Talk:Steve Altes - Wikipedia

Image:Steve altes.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 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 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) 06:18, 24 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

This article is simply non factual and untrue. Steve Altes is not "best known" for his humorous essays. He is totally unknown. What is the basis for this statement? A Nexus-Lexus search shows nothing. And if you look at Amazon statistics, it appears that fewer than a handful of people have purchased any of his books. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.159.60.195 (talk) 21:13, 8 September 2011 (UTC)Reply

I thought Wikipedia discouraged entries that were obviously written by the person they were about? This article is nothing more than self promotion. Most of the assertions and accolades are unsubstantiated and unsourced. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.159.60.195 (talk) 21:09, 8 September 2011 (UTC)Reply

I've asked for assistance at the BLP noticeboard--over nine years this has grown into a fully-colored press release, and bears no resemblance to a neutral-toned encyclopedia entry. A lot of the sources are the subject's published works, which underscore the anecdotal nature of the article. 2601:188:0:ABE6:5D65:637D:D70A:E45F (talk) 14:28, 18 August 2015 (UTC)Reply