User talk:Jonnybgoode44/Archives/2009

Dr. Steel
I wasn't aware of any of this, actually. I don't even know who this Dr. Steel is. I reverted Toy and Utopia because the content added was not in any way encyclopedic. They were personal essays (most likely copyright violations, from the looks of them) that offered one individual's personal opinions in an unencyclopedic tone. If Dr. Steel's opinions on these matters are considered notable within the relevant fields, then a neutrally-worded summary of his positions can certainly be added. If he is not a noted scholar or well-known commentator on these topics, however, then his personal opinions on the matters are not encyclopedic and should not be in the articles. Oh, and I'm not a moderator. Not sure where you got that idea, but I don't want anyone to accuse me of claiming to be something I'm not! --Icarus (Hi!) 04:18, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

no, I don't. I can't even remember what episode it was, but the poser was the orange one. BTW, on TSU, i am ursulabear. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Countess of Landsfield (talk • contribs) 20:32, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Dr. Steel (album)
If you're interested in seeing the contents of this article, please place a note on WP:Deletion Review or Administrators' noticeboard (ask for "userfy" or temporary undeletion) or leave a note on my talk page Skier Dude  ( talk ) 06:48, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

It's been restored to User:Jonnybgoode44/Sandbox Steel for your review. Skier Dude ( talk ) 03:32, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I've left a note at Deletion review/Log/2009 August 28 for other's input on this.  Skier Dude  ( talk ) 04:37, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
 * You need to leave your notes on the Deletion review page, not on my user talk page... Skier Dude  ( talk ) 01:44, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
 * P.s. - the concern regarding the citations is legit, once they're added to the article, just post a note on the Deletion review page to that effect. Skier Dude  ( talk ) 01:48, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

I tagged the article the way I did because I object to the phrase "(Dr Steel prefers to express himself digitally)" as being more promotional than encyclopedic. While the tag I used may seem like an overreaction for one phrase, I felt it was justified based on the short length of the article.RadManCF (talk) 16:32, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Locking pages
Don't falsely accuse me of abusing my admin rights as you did here and here. As demonstrated by my log of admin actions I didn't protect the DRV page, or any other page associated with Doctor Steel, as you are accusing me of. Nick-D (talk) 07:45, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Re: Doctor Steel
I took a look at the current draft of this article -- this was since my original tag & you performed your work on it -- & there still are a number of sentences I have a problem with. Should I tag the sentences or passages I find need work? If so, which tags would you feel are the most useful? -- llywrch (talk) 23:27, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, the "Youth" paragraph was one of them. ;) One problem is that it is based on an unverifiable statement that he "spent much of his youth in isolation". (The other is the phrasing of the opening of that paragraph: it sounds too oracular.) Is there any 3rd-party source which can prove this? If not, I assume much of the paragraph is based on what Dr Steel has shared of his past; in that case, simply quote him as the source. Another problem is the paragraph explaining his onstage persona's history -- but that is a matter of writing, rather than providing a source. (Although that adding one would not be a bad thing.) -- llywrch (talk) 23:52, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
 * That's the idea I was trying to convey: he is the source for this statement, so he needs to be quoted about it either directly or indirectly. -- llywrch (talk) 00:18, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

IMHO, the article still needs some work, but the peacock language is definitely gone. (We're talking about something better left for a Peer Review.) Thanks for the effort & good luck with the AfD discussion. -- llywrch (talk) 04:55, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Doctor Steel
You're welcome. I'll see if I can do a bit more rewording as I get time. I think one of the problems other editors have been having with the article is that it frequently confuses fiction with fact (e.g. The Army of Toy Soldiers is the street team, but the plans for creating a "Utopian Playground" are clearly part of the fiction). For an encyclopaedia, it's important to make the distinction. -Kieran (talk) 19:29, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I've done a bit more towards "encylopaedifying" the article. It's important to keep a real-world perspective when writing about fiction (see the Manual of Style page). It's a bit of a weird case, since the fiction side of Dr. Steel blurs with the reality, but that just makes it doubly important to distinguish between real-world phenomena and fiction. Anyway, the article is coming along, and I doubt it'll be deleted. One thing you should be careful of is the use of copyrighted material in the article, especially images. Try going through FAQ/Copyright - it's convoluted, but of the utmost importance. (Note that if you could get the artist himself to release material under a WP-compatible license, it would be completely acceptable to use it in the article). -Kieran (talk) 04:20, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
 * The other thing you can do for images, is to upload some which you have taken yourself (or to get a friend / another "Toy Soldier" to do that). The person who took the photo owns the copyright, and has the right to release it on Wikipedia under a free license compatible with WP. I'm pretty sure you could find someone who's taken photos at a show, or of Toy Soldiers in costume at a convention, and would be willing to donate the image. -Kieran (talk) 00:01, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Having express permission from Dr. Steel to use the image helps, but is still not the ideal for Wikipedia. All of Wikipedia is made available under a free license, so that anyone can re-use it (e.g. to create educational materials). Copyrighted images used by permission are non-free content, and are allowed in Wikipedia only with great reluctance (see that link for some of the conditions and discussion). The best is to get either Dr. Steel or a fan to release images under a compatible free license (e.g. the CC-BY-SA). For the moment, while Steel is consulting with lawyers, I would look to the fanbase for content. -Kieran (talk) 19:13, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi. Sorry about the legalese - such is the nature of modern IP law. Also, I am not a lawyer, but I'll try and guide you as best I can through the issues. (No warranty, etc.)
 * The pictures have to be released under the CC-BY-SA license by the copyright holder. This is different from them giving permission for the images to be used just on Wikipedia. So, for you to upload the pictures from the page Sgt. Kano said were OK, you would need to show that he, as the copyright holder, had released them under the CC-BY-SA. It's not OK for you to just upload them under CC-BY-SA - you don't own the copyright, so don't have that legal right. The same goes for the image you found by a fan - they would have to explicitly release the image under CC-BY-SA. If Sgt. Kato or the fan don't want to go to the effort to actually upload the files to Wikipedia, it's probably OK for you to do the upload if you can show some correspondence from them stating that they give permission for the work to be released under the license. The same would go for Dr. Steel, although I guess he would rather talk to his lawyers first. -Kieran (talk) 21:34, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid that's not enough. What he has done is given permission for the pictures to be used on Wikipedia, and only Wikipedia. What the CC-BY-SA license allows is for work to be reproduced and even modified in any medium, provided that the original author is acknowledged (and that any altered form retains the same license). For the works to be used on Wikipedia, they have to be released to the world under the CC-BY-SA license (or one with even fewer restrictions).
 * The reason for this is that someone else, reproducing Wikipedia, would be violating the copyright on the images, since the permission was limited to Wikipedia. Content going into Wikipedia, except in exceptional cases, has to first be freed of the restrictions automatically imposed by copyright. -Kieran (talk) 06:28, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Hey, thanks for the notice. By complete coincidence, I was looking at the new article and reading the discussions just last night! I think it looks pretty good overall, although IMHO the Media Attention section needs to be streamlined and perhaps pared down. (Sort of a rock and a hard place... you're continually being asked to justify why Doctor Steel meets the notability requirements but also being asked to strip down or eliminate the Media Attention section! So I hear ya. Nevertheless, I do feel that section could be made more encyclopedic.) Nevertheless, excellent work! --Jay (Histrion) (talk • contribs) 12:41, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image (File:Album drsteel.jpg)
 Thanks for uploading File:Album drsteel.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 "file" 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 "File" 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. Shubinator (talk) 02:23, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Admins and editors
In Wikipedia, admins perform a very limited set of tasks, with the key ones being to protect pages during vandalism attacks, completely deleting pages that don't belong (after following strict procedures to ensure consensus) and banning users (again, after strict procedures, with significant room for appeal). Everything else, all edits, changes to text, flagging of text as inappropriate, and even nominating of articles for deletion, is carried out by regular contributors like you or I. Anyone can be a contributor, provided that they stick to policies. And, since the policies are decided by consensus, anyone can initiate discussion on altering policies. Basically, Wikipedia has no hierarchy, everything runs by consensus, and everyone has equal say in all issues (limited basically by how much effort they're willing to dedicate to having their say).

Anyway, just to reinforce it, you have just as much "right" to edit the Dr. Steel article as any other editor, including Robinhood70, myself and even the admins involved in the deletion debate. However, keep in mind that the goal is to arrive at something which strives towards the ideals of Wikipedia. As such, be bold, but listen and engage with people when they cite policy (and feel free to read the policy yourself). That's pretty much what you've been doing. -Kieran (talk) 06:44, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Replaceable fair use File:DoctorSteel.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:DoctorSteel.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. BlazerKnight (talk) 04:20, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Abney Park
Not wanting to be rude or anything but if you have all these bands telling you to keep watch over their wikiarticles then why do you have so many inaccuracies in your articles?

Besides who has the right to be the sole provider to an article? Wikipedia is meant as a community project so your existence on this site hinders further development does it not? But I digress, it isn't like you would listen to the opinion of someone anyway. —Preceding unsigned comment added by IzzyReal (talk • contribs) 18:13, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Yeah but that is something that would never fly past admins. —Preceding unsigned comment added by IzzyReal (talk • contribs) 19:33, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

If you want to make the Abney Park article better then keep the fictional backstory and possibly expand on it from your contact with the Captain —Preceding unsigned comment added by IzzyReal (talk • contribs) 20:11, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Not much of a compromise... it says nothing about it really. IzzyReal (talk) 20:47, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Abney Park Wiki looks good. Thanks for brushing up Captain Roberts page btw. Oh and just because you asked I'll actually sign this :) IzzyReal (talk) 15:24, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Why is it a bad idea? I mean is wikipedia so against creativity that they would get rid of an article that adds to the learning experience? IzzyReal (talk) 19:24, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

An agent of the band?! What does that even mean? I mean who else would make these other than fans if that's what an "agent" is? IzzyReal (talk) 19:53, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm trying to not be biased but am still trying (not for promotional purposes) allow an article on a brilliant story because I as a fiction writer believe that fiction is just as important as fact. IzzyReal (talk) 20:39, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Yay I'm a rabid fanboy now. If you have a problem with my thinking that stories from anywhere do deserve a place in an encyclopedia then I apologize. My assumption was that the same encyclopedia that contains articles about Harry Potter should contain articles about other fictional works. IzzyReal (talk) 23:05, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Oh, and now that I have your attention don't you have anything better to do then make false statements about people just because they have an opposing view. I mean at your age you should have already learned that talking smack behind peoples back is wrong but I guess that since you have anonymity over the internet that you can ignore simple rules of civility. If you have an issue then tell me don't go acting like a 14 year old and calling people names. Thank you. IzzyReal (talk) 23:16, 17 December 2009 (UTC)