User talk:Secantline
Better source request for File:JoshuasMark.jpg
[edit]Thanks for uploading File:JoshuasMark.jpg. You provided a source, but it is difficult for other users to examine the copyright status of the image because the source is incomplete. Please consider clarifying the exact source so that the copyright status may be checked more easily. It is best to specify the exact Web page where you found the image, rather than only giving the source domain or the URL of the image file itself. Please update the image description with a URL that will be more helpful to other users in determining the copyright status.
If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source in a complete manner. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page or me at my talk page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 10:23, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
Orphaned non-free image File:JoshuasMark.jpg
[edit]
Thanks for uploading File:JoshuasMark.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude (talk) 07:45, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
Orphaned non-free media (File:Joshuasmark.jpg)
[edit] Thanks for uploading File:Joshuasmark.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Melesse (talk) 07:04, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
){kind=link}
Your message at Requests for feedback
help chat
Best regards, Tkotc (talk) 07:33, 17 February 2011 (UTC).
- Re Joshua's Tract article. I forgot to mention there that the reference to something.blogspot.com will probably be frowned upon, the reason being that blogs are not seen as "reliable" sources. Watch out for that. No blogs, no Youtube, no forums. Tkotc (talk) 07:33, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
- There's a new note on Requests for Feedback on your article, about the way you did the references in the article. The reviewer refers to the External Links guideline page. Personally I found that page a bit confusing, because it seems to say you shouldn't refer to external sites in the body of an article. But of course they do want links to external sites in the body of articles! The issue is that they want them formatted as references. Anyhow, while watching movie reruns, I redid all those external links to references using citation templates. I'd have to say I have mixed feelings about some of them. Not saying you should change things, but... In the article if a word, name, or phrase has a wikipedia page, we wikilink just to help establish a web of related information. But references should be support for a specific factual claim made. So if you say Organization X gave Entity Y an award, when you set up a reference for that, the page you refer to should in fact say "Organization X gave Entity Y an award." In some cases, your (what are now references) don't do that. They just link to the organization named. See the distinction? So if there were a Wikipedia article about some of these entities, you could just wikilink the mention of the name. In fact, maybe there are Wikipeida articles for some of them, in which case you could redo one of those "iffy" references to a clearly acceptable Wikilink. Otherwise I'm not suggesting changing anything unless someone gripes. Tkotc (talk) 07:02, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:15, 24 November 2015 (UTC)