Talk:The Masseur
 | This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Fair use rationale for Image:Masahista.jpg edit
Image:Masahista.jpg 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) 00:50, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
It's written English, but not as we know it, Jim edit
Both the very short first paragraph (introduction) and the very short second paragraph (synopsis) are laughable in their attempts to express any relevant ideas.
- "... and had a relationship"
tacked on the end of the first section... what is that intended to convey in the absence of any further information?
The second section, Synopsis, includes absolutely nothing that relates to anything in the opening section.
At least there are no further sections attempting to convey ideas in this pointlessly short article.
Wkiepedia is, it seems, staffed by 'editors' who can toil endlessly to undo people's contributions and nit-pick about 'violation' of cryptically abbreviated 'policies', often invoking and interpreting them based on the most tenuous of relevance, but almost entirely empty of people able to fulfil the role of an actual editor: i.e. one who edit, that is reads and improves the quality of the written word. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.130.99.174 (talk) 09:10, 11 August 2014 (UTC)