User talk:CyberSach/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Re: The Beatles: An Illustrated Record

Since you were so quick as to hang an "unreferenced" tag on this article while I was still writing it, I wonder if you could tell me just as quickly exactly what sort of reference(s) would satisfy you? I didn't exactly make this book up, out of my own head. Have a nice day. Zephyrad (talk) 22:38, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

As I said: What sort of reference would satisfy you? The second point would come from the book itself (doable, but I'd have to find the thing)... and it still sounds like you think I made the book (and now its authors) up. Don't believe me, check Amazon.com or Abebooks.com. (And I wish the people who so tag articles would instead spend half as much time looking the refs up themselves, if they need them so badly.) Some of us simply know things, without having the appropriate references right there handy; I don't think that means we should leave a gap, that could be filled... (and how many articles on Wikipedia do you suppose have phony references, anyway?) Zephyrad (talk) 07:54, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Knowing something from reading a book, seeing a documentary, or taking a class does not constitute "original research". I plainly said "having the references handy", did I not? - I would not say "I just know it" when asked (and that is lame, lame, lame, btw); I would say "I read it in (title of book) by (author of book)", or "I saw a documentary about it, called (name of documentary)", etc. Most of my music and reference books are in storage (some have been there for ten years and more), and I do not have the time to go dig them out, then look up the exact page I read something on, every time there's a problem. I appreciate your answering my initial question, nonetheless. Should I come across such resources, or other copies of the books I have read, I would be happy to add the information... thing is, I have a life outside Wikipedia. (Other people can add to the entries; I do not see why someone could not also check references, who has time to do so.) Zephyrad (talk) 21:08, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Carlton J. Kell High School Bands

Hi. With regard to the category for this debate, there's a trick with the template that allows you to sort the debate into multiple categories, if you so choose. Edit the debate and copy the REMOVE WHEN CLOSING template, which is what determines the category. Then, paste a second version of the template, changing the cat to your second choice. I've done that with this debate, so it's now under M for Music and O for Organization (where school groups usually go). Hope this helps, UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 16:11, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Avada Kedevra

Thanks for the help. Basketball110 _{what famous people say} 04:25, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Interesting sig. Basketball110 _{what famous people say} 04:27, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Funny page, by the way. Basketball110 _{what famous people say} 18:10, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

About that revert on the Smash Lab page

I tried to update it since the show had aired. Might have been a little iffy but that still doesn't give you the right to completely revert it. 68.166.70.16 (talk) 22:23, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

I added two references to Cowdenpark House

I added two references to Cowdenpark House. You might want to revisit Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cowdenpark House --Eastmain (talk) 03:16, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Welcome to VandalProof!

Thank you for your interest in VandalProof, CyberSach! You have now been added to the list of authorized users, so if you haven't already, simply download and install VandalProof from our main page.

If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me or any other moderator, or you can post a message on the discussion page.

Finally, I'd like to appologise for any delay, and wish you luck with VandalProof! Ale_Jrb^talk 19:26, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Awdscover.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Awdscover.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use. Suggestions on how to do so can be found here.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. 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 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. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Rockfang (talk) 17:18, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Smolny convent - please describe NPOV problem

Please see discusson on Talk:Smolny Convent. Thanks.

--CaritasUbi (talk) 07:59, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Do you still feel this article lacks NPOV? I didn't see any comments there or here about what you specifically took issue with. If you can comment on what you found objectionable, I might be able to help resolve it. Thanks.

--CaritasUbi (talk) 00:36, 8 July 2009 (UTC)