Talk:Straphangers Campaign

Fair use rationale for Image:Takeaction2.gif
Image:Takeaction2.gif 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 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 20:51, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Obama
Name dropping Obama does nothing to tell us about the organization. He did not found or lead the organization so his involvement would be more appropriate in the Barack Obama ecyclopedia entry. Whatsmore, the only reference in the article is in regard to Obama, and it is only an old blog that can't be found online- thus it is unverifiable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonnyhottrod (talk • contribs) 23:43, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Seems the sort of thing that, if verifiable, belongs to a trivia section. Jim.henderson (talk) 00:39, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
 * It is referenced by amNY which is a free daily newspaper circulated in New York City by Newsday. The article is definitely weak but all you are doing is taking referenced material off the table rather than adding anything of value to the article. It is also a flag when almost the only edits aer concerning this one topic.Americasroof (talk) 00:49, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I will also add that it is just plain weird to take off the references and external links and then throw a prod on the article saying there are no references!!!! Americasroof (talk) 01:09, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

I encourage you to consider the following: First off, I am not really too concerned with the fact that the source is not verifiable online, as I am sure that further research could identify a source for it somewhere. However, name dropping Obama does nothing to tell us about the organization. He did not found or lead the organization so his involvement would be more appropriate in the Barack Obama encyclopedia entry. For example, if Obama had worked for the Post Office would that be something that should be in an article about the Post Office? What if he had been a member of Amway- should that be mentioned in an Amway article? What if he drove a Chevy Nova? Should he be included in the entry about Chevy Nova's? While many are fond of Obama, name dropping trivial facts about him into encyclopedia articles is just boastful.Jonnyhottrod (talk) 01:30, 21 December 2008 (UTC)Jonnyhottrod

G Service
Section moved to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject New York City Public Transportation for centralized discussion. Tinlinkin (talk) 12:58, 19 January 2010 (UTC)