User talk:Chasewc91/Archive 5

Celebration
Hi there. It states nowhere that the standard image for an album must be used as the main image for an album page. I understand that most times a studio album uses this method as there are usually two different photographs used, but this album is not a studio album, it is a compilation retrospective. All the television advertisements, publicity and common imagery used at the time was of the deluxe edition. The album was sold as "34 songs that changed the world... and two new tracks", which again is the deluxe edition. I cannot see how after nearly three years of this deluxe image being used, you felt the need to change it and keep reverting it. It seems that I am not the one who is being disruptive. jwad.... blah | blah | blah 04:37, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Cruel Summer
I reverted your move of Cruel Summer (album) to the longer, official title. There is a talk page consensus to move it to "Cruel Summer (GOOD Music album)", which is a redirect page. The latter is seems more appropriate, per Article_titles, as it is how sources refer to it. I do agree with your change from "studio" to "compilation", but another sources said otherwise and would like to get some thoughts on it, below the first talk page post. Dan56 (talk) 06:26, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Lady Gaga Fame
With all due respect fellow Wikipedian, a non-free image with an appropriate fair use rationale is permitted for use on the page listed in the rationale. The policy suggests that free images are preferred but does not explicitly state that this cause should be pursued blindly. If one was to replace all non-free images with 'free user-produced' images with complete disregard for the value of the non-free image or the appropriateness of the free image then one would easily justify the use of user-produced photos of music albums instead of official album covers or the use of hand-drawn versions of logos and products instead of official corporate representations. This is, in fact, legally not acceptable.

I would like to point out, more importantly, that you are assuming that user-produced media that are derivative works of a copyrighted object are automatically 'free'. This is not the case.

"US Copyright Office Circular 14: Derivative Works notes that:

A typical example of a derivative work received for registration in the Copyright Office is one that is primarily a new work but incorporates some previously published material. This previously published material makes the work a derivative work under the copyright law. To be copyrightable, a derivative work must be different enough from the original to be regarded as a "new work" or must contain a substantial amount of new material. Making minor changes or additions of little substance to a preexisting work will not qualify the work as a new version for copyright purposes. The new material must be original and copyrightable in itself. Titles, short phrases, and format, for example, are not copyrightable."

As stated in Commons, in lay terms:

"If I take a picture of an object with my own camera, I hold the copyright to the picture. Can't I license it any way I choose? Why do I have to worry about other copyright holders?

By taking a picture with a copyrighted cartoon character on a t-shirt as its main subject, for example, the photographer creates a new, copyrighted work (the photograph), but the rights of the cartoon character's creator still affect the resulting photograph. Such a photograph could not be published without the consent of both copyright holders: the photographer and the cartoonist.

It doesn't matter if a drawing of a copyrighted character's likeness is created entirely by the uploader without any other reference than the uploader's memory. A non-free copyrighted work simply cannot be rendered free without the consent of the copyright holder, not by photographing, drawing nor sculpting"

Therefore, without the consent of the original copyright holder (in this case, Coty, Inc.), the previous photo of the perfume in Commons was a copyright infringement.

I sincerely hope you will appreciate the significance of what I have stated.

Thank you, and happy Wiki editing.

Handsdown.1 (talk) 04:34, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Cruel Summer pt duex
Hi. Could you comment at this talk page regarding the article Cruel Summer (GOOD Music album)? It concerns attributing an album's proper artist and title/name, as there are somewhat conflicting sources. Dan56 (talk) 02:39, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Lady Gaga discography
nominated Lady Gaga discography for featured list removal here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured list criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks; editors may declare to "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Till 02:15, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Bad Roamnce
How is this even possible can you tell me? :O — Indian: BIO  · [ ChitChat ] 16:53, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Meat dress
I have no problem with you keeping 2010s in fashion but please try to be respectful. You knew what i meant when I said "Mainstream fashion" I wasn't referring to the catergory, no need to be a smart aleck--75.65.123.86 (talk) 00:25, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Sorry I'm Late
Shouldn't the clean cover be used, since it is the more commonly used one in advertisements both online and in-stores? Especially since doesn't Wikipedia ask for covers not to be tagged (a-la Advisory sticker)? Especially since the explicit and clean do not differentiate between each other drastically, and could be described in a few words?  livelikemusic  my talk page! 19:47, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Let It Go
I think we should just not respond to Forbidden anymore as he is only going to try and argue. I comment to Kww explaining the situation to him in a nutshell and I posted a definition of single on the talk page from Webster but after this I think we should just not comment anymore and let someone else handle it because as I said on the talk page all Forbidden is doing is twisting our words and not showing WP:Good faith and we are just belittling ourselves if we keep replying to him. I hope this gets sorted out. Good luck! Bumblebee9999 (talk) 20:28, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Problem with 4x4 Miley Cyrus.
See, I added 4x4 as new single with the official reference (Martel & Billboard), and now I deleted the edition, did not see the link Diane Martel has confirmed that direct the video!? BILLBOARD FONT IS GOD! where is the problem? is obvious that is the new single for months already rumored, now this confirmadísimo, please undo those issues.--SergiSmiler (talk) 13:50, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

New photo of Lady Gaga.
Hello! Can please upload a new photo of Lady Gaga? The current one doesn't look to flattering. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CrystalAlejandro (talk • contribs) 21:48, 17 July 2014 (UTC)


 * I added a new picture a few days ago that I thought had a clearer shot of her face, and it was reverted by . I'm not going to start an edit war over it. If you feel strongly about it, I would encourage you to launch a discussion at Talk:Lady Gaga so other editors can weigh in. –Chase (talk / contribs) 23:19, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Questions
Hello Chase,

I would first like to say this was quite an impressive revamp to the Lady Gaga lead. I'll also get to working on that "Achievements" section, but would you perhaps like to join me in eventually working the article to FA? Also, regarding this edit for the Katy Perry profile picture, what do you feel makes the France picture better than the Prismatic World Tour picture? I agree that there's no contest per se for recent shots :P, but am curious as to how it's less suitable for infobox. I plan on taking her to FA by the end of this month, and you are welcome to give any suggestions beforehand and/or participate in its FAC.

SNUGGUMS (talk · contribs) 01:31, 18 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Absolutely. I think there's tons of work to be done on the article, but I'd be willing to help as much as possible. I don't know how available I'll be in a month or so when college classes start back. I also own a few biographies on her, so I can go through those and find any usable info. As for Katy Perry, the current image is of much higher quality (lighting, etc.) and doesn't hide her hair with a hood. Also, on a less important note, it looks like she has pink hair in that picture, and she's probably more noted for being a brunette than she is for her colored wigs and dye jobs. It's more obvious when you look at the picture that you're looking at Katy Perry. I'm not super familiar with the FAC process, but I'd be more than happy to leave comments. Let me know when you take it there and best of luck! –Chase (talk / contribs) 01:38, 18 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Sounds fantastic :). As for FAC process, I've participated in several myself but have never nominated an article for FA before (fingers crossed). Gaga could indeed use some work before FAC, and I'll put her up for PR beforehand. I'll tell you this about FAC: some can be quick while others last for several weeks. Take any standards you'd hold for a GA and raise it even higher- to the best quality you can imagine. Katy is indeed best known for having dark hair than all the many other colors she's dyed it to (though is a natural blonde herself). For what it's worth, she does look happier in that France photo. I'll definitely let you know when she's nominated! SNUGGUMS (talk · contribs) 02:01, 18 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Here is her FAC. SNUGGUMS (talk · contribs) 00:33, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

ArtRave: The Artpop Ball
Chase, can I entice you in copy-editing the article? Please remove any redundancy and repeated info. — Indian: BIO  · [ ChitChat ] 08:24, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I might get around to it if I have time. –Chase (talk / contribs) 22:29, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Haha finaly we got to know something about you. :P — Indian: <font color="#FF033E">BIO  · [ <font face="Tempus Sans ITC" color="#1C1CF0">ChitChat ] 05:59, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

FAC
Can you look at Katy Perry again for new changes and her FAC for other queries? SNUGGUMS (talk · contribs) 18:46, 27 July 2014 (UTC)


 * yes, will get around to it shortly. –Chase (talk / contribs) 20:23, 27 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Thank you :3 SNUGGUMS (talk · contribs) 23:46, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Successful FA
Thanks to your help, Katheryn Elizabeth Hudson is now a featured article :'D! Couldn't have done it without you.  Snuggums ( talk  /  edits ) 02:03, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

FAC for xx (album)
Hi! Would you care to review or comment on my FA nomination of the article xx (album)? The review page has been inactive since I nominated it last week, so anything would be appreciated to start the process. If not, feel free to ignore this message. Cheers! Dan56 (talk) 02:41, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Madonna Talk
Dear Chase, I have initiated a new discussion on the Madonna Talk page. I need editors to weigh in and decide if Madonna's article should follow guidelines usually followed by articles on artists known mononymously. Some discussions tend to be overlooked; this is why I'm telling you about it. Thx! Israell (talk) 17:52, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

GetItRight
Hey, the discussion you proposed on Talk:Get_It_Right_(Miley_Cyrus_song) certainly seems like the exact title you recommended would not get consensus, but there does seem to be support for GetItRight (Miley Cyrus song). I realize that you stated your personal preference for not needing the disambiguation, but although I'm assuming it's likely, I just wanted to make sure you'd at least be ok with the new consensus title as at least acceptably better than the current one. If so, it would be great if you could indicate it on the talk page just so it's clear that there is at least a consensus for that and it doesn't have to just stay on it's current inaccurate name.--Yaksar (let's chat) 20:04, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Halloween cheer!
<div style="border-style:solid; border-color:#000; background-color:#FFB924; border-width:2px; text-align:left; padding:8px;" class="plainlinks">

Happy Halloween!

Hello Chasewc91: Thanks for all of your contributions to improve Wikipedia, and have a happy and enjoyable Halloween!   –   Snuggums  ( talk  /  edits ) 21:19, 28 October 2014 (UTC) Send Halloween cheer by adding {{subst:Happy Halloween}} to user talk pages with a friendly message.

Lady Gaga's Head Image
I read your proposal to use the File:Lady Gaga ArtRave San Diego (14705593955).jpg for the header so in curiosity I edited the pic

.

I know this is out of date topic but I just thought u might wnna see my wrk :) Zlouiemark45546 (talk) 16:07, 23 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks for editing the picture. Several other editors and I have agreed upon the current infobox image from Roseland, but feel free to bring it up at Talk:Lady Gaga if you think it should be changed. –Chase (talk / contribs) 16:14, 23 November 2014 (UTC)


 * my only personal qualm in that image, Zlouie, is how the lighting makes it difficult to see her face.  Snuggums ( talk  /  edits ) 18:00, 23 November 2014 (UTC)


 * I'll have to agree with Snuggums here. Also, it is discouraged to use mirrored images as they are not an accurate representation of the subject. –Chase (talk / contribs) 18:43, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I'll make a propsal later at Talk:Lady Gaga later. Oh btw, visit https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/So_Happy_I_Could_Die I just added justice(photo) to the living dress :) Paws Up Zlouiemark45546 (talk) 07:25, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
 * what can u say about this photo @Chase?


 * does any of the two passed to become the head image?Zlouiemark45546 (talk) 15:31, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Beat Goes On
Sorry man, had not noticed the talk page discussion. —<font size="2" face="Courier New" color="#6F00FF"> Indian: <font color="#FF033E">BIO  [ <font face="Tempus Sans ITC" color="#1C1CF0">ChitChat ] 08:25, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
 * No worries. I simply took a cue from the recent discussion at WT:GA? about cleanup tags/notability. I assumed leaving a tag for a reviewer to look at would cause less ruckus than taking a current GAN to AfD. –Chase (talk / contribs) 08:29, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for doing this. I actually thought the article was kinda non-notable but was giving it a shot due to the major expansion FanofPopMusic did on it. Let's see what the GA reviewer feels. —<font size="2" face="Courier New" color="#6F00FF"> Indian: <font color="#FF033E">BIO  [ <font face="Tempus Sans ITC" color="#1C1CF0">ChitChat ] 08:31, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Taylor Swift
Why did you remove it? The deluxe eversion is quite different from the standard one. It does not fail. Nahnah4 (talk | contribs | guestbook) 07:29, 27 December 2014 (UTC)


 * The additional cover is provided without demonstrating its importance. It adds nothing to the reader's understanding of the album (WP:NFCC), nor does it help the reader understand the topic any more than it does with just the standard album cover (WP:NFCC). Wikipedia almost always relies on free content, and non-free content is only used when absolutely necessary. –Chase (talk / contribs) 07:31, 27 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Ok, but in this case, Word of Mouth also has a deluxe version. Nahnah4 (talk | contribs | guestbook) 07:33, 27 December 2014 (UTC)


 * That article should not include an extra cover either. I don't actively patrol Wikipedia looking for non-free content to remove; I remove it when I come across it. –Chase (talk / contribs) 07:35, 27 December 2014 (UTC)


 * But what about Talking Dreams? I uploaded the extra Talking Dreams cover as it is the reissue. Does it need to be removed too? Nahnah4 (talk | contribs | guestbook) 07:36, 27 December 2014 (UTC)


 * I'm not familiar with the artist or album. Context would help. (When was it reissued? Was it reissued in all countries, or only a few? Was the reissue more popular than the original pressing?) –Chase (talk / contribs) 07:41, 27 December 2014 (UTC)


 * I guess it is needed. Nahnah4 (talk | contribs | guestbook) 07:42, 27 December 2014 (UTC)


 * I assume you'll make the best judgment. A good rule of thumb is to not include extra covers unless you can demonstrate in reasonable detail (with sources) why the cover is important. Good examples to go by would be The Fame Monster, where both covers are discussed in sources (ranked on "best covers" lists, significance of each described in detail by the artist, both described as influential, etc. – not all of that is currently in the article, but there are sources for that) and Madonna, where the album was exclusively released in certain territories with a different album cover, title, and track listing. –Chase (talk / contribs) 07:50, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Meghan Trainor
Hey there, I've recently revamped her article her discography was merged back into it, and wanted your opinion as to if she is now suitable for having her own separate discography? - Lips '' are movin 16:22, 27 December 2014 (UTC)


 * The size of the discography still doesn't seem to warrant a separate page in my opinion. –Chase (talk / contribs) 20:40, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Happy New Year Chasewc91!
<div style="border: 3px solid #FFD700; background-color: #FFFAF0; padding:0.2em 0.4em;" class="plainlinks">

Happy New Year! Chasewc91, Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.  Snuggums ( talk  /  edits ) 06:25, 31 December 2014 (UTC) Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year 2015}} to user talk pages.

Re: Saturdays category
Thanks for the pointer. However, WP:G4 specifically says ''A sufficiently identical and unimproved copy, having any title, of a page deleted via its most recent deletion discussion. This excludes pages that are not substantially identical to the deleted version, [unrelated text].'' Categories that have not been taken to CFD have not experienced deletion discussions, and Category:Wikipedians who like The Saturdays is not substantially identical to anything deleted at Categories for discussion/User/Archive/July 2007. Nyttend (talk) 21:22, 31 December 2014 (UTC)