User talk:Jazzeur/Old stuff 3

Image:Benny_Carter.jpg
Imported from: User talk:Geraki

Just to thank you for finding this picture of Benny Carter. He is a great artist and I truly enjoy his music. I still have difficulties understanding the procedure and rules for posting images that do not create violation of some sort.

Too bad you could not find a picture with Benny and his alto saxophone. For example, I would have preferred this one. Same photographer, I believe.

Cheers, -- Jazzeur (talk) 17:03, 31 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi, unfortunately I didn't find this picture but the picture found me. The fact is that I responded to an e-mail (to permissions-en@wikimedia.org) by the photographer complaining about the use of one of his Benny Carter photos without his permission. Portraits of individuals usually are not accepted as "fair use" per the fair use guidelines. The photo would have been deleted, but Mr. Edward Berger was kind enough to release under a free license, another picture of his choice. You should always ask the photographer's permission to use a photo in order to not create violations. If you'd like another picture, please ask Mr. Edward Berger to release it under a free license, and then the picture has to be uploaded with the appropriate license tag and Mr. Berger mentioned as the author. Geraki  T L 08:20, 16 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Thank you so much. With those few well chosen words, you have taught me more about how to put photos of people on Wikipedia than the usual lengthy policy documents that I have consulted. You are a great teacher. -- Jazzeur (talk) 13:58, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Replaceable fair use Image:Danielle Brisebois young.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Danielle Brisebois young.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? —Angr 05:54, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia scandals in last two weeks // Deletionism and Downbeat music Navbox
Hi. The scandal I am referring to the instances in which Sens. Byrd and Kennedy. The following is a reference to the instances and Jimmy Wales' proposals for dealing with the vandalism:

http://au.news.yahoo.com/a/-/technology/5286238/vandals-prompt-wikipedia-to-ponder-editing-changes/

Cool to see that there is another editor out there that enjoys jazz. I was intrigued by the Down Beat Hall of Fame Critics Poll navbox cited on your user page. I was disturbed, by not surprised, to see that the article had been deleted.

I believe that wikipedia is beset by a great deal of very active editors, that delete anything that they personally consider unimportant. The problem is that they are uninformed. In their compulsion to nullify things that seem unimportant they delete important, substantive articles.

Downbeat is the premier printed jazz magazine, and has been in operation since the earliest years of the swing era. Its polls have been important for recognizing important performers and performances. It is a shame that the article was deleted. Its deletion was an example of over-deletionism.

Something similar happened with my biography of Boston area jazz disc jockey Steve Elman. He was an intellectual DJ that gave very thoughtful bios of recorded performances. People that were uninformed, or unappreciative of jazz, deleted his bio article.Dogru144 (talk) 19:29, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Robert Giguère
Hi, If you have an interest in this page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Gigu%C3%A8re) and similar pages, I strongly suggest you get acquainted (and eventually intervene) with this link: http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikip%C3%A9dia:Demande_de_restauration_de_page#Robert_Gigu.C3.A8re.C2.A0.28d.C2.A0.C2.B7.C2.A0h.C2.A0.C2.B7.C2.A0j_.C2.A0.C2.B7.C2.A0.E2.86.B5.29

In short, Utilisateur:LPLT in the French Wikipedia eliminated the french version of the page 3 hours after I posted the first draft of it.

What do you think if I cite page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability ? it is important to not just consider whether notability is established by the article, but whether it readily could be. Remember that all Wikipedia articles are not a final draft, and an article can be notable if such sources exist even if they have not been added at present. Merely asserting that such sources exist is seldom persuasive, especially as time passes and actual proof does not surface. If it is likely that significant coverage in independent sources can be found for a topic, deletion due to lack of notability is inappropriate unless active effort has been made to find these sources. For articles of unclear notability, deletion should be a last resort.

This guy apparently has not read that, nor the french version. He is on a rampage to eliminate all biographical pages he judges are only of a genealogical nature and his list includes the English page on Robert Giguère, and possibly more pages YOU care about.

Thanks for your support, Alainr345 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alainr345 (talk • contribs) 21:10, 12 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your note Jazzeur; Merci (la contestation est DÉJÀ en cours, voir lien plus haut...) --Alainr345 (talk) 05:17, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Archie Bunker
The TV series is not a sufficient source for the birth date. Please provide a more sufficient source before re-adding the birth date. — Mythdon  t / c  22:29, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
 * This plenty sufficient. In the article in question, we are not talking about the real person named Carroll O'Connor, we are talking about the fictional character named Achie Bunker. In the episode titled Archie Feels Left Out, which was aired in 1974, Archie celebrated his 50th birthday. In 1974 the TV series was in real-time, as witnessed by the political issues discussed in the various episodes. The character Archie Bunker was therefore born in 1924. --Jazzeur (talk) 03:39, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Unless the program stated that he was born in 1924, doesn't including this contravene WP:OR? --Jaymax (talk) 09:17, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Why does it seem most of the people I find citing Wiki policy don't seem to have read any of it. The page you link to, Jaymax, WP:OR, has a headed section stating the following:
 * "Routine calculations
 * This policy does not forbid routine calculations, such as adding numbers, converting units, or calculating a person's age, provided editors agree that the arithmetic and its application correctly reflect the information published by the sources from which it is derived."
 * Fair call - I withdraw my earlier comment. (And I agree, I have also found myself quoting backj WP:POLICY at folks who reference it)--Jaymax (talk) 11:29, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
 * This is precisely what Jazzeur has done, something that is explicitly within Wikipedia policy as spelled out on the Original Research page. Unless you want to lobby that page to replace this reasonable Wiki policy with something pedantically and inanely illogical, this should be the end of this issue.  Abrazame (talk) 20:17, 16 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Television episodes should not be used as sources per our notability guideline. We must use reliable sources as citations. Information on Wikipedia must be verifiable. The television episode doesn't cut it, even though it is the most truthful source. It is not a reliable source for verifying the notability, as it is directly related to the subject. Notability is verified by third party sources independent of the subject. If and only if you have a reliable source will I come to your desired conclusions. Please find a source before re-adding. — Mythdon  t / c  04:24, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
 * This is only your opinion, stop disturbing this page. --Jazzeur (talk) 05:15, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
 * It is not my opinion. It is policy. Now, should you fail to find a sufficient source in 24 hours, I will revert your change again, without question to it. Television episodes will not get you out of this. They are not sufficient sources to justify the notability, and you cannot contradict that. — Mythdon  t / c  05:36, 1 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Mythdon, this strikes me as a pedantic argument. WP:RS is a guideline for editors, it is not The Bible for Popes.  We are supposed to follow guidelines unless something else makes more sense.  (In fact, I suppose the same is true for Popes).  This seems to be a prime example of something else making more sense:  The subject is an eminently notable television character and the source is the eminently notable television series on which that television character appeared.  By your logic, we shouldn't use a notable novel as the source for the age of the main character of said notable novel unless a separate notable work remarks upon it—yet how would the author of the separate notable work know this to be the case except by having read said novel?


 * Let me take this from a different angle. When someone creates an article for a CD album, they take the track listing and the track length information directly from their copy of the album.  They don't have to indicate some other source for this information.  In fact, it would be insipid to reference the source for such a thing.


 * Of course the source of the age isn't as obvious, and so the episode should be noted. After your initial objection, Jazzeur tracked down the source episode and inserted it as a ref.  The Archie Bunker character was nothing like, say, the Jack Benny character, who celebrated his 39th birthday every year.  I think we can accept the show's presentation of Bunker's celebration of his 50th birthday as being legitimate.  Honestly, the point I would take issue with is the date of death as "after April 4, 1983."  This isn't referenced and isn't immediately clear.


 * Why are you removing Archie's information and leaving Edith's? The list of family members isn't referenced.  For that matter, Norman Lear as show creator isn't referenced.  Yet clearly you understand that material which is not disputed and unexceptional doesn't always require a cite.  Why the focus on Archie's age?  An early edit summary of yours shows you to be observing incorrectly that the age for the character was extrapolated from the age of the actor portraying him, yet a subsequent reference by Jazzeur should have been enough to disabuse you of your mistake.  Why is your reason for objecting shifting?  Abrazame (talk) 17:46, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks
...for your reversion of blanking and vandalism on my talkpage. The ironic part is that I was honestly trying to help the newcomer and offer a bit of encouragement. Thanks again, and happy editing, Doc  Tropics  22:08, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

List of ethnic slurs - August 2009
Hello, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia! I noticed that you recently added commentary to an article. While Wikipedia welcomes editors' opinions on an article and how it could be changed, these comments are more appropriate for the article's accompanying talk page. If you post your comments there, other editors working on the same article will notice and respond to them and your comments will not disrupt the flow of the article. However, keep in mind that even on the talk page of an article, you should limit your discussion to improving the article. Article talk pages are not the place to discuss opinions of the subject of articles nor are such pages a forum. Beeblebrox (talk) 15:20, 10 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I am shocked and I totally disagree with the tone of your note concerning my good-faith contributions on the List of ethnic slurs article and the related talk page. I did not disrupt the flow of comments, I simply indicated that Canuck was not a slur and explained why. A letter to a politician from the United States does not make a slur of a term. I also stroke the information to invite more discussions on the talk page. The next time you exhibit such rude behavior, I will report it. --Jazzeur (talk) 17:50, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Apparently you shock pretty easily. Striking out part of an article and adding your own commentary to the article text is wholly inappropriate. There is a reason we have a template to ask users not to do such things. Report me whenever you like to whomever you like as I have not been rude or acted in bad faith. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:25, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

UserCompare
Your UserCompare key has been activated. βcommand 21:18, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you Betacommand. Much obliged. --Jazzeur (talk) 00:54, 18 August 2009 (UTC)