Stosseled
Welcome edit
|
){kind=link}
Replaceable fair use File:Grimsbaer Shopping Centre.jpg edit
Thanks for uploading File:Grimsbaer Shopping Centre.jpg. I noticed the description page specifies that this media item is being used under a claim of fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails the first non-free content criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media item could be found or created that provides substantially the same information or which could be adequately covered with text alone. If you believe this media item is not replaceable, please:
- Go to the file description page and edit it to add
{{di-replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original replaceable fair use template. - On the file discussion page, write the reason why this media item is not replaceable at all.
Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media item by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by creating new media yourself (for example, by taking your own photograph of the subject).
If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these media fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per the non-free content policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Eeekster (talk) 14:41, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
Orphaned non-free media (File:Grimsbaer Shopping Centre.jpg) edit
){kind=link}
Thanks for uploading File:Grimsbaer Shopping Centre.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. Hazard-Bot (talk) 04:20, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
Trilithon edit
Although badly written and sourced, the original source, Jean-Pierre Adam, is an expert on the subject. Would you like to rewrite and restore this or shall I? By the way, it was downhill from the quarry to Baalbek, although some sources assume otherwise. Doug Weller talk 08:32, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
Debt reap diplomacy edit
Hello, I'm 2001:8003:4E96:4100:71CD:D6:12B2:7C6C. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to Debt-trap diplomacy have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the help desk. Learn to read the sources before you delete information. Your edit has been reverted because it's blatant POV pushing. The first source literally says, "the so-called “debt-trap diplomacy” narrative has been debunked by a growing of scholars and analysts. There just isn’t any evidence whatsoever to support the charge". The "former source" you criticised is actually cited in the Foreign Policy article. That is why you need to read the sources properly before you delete information. The Foreign Policy article explicitly says, "Sri Lanka’s Hambantota Port remains the only known case of China taking ownership control over a Belt and Road project, and that debt-equity swap was at Colombo’s urging, not Beijing’s", providing a link to the "former source". (2001:8003:4E96:4100:71CD:D6:12B2:7C6C (talk) 06:54, 25 December 2019 (UTC))
Hello anonymous user.
a) "chinaafricaproject.com" is not a reliable source with which to dismiss criticisms of said project.
b) "chinaafricaproject.com" provided absolutely no evidence, citations, or supporting material for its broad and overly ambitious claim (see: 'debunked')
c) I read every single word in the second citation and found nothing that comes even remotely close to even resembling support for that claim.
d) Even if not for points a, b, and c, the phrasing of the statement is so patently not in line with Wikipedia's policies that it still has to be rephrased to be acceptable. Weasel words such as "a growing number of scholars" without mentioning a single scholar are not OK.
e) Even if not for points a, b, c, and d, the claim that a critique of policy/suspicion of ulterior motives has simply been "debunked" is absurd. That word can not be used in this statement either. Something encyclopedic such as "the veracity of the criticism has been brought into question by X/Y/Z" would be more fitting.