Talk:Logan (magazine)

Fair use rationale for Image:Logan magazine.jpg

Image:Logan magazine.jpg is being used on this article. 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 this Wikipedia article 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.

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 insure 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 there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and 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.

BetacommandBot 03:22, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

relevance?

I've been involved in the U.S. disability rights movement (which also has some transnational relevance as well) for over four years and I've heard nary a peep about any "Logan magazine". This wikipedia article seems newly created, the magazine's founder doesn't seem to be any kind of a 'known name' in the movement, and the wiki article is misleading-- the magazine website's aesthetic design clearly gives the distinct impression it is meant for early-to-mid teenaged girls (lots of pink, flowers, tween sentiments) rather than for disabled young adults more generally.

Part of me is tempted to PROD this article on the basis of lack of self-proof of objective relevance -- which all wiki articles are supposed to have, according to wiki rules, even before the question of verifiable sources enters the equation; preferably the two enter simultaneously but you know what I mean. I think I'll leave any PROD notice off for a few days, maybe I'll ask around and see if anyone else can improve the article to an encyclopedic quality, etc. And if people do, then hey, by all means, keep it here and I'll have no right to talk. I'd be eager to see that happen actually. Kikodawgzzz (talk) 06:49, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Logan (magazine). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070204130230/http://www.loganmagazine.com/ to http://www.loganmagazine.com/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:14, 5 January 2018 (UTC)