User talk:Barryfein

Image tagging for Image:Bruno sm01.JPG.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Bruno sm01.JPG.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:
 * Image use policy
 * Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. 22:00, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

License tagging for Image:1078295489 l.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:1078295489 l.jpg. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:
 * Image use policy
 * Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Media copyright questions. 00:59, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Image tagging for Image:Howie.gif
Thanks for uploading Image:Howie.gif. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:
 * Image use policy
 * Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. 10:21, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Re: Headblade
If at all possible, please do not remove the cleanup tags (, in this case) unless they have been actioned upon or are clearly in error. If an editor notes the article is clearly in need of specific kind of improvement, they may tag the article accordingly; removing them without any explanation at all is slightly frustrating and not particularly helpful. The article needs its advertisement-like tone cut down. The tag, therefore, should stay until the issue is taken care of. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 09:39, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Okay, more rambling on the page thing. Yes, I agree the article is better than the speedy-deleted versions. I can easily list quite a few issues here, however:
 * 1) "Founded by Todd Greene, a 1989 graduate of Bowdoin College, the HeadBlade is the direct result of his personal quest for a product that would make head shaving quick, easy and fun." Statements like this are a bit problematic, don't you agree? Here we have a fact... which suddenly gets followed by something the Marketing People asked him to say.
 * 2) "Ease of Use" section is, I believe, ripped directly off of the website. The whole section is kind of POV - "easiness" is a subjective quality. If you assert something, you need to provide sources... reliable sources. Furthermore, it's kind of unwarranted. Basically, if it was done in proper encyclopaedic way, it would boil down to "The manufacturer claims (source link) that the Headblade is easier to use than the competiting products, due to lack of handle and ability to guide the movement with fingers". Doesn't quite have the same ring to it, now does it?
 * 3) The section also uses inappropriate second person (in other words, "you" is a bad word here) - the articles should be descriptive rather than instructive.
 * 4) "MoMA independently reviewed, nominated and selected The HeadBlade for its permanent collection within the museum's Department of Architecture and Design." Well, good for them. =) All we are supposed to care is the simple facts: a) MoMA liked them, b) they honoured them by placing it in its permanent collection. We don't want to hear how they "independently reviewed, nominated and selected" it. That bit is marketing spiel. Would you buy something that was "put to museum", or something that was "independently reviewed, nominated and selected" for museum, the latter being explained as the most Earth-shattering bit of news ever? =)

Plus, I really hate to ask this, but could you please fix the licences on Image:Toddhb1.jpg and Image:Headblade.jpg? I really hate to ask because specifying the correct fair use licence is the uploader's responsibility. The images don't state sources of the images accurately (this goes to the Summary section) and the image's licence goes in Licence section. Currently it's got two licences specified, the latter of which is also unacceptable - in this case, the wrong licences should probably just be removed. You also need to provide a fair use rationale for the images, as explained in the text. The reason I ask is that due to bad tagging, they're hanging in Category:Candidates for speedy deletion, which the admins are supposed to keep nice and tidy... --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 20:19, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Much better. The only remaining big problem is that the article doesn't fit in the style conventions - read Manual of Style and see if you can make the article look like the rest of the articles. I did some small edits on this department (fixed the lead section and removed a spurious signature). I still think the article needs more "meat" though - I'm sorry I can't help much here, because I know nothing of the subject. =) The lead section in particular could use some improving. I've been a big fan of answering the basic questions right at the beginning of the article: What it is, when it came to be, who and why, where? If you can get these down without marketing words, it's probably better. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 07:15, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Image tagging for Image:Iceman_sm.JPG.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Iceman_sm.JPG.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:
 * Image use policy
 * Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. 07:08, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Headblade
See Peer review/Headblade/archive1 for suggestions for improvements to this article. -- Tivedshambo (talk) 21:25, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Image editing
I'm happy to say that I really love the MediaWiki interface that Wikipedia uses, but also I'm unhappy that editing image information is one of its confusing sides. (Though not as confusing as the undeletion interface, but that's something non-admins don't have to worry about... =)

Basically, Images here consist of three things:
 * 1) Images, as they're displayed on articles,
 * 2) The Image "page" and
 * 3) the image itself.

The images on articles are always linked to their image "pages", just click on them to go there. The image "page" has the information about the image, while the image itself is handled separately. The MediaWiki software will generate the image that is displayed on the article automatically.

Images are displayed on the article pages by linking to them, like. (If you want to create a link to image rather than displaying it, add a colon: Image:Headblade.jpg .) There's a comprehensive guide on how to link with this stuff in Help:Images and other uploaded files.

Now, Clicking on any image will lead you to the image "page". This page will contain information on the image and its tags.

To change tags on the image, simply go to the image page (Follow the link to Image:Headblade.jpg), then click on the "Edit this page" link on the top, just like you'd edit any other page.

As for the Fair Use things - I recommend you to take a look at Fair use and Help:Image page on how to properly tag the image and add the fair use rationale. Yes, all of this red tape is painful. =) --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 07:22, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Image tagging for Image:Mail-1.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Mail-1.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:
 * Image use policy
 * Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. 05:41, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Unspecified source for Image:Headblade.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Headblade.jpg. I notice the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this file yourself, then there needs to be a justification explaining why we have the right to use it on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you did not create the file yourself, then you need to specify where it was found, i.e., in most cases link to the website where it was taken from, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the file also doesn't have a copyright tag, then one should be added. 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 Fair use, use a tag such as or one of the other tags listed at Image copyright tags. See 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 uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sherool (talk) 13:38, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Additionaly the image seems to be replacable (that is a free licensed photo could likely be obtained). --Sherool (talk) 13:38, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Orphaned fair use image (Image:TBruno.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:TBruno.jpg. I notice the 'image' page currently specifies that the image is unlicensed for use on Wikipedia 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. Mosmof 14:55, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
 * "Image:Toddhb1.jpg has also been marked as orphaned. Mosmof 15:20, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Headblade


The article Headblade has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * Non-notable brand product. Per WP:PRODUCT this should either be merged into the nearest parent article (doesn't appear to be one) or deleted.

While all 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  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  will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.  SilkTork  *YES! 00:50, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Miller Group (marketing agency)


A tag has been placed on Miller Group (marketing agency), requesting that it be deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under two or more of the criteria for speedy deletion, by which pages can be deleted at any time, without discussion. If the page meets any of these strictly-defined criteria, then it may be soon be deleted by an administrator. The reasons it has been tagged are:
 * It seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, product, group, service or person and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic. (See section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion.) Please read the guidelines on spam and FAQ/Business for more information.
 * It appears to be about a person, organization (band, club, company, etc.), individual animal, or web content, 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. (See section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion.) Such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for 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 "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. Citobun (talk) 14:33, 8 September 2016 (UTC)