User talk:HJensen

Wikibreak: So long for now

As explained in my essay, I have for strange, strange reasons been sentenced to a 12 month editing restriction by The Arbitration Committee in a "date delinking case" because I half a year ago delinked some dates in accordance with the Manual of Style (between 10 to 16 edits depending on your method of counting). Ho hum. I have, of course, no intentions of staying on a project where one of the highest authorities treats me like that. So, in those twelve months I will mainly stay out of here.

When I joined three years ago (having until now produced this), I should probably have listened more to my kids when they exclaimed that editing on Wikipedia was just for geeks and nerds.--HJensen, talk 16:14, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

This is most unfortunate and undeserved. I helped you with Frank Zappa and found you always civil and good humored, even under stressful circumstances. I appreciate your wonderful work and will miss you greatly. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 16:58, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

You have to be KIDDING ME! With all the vandalism and half-assed editing here, you bring Frank Zappa --and the other Zappa-related articles to top form, and now, this??? Really, it is too much. I hope you were speaking out of anger, but there is a kernel of truth in what you say, as well.. I am so very sorry, and hope you will contact me if you can! I came to you for advice, and see this. Tut, tut. What a loss. With kindest regards, --leahtwosaints (talk) 17:59, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Don't be a stranger...

So sorry that it came to this. I hope to see you around sooner rather than later, getting back to what's important around here and getting back to all the great work you've done. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:59, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

• Crying shame. If it carries on at this rate, there will be nobody left but the nerds and spastics. Have a good break and come back soon. Ohconfucius (talk) 02:19, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
• Second the above. We need more good editors like you, and the tennis project will miss your expertise sorely. Take care, Dabomb87 (talk) 15:25, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
• Badge of honour, dude. A short bump. In the larger scheme, it's inconsequential. Come back soon. Tony (talk) 16:29, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
• Thanks for your contribution to Guillermo Vilas page. Hope you'll be back soon! --Lucio Garcia (talk) 12:57, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Dates case request for amendment

Thanks for the note you left me here. You may not be aware, but there is currently an amendment being voted on that would relax your restrictions. It emerged from the appeal lodged by Greg L. See here. This amendment would directly affect your restriction (please read the comments above and below that motion). The proposed amendment may or may not satisfy you, which is why I had asked that you and the others be notified. To be clear, that proposed amendment affects 16 of the 19 sanctioned editors from that case, but only about 5 of them seem to be aware that this amendment has been proposed. I have stated several times (both at the amendment and by e-mail to my colleagues on the arbitration committee) that those who this amendment would affect should have been notified (particularly as there is a proposal to restrict further requests for a period of 30 days), but as a recused arbitrator, I did not feel it was my place to do so. However, enough time has now passed since I asked that arbitrators or clerks make the necessary notifications, that I feel I can ask again. So I will once again ask that this is done, and I would suggest you comment at that amendment and give your views there, particularly if you felt you should have been notified. Carcharoth (talk) 23:15, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

I came here also after noticing the update of your essay to draw your attention to the pending amendment proposal. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:25, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you to both of you for your swift reply! I will look into the motion being voted on. Best, --HJensen, talk 01:12, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Please let me know if there is anything I can do, any place I can weigh in regarding the "pending amendment proposal". This restriction in your case has been most unjust and I have been unhappy to notice your lack of activity. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 01:27, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you so much Mattisse. Your help in bringing Frank Zappa towards FA status is one of my most pleasant experiences on Wikipedia. I see you have been in stormy weather recently. In sencerely hjope that you manage. I'll see what all this developes into, and make up my mind afterwards. Even though the restriction may become "milder", I am still very much offended to have become dragged into being formally sentenced by the ArbCom for a petty detail. It is something lesser kind editors can always throw in one's face if disagreements should arise at a later point. I do miss the occasional editing, but a break is also quite healthy I can feel. All the best, --HJensen, talk 22:23, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I hope you don't let the ill considered decision keep you from editing, although I know that injustice ways heavily. It is hard to fathom how you became part of this ruling. Your reputation is not tarnished by this, but rather ArbCom's. Your behavior has always been top notch. I thought I saw a place to comment regarding you under the Amendment, but now I cannot find it. I keep my eye on Frank Zappa but only you can make sure it is shipshape. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 23:40, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Request for arbitration: Date delinking amendment motion

A request to amend the dates delinking arbitration case (filed 19 July 2009) has resulted in a motion (filed 2 August 2009) that proposes to change the restrictions imposed on you as a result of the case. The proposed amendment would affect the restrictions pertaining to 16 editors, all of whom are now being notified of the proposed amendment. Given that the proposed amendment affects your restrictions, and further that the proposed amendment will restrict the filing of further proposed amendments for a period of 30 days, your input is invited at the amendments page. You may view an unofficial table of the proposed changes here. Comments from affected parties are currently being considered by the Arbitration Committee. If you would like the arbitrators who have already voted to reconsider their votes in light of your comments, please indicate that in your comments.

For the Arbitration Committee

Seddσn ^talk|^WikimediaUK 03:24, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Your request for amendment

I've responded to your latest comment, in your section on the arbitration amendments page. I just wanted to give you a heads up to make sure you saw it. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:03, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Arbitration motion regarding Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Date delinking

Per a motion at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Amendment:

Having considered all the requests for amendment and requests for clarification submitted following the decision in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Date delinking, the Arbitration Committee decides as follows:

(1) All remedies in the decision providing that a specified user is topic-banned from editing or discussing "style and editing guidelines" (or similar wording) are modified by replacing these words with the words "style and editing guidelines relating to the linking or unlinking of dates";

(2) All remedies in the decision providing that a specified user is "prohibited from reversion of changes which are principally stylistic, except where all style elements are prescribed in the applicable style guideline" are modified by replacing these words with the words "prohibited from reverting the linking or unlinking of dates";

(3) All editors whose restrictions are being narrowed are reminded to abide by all applicable policies and guidelines in their editing, so that further controversies such as the one that led to the arbitration case will not arise, and any disagreements concerning style guidelines can be addressed in a civil and efficient fashion;

(4) Any party who believes the Date delinking decision should be further amended may file a new request for amendment. To allow time to evaluate the effect of the amendments already made, editors are asked to wait at least 30 days after this motion is passed before submitting any further amendment requests.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Tiptoety ^talk 04:08, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Discuss this

Watermelon in Easter hay

I came here to ask you something about FZ's Watermelon in Easter hay, and then I saw all this ArbCom stuff. Unbelievable. Another case of WP completely messing up. This project is going nowhere fast. I'm really sorry to hear about this. Strength and kudos to you.

Still, I'll ask my question anyway: do you happen to know if FZ ever released a 'clean' version of Watermelon in Easter Hay? That is, without the Central Scrutinizer talking over the intro?

Yintaɳ  11:06, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi. Thanks for the message. Yeah, I am out of here for the moment. Too much wasted time. On your question: To the best of my knowledge, he didn't. Even the posthumous CD Frank Zappa Plays the Music of Frank Zappa: A Memorial Tribute it is the Joes's Garage version. That CD includes an early live version (ca. 1978) and the tune also appears on Guitar in a live version (from 1984), but the studio version is unavailable without the talk. Best, --HJensen, talk 11:56, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi! Glad to see you back (for a while anyway). I have been trying to "take care of" Frank Zappa, but unfortunately I am not as knowledgeable as you are. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 21:59, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for looking after it. You are doing a great job! I may not come around so often anymore. It is amazing that some time away actually makes you less interested. So I guess wikipedia is like an addiction. Once you are in, it is hard not to check things all the times, but once out for a while, you gradually lose the urge. Cheers.--HJensen, talk 13:05, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

The Mothers' inner conflict?

I posted this on Usenet yesterday. Any idea? (See also User_talk:Mattisse)

By the way, I wish you a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year. All the best and hope to see you again real soon. DVdm (talk) 13:37, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Muthers

Hi there... concerning this. I made the same revert earlier, but then Badger Drink undid it, so I checked Ben Watson's book. He says Muthers --see page 26. Strange but true. Cheers - DVdm (talk) 06:25, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

The Muthers was Frank Zappa's power trio with Les Papp. It has nothing to do with The Mothers--HJensen, talk 20:54, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

- And the Muthers is mentioned in the article earlier on (and this is not inconsistent with the Watson book; it is indeed the reference for it, so nothing strange there). The reference http://globalia.net/donlope/fz/chronology/1940-1964.html lists that band to 1964. The Soul Giants with Ray Collins is later and that band became The Mothers in 1965. Cheers. --HJensen, talk 21:01, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. One of these days I should actually read the article again :-) - Cheers indeed - DVdm (talk) 21:06, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Disputed non-free use rationale for File:DubRoomSpecial DVDRelease2005.jpg

Thank you for uploading File:DubRoomSpecial DVDRelease2005.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this file on Wikipedia may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the file description page and adding or clarifying the reason why the file qualifies under this policy. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your file is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a non-free use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for files used under the non-free content policy require both a copyright tag and a non-free use rationale.

If it is determined that the file does not qualify under the non-free content policy, it might be deleted by an administrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. J Milburn (talk) 15:16, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Re:Picture for speedy deletion

Alright, two different covers. There are books that will have thirty different covers; so what? It's generally assumed that the original cover is legit under our non-free content criteria- that doesn't suddenly mean that they all are. J Milburn (talk) 20:30, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Then by all means, "suddenly" delete it. I provided one argument I could think of—there is no reason to be condescending about it.--HJensen, talk 06:45, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Frank Zappa bust

I saw your edit that undid the insertion of the Lithuanian Zappa bust photo. You had, in the comments, added that Lithuanian statues could not be shown. The replica bust dedication ceremony literature contains two pictures of the bust. Also, the Baltimore Sun photographer used a photo of the replica bust in his newspaper article. Does that restriction apply to photos of the replica bust in Baltimore, of which I also have photos and could upload for use? Doc2234 (talk) 22:39, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

As I remember when the article was under FA review (that was where I learned that the Lithuanian bust was a no go), Baltimore is the same. I remember mentioning that a picture would then have to wait until it came to the US, but I was then informed that the same rules apply in US in that respect. One is apparently not allowed to use pictures of statues. This was only a year ago, so I doubt things have changed since. Try check it out with some of the more copyright informed - it would definitely be nice with a photo, but no need to put it in, if it is not allowed (BTW I think newspapers are under different rules, as they do not implicitly waive copyrights on used media as wikipedia does). Cheers, --HJensen, talk 19:54, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

External videos

Hi, I'm still a little confused as to the requirements for correct use of external videos with the template (as done on the John Mayer page that is also a FA, in the Touring section (and that one doesn't seem to be working now)). I haven't found a definitive instruction on what to provide when using the external video template. From what I have gathered, the requirements are to provide a statement from a source such as the copyright holder that the linked material is in fact an official video, verify that the music video has not been uploaded onto YouTube for example in violation of the copyright, and ensure that the video is available 24/7 without requiring a password to access, or payment. Would that go to Permissions? (I also saw in one discussion that a note relating the above information should be placed on the article's talk page.) I have not seen any instruction that requires the owner to release the video under a Wikipedia free-use license, since the video is externally referenced, the same in my view as the links in References sections on pages lead to copyrighted information in books, magazines, newspapers, etc. Advice? thoughts? referral to a guru on this? Doc2234 (talk) 01:33, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Try look up the FA requirements, and look into the pages where FAøs are being reviewed. There, there is usually some experienced editor that handles these issues. I was just told that one could not link to youtube videos. Newspaper articles are different as these are links to newspapers themselves (including their copyright claims). Other sites that contains the same articles are not allowed to be inked to. --HJensen, talk 23:09, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the help. I'll look at the FA review pages. Doc2234 (talk) 23:12, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:HendrixWoodstockSSB.JPG

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:HendrixWoodstockSSB.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 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 for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. SchuminWeb (Talk) 15:49, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

File:HendrixWoodstockSSB.JPG listed for deletion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:HendrixWoodstockSSB.JPG, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. SchuminWeb (Talk) 01:50, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Non-free rationale for File:PalleMikkelborg1.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:PalleMikkelborg1.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under non-free content criteria, but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia is acceptable. Please go to the file description page, and edit it to include a non-free rationale.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified the non-free rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' 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 "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 15:38, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Zappa Wazoo.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Zappa Wazoo.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 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 for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude (talk) 04:07, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:59, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

thansk Cheapcheapcheap (talk) 07:43, 6 April 2019 (UTC)