User talk:17Drew/Archive 2

Image:Pharrell.jpg

hello. i believe that the image pharrell.jpg meets the first criteria of fair use. it could NOT reasonably be found or created so that it provides substantially the same information, because of the difficulty for any one individual to track him down and photograph him (decently). it is clearly UNreasonable. the same is even more true of chad hugo. of course if there ever is a free image submitted by a user then it will replace it. if u believe that it is reasonable for any individual to get a photo of him (i would essentially have to stalk him and chase him across the world to get any photo any time soon).. then what qualifies as unreasonable? ~ Bungalowbill

Fergielicious Audio

Oh I don't know that, well if you think the article is that not small and you could put it on paragraph with a nice description then go, I was just putting them on the infobox so the page length will be smaller and for small articles.--HW-Barnstar PLS 18:35, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Image:RelientKHallway.jpg

A new image was put in the place of the one I had originally put up (on the Relient K page). It still says a message about a replaceable image below it. Could you possibly check that out and tell me if that message was left behind for my image, or if it is also applying to the new one? Because a message like that has been left underneath this new image, weather by you or another person. Anyway, Relient K is my favorite Christian rock band, or favorite band period, actually, so I like to try and give it the best quality on that page.RoryS89 23:56, 2 January 2007 (UTC)RoryS89

Alright, that live shot will do for now. But most bands get to use a promotional picture in their Wikipedia page, so if we could do that for RK, that'd be great. Thanks for all your help.RoryS89 21:18, 3 January 2007 (UTC)RoryS89

Orphaned fair use image (Image:SexyBackVideo.png)

Thanks for uploading Image:SexyBackVideo.png. I notice the 'image' page currently specifies that the image is unlicensed for use on Wikipedia and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image 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 images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).

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 any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. LowKarmaError 16:45, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

WP:FUC and its implementation

I may be quiet in this dispute but I am following the debate with some interest.

Firstly, it appears that editors who upload fair use images of living people in good faith are caught up in this particular crossfire:
Wikipedia:Elimination of Fair Use Rationale in Promotional Photos
Wikipedia talk:Elimination of Fair Use Rationale in Promotional Photos/Vote

Which I think is pretty unfair to ordinary users and editors of Wikipedia. If there is an ongoing campaign by various factions within Wikipedia to eliminate the contributions of a substantial number of editors, it should be made VERY CLEAR both within WP:FUC, the licensing templates AND the upload page that the whole thing is still under dispute and their hard work may be lost.

I have looked into your userpage profile and of other that delete pictures based on WP:FUC. Not that it matters, but my opinion of WP:FUC is that its badly worded in the first place with undue stress on the word reasonable. One man's meat is another man's poison - whatever that is uploaded can always be disputed as having a "free-er" version. The only truly free photograph that can be uploaded into Wikipedia (that will make corporate lawyer weasels happy) is one that both the photographer AND the subject/event copyright owner releases their rights to Wikipedia under GFDL. Thats the gold standard that everyone seems to be shooting for. Is that reasonable? It depends on how thin you intend to slice that salami, to Carrie Underwood (in this case here) and her circle of friends (who may or may not be Wikipedia editors) - its perfectly reasonable. Is this the ONLY acceptable form of "fair use" (or rather completely free GFDL) that Wikipedia is now accepting? How much less free can we go from there before its deemed acceptable to you and your faction?

Editorial: As I see it now, WP:FUC is being used a certain faction within the editor community to impose whatever standard of "FAIR USE" that THEY deem acceptable and reasonable. You can always rules lawyer to twist WP:FUC into any outcome you desire. It does not help that the wording is so vague (without falling into lawyer legalese) that you can essentially define whatever you like out of it. In this case turfing every single fair use image of a living celebrity out of existence from Wikipedia. Its a game I do not like to play.

PS: I have disputed that the replacement of the image at Image talk:Underwood Carrie.jpg is any less free than the one you proposed Image talk:CroppedCarrieUnderwoodAtTheWorldArena.jpg. The issue at hand is not picture quality but the WP:FUC status. (note - lets see the copyright status of the proposed alternative also be resolved) --Eqdoktor 10:15, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

This is in response to the note you left in: Image talk:Underwood Carrie.jpg

Regarding my use of the word "faction" and your lecture to me on civility and good faith. I would similarly ask you to label your edits fairly and not misrepresent my picture as "copyright violation" as in the case when you removed my picture from Carrie Underwood.[1] The picture in question is in a dispute over a subjective interpretation of reasonable first fair use WP:FUC policy - a technicality hinging on the word reasonable. In and by itself, it is a picture uploaded under the Wikipedia fair use interpretation of US copyright law. It does not fall under CSD 12 guidelines of copyright violation (which can and usually are swiftly deleted). Misrepresenting a fair use interpretation dispute as copyright violation (aka theft as in I violated the copyrights owner's rights) also weakens civility and good faith if not a subtle attack on my integrity. Such mislabeling is also telling of the attitude you have taken towards fair use pictures uploaded in good faith by numerous other editors.--Eqdoktor 08:36, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

This is in a response to the note you left on my user talk page User talk:Eqdoktor

Thank you for acknowledging the error in labeling edits. I believe the most fair way to label such edits would be "WP:FUC dispute, free image provided", since the technicality dispute is still ongoing (it has not been ruled a violation yet). Moving on, I must congratulate you on uploading Image:CroppedCarrieUnderwoodAtTheWorldArena.jpg, a very nice image indeed. I bring up this picture in Image talk:Underwood Carrie.jpg solely to point out that the supposedly completely "free" image alternative provided has an even bigger legal exposure liability than that provided in Image:Underwood Carrie.jpg (a rather blurry screenshot image). It strengthens my case that the image I have provided is the best fair use image that can be used in the article and any alternative like yours would have an even bigger element of legal exposure ("less free", more "fair use"). Also, the picture goes up against WP:FUC criteria #3 which at 1619x2155 makes a nice clear photo of Carrie printed on my Cannon iP4200 Printer - in which the picture is too nice!.

As for using my arguments in Image talk:Underwood Carrie.jpg in any open discussion, feel free to copy the arguments over (image discussion page or WP:IFD). Just let me know where the discussion is happening. I am not a trained lawyer though and the manner in which my points are written are just my interpretation of the real copyright issues surrounding images/recordings taken at live performances and concerts as I understand it. Frankly, I am not in favor of having the image removed and the inclusion of this concert picture would be a great asset to the encyclopedia (under fair use). --Eqdoktor 10:12, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

PS: I am not that great a fan of Carrie Underwood talented as she is. Kelly Clarkson has it all over her. AI #1 >> AI #4--Eqdoktor 10:12, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia links that may be helpful to the discussion

The links below may also be useful to other editors that come to this page over WP:FUC dispute taggings that you have initiated.

Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy

Wikipedia is not a moot court, and although rules can make things easier, they are not the purpose of the community and instruction creep should generally be avoided. A perceived procedural error made in posting anything, such as an idea or nomination, is not grounds for invalidating that post. Follow the spirit, not the letter, of any rules, policies and guidelines. Disagreements should be resolved through consensual discussion, rather than through tightly sticking to rules and procedures.

Wikipedia:WikiLawyering:
A discussion on what I believe is the misuse of WP:FUC that is occuring here. I believe the spirit of WP:FUC is to stop the egregious misuse of "fair use" tags slapped randomly on any promotional images regardless of copyright status. On the other hand, I also believe (with some conviction) that overzealous or wilful interpretation of WP:FUC by a group of non-admin editors has lead to it being twisted to a blunt tool in an agenda stamp out any genuine fair use images uploaded to Wikipedia in good faith by regular editors. --Eqdoktor 08:36, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

• Some of us feel WP:FUC'd by this policy at times. :) :) :) Wahkeenah 11:34, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Sorry, I just had to say it once and get it out of my system. :) I know you don't make up the abbreviations. Whoever did, ought to have his keyboard washed out with soap. :) Wahkeenah 11:39, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
    • WP:JOKE indeed. Thanks for the tip. :) Wahkeenah 11:44, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
      • Actually, the WP:FU is more potty mouthed, WP:FUC is appropriately derived from it. --Eqdoktor 06:37, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Carrie Underwood concert photo - licensing status

This is a follow up on the licensing status on photos taken during a live concert performance (un-free, paid admission). The IFD Commons:Deletion requests/Image:CroppedCarrieUnderwoodAtTheWorldArena.jpg you generated for the photo does not seem to have generated a lot of comments. I have decided to ask the question directly to the Commons:Licensing discussion page. Reading thru the licensing page, I have a feeling that live performance photos taken during concerts would tend to fall under derivative works since they involve images of subjects that are covered by third party copyrights. The link to the question is here. Hopefully that will generate some useful info. --Eqdoktor 00:53, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Letras

Hola. El problema es que esos son títulos en español. La leyes ortográficas del español dicen que sólo se debe poner con mayúscula la primer letra y los nombres propios. En inglés las reglas son diferentes. Por eso es que las moví. Los artículos que moví son nombres en español, por lo tanto su ortografía es diferentes. --Coraje 19:48, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Image:Nd band shot.jpg

This sort of thing should really be tagged with {{Somewebsite}} -- we really don't know where it came from, who owns the copyright, and what its intended use was. Fansites and music aggregate sites aren't good sources for images to be republished here under a Wikipedia:Fair use claim. Surely No Doubt still has an official website, or pages at their label's website. Checking those places may turn up a section labelled "Press photos" -- those are what we meant by {{promotional}} images (most of the stuff we have labelled that way, well, are pictures found at some website, and we're just sort-of making up the claim that we have an implicit license to republish, when in fact we have no idea). Even better, of course, would be freely licensed images. I spent a fair amount of time at fan forums when bringing The Waterboys up to WP:FAC, asking for freely licensed fan images, and eventually had some success. Jkelly 23:34, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, that one is at least from the official site, but we still don't know who the copyright holder is. We could email their label or management team to get pointed to unquestionably promotional material. If we're going to do that, however, we may as well ask for something freely licensed. Jkelly 23:46, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Interscope is owned by Uni. Uni's corporate site is http://www.universalfilmandtvmusic.com/ -- the only contact there is umefilmandtvmusic@umusic.com -- but I'm now concerned that this sounds like a ridiculously time-consuming, and probably useless, process. Their licensing FAQ is remarkably unfriendly ("We recieve many requests for the use of album cover artwork or photos of our artists in audio-visual productions. Universal may or may not own rights to these materials and we will therefore not grant licenses for their use."). I am out of suggestions. Jkelly 00:13, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

The Chapelle one would only be fair use in an article about Chapelle -- we can't just take his work and use it to illustrate an article about his subject. That first one is weird. I'm sure it really is an honest-to-God promotional picture, meant to be used by the press and widely distributed. But someone, not the label, is selling copies of it (which I suppose means that someone could argue that we'd be potentially impacting its apparant commercial value by republishing it here). Perhaps this happens all the time; I have no idea. I'd say it is your judgement call -- do you feel comfortable making a fair use claim on it? Jkelly 00:27, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

In the end, it comes down to how one understands Wikipedia:Fair use, and one's personal comfort level in making fair use claims. I'd make a fair use claim on a label-distributed promo photo (as I did here, for example), but wouldn't do it with the work of someone who might be expecting to be compensated for republication. It's a little strange to invoke the U.S. fair use doctrine solely on the basis of our own convenience ("we don't have a suitable replacement"), rather than for parody or commentary, and, in reality, we just about never are actually commenting on the work itself with these kinds of images. And then there's also a question to be asked about how much effort it is worth going to in order to upload unfreely licensed media, making sure it meets all of the Wikipedia:Fair use criteria, defending it if questioned, etc. If you look around, there's been quite a lot of conversation about the "promotional media" category recently, and I would not count on any of this material being around in a year. That said, if one regards the idea of promotional media having an "implicit license to redistribute" as a fiction then it follows that there is no distinction between it and any other photograph found on the web, and one always needs to explain why the particular image is essential, credit the copyright holder, etc. It isn't obvious to me that that line of thought is any more questionable than the rest of our thinking, although I wouldn't make a fair use claim based on that myself, but I'm not at all clear that it is outside the bounds of current en: practice. Jkelly 18:42, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

reply

No problem, I uploaded it for the episode and I saw the No Doubt page was a GAC, so I figured I'd suggest you add the image. I had no idea that it had already been added. -- Scorpion 03:21, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Wikilinking dates

I reverted a couple of your edits per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)#Partial dates; since last I read it, however, there have been month-year additions for years 1999 to present. Feel free to restore those links with my apologies. :) RadioKirk (u|t|c) 23:20, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

You got me; I don't know when or why it happened, but month-date-only combinations have apparently become common 1999 and newer. :) RadioKirk (u|t|c) 04:58, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi

Hello. Please, can you explain me why do you think the Image for Keane, File:Keane band.jpg is a repleceable image? I don't understand your reasons since it's the one image the band destinates to promote it and has been used by several media. As far as I know, Universal Records could be the only holder of the copyright since the band is co-signed with it in some countries. Any other image would be a fan picture but most of them had been copyrighted. --Fluence 00:47, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

That may be possible. The image is quite good so I think that would be fine. Would be also good to mention is at the Alexandra Palace on the article. Thanks for your help.--Fluence 15:05, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your help. Don't worry if you forget, I'll be waiting. :)--Fluence 23:22, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

It looks great. The article has got a new wave, and it even reminds me the old infobox. Good image, and thank you again :D--Fluence 00:18, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Psyclon Nine

hoowah. in response to your notes about the controversy section- i could probably dig up some sources for the "other industrial bands accused of naziism" fairly easily, however most of my knowledge of psyclon nine comes from actually -being- there because i was in the band for several years, and i'm not sure how to write that up. for example, we were once on tour and being interviewed for a magazine and got badgered about being nazis (and you can imagine how much i loved that, having recently finished cantoring for my parents' synogogue on the high holidays) for 20 minutes before we called the guy's editor and had him thrown out. obviously the interview was never published, and i haven't published any memoirs as of yet :)

any suggestions? we don't have to have it in there, i just thought it was helpful info although i certainly understand the problem here.

that said, i can ask the singer to dig up some magazine interviews where he's talked about it. i know they exist, i just don't have any and he's not much of a wikipedia-person... and every time i leave the page alone for a couple of months, some kid starts filling it with PSCYLON ROOLZ #1 OMG!!! garbage or insults.

thanks for the help! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Structurefall (talk • contribs) 06:17, 9 January 2007 (UTC).

Your image question on Wikipedia:Help desk

Hi. The Wikimedia servers are all being investigated right now. Please be patient and do not make the same changes more than once. Thanks. Xiner (talk, email) 18:33, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

J00sux0rz

Hey sorry, probably should have listed what it meant. But was in a rush, plus sometimes you forget not everybody else speaks your native language... ;p In brief it means "you suck". Mathmo ^Talk 19:16, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Hollaback Girl video

Hi There. New to Wiki so I don't know how to really navigate around aside from the basics. Anyway, all of the information is correct except for where I added Westchester HS - that is to go unconfirmed, so I decided to leave it out. I was under the impression that there were two cheer teams in the music video however when taking a closer look I only noticed Orange Crush. Please revert back to my latest edit. Thanks. Hope this helps. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.183.108.251 (talk) 17:59, 12 January 2007 (UTC).

'61 Impala

It's a 61, as opposed to a '62. The '61's styling is a toned down version of the '59-60 model (with the remnants of the tailfins) and a crease that goes along the length of the body, kicking up at the rear and into the tailfin with a V-shaped dip at the rear. The '62-64 Impala/Bel Air is much more boxy, the Front and rear ends are squarer.

(Chris Henniker 17:49, 14 January 2007 (UTC))

Bert Jansch

Thanks for finding the great Bert Jansch picture! Bluewave 16:36, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Janet Jackson Photo

I believe this photo is fair use. The photo was including in Janets Cd booklet. besides that janet issued a press kit filled with 32 pictures that promoted was intendted for promotion of her new album and for users to create her new cd cover.MRGQ 17:49, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Doctor's Advocate Sales

Why Did You Delete The Chart Postion And Weekly Sales For Game's Doctors Advocate Album —Preceding unsigned comment added by CMDJR (talk • contribs) 20:26, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

RE: No Doubt

Sorry it's taken me a while to reply. The Biography WP has its own process for reviewing articles, so if you want their opinion of the page, visit that Wikiproject. I wouldn't want to add a rating to their template when I'm not part of that project. In regards to the Alternative Wikiproject, the ratings work mainly for self-reference, letting us know which articles can be improved with reasonable effort. Of course, if the article becomes a GA, feel free to change the ratings sufficiently. WesleyDodds 12:14, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Thank you for tracking down a freely-licensed image for Jennifer Love Hewitt. --Yamla 17:32, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Jun (musician)

Yes, I already know that, but I can't believe why deleting the article really, if the article is finally deleted I'll leave Wikipedia and I'll say to my friends that is bad place, weel the English one, la española es mejor y lo sabes ;) And really, the user who (pidió) to remove the article is really conflictive, look some examples:

• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Japanese_rock&diff=90308884&oldid=90292015

(solo que un artículo le falte una palabra por citar ya borra todo el artículo y luego tiene el morro de pedir que se borre) Darkcat21 21:07, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Ya, pero luego tenemos cosas como por ejemplo el artículo Yoshiki (musician) yo borré contenido por eso, además que dudaba de algunas cosas, pero el hizo otra versión y puso fuentes fiables, yo volví a poner lo anterior con las fuentes que había puesto él y lo borró, a ver... me explico... yo añadí una versión extendida de lo suyo, si él ponía "colaboró con el productor de Beatles", mi versión era: "en 1991, en una álbum con el colaborador de Beatles..." pues él borró eso, cuando ponía eso en la web que él había citado. a mí no me parece bien esto, la verdad y no soy el primer user que me quejo, si ve un fallo ortográfico borra medio artículo en vez de borrar el fallo o corregirlo. Darkcat21 22:21, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Recent affairs

Hi, thanks for correcting me on that Yoshiki image issue, it really should have been more obvious to me that replacing free content with copyrighted material wasn't such a good idea. Anyway, I am currently pondering whether it would help in the long run to leave a message at Darkcat's talk page, stating that I do not hold some weird grudge against X Japan (I'm a big fan, actually). What do you think? - Cyrus XIII 00:39, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Re: X Japan

Yes sure, I have finals coming up anyway and after the past few days' back-and-forth, a week or so off from X Japan related editing will probably help to put things into perspective. Thanks for the advice and your offer to bring in some extra parties. By the way, there is yet another related and somewhat stagnating discussion on Talk:Hide (musician) (with a branch over here) which might benefit from some fresh input as well. Do you think that could be arranged? - Cyrus XIII 02:20, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Hello yet again, seems like Darkcat21 sees no reason to take a break, rather a welcome opportunity to impose her/his single minded idea of X Japan's history on the Yoshiki article, including once again a lot of information not backed by the references offered. Along with that we have more disregard for consensus, rather strange changes and one edit even went as far as mimicking one of my earlier ones in an entirely inappropriate context (unlike that early independent release, the cover for Blue Blood can be found on the label's site, along with most major music retailers on the web). Please excuse my edgy tone, but I am well beyond assuming good faith in case of this character. Apparently we are dealing with an obsessive fan , who considers Wikipedia's community and principles more of a nuisance than an important necessity. What's your take on all this? Regards - Cyrus XIII 17:03, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, it's worth a try, I guess. I have never put in for an rfc, so I am not quite sure what material we have to assemble beforehand. Regarding Darkcat21, there are of course the events you have recently witnessed and additionally we could also mention this rather intense personal attack and a 3RR violation.[2][3] Will our own contributions at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jun (musician) suffice to proof that we did our part to maintain a dialog? - Cyrus XIII 11:51, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi, just wondering whether you might have missed yesterday's message, due to another new one or something. Regards - Cyrus XIII 08:49, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

No problem. I also thing WP:RFC/USER is the way to go, since the issue does not revolve so much around content but a user's behavior. - Cyrus XIII 08:59, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Ok, done. Sorry it took so long, I sometimes need a little time to find good words for such things. If you feel that the last bit of the desired outcome ("or not at all") is too harsh, feel free to remove it. Thought I might as well be direct. So, what happens next? - Cyrus XIII 10:40, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Shouldn't that rfc have been moved to the "Approved pages" section by now, or does two-person threshold imply our endorsements and two more? - Cyrus XIII 23:31, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Kinda creepy how Darkcat shrugs off/justifies that racism thing, huh? - Cyrus XIII 17:59, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

PETA image

Thank you very much for helping out with the Shilpa Shetty PETA picture and providing a FU rationale, let's hope this is acceptable. I was in the process of contacting PETA and getting them to release the image under a free licence but I guess I don't have to do it now. Thanks again. :) Ekantik ^talk 04:11, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Neve Campbell

Hi ShadowHalo. On January 21, 2007, you added a photo to the Neve Campbell article. It's very nice, but do you have another photo that you could add that has her eyes open? Just a suggestion...Que-Can 07:28, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of No Doubt

The article No Doubt you nominated as a good article has passed , see Talk:No Doubt for eventual comments about the article. Good luck in future nominations. Wikiwoohoo 22:20, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Shakira

Regarding Shakira, in Lebanon most of the population is today considered Arab. But there are some Greek, Armenian minorities.Aziz1005 15:00, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Re: User talk:Extraordinary Machine

Hi there Shadow, and yes, I was for real :). I wouldn't instantly think someone with an apparent interest in Gwen Stefani and No Doubt (and a desire to improve the related Wikipedia articles to FA status) was EE; it's the disruptive behaviour that makes her and her sockpuppets and IPs stick out like a sore thumb. Also, Eternal Equinox (talk · contribs) has returned (disruption and all, unfortunately) and is editing under the username Velten (talk · contribs). Anyway, if you need any help with those Stefani/No Doubt articles, feel free to ask. Extraordinary Machine 16:36, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

It is possible, just not for me right now; I want to contribute, but if/when I find I don't, I know I can leave and not stay "addicted" (I hope, anyway! :)). And it's good users like you who help make me want to keep on editing, so don't you leave before me! :) I'll be leaving a vote at the Hollaback Girl FAC very shortly. Extraordinary Machine 22:07, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Hollaback Girl

Kudos on the good work there. Jkelly 22:31, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Image:Secretpromo4.PNG - debate

I have not seen the user's uploader (Ceveri - talk) action since around December 4, 2006. Since it's kind of hard to find a free use replacement, we might need to keep this image, with if there is a free image, the image should be moved to the "Secret era" of the Ayumi Hamasaki article. For right now, if you keep this image, then we'll keep at the top of the article for now until a free use replacement is available. Bigtop 06:03, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I received your message, and I'm thinking I'll move it into the Secret (Ayumi Hamasaki album) article. Bigtop 06:13, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Your comment

Thanks, no problem (though I think that "typo" rather than "spelling mistake" would have been kinder). --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 12:09, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:KingdomHeartsCloud.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:KingdomHeartsCloud.jpg. The image description 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.

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.

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 04:05, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Re: Message

I think a complete revert was necessary, because Velten's made clear both on talk pages and in her editing of articles that she often makes piddling (and sometimes completely inaccurate, as you yourself noticed with the MuchMusic reference) edits to articles on topics in which she has little to no interest not because she wants to improve them, but because she wants to get at editors who she knows are watching those articles. Velten wasn't doing anything other than adding and updating Canadian chart positions on the Furtado articles until I mentioned I was a fan of her. Ignoring or trying to tolerate her harassment doesn't work, because she just keeps picking away at someone until she gets a rise out of them. Editing with the sole intention of harassing another user is not editing in good faith (ignoring Velten's expected "I'm doing nothing wrong" histrionics), hence the revert. Extraordinary Machine 17:45, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

WP:RFCN#El_chulito_.28talk_.E2.80.A2_contribs.29

There is new information about this username that is relevant to the position you took in this debate, you may wish to review it. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 18:29, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Irvis.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Irvis.jpg. The image description 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.

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.

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 05:07, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Image:Bangai-ON64Box.jpg

Hi,

I uploaded the previous, higher resolution version of this image. I am quite new to submitting content to Wikipedia, and do not find it that intuitive. I would appreciate it a lot if you could point me to sources illustrating if there is a particular size limit Wikipedia prefers or if it is simply a subjective criteria (no sarcasm here ^_^).

Besides, is there something I should have done different/better in its description?

The image was scanned by myself from my own copy of the game, BTW.

Thanks

elmimmo, 89.129.182.227 11:00, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

I've replied at your talk page. It looks like you're not signed in, so if you don't see the orange banner at the top of your screen, that's why. ShadowHalo 11:42, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned fair use image (Image:APublicAffairVideo.png)

Thanks for uploading Image:APublicAffairVideo.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image 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 images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).

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 any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. This is an automated message from BJBot 17:57, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned fair use image (Image:TroubleVideo.png)

Thanks for uploading Image:TroubleVideo.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image 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 images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).

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 any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. This is an automated message from BJBot 18:03, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

New Cheeseburger image

Thanks for replacing the McDonald's advertisement with an appropriate image. Cheers! Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 17:53, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm not so sure that could be considered an advertisement; that was one of the least appetizing-looking cheeseburgers I'd seen in awhile.  ;-) ShadowHalo 22:20, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

That's what McDonald's specializes in. :) Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 16:30, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Traci Lords: Underneath It All article

You tagged this article with 'notability' but I'm not sure why.(?) it's an autobiography of Traci Lords, who is a notable figure and has a wikipedia article. Lords became 'notable' after news that she appeared in porn movies while underaged. She left porn and is now considered the most successful mainstream actress who was an adult movie performer. Her book came out in 2003 and she was interviewed by Larry King, Oprah Winfrey, and profiled on NBC's "Dateline". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nitron (talk • contribs) 19:30, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Christina Applegate

DVD cover was fair use, I believe, and has a good look. If you want to change it back, go ahead. Bob —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Uriel8 (talk • contribs) 01:52, 5 February 2007 (UTC).

Fair use rationale for Image:Maria Callas (1923-1977).jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Maria Callas (1923-1977).jpg. The image description 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.

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.

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 03:06, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

tu pregunta

Hola, debería ser Pies Descalzos.Rosa 06:13, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Re: The Working Man's Barnstar Award

Thank you for the barnstar award! I've put it on my userpage. It's nice to be recognized for 7 hours of hard labor (okay, the computer did most of the hard work). Thanks again. --MECU≈talk 22:59, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Dannii Minogue article

Hey great work on the "Hollaback Girl" article! I was wondering if you could look over the Dannii Minogue article for prose, grammar, etc. Thanks so much! -- Underneath-it-All 01:49, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks so much! -- Underneath-it-All 13:40, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Image tagging for Image:Janice_w_theboys.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Janice_w_theboys.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:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 11:02, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Juanes

I have not read the whole article. I was skipping and saw that mistake, I have not noticed it was vandalism. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Evseev (talk • contribs) 20:49, 6 February 2007 (UTC).

test3 fixed now

Sorry. —Doug Bell ^talk 21:06, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Image tagging for Image:Mariahtour.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Mariahtour.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:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 11:27, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Image tagging for Image:SethPubPhoto.jpg

I've read your comment on Image:SethPubPhoto.jpg's talk page and I guess I'm just really confused as to why this isn't considered a free picture. Seth Swirsky is a musician and a songwriter who lives in California. I can't go take a personal picture of him, so why can't I use a picture that he is using for promotional purposes on his Myspace page? The same question goes for the Image:With-George-martin.jpg as it is also used on the Myspace page and is also available on his website [[4]]. If I changed the tag on the Image:With-George-martin.jpg photo to something else that showed that I got it from his offical website and then chose a picture off of his official website to use instead of the one on his Myspace, would that solve the problem?

I've also updated my fair use dispute reasoning for Image:SethPubPhoto.jpg. Jheditorials 15:33, 9 February 2007 (UTC)jheditorials

Tenacious D

Thanks for sorting the Talk Page out. I read you want to be admin someday, give me a note when you are nominated. Tenacious D Fans (talk) 16:56, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I'll keep you posted. I (and others) have a lot more work to do though. Tenacious D Fans (talk) 09:55, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Good luck with the admin nomination. Tenacious D Fans (talk) 12:54, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

I saw your comment about MoS:BIO and Tenacious D so I implemented the relevant changes. I still think the article has a while to got before I can put it up for FA nom. Thanks for the suggestions, which I do read and act on. Tenacious D Fans (talk) 18:31, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks ShadowHalo. I made the relevant changes. Would you consider changing your vote to support? Tenacious D Fans (talk) 07:06, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I made some more changes (more than just the ones you listed). Are you happy to change your vote? Tenacious D Fans (talk) 19:05, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Bwuhaha

		The Barnstar of Good Humor
		For the best citation of policy I've seen in a while, I hereby award you this barnstar. That had me rolling... EVula // talk // ☯ // 04:51, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

U.S.

I have a quick question about this edit to New (song). I'm a little confused about why you changed U.S. to US; Wikipedia:Manual of Style (abbreviations) states that U.S. should be used. ShadowHalo 09:53, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

You're quite right. Basically, I was changing some of the instances of [[U.K.]] to [[United Kingdom|UK]] (avoiding the redirect, and styling per MoS - it's one of my pet hates) and realised that many of these pages had [[U.S.]] on them as well, so decided to change those. I've never realised that the MoS actually has different preferred styles for UK (without the dots) and US (with the dots). I find the lack of consistency very strange, but won't make any further changes against the WP:MOS. Thanks for pointing that out! _└ ^UkPaolo/_talk^┐ 10:01, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

No problem. Would you mind if I went through the edits where you did change it from U.S. and change it back (just the U.S. part)? I don't want it to seem like Wikistalking by going through your contributions. ShadowHalo 10:05, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I noticed that you also changed it to [[United Kingdom|UK]]. Just for future reference, it's best not to use a piped link when the text is a redirect (Wikipedia:Redirect#Don't fix links to redirects that aren't broken). Sorry if I'm being nitpicky, just trying to help for any more contributions you make with AWB. ShadowHalo 10:12, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

D'oh! I'm just gonna give up now...! I wasn't aware that a piped link when the text is a redirect wasn't a good thing - as I said above, it's one of my pet hates so I thought I was being useful! Never mind... I've got no problems with you going through my contributions... _└ ^UkPaolo/_talk^┐ 10:22, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

On second thought, it looks like you've taken care of most of that yourself. Wow, AWB is more efficient than I could have imagined. Thanks for your help. ShadowHalo 10:26, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Yup, I've tried to. AWB can be very efficient (which is troubling if what you're doing is going against the MOS...). Thanks for pointing that out to me! _└ ^UkPaolo/_talk^┐ 10:36, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Adminship

I've just read your comment on WP:ER and had a look through your recent contributions - if you're ready to take the plunge I'd be happy to nominate you for Adminship... I'm sure you'd succeed and make a fantastic admin _└ ^UkPaolo/_talk^┐ 10:58, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

The Sweet Escape (song)

Mhm, all right. Velten 14:51, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Ridiculous. If something is originally written in as [[United Kingdom|UK]], then there's no use in removing it and touting "redirects must remain redirects" when in fact it was not a redirect to begin with. You did that here. Velten 02:36, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

WP:RFC/BIO

Oh OK, cheers for letting me know. Hopefuly someone will look at the talk besides BMT. I think this battle (verging on a war) between me and BMT needs some fresh insight.--TheEditor20 09:48, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Page

Yeah, I don't know if there is strictly any policy or guideline that relates to this, but I deleted it just for her own protection. Thanks for bringing it to my attention.--Isotope23 01:50, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

ShilpaShettyPETA

Thought you'd like to know that I finally got the PETA people to release their image under an appropriate license. The full image has now been uploaded at Image:ShilpaShettyPETA.jpg. Ekantik ^talk 02:35, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Shakira

Sí, pero no es lo mismo pop que latin pop, porque por ejemplo alguien puso que Oral Fixation Vol. 2 es latin pop, cuando lo unico de pop latino ahi es el bonus track "Hips don't lie" lo demás es pop, bossa-nova, toques britpop, pop-rock, etc. Soda-POP 08:06, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks re: Darryl Neudorf page

Hello ShadowHalo. Thanks for the additions, clean up & comments regarding the Darryl Neudorf page. I'm new to Wikipedia, so please be patient & excuse my ignorance...I'm learning. I've removed many adjectives in hopes that the nutrality that is being disputed can be lifted. Please let me know when things are looking better & I won't remove the nutrality dispute notice untill it's OK with you. Here's how I plan to further address these issues. 1. I'll have Darryl Neudorf re-upload the Miller Block image himself with the proper tag, seeing as he is the original copyright owner. 2. I'll have Darryl look at the page tonight when he gets home from work, in hopes to fix any bias on my part (I've lived through most of the things being written about, so perhaps I'm too inside what has happened over the years...I also have an artist's brain). 3. I'll take a picture of him asap & add it to the page. Also, how would he cite himself in regards to the "citation needed" comment? The quote comes directly form his own mouth, so how would he quote himself or how would I properly cite his own words? Am working to make things right. I also read a bit about the Biographies of Living Persons and realize that it's not recommended that Darryl write about himself because of the inherent bias in that. So, any suggestions about the NPOV that I aim to achieve within this article is much appreciated. Thanks again for your contributions & for pointing out the error(s) in my ways...I love Wikipedia! Sincerely, Tpills (talk) 19:53, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Template:Infobox Discography

I think it would be useful to be able to add info too to the album discography template, as there is a big gap next to the single which can be easily filled with information about the album. Didn't really know how to work with it but i figured something out i guess. -- Luigi-ish 19:25, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

No, I'm done working on it. I'm not really an expert with content of templates, i was lucky with this one. I'm trying to figure it out, but if you know how to add Image:Nocover.gif for the albums where there's nothing in the cover field, please add it. -- Luigi-ish 19:35, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I think I've nailed it now... -- Luigi-ish 20:25, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

What does mean [ir-]relevant?

Honourable Mr. Drew,

An excelent (I hope so...) future Wiki-Administrator,

You have reverted a comment written by me on Main page Discussion as... being irrelevant.

1. What, in efect, does mean [ir-]relevant for you?
2. What is logically conform or consistent for you?
3. Maybe you had intended to consider "not appropriate here (there...)", do you?

Regardless maybe "yes" or "no" your answer, I do ratify that words in attendance do the social purpose of Wikipedia — do not you?

►►►For what I remember here the extreme importance of everyone accomplishes yourself number.

Furthermore, thanks for all!

EgídioCampos ^Diz ,

2007.02.14, 20:25 UTC. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Egidiofc (talk • contribs) 20:23, 14 February 2007 (UTC).

About Talk:Main Page

Mr. Drew, selfsaid ShadowHalo,

I do understand Talk:Main Page must be reserved to, say, as closely as possible, appropriate, themes respecting to that wiki-space.

In this meaning and comprehension hole, under immediate, perhaps simplistic but necessary sense, I do recognize reason assists to you.

Regardless this, I wish only to reinforce — without re-inclusion needs there... — the social multipurpose of Wikipedia, for what I wrote that apparently meaningless mathematical related ideas.

But I do stop here for now.

Wiki-Salutations! And thanks for all!

EgídioCampos ^Diz ,

2007.02.15, 14:00 UTC.

Wallenberg

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Raoul Wallenberg I made the fixes you suggested, I hope you will reconsider your vote. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 15:07, 15 February 2007 (UTC)--Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 15:07, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Do you have any more suggestions, or know how I can satisfy the first person's problems. They don't appear to be online now. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 16:07, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Resizing requests

Please do not make statements that go against policies like Wikipedia:Fair use without consensus, as you did with this edit to Category:Fair use size reduction request. ShadowHalo 05:15, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

How does this go against Wikipedia:Fair use? I can tell you from personal experience that it's a very bad idea to degrade the quality of screenshots: it makes them pretty much useless. A screenshot that has been reduced to a small size does not illustrate the software in question any more because the viewer can no longer see how the software appears. Instead, they see a blurred image that has little value even after squinting at it for a long time —Remember the dot (t) 05:21, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

This goes for Image:Citizen Kane deep focus.jpg as well. I've reverted your change because the artifacting of the image degraded the quality so much that it was impossible to see if the image was in focus at all, the whole point of the image in the first place. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 03:08, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Xmenstud`cio009zi3.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Xmenstud`cio009zi3.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

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

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 10:40, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Aaron Sorkin image

Thanks, you rock!-BiancaOfHell 19:30, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I found another free image at Flickr of Aaron Sorkin working on a Macintosh. Did you already approach this Flickr user <http://www.flickr.com/photos/modrak/172445679/> and they said no? And if you haven't how did you go about approaching the last user? I would like to try to obtain this free image as well.-BiancaOfHell 19:46, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

That would be great if you could contact OndraSoukup and ask him. It's the perfect photo for the 'Writing style and habits' section, because I mention there Sorkin's habit of using Macs, and the guy is actually in the process of writing it seems.-BiancaOfHell 20:19, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, it's definitely him. Would you mind pasting an excerpt here of how you approach Flickr users? I'll use the same approach to try and get this image <http://flickr.com/photos/24642455@N00/38520607/> for the 'Returning to the theatre' section. Would that one would be okay, considering it's a photo of a fair use image found in the wild?-BiancaOfHell 20:19, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

So there's 2 free use pics now. Thanks. I'm looking at two more photos I found on Flickr. This one <http://flickr.com/photos/nrparmar/41107864/> for the 'Returning to the theatre' section in the Sorkin article and this one <http://flickr.com/photos/bmt/260317916/>, a portrait of William Monahan, which could help that article meet the criteria of a GA. I'm wondering if you've thought about writing up an article on how to approach Flickr users (or others) on obtaining free use photos. Maybe a list of common concerns of Flickr users, and how to answer them. Do you try to get the Flickr user to upload the photo themselves, or just receive it by email? Do you present yourself as an official of Wikipedia, or just a regular user?-BiancaOfHell 16:08, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Alright, I'm going to try my hand at this. WP:ERP was the kind of thing I was looking for. Thanks.-BiancaOfHell 16:24, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Pure Intuition

Yes, it is the same song, in different languages. But, Las de la Intuición is a single and Pure Intuition is a promotional song released for an advertising campaign for SEAT and is not single. Sorry for my bad english. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 200.45.111.69 (talk) 05:31, 17 February 2007 (UTC).

For what? you now are an administrator and you do what you want without concerning an anonymous user like me. I have seen that you have reverted my changes so it does not have sense. greetings. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 200.45.111.69 (talk) 18:05, 18 February 2007 (UTC).

Congratulations!

Congratulations!
It is my great pleasure to inform you that your Request for Adminship has closed successfully and you are now an administrator! Useful Links: • Administrators' reading list • Administrators' how-to guide • • Administrator's Noticeboard • Administrator's Noticeboard for Incidents • Administrator's Noticeboard for 3RR • Your admin logs: • blocks • deletions • moves • protects • uploads •

If you have questions, feel free to leave a talk page message for me or any other admin. Again, congratulations! Essjay (Talk) 12:48, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Congratulations, Drew! _└ ^UkPaolo/_talk^┐ 13:33, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! I was really freaked out by all the tabs at first. =) ShadowHalo 15:06, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Congrats on the promotion! I know everyone is saying "ask me if you have any problems"... and I'm one more. :) EVula // talk // ☯ // 16:50, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Oh, that reminds me. Is this the part when I spam post templates with some pretty picture and a thank-you notice on lots of people's talk pages? I've really been wanting to do that for awhile. ShadowHalo 16:54, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. It took me a while to get mine out, although that's primarily because I had to figure out what I was going to say... EVula // talk // ☯ // 16:57, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Haha, nice. ShadowHalo 17:05, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

William Monahan free use image

How does this sound?

Hello,

I really like the photo you took of William Monahan and yourself. Would you mind if I used it in the Wikipedia article about William Monahan? <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Monahan> I would have to change the license on the photo so that it's in the public domain because Wikipedia has a policy of allowing people to reuse it's content. Let me know if you can help out.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by BiancaOfHell (talk • contribs) 16:42, 17 February 2007 (UTC).

Okay, they (the singular they) have given permission, and made the necessary changes on the photo page. They've also asked for a link back to their site, which I guess I could put in Wikimedia Commons? So here's the photo <http://flickr.com/photos/bmt/260317916> and I would like to crop it before I upload it. So I guess I upload the original, and then the cropped version? How do I professionally crop the photo in a lossless way? Thanks for the help so far.-BiancaOfHell 19:41, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Question: How come a search at Wikimedia Commons for Aaron Sorkin or Sorkin doesn't produce the image you uploaded? Do meta tags/categories need to be added to the images?-BiancaOfHell 19:46, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Okay. I uploaded the image here [5] and here [6]. Is there a more efficient way to now use an image from the Wikimedia Commons at Wikipedia, rather than simply using the Upload File function at Wikipedia and filling in the same information all over again?-BiancaOfHell 22:06, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Alright, it worked. I also went and got the original sized image, and used that for a new "higher quality" crop. It makes a big difference. I think with a few more touch-ups the article will be a good candidate for GA. Thanks for all the help.-BiancaOfHell 22:30, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

True, about not needing images for a GA. But I knew that the article would be stripped of the fair use image if I nominated it. Wasn't quite willing to go legit yet, even though I'm becoming a proponent for free use. But now that I've been through this process, the search for free use images, I should be able to obey the Wikipedia principles more often.-BiancaOfHell 22:53, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

The Sweet Escape

Is that any better?Sorry if it doesn't help, but I can't remeber exactly when Gwen said the thing about 80s Madonna. By the way, it's really awesome if you're improving No Doubt articles. 80.43.3.89 21:53, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Honestly, I don't really know myself. I've been trying to search for information on the song's inspiration, but thus far I've come up with nothing. I will keep the Madonna quote in mind and get back to you when I find out something, however. Thanks! Velten 01:39, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

About your resized Mortal Kombat images

Hello. I noticed you resized some images from a few Mortal Kombat articles in order to make them conform to the fair use policy more appropriately (Specifically ScorpionMKSM.jpg, MK Render Scorpion Alternative-1-.jpg, Kitana unchained.jpg, and Kitana shaolin monks.jpg). While I'm all for making these images comply with fair use, I think that their current sizes are just a bit too small. Since these images are supposed to be giving readers a fair depiction of these characters, I believe that their representations should do justice to the hard work and effort that the developers put into creating them (Readers will most likely be expecting something more than a thumbnail). As of now, it's somewhat difficult to discern any detail in the pictures, and the JPEG compression looks to be overly-excessive. Torchic, a video game character related article that has achieved FA status, uses a decently sized image that nobody seems to have complained about. I think that something of a slightly lower resolution than this is more than reasonable enough for this type of purpose. With your permission, I would like to upload new slightly higher resolution and slightly higher quality versions of the above four Mortal Kombat images that you resized. I would not use anything larger than a 500 pixel height or width and the file size should stay below or at most around 50kb. I am a member of the Mortal Kombat WikiProject, so if you agree that these are reasonable specifications for a fair use picture, I can get to work uploading new fair use-compliant versions for the rest of the MK images. MarphyBlack 08:27, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, I don't feel particularly up to trying to defend my position on this issue, so I will simply just concede and go with the 400px max dimension as recommended. However, would you still be okay if I uploaded higher quality versions of the images that you resized at equal resolutions? I can currently see some heavy compression and what resembles sharpening artifacts or something, and I think I can crop Kitana unchained.jpg and Kitana shaolin monks.jpg) a bit more tightly in order to make more use of the available image resolution. The difference in file size should be no more than 30kb, but I believe the results to be worth it. MarphyBlack 09:49, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

I PUT SOURCES ON MY PAGE!

Since you have a hard time listening to facts, go to myspace.com/nlphot20, you will then see that this derived from the creator's myspace. I have done nothing but follow your guidelines, there's your source. It's completely reputable, get back to me immediatly Gliky 21:58, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Whatever

well, the creator doesn't have any other sources, and he and myself have reviewed the article and find no fault with it, evidently in order to contribute your knowledge to this site, you have to have no life, seeing as how you obviously don't, no shame, as you seem to lack that as well, it's as harmless as harmless as can be, the creator informed me that he does not have the time or patience to create a dot com, and myspace was where he could get people to see his work, that's really what it boils down to, the simplicty of wanting others to see ones work, is that a crime? because if it is, then you're most certainly guilty. Well at leat Tom on Myspace won't complain and wave flags at every single key you press on his website. Well, no good deed goes unpunished, obviously. By doing this for my friend, I simply broadened the audience of his music chart, and we crossed paths because you evidently authored the Hollaback Girl article, so we both contributed to something, did I delete anything from your page? did i start pitching a hissy fit because you didn't get Gwen Stefani's permission to write about her song? No, so what's your problem? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Gliky (talk • contribs) 22:11, 18 February 2007 (UTC).

Image:Bitchstar.JPG

Hey there. I removed {{SVG}} from Image:Bitchstar.JPG since it seems like having an attractive looking bitchstar defeats the purpose. If you disagree, feel free to add it back in. ShadowHalo 07:47, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

It's fine. I was just being silly. -Indolences 23:08, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Username

Maybe it is that I'm confused about username and what I would like the name of my main subject page to be? I'm writing some history and organization articles for Project for Pride in Living. Should I have a different username than what the nonprofit is? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Project for Pride in Living (talk • contribs)

Yes; by having your username be the same as the organization, you're effectively advertising that organization with every edit. EVula // talk // ☯ // 20:21, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

So if I change my username, would I still be able to write fact based articles on Project for Pride in Living? Project for Pride in Living 20:56, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

As long as you're maintaining a neutral POV in your edits, and properly sourcing your claims, yes, that would be acceptable. EVula // talk // ☯ // 21:14, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

The Sweet Escape cover art

Could the article say anything about the photoshoot for the album? She said that the front cover shows when you're like not showing your emotions, and the photos in the booklet are of all of the feelings cooped up inside. On one pic she even has (probably artificial) tears. Is this relevant to the article? 212.139.222.62 18:43, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Wonderbra Comments

Hi. Thanks for your comments on the Wonderbra article. I looked for a way to substitute a low rez version but didn't see it. Now I know how to do it.Mattnad 02:50, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Cricket World Cup

If I'm not mistaken they(pictures mentioned in its FAC) are all logos from the icc and is for the world cup. The size doesn't need to be reduced. And logo's doesn't need detailed fair use rationales.--Thugchildz

Sorry, I now know that I was infact wrong...--Thugchildz

WP:RFCN

I mighthavejust reverted you by mistake on WP:RFCN, could you check the diffs on the history and let me know RyanPostlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 18:06, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Go board

High-res variant has been uploaded. Now if I can find sb to tweak it to improve the colors and mask the background so it looks similar to the first one...-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  17:26, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Image:Federation Tower1.jpg

It is an image of a future building from a press-kit and it cannot be replaced because it is the architect's view of the project and any other drowings imitating the building will be inaccurate. I've provided the rationale. Can you please remove the tag?--Dojarca 22:00, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Ernest Emerson

Thanks for helping me with my article and for pointing out the Fair Use Template, I did not know about it when I uploaded those pictures. Mike Searson 22:01, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Image:André 3000 on the album cover of "The Love Below".jpg

This is an album cover and the record company is clearly credited as its source. Wikipedia has different standards on use of album, DVD, or book covers than that of publicity photos of living people please explain why you think this photo violates Wikipedia's policy on use of album covers.

--Wowaconia 05:39, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Then the problem isn't with the image but where its used, it should be moved down in the article to the discography section then.--Wowaconia 05:44, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

I have moved the photo to the segment that speaks directly about it. The image you are talking about covers a combination album of two records there was no image of the record which was sold seperately in wikipedia or I would not have uploaded the image. This record was under his artistic control while the other record was under his partner's artistic control therefor it makes sense for inclusion in his article.

--Wowaconia 05:51, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Heinrich Adulf (talk · contribs)

Just a thought, but I think you could have indef'd him... It's obviously an vandal/troll account, possibly a throwaway. If I were a betting man I would wager that if the editor ever returns to this account they will never make an actual substantial edit here...--Isotope23 16:15, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Eh, it was just an opinion. Really, there is no harm in being cautious. WP:AGF, but I think that quite a bit of that whole situation with many of the editors from the WP:AN/I report looks rather odd.--Isotope23 19:35, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Freak Out!

The edits you have requested cannot be accomplished, as the current revisions of the images in the article are already at an appropriate low-resolution size. If you have no other complaints about the article, please consider changing your evaluation of it. (Ibaranoff24 06:32, 28 February 2007 (UTC))

• Done. All of the images are currently at a proper resolution. (Ibaranoff24 17:56, 28 February 2007 (UTC))
  • Done. Please check the current revisions of the images, and consider changing your evaluation of the article. (Ibaranoff24 21:02, 28 February 2007 (UTC))

Your block of XX7 (talk · contribs)

There is no policy or guideline that states that he cannot remove warning messages from his talkpage. Yeah, it is annoying... but it is allowed. I'm not going to WP:WHEEL here, but you might want to consider lifting your block of this editor because warning removal isn't really a valid block reason. Cheers! --Isotope23 16:21, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Part of the problem is that the editor wouldn't have 3RR'd if other editors were not incorrectly adding the warnings back to the page after he/she removed them. It kind of is a self-fullfilling prophesy.--Isotope23 17:13, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Aside from the copyright/warning removal/3RR/blocking issue, you may both want to look at Wikipedia talk:Long term abuse/General Tojo‎#Tojo's back for 2007. It's important to assume good faith and the evidence is not necessarily open-and-shut that XX7 might be General Tojo ... still probably this is worth looking at. --A. B. ^(talk) 17:37, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Is that where the WP:ANI report went? Anyway, I'm going to avoid getting involved with this past the point of the Michelangelo RfC and the user talk page edit war. ShadowHalo 19:21, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi, I notice that you used what appears to be a warning template to warn XX7, here. Did you subst: a template, or did you use a generic fill-in-the-blank warning template?

If there's actually a warning template out there with the text used, it should probably be deleted, because it gives the (incorrect) impression that there is a policy forbidding users from removing messages from their talk pages. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 18:42, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

No, there's no template that I used. I modified the text from the test series. On a similar note, I think there is one. I couldn't find it this time, but I know I've seen it before (though it may have since been deleted). ShadowHalo 19:21, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Just one more thing. Generally speaking, 3RR is not enforced in an editor's own user/talkspace. They are pretty much free to revert at will unless they are reverting to a version that clearly violates another policy (personal attacks, etc)... in which case you wouldn't even need to block them for 3RR, you could just block them for the attacks.--Isotope23 19:30, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

The Black Parade

Howdy. I'd just like to chat about your reaction to the GA request. While I can sort of see where you're coming from on some points, I think you're being a bit unfair overall. Information about how the album is produced is not readily asvailable as far as I can tell, nor is there a section titled "Production" which might be lacking, so I'm not sure where this objection stems from. I am also not sure which "main article" you refer to when you suggest that the information on chart performance be moved. If you mean the band's article, I'm can't see why that information would be more appropriate there than on the album's page. As to the reception section, the paragraphs are so small due to a grammatical rule which requires a new paragraph after a quotation.

I don't object to the nomination being rejected, but I'd appreciate a more specific explanation. --Moralis 04:47, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Semi-protection of Tenacious D and FA renomination.

Hey.

Thanks for your recommendations for the article. I implemented them.

I have a couple of questions/requests:

• Should I renominate Tenacious D for FA status. If not, what do you think needs to be done before I can nominate it.

• Would you please semi-protect the Tenacious D page. It is becoming a bit annoying having to clear out the vandalism that seems to pop up.

Thanks.

Tenacious D Fans (talk) 15:34, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks ShadowHalo. I would like any feedback on how to get it to FA status. Tenacious D Fans (talk) 19:03, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

You asked me to keep in touch if I ever nominated this for FA status again. Well, I have. [7] Tenacious D Fans (talk) 08:55, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Freak Out! again

Hi. I see you have striked out your objection to the article's featured article candidacy, but you have not changed your vote. Do I have your support on the article's featured article promotion? (Ibaranoff24 05:04, 4 March 2007 (UTC))

U2

Hi ShadowHalo, I noticed that you were involved in the discussion a couple of months ago on the U2 main picture. I think I found a better picture that a fan had taken in 2005 and since I've received an okay from him via e-mail to use it, I've uploaded it to the U2 page. I'm not sure if the licensing is appropriate, since the fan in question wants to be credited, so I was hoping you could take a look and let me know if there's any thing else I can do to make this picture as free as Wikipedia allows it. Your comments are most welcome. Wikipedia brown 00:13, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply ShadowHalo! I will forward the email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org as you suggest. As long as others find the picture as pleasing as you do (to the credit of the original photographer of course), we will not have to have anymore contention about the U2 main picture. And I hope this nice photo will help bring the U2 article up to featured status someday soon. Thanks again. Wikipedia brown 01:47, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

ShadowHalo, I desperately need your help! Someone has nominated this picture (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:2005-11-21_U2_%40_MSG_by_ZG.JPG) as a speedy candidate for deletion. How can I go about licensing it properly? What do I need to ask of the original photographer, that he creative commons license it? I don't want to annoy the guy any more than I have to (and I'm sorry to bug you with this too). Looking forward to hearing your advice. Wikipedia brown 20:33, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Oooohhh, okay. I have sent an email asking the fan photographer if he would mind the image be posted outside of Wikipedia. I assume it's okay that he be given credit though anytime the image is used? Wikipedia brown 20:45, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

RE: Rich Girl

I agree with you. I don't know what it was. Charmed36 00:33, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

RHCP Images

I received the images all from the same source, and will be adding this to each one of them within a few minutes. Regards, NSR77 01:36, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Also, I'm putting the RHCP back on the GA nomination, as I believe you merely failed it for it's image situation. I'll put it on hold for the moment, but I think a more thorough and in-depth look into the article is necessary, as it has barely been up for nomination for 2 hours. NSR77 03:27, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

As you wish. NSR77 03:09, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Featured Status?

Do you think Chemical synapse is featured status? Do you think you can nominate this article for featured article review? I am asking as you seem to be very active at FAC, but not at FARC. Maybe it's time to learn new things? --Parker007 07:15, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes it has problems with defining jargon and comprehensiveness. Anyways if it was nominated today would you support it? --Parker007 07:26, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Would appreciate it if you would nominate it for de-listing. Thank you. :) --Parker007 07:32, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

This scientific article was promoted in Jan 2007 Proteasome; see the comparision to Chemical synapse. May help you in the nomination for delisting. --Parker007 07:36, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Image:BiodegradablePlasticUtensils2.jpg

Your Featured picture candidate has been promoted Your nomination for featured picture status, Image:BiodegradablePlasticUtensils2.jpg, gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates. Thank you for nominating it! KFP (talk | contribs) 22:20, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

For Tomorrow

Can you give me some hints for the structure/prose of the For Tomorrow article so I can get it up to Good Article standard? Thanks Dsims209 22:27, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

spacing error in oral fix vol 2

Hi. When 24.168.149.39 added cateogories, the alignment of the infobox was shifted. I tried to fix it by undoing (I previewed rmv the additional cateogories) but still the error is there. Pls fix if u r able to. Also, let me know pls what you do to fix the spacing error. Thx.

Tenacious D FA nomination

ShadowHalo, I appreciate your work a lot, and I would like to alert you to this. [Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Tenacious D] You object on the grounds that the article had not yet received a thorough copy-edit. It now has, and all that I have left to do is just address some small issues. Would you be prepared to change your objection? Tenacious D Fans (talk) 16:33, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I addressed all your points (I think). Tenacious D Fans (talk) 06:52, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Jersey Boys (soundtrack)

Hello! I started the article Jersey Boys (soundtrack) last evening, and I would like for you to help me expand it a litte. I'd like for it to look something like this. Any help is greatly appreciated. Arrowhead1 01:23, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for helping out with the article! I whipped it up in about five minutes last night, which explains the unprofessional look. I've been looking through the site for tips on how to create a good article. Again, thank you very much. Arrowhead1 01:44, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Re: Love. Angel. Music. Baby.

Oops! I readded the citation. No, it's not part of the Toronto Star article. Velten 02:32, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Image:Pecans.jpg

Your Featured picture candidate has been promoted Your nomination for featured picture status, Image:Pecans.jpg, gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates. Thank you for nominating it! KFP (talk | contribs) 20:12, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Image:Gwen Stefani in November 2005.jpg

As far as I know, we don't have any policy regarding what to do with vanished/changed license Flickr images. We can't really republish something just because someone says "it used to be under a free license according to my memory of what Flickr said", so we delete them whenever requested to. I'd recommend using the Flickr mail system to get in touch with the photographer and find out why the image was deleted, and ask if it is really under a free license. Mail any helpful response to permissions. Jkelly 00:12, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

United World Chart

May I ask why can't the UWC be used in the Chart positions section in a song's infobox? By the way, I did start a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Songs a while ago. RaNdOm26 01:27, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

GA assessment for Faye Wong

Thanks for such a prompt assessment of the article Faye Wong and the specific pointers for improvement. I hadn't realised it would be done within a couple of hours! Were there any MOS issues other than those you stated on the talk page? - Fayenatic london (talk) 22:48, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Photo for Ewan Pearson ?

Soma records must have publicity shots for Ewan (I've even seen some on other websites attributed to Soma - but how does one go about getting a photo on to Wikipedia? (I've read the rules and fallen asleep in the process several times...) Do you fancy giving it a go?Excellentone 21:15, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

---

Why don't you sit on a stick? idiot. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 200.45.111.69 (talk) 07:44, March 16, 2007 (UTC)

Harajuku Lovers prices

I'll have to dig around a bit to find it. There was an "articles" section on the old Harajuku Lovers website that had a magazine scan that explained much of the line was under $40. Calicore 09:08, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism

What is that Michael Montelbano thing anyway? Is it an actual person or something random?Nukleoptra 19:49, 16 March 2007 (UTC) I did a search and found nothing notable. It's probably the person's name.Nukleoptra 19:53, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for contributing to the High School of Fashion Industries article! ArtsyNani 17:43, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Rich Girl (Gwen Stefani song)

The article Rich Girl (Gwen Stefani song) you nominated as a good article has passed , see Talk:Rich Girl (Gwen Stefani song) for eventual comments about the article. Good luck in future nominations. Veesicle (Talk) (Contribs) 05:52, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

A new biography I posted

Hello dear Shadow. what is your opinion about this new page I made about a persian young journalist Kourosh Ziabari (Sate Journalist 09:05, 19 March 2007 (UTC))

CSC

Usually, I believe that I have convinced the other party if they fail to contest. In this case, I am not sure if you have given up trying to explain things to me or if I have convinced you. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 20:14, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Is this compromise something you can endorse. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 00:11, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Previously you stated support at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Campbell's Soup Cans. Debate has been reset. I would appreciate confirmation of your support. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 22:41, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Christina Aguilera GA status

I went ahead and delisted Aguilera's article from the GA list. When it was first listed back in 2005, it focused on Aguilera's career between Debut and Stripped. At the time, Wikipedia wasn't known from Christina's fanbase. Since a few months before Aguilera began promoting Back to Basics, a number of POV pushing fans were trying to emphisize her grammy wins and vocal abilities (sections which were unsourced). as a result, it was protected. This protection caught the attention of the news media and they made a big media specticle about it. Since then, the article went downhill. I feel the delist was called for months ago, but since most of it was sourced, I felt it was still on the lower extreme of being a GA. The lower section needs a complete rewrite, and any regard to sales removed, as they are either bunk and/or not consistent. The article needs much work and less disruption from POV pushers. --w^{L<speak·check>} 07:54, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Cdn BDS Airplay for 'Crash'

Here's the link: http://jam.canoe.ca/Music/Charts/BDS_1.html -- unfortunately the site doesn't have an archive to show the song's actual position, but this is the source it was pulled from. Vikramsidhu 14:53, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Angel of Death (song)

I believe I've fixes all the issues, with a question regarding the last one. If you have any additional concerns, please provide them, it'll be very appreciated. Thank you. Michaelas10^{Respect my authoritah} 20:22, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Hello

Hello there... I was just browsing Category:Wikipedians by alma mater: Massachusetts Institute of Technology and happened to see a familiar username (i.e. yours). I saw you were from Maryland, like myself, and just could not resist saying hello. Perhaps I'll see you next year (or maybe even sometime between April 12 and April 15). Your continuously steady stream of contributions to Wikipedia has allayed some of my fears that MIT students have little time for anything but schoolwork... -- tariqabjotu 04:07, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Track listings

His changes are not entirely believable because in some articles he claims that the CD singles were released in only a number of countries with a very specific track listing... generally unlikely for any commercial artist. These should be reverted. I also own two of the CD singles ("Cool" and "Luxurious", both of which were altered in the articles) as sufficient evidence. "Serious" was never released officially as a single, though a music video was filmed, but nonetheless I'm glad you AfDed it.

Humorous yet uncollaborative. Velten 19:37, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not going to vote yet because I believe a few more steady improvements could be made. Unfortunately, I can't seem to find anything that's significantly missing, therefore, I think I will place a vote by the end of the weekend at the latest. You did an incredible job on the article! Congrats. Velten 02:33, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Borat!

I've scaled down thet three biggest images. Could you take a look to see if it's satisfactory? --Lenin and McCarthy | (Complain here) 09:39, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I see. Thanks. And I noticed someone moved the page again and am in the process of getting the redirects fixed. --Lenin and McCarthy | (Complain here) 09:55, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Your message

Thanks, I'll try to remember that (it's always felt wrong to pipe this sort of link to an article on real music, but I didn't know where else it should go...). --Mel Etitis (Talk) 16:22, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

For Tomorrow

Thanks for your help on the For Tomorrow artile talk page. I have changed the sections you wrote about as well as adding things like critical reception, chart position and references and fixed proseline. I have resubmitted it for GA status. Again, many thanks for your help. Dsims209 12:09, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

I took care of that problem.

Left a note or two on his talkpage.....maybe I should elaborateNitroglycerin Go Shakey Shakey 10:11, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

When I say sockpuppets, you're included in that. ShadowHalo 10:17, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Sheet music

I like the new version since it's clearly more visible. You can delete the other one in that case. Thanks! Velten 13:13, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

User talk:Noboyo

I've reverted your edit to the article Beautiful Liar; the image was properly sourced. ShadowHalo 14:36, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

What source was that? I must admit that Googling produced no sign of this cover except on iTunes; could this be their version rather than the actual cover? --Mel Etitis (Talk) 14:55, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Would the one on Amazon not be a better illustration? --Mel Etitis (Talk) 08:45, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

No Doubt (3)

Look, that "free image" you pulled is a piece of crap. It dosn't give viewers ANY idea what they look like. Futher more, it DEFINATLY dosn't look very encyclopidic. Im sure that if you emailed them, they would be more them happy to let wikipedia use there promoional picture, why would'nt they? Its not like we're useing them to sell posters, and you can see the picture just by going on there site (and it gives them a good impression to those who log on to wikipedia everyday, which is good for business). Im sure your edits were made this good intenions to wiki policies but there are exceptions to them, I really hope you re-concider and replace the concert photo with some more suitable, thankyou -69.250.130.215

(in responce to the message left on my page)- Unless interscope records or someone representing on behalf of Gwen or any other members of No Doudbt lodges a formal complaint against the use of there promotional photos on wikipedia, I highly suggest that you change there picture back to the original image. If Interscope records wont even bother to respond to email for use of there promotional pictures, then they basically forfeit any chance at negotiation, in my mind. It all seems very silly to me.

And I also dont think it very fair that I take the time to write these well thought out messages just to get a reply in 2 sentences or less. And Im sorry if you took offence to the (your a @$$) comment, I was only joking. My comments about the usefullness of the image still stand, however. There are many articles that make use of promotional photos, there high quality and they give a good repesentation of the bands, thats there whole purpose. Were doing a disservice to the users & the artists by NOT useing them. I doubt there would have been any complications had you not replaced the photo with a free image one. Again, please concider replaceing it with the better quality photograph. thankyou -69.250.130.215

You know, when you analyze one sentence out of the two paragraphs that I've written, it makes me feel like you don't respect me. Seeing as how I noticed that your profile says you enjoy ska, I was hopeing that you more then anyone would understand why im suggesting this. My only wish is to see to it that wikipedia and No Doubt are properly represented. If you dont agree with my rule-bending logic, that ok, but aleast allow me to remove said photo untill a better version can be found to replace it. thankyou -69.250.130.215

ENjoy!

Trampton has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling to someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Trampton 01:25, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Album covers

Hi there Drew! A question. A user by the name of A Man In Black has removed the album covers on the 50 Cent discography page on the basis that it fails fair use criteria #3 & #8. (i.e. amount of copyrighted work used should be as little as possible. Low-resolution images should be used... and material must contribute significantly to the article. What's your take on this? Spellcast 14:38, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

And on a different note. I noticed the free pic of Rihanna with the Xbox has been removed. It seems someone uploaded an album cover of the same filename over your image and got lost in the process. Spellcast 17:47, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Re: Love. Angel. Music. Baby.

Sorry for the late reply - I've been busy this week. Hmm, it seems Love. Angel. Music. Baby. isn't on FAC anymore, but I'll have a look at it soon. Gwenboy (talk · contribs) and Viven2 (talk · contribs) definitely look like sockpuppets (create articles on non-existent singles, format them the same way etc.), so I'd block both for a period if they mess around and insert false information and images again. Extraordinary Machine 17:45, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

RE: Luxurious

I know what new jack swing is. I think that it's a normal R&B song, but I'll leave it. Charmed36 20:35, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Image Query

I was wondering if I can use Image:Bughouse Square.jpg in Washington Square Park, Chicago. I don't have any date information, but I image an expert might be able to approximate a date. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 20:44, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't know how to prove when the photo was taken. I have been in debates with wikipedians about things like "This font didn't exist until 197x. So this painting could not have been by Andy Warhol". I thought with your image experience you might know a wikipedian who is experienced at dating photos. Can I take a chance on a hunch it is old enough. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 00:11, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I guess that is the kind of direction I was looking for. Thanks. P.S. I don't know if you are aware Campbell's Soup Cans got promoted. Also, I would like to commend you as an editor, who like myself prefers to play a leading role in getting articles promoted to WP:FA and WP:GA status. I see how many edits you have contributed to your recognized articles. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 00:27, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

JM/JM3 Templates

Hi, As an administrator, you should be aware that your comments on Template:John Mayer (talk · links · edit) aren't exactly fitting with WP:CIVILITY. With regards to your comments, with the exception of the adherence to the WP:ALBUMS requirements, none of what you said had a direct relevance to the template and wasn't supported by any expected guidelines, however was only backed by your subjective opinion of a template that's been in place for some time. I'm for keeping this (and the JM3 template) much the same as they were, with the exception of the quotations and italicising, which simply hadn't been done yet. If there was a required guideline set in place indicating how all navigational templates should look, then I'd follow it, but there isn't and that's because it's be ridiculous to police, with the variables of the required information on an encyclopedia and it also doesn't exist because Wikipedia is supposed to be able to be customised, not to be restrained to a single person's viewpoint. It's designed to gain a consensus, and in this case, no consensus was gain, it was simply changed. I'm all for people being bold in making the changes necessary, but this was not.
--linca^linca 10:03, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Your message

Thanks for alerting me, I hadn't noticed. It's not exactly an edit war, though, as it's not with a person over a particular edit, but reverting the unexplained and unsourced edits of a variety of editors. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 18:30, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Beautiful Liar

I just wanted to know that I've removed the charts you added to the article. Component charts shouldn't be added, even when sourced (see Wikipedia:Record charts). ShadowHalo 18:31, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I just remembered. Thanks for correcting it. Orane (talk • cont.) 18:34, 30 March 2007 (UTC)