User talk:Pukkabosh

Welcome!
Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically produce your name and the date.
 * Introduction
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place  on your talk page and ask your question there. Again, welcome! &mdash;meco 13:34, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Matt Bianco
(Undid revision 150965732 by Jfdwolff (talk) relevant as its current) Yes, it's current, but currency is not a justification for relevance. What relevance does this fact have? Who is Lee Dennison and why/how is Lee Dennison notable? Pdfpdf 14:22, 15 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Thank you for saying its current. If other pages can have people are currently dating so and so then this is relevant.  Lee Dennison is an international casting director, has his own website, is notable and therefore is relevant. Thanks.

Oh dear, you're getting a bit of a rocky introduction to WP! When I look back to my early talk page archives, I can see that I disagreed with some of the edits, deletions and reversions that were done to some of my contributions. I think it takes a little while to get used to the "rules" of WP, and how WP operates. Also, as a new editor, I imagine that you're keen to get on with contributing, and less keen to get bogged down with the Manual of Style and the other documents mentioned in your "Welcome!" message.

Jfdwolff has been unusually detailed in his explanation: personal life of individual members is arguably not relevant unless it directly pertains to the band's future (e.g. new partner stops band member touring) - I see no evidence for that here. I'm afraid I have to agree with him.

As I implied before, relevance is the important criteria - not currency. (And by itself, not notability either). I have to ask you again: What is the relevance of your addition? (Also, when there is a relevance that is not self-evident, you also need to supply comment/footnote/reference of the supporting evidence.)

You've made the comment: if a partner is not valid then majority of all entries are invlaid on this site. I think you've missed the point; mention of a partner may be valid, if it is relevant. Can you point me to an example of a mention of a partner please? If so, I'll see if I can explain to you why it is relevant.

I hope you find this useful. Feel free to ask questions if it isn't clear. Best wishes, Pdfpdf 14:08, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

P.S. Please sign your posts with four tildes - it tells when you made the post.

More on Matt Bianco
At the suggestion of Pdfpdf (above), I am just dropping a message to explain why I keep on removing your addition from Matt Bianco. The article is clearly about the band and its music, as one would expect in an encyclopedia. Encyclopedias will generally not deviate into the private lives of band members in such articles unless this is immediately relevant to the article; for instance, the The Beatles article definitely needs to mention Yoko Ono, because her appearance in John Lennon's life radically changed the history of The Beatles. You have not indicated why Lee Dennison would shape the history of Matt Bianco. Furthermore, Wikipedia aims to trace every bit of content to reliable sources; do you think you could provide a reliable source for the Reilly-Dennison link?

The solution for all this would be to write an article about Mark Reilly; that article, being about his person, would definitely merit mention of his most current relationship (provided WP:RS and our biography guidelines are adhered to).

I hope this explains matters. Please note that none of this is personal, and that I'm very happy to help out or provide further explanations if you want. Cheers. JFW | T@lk  22:00, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Image source problem with Image:Cheekychopsym779.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Cheekychopsym779.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. 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 Non-free content, 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 tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 13:48, 12 October 2007 (UTC). 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 13:48, 12 October 2007 (UTC)