User talk:Stan weller

This user may have left Wikipedia. Stan weller has not edited Wikipedia since May 8, 2010. As a result, any requests made here may not receive a response. If you are seeking assistance, you may need to approach someone else.

Welcome

Welcome to Wikipedia , I hope you will like it here and decide to stay.

You may want to take a look at the welcome page, tutorial, and stylebook, avoiding common mistakes and Wikipedia is not pages.

Here are some links I've found useful:

Also: To sign comments on talk pages, simply type four tildes, like this: ~~~~. This will automatically add your username and the time after your comments. Signing with three tildes ~~~ will just sign your username.

I hope to see you around Wikipedia! If you have any questions, feel free to contact me on my talk page!

Johann Wolfgang [ T ...C ]

Re: Any particular reason you feel A Bigger Bang deserves a mention in the intro to the Stones' article?

Just that it is their latest album and that their Rolling Stone magazine ranking proves that they are as big as they ever were. Any reason that you feel it shouldn't be mentioned? Tumblingboulder

Re: "Don't Stop"

As I understand it, "Don't Stop" was a minor hit as a single, which means it's borderline as to whether it merits its own article or not. I don't know the song myself, so I would tend to say no. Wikipedia has a bias towards song articles for singles, which to me is inappropriate for album-oriented groups; I would say that "Salt of the Earth" and "No Expectations", say, even though not singles, merit articles more than "Don't Stop". And it's good that you created the article for "Memory Motel", also very worthy. Wasted Time R 22:23, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

re: "Start Me Up"

That is a very good source, you should try to provide other sources like it and add it to articles. It can really add benefit not just to the article of the song, but over time others will read it and use it in the Rolling Stones article(s) themselves, which have been tagged recently by others for lacking verifiable sources. At any rate, I added the ref to the Start Me Up article.--Mikerussell 22:56, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

re: Brown Sugar and Waiting on a Friend

Brown Sugar looks well sourced and written, although I always thought it died at #7 on the single charts in the US, but maybe I am mixing that up with Tumbling Dice, I have a very weak overall recollection on the actual chart positions of the day, except maybe Seasame Street stuff. Where do you get the charting info? The Waiting on the Friend article is a little different than I recall, I actually heard it goes all the way back to 1970, but cannot find a source so I guess I am committing the same sin I complain about in others, info w/o a source, although I am away from my home now so I can’t quite check the library sort of speak.--Mikerussell 22:44, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your message

It looks as though you're right (it's not helped by the number of variations found on the Web, with lots of uses of "Rock & Roll" [which is the official name of the title track] and "Rock and Roll", etc.). My suspicion is that, if asked, the band would say that it didn't matter, that the title was just the way the record company spelt it, and we should do what we liked — but if you want to change it, do. Perhaps a link to the relevant page of the Rolling Stones' official site could be added to the external links section too? --Mel Etitis (Talk) 21:51, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've just seen the childish message at the article's Talk page. I suggest that you read WP:CIVIL. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 08:44, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can understand getting frustrated here — but as you saw, it was in fact the courteous message on my Talk page that got results... Anyway, if you need help with the move, let me know. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 22:21, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jumpin' Jack Flash

I had cut the story from the DVD because I didn't think it would stand alone without all the rambling about the lyrics; I thought again, and re-added it. Thanks for the reminder. Deltabeignet 04:04, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Negrita

Thanks for the message. I've included a {{for}} to Black and Blue, and tidied the article; my feeling is that the band is just about notable enough (two albums, the second on a major label, and a documentary about them on Channel 4) — though I veer to the inclusionist side when it comes to people and their activities. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 08:24, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Damn, I should have checked that — sorry. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 08:35, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One Hit (to the Body)

It's still missing a couple of essentials (and length really isn't a determining factor, I've seen some short "starts" and some long "stubs"):

Track listing - gives album but not track number (and if it's appeared on more than one album, ie "greatest hists", compilations, etc.
Did it make any chart listings (or noted so if not)
External links

To lyrics
Chords/sheet music
Official site?

Wikification - no sections in article

Hope that helps. SkierRMH 20:03, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I thought you would have upgraded it when you made the additions. My bad. It's upgraded now! Probably need to take it to peer review (not sure about albums/songs protocol on this) to upgrade it to "B" and beyond. Good work! SkierRMH 05:59, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can't You Hear Me Knocking

The article still contains some opinionated statements like "finest displays of musicianship" and "raucous vocal performance". The best thing to do would be to find some professional reviews of the song, take some of the ideas expressed in those reviews and add them to the article, with links to the reviews as references. For example "Some critics have said that it is one of the band's finest displays of musicianship(insert reference here)"; something along those lines. MarcK 06:11, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keith Richard "s" name

I always thought what you wrote was the reason about the 's', but others on the Keith Richards page claimed it had something to do with Oldham wanting him to be like Cliff Richard, or something strange like that. It is difficult to say the 's' came back in 1978 b/c of reuniting with his father, b/c he was still estranged from his dad till 1981 or even 1982. In his 1981 Rolling Stone interview before Tattoo You tour he says he had written a few letters but had not seen him or showed him his grandkids yet. I just clipped the reason and left it as a fact of the change. That's the interesting thing about Richards. --Mikerussell 16:25, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I guess I was too distracted to finish my thought- That's the interesting thing about Richards- means he is so popular a public figure, but there are things you still don't quite know about him. They (Stones) are kind of experts in getting their names and faces out there but still having their privacy. At any rate, I read the message about Some Girls, I am not sure if that's right either, you think someone would know about the name thing for certain, but it doesn't really matter.--Mikerussell 23:37, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The reason i have read regarding the restoration of the 'S' permanently, was that Keith did it after going clean - wanting to make a fresh start as Richards, as he was theoretically making a fresh start in life. Remember this is also when he started wearing the skull ring also...Lsherwood59(UTC)

"Memo From Turner"

It was a single and a movie song, so it seems like it qualifies for its own article, although I don't know much about it. I do know the single that I liked, with the Mick Taylor guitar work, isn't the same version as released on the Metamorphosis CD, which is a rather lame acoustic track a minute and a half shorter. Maybe the article can explain the history behind that difference?--Mikerussell 03:23, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply

Stan, thanks for the correction. I'm going to leave it out, though. I remember Keith Richards saying that the electric cut was inspired by Mick Taylor, so there is some question about who did what when. Even if that is the case, I think what cuts Taylor overdub on is not important, plus it is not known if he simply simply copied whatever Jones might have played or came up with a new part altogether. All that aside - and I this is probably more an issue of syntax and usage - you can't overdub somebody eles's part. I definetely interested in finding out more about how Honk Tonk Women got recorded and who did what, and if it seems relevant, I'll be sure to add it to the Stones entry. - Mr Anonymous

Violation of copyright

Because it posts song lyrics which are copyrighted by the Stones. Our policy on external links says that "sites that violate the copyrights of others per contributors' rights and obligations should not be linked. Linking to websites that display copyrighted works is acceptable as long as the website has licensed the work." This is not the case for the website (keno.org) in question. -- Merope 18:16, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's not what his disclaimer indicates. I believe the Stones' official site publishes lyrics; those would be appropriate to link to. -- Merope 19:24, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it qualifies as a reliable source. I'm not trying to be a jerk here -- I just noticed that "Paint It, Black" had a copy of all of the lyrics in the article as well as the external link, and thought I'd look into it. There's likely another source for the fact--I'll poke through some books this weekend. -- Merope 01:20, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Brown Sugar (Rolling Stones song)

Sure, I popped over and rated it. I felt torn between Start- and B-class, so I rated it as Start, figuring someone else can always upgrade it later on down the road. Cheers! PaladinWhite 14:23, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Sympathy for the Devil

It's a B-class, easy. Give it some more work (a tip is more inline citations), get a peer review and you'll have yourself a candidate for a Good Article. Cheers. -- Reaper X 03:43, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re:aria c jalali article

Could you be a little more specific, please? I have no idea what you are talking about. A link to the article/where the article was, as well as a link to said coverage would be nice. J Milburn 19:30, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

When you are certain the article meets our guidelines, feel free to recreate it, as long as you cite it with reliable sources. The version I deleted did not have (and still has not got) any reliable sources. J Milburn 13:03, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Let's add how The Stones evolved with the times

. The fact is The Stones stuck around forever because they alwayse evolved with the times. So yeah, me and you will do it. And if some fool wants to revert it, well I'll revert it back. And if it gets out of hand then I'll just contact the creator of Wikipedia and get HIM involved with this, because I get free long distance calling. Zephead999 23:24, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Well in that case let's call the band up, or call up their record company

And record their conversations, thens load up the audio on Putfile. I'm 100% dead serious about this. I mean it's pretty obvious that what i'm saying is true. I mean it's a fact that is widely accepted and regarded as plausible; you know how the Stones have evolved with the times. I mean **** Rolling Stones SONGS talk about how they did. So if they want sources how about we used our OWN articles. I mean look I'm not going to play the songs back to back, and show how they evolved and waste 10 hours of my life showing obvious facts. Zephead999 23:32, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image (Image:Dontstopstones.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Dontstopstones.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. BetacommandBot 02:35, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image (Image:Letitbleed1.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Letitbleed1.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. BetacommandBot 03:41, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Streets of Love / Rough Justice

Hey there. Wow, I'd forgotten about that page completely. I went ahead and started a new article for "Rough Justice" here: Rough Justice (The Rolling Stones song) but it's pretty stubby at the moment, so if you'd like to work at expanding it, that would be excellent. I also left a move request at Wikipedia:Requested moves for the double a-side article to be moved to Streets of Love since it now focuses on that song and the new article focuses on "Rough Justice." Thanks for reminding me about the split and supporting it. Let me know if there's anything else I can do. Cheers! GassyGuy 07:24, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Aria C Jalali article

That's a great ref, another one or two and there should be no problem. One good ref alone isn't enough. J Milburn 22:29, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First one is no good, second one is great, third one is fine. Go ahead and recreate the article- if you cite those as sources, there shouldn't be any problem. All the best, J Milburn 23:26, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

charlie watts

no, never mind, no problem . see you later

stones template

That's a big job, to add and maintain a song template, of course the Beatles is big too, but wouldn't come close to the RStones size. That being said, the bottom of a lot of Stones song articles is kind of barren, so I don't know what would be a good way to tie it together? --Mikerussell 04:01, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The singles are probably a good way to go, since they are mangable in number and can really track the career trajectory succintly as well as link to the songs article. Go for it if you have time, I would support it. --Mikerussell 05:14, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

sister morphine

The Come My Way album was re-released with Sister Morphine added. Its easy to get confused, because The writing credit for the song was the subject of a protracted legal battle; the resolution of the case has Faithfull listed as co-author of the song. In her autobiography, Faithfull said Mick Jagger and Keith Richards released it in their own names in order that her agent did not collect (all) the royalties and proceeds from the song, especially as she was homeless and battling with herion addiction at the time.

I actually tried putting a number of items in wikipedia relating to M Faithfull under disambiguation of "Faithfull," but they have been deleted for being not notable. Oh well.

Cuvtixo 06:40, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Brussels Affair

I really don't know if Brussels Affair deserves mention in those songs articles, personally it would not be something that I immediately asssociate with any of the tracks. That being said, BA should in the Mick Taylor article somehow, even as a listing of recordings but also as the "high point of his craft" sort of speak in his time with the band and that the legal problems preventing the release really deprived Taylor of his just due and long term legacy with the Stones. The BA article could also add some facts about the "legal problems" more specifically. All I know is Allen Klein and/or Decca was blocking any live releases until 1976 but for what reasons, I don't have any idea. --Mikerussell 02:27, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Street Fighting Man

Definitely. I bumped it up to a B rating. I got you a source for Image:Fightingmanstones.jpg as well. But you could definitely shoot for Good Article status on this one eh? You should totally get this peer reviewed and go for it. Excellent work. -- Reaper X 03:41, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Peer review/Street Fighting Man/archive1 for my review. Wasted Time R 11:07, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, I think cover versions should be distinct from the official Stones release, but you have written many more song articles than I, so I leave it to you. Today on WWJ radio I heard the guy who co-wrote Stevie Wonder's "Once in My Life" plus a bunch of other Motown hits died. Radio said there are 270 known cover versions of "Once in My Life" recorded. That tells you something about where cover versions should go in my opinion- there is just too many for Stones songs and there will be plenty more in the future. Unless one really stands out, they should be mention in the same section of the "References to the song" (but this section should be renamed Legacy or something like that) and written in a paragraph form that makes it clear the song has lasting popularity and wide social currency- and here are some examples to prove it- but it doesn' need to be an exhaustive list of every cover version or reference in films etc.. That's just my opinion. --Mikerussell 23:58, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Street Fighting Man being similar as Jumpin' Jack Flash

Nothing specific comes to my mind, all I know is that each was made on tape cassette recorders by Richards, at least the original demos, and that Jagger might have thought they sounded to similar to be released on BB together, but again, nothing in particuliar. Street Fighting Man looks good.--Mikerussell 23:06, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject

I was trying to set up a template for rating, but I don't know how to exactly let people rate the articles after the Template is on each article's Discussion page. I could try to find out later, but letting you know in case you know how to fix it. --Mikerussell 03:45, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rolling Stones article

It is looking better, but in addition to what is already in the to do box, i'd throw in it needs a 3 paragraph lead. But if those things get done, which doesn't seem that much, should be on its way to Good Article status and more. :) Judgesurreal777 14:38, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

thanks for the invite

to join the Stone Action Group. I have opinions going back 40+ yeas, but am not happy that my (opinion) main contribution, the cover of their first EP release (pre-dating the first album) has been removed from the article. Not much of an inducement to come back for more. My mood is not made better by the fact that my house was hit by lightning last night, frying, among things, the modum for my internet connection. I'm now doing www while also doing a live radio show (OMAR's Dance Party) on KLDK and I forgpt my glasses. Life. I've also learned NOT to make important decissions at times such as these. Carptrash 02:37, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly not before I get back on-line at home. I'm back at KLDK tonight but unles I play 10 minute songs - like the Stones Goin' Home - it's too tough to think - other than what song am I going to play next. Any requests? 02:06, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Stones81.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Stones81.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image 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 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 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. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI 10:22, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar

I award you this barnstar for your excellent work in writing, adding detail to, and endlessly fiddling with many, many articles about the Rolling Stones. It's about time you had one. ProhibitOnions ^(T) 13:21, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ratings

I think we can rate the importance, who else would? maybe you decided this already, or found out differently, but I just got time to respond now and I think it is okay. --Mikerussell 23:31, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Rolling Clones

I haven't seen this myself, but if I did I would absolutely delete the link. It is obviously advertising, and I, for one, have never even heard of the group, plus it sets bad example, all cover bands will start to feel entitled to add a link as personal advertising.--Mikerussell 15:18, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that the Rolling Clones aren't just a fly by night tribute band.

They are wiki notable
They have released 2 albums
They have been touring since 1979
Charlie Watts mastered their latest album

I believe this warrants the mention —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.177.159.85 (talk) 06:32, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To the above anonymous contributor, I reverted the obvious attempt to hijack Stones song articles to advertise this obscure cover band. Charlie Watts must be very hard up for money to start audio mastering cover bands, which is a post-recording function of recording, look at Stones CDs, or any CDs, the mastering technician is not a creative role at all. You have added the group to wikipedia itself- fine, but trying to link it to legitimate Stones songs is amateurish and will be reverted, at least by me, when discovered. Address more comments to my TALK Page if you want --Mikerussell 11:37, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stones project page "Incoming"

I took down my comments about my instant displeasure with The Very Best of Mick Jagger; I wrote it out of personal disappointment over the material and I imagine many others won't share my response- I just wish they would release more Stones material, even 2nd rate stuff would be better than a solo compilation from Jagger, but maybe this will get Richards interested in putting something out himself which would be a side benefit. I decided to take down your response too, if you don't mind, since it seemed odd to leave it. I worked a bit to make Memo from Turner better, but can't say I will be able to do much more regularly for a while. Thanks for your work. --Mikerussell 02:55, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re:using an album covers

You'd have to give me a example of what your talking about, but these are examples:

Spice Girls - the article contains images of album covers next to commentary about releases, they are being used properly
Yellowcard - this reversion specifically (in the discography) which displays the album covers not in compliance with WP:NFCC. Album covers must have significant commentary, which is generally considered a major article section, of text for fair use to be applied.

Hope this helps. — Moe ε 00:01, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That will probably be fine. Just don't add every album cover to every bit of text and it shouldn't be an issue. :) — Moe ε 00:12, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with Moe. The specific text from the boilerplate licensing template would be "It is believed that the use of low-resolution images of such covers solely to illustrate the audio recording in question..." (present on Image:Betweenthebuttons.jpg which you were trying to add) rules that out. Such images are only therefore fair use on the article about the album itself, not the band. That's my understanding anyway. Best wishes, --John 01:44, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My interpretation is the same as John's. --PEJL 11:35, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Your opinion on something

I'd say it depends on how notable the cover is (where one aspect of the notability of the cover is the notability of the tribute band). --PEJL 11:35, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, like I said, I think it depends on the notability of the cover. The fact that the cover is self-produced and self-marketed may suggest that it's not notable, but it's not a given. I'd like to adjust my position and say that it depends on how notable the cover is, but that a higher level of notability is needed for a cover of a more notable song than of a less notable one. --PEJL 06:50, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All About You (song)

I always thought it was squarely set at Anita, at least the lyrics. Maybe he had the music around for three years, but Time is on our Side states it was recorded in a Nassau session from January 22-February 12, 1979, but maybe that is just the lyrics, the final session. I will look if there is anything more I can find in my sources and add if necessary, but the article seems good as is. I never really knew if had a jagger angle to it, but makes sense I guess. --Mikerussell 21:10, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Rolling Clones

Keep an eye on the song pages in case the The Rolling Clones start showing up again, somehow they have been re-added as a link via a re-direct and somebody might want to try to include them on the song pages again- maybe not, but just a thought.--Mikerussell 21:23, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Littleredrooster.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Littleredrooster.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 03:30, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Loveyoulive.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Loveyoulive.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 18:29, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Slipping Away

Well done. Couldn't add anything to improve it.. Thanks for your work, I going to contribute more to the project when I get a chance, but again- thanks for the effort.--Mikerussell 00:54, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Betweenthebuttons.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Betweenthebuttons.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 02:55, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Satisfaction

Stan, I think its unnecessary and unencyclopedic; its largely trivial, listy, and unreferenced. Ceoil 21:28, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you can put them in context, and attribute, no worries. Ceoil 21:48, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Igowild.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Igowild.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 21:14, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Heartofstone.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Heartofstone.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 00:08, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry

It looked like an unsourced add. Just restore it. BeanoJosh 05:47, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Highwire.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Highwire.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 07:43, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thanks for the edit on the 69 to 74 section Stan - but please note that I did not say I did not know how to edit. I wrote that I was unable to edit - changes will not save for me - probably my PC lol. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.41.171.101 (talk) 16:53, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rolling Stones Charts

I hope I ask the right place. First I like to say that you do a great work with the hole Rolling Stones team. But now to my question. Where do I find the charts for Rolling Stones single & albums?? Like on the album Some Girls. --Chbian (talk) 09:54, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Time1982.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Time1982.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 19:48, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Ghs.jpg

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

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 19:25, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Ghs.jpg

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

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 06:39, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Letitbleed1.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Letitbleed1.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 06:49, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your edit summary usage

Hi there. When editing an article on Wikipedia there is a small field labeled "Edit summary" under the main edit-box. It looks like this:

The text written here will appear on the Recent changes page, in the page revision history, on the diff page, and in the watchlists of users who are watching that article. See m:Help:Edit summary for full information on this feature.

Filling in the edit summary field greatly helps your fellow contributors in understanding what you changed, so please always fill in the edit summary field. If you are adding a section, please do not just keep the previous section's header in the Edit summary field - please fill in your new section's name instead. Thank you. Ohmpandya (Talk) 23:11, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it is easy to forget. However, you can go to my preferences, and turn on an option that will remind you each time you forget an edit summary. All the best! Ohmpandya (Talk to Me...) 02:13, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Franz Ferdinand

I noticed you've put in a lot of good work maintaining the state of the Franz Ferdinand (band) page. You may be interested in a dispute about the Franz Ferdinand page. It used to point to the disambiguation page - as, despite there being more searches for the band than the archduke, users will be interested in both topics. Unfortunately, it has recently been changing to point directly to the Archduke Franz Ferdinand of Austria page. Could you read the discussion on the Talk:Franz Ferdinand page? I think your input would be of value. Thanks, Wardroad (talk) 15:22, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Replaceable fair use Image:Charlierose.jpg

Replaceable fair use

Thanks for uploading Image:Charlierose.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. Muchness (talk) 10:22, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

thanks

i'm not sure i have the time and temperament to contribute much, but thanks for the invitation to the Stones Project. Sssoul (talk) 16:11, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jack Be Nimble

Isn't it obvious? Both share the words "Jack" and "jump." And I'm certain that the composers knew the nursery rhyme from their youth. I'm not saying the nursery rhyme inspired the song, but it definitely influence it, I think. Griot (talk) 16:13, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

True, the Stones have never mentioned Jack Be Nimble as in influence on the lyrics, but besides "Jack" and "Jump," you have "Flash," which emits light just as a candle does. And you can bet they heard the nursery ryhme. I thought of the nursery ryhme the first time I heard the song in 1968. Griot (talk) 22:24, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you feel strongly about it (looking over your Talk page I see you may be even a bigger STones fan than me), take it out. But I think it's more than a coincidence that the nursery rhyme and the song have so much in common. "Did you get that from a nursery ryhme?" is not the kind of question a rock journalist would ask a rock star. But I bet they would answer yes. Don MacLean, for whatever it's worth, saw the connection when he sang in "American Pie" about Mick Jagger, "So come on Jack be nimble, Jack be quick, Jack Flash sat on a candlestick 'cuz fire is the devil's only friend". Griot (talk) 13:19, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re: User:209.120.161.43

Thanks, I've reported him to WP:AIV. He's been blocked for three months. Funeral 18:32, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Waitingonafriend2.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Waitingonafriend2.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 03:25, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Jackflash1.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Jackflash1.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 23:27, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Shinealightfilm.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Shinealightfilm.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image 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 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 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. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 06:36, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Shinealightalbum.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Shinealightalbum.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image 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 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 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. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 06:37, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

re: Jagger article

thanks for the encouraging words - i'm pretty thoroughly guitar-oriented, and not much of a Jagger-spotter, but i'll see if there's anything i could usefully add/revise over there. meanwhile i'll keep working on the Keith article; i've put a couple more questions on the "talk" page there if you have time to comment. the Ronnie article as well - it definitely needs more work, but i'm not sure if i can do much more with it without further input/feedback from someone with good solid sources to cite. oh and the suggestion to change the name of that one to "Ronnie Wood" seems valid to me, but i don't know how to do it or if more consensus is needed. maybe you can help? thanks.

(and by the way, if i'm following the "conversation" above properly: i agree that JJF is not clearly based on a nursery rhyme. i think people have forgotten that a jumping jack is an old-fashioned toy, quite unrelated to candlesticks; and what Don Maclean wrote later has nothing to do with it. the name of the toy is probably what Jack Dyer the gardener's boots brought to mind ... but the main thing of course is that it just sounds so freakin good.)

thanks & swing on Sssoul (talk) 11:06, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Stan

Re: this edit here. When an article subject is from a specific country (In this case, the RS are British) we tend to use that English variation when we write about them. For example, you wrote "rumors" which is the Americanised version of "rumours". Read WP:ENGVAR for more information. Thanks for you excellent contributions so far, Stan :-) Cheerio! Scarian ^{Call me Pat} 14:50, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, Stan. It's great that you're contributing. The "Holy War" that you speak of seemed to end when I blocked "Mr.Anonymous" for being an ass ;-) - Have a nice day and have fun contributing, Steve! If you need me for anything please do not hesitate to contact me. Scarian ^{Call me Pat} 20:08, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, damn it. I do apologise. I was actually talking to someone called Steve and I must've gotten mixed up. Sorry my friend! I can't say I've seen Mr.Anonymous do anything hugely positive, personally. Sorry again about the name mix up Stan. :-) Scarian ^{Call me Pat} 21:34, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Thanks for uploading Image:Betweenthebuttons.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. BJBot (talk) 12:04, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Thanks for uploading Image:Stonesdirtywork.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. BJBot (talk) 12:04, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rock music WikiProject

I'd like to invite you to join the newly-formed Rock music WikiProject. There's alot of Rock-related articles on Wikipedia that could use a little attention, and I hope this project can help organize an effort to improve them. So please, take a look and if you like what you see, help us get this project off the ground and a few Rock music pages into the front ranks of Wikipedia articles. Thanks! --Be Black Hole Sun (talk) 14:38, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How would you feal about making the rolling stone wikiproject a taskforce. --Be Black Hole Sun (talk) 14:38, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Justin Davis

Hoax? I have no idea, I just found it because it linked to a dab page. Put {{hoax}} on it, I guess; it's unsourced. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:59, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's a repeat of a hoax article, deleted before - see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Justin Davis - so it qualifies for a db-g4 speedy. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 09:03, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Chase Pagan

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Chase Pagan, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. B. Wolterding (talk) 16:29, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Aria C Jalali!

I have nominated Aria C Jalali!, an article 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/Aria C Jalali!. 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. Undead Warrior (talk) 15:49, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RE:

It's in AfD already. Let it take its course. Undead Warrior (talk) 00:03, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Filter (magazine)

I have nominated Filter (magazine), 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/Filter (magazine). 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. Ioeth (talk contribs twinkle friendly) 20:30, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Angie talk page

heya Stan - thanks for contacting me, but truly: anyone could say that. have a mighty mighty fine 09! Sssoul (talk) 23:36, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Stan, i truly believe the person is yanking your chain, and/or is in need of treatment. if you want to give her good guidance please direct her to read WP:NOR, WP:V and WP:RS, and to take her story to some reliable publication - if there were any shred of evidence that it might possibly be plausible, i'm sure plenty of papers would be delighted to publish it. meanwhile, as i noted above: anyone can say the same thing about any song - i can make up a very persuasive-sounding claim to Wild Horses, if i feel like it, but that doesn't mean anyone should believe it. Sssoul (talk) 11:03, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

if you look in "my preferences", on the "user profile" page there's a box for "enable email from other users" that you can uncheck. swing on! Sssoul (talk) 21:04, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

genres again

heya Stan ... if you have time to weigh in here, that would be very cool - i'm feeling like Genre Guard Dog or something. 8) Sssoul (talk) 17:06, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Taylorrichards.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, File:Taylorrichards.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. howcheng {chat} 19:08, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

another county heard from

heya Stan weller ... just wanted to make sure you're aware of this discussion of trivia sections, especially since i can't be on line much these days to respond if there's any need to discuss it further. it's not clear that the IP's interest is in Stones-related articles in particular, but if you check out his/her contributions, she/he's restored at least one nonnotable unsourced triva section that i'd eliminated (Honky Tonk Women); if he/she makes more edits like that to Stones-related articles then i guess we need to discuss the issue some more on the Stones Project page. Sssoul (talk) 10:04, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File source problem with File:Getoffmycloudstones.jpg

File Copyright problem

Thanks for uploading File:Getoffmycloudstones.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 07:58, 16 September 2009 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Salavat (talk) 07:58, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:BeggarsBanquetLP.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:BeggarsBanquetLP.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 "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 images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude (talk) 04:09, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

delayed reaction

thanks for the message, and sorry for the slow response, Stan! sure, i'll be very happy to look at whatever Stones-related pages you want me to look at, so just let me know. i'm mostly busy with Keith when i'm not being dragged down with abuse like at Jumpin' Jack Flash lately ... it's downright weird how time-consuming things like that can be! hope you're well & prospering & enjoying the winter light-and-warmth celebrations of your choice Sssoul (talk) 08:51, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed non-free use rationale for File:Stones1960s.jpg

Thank you for uploading File:Stones1960s.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this file on Wikipedia may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the file description page and adding or clarifying the reason why the file qualifies under this policy. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your file is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a non-free use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for files used under the non-free content policy require both a copyright tag and a non-free use rationale.

If it is determined that the file does not qualify under the non-free content policy, it might be deleted by an administrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. Soundvisions1 (talk) 17:44, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's Only Rock 'n Roll

Hey Stan. I removed the weak and derivative source you cited repeatedly in the article It's Only Rock 'n Roll:

• "It's Only Rock 'n Roll". timeisonourside.com. Retrieved 2 January 2007.

I replaced every reference you made to that page with a citation that properly indicates the author and original publication from which each quote was taken. Not every such publication has a canonical web presence, but I provided each citation with a link to the best available source for the full text of each article.

If you're a fan of the Rolling Stones, and you haven't yet seen the articles from which your quotes were extracted, you might be interested in following those links:

• Turner, Steve (December 5, 1974). "Making The Stones' New Album". Rolling Stone Magazine No. 175. Retrieved 26 November 2012.

• Bungey, John (November 1997). "Hello Goodbye". Issue 48. Mojo Magazine. Retrieved 26 November 2012.

• Landau, John (October 16, 1974). "The Rolling Stones / It's Only Rock 'n Roll". Rolling Stone Magazine No. 172. Retrieved 26 November 2012.

• Bangs, Lester (October 31, 1974). "It's Only the Rolling Stones". The Village Voice. Retrieved 26 November 2012.

--Patronanejo (talk) 09:23, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File source problem with File:BeggarsBanquetLP.jpg

Thank you for uploading File:BeggarsBanquetLP.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, please add a link to the page from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of the website's terms of use of its content. If the original copyright holder is a party unaffiliated with the website, that author should also be credited. Please add this information by editing the image description page.

If the necessary information is not added within the next days, the image will be deleted. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.

Please refer to the image use policy to learn what images you can or cannot upload on Wikipedia. Please also check any other files you have uploaded to make sure they are correctly tagged. Here is a list of your uploads. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 12:06, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Filter (magazine)

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Filter (magazine) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about an organization or company, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. SNUGGUMS (talk · contribs) 05:38, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Filter (magazine)

The article Filter (magazine) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Fails WP:GNG, and is unreferenced. Only reliable third-party source available is one Billboard article.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. SNUGGUMS (talk · contribs) 06:26, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Filter (magazine) for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Filter (magazine) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Filter (magazine) (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. MSJapan (talk) 22:53, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Time1982.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Time1982.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 section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:59, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tumbling Dice and The Rolling Stones

I know that you won't see this Stan (as you have not been active in over 7 years), but just saw on your user page that you were making the push to have Tumbling Dice listed as a Good article back in 2010 - I did the fixup work to it and nominated it and it is now a good article as is The Rolling Stones. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 17:15, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Fightingmanstones.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Fightingmanstones.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 section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:20, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Filter (magazine) for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Filter (magazine) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Filter (magazine) (3rd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Acousmana (talk) 15:41, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Flashpointstones.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Flashpointstones.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 section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 21:42, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]