User talk:Schmozzle

Fair use rationale for Image:Peachfuzz_v8cover.jpg
Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Peachfuzz_v8cover.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use. Suggestions on how to do so can be found here.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' 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 "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will 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. – Dream out loud (talk) 18:21, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Image:Peachfuzz_watermelonmancover.jpg
I have tagged Image:Peachfuzz_watermelonmancover.jpg as no rationale, because it does not provide a fair use rationale. If you believe the image to be acceptable for fair use according to Wikipedia policy, please provide a rationale explaining as much, in accordance with the fair use rationale guideline, on the image description page. Please also consider using or one of the other tags listed at Image copyright tags. Thank you. – Dream out loud (talk) 18:21, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Image:Peachfuzz_e-colicovver.jpg
I have tagged Image:Peachfuzz_e-colicovver.jpg as no rationale, because it does not provide a fair use rationale. If you believe the image to be acceptable for fair use according to Wikipedia policy, please provide a rationale explaining as much, in accordance with the fair use rationale guideline, on the image description page. Please also consider using or one of the other tags listed at Image copyright tags. Thank you. – Dream out loud (talk) 18:21, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Unspecified source for Image:Peachfuzz_lads.gif
Thanks for uploading Image:Peachfuzz_lads.gif. 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, then 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, then 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 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 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 18:22, 2 December 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. – Dream out loud (talk) 18:22, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Stavros Brothers


A tag has been placed on Stavros Brothers 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 is notable: 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 this is the first page that you have created, then you should read the guide to writing your first article.

If you think that you can assert the notability of the subject, you may contest the deletion by adding  to the top of the article (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the article's talk page explaining your position, 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, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm the subject's notability under Wikipedia guidelines.

For guidelines on specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for bands, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. bonadea contributions talk 13:10, 1 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Yeah, hold on. Let me have another look. As I recall, I used my personal criterion of "not yet notable". It didn't help that your summary at the beginning said "our newish band" - one thing to realize is that (people who benefit from (subject X) getting more publicity) are never the best ones to decide whether (subject X) meets notability criteria. I'll let you know. DS (talk) 13:55, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Review
Okay, sorry for the delay. Let's see... formed this year within the past twelve months, not a good sign.
 * Members include, oh dear, a former member of your old band, so that's probably you, you're the one who made the article on that band, so... hm, well, "high-rotation airplay" on Triple J, plus Shock Records, plus Mushroom Records, plus Police Rescue, equals Peachfuzz meeting notability criteria, so that's okay, but 'a project by an ex-member of Peachfuzz' isn't an automatic in.
 * Have "played with" other bands for which we have articles, that's not an automatic in either, because anyone can be an opening act.
 * "First demo CD released in December 2009" - I could release a demo CD, which should pretty well indicate that it's not an automatic in. Can you convince a recording label to be interested?
 * Received airplay on... ah, on community radio stations. That could mean anything and you know it. Did they play one song, once? Local stations meet criteria for inclusion, but having been played on a local station isn't enough.

Maybe you guys are going to be huge. But maybe you aren't. Based solely on the information provided in the article, it's too soon to tell. That's why I deleted the article. Could you have included more information to better indicate notability? DS (talk) 15:04, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

File copyright problem with File:Peachfuzz e-colicovver.jpg
Thank you for uploading File:Peachfuzz e-colicovver.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the file. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. ww2censor (talk) 03:46, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

File copyright problem with File:Stavros logo.jpg
Thank you for uploading File:Stavros logo.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the file. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. ww2censor (talk) 03:47, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Possibly unfree File:Peachfuzz watermelonmancover.jpg
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Peachfuzz watermelonmancover.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.

Possibly unfree File:Peachfuzz v8cover.jpg
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Peachfuzz v8cover.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.

Speedy deletion nomination of Peachfuzz
A tag has been placed on Peachfuzz requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a band or musician, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for musical topics. You may also wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles - see the Article Wizard.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding  to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag - if no such tag exists then the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate and adding a hangon tag is unnecessary), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. Undead Warrior (talk) 03:17, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Possibly unfree File:Peachfuzz lads.gif
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Peachfuzz lads.gif, 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. --Undead Warrior (talk) 03:20, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

File:Stavros bros oldbar09.jpg listed for discussion
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Stavros bros oldbar09.jpg, has been listed at Files for discussion. Please see the to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Ron h jones (Talk) 21:52, 10 October 2017 (UTC)