User talk:Cardene
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Welcome!
Hello, Cardene, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:
- The five pillars of Wikipedia
- How to edit a page
- Help pages
- Tutorial
- How to write a great article
- Manual of Style
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! - Darwinek 16:52, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Contents |
[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:School125 01.gif
Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:School125 01.gif. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.
If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' 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 "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media 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. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI 18:17, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Two issues to consider ...
Cardene, There are two issues that you need to be aware of in regards to your editing of the article on Hinsdale Central High School. The first is etiquette. Writing a comment like Why don't you try looking up the sources rather than deleting something you do not know. is considered rude. I'm sure you were just frustrated with the reversion, but there were better ways that could have been handeled.
Second, the information that was deleted and that you tried to put back in the article has no reference. Further, while it may be true, there are certain details that simply are not verifiable. That classifies the information as "unencyclopedic", and has to be taken out.
Please think about this a bit before you make any more changes to any articles. I hope you will make many positive contributions while here on the project. LonelyBeacon 04:44, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
- I couldn't have said it better. Allow me to elucidate my concerns about this content. First and foremost there are no sources, which means the content fails our fundamental policies on verifiability and original research. Here are some examples. "students allegedly hacked". Who alleges this? "both have claimed" Where can we verify that they have claimed this? "controversy lies in how certain administration members dealt with" Where is the evidence of this controversy? "received an anonymous letter" How do we know this? "The second clue which should have been detected" We are not here to say what should happen or to detect clues. "he drove to Harvard", again no source. "there was strange activity by the school board" Where is this documented, and why was it strange? Where is the connection with this incident? It seems you need to read our policies on No original research, NPOV, and Verifiability. The burden is on you to provide sources for any content you want to include in an article. This is the minimum requirement for constructing a neutral article with no original research. The fact that you may know something more about this school than me puts you at a disadvantage when it comes to writing neutrally about it. The content should be independently verifiable, second-hand from a reliable source, and objectively neutral. Hope this helps. -- zzuuzz (talk) 09:54, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
I'll add one thing to what zzuzz mentioned. Since I assume you have a connection to the school, you are (as zzuzz) mentioned, at a disadvantage to writing from an important neutral point of view, though it is not impossible to do so. You are, however, at a great advantage to find the sources needed to support these statements. Local newspapers' on-line editions would be a great starting point. If you can find these references to support these claims, then by all means re-add the information, and make sure to add the references as well. LonelyBeacon 15:54, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Possibly unfree Image:School125 02.jpg
An image that you uploaded or altered, Image:School125 02.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. Esrever (talk) 22:53, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Possibly unfree Image:Hinsdale central library.jpg
An image that you uploaded or altered, Image:Hinsdale central library.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. Esrever (talk) 23:23, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Copyright status of your images
I've changed the copyright tag on 2 images that you uploaded (Image:Red hinsdale devil.jpg and Image:School125 01.gif) from a Creative Commons license to a non-free copyright license. These images are clearly logos, and the copyright for those logos is owned by the high school and the school district. While the school might not mind an increased web presence, that doesn't mean that their logos are free for use. There are restrictions on their usage, and the new tag reflects those restrictions.
I've also tagged two other images as having a disputed status. While Wikipedia policy says that the use of non-free logos is okay (within the bounds of the fair-use criteria), non-free images of existing buildings don't qualify as fair use. One could visit the school, recreate the images, and then license them with a free status. Thus, they're replaceable.
The overall point of these comments is just to ask that you please not upload copyrighted images that you find on the web with tags that don't reflect their true copyright status. Cheers! Esrever (talk) 23:23, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
