Talk:Humiliated and Insulted

(Redirected from Talk:The Insulted and Humiliated)
Latest comment: 12 years ago by 78.146.67.252 in topic Copied from Amazon.com review

Fair use rationale for Image:FyodorDostoevsky TheInsultedAndHumiliated.jpg

edit
 

Image:FyodorDostoevsky TheInsultedAndHumiliated.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 Wikipedia articles 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 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 11:05, 4 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

taken care of SECProto 19:56, 4 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

english title of work

edit

I feel like the title "The Insulted and the Injured" is far more common and better known than "The Insulted and the Humiliated." A quick Google search will bear this out. I feel that the title of the article should reflect this reality and correspond with the traditional English translation of the book's title. --216.73.249.32 20:32, 19 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

Copied from Amazon.com review

edit

Large sections of this article appear to have been taken from a review on Amazon.com published in 2000. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.146.67.252 (talk) 10:15, 29 September 2012 (UTC)Reply