Talk:Cherwell (newspaper)

	University of Oxford portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject University of Oxford, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the University of Oxford on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.University of OxfordWikipedia:WikiProject University of OxfordTemplate:WikiProject University of OxfordUniversity of Oxford articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Newspapers Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Newspapers, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Newspapers on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.NewspapersWikipedia:WikiProject NewspapersTemplate:WikiProject NewspapersNewspapers articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Journalism Low‑importance

	Journalism portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Journalism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of journalism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.JournalismWikipedia:WikiProject JournalismTemplate:WikiProject JournalismJournalism articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Fair use rationale for Image:Cherwell wk3 ht07.PNG

Image:Cherwell wk3 ht07.PNG 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 uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 23:20, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Cherwell-Oxford-media-circus.jpg

Image:Cherwell-Oxford-media-circus.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 ensure 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) 13:05, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lists of past editors

I've removed these lists as unencylopedic; whilst I hate to bash people around the head with policy, they violate WP:NOR and WP:SOURCE due to lack of sources or anything establishing the notability of the persons listed, WP:INDISCRIMINATE per What Wikipedia Is Not, and WP:COI given that it seems to be a vanity list.

The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth — meaning, in this context, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true. Editors should provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is challenged or is likely to be challenged, or the material may be removed.
The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged should be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation.

— from Wikipedia:Verifiability

Per this policy, I have removed the list. However, even if the list were well sourced it would probably not be encylopedic given the other issues noted above, which should also be addressed before restoration. --129.67.162.133 (talk) 08:21, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Founders

Both co-founders, Binney and Erdinger went into politics, standing for parlament for the Liberal party. I have created a link to a future page for both. 82.10.156.240 (talk) 08:02, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

George Adolphus Edinger (not Erdinger) had chambers in Gray's Inn, and lived to a ripe old age. Cecil Binney is perhaps the more well-known of the two. I regret that I do not know enough about either to contribute more here, though I think that Edinger was originally from the USA. —Preceding unsigned comment added by G88keeper (talk • contribs) 06:08, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Cherwell (newspaper). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080422185146/http://www.etceterasupplement.org:80/ to http://www.etceterasupplement.org/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:13, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Cherwell (newspaper). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090129025848/http://www.cherwell.org/content/8149 to http://www.cherwell.org/content/8149
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.etceterasupplement.org/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:59, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of contributors

@15: I note that you have reverted my removal of the section on contributors. I am about to revert this on the basis that ‘the burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material’ (i.e., you). Apart from the general question of sourcing, all but one of the biographical claims are unsourced, the page is made unnecessarily long as a result. There’s nothing wrong with noting a few particularly notable contributors and if you were to WP:PROVEIT (or, rather, plonk in some references for a few named people) I’d have no objection. You correctly point out that it’s common to have such sections. Many of them probably are deserving of pruning or complete excision if unsourced: it’s also common to find typos on Wikipedia, but one ought to correct them! Of course, there’d be nothing wrong with a (much) smaller sourced list, and if one were to be found or supplied it would not be proper to delete it. Docentation (talk) 15:53, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@15: I have no desire to enter an edit war and so will not revert your further reversion imminently. Nevertheless, your edits seem to make little sense. (1) BRD is ‘never a reason [in itself] for reverting’, and policy clearly dictates that the WP:BURDEN is on you to provide sources (promising sourced edits is not a substitute); nor is BRD ‘an excuse to revert any change more than once’ (which seems to be what you are doing here). (2) You have not actually objected to the view that the list as it stands, even were it sourced, would count as far too long; instead, each time, you have reinstated the list. As for where to proceed from here, I imagine I shall forget about this article for a while but if I return to it in a couple of days or so I shall regard deleting an unsourced section as a reasonable action. There is no strict rule against RVing ‘minutes after the original revert’, especially when the original edit was an obvious violation of Wikipedia policy. And use the talk page! Docentation (talk) 16:15, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]