User talk:Sectornine

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 need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place  on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! Narco 18:31, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

Iron Maiden
Welcome to Wikipedia, first of all! It is always nice to have another Maiden fan around! I leaving you this message to let you know that Image:Wicker man.jpg can not be used in the way that it is on the main Iron Maiden page. The reason why is that it violates the rule stipulated in it's Fair Use box of: Anyway, I just wanted to give you a heads up so you don't get upset when either me or someone else comes along and removes the image. I will be looking for a better, non-album, Fair Use image within the next day (Yeah, I have been slacking on helping with Maiden page recently). Make sure to read up and understand the rules of Fair Use at WP:FU. If you have any questions, feel free to leave a message here or on my talk page and I will help you out. Cheers! -- MOE .RON  talk  20:46, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
 * solely to illustrate the album or single in question.
 * Ok, as you might have seen, I found a replacement and it adheres to viable WP:FU (you can check the rationale at Image:IronMaiden-Hammerstein2005.jpg). I hope this will put to rest peoples worries about what is and isn't fair use when it comes to band photos in infoboxes. Look forward to collaborating with you. -- MOE .RON   talk  21:08, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Image Tagging Image:Rainbow band1.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Rainbow band1.jpg. I notice the 'image' page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this media yourself then there needs to be an argument why we have the right to use the media on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the media yourself then it needs to be specified 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 media 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 qualifies as fair use, consider reading fair use, and then 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 media, consider checking that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, 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 unsourced and untagged images 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. feydey 23:13, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

It might not have been your intent, but you recently removed content from Peter Criss. Please be careful not to remove content from Wikipedia without a valid reason, which you should specify in the edit summary or on the article's talk page. Thank you. A link to the edit I have reverted can be found here: link. If you believe this edit should not have been reverted, please contact me. cholmes75 (chit chat) 21:19, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

KISS
Hello. If you want to add a note to the Unplugged entry on the Peter Criss page indicating that he was not an official member of the group, that's fine with me.

As for the solo albums - Although KISS as a band did not play on each other's albums, they were in fact sold and marketed as KISS albums (For instance on Peter's, the group name for the album is KISS, and Peter Criss is simply the album name). They also counted against the group's obligations under their record contract with Casablanca.

Thanks. --cholmes75 (chit chat) 21:28, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Phish albums
I have been going by most of the guidelines for albums from WikiProject Albums and so I went by their "advice" under Wikiproject: Albums. I am getting outside assistance for this issue as I type this. Cheers! -- MOE .RON   talk  01:42, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I will be reverting your changes until a consenus can be found/made. This is also not policy, but a general guideline as per BOLD, revert, discuss cycle. Also, I would like to mention that on most major album listing sites such as Allmusic.com, Amazon.com, and even Phish.com, the albums are all listed chronologically. Anyway, I will be abstaining from voting this dicussion as I hope to have a schooled user in WikiProjects Albums to help out. -- MOE .RON   talk  01:53, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Phish album order voting
Hey -- I think I might be confused. Are there two votes or one? Or did I miss one? Wait a minute -- are there three votes? It looks like two of them are asking the same thing: whether or not live albums should be ordered according to date of concert or date of release. The other vote is whether or not the Live Phish series should be included in the live album chronology. Is this right? If I'm reading this right, one of the doubled pages should probably tell you to go vote on the other page just to keep things centralized. It might not be a bad idea to put a message on the main Phish talk page, too, let us know what's going on; furthermore, people may or may not be watching the album pages and what-not. I have some questions regarding the implementation of all this, too. If we decide to keep the albums and the Live Phish chronological by release date, would that put this latest Brooklyn concert in the middle of Live Phish should they decide to release more of them in the series? Thanks, man. &mdash; Music Maker  05:42, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Here is the response I was given at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Albums:
 * It should be organized by release date, not by the recorded date. This applies for all albums. -- User:FuriousFreddy
 * I think this statement, along with my above mentioning that most major album listing sites such as Allmusic.com, Amazon.com, and even Phish.com, have their lists by release date, not mingled based on recording date, should accurately resolve this discussion. -- MOE .RON   talk  05:50, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
 * How come you are adding in "recorded in 19XX" into the chronology section? People can see when it was recorded when they click on the link and I have not see this done before with any other artist albums (that I know of). Generally, only the release year is meant to go in the chronology section. Again, I will seek outside council about this move. -- MOE .RON   talk  19:27, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I am sorry that you are getting hostile over this situation. I am trying (along with the many people on wikipedia) to make the pages asethically better looking. The reason I am getting peoples opinions from WikiProject Albums is because these are the people that have been dealing with album articles for 2+ years in order to make them look good on the encyclopedia. I find it strange that you even want to go against how Phish.com and Phish.net have their listing set up.
 * As far as the Phish page, a lot of credit also has to go to MusicMaker and Babubhatt. The article is now a good article! That means only one more step until it is a featured article. I hope you can help us get the article that far. Again, thank you for all of your help! Cheers! -- MOE .RON   talk  19:44, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
 * You don't have to put the year recorded in the chronology section when it is already listed in the infobox and in the main section of the article. This makes it redundant and the box should be clear of added clutter. As for a compromise on the previous situation, take a look at Talk:Phish. Thanks! -- MOE .RON   talk  03:16, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Image tagging for Image:0075992598224.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:0075992598224.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. 06:37, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Image tagging for Image:21956.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:21956.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. 06:39, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Non-free use disputed for Image:08saints.JPG
Thanks for uploading Image:08saints.JPG. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read carefully the instructions at Non-free content and then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our Criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.Betacommand (talk • contribs • Bot) 03:38, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Non-free use disputed for Image:0075992598224.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:0075992598224.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read carefully the instructions at Non-free content and then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our Criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.Betacommand (talk • contribs • Bot) 03:49, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:58, 23 November 2015 (UTC)