User:S/Archives/Archive 14
Replaceable fair use Image:AlexRusso.jpg
[edit]
Thanks for uploading Image:AlexRusso.jpg. I noticed the description page specifies that the media is being used under a claim of fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first non-free content criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this media is not replaceable, please:
- Go to the media description page and edit it to add
{{di-replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original replaceable fair use template. - On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.
Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.
If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per our non-free content policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 01:06, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
Image copyright problem with Image:The Campers.jpg
[edit]Thanks for uploading Image:The Campers.jpg. You've indicated that the image is being used under a claim of fair use, but you have not provided an adequate explanation for why it meets Wikipedia's requirements for such images. In particular, for each page the image is used on, the image must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Can you please check
- That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for each article the image is used in.
- That every article it is used on is linked to from its description page.
This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --FairuseBot (talk) 09:22, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
The Cleveland Show
[edit]Would you care to provide one single rational reason for uploading that new image for The Cleveland Show? I assume you take pride in your vandalism. WildFan48 04:49, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
- Really? It seems more like your wishing to look for attention than really trying to alert me to WP:AGF; that is a newer promotional image I've simply uploaded. Do you honestly think uploading a newer version is vandalism? You have no right to go off saying I "take pride in my vandalism". A talk 17:41, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
- Oh, yeah, it's a "new promotional image?" So you're telling me that all the characters are blue and the show has a green background? Even if this is a new promotianal image, why did you upload it? It isn't even close to being an accurate depiction of the show. I don't think you see The Simpsons page with purple Simpsons or The Smurfs page having green Smurfs. And if you are so insistent in having that image included on Wikipedia, why couldn't you have uploaded it as a new one. Nothing about the new upload made any sense to me. So even if it isn't vandalism, think about what you're uploading before you do it. WildFan48 00:13, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
- Try and understand what you just said. "I don't think you see The Simpsons page with purple Simpsons or The Smurfs page having green Smurfs." Honestly, the whole "that page has this, this page has that" thing doesn't cut it. In the future, just try and be civil, and keep your cool. Who referred to The Simpsons? I uploaded a correct image, and no one except you complained for days. Sounds as though its your computers' technical issues. I've only uploaded that image once - how is that insistent? Nothing probably makes sense? Read WP:FIVE, WP:IMAGE, and then start editing - it will help a lot. Why don't you think of your complaint, see if anyone else is having an issue, discuss it maturely on the pages' talk page before you come to me saying "I take pride in my vandalism". A talk 01:45, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
- Really classy--try to blame your uploading the picture on my computer having problems. And I said your insistent on having the image because of the response you wrote back to me. All I'm saying is that that image has no relevance on Wikipedia and there was no reason for deleting the previous image to put that one in. WildFan48 19:26, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, your computer has problems, seeing no one complained except you. Classy? No, common sense. I put a solo picture of the main characters, just to justify them, proving that it probably has more relevance than the previous image. I've taken this maturely, quite unlike you have. The subject is over with, get over it. A talk 20:18, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
- I have to admit that I still don't understand how you're blaming this on my computer or how it is common sense, but talking to you has just led us around in circles. I'm glad to see your willing to drop it, because I don't see any other way I'm possibly going to get through to you. WildFan48 04:38, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, your computer has problems, seeing no one complained except you. Classy? No, common sense. I put a solo picture of the main characters, just to justify them, proving that it probably has more relevance than the previous image. I've taken this maturely, quite unlike you have. The subject is over with, get over it. A talk 20:18, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
- Really classy--try to blame your uploading the picture on my computer having problems. And I said your insistent on having the image because of the response you wrote back to me. All I'm saying is that that image has no relevance on Wikipedia and there was no reason for deleting the previous image to put that one in. WildFan48 19:26, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
- Try and understand what you just said. "I don't think you see The Simpsons page with purple Simpsons or The Smurfs page having green Smurfs." Honestly, the whole "that page has this, this page has that" thing doesn't cut it. In the future, just try and be civil, and keep your cool. Who referred to The Simpsons? I uploaded a correct image, and no one except you complained for days. Sounds as though its your computers' technical issues. I've only uploaded that image once - how is that insistent? Nothing probably makes sense? Read WP:FIVE, WP:IMAGE, and then start editing - it will help a lot. Why don't you think of your complaint, see if anyone else is having an issue, discuss it maturely on the pages' talk page before you come to me saying "I take pride in my vandalism". A talk 01:45, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
- Oh, yeah, it's a "new promotional image?" So you're telling me that all the characters are blue and the show has a green background? Even if this is a new promotianal image, why did you upload it? It isn't even close to being an accurate depiction of the show. I don't think you see The Simpsons page with purple Simpsons or The Smurfs page having green Smurfs. And if you are so insistent in having that image included on Wikipedia, why couldn't you have uploaded it as a new one. Nothing about the new upload made any sense to me. So even if it isn't vandalism, think about what you're uploading before you do it. WildFan48 00:13, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
Orphaned non-free media (Image:Spiderman skyscaper 2.jpg)
[edit]
Thanks for uploading Image:Spiderman skyscaper 2.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:34, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
Image copyright problem with Image:Victor's the Leak.jpg
[edit]Thanks for uploading Image:Victor's the Leak.jpg. You've indicated that the image is being used under a claim of fair use, but you have not provided an adequate explanation for why it meets Wikipedia's requirements for such images. In particular, for each page the image is used on, the image must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Can you please check
- That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for each article the image is used in.
- That every article it is used on is linked to from its description page.
This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --FairuseBot (talk) 07:57, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
GA review of Pride & Joy (comics)
[edit]I have started a GA review of Pride & Joy (comics) and left some comments at Talk:Pride & Joy (comics). —Politizer talk/contribs 03:04, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
- Also, just to give you a heads-up, I'll be traveling from tomorrow through Monday and so I'll be on an on-and-off wikibreak, so it might take me a day or so to see your responses at the talk page. Sorry about the inconvenience! —Politizer talk/contribs 03:26, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
(unindent) No problem! Of course, it never hurts to expand the article more; sometime tomorrow I will try to go through and more formally look at all the things I commented on earlier and leave some new comments about whether or not they need expanded, but another thing that might be worth trying to write in the meantime is some information on the comic's style...was there anything unique or noteworthy about the artistic style, writing style, format, or anything like that?
I will have to do my formal decision later, but in the meantime I guess we just have to figure out how much room there is for development in this article. The way it is now, I don't think I can pass it for GA, but we're not in any real hurry to do the formal decision now; the main issue is whether there is enough stuff to write about for it to ever make GA. Since it's just part of a larger story, that makes things difficult...although this comic seems to be more unique in that it was originally intended as a stand-alone story, so there may be enough to say about it to flesh out the article enough for GA. (A lot of that will probably depend on whether or not it got reviewed a lot before it expanded into Runaways. Right now, a lot of the awards and praise seem to be for the Runaways series as a whole, rather than "Pride & Joy" in particular; if there's a lot of stuff out there that talks just about "Pride & Joy" and how important that was, that would help make this article more independent and notable.)
So I think once all my original comments at the GA review are addressed, I will make my formal evaluation. One likely outcome is that I might ask for a second opinion, since I'm not really familiar enough with Marvel to judge the notability of some things and I wouldn't want to fail the article erroneously. Anyway, in the meantime, the best thing to do is work on adding information about what makes hte "Pride & Joy" arc, in particular, notable and unique, and what sets it apart from the rest of the series. —Politizer talk/contribs 08:00, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
- Hey there, I just closed out the GA review; you can read the final assessment at Talk:Pride & Joy (comics)/GA1. Unfortunately, the article doesn't quite meet the GA requirements yet, so I had to reject it for now, on the hopes that with continued work we will be able to improve it up to GA quality and then re-nominate it. Nevertheless, you have done really good work with this article, and it's a lot better now than it was when I first started reviewing it, so don't get discouraged! Although it wasn't able to quite make GA, I have raised its quality assessment from Start up to B-class, because I think it definitely meets those requirements. Good work with improving the article, and hopefully with a little more work we'll be able to re-nominate it for another review! Best, —Politizer talk/contribs 01:15, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
Re:For your awareness
[edit]I have no problems with that. The only reason it wasn't like that before is because I was too lazy to do it. -- Scorpion0422 00:11, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
Thanks!
[edit]Thank you for the barnstar! Cheers! TN‑X-Man 00:58, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Hannah Montana
[edit]Hello, I see you re-did the HM S3 page, are you thinking of doing that for the other seaons too? - Alec2011 (talk) 01:22, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
Pride & Joy
[edit]Hi there. I see that you have a Runaways article up for a Good Article nomination. Personally I think the prose needs a lot of work, but I'm willing to help you out by rewriting some sections if you want. WesleyDodds (talk) 11:43, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
Reply
[edit]I LIKE It, It's better than mine :D. - Alec2011 (talk) 21:47, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
Replaceable fair use Image:BRoy.jpg
[edit]Thanks for uploading Image:BRoy.jpg. I noticed the description page specifies that the media is being used under a claim of fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first non-free content criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this media is not replaceable, please:
- Go to the media description page and edit it to add
{{di-replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original replaceable fair use template. - On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.
Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.
If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per our non-free content policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Ricky81682 (talk) 20:09, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
Brandon Roy GA review
[edit]Hi there. Please don't strike out comments on the review page per WP:TALK. I use my own initial review later on once all the work has been done, and if the comments are struck out, I'll find it extremely difficult to look through the improvements properly. Peanut4 (talk) 01:22, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
- No worries at all. One of the reasons I prefer not for them to be stricken, is because I try to be thorough in my GA reviews, and there can be a lot to keep up with. Peanut4 (talk) 01:31, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
Hey good job getting this to GA, I only just noticed. Let me know if you feel like working any other Trailblazers-related articles up to GA quality, I'd be happy to work together on it. -Pete (talk) 16:32, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
Hannah Montana understaning
[edit]1 This is a comparison before and after I made the changes. The same info is shown but in a more effective way you see just by me creating Hannah Montana its own episodes template.--Jay M. Baxter-Payne (talk) 00:02, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
Hey, I added that TV Guide reviewer that you removed. Why do you not think he is a valid reviewer? It is from the TV Guide website. CTJF83Talk 21:53, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
Hi A. I am glad you took notice of the article, and subsequently passed it to GAN. However, there are some weaknesses of the article to be considered. There are still no proper section for the song's review, the music is not yet well-sourced, as well as the cover versions. But please let me know if you'll continue the nomination. I'll try to finish what I have temporarily left unfinished. Thank you. --Efe (talk) 05:29, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
Fair use rationale for Image:The Campers.jpg
[edit]Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:The Campers.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.
If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media 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. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 16:11, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
Wither
[edit]I'm sorry, but your personal opinion on whether or not Wither deserves to be on the X-Men template does not constitute reason putting him on there, and just telling me to "stop it" in my personal talk page with the "test edits" message does not overrule the fact that he was never on a full X-Men team like Hellion and Elixir were with the New X-Men. If you have a problem with it, go along the general site guidelines and take it to the template's talk page and plead your case, don't start a revert war. If you continue to do so, I will take it to the proper authorities on the site. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.250.74.201 (talk) 23:38, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
Orphaned non-free media (Image:NewMutantJosh.jpg)
[edit] Thanks for uploading Image:NewMutantJosh.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:16, 25 November 2008 (UTC)