User talk:Mazz0626

Starlight Express

Hi. All the info on the additional productions is repeated near the bottom. Best regards, -- Ssilvers 00:14, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Starlight Express Original London

Starlight Express Original London, an article you created, has been nominated for deletion. We appreciate your contributions. However, an editor does not feel that Starlight Express Original London satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in the nomination space (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and the Wikipedia deletion policy). Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Starlight Express Original London and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Starlight Express Original London during the discussion but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. — Music Maker 5376 00:15, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Info presentation

The thing with multiple song lists is that, if you don't already know about the show, it's really difficult to follow the changes from production to production. Saying something like ""Lotta Locomotion was re-worked to become "Don't Cry for Me, Argentina," makes it easier to follow, rather than having to cross-reference multiple lists. (I know "Argentina" is from Evita....) — Music Maker 5376 00:56, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But if you want to know the songlist from that production, you then have to read back to what it was altered from and recreate it for yourself. That's why I wanted to do separate pages, so all the information could be there and as it was presented in the show, without it all looking like it was the same thing over and over again when it is in fact organic. I don't think many shows have been altered as much over their lifetimes as Starlight has, which is what makes it so much more difficult! Each production grew out of the one before, but sometimes they throw back to ones years ago, so it isn't as simple as 'as above, minus Belle'. All I wanted to do was put all the information out there. I didn't think it would offend people so badly. Mazz0626 01:02, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your enthusiasm, but lots of musicals have numerous productions, with changes from each production to the next. The encyclopedia only needs to summarize for the reader what the major changes have been. Don't make the reader go from article to article just to see the information. References and External links at the bottom of the article can lead the reader to more specific specialist information, if they are interested. Our job is to try to condense the information into a simple format. Best regards, -- Ssilvers 01:09, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(Edit conflict) No, Starlight has had several productions, but changes from production to production is par for the course. Just about every show goes through those changes in later revivals. You're a Good Man, Charlie Brown, How to Succeed in Business Without Really Trying, Chicago (musical), and many, many more. The article needs to address the show as a literary work. For all the changes, the show remains basically the same -- it's not like Godspell started out as Show Boat.

(And use colons to indent your responses on talk pages.) — Music Maker 5376 01:10, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Right, thanks. The thing is that this information is not available elsewhere online. I thought - apparently incorrectly - that this would be a reasonable place to put it.

This is a reasonable place to put it, within certain parameters. Since you're new, your guiding principle until you get more experience should be that if someone else comes behind you and edits it down or removes it, learn from their edit. If it doesn't make sense to you, ask. — Music Maker 5376 01:20, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The problem I had with JeanColumbia's edit was that she'd left all the information I had put in for three productions, and deleted the rest. If I actually could work out how to approach someone and talk to them, I would have asked her why she favoured those three, as the only thing they had in common was that they are the UK productions. It left the article looking very misleading as there was nothing left about the Broadway, Japan/Australia, Bochum, US, Japan, Mexico, On Ice or US2 productions and they contained the bulk of the changes.

You can just leave a message on their talk page or on the talk page of the relevant article. But, as I said before, you are simply mistaken. She did not remove any information; she just deleted a *duplicated* list of productions, as she had explained in her edit summary. -- Ssilvers 01:52, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Now that you mention it, I think I may be attributing the actions to the wrong person. Someone went in and deleted all the detailed information about all but 3 productions, but it may not have been her.Mazz0626 10:24, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I think you've figured out how to do that. The object is not to have redundant information in the article. Information about subsequent productions should all be presented in one place, not scattered throughout the article. — Music Maker 5376 02:02, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I thought that putting up the complete running orders and lists would be easier to make sense of if you're trying to research the topic, that's all. Lists of amendments are difficult to trawl through.Mazz0626 10:24, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mazz, wikipedia is not the place for lists upon lists of tiny changes repeating loads of information. Simply one song list and one character list for a musical is enough (Character list shouldnt even be there, should be incorportated into a plot synopsis, although starlight isnt very plot based).... Please though, dont just go adding everything back into the article. It is NOT needed.Mark E 11:27, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Don't let it get to you

Listen, man, you have a lot of information on Starlight, and that's definitely a good thing. What you can do, instead of having everyone yelling at you, is create a subpage of your userpage and post everything there, telling us where you've gotten the information. Wikipedia needs to be cited. Let us add the information you have to the article, so you can see how it needs to be done.
Don't let this "mess" get to you. You obviously want to contribute and are obviously willing to learn the ropes -- that's better than some seasoned editors that come to mind.
You can start adding stuff here. — Music Maker 5376 16:01, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I was on the verge of just returning the Starlight article to the state I found it in - short, full of holes and largely inaccurate. Is it a big problem if the sources are incredibly difficult for anyone else to check? Because I'm working from programmes, playbills, theatre reviews and conversations with people who saw and loved the show. Obviously with the exception of the productions that are still running, the programmes are all out of print, the only way to check them is if one shows up on eBay and you buy it. The information simply isn't available online(except the castlists on Pearl's Domain, and that site's largely dead).

Sorry I didn't see this earlier. The playbill information you're using may actually be available online at playbill.com. I'm not sure of the inner workings of the site -- I don't know if they have everything from previous playbills on there -- but it might not be a bad place to look. Otherwise, yes, cite them using the source you're using. There is probably some database somewhere for such things; don't worry if no one can find your sources. Let subsequent editors worry about it.

The only playbill information I have used regards the US productions, and a couple of castlists. Checking their site now there are a couple of interesting articles on On Ice and Expreso Astral, but other than that they don't really have anything at all. Mazz0626 14:02, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Have you read our article structure yet? If not, you probably should. It will let you know what information is considered appropriate for inclusion. Generally speaking, throughout Wikipedia, lists are to be avoided. There are a few out there, but if it can be stated in prose, it probably should be.

Regarding images on Wikipedia: until you're a little more familiar with the copyright laws and whatnot that govern their inclusion, you probably shouldn't upload any more. Most of the ones you've already uploaded will probably be deleted. Images that you find somewhere online generally shouldn't be uploaded, as the copyright owner of those images are tough to determine. Any pictures you personally take are fine, if you license them under the GFDL, but unfree images are currently in limbo and subject to a lot of heated debate. Fair use rationales need to be added to unfree images, and the one's you've added are, well, not quite right.

As for actually using them on pages, you have to be careful, too. Keep in mind that not everyone views the internet the same way you do -- people use different resolutions on their monitors, different browsers interpret things differently, etc. Too many images make a page difficult to load, and, while it's nice to see some pictures breaking up a long block of text, too many can "pinch" the text: squeeze it between two images. Personally, I like the way that looks, but the consensus of editors find it distracting. Even if two images don't pinch on your display, they might on others.

Check out the things I've wikilinked (and how I did it ;-)). Also, I usually give new editors a welcome message. It has some links that you should probably read up on, too -- I've added it below. — Music Maker 5376 23:32, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, fansites (such as Pearl's Domain) are not considered acceptable sources. Newspapers, magazines (Playbill is a magazine), journals, etc. are good sources. — Music Maker 5376 02:47, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

With respect, that seems to be at odds to general wikipedia policy. Recommended articles state that the best way to get obscure information onto this site is to put it onto a fansite of your own, and link to it from an article. And given that [Pearl's Domain] WAS my reference, and the information is correct, should I not cite her? Or worse, delete accurate and useful information simply because it comes from a third party? As to [Belle's Domain], I have personally watched those images and articles being scanned in, and helped to type up the cast information. I'm sure this goes against the normal way of things, but where Starlight Express is concerned, the fansites are usually more accurate and detailed than the official one, as they are created by people who care about the show that most people loathe and, like me, have a desire to fill in glaring holes. Mazz0626 14:02, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't do too much surfing on Pearl's domain -- I looked at it long enough to see it referred to as a "fansite", and dismissed it. What I've seen in practice is references being removed because they cited fansites. If you could, link me to the place that you saw where fansites are acceptable.

Regarding images, unless you know who actually held the camera and took the picture, you need to be careful. The images on Pearl's domain wouldn't load for me for some reason, so I'm kind of flying blind when I say this, but I'm assuming that whomever runs the site is not the copyright owner -- that's usually the case with fansites. Furthermore, unfree images can't simply be used as decoration: they must signifigantly contribute to the reader's understanding of the subject.

Keep in mind is that Wikipedia is not the place for EVERYTHING. It seems that way, but nearly every article in WP could be book-length if the subject were covered exhaustively. Articles should be comprehensive without going into too much detail. The productions of Starlight should be covered -- producer, director, theatre, running dates, reviews, profitable, leads, major changes in plot or music, etc. Their details: minor changes in costume, the change of a line, etc., should not be explored. Remember, the article needs to give the reader an understanding of the show as a whole -- if the reader really wants details, the citations tell them where they can find them. I know that Starlight doesn't get the comprehensive attention some other shows have gotten, but you said it yourself, most people loathe this show. (In fact, for a talent show in college, a buddy of mine and I sang "I Am the Starlight"... ON ROLLERSKATES. One of the funniest things I've ever done onstage.) If someone wants to gobble every piece of knowledge about this show, like you, they'll be able to. It just all shouldn't be on Wikipedia. — Music Maker 5376 15:28, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Mazz0626, and Welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like it here and decide to stay.

Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. Also, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement.

Happy editing! — Music Maker 5376 23:32, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Getting started
Introduction The five pillars of Wikipedia How to edit a page
Finding your way around
Table of contents Department directory
Editing articles
How to develop an article Manual of Style

Getting help
Frequently asked questions Cheatsheet Where to ask a question Help pages New contributors' help page
How you can help
Contributing to Wikipedia Community Portal Follow Wikipedia etiquette Practice civility

I feel physically sick every time I even think of this website. Frankly, since anything I contribute is only going to get deleted eventually anyway, I think I'll just leave it. Mazz0626 21:24, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's too bad. Maybe you're better off creating a fansite instead of an encyclopedia. Or, of course, stick around and learn what's acceptable and what is not. — Music Maker 5376 21:32, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There doesn't seem to be much in the way of consistency. The Wicked article has a separate page for individual songs! The synopsis for Mary Poppins is even longer than the one I included on the now deleted London Production article, which was deleted for 'repeating information' although almost nothing in that article was in the main one. No-one else has cited anything in this article, yet along comes a newcomer and my contributions are threatened with deletion if I don't do something that is nearly impossible to do usefully, and I don't know how to do technically. So far the impression I'm getting is that 'unacceptable' is 'anything you put in that the average layman doesn't already know'. And I know this is a seperate discussion, but if I may quote Citing_sources

"Say where you got it

It is improper to copy a citation from an intermediate source without making clear that you saw only that intermediate source. For example, you might find some information on a web page which says it comes from a certain book. Unless you look at the book yourself to check that the information is there, your reference is really the web page, which is what you must cite. The credibility of your article rests on the credibility of the web page, as well as the book, and your article must make that clear."

That would appear to be a fairly official article on wikipedia citation, and certainly my interpretation of it is 'say where you got this information. The reliability of the information therefore is the responsibility of the website on which you found it.', and I don't see that as discounting fansites. Surely it is up to the reader to follow the link and decide for themselves whether or not they trust the source. Aside from anything else, a fansite with the same information as a stack of out-of-print theatre programmes is actually accessible, unlike said stack.

Mazz0626 22:01, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're right: consistency is an issue. WP:MUSIC, Wikipedia's guidelines on what is acceptable for music once said that musical theatre songs can have their own articles if they acquire a life outside of the musical. (I don't know what it currently says as I haven't been there in awhile and I know the last time I was there they were rewriting the inclusion guidelines.) I agree that those songs shouldn't have their own articles, and I just went though all of this with the songs from Les Mis. And I haven't seen the synopsis for Mary Poppins (musical), but I'm sure it's insane. With the "hot" new musicals, it's next to impossible to impose any sort of quality control because you have 800 14-year-old girls who all want to add crap to the article. Every so often I'll go through with my blue pencil and cut the shit out of the articles, but, as I'm working 50-hr weeks nowadays, it gets a little difficult. Those shows will close eventually, then the articles can become a little more manageable. Check out the article for Miss Saigon. That was THE show about 10 years ago, but it's closed now and the article is of normal proportions.

You're misreading the section in WP:CITE. It doesn't say that the reader can go to the source and decide how reputable it is, it says that it's up to the editor to determine the reputability beforehand. So, ask yourself, which is more reputable: Playbill magazine or a fansite? A souvenir program provided by the producers of the musical or a fansite? It DOESN'T MATTER that the reader can't access the source -- it matters where the EDITOR got the information. The citation isn't there for fact-checking, it's there to add reputability to the article. If Wikipedia were paper, which would you cite? Just because you can get to a website easily doesn't mean that it's the best source. I hate to generalize and lump you in with the rest of your generation, but you guys put way too much trust in the internet, just because it's accessible. The generally accepted hierarchy of sources are: peer-reviewed journals, books, magazines, official websites, fansites. You have published sources at hand. Use them.

BTW, where did you read that "that the best way to get obscure information onto this site is to put it onto a fansite of your own, and link to it from an article"? — Music Maker 5376 00:44, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure this is very in character for my generation - I don't know. Mazz0626 17:59, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

License tagging for Image:Dustin Helen Greaseball Dinah.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Dustin Helen Greaseball Dinah.jpg. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

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

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 11:06, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Pictures

I'm not trying to be annoying or anything but you're adding way too many pictures to the pages with the coaches. Five pictures are too much and that makes the page slower. Please, don't add to many. The Quidam 22:24, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I can see that it might be problematic for people with really slow dialup, but there are four distinctively different designs for each costume. I'm trying to illustrate fairly, and they are all thumbnails... Mazz0626 23:10, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes and there is nothing wrong with that be having too many pictures slows down the pages. Plus they mess up the articles sometimes. So please, can you go easy on the pictures?

The Quidam 00:02, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Starlight Character Pages

Hi Mazz, just afew things. If you are gonna do the character pages in more details ther's afew pointers id like to point out. I'll take the Dinah the Dining Car page for example.

Musical Numbers Section - A song list for all those productions are not needed, and also the information on which characters provide backing vocals in songs like U.N.C.O.U.P.L.E.D.

Something Like - Dinah Songs -

U.N.C.O.U.P.L.E.D (Solo)
Dinah's Disco (Duet with Electra)
U.N.C.O.U.P.L.E.D (Reprise) (Duet with Greaseball)

Would be fine, the info on which songs she sings as part of a chorus (Crazy, Lotta Locomotion) wouldn't really be necessary since it doesn't add anything to the character and she is not featured heavily in those songs. Also she doesn't sing in "There's Me" so also not necessary.

For the actresses section those lists are quite an eyesore. I would say pick 10 of the most notable actresses who have played Dinah throughout all years and productions.

And whilst full cast lists may be "respectful" to the performers, it is the sort of thing that you would find on a website 100% dedicated to starlight express. There must be many hundreds of actors who have appeared in various productions over the years and wikipedia is simply not the place for this.

Hope this helps, and sorry for being harsh before. Mark E 19:13, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Since any website dedicated 100% to Starlight Express is bound to be a fansite, can I link to them? Mazz0626 16:47, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free media (Image:US Tour Dinah.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:US Tour Dinah.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 media 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 all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 13:27, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Gottschall Buffy.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Gottschall Buffy.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 media 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 all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 14:36, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Gerald Atkins Poppa.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Gerald Atkins Poppa.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 media 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 all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 15:08, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free media (Image:2007 Dinah-Caboose.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:2007 Dinah-Caboose.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 media 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 all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 05:53, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Les Dwight Greaseball.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Les Dwight Greaseball.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 media 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 all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 06:07, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Tutu pearl.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Tutu pearl.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 media 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 all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 07:47, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Respect

Look, if I have some how insulted you, I am sorry but you have to understand that not everyone knows as much as you do when it comes to Starlight Express. And at the same time, you have to try and follow the rules of Wikipedia. So please, forgive me and try to follow rules. The Quidam 16:11, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can accept the removal of the pictures as wikipedia policy when there are too many of them - I am after all a n00b - but it begins to grate when I explain, fully, why I have replaced one picture with a very different one, to be told that the one I have put up is 'exactly the same' as one further down the page and have the change reverted. Twice. When all that the pictures have in common is that they represent the same character, and they have similar poses. The point of my putting up the UK tour picture is to illustrate what Buffy looks like now, as opposed to the most common costume that is/was used everywhere else. Presumably you put up the On Ice picture for the same reason - to illustrate the differences in the costume design. If there were pictures from Mexico available, I would put them up or link to them too, as they are almost half as different as the Ice costumes, however I do not have the right to any of the pictures from that show that I have seen.

I know it doesn't seem like it but I am really making an effort to be diplomatic. I don't really see your point in saying that I know more than others about this subject - surely the logical conclusion from that is that I should put the information in the public domain, not shut up because people don't already know it? If we were only supposed to type up what people already know, we wouldn't have any musicals information at all, because a vast majority know nothing about them.

Mazz0626 16:29, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with Image:London_rockies_1999.jpg

Image Copyright problem

Thank you for uploading Image:London_rockies_1999.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. Sherool (talk) 17:19, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think I have fixed this, but I am not sure. Where do I stand with use of publicity photographs, created with the express intention of promoting someone or thing? Mazz0626 17:36, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Sam Lane Ashley.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Sam Lane Ashley.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 media 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 all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 04:53, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Broadway Buffy.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Broadway Buffy.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 media 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 all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 05:17, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Bochum hiphoppers.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Bochum hiphoppers.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 13:47, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Get Laid

You know no one likes you, right? Really, you're so fucking annoying!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.211.222.121 (talk) 01:14, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I'm really annoying. Mazz0626 12:04, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free media (Image:London rockies 1999.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:London rockies 1999.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 media 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 all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. NotifyBot (talk) 13:58, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Broadway rockies 1987.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Broadway rockies 1987.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 media 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 all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. NotifyBot (talk) 13:58, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Broadway Belle.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Broadway Belle.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 media 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 all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. NotifyBot (talk) 13:58, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:London rockies 1999.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:London rockies 1999.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).

PLEASE NOTE:

I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions.
I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to your talk page.
If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 00:41, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Broadway rockies 1987.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Broadway rockies 1987.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).

PLEASE NOTE:

I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions.
I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to your talk page.
If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 00:52, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Ray Shell Poppa.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Ray Shell Poppa.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. czar ⨹ 00:01, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Also File:Les Dwight Greaseball.jpg, File:Greaseball sparks2007.jpg, File:Racing Greaseball Bochum.jpg, File:Broadway Belle.jpg, File:London Belle.jpg, File:Anime Pearl.jpg, File:Atkins Pearl.jpg czar ⨹ 11:36, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Anime Pearl.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Anime Pearl.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. Stefan2 (talk) 23:45, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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) 13:34, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]