User talk:Sue Zuki

Sir Christopher Bullock
I am interested in your contributions to creating and adding to this page and what led you to create it. Also the informaton on Fisher. Where does this come from? Please feel free to email me or respond otherwise. Huguº 21:23, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

File source problem with File:WelkinSchool.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:WelkinSchool.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of that website's terms of use of its content. However, if the copyright holder is a party unaffiliated from the website's publisher, that copyright should also be acknowledged.

If you have uploaded other files, consider verifying that you have specified sources for those files as well. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged per Wikipedia's criteria for speedy deletion, F4. If the image is copyrighted and non-free, the image will be deleted 48 hours after 15:18, 3 January 2010 (UTC) per speedy deletion criterion F7. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Rodhull andemu  15:18, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Sorry to be so long in getting back on this point. The photograph was taken by a member of my family and is not in copyright. Sue Zuki (talk) 21:15, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation
 John Keyes Sherwin, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created. Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia! Kevin Rutherford (talk) 22:42, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
 * The article has been assessed as Stub-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.
 * You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request. However, you are more than welcome to continue submitting work to Articles for Creation.
 * If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the Help desk or on the [ reviewer's talk page]
 * If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider

Talkback
- JuneGloom    Talk  19:59, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

March 2012
Welcome to Wikipedia. We welcome and appreciate your contributions, including your edits to The Sense of an Ending, but we cannot accept original research. Original research also encompasses combining published sources in a way to imply something that none of them explicitly say. Please be prepared to cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Thank you.  Rain  the 1  15:49, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Please do not add original research or novel syntheses of published material to articles as you apparently did to The Sense of an Ending. Please cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Thank you.  Rain  the 1  20:07, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

This edit is not original research (nor is it novel syntheses which is something else altogether!). The manifest weakness of the present description of the novel is that the summary of the plot is taken almost entirely from the publisher's publicity blurb. That is not a reliable source. The source for a plot summary should be the book itself. There is much guidance on Wikipedia on exactly this point. Otherwise you would find yourself describing Mein Kampf as "One man's struggle to right a historical wrong - ref: ahitler.com"....Sue Zuki (talk) 22:26, 27 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Either add sources to your edits like the rest of constructive community - or carry on down the route of disruption. It really is your choice. You added a section, some of which consisted of plot (thats fine) - but you laid the claim - such as "The novel is in two parts, both of which are narrated" - Are we meant to take your word for that? When you could easily find a source? There was already an existing plot section too, so why the split section. Rain  the 1  17:21, 28 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Oh dear, how many times. The source is the book, for goodness sake.  Just read the guidance and stop making up your own rules!
 * This was mostly plot information - but as I said above, you also included a claim about the book. I am not making up rules, the problem here is that you have misunderstood. Take this as your final warning, any additions of unsourced information (or than plot) and I will be forced to alert an admin. I believe that it would be in the best interests of the project to do so now - but I think everyone should have a chance. Thank you. Rain  the 1  18:45, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 4
Hi. When you recently edited Margravine Cemetery, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Listed and Gothic (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 15:15, 4 April 2012 (UTC)