User talk:Infrogmation/Archive March 09 - July 09
Archive of discussion from User talk:Infrogmation
- Next older talk archive: User talk:Infrogmation/Archive July 08 - Feb 09
- Next more recent talk archive: User talk:Infrogmation/Archive July 09 - Nov 09
March 2009
[edit]Hi, I need your help
[edit]Hello. I don't know you, but as adminstrator u may help me with this issue, my account has been listed for deletion (or I don't get it) as a Sockpuppet, here is their incorrect evidence: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Incorrect-Evidence/Archive (I moved the page) I hope u will take a look at the history of it too to know the story, please if u can do me a favor delete it, also this page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Incorrect-Evidence thanks in advance. please reply to me in my talk page about the concern Megahmad (talk) 15:13, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
File:RobertEmoryPattison.jpg
[edit]Sorry; I have no information concerning this image. I may have uploaded it once, and if I did, it probably would have been in 2004, but I have no recollection of it. Wish I could be more helpful! -- Sethant (talk) 01:27, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
invitation
[edit]You're invited to sign up as a founding member, at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals#WikiProject Historic Sites ! :) doncram (talk) 05:22, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
- Wikipedia:WikiProject Historic Sites is opened up. I took the liberty of assuming your support for the wikiproject meant you wanted to join as a member, and I copied your signature to the Members list on the main page. Please visit and add to, or remove, your listing there. It would be great to hear about what you're interested in the Wikiproject becoming, in your member comment and/or at the Talk page, shortcut wt:HSITES. Thanks for your support! doncram (talk) 17:26, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
80.58.205.38 (talk · contribs)
[edit]Hi, I just passed to say that 80.58.205.38 (talk · contribs) is an open proxy from Spain, blocked indefinite in es@wiki. Cheers! KveD (talk) 23:47, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks. Matching block given here and on Commons. -- Infrogmation (talk) 15:40, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
File:BabMikadoTeeth.jpg
[edit]I'm curious, how did I not attribute correctly? Surely you could have fixed my mistake, whatever it was, instead of deleting the file. --Closedmouth (talk) 03:34, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
- "Author" field should show info on author, etc. The bot is by nature stupid and may not recognize things that are obvious to humans and produce bizarre misinformation; keep an eye on it while transfering images. I've fixed thousands of images. If you think an image is worth transfering, please take responsibility to complete the process yourself. Thanks much. Cheers, -- Infrogmation (talk) 15:39, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
- I thought I did. Are you requesting that I put "W.S. Gilbert" in the author field, or your username? My memory isn't perfect, but I'm sure I had your username in the author field. Is this wrong? --Closedmouth (talk) 04:35, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
- Gilbert is the author. (All I did was scan it; making a mechanical reproduction of copyright expired material generates no new copyright.) The transfer bot seems to be default set for photos taken by Wikipedians; images which did not originate at Wikipedia generally require a bit of editing to the text the bot generates. Thanks. -- Infrogmation (talk) 04:41, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
- I'm sorry to labour the point, but when transferring the image, the text "cartoon illustration by "Bab" (WS Gilbert, died 1911) for the Mikado" and "Cartoon by W.S. Gilbert" are both copied in the description field. To require that the attribution be in the author field or have the image deleted seems overly anal, if you don't mind my saying. Describing the image as being by Gilbert in the description seems to me to be perfectly legitimate. --Closedmouth (talk) 16:04, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
- Agree that mentioning the image as being by Gilbert in the description is legitmate. Disagree vehemently that having the name of the author in the "author" field is "anal"-- it seems to me about the most minimal and basic of requirements. I can't think of any legitimate counter argument if Wikimedia hopes to have any credibility as an image repository rather than a website full of images with unreliable garbage description texts. If you really have an argument that the "author" field should have information irrelevent to authorship, I'll be flabbergasted, and suggest you present it to a much wider Wikimedia audience than my talk page. I'm really not interested in picking an arguement with you-- I thank you for your work on Wikimedia. Please, just when transfering images take an extra couple of seconds to make sure information is correct. Thanks much. Cheers, -- Infrogmation (talk) 03:06, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
- Ah, no, sorry, I didn't mean to imply that going to the effort of putting the illustrator in the author field was anal, I don't think that at all. And I'm not saying the author field should have the uploader listed rather than the illustrator, I was merely making the point that deleting the image for this reason when the attribution is clearly stated in the description field is, perhaps (and keeping in mind that I am in no way doubting your, I am sure, estimable skills as an administrator) unnecessary.
I apologise again for keeping on with this, I'm sure you're thoroughly sick of me already, it's just that when I make a mistake around here, I like to know the details of what I did wrong, especially considering I'll be doing a crapload more of these transwikis in the future. Thanks. --Closedmouth (talk) 07:08, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
- Ah, no, sorry, I didn't mean to imply that going to the effort of putting the illustrator in the author field was anal, I don't think that at all. And I'm not saying the author field should have the uploader listed rather than the illustrator, I was merely making the point that deleting the image for this reason when the attribution is clearly stated in the description field is, perhaps (and keeping in mind that I am in no way doubting your, I am sure, estimable skills as an administrator) unnecessary.
- Agree that mentioning the image as being by Gilbert in the description is legitmate. Disagree vehemently that having the name of the author in the "author" field is "anal"-- it seems to me about the most minimal and basic of requirements. I can't think of any legitimate counter argument if Wikimedia hopes to have any credibility as an image repository rather than a website full of images with unreliable garbage description texts. If you really have an argument that the "author" field should have information irrelevent to authorship, I'll be flabbergasted, and suggest you present it to a much wider Wikimedia audience than my talk page. I'm really not interested in picking an arguement with you-- I thank you for your work on Wikimedia. Please, just when transfering images take an extra couple of seconds to make sure information is correct. Thanks much. Cheers, -- Infrogmation (talk) 03:06, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
- I'm sorry to labour the point, but when transferring the image, the text "cartoon illustration by "Bab" (WS Gilbert, died 1911) for the Mikado" and "Cartoon by W.S. Gilbert" are both copied in the description field. To require that the attribution be in the author field or have the image deleted seems overly anal, if you don't mind my saying. Describing the image as being by Gilbert in the description seems to me to be perfectly legitimate. --Closedmouth (talk) 16:04, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
- Gilbert is the author. (All I did was scan it; making a mechanical reproduction of copyright expired material generates no new copyright.) The transfer bot seems to be default set for photos taken by Wikipedians; images which did not originate at Wikipedia generally require a bit of editing to the text the bot generates. Thanks. -- Infrogmation (talk) 04:41, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
- I thought I did. Are you requesting that I put "W.S. Gilbert" in the author field, or your username? My memory isn't perfect, but I'm sure I had your username in the author field. Is this wrong? --Closedmouth (talk) 04:35, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
Anyways, I hope I did it right this time. --Closedmouth (talk) 13:44, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
File:MortonDowney.jpg listed for deletion
[edit]An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, File:MortonDowney.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. Papa November (talk) 10:53, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
Thanks
[edit]thank you for restoring my talk page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.231.10.91 (talk) 21:14, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
Account name change
[edit]Hello. It seems that I've some problem with my universal account. My universal username is Avalokitesvara but I've created an account here on english wiki as "Einfall". Could you please change my english account name to "Avalokitesvara"? Thanks in advance Einfall (talk) 15:13, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
- Ok, please list at Wikipedia:Changing username first for procedure. Message left on your talk page. Cheers, -- Infrogmation (talk) 03:44, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
- Will do, thanks Einfall (talk) 23:14, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
- Indeed it is. Thank you muchly:) Cheers Avalokitesvara (talk) 10:57, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
- Will do, thanks Einfall (talk) 23:14, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
Page move
[edit]Hi. NEVER try to "move" a page by copy and pasting what other people wrote to another title. That messes up article history, and removes the required attribution of who wrote what. What to do then if you think something should be at another title? See Help:Moving a page. Hope this helps. -- Infrogmation (talk) 17:26, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
- Hi. It looks like you're familiar with the "move page" function and have used it in the past-- good! But you also sometimes did "copy and paste" pseudo moves-- not good! Please be sure to use the "move page" function consistantly when moving an article-- especially any article that contains any text or work by someone other than yourself. I undid your moves of the Saenger Theatre articles for New Orleans and Pensacola. You may be correct that another title would be better; I undid simply to clean up/restore article history, per Wikipedia policy. See the comment I left at Talk:New Orleans Saenger Theatre. Thanks for your work. If you have questions about Wikipedia policies and practices you can't find an answer for, ask. Cheers, -- Infrogmation (talk) 17:59, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks for your help. Sorry for the screw up. Markhh (talk) 05:09, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
What was the point of restoring this? There is nothing of importance in that history; it's a shared school IP with, unsurprisingly, a lot of vandalism warnings. Mainly, I was concerned when I noticed that someone had used an unblock request to make an attack on another student at the school, and an admin simply declined the unblock leaving the full name and attack there since 2007. I can't see what in the history would matter enough to be restored, as it hasn't been edited since November. Dominic·t 07:20, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
- The point of the history restoration was that it's a ip that's been actively vandalizing for some time and was currently under block. Users fighting vandalism should be able to see that any new problems was not the first for the isp. The talk page was deleted with the reason "Housekeeping and routine (non-controversial) cleanup". This didn't seem a good reason for deleting talk page of a ip under a current active block, so I restored. If there is something particularly problematic in the article history, I have no objection to purging the personal attack edits, or deleting the page then creating a new version with sufficient info to give vandalism fighters a general idea of the ip's problem history. I see now that last was perhaps what you intended to do. I previously had no way to know that. I suggest if you do something like that, you put a note in the deletion summary description so other admins can see what was being done and why, as that's a bit less simple than routine housekeeping. Thank you for your work. Cheers, -- Infrogmation (talk) 12:41, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
April 2009
[edit]Obviously we need more than two YouTube links... - CobaltBlueTony™ talk 18:53, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
Marion Harris
[edit]The source of the photo was this article - glad you like it. Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:37, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
Orphaned non-free image (Image:SpecialtyRecord.jpg)
[edit]
Thanks for uploading Image:SpecialtyRecord.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 for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Aspects (talk) 18:33, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
){kind=link}
- Thanks, actually PD-US-no notice. Retagged. -- Infrogmation (talk) 19:02, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
Gottlieb photos
[edit]Yes I do think there is a way to reuse these photos, because it says right in the website:
Access: Permitted; subject to P&P policy on serving originals, which requires the use of digital images in lieu of the original negatives.[1]
Reproduction (photocopying, hand-held camera copying, photoduplication and other forms of copying allowed by "fair use"): Permitted, subject to P&P policy on copying, which prohibits service of the original negatives.
And only "Works created after January 1, 1978 are protected for the creator's life plus 70 years." So we should be allowed to use these images for educational purposes.
Why, if that's not a rationale enough case, then maybe I should Email Edward Gottlieb and have him type a letter of approval.Morahman7vn (talk) 04:40, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
NEW USER! please be understanding if I do this wrong
[edit]I am trying to "talk" with you..so I hope I do this right, not that I happen to be an idiot. I just started a "article" for (AN)drew madinc.[1] whom also happens to be on your VOODOO page and am requesting for you to put a link to this page if you could? Please make any "Proper" changes to this Article as well if you would like..thank you. Nick Young —Preceding unsigned comment added by Theother1986 (talk • contribs) 08:49, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
- Hi. I don't have a VOODOO page. Perhaps you mean one of the pages related to voodoo here on Wikipedia? You can edit to add links to articles with a pair of brackets around the word. Example [[voodoo]] creates the link to voodoo. Check out the links to Wikipedia:Introduction and related pages in the welcome message on your talk page. You can edit and add links yourself. Once you take a little time to learn how its done, I think you'll find that the basics of editing Wikipedia are pretty easy. Don't worry if you don't know how to do everything perfectly right off the bat; this is a collaborative project. Try looking at the Wikipedia introduction and help pages first, and if you still can't find answers, ask. Happy editing. Cheers, -- Infrogmation (talk) 15:15, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
Yes SInce I have left this message I have gotten help, including yours now. Thank you --Theother1986 (talk) 02:24, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
May 2009
[edit]RfD nomination of Wikipedia:Ancient pages
[edit]I have nominated Wikipedia:Ancient pages (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) for discussion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Many otters • One hammer • HELP) 14:36, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
Hi Infrogmation,
Can you help me out with the copyright status on this image? Is it fair to say it's from before 1923? Papa November (talk) 20:16, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
- Hi. If I uploaded it tagged as PD I probably had reason to think it was PD for one reason or another, pre '23 or no copyright notice. Sorry I don't recall off hand, and lost much of my sheet music collection in Katrina so I can't check now. Sorry I'm not of more help with this one. -- Infrogmation (talk) 20:22, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
- Really sorry to hear about your collection. I'll have a think about this and update the description page. Thanks, Papa November (talk) 21:16, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
Articles for deletion nomination of Discography
[edit]
I have nominated Discography, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Discography. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.
Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Many otters • One hammer • HELP) 20:30, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
File:RagbabyStevens.jpg missing description details
[edit]
- All needed info was already there, thanks. -- Infrogmation (talk) 12:40, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
File:Peerless.jpg missing description details
[edit]
File:MadisonLabel.jpg missing description details
[edit]
File:RomeoElectricLabel.jpg missing description details
[edit]
File:BiltmoreMorton.jpg missing description details
[edit]
File:NOrleansLabelViper.jpg missing description details
[edit]
File:ConquerorLabel.jpg missing description details
[edit]
File:RaymacPichon.jpg missing description details
[edit]
File:CloverRecord.jpg missing description details
[edit]
Record Label Images
[edit]
Thank you for uploading images/media to Wikipedia! As you may know, there is another Wikimedia Foundation project called Wikimedia Commons, a central media repository for all free media. In future, please upload media there instead (see m:Help:Unified login). That way, all of the other language Wikipedias can use them too, as well as our many sister projects. This will also allow our visitors to search for, view and use our media in one central location. If you wish to move previous uploads to Commons, see Wikipedia:Moving images to the Commons (you may view previous uploads by going to your user contributions on the left and choosing the 'file' namespace from the drop down box (or see [2]). Please note that non-free content, such as images claimed as fair use, cannot be uploaded to the Wikimedia Commons. Help us spread the word about Commons by informing other users, and please continue uploading!
Rather than me tagging these all indvidually (and leaving a load of bot-spam on your page), could you consider updating and moving these as a batch?
Sfan00 IMG (talk) 12:53, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
- What I have been doing is adding FUR for the remaining ones, IS there somewhere the status of these
could be mentioned? I seem to recall some other images that were under Fair-use but after researhc by a page elsewhere were eventually found to be in a simmilar situation. I'm not in the best position to determine though :( . Sfan00 IMG (talk) 20:51, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
Better source request for File:CentralAmerica1860MapSmall.jpg
[edit]Thanks for uploading File:CentralAmerica1860MapSmall.jpg. You provided a source, but it is difficult for other users to examine the copyright status of the image because the source is incomplete. Please consider clarifying the exact source so that the copyright status may be checked more easily. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 16:00, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
I have replied to you at ANI. I think you should take a look at the article. The user didn't vandalize. It appears they didn't want to upset anyone. Law type! snype? 03:48, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks. -- Infrogmation (talk) 04:19, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
Ok, good capitalization. I forgot this article since it was one of my first editions. --Opus88888 (talk) 18:07, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
- OK, cool. Thanks for the note. -- Infrogmation (talk) 19:14, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
Unblock request of Frozenguild
[edit]Hello Infrogmation. Frozenguild (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), whom you have blocked, is requesting to be unblocked. The request for unblock is on hold while waiting for a comment from you. Regards, Sandstein 06:38, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
- Done, thanks. -- Infrogmation (talk) 12:11, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
wood block
[edit]Hi - i took the pic in Chicago, in Wrigleyville hope this helps! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Victorgrigas (talk • contribs)
- Thanks. -- Infrogmation (talk)
June 2009
[edit]Gill Pratt Sunglasses Super Sunday 2009
[edit]Great picture, Infrogmation. You're a photographic genius and an asset to the ongoing history of N'Awlins. Rammer (talk) 23:32, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
Unblock request of 76.92.168.130
[edit]Hello Infrogmation. 76.92.168.130 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), whom you have blocked, is requesting to be unblocked. The request for unblock is on hold while waiting for a comment from you. Regards, — Aitias // discussion 01:09, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
- I see that you have unblocked the IP. Though, would you mind explaining the reasons for the block as well? Thank you, — Aitias // discussion 01:39, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
- Vandalism, as stated on the user's page and the block reason. Eg [3], [4]. Cheers, -- Infrogmation (talk) 01:46, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
- Unless I'm missing something, those edits were made more than 1 week before your block, weren't they? — Aitias // discussion 01:55, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
- Hm, I believe you're right. We don't always catch things as promptly as one might wish. Cheers, -- Infrogmation (talk) 02:01, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
- Unless I'm missing something, those edits were made more than 1 week before your block, weren't they? — Aitias // discussion 01:55, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
- Vandalism, as stated on the user's page and the block reason. Eg [3], [4]. Cheers, -- Infrogmation (talk) 01:46, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
Greenburgh
[edit]Lowey: I live in Greenburgh and she is my Congresswomen. It is incorrectly identified on Wikipedia that Rep. Engel represents Greenburgh, but in fact, Lowey does. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.68.197.197 (talk) 04:32, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
- Okay. Including a reference when changing such info helps with confirmation; just a link to any local news story mentioning the fact will do. I'd also suggest you choose a user name an log in. Cheers, -- Infrogmation (talk) 13:17, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
File:SpecialtyRecord.jpg missing description details
[edit]File:TennesseeRecord.jpg missing description details
[edit]
File:DominoSleeve.jpg missing description details
[edit]
- In all of these cases, the essential info all seems to have already been there, just formatted from before Wikipedia used the templates. If the description says "1950" or "1920s", feel free to copy that date into the "date" field. The name of the record company, eg "Domino Records", can be listed in the "author" field (I don't recall ever seeing nor reading about even a single instance where the commercial artist in employ of a 78rpm era record company was credited by name for designing the label.) Cheers, -- Infrogmation (talk) 13:12, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
File:VogueRecordSugarBlues.jpg missing description details
[edit]
Record Label Images - Needing information
[edit]* File:OkehDedroit.jpg Sfan00 IMG (talk) 10:06, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
Now commons Sfan00 IMG (talk) 11:30, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
Images needing information in respect of Commons Moves
[edit]
Categories_for_discussion - Monk and ODJB
[edit]Just to be clear - when I said "I felt uneasy about the naming of Category:Songs with music written by Thelonious Monk a few weeks ago" I didn't mean that I was the one naming the category thus! I just meant that I'd seen it and didn't think it quite right, but didn't do anything to counter-propose. AllyD (talk) 16:34, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
Re: High Society
[edit]Hi! Looks like every time we meet, we disagree about whether or not something is a song :) I considered moving the article to High Society (composition) first, but because the tune does in fact have lyrics (albeit seldom heard), and because a lot of readers will probably be more familiar with "(song)", I decided it was better to go with "(song)". I'm sorry for not starting a discussion, but I thought it was a non-controversial move. I'll list this at WP:RM for further input. Jafeluv (talk) 16:08, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
- Listed here. Jafeluv (talk) 18:42, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks. May our future meetings be mutually pleasant. :-) Cheers, -- Infrogmation (talk) 23:49, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
Intercession needed
[edit]Please refer to User talk:Giraffedata. Even though numerous editors have objected to his obsessive removal of the gramatically acceptable term "consists of" from hundreds of articles, he defiantly continues to do so. Your assistance here is appreciated. Contributions/209.247.22.164 (talk) 16:30, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
More Information requested
[edit]In respect of the following images :
- I don't recall the exact details off hand. I'll put on my "to do" list to check. I might be able to turn up another/better PD Roppolo image while I'm at it; I'm pretty sure there were a few photos of him published pre-1923. -- Infrogmation (talk) 01:12, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
Re: 1915
[edit]Sorry about the Commons link, that totally slipped my mind. I'll check my other recent page moves, and hopefully I didn't make the same mistake twice. Thanks for the heads up! ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 00:03, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
Speedy deletion nomination of File:JSSargent1887.jpg
[edit]
A tag has been placed on File:JSSargent1887.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section I2 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an image page for a missing or corrupt image or an empty image description page for a Commons-hosted image.
If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Jay32183 (talk) 11:12, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
Domino Records
[edit]Well, that was how I read the reference. Did you look at the book section which is online? Maybe I'm misreading something, but I thought that is what was intended. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:23, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
July 2009
[edit]File:EarlyParlophoneLabel.jpg listed for deletion
[edit]An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, File:EarlyParlophoneLabel.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. Papa November (talk) 09:57, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
Fair use rationale for File:MercuryAd1950.jpg
[edit]Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:MercuryAd1950.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the file 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 '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 uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Papa November (talk) 10:13, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
Replaceable fair use Image:FrogmanHenry1963Twist.jpg
[edit]Thanks for uploading Image:FrogmanHenry1963Twist.jpg. I noticed the description page specifies that the media is being used under a claim of fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first non-free content criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this media is not replaceable, please:
- Go to the media description page and edit it to add
{{di-replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original replaceable fair use template. - On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.
Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.
If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per our non-free content policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Aspects (talk) 15:19, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
Jazz
[edit]Hi! You know a thing or two about early jazz, if I understand correctly. Could you read through the List of pre-1920 jazz standards for any factual errors? It's currently at FLC (here) and I'd appreciate any comments on how to improve the article. Thanks, Jafeluv (talk) 07:45, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
File source problem with File:ChacDresden.jpg
[edit]
Thanks for uploading File:ChacDresden.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, their copyright should also be acknowledged.
If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 01:19, 11 July 2009 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 01:19, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
- The source is clearly indicated. The work is over 500 years old, from a culture without copyright laws. Clicking the link to Dresden Codex provided gives information. -- Infrogmation (talk) 08:01, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
- Request was for the intermediate archive source, so it can be shown it's not from an archive that's silly about reproductions
from PD works. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 10:00, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
File source problem with File:LeonRoppolo.jpg
[edit]Thanks for uploading File:LeonRoppolo.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, their copyright should also be acknowledged.
If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 02:06, 11 July 2009 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 02:06, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
Footer
[edit]Archive of discussion from User talk:Infrogmation
- Next older talk archive: User talk:Infrogmation/Archive July 08 - Feb 09
- Next more recent talk archive: User talk:Infrogmation/Archive July 09 - Nov 09