User talk:Gertie

Welcome to my talk page Please note that if you leave me a message here, I will reply on this page in order to avoid fragmenting the discussion. Thanks!

This is Your Brain on Drugs
For some odd reason, my first guess was going to be '94 for the second TV ad and after doing some research on the actress, seeing that she didn't start movies until '95, I was positive that it had to be that year. But then after doing some Yahoo researching I found several links stating it was much later, in '98, although I could swear I remember seeing that commercial many years before. I don't think all the sources with '98 would be wrong unless they all got their info from another source with incorrect info'. - Buzda 20:19, 14 November 2005 (UTC) Current status: The date has been established as 1998.

Bootleg
I'm having trouble understanding the distinction on this page between a bootleg copy and a pirated copy: they both redirect to the same article. Can you clarify what the difference is? - Russ Blau (talk) 01:04, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
 * A bootleg is a recording of a music concert/gig or [rejected] studio material that is released without the artist's or the record label's legal concent. This is material which, in all likelihood, would not enter the public's hands, were it not for the illegal release of them by smallscale companies - although, interesting, there was a legislative loophole which allowed the activity to thrive in Italy for a while in the 1990s. For example the only way you can hear the complete sessions for Bob Dylan's Basement Tapes or the original takes for his Blood On The Tracks LP is on a bootleg. On the other hand, a pirated album is nothing more than an illegal copy of a release already commercially available, with the quality of the duplication and the packaging being somewhat unguaranteed. For example, you could purchase a new chart hit album for a fraction of the price that you would pay for a genuine copy bought from a high-street chainstore. Both phrases are incorrectly used interchangably by the media, thus you have a "bootleg copy". I hope that clears things up for you.

Well, yes, but what you have described is a "bootleg recording". The disambiguation page draws a distinction between that and a bootleg copy, and there doesn't seem to be any real difference between a "bootleg copy" and a "pirated copy". BTW, I don't think it is helpful to say that one usage is "correct" and the other is "incorrect", as I don't think you will find a lot of prescriptivists in the Wikipedia community; our goal is to describe what people mean when they use a particular term, not what some authority thinks they should mean. - Russ Blau (talk) 13:58, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Please allow me to expand my clarification. When I edited the Bootleg disambiguation page, I didn't actually notice that one of the links was for a "bootleg copy", let alone did I click on said link. Due to "bootleg" and "pirate" being commonly and - in terms of their actual, true definitions - incorrectly used as a synonym for one another, whoever did add the term to the page was incorrect in doing so. A "bootleg copy" can only, mistakenly, mean either a "pirated copy" or a "bootleg recording", which are the proper terms for the above-described. The inclusion of the term, "bootleg copy", should be brought up with whoever added it there in the first place, yet I can assure you it does not belong there. Although I hadn't noticed the phrase's existance there, I had nonetheless written a brief note on the difference between the two to clear up these kind of confusions. To summarise: there is a clear difference between a "bootleg" and a "pirate", whilst anything that goes under the name of a "bootleg copy" is one of the two, but not clearly labelled as to which. The term "bootleg copy" should never exist in Wikipedia because it is an erroneous and misleading description.

Thanks for the pointer to this discussion in your edit summary, Aaron. I was working on cleaning up links on Special:Whatlinkshere/Bootleg and a great many music/television/movie pages used "bootleg" in a way that was clearly common usage in the subject matter, but just as clearly meant "pirate copy" as you defined it above. Rather than alter the usage in the articles to something jarring in context, I elected to create "bootleg copy" (as a redirect) to distinguish that meaning from bootleg recording. I have since edited the lead section in copyright infringement to make it more understandable when people get redirected there from a link which reads "bootleg", (I also added a paragraph on "bootleg recording" there). With that edit, that particular redirect may be less necessary now if you really wish to delete it; if you do, please clean up links listed on Special:Whatlinkshere/Bootleg copy as well. (In fact, it looks like people have already edited some to point directly to copyright infringement. Ah well...it seemed like a good idea at the time). I agree with your edits to Bootleg, although with Russ I think the "incorrect" comment should probably be removed. Thanks for the rational discussion! - Catherine\talk 01:42, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
 * I feel the best thing to do is delete the "bootleg copy" redirect page and make sure that anything that linked there used the actual intended term in each article and therefore any internal links will go directly to either the "bootleg recording" or "copyright infringement" pages, as things should be. Secondly, having quickly skimmed through the copyright infringement article for the first time, I can see that it needs a good rewrite - regardless of your own additions, for which I'm grateful. Your thanks for the "rational" discussion is much appreciated, although I am starting to wish that I was still unaware that there was an issue, if you get what I mean.

Action taken: All the links to the bootleg copy redirect page were dealt with as per the above after which the page was successfully requested for speedy deletion. I am only referring to books not music or anything else. What is the difference between 'bootleg' copies and 'pirated' copies in case of books? Goutam Dass - Kolkata —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.76.142.146 (talk) 04:24, 16 February 2007 (UTC).
 * In my personal experience I have only ever come across pirated books, which a friend had brought back from his travels in Vietnam and were of a high standard of quality but quite obviously non-legit. So I couldn't say that I have any knowledge or true concept of what a bootleged book may be, but if I were to guess I would say it would have to do with issues surrounding translation to another language or material which was excluded from legitimate copies by the publisher. Do such things exist? Are you sure you have just been mislead by the incorrect use of the term bootleg?

AfD Nomination: Meng and Ecker
I've nominated the article Meng and Ecker for deletion under the Articles for deletion process. We appreciate your contributions, but in this particular case I do not feel that Meng and Ecker satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion. I have explained why in the nomination space (see What Wikipedia is not and Deletion policy). Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Articles for deletion/Meng and Ecker. Don't forget to add four tildes ( ~ ) at the end of each of your comments to sign them. You are free to edit the content of Meng and Ecker during the discussion, but please do not remove the "Articles for Deletion" template (the box at the top). Doing so will not end the discussion. --CyberGhostface 18:06, 18 November 2006 (UTC) Current status: After discussion other users voted to keep.

RE: PCSO
Please mind your language in your edit summary as you did here, at first I thought it was vandalism seeing your blatant dislike for the service, but it surprised me when it was not vandalism. So now I am at a loss, you do not like the police and you make the fact clear, but yet you edit a related page. Thanks, Police,Mad,Jack (talk · contribs) ☺ 18:36, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Explaining myself adequately in a few words is not something that's likely to happen, but I'm willing to quickly clarify my choice of edit summary. First off, I want to make it clear that I'm no fan of censorship. Secondly, I believe that the police perform a lot of essential functions. I think that today officers in the British Police Force are capable of being something resembling reasonable and are - [providing certain criteria are met] - polite and typically not liable to commit the errors that other national police forces are looked down upon for (such as taking bribes or torturing 'suspects'). However my issue is not with the personalities of those serving in the force or even so much with negative incidents from the institution's history. It is simply to do with the fact that they are ultimately hired muscle for state and very often big business interests. Of course why this is a major problem and what I see as a viable alternative is a much longer discussion...

Furthermore, I do not have a problem with you and I do not wish to create one. Lets just finish this conversation, I was simply writing to tell you that as a Wikipedia editor I did not like your choice of language, thanks and regards. Police,Mad,Jack (talk · contribs) ☺ 20:38, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I was never under the impression that I'd antagonised you and I have no intention of doing so either. Getting the right tone across is never easy in writing, so don't imagine that I got in a big huff or anything. I'm a Wikipedia user who is likely to use irrelevant or even stupid phrases in edit summaries and I don't see that being likely to change. As for using the word 'fuck', well from my point of view I wouldn't use the internet or bother talking to most of the people I know if I were troubled by the word. You're very right though, this conversation should be drawn to a close. All the bost - shit! - I meant best.

Disputed fair use rationale for File:TheProsperousFew.jpg}
Thank you for uploading File:TheProsperousFew.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this image under "fair use" may not meet the criteria required by Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the image description page and add or clarify the reason why the image qualifies for fair use. In particular, for each page the image is used on, the image must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Can you please check:
 * That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's escription page for each article the image is used in.
 * That every article it is used on is linked to from its description page.

Please be aware that a fair use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for images used under the fair use policy require both a copyright tag and a fair use rationale.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it might be deleted by adminstrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 04:11, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Unreferenced BLPs
Hello Aaron Jethro! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot alerting you that 1 of the articles that you created  is tagged as an Unreferenced Biography of a Living Person. Please note that all biographies of living persons must be sourced. If you were to add reliable, secondary sources to this article, it would greatly help us with the current Category:All_unreferenced_BLPs article backlog. Once the article is adequately referenced, please remove the unreferencedBLP tag. Here is the article:

Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 23:16, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Frank Mdlalose -

File permission problem with File:Ruby tombs (promo band photo).jpeg
Thanks for uploading File:Ruby tombs (promo band photo).jpeg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file agreed to license it under the given license.

If you created this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either
 * make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
 * Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to , stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add OTRS pending to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to .

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Non-free content, use a tag such as or one of the other tags listed at File copyright tags, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in [ your upload log]. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Kelly hi! 02:26, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Ruby Tombs


The article Ruby Tombs has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * No evidence of meeting WP:NBAND or WP:GNG

While all constructive 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. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Boleyn (talk) 20:06, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:05, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:32, 23 November 2015 (UTC)