User talk:Mikeblas/Archives/2011/December
 | This is an archive of past discussions about User:Mikeblas. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Kudzu basket
Hi, I don't understand why you deleted the image of the Kudzu basket. If someone makes a basket and photographs it and makes the photo available through a CC license, it adds to wikipedia by pointing out a useful way to destroy some of this weed. There is no promotional material left on the page, just the photo of the basket. Nadiatalent (talk) 23:12, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
- There's no reference that verifies the basket was indeed made of kudzu. The use of kudzu for basketry is mentioned by the article, but is not substantiated with a reference. (I believe that mention was added by the author of the picture.) Largely, the picture is orthogonal to the article as it teaches us nothing about the plant or its uses. The image was uploaded by the artist who made the basket, and that artist has made no other contributions to Wikipedia whatsoever. I believe this makes it apparent that the purposes of the post is to promote the artist and his work rather than to provide anything relevant to the topic where the photo is placed. Very strictly, Wikpiedia is not meant to be used for self-promotion; further, unverified references are meant to be challenged and removed. I hope this helps you understand the reasons for the removal of the image. -- Mikeblas (talk) 23:38, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
- Reference added. I don't think that you should assume that someone who makes one contribution to wikipedia is a self-promoting scourge. There was a time when I myself had made just one contribution to wikipedia, and hadn't thought of any other contribution to make. Nadiatalent (talk) 01:10, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
- I've made no such assumption; I'm observing evidence. If you review that user's contributions, I think you'll come to the conclusion that they added a spate of unreferenced and self-promotional material to the encyclopedia. It's great that you've improved the article with a reference to the prose, but the image itself remains unreferenced. There's no way to substantiate that the basket was made from kudzu, in particular, and I've removed the image from the article again. Please don't add (or re-add) unreferenced material to articles. -- Mikeblas (talk) 02:00, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
- For most of the images in commons there is no substantiation that they are what they claim to be, for example, every image said to be of a "rose" comes with no such guarantee. I'm noting at the article's talk page that this edit war has erupted. Nadiatalent (talk) 16:58, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
- I've made no such assumption; I'm observing evidence. If you review that user's contributions, I think you'll come to the conclusion that they added a spate of unreferenced and self-promotional material to the encyclopedia. It's great that you've improved the article with a reference to the prose, but the image itself remains unreferenced. There's no way to substantiate that the basket was made from kudzu, in particular, and I've removed the image from the article again. Please don't add (or re-add) unreferenced material to articles. -- Mikeblas (talk) 02:00, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
- Reference added. I don't think that you should assume that someone who makes one contribution to wikipedia is a self-promoting scourge. There was a time when I myself had made just one contribution to wikipedia, and hadn't thought of any other contribution to make. Nadiatalent (talk) 01:10, 26 December 2011 (UTC)