User talk:Anetode/archive 7

Hello, Anetode. I have a bone to pick with you. You recently deleted the page for a band, "The Chasing Game." Well, I noticed there are MANY other pages for musical bands on Wikipedia. I do not understand why you would delete any of this information, for there are no copyrighted materials and nothing is offensive. So please take this into consideration before deleting this page. It is not Spam!!!!!! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sk8erhawk (talk • contribs) 15:43, 8 April 2007 (UTC).

Please don't delete this picture! It is a photo taken by someone who I got the permission from to use it on Wikipedia (Niels Vertongen). So the use of this picture is completely legal! Greets, Wikifalcon 17:11, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

re: Well, i saw the picture of Wikimedia Commons is now uploaded in the Bruges article, so I guess there's nothing to be changed anymore? If I do understand right, the upload of the English Wiki will be deleted, but the upload of Wiki Commons can be used for the English version too? Greets Wikifalcon 09:22, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for reverting my user page. =) -- Gogo Dodo 06:03, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the welcome. Before acting high and mighty, consider the following

1. Nudity on userpage, drawing or not, violates decency
2. Read signature rules, sup, sub, big, small are not allowed in signatures.

lighten up, it's wikipedia. who doesn't enjoy phil spector? -- Jefferton alive! 01:16, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand why my article keeps being deleted. What can I do to keep it available? I am not trying to promote Xxzotic, I am trying to provide information about Xxzotic. It's not propoganda, it's just information. Should I edit the content or am I not allowed to post anything about her at all?

Article: Xxzotic

If you think that there is a copyright violation from http://2007.sxsw.com/music/showcases/band/53495.html, there isn't. I authored that bio and provided it for the South by Southwest registration kit.

_______________________

If I can't create an article because I'm connected to her, that's fine. But she does meet the "Criteria for musicians and ensembles" on the "Wikipedia:Notability (music)" page.

She meets number 10 because her single "Caught Up" is in light rotation nationally. And she meets number 6 because neither Little Rock, nor Arkansas for that matter, has ever had a rap artist added to national rotation.

_______________________

Thanks for understanding. I will send the email right away and leave the article for others to edit.

Following up on the reference above to WP:MUSIC:

6. Has become the most prominent representative of a notable style or of the local scene of a city; note that the subject must still meet all ordinary Wikipedia standards, including verifiability.

• Does this mean the first rapper from Little Rock gets an article? The first new age cellist? The first techno-funk metal classicist?

10. Has been placed in rotation nationally by any major radio network.

• The phrase, "currently in light national rotation", seems a little sketchy ("light rotation"??)

Most importantly, there's nothing meeting WP:RS in this article. Google's just turning up 113 unique hits.[1][2]--A. B. ^(talk) 05:24, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

All valid concerns. Are you considering nominating this article for deletion? ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 05:28, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Not yet -- I've tagged it for notability. Hopefully, someone will find good sources. Otherwise, I'll support deletion. --A. B. ^(talk) 06:17, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Sorry about the Vonnegut mix up, really couldn't find any info. News sites need to improve their search engines. Thanks for cleaning up my mess. --Wolfrider 04:24, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Agree it can be useful as a redirect, but the redirect doesn't "work", and I can't fix it as you have protected the page. I suspect the problem is the lack of capital letters? Or am I to sleepy now? Greswik 16:37, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

The fair use rationales you add to images are wholly inadequate. The fair use rationale must say why the particular image is being used in particular articles. Do not add those types of rationales in the future. It only delays the deletion, it doesn't prevent it. Your doing so has been highly disruptive. Either write a full fair use rationale or let the image get deleted. The problem isn't with the format, it is with the content, or lack thereof. I continue to dispute the fair use of those images and will tag them with {{db-badfairuse}} after the appropriate amount of time. Jay32183 04:55, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm not passing the buck. I actually know you won't be able to justify the particular image you're attempting to. I can't actually point you to a good one because almost all of them are bad. But basically it has to say that "This image is being used in this article because..." but not necessarily in those words. You can't just say the image is being used for critical commentary, it must be specific and detailed. Simply coming from the episode in question is not sufficient. You may wish to read WP:FUC prior to disrupting proper processes. Jay32183 05:04, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

I am using the template correctly, and it is a speedy deletion criteria. The fair use rationale is inadequate, so no discussion is needed. Since the image desrciption page does not explain how the image satisfies FUC#8, it fails FUC#10. I am following the proper method. You actions so far have only been disruptive, especially your original removal of the {{no rationale}} tag with a fair use rationale that didn't explain anything. Do not do that again. Jay32183 05:19, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

I have provided a third opinion regarding the image and the fair use dispute at Image_talk:019.jpg.

Seraphim Whipp 10:54, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

No problem. I like the picture on your userpage btw! :-)

Seraphim Whipp 19:16, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

You just deleted a picture that I had found uploaded, but didn't know how to file for CSD. What could I file the picture as so that admins would delete a vandal only picture? - Hairchrm 18:46, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Oh, thanks. I didn't know that applied to pictures, too, I thought it was only articles. Thanks a lot!! - Hairchrm 18:53, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Greetings. You just deleted image STF.jpg, which I uploaded today. I obtained it from www.stf.gov.br, the Brazilian Supreme Court website. The idea was to insert this picture in the corresponding article (Brazilian Supreme Court, for some reason translated to "Supreme Federal Tribunal" in Wikipedia). Anyway, before uploading the image, I checked the copyright status in the aforemetioned website, where it clearly states:

"As fotos desta página podem ser usadas gratuitamente. O crédito para o Supremo Tribunal Federal deve ser mencionado." See: http://www.stf.gov.br/noticias/imprensa/fotos/default.asp?tip_foto=FSTF

That translates to: "The pictures on this page may be used free of charge. The Supreme Federal Court must be given credit".

Thus the images can be used in Wikipedia without violation of copyright laws, but I admit I'm not completely sure about what type of license I should tag it with, because the author requires credit albeit giving authorization for use of the images.

When uploading, I wasn't too comfortable about considering it "public domain", so I went for the "non commercial" tag. That was a silly mistake I made, because the author doesn't really establish this restriction.

I'm new to uploading pictures. Could you give me a hand on the correct tag for this one? Thank you. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sparks1979 (talk • contribs) 22:28, 14 April 2007 (UTC). Second edit (forgot to sign...) Sparks1979 22:30, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Hello again anedote.

After reading your reply and getting more familiar with copyright rules for the use of images in Wikipedia, I’m now convinced the picture I tried to upload doesn’t meet the requirements for the project.

However, I found a way out of this. I’ve uploaded a new STF.jpg picture which I got from Agência Brasil. I’ve learned pictures produced by Agência Brasil are licensed under Creative Commons Attribution 2.5.

Here is the source for the file:

http://www.agenciabrasil.gov.br/media/imagens/2007/02/09/1601FP021.jpg/view

I’ve tagged the license as “Attribution 2.5”.

Sparks1979 17:26, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi-- I'm new to Wikipedia and recently had an image deleted by User Jay32183. He argued that because it was a promotional image from a TV show it was not fair use. I replied that I could put up a TV screenshot instead, and he said that would not be fair use either. I tried to post a reasonable fair use argument but he responded by posting that the page had been "vandalized." Well, I've given up on this image and this user, and tried to delete it but I guess I don't have the privileges to do so. I noticed that you recently had a similar problem with this user over fair use of an image and it looks like he used the same insulting tone with you. It looks like he's been deleting a number of other images as well. I have no idea what procedures Wikipedia has for censuring a user, but I think he should be told to treat other users at least with some respect and give people a chance to argue their side. Thanks for your time. --Dave451 23:15, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for not holding our disagreement against me in dealing with this different situation. I will hold no grudge against you as well. Jay32183 17:55, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi Anetode. I could use some advice. I'm clearing some backlogs and running across images that don't seem to be obvious deletions as replaceable fair use. Image:Corsaire -PNB School -1.JPG, a particular dance that is purported to be historic (so could not be replaced), and Image:KUKL (band members).jpg, Image:Pláhnetan.jpg, Image:Tappi Tíkarras (members) LMB.jpg, and Image:Þeyr (members) LMB2.jpg, all photos of bands that are no longer together (couldn't be photographed together again). I'd appreciate any feedback on whether these are acceptable enough to keep or not. — coelacan — 20:09, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Most concerns at the Halo 2 FAC page have been addressed, however the redesign of Bungie.net has led to almost every single Bungie.net link used in the article to go 404 on us. Basically, the article doesn't stand a chance of passing anymore unless we get the links as archives using the Template:Cite web archiveurl parems. I tried contacting Bungie's tech, but they've been unresponsive. I'm going to be busy in real life more than usual, so I would appreciate it if you could lend a hand and help me if at all possible.

Sincerely, Dåvid Fuchs ^{(talk / frog blast the vent core!)} 21:36, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Hello,

For some reason you deleted the details of my work as an actor from my "Daniel Ainsleigh" wikipedia page. It is not a vanity page as it is work that been broadcast. Under Wikipedia's own rulings this makes it valid for submission. I appreciate that it is people like you that keep this site a quality and useful tool and I support that. I just think that, in this case, you have been a little unfair.

Please reconsider its content.

Many Thanks,

Dan

Thank you for putting my filmography back up. I'm very new to Wikipedia and not entirely sure how to put information onto the page and you've made it look much simpler and better.

I've removed this section from the RfA. This RfA was explicitly setup to NOT be a form to have voting on the candidate directly. This is, as all who have participated know, an experiment. You are tainting the field of the experiment by adding this section. The nominee has explicitly agreed to the non-vote format. If he wants it to be a classic style, he is free to have it be so at any time and have the RfA restarted in that style. That would be the appropriate direction to go. If you want a "classic" vote style RfA, then please plead your case with the nominee at User talk:Matt Britt. If you disagree with the format, please register your disagreement at WT:RFA. If you find it impossible to contribute to the format, you can voice your opposition at Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Matt_Britt#This_method_of_RFA_is_so_confusing_that_I_am_unable_to_participate.. Thank you, --Durin 19:08, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Dear Anetode,

A few months ago I started an article entitled Those Were The Days (Fanzine) (or TWTD for short), a fanzine dedicated to Ipswich Town. This article was deleted yesterday on notability grounds. In acting upon a suggestion within the deletion log however, I plan to copy some of the content from the deleted article and include it in the main article for Ipswich Town. Having consulted with users on the 'Help Desk' page, I was directed here as I believe you may be able to provide me with a copy of the deleted article. Any help will be greatly appreciated.

Thanks,

Ncadc2004 21:52, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I have now edited and merged the TWTD content into the main Ipswich Town article as a subsection, either deleting assertions or including supportive references. Thanks for your help.

Ncadc2004 18:41, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Burma Shave slogans.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there 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. —Remember the dot ^(talk) 02:51, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for catching the vandalism on my user page. Realkyhick 18:41, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't know why you deleted this. First off, the image hadn't reached a consensus. Secondly, I don't know how a photograph of Avril with a fictional character can easily be replaced with a free image.--CyberGhostface 20:24, 23 April 2007 (UTC)