Talk:Flashback Media Group

Fair use rationale for Image:Flashback logo.png

Image:Flashback logo.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 10:33, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Original research

A list of forum topics can not used to make qualifying statements like this one: "However, there is a very sizable quantity of racial debate and the website's own archive of articles shows a distinct bias against immigrants and in favor of right wing politics". You will need to cite secondary reliable sources that contains such a claim, otherewise it constitutes original research. 46.195.55.193 please refrain from trying to insert the information by edit warring, or you will find yourself blocked from violating WP:3RR. You will need to engage in a discussion on the talk page to gain consensus regarding your edit. --Saddhiyama (talk) 09:08, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Indeed. And the Nazism category is not backed up by any sources or anything in the article at all. Looks like the IP just readded it - again - so I'll ask for a WP:RPP now. Nymf _{talk to me} 09:18, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

I did an RPP yesterday, but apparently they don't work so fast at the moment. I have now reported the IP at the 3RRNB as it is clear that this editor is not interested in discussing their edits, and are edit warring in order to keep their OR in the article. --Saddhiyama (talk) 09:37, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Page protection would not be suitable at present, as the problematic editing is essentially from one IP address, so it is better to block that than to prevent other, constructive, editors, from editing the article. I say "essentially from one IP address", as there is one edit from a related IP address that looks as though it may be from the same person. If the problem does return from one or more other IP addresses then it will be necessary to consider other possible actions, such as a short-term rangeblock, with page protection available as a last resort. However, there is no reason yet to suppose that the problem will return. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:18, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

I noticed the RFP, so I tried AIV instead. That or the 3RRNB should bring it to an admin's attention. Nymf _{talk to me} 10:02, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

The IP has been blocked 24 hours for 3RR-violations, but I assume they will be back editing this article. In that case we can as well get a discussion started concerning sources and statements. I noticed that the IP did provide one source that seems to be from a reliable Swedish news outlet (?). The article doesn't make any general statements about the discussion forum, so it can't be used to source such statements, however it does mention that one seemingly prominent SD member posts there, in particular one post about his political experiences created controversy, and that many users of the forum supported that post. Perhaps that is relevant to include? --Saddhiyama (talk) 11:50, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

It is the largest forum in Sweden, with over 700 000 members. That means that 1/13th of the Swedish population has an account. It seems undue to me to single out one user/thread. Nymf _{talk to me} 12:09, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

I see (I wasn't aware of that). I would agree that that would be undue. --Saddhiyama (talk) 13:28, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Flashback Media Group. 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/20070404144210/http://www.flashback.net/faq.php to http://www.flashback.net/faq.php

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 16:45, 2 January 2018 (UTC)