User talk:Law/September 2008

Hey, thanx, ive been creating some San Diego-related articles in the Spanish Wikipedia, and I uploaded some pictures to common, maybe you can you them. --Alex 07:47, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
 * You can see my pictures (i took some of them) on my accounts, [Vrysxy] and my other account [Alex537, btw, i live in Chula Vista and i went to SDSU too, I forgot to edit my user page (in english Spanish & Portuguese )XD now i go to UCSD, btw i just created the East Village article in the Spanish Wikipedia, :D.--Alex 08:17, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Cool, entonces entiendes el artículo de East Village que hice XD, East Village y la foto que puse. --Alex 08:26, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:ArenaUrbanJungle.jpg}
Thank you for uploading Image:ArenaUrbanJungle.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this image under "fair use" 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 for fair use. In particular, for each page the image is used on, the image must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Can you please check:
 * That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's escription page for each article the image is used in.
 * That every article it is used on is linked to from its description page.

Please be aware that a fair use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for images used under the fair use policy require both a copyright tag and a fair use rationale.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it might be deleted by adminstrator 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. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 08:26, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Your rollback request
Hi! I regret that I must inform you that your request for the rollback permission has been denied. You can discover why by checking the archives at Requests for permissions/Denied/September 2008. SoxBot X (talk) 10:30, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Re: Vandals
Looks good so far. If you keep making reversions like those, you should be able to get rollback in a very short time. Cheers! J.delanoy gabs adds 15:22, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

:You're_a_good_man,_CB_Leo.jpg
Which specific record label was it produced by? Basicly the rationale, in my view needs to include information on whom a legal 'full' version of artwork concerned could be obtained. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 12:20, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

sig test
XF Lawtalk at me 13:45, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Feedback on your edits to APC
Okay, so I looked over your edits and here's the requested feedback. I'm going to be blunt, but I don't mean to be harsh: So, okay, the_undertow told you to DGAF, but removing sourced information because you've not read or aren't considering the whole of the article isn't really the best idea, and it will just get reverted. Fact tagging a sentence that is backed up by a couple sourced paragraphs isn't necessary either. The first time you made your last edit (Sea of names), you put in the edit summary that if anyone believed it was a bad edit, to revert you. So they did, and you immediately take it out again. That's poor form. Overall, it's better to bring up concerns on the talk page before removing sourced information. Sometimes it can be reworded to fit better. Sometimes it may just be that you're not considering everything, and a few responses from other editors will bring things into perspective.
 * This edit is a problem because the inclusion of that information in the lead is in compliance with WP:LEAD, so I'll be putting that back, though I may reword it. fine. In preview I thought the sentence was about the members of the latest line-up, which is discussed in the article, thus should be summarized in the lead.
 * This edit isn't one I'm really concerned about. The repetition doesn't really bother me, nor do I think it will affect the GA nom, but it's a far reach to claim readers may consider "he" to refer to Trent Reznor.
 * Over half of this section is about their hiatus, not only with sources to back up the claim, but quotes from many of them. I'm removing the tag.
 * You're reaching again. It's not speculation. Keenan and Howerdel are both quoted in this section about how they took a break from APC to work on other projects. So this gives the impression that you're not reading the article, rather just removing sourced information. I'm putting this back also.
 * For this edit, you're right, it doesn't need to be in the lead, it's fine in the body only. As for your reasoning, we should include some basic info on the other album names, which is something I touched on on the article talk page last night.

We're working for GA, then we're going for FA. The more help the better, but we'll all need to communicate, particularly for FA, which takes a lot of good collaboration. Edit-warring and discussion in edit summaries will kill it. Jennavecia (Talk)  14:07, 27 September 2008 (UTC)


 * OK. I'll strictly use edit summaries to convey the material being changed. I wouldn't consider it an edit war - I had no plans of another reversion; this article is very tough to just 'walk' into, and I think my changes we good, but if consensus is against it, that is perfectly fine. I'm not familiar with how the good/featured article process works, and didn't know I was interfering. I don't want to mess it up for you guys. The Undertow? DGAF? (OH that was about me, not about editing.) I left a message on his talk page - that's it. There were no editing tips exchanged, and I do not plan any further correspondence. Thanks for your tips. I think I'll go back to the Commodore 64 article, where it's a bit more mellow, lol. XF Lawtalk at me 02:08, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Marriage
You're welcome :). I noticed the IP hopping and figured that was the best recourse. Have a good one! Pinkadelica (talk) 07:12, 29 September 2008 (UTC)