Talk:James Blake Miller

message: It'd be great to get more Marines and historians involved in this piece. I'm a newbie to Wiki myself. Bluemarine 13:57, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: Published in two parts by the photographer who made him famous, it follows up what happened to Miller after the photo and once he returned to the States. Part 1, Part 2. Tons of information to be used. --Bobak 21:29, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've expanded the article from those sources. --Bobak 00:08, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  LA Times just did a massive follow up 

message: If the image is really as iconic as is described, it can be included as fair use Modest Genius talk 14:24, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. It's an irrepeatable historic event. I will either restore the old image or find a new one (The only caveat ... it can't be used in the infobox). Daniel Case (talk) 15:01, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Did it ... I happened to have a perfect low-res one in my folders, so I just renamed it appropriately. Please do not move this to the infobox; per WP:FUC it needs to be where it is, next to where it's discussed. Daniel Case (talk) 15:20, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Thing is the fair use guidelines require it to be with the text discussing it, ie. not in the infobox. Right sided looks good though, I like it as it is now. And yes, the old placement made the headings look really bad. Modest Genius talk 19:04, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

text: You can do left-side placement without screwing up the heds if you put it at the end of the previous section (I do that all the time). I prefer alternating art placement because studies have shown it improves readability since it follows the sweep of the eye across the page.For now, since the infobox is skimpy and lacks art, it's OK. But if we get his PD official portrait, we should consider moving the image back to the left. Daniel Case (talk) 05:38, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Picture 

message: Hey, I just realized I'd moved something that'd been moved before I moved it again --I was just curious: do we want the photo closer to the infobox, or categorized under the section where it is mentioned? I can see how the previous version tried both; I think the only problem I saw was that placement on the left seemed to make the headers look a bit bad; if you want to move it back up to its previous position, I'd be fine with it, but can we keep the right-side placement? --Bobak (talk) 18:01, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thing is the fair use guidelines require it to be with the text discussing it, ie. not in the infobox. Right sided looks good though, I like it as it is now. And yes, the old placement made the headings look really bad. Modest Genius talk 19:04, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

text: You can do left-side placement without screwing up the heds if you put it at the end of the previous section (I do that all the time). I prefer alternating art placement because studies have shown it improves readability since it follows the sweep of the eye across the page.For now, since the infobox is skimpy and lacks art, it's OK. But if we get his PD official portrait, we should consider moving the image back to the left. Daniel Case (talk) 05:38, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: placement

message: I'm going to remove the advertising cat. The wiki editor claims that it's essentially a Marlboro ad, but I'm not sure I see it. Is there any evidence that Marlboro paid for the use of his image, or that Miller even smokes Marlboros? It seems likely that his image was used at some point as US propaganda, but I'm not sure whether Marlboro had anything to do it.Athene cunicularia (talk) 01:32, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Advertising cat

message: Use of copyrighted material, even if cited, is against the law and against Wikipedia policy.   This BLP was rife with this. Collect (talk) 13:43, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copyright