intrusion incident
![](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/1/15/Ambox_warning_pn.svg/48px-Ambox_warning_pn.svg.png)
An editor has nominated Max Headroom broadcast signal intrusion incident, an article which you have created or worked on, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").
Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Max Headroom broadcast signal intrusion incident and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).
You may also edit the article during the discussion to address the nominator's concerns but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you.
Flickr is not a reliable source
Flickr is not acceptable as a source for article content. Since it's user-generated content, it falls under WP:SPS, which indicates that self-published sources should not be used unless the publisher is considered an expert in their field by reliable sources. As far as I know, and unless you're willing to pony up some reliable sources that prove otherwise, your self-published work does not fit that mold. SchuminWeb (Talk) 18:51, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
- If that is your logic then you need to go ahead and axe every single edit not made by a so-called "expert" and basically block Wikipedia off to any average joe that has source in the form of an image. The proof that the Wards and Central Energy Plant buildings were demolished was right there in front of you; I don't know what else I can give you, unless I have to drag you to Harvey and have you see for yourself. Are you trying to imply that any image that is not hosted on Wikipedia is considered garbage?
Also I'll have you know that while NOBODY would call ANYBODY an "expert" on something as simple as a dead mall south of Chicago, I've followed and studied Dixie Square's history the past 5-6 years, visited the place three times with over 250 photos and two hours of video footage. I am one of the main sources for information of Dixie Square Mall via YouTube, my images on Flickr, and my website on the mall. Get some facts away from the all-knowing Wikipedia before you "nicely" judge someone as stupid.--jonrev (talk) 05:02, 30 October 2009 (UTC) [still awaits the removal of work I no longer authorize for use on this website]
- Read WP:V when you get a chance. You may not say "I am a reliable source" and expect it to hold water, since sources must be published. People alone are not valid sources. The work of people when published in reliable sources "with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" (per WP:V) are valid sources. "Trust me" is not sufficient, and that's what you're basically telling me.
- Regarding the image that you claim you no longer authorize for use, it's not going anywhere. The large version was correctly licensed under the GFDL and CC licenses, which means you have irrevocably given up certain rights to the image, and that includes use here and elsewhere. SchuminWeb (Talk) 16:12, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
- Same Image. Taken and uploaded March 14, 2009. COPYRIGHTED, ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. I did not upload the Wiki version until July, and with the wrong license. I would imagine that this overrides the free license as it is in fact copyrighted.--jonrev (talk) 21:02, 30 October 2009 (UTC)