User talk:Joeboy60

Speedy deletion nomination of Outta Sight Records


A tag has been placed on Outta Sight Records requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the article, which appears to be about a real person, individual animal(s), an organization (band, club, company, etc.), or web content, does not indicate how or why the subject of the article is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not indicate the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think that you can assert the notability of the subject, you may contest the deletion by adding  at the top of the article, immediately below the speedy deletion  tag (if no such tag exists, the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate), and providing your reasons for contesting on the article's talk page, 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. You may freely add information to the article that would confirm the subject's notability under Wikipedia guidelines.

You may want to read the guidelines for specific types of articles: biographies, websites, bands, or companies. Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 19:04, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Your recent edits
Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you must sign your posts by typing four tildes ( &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 16:29, 12 October 2010 (UTC) Hi, many thanks for your helpful comments. You've probably gathered that I am new to this, apologies for the mistakes. Hopefully these are tildes? Joeboy60 (talk) 16:55, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Problems with upload of File:Hype And Soul 1st Edition Cover.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Hype And Soul 1st Edition Cover.jpg. You don't seem to have said where the image came from, who created it, or what the copyright status is. We require this information to verify that the image is legally usable on Wikipedia, and because most image licenses require giving credit to the image's creator.

To add this information, click on this link, then click the "Edit" tab at the top of the page and add the information to the image's description. If you need help, post your question on Media copyright questions.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:
 * Image use policy
 * Image copyright tags

Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 15:06, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Possibly unfree File:Hype And Soul 1st Edition Cover.jpg
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Hype And Soul 1st Edition Cover.jpg, has been listed at Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Skier Dude ( talk ) 04:53, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

How does X work?
Can anyone please help? I have read all the information regarding copyright and I still don't understand how to tag my image correctly. I have already added this but it doesn't seem to have worked. I have also stated that I am the designer of the book jacket and that I have a chain of title to the photograph contained within it. Please help. Joeboy60 (talk) 08:07, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
 * File:BestOfRBDCD%2BDVD.jpg, check this file and copy 'n paste the code to your uploaded image. Change the fields which have to be changed ;) Your uploaded file is copyrighted and thus should be under WP:fair use. mabdul 17:36, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Hype & Soul


The article Hype & Soul has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * How can this pass Notability (books) when it hasn't even been published yet?

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. John of Reading (talk) 13:18, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Nomination of Hype & Soul for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Hype & Soul is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Hype & Soul until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. John of Reading (talk) 14:01, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Can anyone please advise what I need to do to improve my article? I think (hope) that I have resolved the copyright issue by now including the correct tags? I have also clarified that the University of Michigan and the Detroit Free Press both consider "Hype & Soul" notable, as does the Mayor of Detroit and Lamont Dozier.


 * I'll have a try. I was trying to compose an answer to your copyright question earlier, but got sidetracked when I realised what the article was about.


 * First, the deletion discussion:
 * Wikipedia does not aim to have an article on everything, but only on subjects that other people have already written about. This is known here as the notability guideline. The article Hype & Soul is about a book, so the relevant notability guildeline is Notability (books). The article needs to show that reliable sources such as newspapers and respected websites, not blogs, have written about the book - not the author, not the subject covered by the book, but the book itself. And the sources must be independent of the author and the publishing company. So far the sources in the article do not show this:
 * Reference 1 is about the author, is from 2003, and not surprisingly does not mention this yet-to-be-published book.
 * Reference 2 takes me to a web page that doesn't currently say much about the author or the book, as far as I can see
 * I haven't checked references 3, 4 and 5, but the article only uses those to back up facts about the author.
 * If someone at the University of Michigan has published something about the book, then this would help to show that the book is notable; similarly if a newspaper columnist or some respected figure has started to write about the book. But at present the article does not mention anything like this.


 * Second, the copyright issue. If the article is not deleted, there are two ways to solve the copyright issue.
 * One way is to ignore the fact that you hold the copyright, and re-tag the image as being used under "fair use". See File:Prelude to Foundation cover.jpg for an example. If you deleted the existing license tags and used and  instead, adapting them from the Foundation example, then this would be ok.
 * The other way, keeping the existing copyright tags, is more complicated. So far, all the project knows about you is that you have registered as "Joeboy60" and that you claim to hold the copyright. The project cannot safely believe this without an extra step - you would be amazed how many people register a Wikipedia account and then claim to hold the copyright to all sorts of unlikely images. To prove that you hold the copyright, you would need to send an email to  as described at WP:CONSENT.


 * Finally, since you claim to hold the copyright to the book jacket design, this suggests that you are associated in some way with the author or publisher of the book. If that is the case, you should note that Wikipedia is not a means of advertising or promotion.


 * I hope this lot helps! Please ask more questions if you need to - but please add another so that the other regular helpers see the question. I'm going on holiday soon and may not be able to answer. -- John of Reading (talk) 21:03, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Hi John, many thanks for your helpful advice. I am waiting for the University and notable newspapers to confirm their articles. Would it be helpful if I sent you copies of letters from the Mayor and notable journalists?. 86.155.14.114 (talk) 14:56, 10 August 2011 (UTC)


 * No, don't do that. Article references need to mention published sources, so that, at least in theory, readers can check the facts for themselves. Letters and emails won't do - see Verifiability. I can't predict how the deletion discussion will go. It may turn out that the article gets deleted as non-notable, but could be re-created later once news sources have started to write about the book. -- John of Reading (talk) 15:16, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Hi John, thanks again. I now have an url for professor Mark Clague's article about the book in the Michigan Quarterly Review. Is this the sort of thing that is acceptable? http://hdl.handle.net/2027/spo.act2080.0049.406 Joeboy60 (talk) 15:50, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Hype And Soul 1st Edition Cover.jpg
 Thanks for uploading File:Hype And Soul 1st Edition Cover.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).

PLEASE NOTE:


 * I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions. If you have a question, place a template, along with your question, beneath this message.
 * I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
 * If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
 * To opt out of these bot messages, add  to your talk page.
 * If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 06:16, 17 August 2011 (UTC)