User talk:Drewcifer3000/Archive 1

Welcome!
Welcome!

Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place  on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! Powers T 16:08, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

Tiffany
Thanks for clearing up the problem with the link to Tiffany; it wasn't listed in the disambig page for "Tiffany." I've added her article link to that page. Willbyr (talk | contribs) 03:05, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

mindflayer & chippendale
Good work expanding the Mindflayer (band), Brian Chippendale and related pages. Kellen T 08:10, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Please do not remove content from Wikipedia. It is considered vandalism. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you.  -- Jonathan Williams 00:18, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Image:Lightning Bolt.jpg
Is Image:Lightning Bolt.jpg really GFDL? It looks like it was just copied from, and without the author's permission, it can't be licensed to everyone under the GFDL. &mdash; brighterorange  (talk) 13:30, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Same goes for Image:BrianChippendale.jpg... &mdash; brighterorange  (talk) 13:33, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
 * (re ) Excellent, thanks! &mdash; brighterorange  (talk) 20:02, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Fair use images
Hi! Under no circumstances are fair use images permitted on user pages. However, you may link to them if you like. See WP:FUC for details. Rklawton 15:46, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Glen E. Friedman page
I see that you put a note of support on the Glen E. Friedman page. There is some fascist user NeoFreak, trying to delete most all of the good information up there, some i've added, can you please throw some of your weight into this? This guy is being threatening etc. check the discussion page. Thanks a lot for your help to this newbie. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ezioj (talk • contribs) 22:54, 12 March 2007 (UTC).

I got my violence in hi-def ultra-realism
Hey. Just complimenting you on the Year Zero ARG page. Nice work :) Will (I hope they cannot see, I AM THE GREAT DESTROYER!) 19:05, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Barnstar

 * I'm flattered! Drewcifer3000 08:55, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Blabbermouth.net
Hi, there are two a few ways articles can be deleted. First is speedy deletion, which is delete at sight if an article does not comply with policies - primarily it should be notable enough to have an article, amongst others.

Notability does not mean linking to from other articles. It means, being the subject of multiple reliable sources. You are welcome to recreate the article if you can satisfy the notability concerns, by stating why so in the lead of the article (no, saying it has a large hit count is not sufficient, you have to give at least a handful attributions to various sources - no blogs or forums). All the best with that. If you need help in recovering the text. --  soum  (0_o) 04:40, 23 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, the contribs history shows most of the contribs were done by anons. Anyways, if you want, I could restore it and set it up for AfD discussion. Or there is another way as well - deletion review, but that would mean the content stays deleted until this is sorted out. Take your pick and let me know. :) --  soum  (0_o) 05:18, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Hello Drew, just to let you know i completely re-wrote the Blabbermouth article and was hoping you could re-visit your opinion on the article's AFD, cheers. M3tal H3ad 13:55, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Talk page indentation
It isn't necessary to "fix indentation", especially if that's all you're doing in an edit, and if it's not ambiguous. WP:TALK says, "Use indentation to clearly indicate who you are replying to, as with usual threaded discussions." In this discussion, it's not like we're each replying to the previous comment, but rather to the original comment made by you, so the indentation for all 3 can remain the same. In this example of a "flat" discussion though, bullets rather than indents can make it easier to distinguish between the comments, like at WP:AfD. –Pomte 11:03, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Autolux
hello. my name is Robert Densworth. I work for autolux. please contact me. some of the things that have been put on the autolux page by you and others have been false. If you would like to collaborate with me, that would be better for the band and anyone in the world that wants to know about them. thank you for your interest.

Perfect Hair Forever
Regarding. As far as I am aware, tags should not be used in section headings. Feel free to correct me here, if I am wrong. :) --Dreaded Walrus t c 02:45, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Amongst
"On stage, NIN performs amongst visually spectacular elements and live performances often culminate with the destruction of musical instruments."

The above makes NO SENSE. With amongst gone, it does make sense.74.101.94.34 11:17, 30 May 2007 (UTC)


 * That still makes no sense to me, honestly. I think it should just be reworded. Drewcifer3000 12:04, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Re: Removal of Fair-Use images from discographies
I have replied on my talk page. If you wish to discuss further or elsewhere please let me know. Kotepho 03:18, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Possibly unfree Image:Aesop Rock live.jpg
An image that you uploaded or altered, Image:Aesop Rock live.jpg, has been listed at Possibly unfree images because its copyright status is disputed. If the image's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the image description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at Possibly unfree images if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Muchness 05:12, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Hello, I notice you've tagged a number of other photos as, but their sources indicate they are copyright: I have listed these images at Possibly unfree images. If you have permission from the copyright holders to release these images under a GFDL license, can you please file a copy of your correspondence at Wikipedia's OTRS system? (See WP:COPYREQ and Commons:Email templates for more info). --Muchness 05:40, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Image:IanSvenoniusMercuryLounge.jpg - source
 * Image:Make-Up_outfits.jpg - source
 * Image:Ian Svenonius.jpg - source
 * Image:Michelle Mae.jpg - source

Linking redirects
You're not actually disambiguating the link here, because both point to the same article. Disambiguation would be changing Year Zero to Year Zero (album). See Redirect, which may save you some time. –Pomte 19:17, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Commons
In the future, please upload media to wikimedia commons so all languages of wikipedia can use them! 81.227.83.111 20:37, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Image:Makeup.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Makeup.jpg. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:


 * 1) Go to the image description page and edit it to add , without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.
 * 2) On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace the fair use image by finding a freely licensed image of its subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or a similar) image under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on [ this link]. Note that any fair use images which are replaceable by free-licensed alternatives 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. Durin 14:46, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Glen E. Friedman page Gallery
Why were all the galleries removed? All the photos I uploaded were promotional free use images to promote the artists work. I and several others I beieve you included took a lot of time and made proper documentation, why did it all get erased and some images even deleted from the wiki servers it appears. Can we replace these? I also made a few other notes on the discussion page you may want to check out. Thank you again for your time and efforts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.161.62.101 (talk • contribs) 15:54, 26 June 2007
 * We do not permit galleries of fair use images. Please see Non-free content criteria item #8 and please remember that Wikipedia is a free content encyclopedia. Copyrighted, fair use imagery is barely tolerated. --Durin 17:20, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Warning
You have uploaded two images with false copyright information: Image:Bob Ostertag.jpg and Image:Cool Calm Pete.jpg. The latter was from Flickr, but was copyrighted. Not all images from Flickr are GFDL or CC, and must specifically say so. The former was from a website with no rights information that I can locate, so copyright applies. Also in that case, it was a re-uploading of a previously deleted image with different and deceptive tagging. If this was unintentional, then now you know better. If it was intentional and done in order to deceive copyright filters and to violate the copyright of the owner, then doing so again will result in a block. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson 22:21, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I also reviewed the emails you sent to OTRS. In my judgement, based on your past history with uploads, I deemed the letters to be faked and the images will be removed and deleted. Please don't lie like that to OTRS again. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 22:36, 8 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I've responded to these ridiculous accusations here, and am in the process of getting the images reinstated. Drewcifer3000 05:23, 11 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I can look into it. Undeleting is perfectly fine action to do for an OTRS ticket if permission has been given. Is there a ticket number to help me find things? MECU ≈ talk 12:25, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
 * No, any OTRS person could restore the image and/or look at it while it is deleted as needed. Re-uploading it isn't a good idea and might just inflame someone. Just be patient, we're all volunteers and get to things when we can. MECU ≈ talk 22:40, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

NIN taskforce
Hello, I am a member of the Nine Inch Nails taskforce, located here. It appears that you have made many significant contributions to NIN-related pages. I thought you may want to join the task force. Thanks, and have a nice day. Zazaban 23:31, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Svenonius Background
Hey Drewcifer-sorry to be redundant but I don't undestand what the point of all this personal background info on Ian Svenonius is. It seems irrelevant and really breaks up what was a good interesting article. I too am a fan of the groups but I don't see that a fairly minor character like Ian Svenonius warrants a living biography. It keeps growing too and I fear I'll be reading the names of his cats and what he likes to eat for breakfast. The groups NOU, Make Up , and Weird War are remarkable to me for ignoring the personal in exchange for a broader , more conceprtual vsion. I just think his mom's day job is out of place and unneccesary for the article for example. Just because we can find some information about someone, it doesn't mean it should be printed. For the sake of readability and having a really cool fun exciting Wiki entry for this character, let's cut this background section out. Whatyyou say? Respectfully, Oooooooops!


 * Hey Oops, thanks for getting in touch with me. I can understand where you are coming from completely: there is a certain extant of facts that are indeed irrelevant.  Or, in Wikipedia terms, "noteable."  In making this distinction, we should be careful to differentiate between Ian Svenonius the "person" and Ian Svenonius the "musician/artist/author."  Although Mr. Svenonius is obviously best known as a musician/artist/author, WikiProject Biography articles are about the person more so than what they're best known for.  Of course, the article should reflect most heavily on the person's notable accomplishments, but wouldn't you say Mr. Svenonius' family and education are notable facts about Ian Svenonius the "person?"  Also, wouldn't you say these facts would have had a considerable impact on Ian Svenonius the "musician/artist/author?"
 * On a point-by-point basis, I suppose the facts about what his family members do (professors, artists, whatever) aren't essential to learning more about Mr. Svenonius, but they do provide a bit of context to people who otherwise don't have their own Wikipedia page. If his family members did have their own pages, such information might be less appropriate on Mr. Svenonius' page, since they are easy to find elsewhere (in the linked article).  Additionally, such added context comes pretty cheaply, at only a few words per family member.
 * I must confess, I am not a card-carrying member of WikiProject Biography, so I am only answering from my own experience, not documented project methods. But, as I've said before, we can learn from example: Bob Marley, Kurt Cobain, and Melissa Auf der Maur (or any other well-rated articles within WikiProject Biography or even WikiProject Alternative music).
 * Drewcifer3000 05:22, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Spawn task force?
You left a message about the spawn task force saying that I have alot of edits about spawn related pages and I should join the spawn task force but when you look at my contributions I have made no edits to spawn related pages unless it was reverting vandalism. Oysterguitarist 17:54, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Re: Image:Group-ednaswap.jpg
The image was tagged as violating WP:NFCC criterion 10, requiring that non-free images have a use rationale. You are free to upload a replacement image, as long as you make sure to provide that rationale. (ESkog)(Talk) 02:04, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Re: Your GA FAIl comments on June Anderson
I will address your comments in order. I am removing them, as most of them are not solveable, and cannot be fixed at this tiime. So much for trying to obtain a GA rating. Also, your comments toward the end show a complete lack of understanding of the nature of the subject matter (see your seventh bullet). On issues other than wiki style, I don't think you are an appropriate reviewer for this area.


 * Well, I wouldn't say the article is beyond help. Nor would I say it is beyond a GA rating.  In fact, with a bit of work I could see it reaching FA status.  I do know a bit about wiki style, so I am glad I could be of use there.  As for not being an "appropriate reviewer" I do admit to knowing very little about opera.  Regardless, Wikipedia is not meant to be a reference for experts per se: a good Wikipedia article (not necessarily a "Good Article") should be useful to the layman and the expert alike.  I would say I am a perfect person to review such an article: I read it without any previous knowledge on the subject.  So educate me!  That's what Wikipedia is all about, no?


 * "The articles main image, Image:June300.jpeg fails criteria #1 of Wikipedia's Fair Use Criteria." I believe I had seen some discussion about press photos that are used on the artist's own website or on her agency's website as being considered okay for use. In any event, I did not post this photo, but I have searched Flickr and Wikimedia Commons. There are no public images of her available onthose cites.


 * Fair Use is a tricky thing, and unfortunately it doesn't always work in the favor of an article. If you know where you found that particular discussion let me know.  Recently I've taken a bit of an interest in Fair Use, and basically what I've come to realize is that you can't use a copyrighted photo unless you have explicit permission to use it under the terms of GDFL (check this and this out for more info).  If an image does not specifically mention its copyright status (as the one in question does not, as far as I can tell), we must assume it is copyrighted.  Like I said, Wikipedia's Fair Use criteria doesn't always work in the favor of an article.  My suggestion would be to try and contact whoever runs Mrs. Anderson's site (there's usually a Contact Us section or a webmaster's address).  They probably wouldn't be the one to ask permission from (it's unlikely the person running the site is also the photographer) but they might now who to contact.  You'd be surprised how often this works (at least it has for me).  The whole GFDL thing can be complicated the first time, so if you have any luck and need some help, I'd be happy to help.


 * Furthermore (and this is the part that really sucks), just because you haven't been able to find a free image or no free alternative actually exists, the mere hypothetical possibility of a free alternative being created (since the subject is alive) means you cannot use a non-free, copyrighted image. This is long-standing Wikipedia policy, and I've had very little to do with its creation, so don't kill the messenger on this one.


 * "The article needs an infobox of some kind." Apparently the Opera Project (to which I do not belong) forbids the use of infoboxes.  They had a huge fight with the Bio Project about this a month or two ago.  If you are telling me that an infobox is essentional to obtain GA rating, then that will never happen on any opera artist bio page, given the position of the Opera Project folks.  I am not about to get into an edit war with them.


 * I was not aware of the Opera project argument concerning infoboxes. I personally disagree, but it seems like a larger issue than myself, and there are probably more suitable people on either side to debate it.  So I'll let that point go.


 * "The article should be referenced much more heavily." The article has 24 footnotes.  If you are saying, as you seem to be, that a footnote reference to some published source needs to be supplied for every referenced performance in her bio, that would be impossible, as some are simply taken from performance programs, etc., in my personal posssession.


 * Well, yes and no. I may have been bit too harsh and not clear enough in my wording.  24 references is great.  It's better than none.  But it is unlikely that the fact that "In 1996, Anderson portrayed Joan of Arc in Verdi’s Giovanna d'Arco, both in concert versions in New York and Barcelona, and in a stage production at Covent Garden" could be considered common knowledge.  Ask a thousand people in the street, I'd be surprised if one person knew that.  So, since it is not common knowledge, you must have obtained the knowledge from some source.  And if it comes from a source, then it should be noted.  Performance programs are ok as sources (better than nothing), but a good reliable third party source is highly preferrable.  Surely, somewhere on the internet/library/press it mentions Mrs. Anderson's performance of Joan of Arc.  Howabout a review of the concert?  Or just google "June Anderson Joan of Arc."  See what happens.  (Update: the second hit from that google search.  And the first result was the Wikipedia page!  That wasn't so hard was it?)  I know this is alot of work, but with alot of content comes alot of sources.  That's just the nature of the beast.


 * But, one thing that might alleviate some of the work needed might be right under your nose: the sources you've already referenced. I'm sure they mention more than just one performance/fact, so I'm sure you could reuse sources to cover many of your bases.


 * By the way, I checked out the Nine Inch Nails article listed as a Good Article on your wiki projects list on your user page. Not only does this "Good Article" have huge chunks of paragraphs with no references, it actually has a banner to that effect.  Exactly how did this article obtain a "Good Article" rating with such deficiencies?


 * Good catch. I was actually the one who put in the no reference tags into the article, so I'm very aware of them being there.  I however had nothing to do with the initial GA rating of the article, so I can't really comment on that, except to say that to my knowledge the article has changed quite a bit since that rating.  Also, references alone do not a Good Article make.  I've had some issues with the way the NIN page is referenced, but other than that it is a pretty good article.  If that's the least of its worries it's doing ok.


 * "Most references should ideally use a Citation template." I wasn't aware of this template, but this is one of the few things that is fixable, and I will look into it.


 * Maybe I should rephrase my initial comment: citation templates are preferrable. They are not, however, required of a GA or FA article.  It is juts my personal opinion (and the opinion of many Wikipedians) that the standardize references and make things easier to reliably source.  But, again, they are somewhat optional.


 * "Also, sources used repeatedly ("J. Warrack and E. West, The Oxford Dictionary of Opera (1992)." for example) can reference the same initial reference." This is easily fixed.


 * "Although the main image on the page is problematic at the moment, that doesn't mean more images wouldn't be appropriate. It would be informative to see June Anderson during a particular performance.  These images can be fair use, since a photo of a particular event (person X at event Y on date Z) is irreplaceable."  As I've mentioned before, I have not been able to locate any fair use images of June Anderson.  I had previously placed a few CD or DVD covers of live recorded performances were discussed, but those were removed, as I understand covers may only be used in connection with "criticism" of the work, not on an artist's bio.


 * You are correct about the DVD/CD covers not being aloud in such a context. The same points I made above above Fair-Use and GFDL permissions and what not still apply, so I won't repeat myself.  Like I said, Fair Use policy can be an annoying thing.


 * "Also, I would recommend re-organizing the article a bit. Maybe you could seperate her biography and the many review quotations.  Maybe a "Style" or "Vocal style" section would also be good.  Maybe a non-career-based biography would help.  Is she married?  Does she have kids?  Who'd she vote for?  Any controversies?  Any personal victories?  The article is currently very career-based."  This is where you lost me completely?  "Does she have kids?  WHO'D SHE VOTE FOR?"  You've got to be kidding me.  The article is "career-based" because that is what she is notable for, not because of her marital status or political leanings.  You lost all your credibility with me on this one.   Nick In BigD  (Hey!) 14:50, 24 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, I wasn't trying to gain your trust here, I was trying to give advice. You should remember that this article is about June Anderson the person not June Anderson the opera singer.  Granted, she is known almost exclusively for her opera work, so it should represent the majority of the content, but there's a person behind that voice.  Afterall, the article falls under the scope of WikiProject Opera AND WikiProject Biography.  Ignoring her status as a opera singer, and merely looking at the article as a biography, we learn next to nothing.  As a few examples of GA/FA articles of other musicians, take a look at Bob Marley and Kurt Cobain.  Granted these people are worlds apart from Mrs. Anderson, but the same standards apply.


 * I brought up the "Who'd she vote for?" as an example. I'm not saying that discussion of a person's politcs are neccessary for a GA status: that would be ridiculous.  My point in that long list of hypotheticals is to show that there is alot of personal information missing from the article.  If Mrs. Anderson is active in politics than by all means it should be included in the article.  If she isn't than it doesn't need to be there.  But surely, if she has any kids, that is a MAJOR factor in her personal life, no?  Or if she's married?  Surely topics like those are important to the life story (aka biography) of any person, opera singer or not.


 * I hope my points above help. If you still have questions or concerns, please let me know, I'm more than happy to help. Drewcifer3000 00:13, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Requests for arbitration/Jeffrey O. Gustafson
Hello,

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened: Requests for arbitration/Jeffrey O. Gustafson. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Requests for arbitration/Jeffrey O. Gustafson/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Requests for arbitration/Jeffrey O. Gustafson/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee,  Cbrown1023   talk   22:41, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Dead Like Me
Thanks for the review. Looks like I got a lot of work ahead of me to improve it, I'll do my best. Stormin&#39; Foreman 08:51, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Do I replace the   templete with a new   , or do I leave the    and put the other one below it? Stormin&#39; Foreman 22:37, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Leave the old one up. That way the next reviewer knows where the article stands. Drewcifer3000 00:31, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

The Make-Up
Finally, back from holiday, I've managed to get a few moments to re-review The Make-Up and pass it to GA. I have one final reservation, still about the short paragraphs, but as I have said on the talk page it won't stop it being GA. Well done. The Rambling Man 07:18, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Robert Prechter
Sorry to trouble you, but the losing party in the third opinion you issued refused to accept it, and is instead edit-warring, completely disregarding talk-page consensus. Can I get some help? THF 17:21, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Welcome
 Welcome!

Hi, and welcome to the District of Columbia WikiProject! As you may have guessed, we're a group of editors working to improve Wikipedia's coverage of the District of Columbia.

A few features that you might find helpful:


 * The project has a monthly newsletter; it will normally be delivered as a link, but several other formats are available.

There are a variety of interesting things to do within the project; you're free to participate however much—or little—you like:


 * Want to know how good our articles are? The assessment department is working on rating the quality of every DC article in Wikipedia.

If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to ask another fellow member, and we'll be happy to help you. Again, welcome! We look forward to seeing you around!  T Rex  | talk  01:57, 11 August 2007 (UTC)