User talk:Phil-the-man

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


[edit] Image copyright problem with Image:Yani.jpg

Image Copyright problem

Thank you for uploading Image:Yani.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI 05:12, 29 October 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Image copyright problem with Image:Yani2.jpg

Image Copyright problem

Thank you for uploading Image:Yani2.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI 05:27, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] GSDRT

Hi Phil. I can see where you are coming from with your [[User_talk:Dramatic#GSDRT|comments on my talk page}}, but I am merely applying Wikipedia policy.

  • Link to Danny's site: This doesn't fit within the scope of Wikipedia's guidelines for external links. There are many articles on not-for-profit organisations who most likely have their web presence sponsored. Virtually none of them acknowledge that in the article. To allow such credits would be the thin end of the wedge. For example, if the trust had a vehicle sponsored by a certain car dealer, the situation would be much the same. The only exception mught be if there was a citable press release or news story about such a sponsorship - such a story could be used as a reference. As a final point, words like "kindly" are considered unencyclopedic - they express a particular Point of View.
  • References. Wikipedia is a Tertiary information source. It reports/agglomerates what secondary sources have said about a subject. The trust's own website is a primary source. While it is probable that factual information on it will be correct, that is not a given, and the site will always be considered to be biased in favour of itself. I suggest you read Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:Reliable_sources. Wikipedia:Conflict of interest may also be relevant - depending on your degree of involvement with the trust. Note that references do not have to be from the internet. Citing a daily newspaper or a professionally published magazine would be fine. In the absence of references, were this policy to be applied strictly, the article would probably be pruned to a couple of paragraphs. dramatic 10:17, 31 October 2007 (UTC)