Jump to content

Talk:Kimmy Robertson

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

Fair use rationale for Image:Kimmyrobertson.jpg

[edit]

Image:Kimmyrobertson.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate 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 with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is 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 lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 18:13, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Brian Peck letter

[edit]

Should we discuss the fact that she wrote a letter of support to Brian Peck here? 2600:100C:A20E:2:E039:B781:5D41:E35E (talk) 02:20, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My edit was just removed as “libel” it’s not libel if they are factual statements backed by court documents and real words written by that individual and submitted to a court of law. Wikipedia is meant to encourage growth and knowledge not hide facts about people or pages because they are deemed ugly. Do better. Toddbo (talk) 01:53, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's already in the article. All you did was add a bunch of unreliable sources, such as the unreliable Daily Mail, which is why I originally labeled my revert as libel. LilianaUwU (talk / contributions) 02:39, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]