Talk:The Fool (design collective)

message: :Image:Layers of Onion.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 Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure 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 lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot (talk) 22:33, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Layers of Onion.gif

message: http://www.bmasse.com/Dylan_by_Marijke.htm
Does anyone want to say something about Marijke fakes? Assume this was not a real poster for the 1966 Dylan concerts? 
131.111.161.185 (talk) 14:31, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Bob Dylan

message: I have a hard time with "popular belief" that's sourced by the artists website and I find I hard to swallow that this should warrant a section on the decorating of a car they did not do. In fact, the article is so poorly sourced, i am considering an . Kleuske (talk) 12:38, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I would advise against an AFD. It will be a waste of everyone's time, as the subject is clearly notable, it just needs sourcing, and many sources exist. Nominating clearly notable articles for deletion especially when sources obviously exist and there is scope for improvement is a waste of everyone's time and bad Wikipedia practice. Mabalu (talk) 12:44, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree that it's a poorly written and poorly sourced article, but I'm also absolutely sure that they were notable, so I don't think an AfD nomination would get very far.  What is needed is an editor or two to spruce it up, from reliable sources.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:47, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
replies: text:  They are notable, I have no quarrel with that. The tags should suffice, then. Kleuske (talk) 12:50, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Sources:  , ,  , , , ... etc.  Plenty more sources around.  Should keep everyone busy...  Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:52, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Things they did not do... 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the . —Community Tech bot (talk) 18:11, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion