User talk:BohwaZ

Do not remove maintenance tags until they've been addressed
If you remove a maintenance tag and an editor puts it back and states that they don't feel the concerns have been address, repeatedly removing it can be seen as edit warring. The criticism section is completely unsourced and stands as original research. Notability requires significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject. I see that neither have been addressed. There is objection to your removing them, therefore it is not up to you to decide if they've been addressed. As I see it, both of these issues still exist in the article.--Crossmr (talk) 22:47, 22 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Please just *read* sources of the article, the notability is not an issue here (or there is a notability issue with the LiveJournal article too...), there's a lot of articles in the press about Skyrock, you can check by yourself in "Le Monde" or other french journals. There is also quite a lot of articles about the french politic people creating blogs on Skyrock to meet young people (like here). Criticism is known in france, through a lot of blogs and parodies (like this one), but there is know reliable independent source about it. If it's a problem, you can just remove this part. But apart of this the notability is not a issue about this article. I wanna know why the 17th site of the world could not have a sufficient notability, even with *a lot* of press articles and other independent sources ? BohwaZ (talk) 00:13, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Then provide them if they exist. They aren't in the article, therefore it hasn't been established. Editors need to be able to verify the information from the article. Its not their job to go search google to find it for you every time an editor questions it. The livejournal article has links to sources which meet the criteria in the article. This article does not. Please read WP:WEB alexa ranking is no longer considered an appropriate method by the community to establish notability. The 3 options for establishing notability are listed in there, and a single link to one off site interview doesn't do it. No, parody blogs and images can't be used as citation unless they're being created/used by a reliable source to comment on the subject so I'll remove that subject. Please read WP:CITE on how to format the citations including how to use a citation in multiple places without the need to keep linking it over and over (I notice one of the citations you're using in two places). This claim Skyrock Blog is also very popular in Quebec, Switzerland, Belgium, Morocco and other french-speaking communities. needs citation, as does this It has also been used in the organization of underground political demonstrations and movements, similar to the 2006 U.S. immigration reform protests.--Crossmr (talk) 02:52, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Skyrock radio logo.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:Skyrock radio logo.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. 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 all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:08, 25 September 2008 (UTC)