User talk:Steyncham

Image copyright problem with Image:MW-small.jpg
Thank you for uploading Image:MW-small.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 15:28, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Gabarrou
I hope you don't mind but I have moved your Patrick Gabarrou article into mainspace, crediting you. That way I can link to it. Thanks, Ericoides  12:14, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

License tagging for File:Yves Bréchet.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Yves Bréchet.jpg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information; to add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia.

For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 18:05, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Links to user pages and sandboxes
Please do not introduce links in actual articles to user pages or sandboxes, as you did at Property graphs. Since these pages have not been accepted as articles, user pages, sandboxes and drafts are not suitable for linking in articles. and such links are contrary to the Manual of Style. These links have been deleted, please do not re-add any such links, thank you - Arjayay (talk) 14:01, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

WePlanet moved to draftspace
Thanks for your contributions to WePlanet. Unfortunately, I do not think it is ready for publishing at this time because it needs more sources to establish notability, it is promotional and reads like an advertisement and 'while the first Guardian'' article ("A long overdue moment?") is decent, however the rest of the sources are more what the organisation has to say, rather than what people are saying about the organisation, which is what is required to meet the criteria. Additionally, while the Guardian article has some third party commentary from, e.g. Percival, Parr and Monbiot, the article here focuses exclusively on the organisations's own views, making it unbalanced by our policies'''. I have converted your article to a draft which you can improve, undisturbed for a while.

Please see more information at Help:Unreviewed new page. When the article is ready for publication, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page OR move the page back. Alpha3031 (t • c) 14:28, 26 May 2024 (UTC)


 * Hello
 * I have a hard time understanding why this article would not pass the notability criterion : I cite 6 articles from the Guardian and one from the Wall Street Journal that explicitly mention the organization (under its forme name of replanet) and the corresponding campaigns that are mentioned in the text
 * What should I do before submitting the article for review? Steyncham (talk) 15:38, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
 * You seem to imply that the journalists from the Guardian are just presenting the view point of WePlanet : but these articles are written by independent journalists, whose job it is to provide a balanced viewpoint,, not by representatives of the organization they talk about! If a newspaper like the Guardian does not count as a valid secondary source, which does??? Steyncham (talk) 15:45, 30 May 2024 (UTC)