User talk:17Drew/Archive 1

Welcome!

Hello, 17Drew, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! -Tapir Terrific 07:56, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikiproject Latinos

I just wanted to let you know about Wikiproject Latinos.--JuanMuslim ^1m 21:14, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are invited to participate in Wikipedia:WikiProject Latinos, a project dedicated to developing and improving articles about Latinos and Hispanics.
Currently, we are discussing prospects for the project. Your input would be greatly appreciated!

Wind It Up revert

Apologies for the screwy revert. I had a blond moment and forgot I was deleting the updated information. Now who keeps taking out the critical response thing I put in?...lol... PatrickJ83 22:32, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hot Digital Songs

Wow, thank you for removing the excess chart information from single articles! Now this means that the significant information (such as peak positions on important charts) isn't obscured by the trivial stuff. I just thought I'd mention that the Hot Digital Songs is a component chart of the Billboard Hot 100, so that could be removed as well. Anyway, thanks again! Extraordinary Machine 21:02, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding a recent edit made to Welcome to the Black Parade

You recently removed the chart trajectories from the Welcome to the Black Parade article and used the link Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Music/Tables_for_charts/Archive as a reason. I might just not be able to spot it but I don't see anything saying that you are not allowed to have the trajectory tables in an article. It is used as an example as well. If you can please point this out it would be very helpful because if they can still be in the article I will readd them since they can be used. Thank you! Orfen ^{User Talk} | _Contribs 22:44, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thank you for clearing that up for me. I was just wondering because I did not see it and was just wondering where you were coming from. Thanks! Orfen ^{User Talk} | _Contribs 00:35, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chart trajectories

hi I'm kinda new to wikipedia so i'm not an expert at editing and i was wondering if you had any tips. I've noticed that chart trajectories in numorus articals have been deleted and i'm not happy. So can you give me a tip on how to bring all of them back? Or if you can edit some of them then please do so.

Thankyou

Yes. No were does it say that you cant have chart trajectories! Until a definite agreement is reached on them. I'll revert all the articles you 'vandalized'.--Bojach 14:07, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, how about that putting an external link for the chart trajectories would be more appropriate than by putting it in Wikipedia? Manm hk 10:55, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image tagging for Image:Diadeenerovideo.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Diadeenerovideo.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 07:05, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image tagging for Image:Wwvid.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Wwvid.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 03:10, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Image:Maneater.jpg

Hmm, it was me who made that :). Are you sure it's necessary to mention that on the description page, though? I mean, with regards to image source information, the copyright holder is the essential thing to include. Extraordinary Machine 19:09, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, okay then. Extraordinary Machine 19:27, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Underneath It All

It's not a guideline at all; I'm sorry if I stated it as such. It's easier when there are fewer positions listed in the info box so that it doesn't become increasingly long. That's what I think, anyway. Velten 01:29, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Los Lobos

Thanks for adding the Infobox! It makes the page look much nicer! Mikieminnow 15:55, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image

While you over here adding pictures of Chris Brown, you need to find one for T.I. lol Georgia Peachez 07:59, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Georgia Peachez 08:13, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine also..thank you again Georgia Peachez 08:33, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

re; Roisin Murphy

Thanks, I didn't even know that... won't do it again! Later. - eo 12:39, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

U2

The key here is the word "adequately". The band can barely be seen on that picture. If you provide a picture that actually shows the band's faces, I'd gladly put it on the article. --Kristbg 19:23, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So you want to substitute a perfectly good picture for another that doesn't adequately show the subject because a photograph of the band could still be taken? I do not agree. Feel free to forward the issue to wherever you want. --Kristbg 19:51, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Are you aware of the three revert rule? I count 5 in the last 24hours. --Merbabu 12:47, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

lol - well, there are 24 hours in a day. Whose' day did you think it meant anyway? I am estimating it is about 9am Tuesday in Maryland, while here in Sydney it has just turned Wednesday (ie, midnight). :) --Merbabu 13:01, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's a very reasonable answer. Although I don't agree that the MSG picture is an adequate replacement, it does a better job at it than the previous picture. If the picture gets replaced again, I will not revert it - however, I'd like to see some discussion on Image talk:U2photo.jpg. --Kristbg 17:40, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What is the process for removing that image? Ie, who decides whether the image gets deleted on 12 Dec? Presumably not you.--Merbabu 23:51, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I followed your suggestion and found some on Flickr from none other than the Grammy's. [1], [2]. Should do the trick, right? --Merbabu 03:06, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I didn’t reply to your earlier messages regarding photos. I actually did send Flickr mail to a couple of people and I got a “yes” from someone but their pic was only "so-so". I haven’t heard from the bloke who had the good quality Grammy pics. So, worst comes to worst, I have an in-concert band pic which I think is better than the other proposed concert pics, but quality wise it is still a long way short of the current promotional shot. Another thing, with wikipedia’s influence I wonder whether we could e-mail the band's management company. They might release something for us. Hoping for such good will might be a bit niave, but it is not impossible. The worst they can say is "no". I will ask you for advice before I do that though. Merbabu 23:24, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the band's management's willingness to help out might depend on what they think of the article! --Merbabu 23:40, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Liner notes

Yes. The general information should be included: article titles, authors, transcripted dates, pages (for newspapers if possible), the source, and the date you retrieved it. Velten 00:56, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's great, but don't put colons (:) in references. Just place periods. :) Velten 23:58, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:BossyVideo.png

This file may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:BossyVideo.png. 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. When you use a generic fair use tag such as {{fair use}} or {{fair use in|article name}}, 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.

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 fair use images 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. Yamla 18:50, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Yummy

OK, thanks for taking the initiative of e-mailing that woman! I suppose I'll nominate it for deletion since "The Sweet Escape" is going to be the second single. Originally I had heard this, so I was very skeptical about the release of "Yummy". Velten 20:38, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would assume it was avaiable to the public, but mine was purchased through a friend (for a nice discount). Velten 00:04, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Im in ur base killin ur d00dz

While I would be inclined to agree with you normally for this type of internet jargon, it WAS actualy a page that was on the most requested list. It was one of the couple of internet meme names that was on that list, and thus I think it should be added to wikipedia. I think a better suggestion would be to put it up to debate on the articles for deletion section, and see if the community as a whole sees this as important or not. If not, then no big loss. Thank you for notifying me. Galactor213 22:53, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If a Delete consensus is reached on an AfD but the page is not deleted, it can be speedy-deleted under CSD G6. StoptheDatabaseState 23:11, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, well, suppose it is I who should have looked up stuff about that article. However, it was a requested article | here. I'll remove it from that list, saying it's been deleted three times now.

Galactor213 01:25, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:MyChemicalRomancepromo2006.jpg

I'm just curious as to why it was marked for deletion or why it doesn't meet fair use requirements? I guess I just need help figuring out how to establish that it meets said requirements.-- Boa Drumm er 09:22, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Gwen Stefani

I think that would depend on EW's source; I know "Gwendolyn" has been reverted before. The issue though is WP:V, which makes it clear that something may be factual, but it doesn't pass encyclopedic verifiability if fact is not accompanied by a citation from a reliable source. I've found EW generally reliable, but the edit was not cited as such. I can discuss further tomorrow, my time. RadioKirk (u|t|c) 06:03, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have in the past seen EW pick up items from other sources without further fact-checking, but that may not be the case now, they've been reliable as near as I can tell. As for adding Renee, one citation the first time it appears is sufficient (See Lindsay Lohan and Rupert Grint for examples). RadioKirk (u|t|c) 17:59, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Editor's Barnstar

		The Editor's Barnstar
		For relentlessly removing unnecessary chart information, statistics and trivia from articles, you deserve the Editor's Barnstar. Thanks largely to your work, the emphasis in song articles has been taken away from chart performance to create a more general and encyclopedic overview of those songs. Knowing that what's excluded from articles is as important as what's included is an admirable quality to have. As you know, I've lobbied for the exclusion of chart trajectories and other redundant things like that in the past, so thank you so much. Extraordinary Machine 18:07, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

update on admin coaching

Just wanted to update you an the admin coaching status. Well a lot happened over at the project page, and we are now starting to go through the old list of requests. So right now you're #46 on the list, but I think that is not as bad as it sounds, since there are available coaches and some users are no longer active or interested in being coached. Hopefully you'll get a coach soon. Thanks for being patient. I am trying to make this program as useful and efficient as possible. --Fang Aili ^talk 18:13, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Use of `{{Replaceable fair use disputed}}` template

ShadowHalo,

I've taken a look through your recent contributions and you appear to be marking every image you come across that was submitted as fair use with the {{Replaceable fair use disputed}} template. Are you on a personal vendetta against fair use? Or do you genuinely believe that alternatives exist (present tense) to replace all of these images? --sony-youth 22:55, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Replying at your talk page. —ShadowHalo 23:06, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your reply and link to the FUC talk page. I can see your position more clearly now, especially after reading the discussion there. However, I still think that you are being indiscriminate. For example, you marked this image as replaceable when it is an album cover used on the article page describing that album. This is clearly unreplaceable by a free alternative.

Secondly, as you say, the criteria set out that "... if the subject of the photograph still exists, a freely-licensed photograph could be taken." The modal verb could is important here. If it were should or must then a freely-licensed photo would be necessary. Saying that a freely-licensed photograph could be taken does not imply any such obligation.

Finally, do you not think that the sheer numbers of images you are marking amounts to POV pushing with regard to the fair-use criteria? It is clear that you have a strong opinion on this matter but it simply is not the case that all fair use images - whether they be of people alive or dead - are not allowed.

--sony-youth 23:48, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ShadowHalo, apologies regarding the Corazón Latino image. Indeed, you did not mark the image as contravening fair use, in fact you defended it as fair use. I was wrong.

However, with regard to your wider actions, you are mistaken in believing that any image of a living (and performing) artist contravenes the criteria. Please read the criteria more closely (see my post above for advice on where you are mistaken). If you disagree with these criteria then please take you argument to the talk page of that policy document as you suggested to me.

Using the {{Replaceable fair use disputed}} template to mark fair-use images for deletion where a free image does not exist is POV pushing with regard to the policies of Wikipedia. What you are arguing is simply not the case and you should not be allowed to make it the case de facto through what amount to threats.

--sony-youth 11:51, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ShadowHalo, thanks as always for you reply. I would be grateful if you would address each of the following points one at a time:

"I honestly don't see the part of WP:FUC to which you are referring.": From the FUC: "However, if the subject of the photograph still exists, a freely-licensed photograph could be taken." As is said before: The modal verb could is important here. If it were should or must then a freely-licensed photo would be necessary. Saying that a freely-licensed photograph could be taken does not imply any such obligation. This is policy. What area of the FUC supports your claim that fair-use does not apply to living and performing artists?

POV pushing: As you stated before, you would prefer a Wikipedia that has wholly free content (from U2 image talk page: "I ... believe that keeping Wikipedia free takes precedent."). This is your point of view not Wikipedia's policy on fair use of copyrighted images. The page I linked to describes POV pushing as "the aggressive promotion of a particular point of view." The sheer numbers of fair-use images you have needlessly marked with the {{Replaceable fair use disputed}} template is how you are aggressively promoting this POV.

"...what amounts to threats": The the Oxford American Dictionary defines treat as "A statement of intention to inflict pain, injury, damage, or hostile action on someone in retribution for something done or not done." The threat that I am referring to here is the statement that an image (despite the fact that it does not contravene policy) "may be deleted by any administrator" (from the template). It is your opinion (from my talk page) that "having fair-use images of [currently performing] performers discourages people from creating or otherwise obtaining them." This is what the statement is made in retribution for.

--sony-youth^talk 17:29, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

p.s. I do bleieve you are acting in good faith and I hope you believe that I am also. --sony-youth^talk 17:33, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you final sentiment ("I indeed believe that you're acting with good faith, but I worry that this may be escalating, which wouldn't help either one of us.") and return it likewise. From your contributions, I think it is clear that you make an enormously positive contribution to Wikipedia and I would be loathe to deter you in anyway. (Please don't let me - but I don't think you will!) However, I fear that you are misguided in marking of so many images with the {{Replaceable fair use disputed}} template. I agree with your position in principle that it would be best to have an all free encyclopedia but I do not agree with the manner in which you are going about achieving so.

I don't think that we will get anywhere arguing it here. We simply have two opposite views on the matter. I suggest that we bring the matter to request for comment.

By way of a very final attempt to ask you to change you actions in this matter, please look at this proposal. Although not policy, it does reflect some common sense with regard to the matter.

Please reply letting me know if you intend to continue as you are at present. Again, it is clear to me that you are an exceptional Wikipedian and act with impeccable good faith (and civility).

(Oh, almost forgot - linking threat to terrorism was intended to impress on you the widespread, indiscriminate and, for those involved, apparently random nature of your use of the template.)

--sony-youth^talk 21:41, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Right you are. I would be hesitant about a RfC in the user section - for one because it requires more than one other 'complainant' but also because it is clear you are not anything near a 'problem user' and I don't want to 'complain' you. I don't think a RfC would fit under the guidelines section either because we are not discussing this matter on any policy page and because my issue is not policy but whether the {{Replaceable fair use disputed}} template should be used as you currently do.

Would you be satisfied to a place the matter for a request for mediation instead?

--sony-youth^talk 23:01, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

p.s. this may sound odd given our current circumstance but I've decided to award you The Barnstar of High Culture - I've seen the enormous work you do in the music category as a result of this dispute and think its AMAZING! I hope you don't think that this compliment is lessened any to degree by our dispute, if anything please interpret it as an even higher compliment. Thank you.

Ok, I've submitted a request for mediation. You will need to sign it too. --sony-youth^talk 00:20, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're right. I've changed the entry on the page. The number of 300 was estimated very poorly late at night. I've gone through your contribution in the Image namespace. The results are here. I've linked to this page from the request for mediation. --sony-youth^talk 10:13, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, as you can imagine, I definitely don't agree with that decision. I lived in Dublin for two years, I know where Bono lives, and there is simply no way that it is likely that a quality and representative GFDL photo will be taken of U2. (Just as Wikipedia needs a writing style so too do images on Wikipedia need to be composed and taken correctly - this is made even more difficult for images, however, because while an article can be cleaned up, little can be done for a poorly taken photograph.) Could I ask you to look at this RfC and let me know what you think? --sony-youth^talk 00:12, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'm not going to push this any more. I don't think anything positive can come out of just you or I arguing over it. I had hoped that the mediation request would have led to some suggestions for compromise in the way you tag images. I pointed you to that link just so you could see how strong opinion is that this is not a black or white issue. I don't believe that policy is as you describe it: Why would {{promotional}} template exist if it was so? You have uploaded several screen shots from music videos, why should these be treated any different - is it really necessary to depict what is shown in these articles? Being reasonable is at the basis of fair use, and I don't think its reasonable to think that the images you tagged can be replaced with free ones. I believe that is a mistake based on ideology (not necessarily yours), and that ideologies of all kind lead to unrealistic projections of what "can" or "could" happen. --sony-youth^talk 01:04, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

An Automated Message from HagermanBot

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! HagermanBot 05:41, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your message

Be sure to check the history of images when asking for fair-use precisions. The image in question was uploaded by User: Cookie 187, who seems to be "deceased". I think the photo can be tagged under "publicity", as it's obvious that this is a promo shot. Cheers, yandman 08:02, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Barnstar of High Culture

		The Barnstar of High Culture
		For his Relentless Work in improving the Category of Music, this Barnstar has been awarded to ShadowHalo. His exceptional effort and attention to detail has lifted the quality and consistency of articles from Boys II Men to Strange Little Girls. sony-youth^talk 23:25, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ciara: The Evolution

Please stop changing the information on the article. It is fine the way it is. There is a semi-protection block on the article because of IP users and wikipedia users like you changing perfect information. Charmed36 02:48, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You remove the album title meaning which is correct. Everything is fine with the article. Its hard to work together if everyone changes value information. Charmed36 03:01, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I searching for the removed source which vanished months ago. Charmed36 03:10, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

sushi!

Thanks for updating my sushi user box. I didn't realize you were in Cambridge. Howdy neighbor...w00t! - eo 13:15, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Request for Mediation

A Request for Mediation to which you are a party was not accepted and has been delisted. You can find more information on the mediation subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Use of "Replaceable fair use" template.

For the Mediation Committee, Essjay (Talk)

This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to perform case management. If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.

This message delivered: 04:15, 15 December 2006 (UTC).

Notebook Lesson Deletion Vote

FYI, your vote to delete Notebook lesson is being supressed by the articles origonal author. You might want to take a look at what has been done. Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Notebook_lesson Davidpdx 14:16, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

MedBot Reposting

Turns out, the category for the rejected case never got changed, so it kept rejecting it and reposting the rejection message. It's been cleared up now, sorry. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 23:00, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello

Hi ShadowHalo. In fact, I had already seen the template but it was just that the infobox didn't exactly fit with the information. I know it's horrible when someone destroys your good faith work so I'm not going to revert to the previous infobox. I however, change a bit of things in the particular infobox, like breaks or something, nothing to worry I think about. You've worked hardly to change them and I'm not stopping you. So best wishes for Christmas and keep up the good work :)--Fluence 00:08, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Paige?

Thanks for allowing me to use that picutre. But is the picture acceptable to use for Lauren Collin's article too? Brainboy109 December 17th, 2006 1:27 (UTC)

So how do you find an appropriate picture of an actor or actress for their article? Brainboy109

YOU DUMB ASS!!

Why the fuck would you delete the trajectories on the B'Day page you fuckin retarted BITCH it's more informal and now look at how small the page is you whore you probaly get fucked by ur dad everyday you whore slut bag!! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.137.113.63 (talk) 00:05, 18 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]

I strongly recommend that you read WP:PA and WP:NOT#IINFO. As you'll see at WP:MUSIC/CHARTS#Chart trajectories, chart trajectories constitute an indiscriminate collection of information which contributes little to an article. As such, they don't belong on Wikipedia, rather a fansite, for example. —ShadowHalo 00:14, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

FYI: when I saw the msg that user left on your page I reported his vandalism. Hopefully we'll see a block of some sort. What a tool. - eo 00:26, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I happened to see this message, ShadowHalo -- it's grounds for an immediate block. If it happens again let me know. --Fang Aili ^talk 15:45, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

thanks for that

I've recieved a fair share of criticism (as is normal when you mess with someone's sacred cow) and its nice to know that someone appreciates it. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 09:32, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Popocatépetl and Iztaccíhuatl

Hi there, I've totally revamped and sourced this article. Please take another look at it if you like, Thanks! Bwithh 06:23, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Allstonians Haunt.jpg

Go fly a kite. So you have no tolerance for me to put my private (totally owned & approved) image on the band's page? Who appointed you King Retard? Don't mess with stuff you know nothing about. - Cabreet 07:16, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: No Doubt

I'll start rewriting some sections after Christmas since I'm currently a little busy (and have been limiting my Wiki-time). Thanks! Velten 23:03, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

what did i do I dont even know what i did i tried to stop some a-hole from messing up the whole gwen stefani page —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jorge527 (talk • contribs) 08:58, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

Stubs: Eric Stefani; The Matrix (music producer); Dem Franchize Boyz; Humpers; T-Pain; Daniel Powter (album); Gabrial McNair; David E. Williams; Ying Yang Twins; Arena (Accident Experiment EP); Kevin "She'kspere" Briggs; David Campbell (Canadian musician); It's Raining Men; UK Albums Chart; Joe Simpson (manager); Beat of My Heart; Survivor (song); Lose My Breath; Girls About Town

Cleanup: Jennifer Lopez discography; Da Brat; DisneyMania
Merge: Motivation EP; Tiny Mix Tapes; Maurice Williams (doo-wop artist)
Add Sources: Busta Rhymes; Internet leak; Oakley Haldeman
Wikify: EZ-Street; Blackground Records; The Racławice Panorama
Expand: Prince (musician); Greg Kihn; Crawling Back to You

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot 22:48, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

1998 Promo Pic Of Lauryn Hill

Could u post in plain english? Free alternative?:

Please do not add copyrighted replaceable images as you did to the Lauryn Hill article (diff). The first of Wikipedia's fair use criteria requires that for a copyrighted image to be used, there would not be any way to create a free alternative. Because Lauryn Hill is still alive and performing and especially because of the presence of a free alternative, the promotional image does not meet the first fair use criteria and should not be used on Wikipedia to illustrate Lauryn Hill. —ShadowHalo 21:44, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes LH is still alive, that pic isnt of a dead LH. If u look thru the LH page history, u'll c that pic/ image was there for a long time. U removed it bc u says it isnt allowed..y not? That photo was released for publicity, so y cant it be used?Also, if it cant be used, shouldnt it be completed deleted from wiki so it cant be used at all? Whose criteria? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.58.196.156 (talk • contribs) 1:14, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

One of Wikipedia's main policies (see Wikipedia:Five pillars) is that it wants to have free content. When someone takes a picture, he or she automatically owns the copyright to it. Since Wikipedia is a "free encyclopedia", it avoids using copyrighted pictures if it's possible to get a "free" one, meaning that the copyright owner has given up certain rights to it. Since it doesn't appear that the image can be used, the image indeed should be deleted. If you look at the image's description page (Image:Laurynhill.gif), you'll see that the image has been tagged for deletion unless someone believes that the image is not replaceable. If you have any more questions, feel free to leave another message on my talk page]]. —ShadowHalo 01:05, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Again u posted in big legal words. In plain simple english why can't the pic be used? It is a PROMO pic, PROMO means free. Is the pic not free bc it is .gif? Who owns the pic? I see no This pic was widely published for coverage of LH's debut album in98/99 so it should def be okay to be here. Do u have verification from some 1 else that the promo pic isnt allowed. it is even on google images. This sounding to me like u dont want the pic used, like u want the CP pic of LH 2 be used. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.58.196.156 (talk • contribs) 02:39, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If the pic is copyrighted, how did it get uploded in the first place? Also, b4 u tagged it for deletion, I dont think the pic was tag. The CP pic of LH says it must be attribted and it isnt, so y hasnt it been deleted? Also, I read the copyright info for the pic on its image page. It is ambiguous. It says that the pic if from a forthcoming book, but that isnt true. The pic is from the promo pics released for LH's debut album in 98. Also, the 3rd bullet is this: on the English-language Wikipedia, hosted on servers in the United States by the non-profit Wikimedia Foundation, qualifies as fair use under United States copyright law. Other uses of this image, on Wikipedia or elsewhere, may be copyright infringement.; the pic is here on an encyclopedia for knowledge/information, not for profit or anything like that. I dont think there is a problem with having 2 LH pics. In fact, I think its important bc the 2 pics show us LH then & now, which is important is reference to her career. Plus wiki is free. If this were Brittanica, I'd understand since Brittanica isnt free, but wiki is, so wiki isnt profiting from having the pic. Wiki is just enrichening the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.58.196.156 (talk • contribs) 05:07, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Promotional images are not automatically free. Images are free if and only if the person who owns the copyright explicitly says that the image can be used, redistributed, and modified. Unless it can be found that the image's copyright holder said that, the image should not be used on Wikipedia (not the other way around, that images can be used unless the author says not to). Google Images is not sufficient for using images on Wikipedia; if you upload an image, the page states "Do not upload images found on websites or image search engines, as they will be deleted." Indeed I do not believe that this image should be used on Wikipedia since the Central Park image is free since the author licensed the image under a free Creative Commons license. —ShadowHalo 02:48, 24 December 2006 (UTC) Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( 208.58.196.156 18:01, 24 December 2006 (UTC) ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! User:Alison (Noble Birth) uploaded it, as you'll see at the image's page. You're correct: before I tagged the image, the image wasn't tagged (though I'm not understanding your point there). As you'll see at the free image's page, it is indeed attributed to Lisa Liang. The copyrighted image was incorrectly tagged with promocomic'; I replaced that with 'promophoto' just now. Thanks for pointing that out. You'll see that this tag specifies that the image must be "unrepeatable, i.e. a free image could not be created to replace it". Having the copyrighted picture to illustrate how she used to look would only be appropriate if this is discussed in the article (see "Weird Al" Yankovic#New look to present for an example). —ShadowHalo 05:23, 24 December 2006 (UTC)'[reply]

On Lisa's flick page it says she must be attributed as the pic owner. I dont see her attributed on the LH wiki page. Again, why is having both pics bad? The pic is relevant in that is shows LH in 98 when "MisEd" came out. I dont see/know what u mean by unrepeatable? R u talking about the 98 promo pic or the CP pic? Also, have u contacted Eric @ Columbia? If not, y do u hate this pic so much? No profit is being made for wiki by having Eric's pic her.

I didnt delete anything. BUt I see the image has been deleted. You are calling everyone a vandal but you yourself are the vandal. A very useful image is now gone. Please stop harrassing me

Third opinion

I am removing your request on Wikipedia:Third opinion because it describes a disagreement between more than two editors.

However, I can advise you to read the instructions on Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images to get an image reviewed if it's copyrighted or improperly tagged. And if someone multiply reverts your tagging of the image, see WP:3RR. Finally if there are still irreconcilable disagreements between multiple editors, mediation might be in order. -Amatulic 18:22, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your help! —ShadowHalo 21:17, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Hype-williams-screenshot.jpg

Unless anyone on Wikipedia actually has a fair use image of Hype Williams, or knows him well enough to be able to take one (I'm willing to bet the answer is "no" to both of these), there is no way of making a free use alternative image at this time. Hype Williams isn't Mariah Carey: he's not readily accessible to the public.--FuriousFreddy 22:58, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bill O'Reilly (commentator)

Since you are convinced the image is replacable by a free image, the burden is on you to find one. Wahkeenah 23:29, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The point is that you are the one that has a problem with it, and you're trying to make others do your work for you. If it's so freakin' easy to find a free image, why haven't you found one? Wahkeenah 23:43, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'll add that nothing prevents you from capturing a frame of your TV set while O'Reilly's face is on it (and this would be suitably low-resolution too), or from photgraphing him in public. The point is, the image is replaceable in this manner, and should be tagged accordingly. -Amatulic 23:46, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Then by all means, get busy on it instead of trying to make others do your work for you. The first Free Use rule is "No free equivalent is available or could be created that would adequately give the same information". So, since you all are the ones that have a problem with it, stop hassling other editors, and get busy creating one. Wahkeenah 23:50, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am not suggesting that you are hassling any specific editor. I am saying you are hassling the entire editorial body of wikipedia by trying to make them do your work for you. Wahkeenah 00:02, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Admittedly, that one user is fair to question, since he uploaded it. He has also not contributed anything since July 21, so good luck with that. I'm not trying to escalate anything. I just get irritated when the wiki-nannies try to make work for others. Now, let me ask you this: Would a scan from one of his book covers be good enough, until someone takes a snapshot of O'Reilly and posts it here? Wahkeenah 00:10, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I have found that these websites tend to ignore requests for photos, but it's worth a try, and I appreciate that you're making the effort. Regarding the book cover, could it be used in connection with a section in the article that talks about the book? Wahkeenah 00:22, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Falloutboy.jpg

Thanks for the message. I was somewhat confused about that, and was unaware of the policy on that. I'd be delighted if you could send that user, Joe_Focus a message on the matter. It's somewhat frustrating when Wikipedia pages have no images, and the policy that was recently enforced by Chowbok is even more frustrating. I mean we have a template for promotional images, that are released for the sole purpose of "promoting the image in question" but we can't use it? But yes, that would be nice. Get back to me if there is any change. Thanks! --Die Hard 2k5 18:16, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good. Thanks! --Die Hard 2k5 19:47, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Underwood Carrie.jpg

I see you have retagged the image to dispute fair use. Kindly explain your rationale and the reason that you have retagged the picture on the discussion page. It would be helpful if you would include what would be acceptable to you personally.

Have you reloaded the page or cleared your cache? That is a completely new picture created from a screenshot.

If on the other hand, you intend to rules lawyer this all the way to deletion for whatever perverse reason you have, let me know in advance. Thanks and regards. --Eqdoktor 20:28, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]