User talk:Redsteakraw
Proposed deletion of Chakra (linux)
A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Chakra (linux), suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process because of the following concern:
- No assertion of notability through the inclusion of reliable secondary sources. Fledgeling distibution without an official release
All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.
Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because, even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 15:05, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Ogg Kate, and it appears to include a substantial copy of http://wiki.xiph.org/index.php/OggKate. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details.
This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 22:12, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
Images
Wikipedia:Picture tutorialCptnono (talk) 17:54, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
WP:Verifiability specifies that information in Wikipedia articles should be supported by citations from WP:reliable sources. Unsourced information, or information sourced to unreliable sources can be removed from the article at will by any editor at any time. The information you have added to this article was unsourced, and the source you subsequently provided did not fulfill the requirements of WP:RS, because it is a Wiki which allows information to be added by the general public. (See WP:SPS.) I have allowed the information to remain with only a "citation needed" tag, but you need to add a proper source to it soon. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:10, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
- Unfortunately, WP:IMDB is not a reliable source, because it, too, allows un-curated information to be posted. (I myslef was a victim of such misinformation.) Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:43, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
- And the other source doesn;t support any of the information in the entry. You need a source that conforms to WP:RS (which you really should read), and which directly supports the putative facts you've posted. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:46, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
- Per my talk page, I was wrong about the second source, it supports part of the information, so I've restored it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:00, 27 January 2021 (UTC)