User talk:Doctor01

Reply about the Sprouses

First off, let me say do not revert any users edits because you don't like something they've done. Do not revert any single page in whole or in part more than three times in 24 hours, or you will be blocked. What "loss of information" are you talking about? It's great you're adding new info, but make sure you have sources for the information you add. I probably inadvertently removed some unreferenced material and looking at some diffs you might be referring to the "Later their parents went back to USA to be closer to their family" that I removed. I did remove that because it doesn't seem like something that would be verifiable in the case of the twins. Please post a source for it... Is that what you're talking about? Again, do not continue to revert my edits, especially when they are improving the prose and structure of the article - just because you don't like one sentence change. Mrtea (talk) 21:10, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay I've made my revisions, again. Hopefully there's "no loss of information". If need be, dicuss them with me or on the article's talk page before reverting to the "better format". :) Mrtea (talk) 21:29, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, I don't like the way you wrote to me. I repeat I've always tried to do my best. I researched informations trought the Net and added the most plausible and verificable. You reverted the page completely deleting one section, the Biography, (not as you said " when they are improving the prose and structure of the article") and making a bigger header. I think the best solution is a short header (that's make it a header) and various sections which every biography has in Wikipedia pages (as Life/Biography, Career, Filmography, ecc). What you did is not clean up or whatever. You wrote it to me "let me say do not revert any users edits because you don't like something they've done". Just be coherent and follow one of the keys policies of Wikipedia (num 4 - Respect other contributors). I reverted only the structure restablishing the section you had deleted and paying attention to new data added by other contributors. I have no problem debating but don't act as a boss. Last thing the famous sentence ""Later their parents went back to USA to be closer to their family" is a biographical data, not gossip, and can be verified in some sites. Good work. --Doctor01 22:18, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've moved your comment here so our conversation doesn't get disjointed. I'm not sure how I'm not being coherent as you didn't actually address what part of my reply was confusing. Anyway, can you provide the diff (off the article's history) of where I deleted that one section? I was surprised to hear that and if I did, it was definitely a mistake. Do you know how to use the revision history? I'm not being sarcastic- Through the history one can see exactly what changes were made; maybe you thought a section got deleted but it actually got moved to a different section in the article. I asked you about the famous(?) sentence because I wasn't sure what removal of information you were referring to, not to offend you in any way. I'm glad you have been researching your info. In my previous reply I meant to say you should be citing your credible sources so that their edits can be verified by readers and other editors. You said you only reverted the structure of the article, but have a look at the difference. That's not only adding the "==Biography==" tag. I think you might have taken my reply the wrong way so I did my best to ignore your somewhat mocking reply. Come on, you've gotta have faith! :) Mrtea (talk) 01:41, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've always had faith :-). I told you, I simply didn't like the way you had acted. Your message seemed to be threatening (If it wasn't I apologize), obviously I had read all the most important wikipedia's rules before I changed anything. I'm not a newbie (you can look my contributions up). I told you what I didn't like you had done: you deleted a section making the header longer and unclear, and some links in the last section (right links added by someone else). I changed the stub tring to make a better page with all the common sections of a biography. You can't make a so deep change without discussing it before. Anyone could not change, deleting, someone's work only because he/she didn't like it. That's all.

Secondly, you can't add ALL the references about everything you wrote, the page will be a mess of links. Even so I'll add the source as soon as possible about the so-called "famous sentence" (you know, it was ironic).

Anyway, I appreciate we reached a solution together. I hope we'll collaborate in the future. Ok ? :-) --Doctor01 10:38, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I definitely look forward to collaborating with you in the future. I would still really like to see the diffs from the article's history, however. I can't remember making any revisions that were controversial. I know it might sound weird, but I think on Wikipedia it's actually preferred to have an article with a "mess" of footnote references. Most facts really should be referenced. Mrtea (talk) 15:36, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Doctor01 - Hi! I was a bit surprised to find the clean-up of the article I did simply reverted and ignored. I think my clean-up helped a lot of the clutter that had accumulated and removed extraneous info that doesn't belong in the article. I apologize for simply reverting from your changes back to mine - I know you did a few other things in editing that may have been lost (I think you were adjusting something on the nicknames - the reason I had originally put in both links to IMDb is on the bio page for Cole it gives his nicknames and on theone for Dylan it gives his. If we only refer them to one of the pages, the other info is not immediately shown). I'd appreciate it if instead of just reverting my edits, you went ahead and further edited things you think can be written better. I know we can work together in keeping these pages accurate and appropriate as we can throughout all of Wikipedia. MKaiserman 22:49, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've continued our conversation on my Talk Page. MKaiserman 23:12, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lyrics

Hi, the coprright of lyrics belogs to the person who created them. It is a copyright violation to reproduce lyrics in full in Wikipedia. Lyriki is breaking US copyright laws by publishing lyrics that are still copyrighted, see the notice on this site who were issued with a cease and desist order for publishing copyrighted lyrics. I'd appreciate if you'd remove lyrics from any articles you find them. Thanks.--nixie 11:11, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The simple anwser is no, everthing on Wikipedia must be compatible with the GFDL, adding someones copyrighted material to Wikipedia is not compatible with the licence.--nixie 11:25, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No, you cannot reproduce the entire lyrics of an article under the provisions of fair use. I suggest you actually read the Wikipedia:Fair use guidelines and policy. You could use a small excerpt from a song if the lyrics were discussed in an article, but "in general, extensive quotation of copyrighted news materials (such as newspapers and wire services), movie scripts, or any other copyrighted text is not fair use and is prohibited by Wikipedia policy."--nixie 11:42, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Edit summaries

Hey Doctor01. Please remember to always provide an edit summary when contributing. Edit summaries will appear on the Recent changes page, in the page revision history, on the diff page, and in the watchlists of users who are watching that article. See m:Help:Edit summary for full information on this feature.

When you leave the edit summary blank, some of your edits could be mistaken for vandalism and may be reverted, so please always briefly summarize your edits, especially when making subtle but important changes, like changing dates or numbers. Thanks and happy editing. Mrtea (talk) 06:07, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with Image:ColeSprouse.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:ColeSprouse.jpg. However, the image may soon be deleted unless we can determine the copyright holder and copyright status. The Wikimedia Foundation is very careful about the images included in Wikipedia because of copyright law (see Wikipedia's Copyright policy).

The copyright holder is usually the creator, the creator's employer, or the last person who was transferred ownership rights. Copyright information on images is signified using copyright templates. The three basic license types on Wikipedia are open content, public domain, and fair use. Find the appropriate template in Wikipedia:Image copyright tags and place it on the image page like this: {{TemplateName}}.

Please signify the copyright information on any other images you have uploaded or will upload. Remember that images without this important information can be deleted by an administrator.

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you have questions about copyright tagging of images, post on Wikipedia talk:Image copyright tags or User talk:Carnildo/images. 04:22, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Sprouset.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Sprouset.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:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 12:14, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

IMDB

Just so you know, in general, we can't use these kind of trivia sites (IMDB, NNDB, etc.) for information. They're info-culling sites, just like Wikipedia. A lot of the info is submitted by users - sometimes it's accurate, if we're lucky, and comes from somwhere, and sometimes it comes from the imagination of the submitters. We have no way of knowing. Interviews and anything where the article's subject was personally involved in are reliable sources, and immediately trump any such sites, which shouldn't be used in the first place. You can't imagine how many IMDB claims have been proven false in interviews/etc. - and when I saw the Sprouses say they can't speak Italian except for "Pasta",etc. I actually cracked a smile because I already had the feeling the IMDB was once again wrong. Anyway, I've worked hard the past two months to fix up the Sprouse article and use good sources - and it's now up for Good Article status, too. Mad Jack O'Lantern 19:06, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You can not "debate" a source because it is off-line. Look up the magazines I cited, if you can not, that is unfortunate but has no effect on the page. Mad Jack O'Lantern 13:04, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anyway, in point form:

IMDB is not a primary source. They have no reason to be realiable because they are not in contact with the Sprouse twins or anyone else they have information on. If they are not in contact with them, it means they get their information from elsewhere. That elsewhere is what we need to cite. Citing the IMDB is like citing a Wikipedia article - a Wikipedia article that doesn't cite its sources
A primary source would be something where the Sprouse twins were involved in, like an article or interview. These are the only sources that are reliable to use for living people. Trivia websites are not. The sources I recently cited on the page were magazine articles interviewing the Sprouses. There is nothing more reliable than an interview. Of course I can't give you a link to it because these interviews are not online as far as I know. I don't know if they sell these magazines in Italy, but it doesn't matter, anyone can go their local supermarket over here and check. I provided full citations with page numbers.
There is no need to mention "Tuscany" because Arezzo is in Tuscany, and we mention Arezzo. I guess we can add "Tuscay" in between Arezzo and Italy.
The Italian citizenship thing - again, I am not so sure it is true. The Italian language thing wasn't, this could have come from the same place. I am considering removing it pending a good primary source. Actually, I just checked - the article on Italian citizenship says "For Italian-born of foreign parents, the applicant must have resided in Italy continuously from birth to adulthood." This is not the case with the Sprouses. I'm going to have to remove that bit from the article until a good source turns up (sorry)
And even if they are Italian citizens, it is kind of iffy to describe them as "Italian-Americans". I seriously doubt they would describe themselves as Italian or Italian-American. The only way we can settle that is, if there is a reliable (primary) source (again - article/interview) that calls them "Italian" or "Italian-American", then we can call them that too. I haven't seen any interviews or articles that call them that yet. But if there are, it would be a start
I think that's about it

Mad Jack O'Lantern 15:56, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image Tagging Image:ZackSprouse.jpg

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:ZackSprouse.jpg. I notice the 'image' page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this media yourself then there needs to be an argument why we have the right to use the media on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the media yourself then it needs to be specified where it was found, i.e., in most cases link to the website where it was taken from, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the media also doesn't have a copyright tag then one should be added. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media qualifies as fair use, consider reading fair use, and then use a tag such as {{Non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other media, consider checking that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, 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 unsourced and untagged images 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. Fritz S. (Talk) 13:03, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image Tagging for Image:Maddie_london.jpg

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

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

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 10:32, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned fair use image (Image:Queen GHI.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Queen GHI.jpg. 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 07:21, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned fair use image (Image:Queen The Complete Works.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Queen The Complete Works.jpg. 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 07:22, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free use disputed for Image:Queen gh2.jpg

This file may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:Queen gh2.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read carefully the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content and then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our Criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 03:45, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Queen gh2.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Queen gh2.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 11:31, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Queen gh2.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Queen gh2.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 05:22, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]