User talk:Ianmacm/Archive 1

Welcome!

Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~&#126;); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place  on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! PJM 14:16, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

The Quadrature of the Parabola
Thanks for creating this article as it is a very useful source of information on the theorem. I was wondering why I had not seen it before, then realized that it was created on 13 August 2007. Here is a question: is Archimedes shown demonstrating the quadrature of the parabola on the 1983 Greek postage stamp in the article Archimedes? (the image is also at ). At one stage I was fairly sure of this, then had some doubts. --Ianmacm 17:49, 13 August 2007 (UTC)


 * It doesn't look like any of the diagrams in the treatise&mdash;it seems to involve a triangle inscribed in a circle. Perhaps it's from one of Archimedes' other works? Jim 01:24, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Archimedes
I fully agree that the Greek numeral system was awkward for doing calculations, while Roman numerals are even worse. I have a problem ascribing (part of) the difficulty to the fact that the characters used for the numerals happened to be alphabetic. Someone who believes that might think that there is some inherent difficulty in calculating in hexadecimal, which uses both the digits 0 through 9 and the letters A through F. However, the problem is in not using a positional system – although it can be argued that the system had positional aspects, since one would not write, for example, βιʹ, but always ιβʹ; however, there was no notation for a missing position. Archimedes being the genius he was, I think it is actually quite possible he invented a convenient numeral system for private use. --Lambiam 13:12, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

"Real Madrid" to "Real Madrid C.F."
Do you know how to rename an article? For instance, i think it would be better if "Real Madrid" title is replaced with "Real Madrid C.F." (Real Madrid Club de Football).--Hadrianos1990 10:38, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Pining.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:Pining.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 04:28, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Replaceable fair use Image:Eckert_video.JPG
Thanks for uploading Image:Eckert_video.JPG. I noticed 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 even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, fair use images which could be replaced by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if not used in an article), per our Fair Use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Calliopejen1 15:29, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

In Pop Culture Proposal
Just letting you know I formally proposed the standards we talked about back in June on the Pong talk page. You can weigh in here. --Marty Goldberg 19:09, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Barbie films and books
I added the films and book section as a way of showing how the original product created spinoffs. I thought your objection was the "List" format so I was working on rewriting it in prose. The films have made 700 million dollars, which I believe makes them a valid part of the article. Frog47 20:07, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Voting style
I always vote Yes or No, and at times Remark. I'll changed it as requested. Amazing work on the article to all those who contributed. Leranedo 07:10, 19 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your support vote at FAC. -- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 08:15, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Atari Task Force
Just letting you know about the formation of the Atari Task Force as part of the Wikipedia Video Games project. --Marty Goldberg 21:41, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Flashdance dream.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Flashdance dream.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 10:36, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Flashdance ost.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Flashdance ost.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 10:37, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Rampa greywhiskers.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Rampa greywhiskers.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 21:44, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Image reuse
I have reused your photo Image:Paignton_harbour.jpg on the Wikitravel Paignton article. You have been credited and license has been kept as PD --NJR ZA (talk) 10:13, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

User page
I believe your user page was vandalized, but I reverted it. Please revert it I made mistake. -- Antonio Lopez (talk) 14:49, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Anytime. -- Antonio Lopez (talk) 14:56, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Replaceable fair use Image:Freddiestarrunwrapped.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Freddiestarrunwrapped.jpg. I noticed the description page specifies that the media 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 media could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this media is not replaceable, please:


 * 1) Go to the media 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 media by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media 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 description pages you have edited by clicking on [ this link]. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, fair use media which could be replaced by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if not used in an article), per our Fair Use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Garion96 (talk) 09:58, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I still don't think it passes WP:NFCC. The image is in the infobox of the article and basically used to identify how Freddie Starr looks. Nevertheless, the closing admin (not me of course) will decide. Garion96 (talk) 13:01, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Looks good now. I removed the tags from the image. Garion96 (talk) 20:01, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Archimedes.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Archimedes.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 05:52, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

List of recordings with a prominent flanging effect
A proposed deletion template has been added to the article List of recordings with a prominent flanging effect, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. 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. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. 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. If you agree with the deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please add  to the top of List of recordings with a prominent flanging effect. Oli Filth(talk) 00:11, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of List of recordings with a prominent flanging effect
I have nominated List of recordings with a prominent flanging effect, an article you created, for deletion. I do not feel that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Articles for deletion/List of recordings with a prominent flanging effect. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. Oli Filth(talk) 21:37, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Tuesday Lobsang Rampa, born Cyril Henry Hoskin
As you reverted my update to try to make a more honest introduction in Rampa's article (which was not commented in history page), I explain my point of view in the discussion page. Bech (talk) 19:32, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:SwitchedOnBach.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:SwitchedOnBach.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 08:16, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Rolandcr78.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Rolandcr78.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 07:11, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Re: Fulla doll
This image was deleted because it was under a non-commercial use only license, please see WP:CSD. Thanks, ˉˉanetode╦╩ 23:09, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Rampa.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Rampa.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 04:06, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Archimedes
The point is that the link "Ancient Greek" goes to the language, and does not refer to the culture of Ancient Greece. It could be said that A. was an "ancient Greek mathematician", but none of the articles on other ancient Greek mathematicians uses that terminology; it is clear enough from the context that this is not modern Greece. --Lambiam 18:12, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Jay_Anson.jpg
Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Jay_Anson.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use. Suggestions on how to do so can be found here.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation 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. Rettetast (talk) 17:39, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Amityville kaplan.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Amityville kaplan.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 03:57, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Amityville osuna.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Amityville osuna.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 03:58, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Amityvillecover.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Amityvillecover.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 04:01, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Calvi.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Calvi.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 18:41, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Vitruvius
This item desreves empahsis because Vitruvius is the main source of the Eureka story, by which the noble philosopher is remembered by most ordinary people. Perhaps people should also be more aware of V's own contributions to our knowledge of Greek and Roman technology and science! Peterlewis (talk) 10:07, 28 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Nothing personal, but the normal rule of See also sections is to avoid repeating links already given in the article. Otherwise, Heron of Alexandria, Plutarch and numerous others could be given in the section.  For the sake of consistency, Vitruvius does not need to be in the section.  -- ♦Ian Ma c  M♦  (talk to me) 11:11, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Falafel
Just FYI - the whole reason the page is protected is that it was first a target of (see also checkuser, a POV vandal who was running around Wikipedia trying to "claim" various foods for "Palestinians" specifically and accuse "Israelis" of "stealing" them. This was obviously not conducive to good conduct, and even after the ban on that editor's various sockpuppets, Tiamut and Gilabrand went on edit warring (they seem to have moved in on Za'atar as a battleground too now, with Tiamut quoting sources that don't seem to say what she claims they say). This is most perplexing behavior and I agree very unfortunate, and I'm about to ask for sanctions against both of them as per the Israeli/Palestinian RfC to make them step aside and let new blood edit the article freshly. M1rth (talk) 15:32, 9 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks, this is not my specialist area and hopefully the page can be unprotected soon. In the meantime, the online game Falafel King at  is worth a look for some fun. -- ♦Ian Ma c  M♦  (talk to me) 15:39, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
 * No problem - just thought the history would help you understand what's really going on. Tiamut's getting vitriolic enough to leave personal attacks on my talkpage now. M1rth (talk) 15:43, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Palladio.ogg
Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Palladio.ogg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation 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. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 19:39, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Lobsang Rampa
Please explain your removal of my edit on the talk page, where I asked about it. You say it said something that is already in the article. I do not see it. It is a claim about someone else being involved and is sourced. --Bduke (talk) 23:00, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I have now reverted you removal of this material. As far as I can see, the claim that Bertie was involved is new and is not mentioned in the article. --Bduke (talk) 20:59, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Youtube high low quality.JPG
Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Youtube high low quality.JPG. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation 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. Polly (Parrot) 18:10, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Youtube high low quality.JPG)
Thanks for uploading Image:Youtube high low quality.JPG. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 12:16, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Amityville brolin lutz.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Amityville brolin lutz.jpg. You've indicated that the image meets Wikipedia's criteria for non-free content, but there is no explanation of why it meets those criteria. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. If you have any questions, please post them at Media copyright questions.

Thank you for your cooperation. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 02:14, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Amityville cromarty window.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Amityville cromarty window.jpg. You've indicated that the image meets Wikipedia's criteria for non-free content, but there is no explanation of why it meets those criteria. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. If you have any questions, please post them at Media copyright questions.

Thank you for your cooperation. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 02:14, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Bananarama venus.ogg
Thanks for uploading Image:Bananarama venus.ogg. You've indicated that the image meets Wikipedia's criteria for non-free content, but there is no explanation of why it meets those criteria. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. If you have any questions, please post them at Media copyright questions.

Thank you for your cooperation. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 19:57, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Audio Barnstar

 * Thanks.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 07:50, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Youtube logo new.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:Youtube logo new.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 11:35, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image (Image:Barbie 1959.jpg)
 Thanks for uploading Image:Barbie 1959.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Papa November (talk) 21:44, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Vincent Price Thriller.ogg)
Thanks for uploading Image:Vincent Price Thriller.ogg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:26, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Youtube logo new.png)
Thanks for uploading Image:Youtube logo new.png. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:23, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Ward Churchill
As for the Ward Churchill article, you should have fixed the HTML problem instead of removing a whole section of the article. I fixed the HTML problem and the YouTube problem. Also, you were engaging in an edit war instead of attempting to fix the problem. Please stop.--InaMaka (talk) 11:51, 28 July 2008 (UTC)


 * The reason for removing it was to avoid having a chunk of meaningless HTML gobbledegook on the page. I am not interested in edit warring, or the finer points of schisms in AIM.  There is at least one error in the reference, a capital R in Ref at the start, and the reference as a whole is too long and complicated.  That is why I asked someone else to fix it. -- ♦Ian Ma c  M♦  (talk to me) 11:56, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Image:Amityville_main_theme.ogg listed for deletion
An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Amityville_main_theme.ogg, has been listed at Images and media for deletion. Please see the to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Bigr Tex  22:22, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Scunthorpe and Nwankwo
Sorry, I have replaced the stuff I removed. I have pictures turned off by default, and made the silly assumption that the picture was simply illustration, not proof! --Slashme (talk) 07:25, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Possibly unfree Image:Jpeg_2000.jpg
An image that you uploaded or altered, Image:Jpeg_2000.jpg, has been listed at Possibly unfree images because its copyright status is unclear or 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 if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 16:42, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Image source problem with Image:Kevin ryan author.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Kevin ryan author.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the GFDL-self tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. 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 Image copyright tags. See Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 17:43, 10 August 2008 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 17:43, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Hello Ianmacm
I see from your communications with Sfan00IMG that you have had the same problems with him tagging correctly licensed images ect. I am not sure what his intentions are here. I simply asked him to explain a note he left on my talk page that I did not fully understand, He then went ballistic with tags. I am not certain if his actions were not some sort of malicious attack on contributions that I have made. I think he needs watching.  stavros1  ♣

Vending machine edit
I am confused by your recent edits and reverts to article Vending machine. Yonaturals is a valid link to a vending machine company article. your edit to YoNaturals is an invalid red link. I have deleted the entire entry as I see no valid reason to link to one poorly written article about a specific vending machine company when there are several other vending machine companies that are not being linked to. see Category:Vending machines Dbiel (Talk) 19:55, 15 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Apologies for the confusion here. The link to Yonaturals was added here and was removed as it seemed to have a commercial purpose. Unfortunately there was a previous see also spelled as YoNaturals. There have been problems in the past with people using the see also and external links sections as a business directory. The article needs to follow WP:NOTCATALOG, and this is why the edit was made. Hope this explains things. -- ♦Ian Ma c  M♦  (talk to me) 06:59, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Image talk:Irina Slutskaya Scunthorpe Problem.jpg
Please do not attack other editors. Not getting your way and then blaming everyone else because they clearly didn't understand is considered pretty bad form. While I wouldn't wish it to happen, the blocking policy requires that you are made aware that you can be blocked for that sort of behaviour. 217.36.107.9 (talk) 09:50, 19 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Do you live in Britain? Your edits suggest that this is a possibility. I am British, and have been concerned by the issues raised here. Please consider registering with a username if you are making regular contributions. In the grand scheme of things it matters very little whether the Irina Slutskaya image is in the article or not. From now on, I am not going to lose any sleep over this.  The broader issue is that Wikipedia policy, however well-intentioned, is not a substitute for copyright law.  In the real world, anyone who went around issuing takedown notices on material for which they were not the copyright holder would soon find themselves going nowhere fast.  Take a look at the result of Sapient vs Geller  to see what happens when real laws (rather than Wikipedia policy guidelines) become involved in this type of situation. Wikipedia policies are usually well meaning, but fair use is enshrined in law and is non-negotiable. Wikipedia's biggest worry seems to be exposing itself to frivolous lawsuits, but giving in to frivolous takedown notices can mean that the cure is just as bad as the disease.  Please think about this. -- ♦Ian Ma c  M♦  (talk to me) 10:33, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Image:Barbie_girl_aqua.ogg listed for deletion
An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Barbie_girl_aqua.ogg, has been listed at Images and media for deletion. Please see the to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Bigr Tex  00:46, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I have withdrawn the nomination based on the explanation of the length on the talk page and noted it in the rationale. ~ Bigr  Tex  00:48, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Guitar youtube.jpg
Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Guitar youtube.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation 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. Stifle (talk) 10:14, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

YouTube - Playback.png
The "bad jpeg" tag is not intended as meaning "take the existing JPEG and turn it into a PNG image." This will not improve the picture quality and may actually worsen it. I have reverted to the JPEG version for the time being and kept the rationale. The image is clearly fair use in YouTube. -- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 14:02, 9 September 2008 (UTC)


 * To clarify; the version I uploaded was a lossless replication of the original. It was a freshly captured screenshot of the same video at the same time, and was produced using YouTube's high quality mode. I cropped it in GIMP, and reduced its size to 300px using a lanczos filter. The unmodified version may be seen here. —  C M B J   03:35, 10 September 2008 (UTC)


 * The image has been replaced with a fresh screenshot sourced directly from the PNG image. The decision by another user to put a "bad jpeg" tag on the original version was misguided because there were no obvious compression faults, and the image would have been considered acceptable as an illustration by most websites.  The PNG version has not been resized as this smudged the numbers and graphics at the bottom of the screen, which would have spoiled the object of the exercise.  The new PNG version is a bit crisper than the JPEG version, so the information has been stored "more efficiently" as the "bad jpeg" tag would say. -- ♦Ian Ma c  M♦  (talk to me) 08:38, 10 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I was attempting to address two issues at the same time. My personal opinions may deviate from current consensus on the matter, but non-free images of this resolution are often discouraged for legal reasons; and can even hinder an article from obtaining good or featured status. —  C M B J   06:10, 11 September 2008 (UTC)


 * The image is not intended to violate any copyright, and is probably within acceptable limits. I did try resizing the image (with Image Scaler ) but was not pleased with the results.  If someone said that the image was too large it would be reduced, but at the moment most people will look at the thumbnail only.  Incidentally, the "bad jpeg" tag added by another user was odd, since most of the image is a YouTube video which already has heavy H.263 lossy compression.  Only pure graphics work better as PNG images, so to improve the original JPEG it was necessary to keep the original image size.  Resizing graphics, text etc almost always leads to smudging and worsening of the quality, so it was disappointing that the tag asked for something that did not make much sense for improvement. -- ♦Ian Ma c  M♦  (talk to me) 07:33, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

King Crimson in vocoder article
hey, why'd you delete that? its a perfectly acceptable example of the use of a vocoder. i don't know if you have of heard it or not, but on the eyes wide open dvd belew uses a vocoder during 2 songs. theres nothign wrogn with it, leave it in there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lawnmower26 (talk • contribs) 12:09, 13 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm not saying that this is wrong. The problem is that people have tended to build up a list of every song that they have found with a vocoder in it, which is unencyclopedic in accordance with lists of unconnected information. It may be worth mentioning in King Crimson. -- ♦Ian Ma c  M♦  (talk to me) 12:32, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

hmmm, fair point. Lawnmower26 (talk) 10:55, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Frogger
How do you recommend we proceed with the frogger info, since it is historical fact...walter —Preceding unsigned comment added by Walter Day (talk • contribs) 21:50, 13 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I would recommend opening a section on the Frogger talk page so that a consensus can be reached on how to handle this issue. It is best to avoid writing in a way that looks like it is promoting a website, as this type of edit gets reverted quickly. -- ♦Ian Ma c  M♦  (talk to me) 21:55, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Image source problem with Image:Michael_Jackson_Thriller.ogg
Thanks for uploading Image:Michael_Jackson_Thriller.ogg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, their copyright should also be acknowledged.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 01:59, 16 September 2008 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Rockfang (talk) 01:59, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Ignore that. The source is there.  Sorry.--Rockfang (talk) 02:02, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Disputed non-free use rationale for Image:Flashdance beals nouri.jpg
Thank you for uploading Image:Flashdance beals nouri.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this image on Wikipedia 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 under this policy. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a non-free use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for images used under the non-free content policy require both a copyright tag and a non-free use rationale.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under the non-free content policy, it might be deleted by an administrator 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. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 22:57, 18 September 2008 (UTC) Now resolved - See FUR added to article concerned. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 09:25, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Disputed non-free use rationale for Image:Flashdancewhatafeeling.JPG
Thank you for uploading Image:Flashdancewhatafeeling.JPG. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this image on Wikipedia 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 under this policy. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a non-free use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for images used under the non-free content policy require both a copyright tag and a non-free use rationale.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under the non-free content policy, it might be deleted by an administrator 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. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 23:00, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Likely Attribution added to the article concerned Sfan00 IMG (talk) 09:26, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Disputed non-free use rationale for Image:Flashdance chair.gif
Thank you for uploading Image:Flashdance chair.gif. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this image on Wikipedia 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 under this policy. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a non-free use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for images used under the non-free content policy require both a copyright tag and a non-free use rationale.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under the non-free content policy, it might be deleted by an administrator 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. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 23:01, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Rationale although not YET in the best-format (as used eslewhere), the rationale now IMO meets the criteria, likely attribution has been added by myself. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 09:28, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Fair use images
Removing the tags, but you could hep by actually adding the information requested.

Sfan00 IMG (talk) 08:58, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

And now you claim it's bad to crate an excessive workload... You should have considered that it is an excessive workload to contintuallly have to tag images because they lack the relevant information. If you were to add the information requested, the issue would be resolved. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 09:07, 19 September 2008 (UTC)


 * People have different ideas about fair use tagging. You have very strict ideas, which may be acting in good faith, but can create excessive work for other users. Please bear in mind that any fair use rationale that contains a reasonable amount of information about why an image is being used should be enough to keep the copyright lawyers at bay. For example, it is hard to find much wrong with the Jennifer Lopez- I'm Glad image tagging. -- ♦Ian Ma c  M♦  (talk to me) 09:16, 19 September 2008 (UTC)


 * OK, But I do feel it's reasonable to request that there is at least some credit to the original copyright holder. Is there a less ominous template than DFU that's suitable for requesting this information? If someone was willing to create one, I could use that over tagging images where for the most part that is the ONLY issue to be resolved.

Of course for images with no-rationale at all, I will continue to apply the appropriate common sense. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 09:31, 19 September 2008 (UTC)


 * The problem with speedy delete tags is that they look ugly and can imply that the uploader has acted in bad faith, which is rarely the case. In some cases, it is not easy to give chapter and verse details of the copyright holder etc, which is why some flexibility and common sense are needed. If an article is receiving regular supervision ( which Flashdance is), it might be better to ask on the talk page first rather than tagging the image for deletion. Also, you could mention this issue at Village pump (policy) to see if an alternative solution could be found.

Also, I am a bit puzzled by the comment below about Flashdancewhatafeeling.JPG as it is clearly mentioned in the Music used in the film section of the article Flashdance. . -- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 10:00, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
 * (editconflicted) Hi there. I noticed that there was a bit of confusion on Image:Flashdancewhatafeeling.JPG over the applicability of our non-free content criteria.  In reviewing the page's history, it appears that the initial upload did assert what would be accepted as a valid fair use rationale&mdash; that is, that the article explicitly discusses the image (e.g., in a similar way that one could apply the fact that the White Album by The Beatles is, indeed, all white.


 * However, when I attempted to examine the current state of Flashdance's discussion of Image:Flashdancewhatafeeling.JPG, I was unable to find any discussion that explicitly mentioned elements in the album art. As a result, the image may be deleted per criteria for speedy deletion, invalid fair use claims.  If you're able to incorporate the image with the article in an analytical way to allow the image to meet the criteria again, then there's no worry; however, if the image is only in the article to be in the article, consensus is currently that it would fail the WP:NFCC for copyrighted images.  It's likely the copyright holder simply wouldn't care, but similarly to our biographies of living persons policy, it seems that the community is paranoid enough to want to prevent, as best as it can, any trouble from arising.


 * With respect to adding to the backlog, never worry. Wikignomes like me thrive on backlogs.  In fact, I think we need them to survive.  A Wiki without backlogs means a lot of bored admins, and you really don't wanna know what strange and bizarre shenanigans go on in the admin IRC channel when people are bored. :P ;).  Anyway, hopefully that helps clear the situation up.  If I've totally missed something, feel free to trout me. :P  Cheers. =) -- slakr  \ talk / 09:48, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Image:Adonis.JPG
This would appear to be a case of a MISTAG, based on a misunderstanding of the template concerned. Have removed DFU, and will check related pages for TWINKLE artefacts.

I don't have an issue with fair-use, It was just my understanding that it was desirable to indicate the original/current rights holder.

It would be desirable to have a template asking for rights holder attribution, which did not go via DFU, and the massive verbiage the current templates currently generate.

Since you raised this issue earlier, a change in strategy has been considered, as will be evidenced by some of the more recent contributions, where rather than DFU an image, the missing information has been added based on the linked articles. If you were willing to assist this it would be much appreciated. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 12:41, 20 September 2008 (UTC)


 * The current system needs an overhaul because a) it is annoying people who have acted in good faith and b) there is a risk that perfectly good images will be deleted after seven days if no-one addresses the issues raised.


 * Support, this - The time limits needed to be extended or removed. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 13:35, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

On a broader note, I stand by the comment about showing a sense of proportion when looking at fair use issues. What the media giants and their lawyers really hate is blatant copyright violation, and this cannot be extended to 300 pixel images or 25 second audio clips. It is unlikely that anyone would risk running up legal bills of thousands of dollars over a web resolution image when there are far bigger problems to deal with. Please bear this in mind when tagging images with an "inadequate fair use" rationale. -- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 13:20, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
 * See strategy change. I've started using FURME, and plan to use that and article context to avoid DFU'ing images, Polcy gudiline to say Wikipedia has a non-nuclear policy on fixing images? ;)


 * A lot of the recent hassle has been caused by issuing disputed fair use tags simply because the name of the copyright holder is missing. In my view this is unnecessary as long as the rest of the fair use rationale is adequately written.  The average Wikipedian may not know exactly who the copyright holder is, and there is little point in adding an attribution that is based either on an assumption or plain guesswork. -- ♦Ian Ma c  M♦  (talk to me) 13:08, 21 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Accepted in part, However it should be possible to include a likely attribution based on the articles in which an image is used?
 * BTW I've added a few expanded rationales for some of the images with issues mentioned on this talk page.. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 21:00, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:YouTube Saari.JPG
Thanks for uploading Image:YouTube Saari.JPG. You've indicated that the image meets Wikipedia's criteria for non-free content, but there is no explanation of why it meets those criteria. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. If you have any questions, please post them at Media copyright questions.

Thank you for your cooperation. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 22:11, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Most likely, Saari's estate owns the copyright for the image. However, I haven't seen the video so I don't know how it was done.  It may be a "friend".    Remember to add non-free image rationale to the image. Superm401 - Talk 10:41, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Image:YouTube Saari.JPG
A tag has been placed on Image:YouTube Saari.JPG requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section I1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the image is a redundant copy (all pixels the same or scaled down) of an image in the same file format, which is on Wikipedia (not on Commons), and all inward links have been updated.

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  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 would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. « Milk's Favorite Cøøkie  » 22:45, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:AmityvilleHorrorCover.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:AmityvilleHorrorCover.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:22, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

YouTube
Ian, in response to your edit summary, the threshold for inclusion on Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. It doesn't matter how "true" the information is; if it can be gleaned only from an individual's personal analysis of something, then it is purely original research, and it is purely prohibited. But then if this is something very well known, you shouldn't have a problem finding a source to cite for it. Someguy1221 (talk) 09:32, 30 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I'll add a new source for this shortly. There is sometimes a bizarre element to WP:OR since it can lead to an assumption that a statement is untrue unless "serious" people like professional journalists have verified it. This info was not added to the article by me, but it is correct. -- ♦Ian Ma c  M♦  (talk to me) 09:41, 30 October 2008 (UTC)


 * This has been rewritten. The only element of the original which was questionable was the bit rate.  Standard quality YouTube videos usually have a bit rate of 250kbps or less, but this may vary.  The streaming info of a YouTube standard quality video can be seen here. This area has a lot of complications, since there are also two different versions of the high quality videos as described in the article and at . -- ♦Ian Ma c  M♦  (talk to me) 10:34, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

I keep sounding like I'm disagreeing
Hey. I wanted to tell you about why it may seem like I disagree with you a lot on the amityville talk page. When I ask something like that cover controversy section (which I did put into criticisms). You said it might do better under criticisms. Yet I keep it in it's own section for a while. What I sometimes do is shorten it etc. then see how it works out. After it goes through a few edits and if it looks like it might just be better in another section I fix it. I'll give you a longer explanation some other time. Just wanted to say I'm not ignoring your suggestions.--VampireKen (talk) 03:10, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

The New Amityville Film
Hey I found something on the NEW Amityville film or the tenth film. I asked someone who lives by the movie house(Toms River) (They know who I am I didn't knock on doors or anything.) They said a few months ago that Michael Bay pulled up to the movie house and apparently asked to use the house for the new amityville movie. He called it "Return To Amityville". I figured they would use the house for the sequel about where the Lutz family fled to but then I found out the people who own the house said no. I wasn't there when he apparently was there. A few other neighbors said he was there also. I'm not doing anything with this since there is no hard evidence. However a few other people said HE wasn't there but movie people were. They all say someone wanted to film a movie titled "Return To Amityville". The main thing is that they all said the movie is titled "Return to Amityville". I know Wikipedia is based on facts and not rumor or speculation. I'm not adding this unless a document pops up from Michael Bay to the homeowners asking to use their house. It's Just worth noting.--VampireKen (talk) 21:24, 8 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks. It's the usual issue of reliable sourcing here. There would need to be some references to this in the mainstream media before adding any of this to the article, so there is is still a way to go yet. -- ♦Ian Ma c  M♦  (talk to me) 23:08, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Qui facit per alium facit per se
Is there a Latin-to-English Wiktionary? If not, maybe there should be. davidwr/ (talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail)  22:49, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I got that from the link you used earlier today. I am just saying, there needs to be a Latin-phrase-to-English Wiktionary.  davidwr/  (talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail)  23:02, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Merged
Hi Ianmacm, just to let you know I added your point about UN legislation to the Current Issues section of Administrators' noticeboard/2008 IWF action. P retzels Talk! 23:56, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

IP block affecting regular Wikipedia editors
(I think... the autoblocker is fickle and vindictive. Let me know if you're still having trouble) --fvw *  10:19, 14 December 2008 (UTC)


 * No worries, this was a cockup rather than a conspiracy.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 10:35, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

No idea who Ricky Oliver is, please sort this out ASAP.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 08:24, 14 December 2008 (UTC)


 * On second thoughts, there is more to this than meets the eye. 62.24.251.241 is one of TalkTalk's proxy filters used for connecting to Wikipedia. This is making it hard to identify normal users and IP troublemakers. See Administrators' noticeboard/2008 IWF action for more details. -- ♦Ian Ma c  M♦  (talk to me) 17:20, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Lobsang Rampa
No idea of record value myself, nor what it would cost to post to wherever you are. Still got the original cardboard posting sleeve, though, & it is ok to re-use it. Could stick it on EBay and let you know it is there or maybe just make me an offer! It still has the little "prayer" insert- a slip of thick paper with a couple of prayers on it Sitush (talk) 18:25, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Replaceable fair use Image:Youtube_high_low.JPG
Thanks for uploading Image:Youtube_high_low.JPG. I noticed the description page specifies that the media is being used under a claim of fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first non-free content criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this media is not replaceable, please:


 * 1) Go to the media 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 this non-free media by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on [ this link]. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per our non-free content policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? – Dream out loud (talk) 03:38, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Flashdance
Personally, I doubt whether the image was causing a violation of WP:NFCC here. It is discussed in the context of the article.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 10:35, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your message. The key point here is that nobody needs to see that image to understand that section of the article. The rationale for the use of the image was also generic and not specific to that use of the image. If you disagree, please consider listing it on WP:NFUR. Stifle (talk) 10:45, 20 December 2008 (UTC)


 * The image shows how intentionally similar the "I'm Glad" video is to Flashdance. The image tag could be rewritten, but I am not looking for an argument about this issue. -- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 10:55, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Replaceable fair use Image:Guitar youtube.png
Thanks for uploading Image:Guitar youtube.png. I noticed the description page specifies that the media is being used under a claim of fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first non-free content criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this media is not replaceable, please:


 * 1) Go to the media 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 this non-free media by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on [ this link]. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per our non-free content policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Stifle (talk) 14:16, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

YouTube
Stifle, the fuss that has been raised over the guitar image is frankly baffling. The image tagging is designed to show the social impact of YouTube, and the guitar video is described in the text of the article, including a New York Times article about the video. It is tiring to argue with people who show their enthusiastic interpretation of WP:NFCC in a manner that makes illustrating articles difficult. Please reconsider on this.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 16:10, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
 * While I'm happy to answer questions, it looks like your question could have been answered and resolved more quickly if you had used my message wizard. It's linked as "Talk" after my name and at the top of my talk page. Why not try it next time?
 * Having looked at the image in context it seems reasonable to use this as fair use, so I've removed the tag. However, you will need to beef up the rationale on the image page — currently it declares that the purpose is "to provide an illustration of typical video playback on YouTube", which is clearly not accurate. Stifle (talk) 16:23, 22 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your reply. A good deal of time and thought went into tagging this image, which is believed to be meet the fair use criteria for critical commentary and review in YouTube. While I try to stick to free images as far as possible (Youtube high low.PNG was added recently for this reason), it is not always possible to give an adequate understanding of a subject without some fair use material. I'll have another look at the tagging.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 16:33, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Night The Defeos Died Article
I linked a mention of Ric Osuna's book "The Night The Defeos Died" to the Ronald Defeo Jr. article but it might need it's own. Speaking from a neutral point of view. There is a documentary coming out based on the night the defeos died. The documentary is called "Shattered Hopes", and some people are not happy about it. Apparently this is starting to get more attention than people figured it might. I don't want to create an article, but if the book is getting more attention and someone looks up the book for info, they might look for that only. There is some info about it on the Defeo page but it's not a lot just mention of Osuna's theory. Get an article or leave it on Defeo's page?--VampireKen (talk) 03:54, 28 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Again the main issues here are style related. The length of a Wikipedia article means that it is not possible to look at all of the claims in a book or television documentary. The articles should try to give a general idea of why The Amityville Horror and the DeFeo murders are controversial, rather than becoming drawn into long discussions about the merits of rival theories, which could form the basis of a book in its own right. Sourcing is still an issue here, particularly if it means introducing long paragraphs or new sections to articles with few or no citations. I have tried to stick to external links as this means that people can have additional reading on the subject. Notability is important in a Wikipedia article, because longer is not necessarily better. Deciding what to put in and what to leave out is an area that needs consideration. Also, the articles should try to maintain their own standalone character, rather than discussing or repeating what other people have written.-- ♦Ian Ma c  M♦  (talk to me) 10:46, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

File:Guitar youtube.png listed for deletion
An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, File:Guitar youtube.png, has been listed at Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Stifle (talk) 22:53, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Autoblock nonsense
Please see User talk:62.24.251.241. Wikipedia is currently investigating this issue.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 13:08, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Re: Cleanfeed and proxying
We have no idea why, I hope it's temporary (it looks like a legitimate screwup this time). However some Cleanfeed IPs got blocked with summaries like "Harassment", which is definitely not good PR on our side (worse than an explicative block). Blocking the IPs for a long time will prevent that kind of stuff to happen. If you look at the block message, I added a link to the secure server (which is probably not blocked, considering how crude is their blocking). Anonymous editing should work there. -- lucasbfr  talk 16:15, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Hello! I'm new.
Hello, I'm new here, just wanted to say hello and keep up the good work! Designer1993 (talk) 18:19, 11 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks, happy editing.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 09:33, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Signature?
How'd you do the cool signature? When I try to make a signature with cool stuff the code I used to make it splurts out instead... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Uber-Awesomeness (talk • contribs) 23:30, 16 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I can't claim to be an expert here, but this page has some advice.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 08:59, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Translation
I just tried the google translator here, it didn't do too well lol

I assumed that this was a pretty god service to use - is it because the pages have colloquialisms in them ?

Chaosdruid (talk) 20:25, 19 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks, it is not clear from the link given which page you were trying to translate. Online translation services like Google Translate and Babel Fish have some use, but they often produce garbled translations. There is currently no substitute for a human familiar with the language.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 09:35, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Talkback
Ckatz chat spy  19:36, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Thriller – Live
In case, your bored, something to read. — Realist  2  22:06, 29 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks, nowadays there is a trend for adapting film works into musicals, with The Producers and Spamalot being two of the best known examples. Flashdance had a proposed Broadway musical version in 2001 but this never appeared, so caution is needed about Thriller.-- ♦Ian Ma c  M♦  (talk to me) 09:38, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:Roddick vs pong.png)
Thanks for uploading File:Roddick vs pong.png. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:02, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Youtube URL
In this video you can clearly tell the guitar is mapped to the left channel. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BRr5nwXUYhU Daniel Christensen (talk) 17:58, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

It might take a while to load; it did for me for some reason, even though most other videos loaded rather rapidly; a few others were slow just the same, however. Daniel Christensen (talk) 18:05, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

The Tab Hunter video seems to have better picture quality too, compared to other normal quality videos. Daniel Christensen (talk) 14:55, 11 February 2009 (UTC)


 * The picture of some standard quality YouTube videos is really poor, for example Avril Lavigne's Girlfriend is full of artifacts. Since August 2007 Adobe Flash Player has supported H.264, which is a much better system. The Tab Hunter video is H.264, and it is also 640 x 480 pixels, which is twice the size of the standard 320 x 240. YouTube is definitely testing the AVC/AAC system at the moment, but there is very little about it in the tech blogs.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 15:07, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

YouTube comment screening

 * Comments on a YouTube video usually appear immediately, but this is not without its risks. It is depressing but fairly common to find offensive comments underneath a video. It is possible to pre-screen comments or turn off the feature altogether.

The question arose when I posted a comment on someone's channel, not just on a video they posted. So would it be correct that the person who does the screening and approval is the one who set up the account and not someone working for YouTube? Michael Hardy (talk) 21:06, 11 February 2009 (UTC)


 * To the best of my knowledge, YouTube staff do not screen the comments. The feature at is used by account holders. By default, comments appear immediately, but can be altered from the account settings.-- ♦Ian Ma c  M♦  (talk to me) 21:41, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. Michael Hardy (talk) 00:57, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Google Revert
I've reverted it back and referenced the edit, it should belong in technology because it is new technology. Regards --> --UnTrooper (talk) 12:28, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Google is primarily about the company structure, and the services such as Google Search are described in more detail in the main articles.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 12:33, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Well if you're going to be like that I won't update articles anymore then. --UnTrooper (talk) 13:04, 16 February 2009 (UTC)


 * There is nothing wrong with mentioning this new feature, which is called Google Latitude, in Google Maps. I have added the BBC link with the privacy concerns to the article.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 13:19, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

"Onto" vs. "on to" (Archimedes)
Hello! I believe "onto" as one word is correct in the sentence, "The device was used to focus sunlight onto attacking ships." As I understand it, "onto" is correct when it means "upon the surface of." ("The device was used to focus sunlight upon the surface of attacking ships.") On the other hand, "on to" is used when "on" is an adverb (e.g., in phrasal verbs such as "move on," "pass on," etc.) that just happens to precede "to," e.g., "The commander passed information on to other attacking ships." One can verify that "on" is an adverb in this sentence by moving it without changing the meaning: "The commander passed on information to other attacking ships." (Ambiguity of the placement of "on" before a noun notwithstanding.) In the case of Archimedes, "to focus sunlight on to attacking ships" would mean "to focus sunlight onward, in the direction of attacking ships," which is not the intended meaning. &mdash;Tonyle (talk • contribs) 09:53, 26 February 2009 (UTC)


 * This is an old argument and it is more of a style issue than a spelling issue. I had one teacher at school who insisted that the spelling "onto" was always wrong and a modern aberration. Into is always one word, but various web pages hold forth on the rights and wrongs of onto versus on to without an overall consensus.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 10:35, 26 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Can you point me to a web page that argues for the "always use 'on to'" stance? If I Google onto "on to", the first five hits that specifically explain grammar (including the Columbia Guide to Standard American English) all state that "on to" is to be used only when "on" is an adverb. I am wondering if this is an AmE vs. BrE difference, though the users in this thread on WriteWords (a UK forum) advocate "onto" (while admitting that it is a newer construction [though still almost 300 years old]). My guess is that "onto" was created specifically to distinguish between the adverbial and prepositional uses, much like what "into" does. Columbia and WriteWords do disagree on the proper style when "onto"/"on to" is used to mean "aware of" or "wise to" (e.g., "The police are onto/on to this new confidence game.") but they agree in every other respect. &mdash;Tonyle (talk • contribs) 18:04, 3 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Some British people tend to frown on "onto". The debate can be hair-splitting at times, but it is not a major issue.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 19:43, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Full cast list of Flashdance
I have nominated Full cast list of Flashdance, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Articles for deletion/Full cast list of Flashdance. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Clarityfiend (talk) 06:34, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Oops, I was unaware they moved
Looks like they moved down the street to 901 Cherry Ave. I was unaware of that. My mistake. I'll have to take another picture the next time I'm in San Bruno!

Thanks for pointing that out. I suppose you can put back the other photo if you want to for now, but be aware that the Amici's chain is not a fast food restaurant chain. It's a bit more formal than Pizza Hut, though not as formal as a real Italian restaurant. --Coolcaesar (talk) 09:10, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm back
Hey. don't know if you remember me but I did a lot of editing on the Amityville articles. I stopped researching the subject but im back. Is there any info that is needed for the articles? or any new info that was added?--Darkness2light (talk) 19:37, 14 March 2009 (UTC)


 * You said that the 2009 film was dropped because the authorities in Toms River denied permission. Is there any sourcing on this? Here is how the Toms River house looked in 2008 (not very much like it did in the 1979, 1982 and 1983 films).-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 19:52, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

I live by the house. Unfortunately no there is no source. It was the owners that said no. Whenever a new amityville is being filmed here it is kept quiet until the film comes out. They filmed a scene for the 2005 film here but knowbody found out until after the movie came out. oh and I never asked you. Do we need any pics of the movie house for the 1979 article? I took some a few months ago. I can try to find a source. All I have is a person who knows the people in the house now. I don't even know them they just talked to us once (but they do know the people in the house). Either way that plot is the poltergeist plot.--Darkness2light (talk) 21:58, 14 March 2009 (UTC)


 * It is interesting, because as the article at points out, the house in Toms River now looks very unlike the way it did in the first three films, and would be an unsuitable location anyway. As you probably know, the 2005 film used a house in Silver Lake, Wisconsin which did not look much like 112 Ocean Avenue.-- ♦Ian Ma c  M♦  (talk to me) 08:02, 15 March 2009

(UTC)

There were apparently talks to use it in the sequel as the Lutz family's new house. but I can only say that the producers tried to get it for the remake.--Darkness2light (talk) 16:43, 21 March 2009 (UTC)


 * There is an article here about the house in the 2005 film.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 16:53, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

I've read it before. That site is not accurate. They said the interior of the Toms river house was used for the original movie when it was not (except for a few scenes).--Darkness2light (talk) 18:27, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Flashdance
Hi. Recently you undid an edit I made (although I was not logged into my account) to the Flashdance article in which I noted a reference to the movie from the musical "The Wedding Singer". You said it was unsourced, yet failed to remove another unsourced claim that "The Full Monty" referenced Flashdance. You also said it was not notable; I would then ask you to look back at the article and ask yourself if a reference from a musical is not as notable as one from an Orangina commercial.

Think before you act. Drummerdg (talk) 03:29, 17 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry if there has been any inconsistency here. The section has become a bit of a trivia magnet and needs a cleanup. Notable means "significant coverage in secondary sources", which pop culture references often fail to satisfy. The whole section could be axed without a great loss to the article, and it is hard to decide what is a "notable" reference to Flashdance.-- ♦Ian Ma c  M♦  (talk to me) 07:39, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Re: Undoing edits
Hey, just as a reminder, when you are "undoing" edits, make sure that there isn't a string of edits that are vandalism. If you only undo the top-most edit, then other removed/vandalized material might still linger. If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 11:12, 3 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks, usually I check for this, but sometimes the nonsense slips through.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 14:41, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

You were mentioned at WP:AN3 regarding the Lobsang Rampa article
Hello Ianmacm. See this report. I hope that we can persuade the other editors to use the Talk page, and to limit their enthusiasm for promoting particular web sites. EdJohnston (talk) 02:11, 5 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks, bias can often be in the eye of the beholder. I never said that the link was unacceptable, and cautioned only against WP:SPAM and conflict of interest issues.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 15:02, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

== Youtube's Peabody award ==

FYI. Abecedare (talk) 19:05, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject Living people
Hey is Michael Jackson still on your watchlist? Haven't seen you over there in a while. Also, a new wikiproject designed to help uphold WP:BLP has formed, you might be interested. — R  2  16:56, 17 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, I'm still watching it, mainly in case nonsense is added, but thankfully there are plenty of other people watching as well.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 17:59, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
 * At the moment they (the media) are talking about the concerts, which is selling newpapers. When that becomes old news they will go back to writing the normal crap. — R  2  18:22, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

My mistake over the Boyle videos
I have not been able to find a version of the song where this happened, could you give a link?-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 18:45, 24 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I shall have to eat my words! I have removed my entry from the You-tube discussion page, as it is misleading. I use Safari on a Mac, and that is what happened. However, when I switched to Firefox, the videos played the way they were supposed to. I should have checked the machine and the software first before crying foul.  I am mentioning my error here for the record, and I thank you for drawing it to my attention, IanmacM.  JohnClarknew (talk) 06:28, 25 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your comment.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 06:33, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Flashdance...What A Feeling
I would say that its use in Let's Dance For Comic Relief has to be of similar notability to its use in some ad on Australian TV. It makes no sense to remove one and not the other. --88.109.45.102 (talk) 19:45, 14 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Deciding notability in pop culture references is a subjective business at the best of times. The Carlton beer ad is well known in Australia (here it is on YouTube). Ideally, all pop culture references should have citations to establish notability, otherwise the lists tend to grow like this.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 20:20, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Start collecting links
Hi, I'm starting to archive links for this, feel free to add others if you find them. — R  2  12:54, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
 * OK.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 17:22, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you
For your correct information on using reliable links from youtube, unfortunately I have been the target by religious extremists on wikipedia from preventing from using any sites at all, again many thanks Morbid Fairy (talk) 21:03, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

I hope it is ok to use your advice on my talk page, again thanks Ian Morbid Fairy (talk) 21:04, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Dear Morbid Fairy aka Satanoid see here, you have been previously reprimanded for this type of behaviour under the Satanoid account and on your WPOuting violation here. People are assuming Good Faith on your new account so I suggest you do the same. Your behaviour towards Sineed is very bad. Please stop spamming every editor on Wikipedia and claiming to be a victim. I note also that you were recently blocked for Vandalism for 31 hours. Thanks --Sikh-history (talk) 09:12, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

MJ Talk
Hi John - the bot seems to be archiving comments posted yesterday on Talk:Michael Jackson - see archive 26. Much as I don't want an enormous talk page, I think that's too fast, don't you? Last thing I saw said it was a 2-day archive which is already pretty short. I don't speak bot, so maybe you could check it? Thanks. PS I'm still laughing from that picture of Jimmy that floats onto your page. 20:13, 28 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Someone archived the page manually earlier on today, in response to a request that the page was too big. I wasn't entirely happy about this, but there is a search box and a FAQ section for people to use. The bot setting is currently two days.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 20:19, 28 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, I just saw that (I should have read first). I think it was over-zealous and asked him to undo it - but maybe it doesn't matter all that much. Nice to meet you anyway! Tvoz / talk 20:22, 28 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Also, you can't search on something if you don't know it's there - archiving stuff posted today is way out of line. What if other editors want to discuss what was said? Not going to make a big deal about it, but it's really not the way it should be done. Tvoz / talk 20:34, 28 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I was annoyed to see threads started today being archived, but it is probably too late now. Anyway, people will still turn up and start threads asking why the conversion to Islam is not in the article, regardless of the FAQ and archive.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 20:41, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Maniacs audio
Well, the "нахуй" part is pretty clear&mdash;I'm pretty sure that's what it is. What precedes it, however, beats me (I listened a dozen or so times). I guess it could be "о парни", but I really doubt that's what it actually is. The word "парень" is kind of on a bookish side, and while it is not uncommon to hear a forty-something year old or an older person call someone in his thirties, twenties, or late teens "парень", among those in their thirties, twenties, or late teens the word is hardly ever used. "Пацан" or "мужик" would be a much more natural choice.

If I had to make a wild guess as to what was said in the clip, I would go with something like "опа(на) нахуй". "Опа" or "опана" is not really a word; it's an interjection which you probably won't find in any dictionary. What it would normally express is surprise that something mildly unexpected has happened. The expletive portion following it would emphasize the surprise.

Of course, this is pure original research. It's kind of hard to understand what is going on in the clip without seeing the action. If you could post the video (say, ten seconds prior to this phrase and maybe five or ten seconds after), perhaps it would be more helpful (and yes, I understand this may turn out to be very graphic). An extended audio version might be useful, too, so let's try that if it's easier for you to cut out.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 13:56, June 30, 2009 (UTC)


 * There are some very tricky ethical problems here. Jimbo Wales banned the video from being used in Wikipedia in December 2008, because it is so graphic.. Personally, I would not recommend watching the video due to the graphic content. It is not realistic to post a link to the video on any Wikipedia page. What I could do is post a transcript of the audio, or send a link to the audio by e-mail. Is this OK?-- ♦Ian Ma c  M♦  (talk to me) 14:37, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I can't say I'm burning with desire to see this video, but I am OK with watching the relevant portion of it if you really need to know what was said for encyclopedic purposes. Let's try an extended audio clip first&mdash;if you can just post it the same way as yesterday, I'll check it out when I get back home tonight.  If that doesn't work (or if you are uncomfortable with posting a link to an extended audio clip here), feel free to send me a link by wikimail.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 16:14, June 30, 2009 (UTC)
 * I've listened to the portion around 4:03, and am almost completely sure that the phrase in question is "опанах", which is a common colloquial contraction of what I suggested yesterday. You still might want to get a second opinion, though, because, as you pointed out, this wasn't exactly easy to hear.  Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 13:16, July 1, 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, considering the meaning of the phrase and the intonation with which it was said, I would highly doubt that was Yatsenko...—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 16:46, July 1, 2009 (UTC)

Setanta Sports on "Freeview"
Hi there.

I have seen an edit you reverted earlier to the Freeview (UK) article. I haven't removed the text you restored, but I have tagged it as I believe it shouldn't be there. Rather than start a potential revert war, there is a discussion about the inclusion of non free-to-air channels in the Freeview article on the talk page. Regards. --tgheretford (talk) 21:42, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

MJ
I just want to say, thank you for watching over the article while I was away, I am always amazed by your professionalism and neutrality. — Please comment  R  2  14:35, 5 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks, I can't count the hours that have gone into all of this over the past ten days. This is the most time-intensive thing that I have ever done for Wikipedia.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 14:38, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Hopefully it will all pay off, I want to get the main biography back up to form in time for the funeral. By the way, it look like the Thriller album will be the featured article of the day on Tuesday (his funeral I believe) so you might want to watchlist that. — Please comment  R  2  14:45, 5 July 2009 (UTC)


 * OK.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 14:50, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi!
My God! I almost had a heart attack when Jimbo appeared to the screen! You're right. I can't find any reliable source. Lots of discussion though. --Moppaaja (talk) 07:22, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

First sentence of MJ article
Portillo had an interesting suggestion in the talk page....we basically do the short introduction...."MJJ, dubbed King of Pop, was an American recording artist." After that, Portillo suggested adding more pov....so would you agree to the second sentence reading something like..."Widely regarded as one of the greatest entertainers of modern times, his unique contributions to music and dance, along with a highly publicized personal life, made him a part of pop culture for four decades"? As far as I understand Portillo's position, it seems to be that the "widely regarded" part shouldn't be in the first sentence, not that it shouldn't be there at all. We'll wait and see what happens obviously, but you will almost certainly be reverted by either Realist or Slim, and this could get unnecessarily ugly. For the record, I'm fine with Portillo's compromise. Let me know what you think. Thanks.UberCryxic (talk) 07:20, 14 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I cannot support any edit with the "greatest entertainer" phrase in it. As other users have pointed out, it is not consistent with other articles. The Beatles manages to get by without saying that they are "widely regarded as the greatest pop group" in the lead, so Michael Jackson should follow this pattern.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 07:28, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
 * And as I explained in the talk page, that model for the Beatles is a mistake, not something to be repeated. But I don't think we're going to agree, so we need to figure out another way to resolve this problem. Thanks for your cooperation!UberCryxic (talk) 07:39, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Since you are looking for comparisons, you might check out articles like that of Michael Jordan and Roger Federer, which mention them as among the greatest, or the greatest, in their respective professions. In other words, there is precedent for such a move on Wikipedia (if precedent is what you were looking for).UberCryxic (talk) 07:53, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

I have no issues really as long as its sourced. The Beatles page doesnt say they are the greatest of all time, it says they are commercially and critically acclaimed. If this can be done to Michaels page it would be great. For example, regarded as one of the most entertaining and commercially successful artists of all time, or something along those lines. Portillo (talk) 08:56, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

I've changed the lead again to meet the standards set with the article on the Beatles. Now the second sentence starts off with..."One of the most commercially successful recording artists of all time, his unique contributions....etc". The citations for that claim are found further down in the article. I avoided them because I didn't want to clutter the lead with references.UberCryxic (talk) 04:54, 15 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks, the first paragraph looks good now. My main concern was avoiding the allegations of fancruft and peacocking that have dogged the lead section in the past. The article is long enough to look at the importance of Jackson's career in detail without using megaphone hype in the lead.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 06:58, 15 July 2009 (UTC)