User talk:Green Tentacle/Archive 5

Image copyright problem with File:What Do I Wish for Now.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:What Do I Wish for Now.jpg. You've indicated that the image is being used under a claim of fair use, but you have not provided an adequate explanation for why it meets Wikipedia's requirements for such images. 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 description page for each article the image is used in.
 * That every article it is used on is linked to from its description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. --FairuseBot (talk) 08:10, 9 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Erm, the image fulfils the stated criteria. It is only used in one article, which is explicitly named and linked to, using Wikipedia's recommended template. - Green Tentacle (talk) 19:24, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Irony at WJEC
I'm just finishing cleaning up the aftermath of your renaming of the article for radio station WJEC, and one of the incoming links to WJEC was your talk page archive #3 which included this text from you: "Image:WJEC.png has a perfectly good fair use rationale. The problem is that someone else has moved the article from WJEC to Welsh Joint Education Committee. But, because this is Wikipedia, it is my fault that the the user who moved the article did not update the image's fair use rationale, in just the same it will be my fault the next time someone decides to update the fair use rationale guidelines, making all images I've uploaded in the past invalid." I thought you'd appreciate the irony that this time it was your move of the article at WJEC that required the updating of a fair use template (this time for the radio station's logo). It's no big deal—I just thought you'd get the same kind of chuckle out of this that I did. - Dravecky (talk) 04:19, 14 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I guess there is a certain sense of irony!


 * Technically, I didn't move the article, but as I requested the move, I did spend a while fixing some incoming links (here, here, here and here). Alas, another user changed one of my edits, which is where you came in to fix it.


 * I deliberately left the radio station's fair use rationale because the excellent FairuseBot now fixes these rationales automatically. The previous issue about the exam board's logo was because BetacommandBot found the image and rudely shout at me, when I'd done nothing wrong (hence the rant which you quoted above). Luckily, that bot has now been banned.


 * An extended version of the discussion is available, if you're interested.


 * Thank you for updating the radio station's rationale. This is the way Wikipedia should work: users working together, not bots shouting at people.


 * Thanks. - Green Tentacle (talk) 13:53, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Notability of SPC ECO
A tag has been placed on SPC ECO requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the article, which appears to be about a real person, organization (band, club, company, etc.), or web content, does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not indicate the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable. If this is the first page that you have created, then you should read the guide to writing your first article.

If you think that you can assert the notability of the subject, you may contest the deletion by adding  to the top of the article (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the article's talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm the subject's notability under Wikipedia guidelines.

For guidelines on specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for bands, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this.  Blanchardb - Me•MyEars•MyMouth - timed 12:50, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of 3-D (album)
A tag has been placed on 3-D (album), requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page seems to be blatant advertising which only promotes a company, product, group, service or person and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become an encyclopedia article. Please read the guidelines on spam as well as FAQ/Business for more information.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding  to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. Dloh cierekim  13:19, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of 3-D (album)
A proposed deletion template has been added to the article 3-D (album), suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process&#32; because of the following concern:
 * not convinced of notability of band or album

All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the  notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because, even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Dloh cierekim  13:22, 26 April 2009 (UTC)