Misplaced Pages

User talk:UsamahWard: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 08:45, 12 October 2013 editMartinlc (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users2,187 edits →Andrew Gilligan allegations from Keith Vaz: new section← Previous edit Revision as of 20:53, 14 October 2013 edit undoFreeRangeFrog (talk | contribs)34,528 editsNo edit summaryNext edit →
Line 22: Line 22:


I removed the 'forging references' statement from the article. Under ] any potentially controversial statements need to be relevant, be given due weight, and be well sourced. If Vaz had made a serious allegation in a formal way in a publication then it might be cited. As it is, the only source is a claimed transcript of an unprepared statement at a public meeting. To allow the statement to appear in a journalist's BLP article is ] since this criticism has not been considered significant by any other commentator. I have tehrefore removed it. If you wish to debate the inclusion please use the Talk page of the article. ] (]) 08:45, 12 October 2013 (UTC) I removed the 'forging references' statement from the article. Under ] any potentially controversial statements need to be relevant, be given due weight, and be well sourced. If Vaz had made a serious allegation in a formal way in a publication then it might be cited. As it is, the only source is a claimed transcript of an unprepared statement at a public meeting. To allow the statement to appear in a journalist's BLP article is ] since this criticism has not been considered significant by any other commentator. I have tehrefore removed it. If you wish to debate the inclusion please use the Talk page of the article. ] (]) 08:45, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
:I just reverted you as well - please discuss with other editors in the talk page (or at ]) before re-adding that. <span style="color:red; font-size: smaller; font-weight: bold;">§]</span><sup>]</sup> 20:53, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Revision as of 20:53, 14 October 2013

Welcome

Greetings...

Hello, UsamahWard, and welcome to Misplaced Pages!

To get started, click on the green welcome.
I hope you like it here and decide to stay!
Epeefleche
Happy editing! Epeefleche (talk) 12:10, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Replaceable fair use File:East London Mosque - elevated view (2012).jpg

Thanks for uploading File:East London Mosque - elevated view (2012).jpg. I noticed that this file is being used under a claim of fair use. However, I think that the way it is being used fails the first non-free content criterion. This criterion states that files used under claims of fair use may have no free equivalent; in other words, if the file could be adequately covered by a freely-licensed file or by text alone, then it may not be used on Misplaced Pages. If you believe this file is not replaceable, please:

  1. Go to the file description page and add the text {{di-replaceable fair use disputed|<your reason>}} below the original replaceable fair use template, replacing <your reason> with a short explanation of why the file is not replaceable.
  2. On the file discussion page, write a full explanation of why you believe the file is not replaceable.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media item by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by creating new media yourself (for example, by taking your own photograph of the subject).

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these media fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per the non-free content policy. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 23:03, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Andrew Gilligan allegations from Keith Vaz

I removed the 'forging references' statement from the article. Under WP:BLP any potentially controversial statements need to be relevant, be given due weight, and be well sourced. If Vaz had made a serious allegation in a formal way in a publication then it might be cited. As it is, the only source is a claimed transcript of an unprepared statement at a public meeting. To allow the statement to appear in a journalist's BLP article is WP:UNDUE since this criticism has not been considered significant by any other commentator. I have tehrefore removed it. If you wish to debate the inclusion please use the Talk page of the article. Martinlc (talk) 08:45, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

I just reverted you as well - please discuss with other editors in the talk page (or at WP:BLP/N) before re-adding that. §FreeRangeFrog 20:53, 14 October 2013 (UTC)