User talk:NewYork1956/archive1

This page consists of messages left on NewYork1956's discussion page between January and December 2007.

Thanks for a barnstar

Its great to have such honor. Can you plase then, place it on my page, just follow the link GK tramrunner 19:41, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Voice Type

Hey there -- Just curious, do you know anything about the musician banner? It seems it should have an option for voice type, rather than just instrument, at least for opera singers. Otherwise, "vocals" simply has kind of a pop connotation, right? I tried to look into it, but am not sure how I'd even make that change. Best, Mackan79 22:41, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why not use "voice"? The singer's instrument is her voice, after all. Unfortunately "voice" points to a disambiguation page, but it is the right word in this context. Paul 22:53, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We could do that, which I think would be a bit better. At the same time, when the box already lists that he's an opera singer, it's also a bit redundant. I left a message on the talkpage for the template [1] (I think.. there's no "2", which I couldn't figure out) suggesting that maybe the template could add a category for voice part, for opera singers, simply because it would be more useful information. For now I tried a third option on Jussi Bjorling though -- what do you think? Mackan79 23:06, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I like it very much. Paul

Hi NY, are you sure about that? I've never heard of operatic singing being referred to as "vocals;" I'm fairly sure that has a popular music connotation. I see the definition at dictionary.com here[2]:

n.

A vocal sound.
Music A popular composition for a singer, often with instrumental accompaniment.

In opera, my experience is that people speak of either a voice type or a fach, those being the most direct analogies to a singer's instrument. Is there a reason you prefer vocals to voice? Best, Mackan79 03:31, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I support the last comment. The idiomatic term in art music is "voice" not "vocals" - the latter is used in popular music. The term "vocals" is not used in writing about opera. Paul 03:37, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vocals were Jussi's instrument. Tenor is not an instrument.NewYork1956 04:45, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was simply hoping to say "voice" for his instrument rather than vocals -- I agree with you that "tenor" alone wasn't the best. "Voice (Tenor)" speaks to his instrument, though, much more than it speaks to his profession. As Paul says, "Vocals" simply isn't used in regard to opera. I just tried a Google search on "Bjorling's vocals" or "Caruso's vocals" out of curiosity, and didn't get a single hit for either. "Bjorling's voice," or "Caruso's voice," on the other hand, get 164 and over a thousand hits respectively. Thoughts? Mackan79 04:59, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What the hell difference does it make? Voice and Vocals are the same damn thing. NewYork1956 05:02, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Because! It's like calling Verdi a "song-writer." You just can't do it; it's insulting to the genre. Anyway, why not use the more prevalent term? I promise, many opera enthusiasists will have a serious problem with calling opera singing "vocals." It makes it sound like pop music! Can you work with me here? Mackan79 05:16, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mackan79 is correct. To use the word "vocals" in this context would look ridiculous to someone familiar with art music. It does make a difference to the credibility of the article. Paul 12:03, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All these other Opera singer's pages have "Vocals" in the same place: Maria Callas, Erna Sack, Giuseppe Di Stefano, Mario Lanza, Lauritz Melchior, Franco Corelli, Enrico Caruso, Pilar Lorengar, Alfredo Kraus, Licia Albanese, Kathryn Grayson, Hermann Prey and Jan Peerce. Why should Bjorling's be any different? It would look stupid if they're all different. Do what ever you want. I don't even like Bjorling, I just thought he deserved a better page, and I'd like to think that it is now compared to what it was before I touched it. NewYork1956 06:05, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I agree, the userbox makes the page look much better. You probably won't appreciate this, though, but I'd actually really suggest making the same change on each of the other pages as well. I know why they're there -- the Userbox instructions tell us to use "vocals" for singers, but I'm pretty sure they weren't thinking about opera when they said that. There's actually an opera Wikiproject, I think, maybe we could run it by them. Anyway, thanks for adding the box, which does look a lot better. Best, Mackan79 15:10, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As a musicologist and occasional critic of classical music, I support a change back to "voice" or "tenor voice" - but I don't want an edit war. Are you OK with that change? Paul 19:07, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have now checked the articles on a few of the other famous tenors and found that the pages for Pavarotti and Domingo already say "voice" - so I will go ahead and make the change wherever it's needed, for consistency. Paul 19:28, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks guys, I think it looks good. Best, Mackan79 22:06, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Callas Picture

Hi there, my friend!! I really like the "musician box" that was added to the Callas article. I am not crazy about the photo as the FIRST photograph. I think an artist of the caliber of Callas and as iconic as she really needs something more than a casual photo. A great photo of her as Norma or Medea or Violetta would be good, but I really do like the Beaton photograph, since it is a giant of the art of photography taking a photo of a giant in the field of music and opera. I think the winking photo is very charming indeed, but would serve the article better lower in the article.

I've been working hard trying to put the article back together, to it would meet editorial approval. It's footnoted to death, but every damned little thing is cited and sourced!! I think it's turning out even better than what I had done before. What do you think?? Shahrdad 23:54, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I think it looks really cute lower in the article. The pic is from the 60's, so I can see it fitting in the vocal problems area too, since it is a photo of her past her vocal prime. As for the Beaton photo, I always thought she looked quite youthful and VERY human in it. She was after all a girl with greasy skin and acne problems, all of which made her far more human than many of her other photos. You also realize what a young girl she was. Would you mind putting it back, maybe till you find something else that's a better fit for the header photo than the "knowing glance" photo??

Oh, and on the Wikiquote section, I added a conversation Albert Innaurato had had with Scotto about Callas which is very revealing. Scotto, unlike what a lot of Callas fans think, was not a bitch who was jealous of Callas; She just would get exasperated by the comparisons, since she was great in her own way. But she understood what made Callas what she was and why shy was a genius. btw, feel free to email me at shahrdad@msn.com Shahrdad 00:26, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I do like the Violetta photo a lot! See if you can find a good place for the Beaton photo, for I'd really love to keep that one too!Shahrdad 01:24, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Let me think about it a bit. Meanwhile let me know if you find any other ones that would fit the bill. The Traviata one is certainly lovely and it's one of her greatest roles. I LOVE the scary Medea photo, but it's too scary for the first pic. Something from Norma would be great too, and she certainly looked beautiful in the Paris production, even if her voice was mostly gone. Shahrdad 01:38, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Looks GREAT!!! I love it too!!Shahrdad 12:21, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what you did regarding the copyright issues with the Violetta pic, but it WAS on the cover of the second edition of "The Callas Legacy: The Biography of a Career." If you need to re upload nad modify the info, now u have it !! :)Shahrdad 15:54, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alexz Johnson Article

Thanks for adding some more precision to the article. By the way, as someone who knows a lot about music, I'd be interested in your impressions (so far) of Alexz Johnson.

User:JD_Fan 29 Jan 07

Thanks for replying

Thanks for getting back to me on this. For my part, I know that I really like her singing. In my opinion, she is excellent on the expression and the fine details, but I'm not sure how much my opinion is worth on these matters. That's why I was interested in an expert opinion. I'd like to think that she benefitted from her training with Joseph Shore, but I leave that to your judgment.

To date, her songs have been tailored to the TV show in which she plays the lead role - Instant Star, a show aimed primarily at teenagers. (I only found out about her music because of a compilation CD that my daughters gave me.) She will have an album of her own later this year, and at that point, we'll see what her own music is really like. In the meantime, there are some song samples at: Audio - Instant Star on The-N

User:JD_Fan 29 Jan 07

Thanks for getting back to me with your comments. I didn't expect that you would like that type of music. Maybe her solo album (apart from the show) will be different - aimed at an audience outside the teenage demographic.

User:JD_Fan 30 Jan 07

Over to Opera and the Classics

Sorry to have steered you to the wrong genre with Alexz Johnson. For something that is more your cup of tea, you might want to hear Shannon Mercerwho is doing very well here in Canada, singing opera and the classics. We go to hear her whenever she is in town.

User:JD_Fan 30 Jan 07

Renata Tebaldi

If you are going to replace a picture in an article and insert another of your choice, please have the good grace to say that you have done so in your edit summary and also keep the original picture somewhere else in the article, unless there is a compelling reason not to, in which case, please also state. Thanks. Orbicle 10:28, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You replied:

Excuse me for replacing a crap picture with a good one on an article for a singer I don't even like! Viva La Callas!

So much for objectivity! I now know what importance to attach to your edits. Orbicle 10:44, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Easton

I will look at the article. I was just reading about her somewhere, and it sounds like she was an amazing singer. As for Tebaldi, I think her article could use some cleanup. There are no references whatsoever. I am not a huge fan, but she was undoubtedly a wonderful singer and a committed musician. As Walter Tausig said, Callas- Artist; Tebaldi--Wonderful singer. I think Tebaldi was a wonderful singer indeed, though her technique was incomplete (no florid ability), and she deserves to be appreciated. But as Renata Scotto said, Callas was the genius.Shahrdad 09:13, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just read it, and it's very good indeed. I kind of like that narrative style without footnotes far better, but I guess the Callas article is as good as any research paper and painstakingly referenced. ugh.Shahrdad 09:30, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Callas Photo

Hey there!! The Callas Traviata Photo got removed form Wikipedia. Can u reupload it and copyright it as a Book Cover (The Callas Legacy, second edition). thanks!! Shahrdad 22:56, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think somehow they thought the copywrite wasn't good enough. They also removed the Beaton pic, which I put back.Shahrdad 03:57, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Grace Moore

I assume she was really born in 1898, but here are some sources that give the 1901 date: http://tennesseeencyclopedia.net/imagegallery.php?EntryID=M119 (1901 is the only date listed), http://www.wvc.net/~wil/history.htm#13 (1938 article lists her birthdate as 1901, citing Who's Who in America), http://www.musicals101.com/who6d.htm (1901 is the only date listed), and http://www.lib.utk.edu/spcoll/manuscripts/2341.html (lists both dates).

Hey, I'm glad you added the infobox, etc., but I was put off by your edit note on the article -- your attitude seemed un-Wikipedia-like. Consistent with WP:BITE, it seems impolitic to chastise other contributors for hard work that happens to fall short of your particular standard of perfection.

I don't know much about opera, and I knew even less about Moore when I tackled the Grace Moore article. I was puzzled by a reference to her in the Chattanooga, Tennessee article, since I was aware that her childhood is the single most famous thing that ever happened to the little 'burg of Jellico, Tennessee. To resolve the confusion, I researched her and greatly expanded the stub. I figured I had added a lot of information value to the article, but I am not particularly interested in learning the technical aspects of creating infoboxes, so I didn't do one -- I figured that an opera or movie buff would come along and take care of that sooner or later (but it took you nearly 3 months!). There was no Karl Millöcker article when I last worked on Grace Moore, so I'm glad you had the knowledge to fill in that blank. As I see it, the other linkifying is a matter more of stylistic preference than of convention (and that article was a paragon compared to many that I have encountered here). Sorry about messing up the YouTube link -- I'm glad you sorted it out. --orlady 03:56, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Opera

		The Barnstar of High Culture
		Thank you for your contirbutions to opera related articles. FanOfTheOpera 06:08, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. FanOfTheOpera 06:13, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use images on your userpage

Per my response on my talk page, I have reverted your re-insertion of fair use policies from your userpage. Such usage is directly against our policies as described at Wikipedia:Fair use criteria item #9. Further, I have reported this matter to at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User_insisting_on_having_fair_use_images_on_his_userpage as I indicated I would. Thank you, --Durin 12:53, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Durin; you cannot have fair use images on your userpage. Additionally, he is perfectly within his right to remove them, even though he is not an administrator. Please remember that you do not own any page, not even your userpage. Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 13:01, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

However, Veinor, civility guidelines indicate he should have discussed the matter before unilaterally deleting images he found on another user's page. Like rock trumps scissors and paper trumps rock, civility trumps own when it comes to Wiki policies and guidelines. Jeffpw 13:59, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This issue was already discussed at length, generating an RfC which resulted in overwhelming consensus that what I was doing, with detailed edit summaries, was entirely appropriate and proper. Please see Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Durin and fair use image removals. If you wish to use the trumping analogy (there is no such hierarchy of policy on Wikipedia) copyright violations trump civility. Imagine being in court, pleading your case with "Well, we didn't remove the copyright violation because we didn't want to offend the person who made the violation". That simply wouldn't fly. Our policies in this matter are clear an unequivocal; no fair use outside of the main article namespace. Despite hundreds of challenges large and small to this policy, it has stood unchanged for a long time. The Wikimedia Foundation takes copyright seriously, and must since the project's very existence depends upon them taking a strong stance on this issue. --Durin 14:17, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think so Jeffpw. Fair use images outside of articles are a matter of copyright infringement, they are to be removed on sight, unilaterally. A message after the fact is plenty. It is not uncivil to do so, it is just protecting Wikipedia from legal danger. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 14:13, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators

It is a common misconception that administrators represent a different class of users. Unfortunately, per WP:ADMIN, that is simply not the case. You will notice on that page that "Any user can behave in a way befitting an administrator (provided they do not falsely claim to be one), even if they have not been given the extra administrative functions." Suggesting that a user who merely has not been granted sysop status by a bureaucrat cannot act in the function of an administrator is, simply, wrong. --Iamunknown 02:25, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I highly dispute the suggestion that administrators are an upper class, but I am unwilling to go in detail at risk of becoming worked up. I guess that we'll have to agree to disagree. --Iamunknown 19:20, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for barnstar

Hello NewYork1956 - Thanks for the barnstar. It's an honor. My goal is to get the New York City article up to featured status. We're getting there! Momos 04:38, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

New York City culture pic

Hello,

You seem to be quite an active wikipedian, so I'm sure I don't have to remind you that repeatedly undoing someone's edits without discussion is a breach of assuming good faith. The picture of the Metropolitan Opera is nice, but it predominately just shows the fountain in front. Also, it's been on the article for quite some time, and I think it's generally good to have pictures revolve and change on the article. I understand you're a music lover, but insisting on that picture above all others is not exactly objective. The Greenwich Village pic references culture outside the bounds of stuffy white buildings, and plenty of great music has come from the village too! Please consider and get back to me, so as to prevent a silly revert war. --Jleon 13:02, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Grace Moore birthdate

I believe she was born in 1898, but I share your concern that the 1901 date also needs to be included, particularly if it appears on her gravestone. Accordingly, I edited the article.--orlady 14:13, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Almost all actresses of Moore's generation shaved a few years off their ages. I can imagine that a family might put a false birthdate on a gravestone in order to help a proud leading lady keep her secret, even after death. --orlady 03:46, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The 1898 date has to be the correct one, as she is listed on the 1900 census with her parents. Were she born in 1901, she would not have appeared until 1910.Auntlulu320 (talk) 16:15, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Puccini

Hi. Please see discussion about infoboxes on Talk:Giacomo Puccini and also the discussion at the Composers Project. Regards. --Kleinzach 11:16, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

O mio babbino caro

Puccini

I disagree with you about the italics of the "O mio babbino caro," especially when there's a reference to "Nessun dorma" on the same line without italics. I'm glad you put the infobox back though, I find it to be one of the stupidest things I've seen done on Wikipedia yet. What's your stance on the infoboxes in composer's articles?
NewYork1956 22:36, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

lol...of course you know what my response that is, right? my reading of WP:MOS#Foreign terms (and the Chicago Manual of Style) is that they should all be italicised. the qoutes, of course still necessary.

it's great that you let your opinion known on the puccini talk page, but be sure to also visit the page where the infobox debate is currently raging [3]...and tell a friend!--emerson7 | Talk 22:57, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned fair use image (Image:CallasHandGesture.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:CallasHandGesture.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 18:47, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Beaton photo in the Callas article is still there, but as it was used on a book cover, which is fair use of the image. Shahrdad 03:17, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Voice Type

I like the 'voice type' rather than the 'instrument,' but for consistency it has to be done on every opera singer's article. Currently, most have it the same way that it was on the Di Stefano article. I'll change a few myself.
NewYork1956 16:06, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers, I introduced the change after a discussion on the mailing list about the infobox and how it can seem awkward in certain circumstances, as it used to be in Di Stefano's article. Since that article was specifically discussed, that was the one I happened to change. I don't really know much about opera singers, but perhaps there is a WikiProject who could be notified? --bainer (talk) 00:57, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Warning

Per this checkuser request, it turns out that you violated the three revert-rule on Di Stefano by logging out to revert-war. I rather think you did the same thing earlier on Giacomo Puccini, when some IP that was probably you got blocked for 3RR.

Don't. This is not a good idea. Revert-warring I can live with within reasonable limits, but I can't abide doing it sneakily. Sockpuppetry, which is what you are doing, is against the rules, and it's one of the things that generally gets a lot of people's backs up.

Please consider this a friendly piece of advice rather than a threat, but if you indulge in this 3RR-violating sockpuppetry again, I'll give you - and by that I mean this account - a nice long block. I don't want to do that, and you probably don't want it to happen. In future, please work problems out, honestly, in the open. Thank you. Cheers, Moreschi ^Talk 08:58, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:CallasVioletta1956.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:CallasVioletta1956.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and 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. MER-C 13:13, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Callas_knowing_look.jpg

I have tagged Image:Callas_knowing_look.jpg as {{no rationale}}, because it does not provide a fair use rationale. If you believe the image to be acceptable for fair use according to Wikipedia policy, please provide a rationale explaining as much, in accordance with the fair use rationale guideline, on the image description page. Please also consider using {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. Thank you. MER-C 13:14, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright problems with Image:NYC Courts.jpg

An image that you uploaded, Image:NYC Courts.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Copyright problems because it is a suspected copyright violation. Please look there if you know that the image is legally usable on Wikipedia (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), and then provide the necessary information there and on its page, if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Riana ⁂ 10:07, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your fair use images

Hi NewYork1956! Some of us have just spent some time tagging a lot of fair use images you have uploaded for deletion. Post May 2006, it is necessary by policy to add a fair use rationale to each fair use image, justifying why you can use a non-free image in an article. Any fair use image which is found not to have a rationale will be tagged, and deleted if a rationale is not added. A lot of your images already have been deleted for this reason.

I know you have received a message about this before, so I'd just like to request that you give more information the next time you upload a fair use image. We can be fairly strict about this, and users can be blocked for repeated violations of the policy. I'm most unwilling to do so here, as you are a long-term contributor, but some administrators are not so lenient! :) So please, give fair use rationales for all fair use images. This is a great guideline for what constitutes a good rationale. You can go to images you have uploaded which haven't been deleted, give a rationale, and remove the tag. Please don't remove the tag without giving a rationale - it will merely be retagged.

Regards, Riana ⁂ 10:38, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, your images are only tagged right now - that is the warning. Riana ⁂ 08:07, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Since you provided sources for your images, it would be possible for me to find the image links for you again so you could reupload them with the complete information. There is a friendly way to resolve this, and I'm quite willing to help you, but you must understand that fair use rationales are non-negotiable. Riana ⁂ 08:15, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

CISL (AM)

In radio-specific categories such as Category:Radio stations in Vancouver, where every article will inevitably begin with the same letter, Wikipedia actually requires that we sort on the second letter of the call sign, so that the category arranges as a clean list with several letters of sorting, instead of an unparsable list arranged entirely under the letter C. So when you see an article sorted that way in the future, please leave it alone — it was done that way for a reason. Thanks. Bearcat 04:32, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:CallasVioletta1956.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:CallasVioletta1956.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media 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. Anrie 16:29, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Callas knowing look.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Callas knowing look.jpg. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:

Go to the image description page and edit it to add {{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 the fair use image by finding a freely licensed image of its subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or a similar) image under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that any fair use images which are replaceable by free-licensed alternatives 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. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 18:35, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unspecified source for Image:Alagna_Tenor.jpeg

Thanks for uploading Image:Alagna_Tenor.jpeg. 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, then 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, then their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Fair use, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other 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 10:39, 8 July 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. MER-C 10:39, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Alexandra_Borgia.jpg

I have tagged Image:Alexandra_Borgia.jpg as {{no rationale}}, because it does not provide a fair use rationale. If you believe the image to be acceptable for fair use according to Wikipedia policy, please provide a rationale explaining as much, in accordance with the fair use rationale guideline, on the image description page. Please also consider using {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. Thank you. MER-C 10:23, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Annie_Parisse.jpg

I have tagged Image:Annie_Parisse.jpg as {{replaceable fair use}}. If you wish to dispute this assertion, please add {{Replaceable fair use disputed}} to the image description page and a comment explaining your reasoning to the the image talk page. MER-C 08:49, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your message

Thank you for your message. For what it's worth, I sympathize regarding the photos. I think they are valuable and find it disappointing that it is so difficult to get them processed and approved.

I am delighted that the IP infobox war is over now. As we (on the three music projects) have always said we are not against them per se, only against them for classical artists and composers. Good luck with your future editing. -- Kleinzach 06:27, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Prototype boxes for both composers and opera singers have been created in the past, debated and rejected. It would take a bit of archaeology to dig them up but they do exist in the record. Speaking as a former print encyclopedia editor I can assure you that (1) it is always difficult to coordinate main and ancillary material, and (2) no print encyclopedia has ever had a box on every article. It doesn't look right. That's the fundamental reason why there is so much opposition to using them on WP. -- Kleinzach 07:36, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mario Lanza

Thank you for linking to the discussion regarding the use of infoboxes in articles for opera performers. I now see that the subject has been quite extensively dealt with, and that's fair - now that I am aware of this, I won't add it again. While your frustration is understandable, if you had simply pointed to that discussion in the first place it could have saved any ill feeling, and certainly it would have made it unnecessary to make threats about having users such as myself blocked as you did here. You also might not realize that the 3 revert rule as written clearly states that it counts edit 'per user', and in this case the infobox was replaced twice. First by another user and then by myself. In any case, I consider the matter closed, and I have no intention of making edits to this article in future. I hope that in the unlikely event that our paths ever cross again, you might make some small effort to be more courteous than you have on this occasion. Rossrs 11:41, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

... for your message. I was happy to hear from you, and it's good to know there are no hard feelings. Cheers Rossrs 08:36, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

and more thanks to you. I just noticed you fixed the fair use rationale on Image:MohawkDVDCover.jpg and Allison Hayes. Nicely done, and greatly appreciated. See you around. Rossrs 08:45, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lanza picture

Hi, i just wanted to say i found your reasoning behind changing Mario Lanza's picture very correct and fair, plus you phrased it very humourously and I just wanted to point that out. he REALLY did look foolish =D

cheers! --OettingerCroat 05:47, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reggie Jackson

Can you please go to Reggie jacksons talk page and vote for either A's or Yankees colors in the infobox--Yankees10 17:38, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

thanks for voting--Yankees10 16:15, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Oldies 650 CISL.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Oldies 650 CISL.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 17:49, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Oldies 650 CISL.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Oldies 650 CISL.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 15:20, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:SuperHits.png

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

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 21:05, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Nadine_Conner.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Nadine_Conner.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. Jusjih (talk) 02:13, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright policy advisement regarding articles

Dear NewYork1956, regarding your contributionto Maria Caniglia, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from web sites or printed material without the express permission of the author or copyright holder. As a copyright violation, the article has been deleted under the speedy deletion criteria.

If you choose to recreate the article, please ensure that the material is written in your own words. If you believe that using sentences from the source is not a copyright violation, or if you have permission from the copyright holder to release the content freely under the GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL), then you should do one of the following:

If you have permission from the author, leave a message explaining the details at the talk page of the new article and send an email with the message to "permissions-en (at) wikimedia (dot) org". See Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for instructions.
If a note on the original website states that re-use is permitted under the GNU Free Documentation License, or released into the public domain leave a note at the talk page of the new article with a link to where we can find that note.
If you own the copyright to the material: send an e-mail from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en(at)wikimedia(dot)org or a postal message to the Wikimedia Foundation permitting re-use under the GFDL, and note that you have done so on the talk page of the article.

Thank you, and please feel free to continue contributing to Wikipedia. Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 16:33, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly unfree Image:SarahPalin.jpg

An image that you uploaded or altered, Image:SarahPalin.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images because its copyright status is disputed. If the image's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the image description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Videmus Omnia (talk • contribs) 02:57, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:SarahPalin.jpg

I'm not sure why you think this is "obviously" a free image, as you stated on Videmus Omnia's talk page. Photos taken by employees of the Alaskan government are copyright the state of Alaska, and are definitely not "free". We take copyright concerns very seriously on Wikipedia. Please remember to assume good faith and remain civil in your discussions with others. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 14:05, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Whether it's a free image or not makes no difference at all. The fact remains that the image is eligible to be on Wikipedia considering she is the governor of a US state and it is the official portrait of the governor of Alaska. There are tags for this kind of thing, but instead of anyone wanting to help or make any effort at all to keep the image, they'd rather be the hero and have it removed as soon as possible. What a joke.
NewYork1956 (talk) 14:29, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry you're upset about this. Have you tried requesting a license from the governor's office, or looking for a freely-licensed image? Flickr seems to have quite a few photos of her, I'll look through and see if any are free. Alternatively, here are some tips on requesting free licenses if you'd like to give it a shot. Drop me a line if I can help. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 15:30, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi!

Another editor expressed a concern to me that you might not fully understand our image policies. I'm an admin who specializes in image issues; if you need any help with policy or fixing up the rationales or usage of any images, my talk page is always open. Cheers, east.718 at 09:44, December 19, 2007