User talk:Cajetsetter

June 2015
Your addition to Ramones has been removed, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Donating copyrighted materials for more information on uploading your material to Wikipedia. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted material, including text or images from print publications or from other websites, without an appropriate and verifiable license. All such contributions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images&mdash;you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. Every image you have uploaded to Wikimedia Commons and added to Wikipedia articles has been a blatant copyright violation. Stop immediately. Commons only accepts free content; that is, content that is without copyright restriction. It is obvious that you did not create these images (they are well-known logos, album covers, and historical photographs of a highly notable band, created by various parties and previously published in many copyrighted works), therefore you do not have the right to upload them under false licenses or without a claim of fair use. It is especially egregious considering that some of them (the band's logo, the album cover) already exist on Wikipedia with sufficient fair use rationales. Please familiarize yourself with Non-free content and with basic copyright principles. --IllaZilla (talk) 06:43, 25 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Hi IllaZilla:
 * Trust me, I'm trying to get it right, but it is extremely difficult to get a direct answer from anyone, even on the talk pages. Please help, as I'm not trying to violate anything. I have read the rules a number of times, but I am (clearly) having difficulty understanding them. So...please help.
 * 1) With the Ramones logo, which is the more correct and accurate one to use as it features the original design and is the only one that the band currently uses on merch, promotions, etc., it is the official logo. I have now uploaded it directly to wikipedia, since it seems to be available there with the option of putting it as the official logo. Hopefully that's fine. That being said, as the logo is based on the presidential seal of the United States, it technically is available under that permission, which is the same reason why you see all sort of people (One Direction, etc) adapting the logo to their own purposes without permission of the band. It was created by the united states government, modified by Arturo Vega, but either way, is the actual logo for the band and should be represented as such, and not one of the later modifications featuring replacement band members.


 * 2) With the photos, why are the ones that are up there allowed, or is it a matter of uploading to wikipedia as opposed to the commons. I actually do have written permission to use some of the images that I have uploaded from the photographers, but I cannot figure out how to tell you guys that, but the photos that are there, I imagine do NOT have that permission, so this seems to be an inconsistently applied policy. HELP?!!!


 * Cajetsetter (talk) 00:13, 2 July 2015 (UTC)


 * It's OK, fair use is not easy to understand at first, and I had a similar learning curve when I first started out. The relevant policies here are Copyrights and Non-free content criteria, and the supporting guideline is Non-free content. When we talk about "free content" or "free licenses" on Wikipedia, we usually mean free as in libre, not gratis. Basically, almost anything you didn't create yourself completely from scratch is most likely non-free; that is, it's probably copyrighted or trademarked in some way by someone else. Wikimedia Commons only accepts free content—that is, content released under a free license without any copyright restrictions—because it is a repository of media that anyone may use for any purpose, and copyrighted material is subject to many restrictions. Wikipedia allows for some non-free content, such as album covers and logos of organizations, but since Wikipedia is a freely-licenced encyclopedia, non-free content is limited and subject to a number of restrictions and criteria.


 * Most significant here, under the non-free content criteria, are "no free equivalent", "respect for commercial opportunities", "minimal use", and "contextual significance". Let's look at the edits you made and why they didn't meet these criteria:
 * Changing the logo in the Ramones article: The version of the logo that has been in the article for years is of a high enough resolution for use in the article (304 x 326 pixels), but a low enough resolution that it could not replace the original market role of the original copyrighted material. The version you uploaded is of significantly higher resolution (1,024 x 1,024 pixels), much more than is necessary for article use, and enough that it could replace the original market role of the original copyrighted material. Thus it doesn't pass the "respect for commercial opportunities" criteria. Also, the longstanding version has a complete fair use rationale (see Non-free use rationale guideline) that clearly explains the purpose of its use and why it is significant to the article. The version you uploaded has a rationale that says the purpose of use is "to serve as the primary means of visual identification at the top of the article dedicated to the entity in question", when in fact that's not how it's being used. It also doesn't explain why its use is significant to the article. This is criterion 10c of the non-free content criteria.
 * Adding the logo to the Linda Ramone article: Since the logo isn't mentioned anywhere in that article, and the logo itself doesn't involve Linda Ramone in any way (she didn't create it, her name isn't on it, and she wasn't in the Ramones so she isn't identified by it), its purpose in that article appears to be strictly decorative. This doesn't pass the "minimal use" and "contextual significance" criteria.
 * Adding the logo to the Johnny Ramone article: Even though Johnny was in the Ramones and thus is identified with the logo, the logo is already present in the Ramones article so its use in the Johnny Ramone article doesn't pass the "minimal use" criterion, and since that article doesn't contain any discussion of the logo at all it also doesn't pass "contextual significance".
 * Changing the infobox image of the Ramones article to a non-free one: Since there is already an image of the band in the infobox that is published under a free license, and multiple other freely-licensed images of them throughout the article, use of a non-free image here does not pass the "no free equivalent" criterion.
 * Putting the Ramones album cover in the Ramones article: Again, this doesn't pass "minimal use" because the album cover is already used in Ramones (album) and the album cover is not significantly discussed in the article about the band. Basically, if it feels like you're putting a piece of non-free content in just to decorate/illustrate the article, don't; this kind of use isn't permitted by the non-free content criteria.
 * To address your two specific questions:
 * For the logo, whether it features the "original design" or a later one is really irrelevant here; the only difference is that one says "Tommy" where the other says "Marky". Since the band changed the names around the seal every time there was a lineup change, no one version of the logo is any more "correct and accurate" than another. The band (and whoever now controls their publishing and merchandising) has used all versions of the logo on merchandise over the years; there is no grounds to claim that the Tommy version is the "actual logo" and the Marky one is not...both are the "actual logo", just from different years. If anything, the version with Marky's name probably saw more widespread use during the band's career, since he was in the band much longer (14 years to Tommy's 4). Just because the design is based on the presidential seal does not mean it is available under the same license as the presidential seal. Arturo Vega used the seal as inspiration, but the work he created was original and different enough from the presidential seal to pass the threshold of originality and be protected by copyright. The fact that many other people have ripped it off, parodied it, or pirated it for their own ends does not mean it is in the public domain.
 * As to the photos that are in the Ramones article, I have not reviewed each of them myself but I feel pretty confident that they are either freely-licensed or are used under a valid claim of fair use. The article has gone through a peer review process to be rated a Good Article, and that process usually involves checking all the images to ensure that they are either free or meeting the fair use criteria. If you do in fact have written permission from the copyright holders to upload their works to Wikipedia, there are ways to submit that for verification. Keep in mind, however, that if the copyright holder has given you permission to use their work only in Wikipedia articles, or only for non-commercial and/or educational purposes, then it will not be accepted because content on Wikipedia needs to be compatible with the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License and the GNU Free Documentation License, which allows anyone to use it. If you would like to submit an image for review, use Files for upload. You could also ask at Help desk how to submit verification of permission from the copyright holder (I've never done such a thing, myself, so I suggest asking the help desk). The OTRS noticeboard handles copyright permissions and will attempt to verify your claim that the copyright holder has given you permission to upload the file. --IllaZilla (talk) 07:02, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Hi IllaZilla - Thanks for taking the time. Super duper appreciate it, and will take the time this weekend to go through the copyrights article. With respect to the logo, however, is it ok if I upload again at a lower resolution? While I get what you're saying about any of the versions of the logos being "authentic" the one with the original four members is the one that is used for their social profiles, on Ramones.com, and on any of the merchandise that is currently sold at retail (at least where I've seen it) and the merchandise that is currently available for purchase on www.johnnyramone.com. Even though Marky was in the band for longer than Tommy, he was still a replacement guy, and it seems from what is sold, and what is on social, that the band that is being represented is really the original four. So can I upload at a lower resolution?

Thank you! Cajetsetter (talk) 16:32, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Hi IllaZilla - Can you do me a favor? Johnny Ramone was 6' tall. It says so in Commando. Can you change that so when it shows up in search, it's got his correct height? Both Dee Dee's and Joey's heights were recently changed; it would be awesome of Johnny's height were correct as well. Thank you! Cajetsetter (talk)

June 2019
Hello Cajetsetter, I have made some changes to your recent edits to the Jefferson Starship page. Referring to Kantner, Slick, Freiberg, Creach, and Barbata as "former Jefferson Airplane members" does not sufficiently describe what transpired. There was no formal break-up of Jefferson Airplane in 1972 after the end of the ``Long John Silver`` tour. In the AllMusic Jefferson Airplane Biography by William Ruhlmann (https://www.allmusic.com/artist/jefferson-airplane-mn0000840102/biography), it states "Rather than formally breaking up, they mutated into other configurations, Hot Tuna and Jefferson Starship." The use of the phrase "evolved out of" is reflected in multiple sources. The opening line of the AllMusic Jefferson Starship Biography (https://www.allmusic.com/artist/jefferson-starship-mn0000840050/biography) states "Jefferson Starship was among the most successful arena rock bands of the 1970s and early '80s, an even greater commercial entity than its predecessor, Jefferson Airplane, the band out of which it evolved." The Jefferson Airplane Rock and Roll Hall of Fame Biography (https://www.rockhall.com/inductees/jefferson-airplane?gclid=CJ2NhLWm4tUCFUdWDQodqFwBAA) includes the following, "Jefferson Airplane formally evolved into Jefferson Starship in 1974, achieving considerably more commercial success in the Seventies than the Airplane had known in the previous decade." An AP article (https://news.google.com/newspapers?id=qyEfAAAAIBAJ&sjid=KZcEAAAAIBAJ&pg=7193,2688665&dq=paul+kantner&hl=en) by Mary Campbell entitled "Marty Balin Rejoins Jefferson Starship" from June 15, 1975 states, "Jefferson Airplane started in 1965 and the present Jefferson Starship 'just growed' out of it. The group didn't stop and start again." I think that is sufficient to maintain the use of the word "evolved" in the lead paragraph, as it more accurately reflects the development and is backed by multiple sources.

The member list is unneeded in the lead as the lineups and personnel changes are covered completely in the article, and not accurate since Sears replaced Peter Kaukonen. The gold and platinum album count is inaccurate, they had 8 gold or platinum studio albums and one compilation album that was certified gold during the time period of 1974-1984, not 11 total as you listed. Your source appears to be combining Jefferson Airplane and Jefferson Starship records up until that date in it's tally. I changed the source and used the Hot 100 chart instead. I removed the partial list of singles as that information is covered in the narrative. It is redundant and unnecessary to cover in the lead.

The Starship information is already covered elsewhere, it fits better there than in this article's lead paragraph, plus it is misleading as that band is still currently active. I have also changed the wording to remove "Kantner's post '92 Jefferson Starship" and the current lineup "performing using the name" from the article. This wording seems to imply they merely use the same name or that they are unrelated entities, with the current roster having no connection to the earlier incarnations. The fact is that there were many other members besides Kantner involved in both eras. Also, the current band members do have the permission from the owners of the name "Jefferson Starship" to continue to use it. Wikipedia articles should stay neutral in tone, so I think a more careful wording is warranted here. Regards,AbleGus (talk) 04:50, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Hi AbleGus - thanks for the thorough response to each of the points you've made. However, what I think makes more sense to have a little more differentiation between the different incarnations of the Airplane bands. The only member of the currently touring band that was originally in Jefferson Starship is David Freiberg (with Donny Baldwin as a close second) and while they have a license to tour under the name it's not the same as the original members. The way it's written now makes it sound like Paul Kantner is still touring with the band, and he's not, obviously, since he's dead. Why are you opposed to the clarification of who is touring currently? IE, it would make more sense, at least to add an addendum that says something like "Since Paul Kantner's death in 2017, Original member David Frieberg has continued touring with a lineup that consists of..." or something along those lines. Would you be amenable to that? If we've got the line about the revived '90s version in the summary, then perhaps an update with the current century's lineup is in order? Here's a good reference: https://ultimateclassicrock.com/jefferson-starship-tour-2017/.

Out of curiosity, where does your interest come from? I noticed you almost exclusively edit Jefferson Airplane and Starship pages, with a few Chicago edits thrown in. Asking out of genuine curiosity. Thanks, Cajetsetter (talk) 00:13, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Hello Cajetsetter, thanks for your response on this topic. I assume you mean you are seeking to differentiate the different incarnations of Jefferson Starship here. I believe the body of the article already sufficiently covers the myriad of personnel changes that have transpired over the years, including the present configuration of the group. The first paragraph in the "2016-present: Post-Kantner Era" section of the article (paragraph 30 overall) reads as follows: "Following Paul Kantner's death, the band received the approval of both Kantner's family and Grace Slick to keep performing.[23] Jefferson Starship has continued to tour with a line-up consisting of remaining members David Freiberg (vocals, guitar), Donny Baldwin (drums), Chris Smith (keyboards), Jude Gold (lead guitar), and Cathy Richardson (vocals). When Jefferson Starship announced the 'Carry the Fire' tour in March 2017, Richardson stated that the band's continuation is a tribute to both Kantner and Grace Slick, and noted that Slick had granted the current members a lifetime license to use the name Jefferson Starship after Kantner's death.[38]" The reference labeled #38 these is actually the identical source you provided above from Ultimate Classic Rock about the announcement of the Carry the Fire Tour in 2017. This covers who is in in the current line up of Jefferson Starship, I do not think we need to add the sentence as you proposed it to cover this information again in the lead paragraph of the article.

You make a fair point about there not being acknowledgement that Paul Kantner has died making it seem like he is still alive. I think we can cover that by simply adding to the sentence without expanding it into a list of members in the lead. Again, that information is already specifically listed in the body of the article. How about "The band name was retired in 1985, but it was picked up again in the early 1990s by a revival of the group led by Paul Kantner, which has continued following his death in 2016."?

I really find the Jefferson "extended family" fascinating, it is just a topic I enjoy. Regards, AbleGus (talk) 04:52, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Hi again, AbleGus - yes, I think we're trying to differentiate and also maybe give some credit in the opening paragraph to the other "founding" members of Jefferson Starship because the way that it's written now, it sounds like Pete Sears, Craig Chaquico, John Barbata, and David Freiberg were just "replacement dudes" and I think it's fair to say that while Jefferson Starship evolved out of the breakup of Jefferson Airplane when Jorma and Jack went off, and there had been plenty of drummers over the years, Jefferson Starship was a new band and it's worth giving them founding credit and not treat them like session guys. The Jefferson Airplane page lists the core lineup in the intro paragraph, so I suggest we do the same for Jefferson Starship. Also, I know that I, for one, get JA, JS, and Starship confused music wise...all the time. So it might help to include some of the songs that JS did at the top, especially to differentiate from Starship, and even more particularly since both JS and Starship perform each others songs in concert currently and it's hard to keep it straight! How about this for an intro:

Jefferson Starship is an American rock band from San Francisco, California that evolved out of the group Jefferson Airplane following the departure of bassist Jack Casady and guitarist Jorma Kaukonen.[2][3] Founding Members included Paul Kantner, Grace Slick, Papa John Creach, David Freiberg, John Barbata, Pete Sears and Craig Chaquico. Between 1974 and 1984, they released eight gold or platinum-selling studio albums,[4] and had nine top forty singles on the Billboard Hot 100 Chart.[5] Some of their best-known hit songs include "Jane," "Miracles," and "Runaway." The band went through several major changes in personnel and genres through the years while retaining the same Jefferson Starship name. The band name was retired in 1985, but it was picked up again in the early 1990s by a revival of the group led by Paul Kantner, which has continued following his death in 2016.

Does that work for you, maintaining both objectivity and providing some info a context for casual visitors who may not scroll down? Cheers, Cajetsetter (talk) 18:45, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Hello Cajetsetter. Thanks for your additional response and explanation. Unfortunately, I do not agree with your proposal on adding the sentence about the specific band members into the lead paragraph. As for seeking to differentiate between the different eras of the band, I think that the history section in the body of the article already sufficiently breaks down the personnel changes as they happened. That section is also subdivided into time periods (1974-1978, 1979-1984, 1992-2016, and 2016-present), so it is clear what happened and who was involved when it happened. I do not agree that the article lead paragraph should be used to distinguish members and time frames when the body of the article already covers it.

With regards to your stated purpose of "give some credit" to members, I do not think that is a good reason for listing them again in the opening paragraph in the article. This is meant to be an encyclopedia entry where the lead paragraph should introduce the topic and summarize key points. Again, I do not understand your selection of names here since Pete Sears actually replaced Peter Kaukonen in the group after the spring 1974 Jefferson Starship tour. Based on that, the list you provided appears to be a subjective statement or analysis. When presented without attribution, a subjective statement is not in keeping with the Wikipedia Neutral Point of View Guidelines (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view) and should be avoided. Nowhere in this article is it stated or implied that Pete Sears, Craig Chaquico, John Barbata, and David Freiberg are session musicians. In the Origins section of the history, paragraph 3 provides a background on Freiberg, paragraph 4 introduces Pete Sears, paragraph 5 brings Craig Chaquico into the narrative, and paragraph 6 discusses John Barbata (along with Papa John Creach and Peter Kaukonen). It does not say these were session musicians, and I do not feel the names should be inserted into the lead to compensate for that perceived slight which is not bourne out in the body of the article.

The Jefferson Airplane article does mention "core lineup of Jefferson Airplane" in the second paragraph of the article lead, but keep in mind it was those six members alone who were inducted into the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame (mentioned later in that same paragraph). I really do not like that wording myself and maybe we should consider tweaking it to connect those two points, but do not feel that alone should justify adding a selected member list into the lead paragraph of the Jefferson Starship article.

I am also not in favor of adding a list of some Jefferson Starship songs to the lead paragraph unless there is also some type of corresponding notable accolade as reason for that song to be mentioned, such as the song receiving an award or some other form of recognition. Most if not all of the songs they released as singles are already listed within the body of the narrative, so I do not think it should be duplicated with a list of songs in the lead paragraph that does not include some piece of additional information.

I agree with adding the information about the continuation of the band after Paul Kantner's 2016 death. I believe we have consensus here, so we can add that to the sentence.

One last thing, I noticed that you used the term we ("I think we're trying to differentiate") in your last reply. Are you part of a group or speaking for an individual or group of people in this discussion? RegardsAbleGus (talk) 04:16, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

Hi AbleGus - I just meant "we" as in you and me, since we're the ones discussing it. That's all. Kind of look at it as a team effort to make the page as accurate as possible. Thanks for making the change to the Kantner line so it's clear there's a version touring after his death. What do you suggest for the tweak to the Jefferson Airplane second paragraph? It doesn't bother me as it sort of clarifies the "core" which was what I wanted to do on the Jefferson Starship page. Noted about the RnRHOF induction though. I do want to argue though that unlike some other bands, having some extra information in the initial paragraph as a quick reference to answer the "which one is this one?" question as I mentioned before...it gets pretty confusing...without having to scroll all the way down. Are you open to a little bit more information, attributed of course? Cajetsetter (talk) 01:02, 9 July 2019 (UTC).

Hello Cajetsetter, thanks for your response and the clarification on your use of word "we" in your prior entry. As to the Jefferson Airplane article, I was think the sentences should be combined to tie the mention of the 1966-1970 line-up with the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame induction. I do not like using the word "core" in that sentence, without any sourced attribution as to who is saying it or why. That makes it seem as if the encyclopedia article is designating this distinction among the band members, which is a value judgement. It makes sense to include the Rock and Roll HOF information in the introductory paragraph, and tie it in to the persons who were inducted, so both pieces should be merged to improve the article.

As to adding a "core" lineup to Jefferson Starship, I am against including this information in the article. Again, without any sourced attribution as to who is saying that, it makes it appear as if the Wikipedia article is bestowing this title. I still feel the information as to who was involved and when is thoroughly covered in the body of the article, there is no need to include it again in the lead. As to your concern about "a quick reference to answer which one is this one?" question, the Infobox already includes a captioned picture of the band from 1976 that lists the member names. The Infobox appears adjacent to the article lead, so it does not require any scrolling, and should assist in that regard. I still do not feel we should add a list of songs in the lead paragraph. If there is a sentence listing a song or songs with a specific notable accolade, then it might be worth adding. An example is in the Jefferson Airplane article about the two named songs being "among Rolling Stone's "500 Greatest Songs of All Time." Just to list a selection of song titles without a reason why they are being mentioned is not something that should be included in the article.  Thanks again for your response on this subject.  Regards, AbleGus (talk) 03:22, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

Notice of Conflict of interest noticeboard discussion
There is currently a discussion at Conflict of interest/Noticeboard regarding a possible conflict of interest incident with which you may be involved. Thank you. —valereee (talk) 16:48, 12 May 2021 (UTC)