TP kelli
Possibly unfree Image:JeffClarke.jpg edit
An image that you uploaded or altered, Image:JeffClarke.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images because its copyright status is disputed. If the image's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the image description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. TerriersFan 02:36, 4 November 2007 (UTC).
Your comment at WP:EAR edit
I replied to a comment of yours at WP:EAR. Along the way I read your user page and thought another comment might be helpful. You say that your goal is to correct factual inaccuracies. Wikipedia's policy on verifiability says this:
The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. "Verifiable" in this context means that any reader should be able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source. Editors should provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is challenged or is likely to be challenged, or it may be removed.
So just remember that it is not enough for a statement to be true to be retained or be false to be deleted. What's important is that a statement must be verifiable by independent sources. If a statement is well-sourced but you know it to be false you still do not have grounds for deleting it. Conversely, even if you know a statement to be true, you must reference a verifiable source or the statement may be deleted. That said, I wish you welcome to Wikipedia and please know that there are many editors willing to help. Sbowers3 23:26, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
Jeff Clarke edit
You did a good job creating articles in your sandbox, then inviting comment before creating them in "mainspace". I am not an expert on notability but my first take is that Jeff Clarke satisfies the notability and verifiability criteria. I note two small problems: your reference to Orbitz does not work and the reference about you-tour just goes to Newseek's main page, not to a specific article.
My first take is that the Gordon Wilson article does not satisfy notability. The key to both articles is references to reliable sources to establish the subject's notability. You have (IMO) enough references for Jeff Clarke, not enough for Gordon Wilson.
Again, I am not an expert so I'll be interested to see the opinions of other editors. But I'd say that you have made a better start than many other new articles. Sbowers3 16:34, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
- Thank you for your quick response and help. I'll make the Jeff Clarke changes you mentioned, and I'll dig up some additional references for the Gordon Wilson one. Thanks a lot. I appreciate your help. TP kelli 16:49, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Jeff Clarke / Gordon Wilson edit
I have been notified by TerriersFan that you are working on updates to these articles. To avoid any wasted effort, it was suggested that we coordinate with each other. My Jeff Clarke article is probably ready for prime time, and I will ask both of you to review before a move to mainspace. I haven't progressed as far with Gordon Wilson. I would like to suggest that we be extremely careful to avoid any charges of WP:COI that may arise in these articles. Every claim in the User:Alansohn/Jeff Clarke (CEO) article has been reviewed and verified, and new and revised sources have been added. Alansohn 17:22, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
- The User:Alansohn/Jeff Clarke (CEO) article looks really good. Well done! I noticed two of the reference links didn't work (reference
#3 and #7#4 and #8), so I went ahead and updated those. Additionally, I added one more reference to the entry: there was a cover story in BusinessWeek this past month on Jeff Clarke that supports much of the material in this entry, which I thought was quite pertinent. I think it looks good to move into the mainspace. TP kelli (talk) 16:05, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Travelport.svg edit
Thanks for uploading Image:Travelport.svg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. 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 it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 04:56, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
Welcome edit
  A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10... 100... 200
And here are several pages on what to avoid:
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~), which are produced by clicking on the
This welcome message was sent by MathCool10 at 06:43, February 13, 2009 (UTC) |
Orphaned non-free image File:Travelport.svg edit
Thanks for uploading File:Travelport.svg. 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 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).
Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 14:57, 6 September 2014 (UTC)