User talk:Paaerduag/Archive 1

Welcome to Wikipedia!
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 have any questions, check out Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome!
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

I saw your userpage. :) It is great that you are against "deceptive, misleading and biased information", because they form some of our core policies:
 * WP:NPOV Neutral point of view (what all articles must have - ie, no bias)
 * WP:V Verifiability - to stop deceptive and misleading information being included

Make sure you're always logged-in when you edit articles or add comments on the site! Then, when you type ~, your username and a timestamp will automatically show up.

PYT
OK, but when moving the page, you have to use the "move" button at the top of the page, to preserve the history for the GFDL. Anyway, there's now a link to the song on PYT, so nobody should be confused anymore. --Rory096 07:26, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Perhaps, but you're going to have to wait till PYT (band) is deleted to move it properly (with the move button), then you can create a disambiguation page. --Rory096 07:30, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Voyage disambiguation
Hi there. Sorry if you misunderstood - I never said you vandalized Voyage. It was actually an IP address that did so. I refer to this edit: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Voyage&diff=39323359&oldid=34784115. GassyGuy 09:37, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

PYT lyrics
Hello. I don't know exactly what constitutes fair use, but usually, the best thing to do is describe the gist of the lyrics rather than quote them. See the opening paragraph of Cool (song) for an example of a short description. If you feel the lyrics require a long description, perhaps consider doing one similar to the one found in The One on the Right Is on the Left. GassyGuy 09:52, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Jackson_first_appearance.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Jackson_first_appearance.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

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

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. 08:26, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Unspecified source for Image:Jackson in japan.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Jackson in japan.jpg. I notice the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this file yourself, then there needs to be an argument why we have the right to use it on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you did not create the file yourself, then you need to specify where it was found, i.e., in most cases link to the website where it was taken from, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the file also doesn't have a copyright tag, then one should be added. 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 Fair use, 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 uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Arniep 19:03, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Public domain
Public domain does not mean that an image has been published on a few websites. Please read the linked to page before uploading any more images. ed g2s &bull; talk 01:58, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Michael Jackson image
We now have a real public domain image. It is policy that it can not be replaced by any non-free copyrighted image. I am not an admin, but please be aware, that repeatedly violating copyright policy can result in account being blocked by an admin. Please do not do it again. --Rob 03:30, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Image:Jackson in japan.jpg listed for deletion
An image or media file that you uploaded, Image:Jackson in japan.jpg, has been listed at. Please look there 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. Thank you. Arniep 08:01, 15 July 2006 (UTC) Arniep 08:01, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Image tagging for Image:Ambiguous_god.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Ambiguous_god.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

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

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. 07:42, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

removed personal attack

Image uploads
Given the number of copyright violations you have uploaded claiming they are Public Domain because you found them on the internet, one can only treat everything you upload with suspicion. As for calling people vandals for enforcing our image use policy, you really ought to watch your manners and civility. I understand your frustration at some images being removed, but your outburst is totally unacceptable. ed g2s &bull; talk 11:58, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
 * The 7-day policy is for deleting no-source images. Which no-source images did I delete before 7 days? ed g2s &bull; talk 12:22, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Jackson main pic.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Jackson main pic.jpg. However, the image may soon be deleted unless we can determine the copyright holder and copyright status. The Wikimedia Foundation is very careful about the images included in Wikipedia because of copyright law (see Wikipedia's Copyright policy).

The copyright holder is usually the creator, the creator's employer, or the last person who was transferred ownership rights. Copyright information on images is signified using copyright templates. The three basic license types on Wikipedia are open content, public domain, and fair use. Find the appropriate template in Image copyright tags and place it on the image page like this:.

Please signify the copyright information on any other images you have uploaded or will upload. Remember that images without this important information can be deleted by an administrator. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me, or ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. --Durin 17:24, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Unspecified source for Image:Jackson main pic.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Jackson main pic.jpg. I notice the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this file yourself, then there needs to be a justification explaining why we have the right to use it on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you did not create the file yourself, then you need to specify where it was found, i.e., in most cases link to the website where it was taken from, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the file also doesn't have a copyright tag, then one should be added. 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 Fair use, 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 uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Durin 17:24, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Copyright status vs. distribution on the Internet
Re: your edit summary at ; A picture being widely distributed on the Internet does not make it free of copyright. I've removed the NoRightsReserved tag you placed on the image, thus the above no source and no license comments. A source and license must be provided for all images on Wikipedia. Failure to do so will result in their deletion. The same applies to Image:Jacksonintokyocity.jpg. If you have any questions about this, I'd be happy to answer. --Durin 17:24, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Michael Jackson
I totally agree with you on your "King of Pop" argument in the Michael Jackson talk page. I often feel it is people who hate Michael that refuse to call him "King of Pop" because, for them, it is like making him an admirable icon. They can not stand that. They only want to see Michael dubbed a pedophile. They are a malicious bunch. Fighting for Justice 03:23, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/We Are Here To Change The World
I know its frusterating having your articles nominated, however, discussion will probably lean towards keep if the article meets inclusion standards. Your edit might be mis-construed as to incivility. Please forgive me if I am misinterpreting. Regards, Navou   talk  00:12, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I was going to post something similar. I understand you and the nominator might have some disagreements, but please don't let said argument be played out in AfD discussions. Try to talk it out, or use third-party mediation, but please mind WP:CIVIL. Have a nice day. -- Kicking222 00:26, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
 * It happens to all of us. Everyone gets hot-headed sometimes- especially me. I'm glad that you are so quickly able to see what you do right and wrong, and are willing to make corrections; most people are too stubborn. Take care. -- Kicking222 00:40, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

King of Pop
Hey, for now the King of Pop label is safely in the lead of the article. No need to start polls or anything. The best that we can do now is to ensure conversation in the talk page when future disagreement arises, but until then, King of Pop, and only King of Pop, will remain in the lead.UberCryxic 18:38, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Please be careful in the words you use on the talk page. Try not to escalate the situation any further. If I'll Bring the Food says something you disagree with, then respond politely and always assume good faith until you have good reason not to. IBF is just as concerned about improving that article as we are; focus on those concerns instead of other misguided statements.UberCryxic 15:21, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Hey again, I don't know what happened, but someone removed many of my additions, including the KOP label, so I had to revert to my last version to keep that stuff intact. Unfortunately, that meant that I reverted you (there were way too many things to change to do so individually). Can you please go back and implement your changes while preserving mine? Thank you and sorry for the incovenience.UberCryxic 12:36, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I also have stylistic concerns on top of notability. "MJ" is shorter than "King of Pop" and therefore sounds better if it is placed first. I mean, whenever there is a list of things, it just flows better if words with fewer syllables are placed first. "Commonly known" is also a better phrase than "referred to." MJ is also referred to by a lot of other names, many of them demeaning. "Commonly known" signifies that these names above all others are prominent. That's what the whole fight about including KOP was about. I really really think my version is better, stylistically and otherwise.UberCryxic 06:31, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Well I grew up in Albania and I knew him mostly as MJ, which would've been the case for a lot of other Albanians. I had heard of King of Pop, but everyone pretty much just called him MJ.UberCryxic 06:37, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Hey, try to refrain from making comments about Michael Jackson's alleged popularity. It is just not relevant here. The user must comply with Wikipedia policies. That's the only thing that matters. If he or she does not, then we reserve the right to revert.UberCryxic 02:42, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

On Sneddon....you referenced the statement with something from a Michael Jackson fan site, which isn't all that appropriate. You think you can find something better?UberCryxic 13:00, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Prince and Blanket's names
What is Prince's full name? Michael Joseph Jackson Jr. or Prince Michael Jackson or Prince Michael Joseph Jackson Jr.? I saw all of those. What's Blanket's full name? Prince Michael Joseph Jackson II? So, Blanket is legally Prince but Prince is not? Kinda confused here. I'm quite sure Prince is his legal first name. When he was born it was clearly Prince.

http://www.nbc4.tv/entertainment/10148762/detail.html?rss=la&psp=news http://www.michaeljackson.ro/infomj/interviews/an-1997/13 Israell 21:30, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Something else
Hey again, User:DenisRS wants to include some information in the lead of the Michael Jackson article that I think is a little bit over the top in terms of detail and relevance. Unfortunately, I do not want to get into an edit war. I will revert the user's last edit one more time, but I hope you could leave a message on the user's talk page explaining your point of view, if you want to take a stance on this issue, that is.UberCryxic 23:37, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

hey!
Hi Paaerduag. I was looking at the Michael Jackson article, and granted I didn't go through it word for word, but I did skim through it and it seems pretty good and accurate. I don't know where else I can help in improving it. I don't know much about his music career before the Thriller era. It looks neutral enough as well. I do have it in my watchlist and I will remove any vandalism. Sorry I can't be more of a help. :( Fighting for Justice 19:04, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Michael Jackson Good Article review
Hello, if you do not mind, would you mind offering your opinion on whether the Michael Jackson article should be kept or de-listed as a good article? Check out the review here. Thank you for your input!UberCryxic 16:44, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Hey, thanks for your comments. I just wanted to clarify something further though. Do you intend to cast an actual vote on whether to keep the Michael Jackson article as a Good Article? I noticed that you did not and I wanted to make sure you understood what's going on.UberCryxic 03:50, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Jon Pareles and HIStory
There may be some confusion here. Although you don't seem to think it, Pareles is kind of paying Michael Jackson a compliment. He's saying that Jackson is so successful that he might as well be a subsidiary corporation within Sony. He's also saying that this success is behind some of the conflictive elements in the album, which is, in fact, a dominant perception of this album. It is viewed as Jackson's most dark-themed and reflective work to date.UberCryxic 14:23, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

A suggestion
Hello, I am thinking about starting a wikiproject on Michael Jackson. Right now I haven't done anything officially, but I was just wondering if you would be interested in joining. If so, let me know on my talk page and I will inform you when and where to go to express your support. Once there appears to be a notable level of willingness from the community (5 to 10 people), then we can go ahead and build the wikiproject itself. Thank you.UberCryxic 02:33, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Ok I've opened the proposal page. Go here and sign up under the participants section. After a few days and some more people, I'll go ahead and create the wikiproject. Thank you!UberCryxic 23:35, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Hey, thanks for signing up. Can you inform any other people in Wikipedia who you think might be interested in signing up for this wikiproject? If you know some people, please make sure they are reliable editors and have been participating with the encyclopedia for some considerable time. Direct them to the link I gave you above. Thank you!UberCryxic 02:02, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Fair Use Images and You
It is expressly forbidden by Wikipedia policy for anyone to have fair use images on their user page. Nearly every image on your user page is a fair use image and cannot be there. As such, I have made it so there are no images on your user page. I have also deleted two images that you uploaded, Image:Michaelthrillerlook.jpg and Image:Michaelglove.jpg. You have claimed that these were in the public domain because you had altered them. This is completely and utterly wrong. One was a screenshot from the "Bad" music video. The other was a photograph of an album cover. Just because you Photoshop them to alter them does not mean that their original copyright is null and void. They are still fair use images and can in no way be used in your user space. The only pictures that you can put into the public domain are photographs that you have taken.— Ryūlóng ( 竜龍 ) 08:13, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
 * This is my answer, that you deleted for no reason. I deleted your images because of everything that's said above this line— Ryūlóng ( 竜龍 ) 20:26, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

From your comment on T-9000's page, fair use images can only be used in articles. Not user pages, not templates, not talk pages, ONLY IN ARTICLES. I hope you realize this now.— Ryūlóng ( 竜龍 ) 20:28, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Taking a photograph of a pre-recorded performance that is playing on YouTube on your computer is still considered a screenshot and it is still fair use. It would have only been in the public domain if you were at the original recording and took a photograph then. It is a fair use image and one of a currently living person. As such, you cannot have it in your user page. Please realize that fair use only applies to the article space. Anywhere else is a violation of copyright.— Ryūlóng ( 竜龍 ) 08:08, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Fair use image can never be placed on user pages
Hi, I have removed a number of images from your user page. All of these images are copyrighted images whose use has been claimed under the Fair use copyright exemption. Fair use images cannot be used on user pages, they can only be placed on relevant Wikipedia articles when there is a substantial fair use rationale. Thanks for understanding, Gwernol 10:03, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, those last two appear to be okay, sorry for removing them. Gwernol 10:29, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Michael Jackson 2
Ok, thank you, for the invitation. I'll be more then happy to join. I put my name under the list. Bye. Fighting for Justice 20:10, 20 May 2007 (UTC)