User talk:Spandrawn

Question
helpmeHow do I do references? I tried to do a reference on the Comma splice article, but no footnote has appeared.
 * you do it like this; have a references section on the page place under the reference section and when ever you want to add a reference, add and it will appear at under the the reference section like this . see wp:cite for more information. and feel free to delete this when you understand how it works.-- Kerotan  Leave Me a Message  Have  a nice day :) 13:06, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:GoldenJoystickLogo.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:GoldenJoystickLogo.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, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Chris Morris
If an article section is extremely weakly sourced, please consider using an section header rather than adding "loads of inline 'fact' templates" and reducing the readability of the article. --McGeddon (talk) 18:56, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

I see where you're coming from, but not everyone who reads Wikipedia is an editor - I don't think it's worth frustrating 100 casual readers because it might also frustrate a single, citation-skilled editor into action. As you can see, the first reaction you got was an anonymous IP commenting "fucking citations" and adding "Barely Readable" to the section header, within twelve hours.

Documentation for Template:Fact recommends using the section header for "sections which have significant material lacking sources". I'm not aware of any policies that argue against the use of section headers - if there was a strong consensus that heavy tagging got the job done, I imagine the section templates would have been deleted by now.

I thought I'd reworded all the confusingly-written sentences that you'd flagged with the "huh" template. The "who" issues are the same as the "fact" ones, though - if a whole section is unsourced, then digging out the alluded sources is part of the same problem. --McGeddon (talk) 10:16, 23 June 2008 (UTC)