Jump to content

Talk:Melissa Francis

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Requested move

[edit]

Can some admin please help me change Missy Francis toMelissa 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 clipin whichHoward Sternslammed 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.Steven31203:05, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

She goes by and is known as Melissa Francis.WBcoleman02:46, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This article has been renamed fromMissy FrancistoMelissa Francisas the result of amove request.--Stemonitis05:14, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Missy Francis.jpg

[edit]

Image:Missy Francis.jpgis being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used underfair usebut there is noexplanation or rationaleas to why its use inthisWikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to theboilerplate 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 withfair use.

Please go tothe image description pageand edit it to include afair use rationale.Using one of the templates atWikipedia:Fair use rationale guidelineis 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 oncriteria for speedy deletion.If you have any questions please ask them at theMedia copyright questions page.Thank you.

BetacommandBot11:24, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair Use Rationale met

[edit]

Criteria for Fair Use has been met.Noles198414:24, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Missy Francis.jpg

[edit]

Image:Missy Francis.jpgis being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used underfair usebut there is noexplanation or rationaleas to why its use inthisWikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to theboilerplate 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 withfair use.

Please go tothe image description pageand edit it to include afair use rationale.Using one of the templates atWikipedia:Fair use rationale guidelineis 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 oncriteria for speedy deletion.If you have any questions please ask them at theMedia copyright questions page.Thank you.

BetacommandBot02:07, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Publishing Rumors as Encylopedic Information?

[edit]

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)[reply]