Benarnoldjr
|
License tagging for Image:Lonely Is The Man Without Love - Karl Kenda.jpg edit
Thanks for uploading Image:Lonely Is The Man Without Love - Karl Kenda.jpg. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.
For more information on using images, see the following pages:
This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 12:05, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
Image:-61 - Karl Kenda.jpg listed for deletion edit
An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:-61 - Karl Kenda.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in its not being deleted. Thank you. —Nv8200p talk 13:47, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
Guide to referencing edit
| Using references (citations) |
|---|
|
I thought you might find it useful to have some information about references (refs) on wikipedia. These are important to validate your writing and inform the reader. Any editor can removed unreferenced material; and unsubstantiated articles may end up getting deleted, so when you add something to an article, it's highly advisable to also include a reference to say where it came from. Referencing may look daunting, but it's easy enough to do. Here's a guide to getting started. Good references editA reference must be accurate, i.e. it must prove the statement in the text. To validate "Mike Brown climbed Everest", it's no good linking to a page about Everest, if Mike Brown isn't mentioned, nor to one on Mike Brown, if it doesn't say that he climbed Everest. You have to link to a source that proves his achievement is true. You must use Reliable sources, such as published books, mainstream press, authorised web sites, and official documents. Blogs, Myspace, Youtube, fan sites and extreme minority texts are not usually acceptable, nor is Original research, e.g. your own unpublished, or self-published, essay or research. Simple referencing editThe first thing you have to do is to create a "Notes and references" section. This goes towards the bottom of the page, below the "See also" section and above the "External links" section. Enter this code:
The next step is to put a reference in the text. Here is the code to do that. It goes at the end of the relevant term, phrase, sentence, or paragraph to which the note refers, and after punctuation such as a full stop, without a space (to prevent separation through line wrap):
Whatever text you put in between these two tags will become visible in the "Notes and references" section as your reference. Test it out editCopy the following text, open the edit box for this page, paste it at the bottom (inserting your own text) and save the page:
(End of text to copy and paste.) Information to include editYou need to include the information to enable the reader to find your source. For a book it might look like this:
An online newspaper source would be:
Note the square brackets around the URL. The format is [URL Title] with a space between the URL and the Title. If you do this the URL is hidden and the Title shows as the link. Use double apostrophes for the article title, and two single quote marks either side of the name of the paper (to generate italics). The date after The Guardian is the date of the newspaper, and the date after "Retrieved on" is the date you accessed the site – useful for searching the web archive in case the link goes dead. Wikilinks (double square brackets which create an internal link to a wikipedia article) function inside the ref tags. Dates are wikilinked so that they work with user preference settings. Citation templates editYou may prefer to use a citation template to compile details of the source. The template goes between the ref tags and you fill out the fields you wish to. Basic templates can be found here: Wikipedia:Template messages/Sources of articles/Citation quick reference Same ref used twice or more editThe first time a reference appears in the article, you can give it a simple name in the <ref> code:
The second time you use the same reference in the article, you need only to create a short cut instead of typing it all out again:
You can then use the short cut as many times as you want. Don't forget the /, or it will blank the rest of the article! A short cut will only pick up from higher up the page, so make sure the first ref is the full one. Some symbols don't work in the ref name, but you'll find out if you use them. Example editYou can see refs in action in the article William Bowyer (artist). There are 3 sources and they are each referenced 3 times. Each statement in the article has a footnote to show what its source is. Next step editWhen you become familiar with the process, the next step is to have one section, "Footnotes", with links embedded in the text, and another, "References", which lists all of your references alphabetically with full details, e.g. for a book:
If you're ready to go into it further, these pages have detailed information:
I hope this helps. If you need any assistance, let me know. Tyrenius 00:37, 17 February 2007 (UTC) |
AfD nomination of Karl Kenda edit
An editor has nominated Karl Kenda, an article on which you have worked or that you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not"). Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Karl Kenda and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. Jayden54Bot 22:12, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
Karl Kenda AfD edit
Hi there. I left this comment on the Talk:Karl Kenda, but in the event it is deleted, I wanted to still share my thoughts with you. So here they are:
- As the person who nominated this article for deletion, I just wanted to take a moment and respond to some of what you've said here.
- First of all, I recognize that your intentions are noble and not self-serving. That has no bearing on whether an article satisfies the criteria for inclusion in Wikipedia and certainly has nothing to do with the original nomination. I also hope you did not find the original nomination and reason disrespectful, as it was certainly not meant to be. I don't think it reads that way at all.
- As you've perhaps read by now, Wikipedia has three core content policies that must be satisfied at all times. One of those is no original research. And by your own admission, this article has no choice but to be original research. This also makes it unverifiable in violation of a second core content policy. This is NOT a slim reason. And it's not that I want it to be deleted, but that I recognize its fundamental incompatibility with the underlying principles of Wikipedia. Incidentally, the third policy is neutral point of view and remarks like my old friend xyz tend to undermine any semblance of objectivity.
- One thing you wrote above bears some commentary: 'People having nothing to contribute to an article, who perhaps are threatened by something competing with their own agendas, should not be calling for deletions.' Again, people call for deletions when they see something that fits the criteria for deletion. That's the agenda: upholding the standards that make Wikipedia function and help it attain some shred of credibility as an encyclopedic source.
- I understand that you are disappointed by this. I probably would be too. I also understand your sentiments about some of the comments that were left in regard to this AfD. Recognize though, that the article itself must assert the notability of the subject. And it needs to do so clearly, which quite frankly, it doesn't. Take a look at how far into the article a reader would have to go to learn that he was even an artist. That part may have been fixable, but with the original research and lack of available sources, there's nothing much other editors could do to salvage it.
- Your commitment to Mr. Kenda's art is commendable and a tribute honorable, but Wikipedia is just not the place to make that happen. You might also have a look at WP:NOT and in particular WP:NOT#MEMORIAL. I hope you can find something positive from this whole process that will make you a stronger editor moving forward. Cheers. Planetneutral 01:49, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
Possibly unfree Image:-61.jpg edit
An image that you uploaded or altered, Image:-61.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. Kelly hi! 02:19, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
A tag has been placed on File:Suppose They Gave a War and Nobody Came - Karl Kenda.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the image is an unused redundant copy (all pixels the same or scaled down) of an image in the same file format, which is on Wikipedia (not on Commons), and all inward links have been updated.
If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag - if no such tag exists then the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate and adding a hangon tag is unnecessary), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Tim1357 talk 20:03, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
