Talk:Rodgers Instruments

Fair use rationale for Image:Rodgersinstruments.gif

Image:Rodgersinstruments.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 insure 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 uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, 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) 17:28, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Clean up

Unless you actually clean up the article, please do not remove the clean up tag. Though you made some improvements, you will notice almost all of the article is unsourced, the section headers fail the WP:MOS (notice this was linked in the edit summary), and there is a trivia section. Currently the article could be deleted for failing WP:CORP since there are zero WP:RS that are independent of the subject used to assert notability. Please rectify soon since you removed the tag, otherwise per WP:V (a core policy) most of the article will need to be deleted. Aboutmovies (talk) 21:09, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Regarding the removal of the primary sources template, were the sources listed actually used to create the article? These were not listed before, and the content of the article did not change before they were added. Unless they were actually used (best to show using inline citations/footnotes, see WP:CITE) they should not be listed. Aboutmovies (talk) 18:44, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

You will notice that the article now has multiple sources that are independent of the manufacturer. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.254.56.150 (talk) 13:54, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Obviously you have a beef against this article. I have provided multiple sources, and yes, wikipedia derivitives do count. Please do not remove the sources again! Your bias does not give carte blanche to indicate that references aren't proper!!Kane1126 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 14:01, 14 July 2009 (UTC).

I would suggest you remain WP:CIVIL, read about conflicts of interest if you think I have some sort of bias here since this assertion seems to indicate you may have a vested interest in the company, read about assuming good faith, read about what Wikipedia considers reliable sources, and also (concerning your request not to remove sources) about ownership of articles. In essence, if you read each of these, you will understand that Wikipedia derivatives (we call them mirrors) do not count as reliable sources, as Wikipedia itself does not count as a reliable source. So any citation that includes as a source Wikipedia, a Wikipedia mirror, or any other unreliable source can be removed by anyone. Also, you will want to read Wikipedia's manual of style for how we format things on Wikipedia, which may vary from your experiences in the real world. Aboutmovies (talk) 06:35, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

I have attempted to clean up the article and rewrite some of the paragraphs in a more NPOV appropriate way. I welcome your feedback, as I am rather new to Wikipedia editing. Also please note that I commented out a paragraph I was uncertain of, as well as a reference that I am uncertain applies to the technology being discussed here. Daedalus454 (talk) 18:34, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

More cleanup. Under the "Technology" section, I could not find any sources other than hearsay on forums and the like linking the Rodgers Organ Company with the Bradford Computing Organ technology, so I removed the reference. Additionally, under the "Touring Organs" section, the statement that the five manual instrument was the "most powerful" is rather nebulous - does that mean that it had the most powerful amplifiers, the most speakers, the highest peak SPL? Added a clarify tag. Daedalus454 (talk) 00:24, 22 February 2011 (UTC)