User talk:Steelbeard1/archive3

'''Archives: 1 &middot; 2

Beatles Discography

 * Greetings, fellow Beatlemaniac! ;-)


 * I've noticed that you've done quite a bit of work on the Beatles Discography page in regards to the American LP releases. Would you mind if I fixed up/corrected the American Singles releases?   There are a couple missing releases, and some errors in the "peak position" noted for some of the singles -- also, there's no indication (currently) on how the flip sides fared in the charts (for instance, Penny Lane/Strawberry Fields -- my data shows Penny Lane first (a side?) and Strawberry Fields second (b side?), and the line on the page shows it reached #1.  Penny Lane reached #1 in the states, but Strawberry Fields only reached #8).   I'd be happy to fix things up (I have all the Billboard Hot 100 chart data available), but we might want to look at how the Singles are handled (both US and UK) in terms of how to denote "B-Side" chart placement.


 * I considered changing it to something like: Penny Lane(#1) / Strawberry Fields (#2) - (Release Date)  ...that'd work, but then the UK singles section should probably be changed to reflect the same format. ...and I don't have any UK chart data, so someone would have to do some UK chart research to fill that in -- I'd be happy to scour the web to see if I can find that stuff, but I don't have it at hand in printed format (as I do the US Billboard data).   Let me know, here or via my talk page what you'd like... or, just to tell me "Hands Off, Bozo!"  ;-)


 * --Brian.D 21:25, 30 May 2006 (UTC)


 * It wasn't entirely my work, but go ahead. I noticed that the original Vee-Jay release of the "Please Please Me" single needs correcting as it flopped and was not #3 which the 1964 reissue with "From Me To You" as the B-side was. Steelbeard1 23:37, 30 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, exactly. There is also an omission in the first (4) singles released in the US, which I will add.  I'm also thinking (perhaps to avoid confusion?) of adding the Label and # to the releases, which should make things flow better.  Again, I don't (readily) have the UK release information at hand, but we can tackle that project next, I guess, eh?  It may take me a day or two to get things straightened out and uploaded (or, maybe a fit of productivity will overcome me, who knows?), but I'll let you know when I've updated the page via a short message here.  --Brian.D 00:32, 31 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Okay, I've got the (correct) info [and why are people editing this category now, after I said I was (re-)working it?] laid out on my sandbox http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Brian.D/Sandbox ...looks a bit busy, so I'm going to wikitable it...

-- Brian.D 01:07, 1 June 2006 (UTC)


 * ...and, tablified! ;) -- Brian.D 02:16, 1 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm getting the distinct feeling that my knowledge, references and contributions are not welcomed here, and that the work I'm doing is being ignored and/or reverted. I certainly didn't mean to step on any toes.   Let me know if you'd like me to continue, or simply bow out. -- Brian.D 03:43, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I didn't see your singles table template until I saw it in your own page. I don't know who is reverting it, but I can say that the table needs more refinement.  In fact, I've been correcting some factual errors in the USA singles list the past couple of days.  Have the senior Beatle article editors contacted you about your ideas? Steelbeard1 03:55, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree -- definitely needs refinement; I just haven't had the time in the past few days to dedicate to it. The factual errors I saw there were the reason I thought to do anything in the first place.  ...adding in the labels/numbers keeps it more in line with the way the albums are presented, I think.   No, none of the senior editors have contacted me about anything, as yet... but I'm here and ready to listen.  ;)  -- Brian.D 05:09, 2 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Please have a look at the updated formatting of the proposed change in my sandbox. If everyone's happy with the look/feel of things, I'll do up the UK Singles in the same style (for continuity).  I've also asked kingboyk to take a look at it, as well.  -- Brian.D 02:27, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Two things
Hi mate, two things: Cheers! --kingboyk 16:59, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) I've fixed your talk page and archives up for you. If you want to archive again in future and you want to do it by page move, move the talk page to User talk:Steelbeard1/archive3 and then edit the redirect at User talk:Steelbeard1. Or, ask myself, Lar or another admin to do it for you. You had a bit of a mess going on :)
 * 2) It's great to see you're still creating wonderful new Beatles-related articles. I've listed all I know about at WikiProject The Beatles/Log. Could you check that page please, and if there's any other Beatle-related articles you created since 4th March, please add them to the table. If you can't use the table-code, just put a note on the talk page saying the name of the article and somebody else (probably me) will add them. I'd be really grateful if you'd do the same in future, so I don't have to keep track of what you're up to :) It's no big deal, it's just nice for the Project to be able to look back and see what we've achieved.
 * Thanks. I'm too shy to talk about myself, so that's why this page is as it is. Steelbeard1 17:19, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, nobody here knows your real identity (presumably), and we have to talk about things to make decisions and work together. I appreciate that you're not a trumpet blower though :) Anyway, would you bear in mind what I've asked and perhaps have a look at that list for me? Thanks. --kingboyk 17:24, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes I did and it does cover all of my Beatle-related article creations. Thanks and you're welcome.  Steelbeard1 17:31, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

3RR block

 * Steelbeard1, I'm sorry that you've temporarily been blocked. I've put Dick DeVos on my watchlist nad have offered to help work with you guys to make sure the edit wars cease and the article remains neutral. Next time, don't be afraid to ask for help earlier, there was no need to get blocked over this. But please don't take it too personally, I know you're a good editor that has made many great contributions.  + + Lar: t/c 01:46, 9 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I should be out of the penalty box later today. I'm sorry I got caught up in the revert war user:Envix started.  Now that he has been exposed and the IP addresses assigned to the DeVos campaign have been banned for six months from posting in Wikipedia, we shouldn't expect any more problems.  But we should still monitor the Dick DeVos web page as well as other political candidates' Wikipedia articles to make sure there's no attempts by political campaigns to control Wikipedia content.  I'll express these same thoughts in the talk:Dick DeVos article when I'm out of the penalty box. Steelbeard1 15:17, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Good idea. Blocks are preventative rather than punitive and I think you've taken on board that reverting just is a bad idea. Please feel free to ask for my help at any time (my email link works, or leave a message on talk) Do you want me to ask Naconkantari to lift your block early?  + +Lar: t/c 16:50, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, Lar. Please do. Steelbeard1 17:14, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, it looks like it ran out of its own accord before I got a chance to work through this and ask for it to be lifted early. But no matter, you're off block now. I saw your post at talk:Dick DeVos and concur with the desire to keep campaign related articles free of campaign related spin.  + +Lar: t/c 19:30, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/The Early Tapes of The Beatles
Can you update your entries into one vote? I'm not sure what the policy is on voting because I've only been with Wikipedia for a few months and very rarely contribute and haven't read any policies on voting, but I think voting more than once would be acceptable anywhere (except in Iran j/k). --HResearcher 03:47, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Updated as per HReseacher's request. Steelbeard1 11:09, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

WikiProject The Beatles Newsletter, Issue 3, July 2006

 * Want to help on next month's newsletter? Don't want to receive these in future? Don't want it subst'd next time? – It's all here.

A favour to ask relating to WP:Beatles
Would you consider helping out with an important task? We need the comments made earlier migrated. See: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_The_Beatles which discusses the instructions for the task given here: WikiProject The Beatles/Article Classification/Migrating. It would really help the project out a lot. Feedback on the instructions themselves gratefully received as well. Feel free to ask others for help. ++Lar: t/c 18:23, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

apology
Wow, I totally mis i.d. you with regard to the content. Sorry about that. David D. (Talk) 12:53, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Michigan gubernatorial election, 2006
Hi again steelbeard1, I think you may have misinterpreted my edit. Your recent edit here actually contradicts your edit summary. I had attempted to make the article more simple by firstly converting text into a table format, and then just removing all the poll data. I also provided a link to the appropriate place for such commentary. Your edit has added back the detail and removed the link, was this a mistake? David D. (Talk) 21:50, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
 * It could be considered a mistake. The intent is simply to talk about the latest poll numbers.  If you wanted more info, go to the article about the governor's race. Steelbeard1 08:38, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I can see that argument. In that case the older june polling data should be removed to make way for the july polls.  I was worried it was starting to be come a whole paragraph that was just listing all the poll data.  David D. (Talk) 14:49, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I noticed the changes you made to the Dick DeVos article. I think that is a good move. David D. (Talk) 16:49, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

A minor note (please feel free to remove): you didn't sign your warning, at User talk:31415. John Broughton 19:29, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I signed it after your reminder. Thanks, John. Steelbeard1 19:31, 17 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Hey guys! everything under control or do you need an admin to keep a more active eye again? I admit that some of these Michigan political articles have slipped off my radar of late... just LMK here. Thanks for your efforts to help keep the 'pedia free of POV... ++Lar: t/c 19:53, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks for helping out, Lar. I added my input after your comments in the DeVos talk page. Steelbeard1 20:14, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

WikiProject The Beatles Newsletter, Issue 4, August 2006

 * Want to help on next month's newsletter? Don't want to receive these in future? Don't want it subst'd next time? – It's all here.

Rubber Soul sleeve
I did this because the sleeve was too large; I was not aware that it was a separate sleeve. In any event, the sleeve needs to be resized to about 200x200. Ral315 (talk) 18:44, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

WikiProject The Beatles Newsletter, Issue 5, September 2006

 * Want to help on next month's newsletter? Don't want to receive these in future? Don't want it subst'd next time? – It's all here.

Alanharris3
now now i didn't relize it was British spelling when i "corrected" it, you don't need to get all huffy puffy about it.Alanharris3 18:19, 20 September 2006 (UTC)alanharris3

WikiProject The Beatles Newsletter, Issue 6, October 2006

 * Want to help on next month's newsletter? Don't want to receive these in future? Don't want it subst'd next time? – It's all here.

Dick DeVos
Done. Have semi-protected with note "Sprotecting to prevent further edit warring. Suggest this stay in place until Nov 7 elections" - I'll continue to keep an eye on it, let me know if you spot any further warring. Hope this helps and thanks for the heads up! Gl e n 01:04, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

WikiProject The Beatles Newsletter, Issue 7, November 2006

 * Want to help on next month's newsletter? Don't want to receive these in future? Don't want it subst'd next time? – It's all here.

A Hard Day's Night (album)
Couldn't agree more, being British myself... however, they should also be GRAMMATICAL and trip off the tongue, so I'm changing it back to "while". Just say the sentence out loud to yourself both ways, my version makes more sense ;) no hard feelings. There's nothing particularly American about "while", anyway. Lost Number 19:33, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Love (Cirque du Soleil)
Note that Love (Cirque du Soleil) links to the show, NOT the album. I put the discography link back in though. Just64helpin 17:26, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
 * That's better. Steelbeard1 17:27, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Granholm picture
Unfortunately, the terms of distribution for this photo are too limited for our purposes. Unless the State of Michigan releases it under a different license, we'll need to remove it and replace it with a different one. &mdash; Chowbok  ☠  22:24, 2 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Sorry about him. He is useless. 2gether4ever 21:14, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

WikiProject The Beatles Newsletter Issue 8, December 2006

 * Want to help on next month's newsletter? Don't want to receive these in future? Don't want it subst'd next time? – It's all here.

Merry Christmas!
Have a good one! Best wishes, Vera, Chuck &amp; Dave 12:13, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Andersen Corporation
There is no reason why a referenced article that establishes the notability of Andersen Corporation should be deleted. Sadly the article that got deleted neither had references nor showed how it satisfies notability guidelines. Agathoclea 16:23, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Humourous
It isn't a UK/US spelling thing. See User:Spellmaster for details. Thanks for caring about spelling. --Guinnog 02:57, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes indeed. However, as I said above, it isn't a US/Uk thing as "humourous" is incorrect worldwide. --Guinnog 03:51, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Well done for finding a typo in the BBC site! However, Wikipedia, with all modern paper dictionaries spells it "humorous", so my point still stands. See, , , . --Guinnog 04:01, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject The Beatles Newsletter, Issue 9, January 2007

 * Want to help on next month's newsletter? Don't want to receive these in future? Don't want it subst'd next time? – It's all here.

The Besterest Band Ever (a legend in their own lunchtime, even)!
I have waggled my eyebrows at Captain Wikify regarding language, but I would concede the point that we need a quote/reference/citation if we are going to keep the (definitive article) in the intro of The Beatles. You and I may know it, Cap'n W may know it, but we need some august authority to say/publish it before we can use it. LessHeard vanU 00:34, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Paley Park
Thanks for that bit of info about the Stork Club. It fills in an obvious gap in the story of Paley Park. (The pun is intended). Verne Equinox 17:52, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Past Masters clean-up
If, by respect the compromise solution, you mean your own view of how the article should look, that is unacceptable. Wikipedia is a collaborative process and no changes were made to the CONTENT of the article Past Masters, Volume Two. The only changes made were aesthetic. If you wish to pursue some "reporting" over an aesthetic difference, that is your time. I, however, will not be bullied because someone has a particular view how a page should appear. Cbing01 17:46, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
 * The information you refer to was not deleted, it was merely moved to the text of the article, as to leave only one (and the earliest) release date in the infobox. If you would read over an article, rather than arbitrarily reverting a change other than your own, you might see this. Additionally, your revert removes an external link with details pertaining to the release. Cbing01 17:52, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Perhaps we can have this discussion over at the article talkpage? I'm more than happy to umpire over there. LessHeard vanU 21:13, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject The Beatles Newsletter, Issue 10, February 2007

 * Want to help on next month's newsletter? Don't want to receive these in future? Don't want it subst'd next time? – It's all here.

delivered by ++Larbot - run by User:Lar - t/c 03:41, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Magical Mystery Tour LP
I'm sorry I changed the date of the LP, but I did it without checking out sources or at least reading the article, therefore, I made a huge mistake, I recognize, but it wasn't with the intention of vandalizing, only trying to correct what seemed like a key-pressing mistake. To prevent that, I introduced a &lt;!-- --&gt; comment. Rbb l181 21:14, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

YES!
Nice one Steelbeard1!! Vera, Chuck &amp; Dave 18:12, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia, Consensus, The Beatles and Project Policy
I was going to step away from this, since I was only going by the rules and I didn't want to get into a big dispute (especially with editors who I respect and have enjoyed working with), but recent events have brought me back.

The debate about naming the convention regarding the capitalisation or not of the letter "t" of the in t/The Beatles has been going on for a while. I have endured the snide remarks of a Twit, and have engaged in civil debate with some others who continued to question Project policy regarding the issue. I pointed out the need to establish a reasonable argument for their viewpoint over and above that of some professional knowledge so there could be a debate. When they did provide reasonable grounds for reopening the debate I used the offices of the Beatles Newsletter Issue 9:Issue of the Month to request comment, debate on the matter. There was no response. In the next Newsletter Issue 10:Issue of last Month I commented that there had been no response, and that the Project policy would be altered to use of the lowercase. Again, nobody other than the proponents responded. After a brief while I did as I said I would, and amended the Policy.

Belated reaction
The new Policy is not to the liking of some of the editors involved the the Beatles Project (as the previous one was not to others.) After the policy was implemented reasons and arguments for retaining the previous convention were given. Authorities were cited and some discussion was created. Very recently more than one editor has edited Beatles related articles specifically to reflect the previous policy.

My Comments
My preference is to capitalise the letter t of the in the Beatles.

Wikipedia has very few rules; two of the most important relate to consensus and verifiability.

WikiProject The Beatles has a specific area for the implementation (following debate and consensus) of Policy. The associate talkpage records the debate and the arguments used in reaching Policy decisions. The Project also maintains the principle of abiding by the rules that have been agreed, and the fundemental Wikipedia ethos of consensus.

My Observations
No recent discussion occurred when the matter of the use of lowercase or uppercase was notified in two Newsletters, other than between myself and the proponents of lowercase at the Policy talkpage. Since Policy implementation discussion has only occurred on the talkpages of concerned editors, or on the talkpages of some of the articles, and not at the Policy talkpage.

More than one editor has unilaterally decided to ignore the new Policy, going so far as to amend articles to reflect the previous convention.

My Conclusion(s)
The Beatles Project is being disrupted by editors who I personally know to be conscientious and dedicated contributors of long and good standing. In that there is now occurring what might be considered vandalism (the knowing altering of articles in a manner that is against Wikipedian and Project rules and policy), likely as a result of their strongly held views, I believe that this matter needs urgent addressing. I am copying this to the Policy talkpage, and to all the editors involved in formulating the new policy and the recent opponents. I suggest that this debate is taken there, and that this matter is decided in a civil manner in accordance with the principles of Wikipedia.

I am deeply saddened that it has come to this. I am depressed that editors (people) whose integrity and civility (not to say sheer fun) I had been proud to be associated with have acted in (what I see as) bad faith and flagrant disregard for the rules and guidelines of both Wikipedia and The Beatles Project. LessHeard vanU 00:13, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi, I recognise that you were not part of the discussions over at Policy and might therefore not be fully aware of the situation. LessHeard vanU 00:13, 16 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your note. The appropriate place for discussion is at the Policy talkpage. LessHeard vanU 13:47, 16 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Look what I found in earlier discussions regarding this point "The Beatles is correct as that is their legal name, and I believe it is registered as a trade name - as is 'Beatles' - which would be pointless if it were not correct terminology. In discussing the group you are also discussing the legal entity and British law insists on the correct title within context. Grammaticians may argue semantics, but the name is established under Company Law.LessHeard vanU 20:25, 23 April 2006 (UTC)" I have moved my position as I now do not believe that simply registering a variation (amongst many, I note that I was aware that Beatles singular was registered) indicates that it is the preferred usage. I'm going for Standard English as represented by OED and GCSE English Language Examination Boards. Do you have access to any of these sources? LessHeard vanU 13:24, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject The Beatles Newsletter, Issue 11, March 2007

 * Want to help on next month's newsletter? Don't want to receive these in future? Don't want it subst'd next time? – It's all here.

delivered by ++Larbot - run by User:Lar - t/c 23:56, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Looney
Yes, because of the bird, and because of the play on words of Looney meaning "crazy", as in "Mulroney Looney", for the guy who foisted these dollar coins on the Canadian public. And it was logical to name the two-dollar coin the "Two-nee" (phonetically speaking) and you can't tell me it's a coincidence that it adds up to "Looney Tooney". Wahkeenah 17:37, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Looney Tunes
I wouldn't say admins end edit wars, but I'll keep an eye on things. &mdash;tregoweth (talk) 02:13, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

User:Politicalmichigan and Jen
See Talk:Jennifer Granholm's talk page... I supported you. But I think you may have been a bit too strong in your caution to this user... let us assume good faith. Feel free to call on me if you need assistance. ++Lar: t/c 01:09, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

News Time

 * Want to help on next month's newsletter? Don't want to receive these in future? Don't want it subst'd next time? – It's all here.

BetacommandBot 23:57, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

The Beatles 1
Re: the overdubs on Let It Be in 1970, good spot! I noticed on the allmusic.com page of the 1 album, it said recorded 1962-69, so I was going off there. Maybe we need to submit that error to the allmusic database?  R o  gerthat  Talk  02:39, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Norelco
I do find the corporation in question to be communistic, and I will kindly ask that you do not remove my adjective once I attribute a source to it in the days to come. Thanks.

130.126.67.198 11:04, 29 April 2007 (UTC)Chartreuse

Why did you revert Let It Be Naked Copy Right violation
I believe it is a violation of fair use. And there was no discussion/agreement in the CopyRight violation problems page. --66.245.17.143 19:33, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Because you are NOT a Wikipedian due to your use of an IP address instead of a Wikipedia username, you are considered to be a vandal. Steelbeard1 21:26, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
 * You are extremely wrong here. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia that anyone can edit. This also means that anyone is a Wikipedian, regardless whether they have a username or edit via an IP address. Furthermore, you should immediately drop your assumption that IP editors are automatically vandals. Actually about 75% vandalism reversions are done by IP volunteers, not registered editors. Your behavior is absolutely unacceptable and is more likely to help yourself get blocked. Миша 13 12:28, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you Mizaa13! As a matter of fact, I've taken the time to relook at the article linked, and I've decided I'm wrong, and was overhasty and that it is sufficiently rewritten. However, a polite response is and was warranted. A response like this one is obnoxious. Especially since anyone can create a durn account! It hardly makes you a non vandal. As of a matter of fact I've made an account before (dunno if they expire), but I don't tend to log in when casually browsing. --64.142.36.76 05:23, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I have no problem with constructive edits, but I get steamed by destructive edits and outright deletions and that was an outright deletion!!!!! You could have just removed the copyrighted material. It is also easy to logon, so laziness is no excuse for not using a username. Steelbeard1 10:33, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I didn't out right delete anything. As per what I've read in the WIKI guidelines, I replaced the page with the copyright vio template, as the issue of concern filled about 50% of the article. We've covered the username thing - you have no right to impose your own unilateral policy here - had YOU not been lazy and simply clicked on my IP (which is static), you would have seen I've contributed a small, but generally accepted number of edits to several other WIKI pages over the last few year. But whatever. Only responding here because of your private message's uncontrolled use of exclamation points perhaps indicating a health issue of some sort :) --64.142.36.76 03:22, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Let It Be... Naked
I have deleted all versions from the insertion of the copyvio material. I understand you have a later version saved to your userspace (?). You may wish to re-insert any non controversial edits from that source. LessHeard vanU 20:01, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

The Beatles
We've been through this many, many times before.


 * Well, we haven't :-)

''The term "current members", as far as The Beatles are concerned, is misleading. Thank goodness the infobox was altered to it would read "members" in the article. Every Beatle is a FORMER MEMBER. The Beatles existed as a group from 1960 to 1970. Lennon, McCartney and Harrison were members of The Beatles during the entire time the group was active. Ringo Starr joined The Beatles in 1962. So to make it clear that Starr was NOT an original member, it should be indicated on the infobox that he was a Beatle from 1962 to 1970. The members who left The Beatles early on, Sutcliffe and Best, definitely go in the former members section.''


 * Surely, by that logic, Paul McCartney should also be appended to read (1960 - 1970)? Personally, I don't think such details should be in an Infobox anyway, as they ought to be clear in the text, but I'm not going to remove your addition. Stephenb (Talk) 13:10, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Re: The Beatles discography
Please see our standards on the use of non-free images in Wikipedia. It is explicitly stated that these images are not permitted in galleries or lists, but must instead be limited to use in critical commentary. The norm seems to be that the album cover is permitted on an article about the album, but not on a list of albums which contains little or no discussion about the albums. A related discussion here may be of interest to you. Please do not re-add the non-free content. (ESkog)(Talk) 14:04, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Just because something is "only a guideline" doesn't mean it's not actionable. Can you think of any good reason why we should allow fair-use images in galleries in this case? Without that, the guidelines, as well as the policies from which they are derived, take precedence. I have also commented on the article's talk page. (ESkog)(Talk) 16:30, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Re: Beatle album articles tweaking
In reply to this message:
 * Thanks! Regarding Past Masters, Volume Two, I noticed that discrepancy, but I don't think the fact that the sides are listed as "3" and "4" on the album necessarily means that we should label them as "Side three" and "Side four" (any more than if they were labelled "X" and "Y" on the album). I think "Side one" is the best way to refer to the first side of Past Masters Volume Two. Otherwise there wouldn't be a first side of Past Masters, Volume Two, which would be confusing... --PEJL 23:36, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your reply. I suggest we include a copy of our discussion in Talk:Past Masters, Volume Two to avoid the problem of other users unknowingly making new 'corrections.' What do you think? Steelbeard1 23:42, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Sure thing. Feel free to copy my message(s) there. --PEJL 23:58, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Done. Steelbeard1 00:07, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Did you mean to follow up to this? As it stands now, the article talk page seems to conclude one thing while the article says another. Do you agree with my argument? --PEJL 11:20, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Atlantic Records

 * What Sources?

Uhm, the one linked at the end of the sentence?


 * "His brother, Nesuhi Ertegun, joined Atlantic in 1956, and he was responsible for developing the label's jazz department."

If you have an alternate source, of course cite it. But please don't revert me using a source that isn't even listed in the article. That's not how verification works. --Chris (talk) 11:02, 28 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for adding the source. Now I'm wondering if this is a typo on their part.  Both of the sources used in the article to cite him joining Atlantic say 1956 .  Thoughts?  Is there a reason why any of these sources should be trusted more than another?  --Chris (talk) 11:19, 28 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Interesting... would you object to opening a wider discussion on the article's talk page and/or RfC to get wider input on this? --Chris (talk) 11:33, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

The Beatles Lineup
Thanks for your comments on my talk page, I left a bit of an explanation there.

I went back to the article and edited it to make it clearer than either the change that I reverted, or the version that I reverted it to. Poindexter Propellerhead 20:32, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Re: Band infobox when dealing with defunct groups
In response to this message:
 * Sorry, I don't understand what you're trying to say. What is this in reference to? --PEJL 23:46, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Never mind, found the reference. My only intent in that discussion was to point out that the infobox members sections in the infobox should not contain years. But while I have you, I'd like to point out that this change you made contains numerous changes that go against current guidelines. --PEJL 00:05, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Since then, a consensus developed which determines that, in order to be consistent, every Beatle needed the years they were Beatles next to their name. This is discussed in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template_talk:Infobox_musical_artist#Defunct_musical_groups. Steelbeard1 02:06, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Where exactly did this consensus develop? --PEJL 09:13, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
 * (the following is pasted from Poindexter's talk pageand the comment is from the last person who revised the infobox) I see that you're correct that years do not belong in the "current members" list. On the other hand, there are no current members, haven't been for 37 years, and half of the listed "current members" are dead.  Since you seem much better acquainted than I with the rules about how musicians' pages should be edited, perhaps you can come up with an edit which provides a happy medium; which is both clear and accurate, and strictly conforms with every rule? Poindexter Propellerhead 23:03, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
 * As I understand it, two separate issues (although somewhat related) are being discussed, in various places:
 * Which members should be listed at Current_members and Past_members for The Beatles in particular and defunct groups in general.
 * Whether years should be included for the names in those sections.
 * You said that there was consensus about the second issue, but AFAICT no consensus has developed, at least not for the second issue. My only point was that for issue two, we should follow the guidelines unless we have a very good reason not to, and I've seen no such reason presented. --PEJL 11:55, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Images, Discographies & Fair Use
I noticed this discussion on one of my watched pages. I will try to find a link, but the basic argument is that album covers are used under fair use licence, which includes "illustrating the text". It is argued that "text" does not include lists such as discographies (but does for an article about the album, for instance.) As such the editors actions may be appropriate. I will try to find out where I saw this and provide you with the link. LessHeard vanU 22:01, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Re:Mike Mead
Hey. I noticed that too, but I wanted to do some research before I re-changed it. I support the change!!

Peace,

Politics rule 17:41, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Re: The Beatles
No, but I'm sure there is a picture somewhere on this Earth that someone would be willing to release. --Tom (talk - email) 03:57, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

?
I don't understand. How does this make the label notable? DevAlt 21:32, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
 * You misunderstand. How does the fact that Bob Lind's album was released under World Pacific Records make World Pacific Records in itself notable? Is Bob Lind's cleaner notable because she cleans for Bob Lind? Is Bob lind's publicist notable because she promotes Bob Lind? I don't get why this makes the label notable. DevAlt 21:39, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Why not merge them both to Liberty records, given they're both sublabels? DevAlt 21:48, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
 * You realise none of the articles actually reflect what you're saying? I think the best course of action is for you to merge World Pacific records to Liberty Records%2

Your message
A fair use rationale needs to explain IN DEPTH WHY the particular use of an image constitutes fair use, a couple of lines is not in my understanding sufficent. It is suggested you read WP:NFCC and WP:FURG Sfan00 IMG 11:45, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Hootenanny
Hi. I saw that you restored the "Talkin' John Birch" comment in the Hootenanny article. I'm not the world's biggest Dylan fan, but before deciding not to include that information in my revision, I did read the lyrics at a couple of online lyric sites. I didn't see any references specific to the show. I'd appreciate it if you could please cite the exact lyric you mention, either in reply to this or as a footnote in the body of the article. Thank you. MikeH0714 21:12, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the updated link - works much better! And thanks for your contributions!MikeH0714 04:35, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Paul is dead, Suggested clues for the rumour "Paul is dead"
Hey there,

I don't know if you are aware or not, but recently Paul is dead was remodelled, in an attempt to begin to bring it back to the standard that got it an FA nomination some time ago. The "Clues" section was cut and placed into a new article, as it was this section that attracted all manner of conspiracy theorists adding their own personal ideas and original research, and made the article too long. Also, some days ago both articles were placed on AfD, but they survived it.

I've done bits on bobs on the articles so far, and extensive work today on the 'suggested clues' article, but should you like to contribute to either, in order to improve them, or indeed if you'd prefer to just post suggestions (on their talk pages, or mine), your help and thoughts as a WP:BEATLES member would be greatly appreciated. Liverpool Scouse 20:40, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Comments on Willard Bowsky
Hi, you asked for comments on your Willard Bowsky article, so here I am. Pretty good beginning article on the subject. I shortened the opening sentence, as you had crammed a bit too much information on the person in one line. The best opening line should just be a quick overview of the person; no need to list everything they did. I deleted this section headings because the article is so short. Multiple section headings in a short article tend to make it look choppy. Section headings are best saved for longer articles.

There were a couple of red Wikilinks I fixed. I think it's best to check your links before you post an article. A quick search found the correct spelling for Saint-Avold and Konczewski 02:59, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you, Konczewski. The article looks much better. Steelbeard1 03:02, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Unspecified source for Image:1960sMCAlogo.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:1960sMCAlogo.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, 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 18:16, 12 August 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. OsamaK 18:16, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Unspecified source for Image:1970sMCARecordsLogo.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:1970sMCARecordsLogo.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, 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, 12 August 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. OsamaK 18:22, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Unspecified source for Image:1990sMCARecordsLogo.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:1990sMCARecordsLogo.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, 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 18:24, 12 August 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. OsamaK 18:24, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Fair use disputed for Image:Sunococanada.gif
Thanks for uploading Image:Sunococanada.gif. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. 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 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.BetacommandBot 02:35, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Image source problem with Image:Bluebirdrecords.jpg
This is an automated message from a robot. You have recently uploaded Image:Bluebirdrecords.jpg. 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 19:54, 12 September 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. If you believe you received this message in error, please notify the bot's owner. OsamaKBOT 19:54, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Image source problem with Image:Brunswicklogo.gif
This is an automated message from a robot. You have recently uploaded Image:Brunswicklogo.gif. 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 19:16, 15 September 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. If you believe you received this message in error, please notify the bot's owner. OsamaKBOT 19:16, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Fair use disputed for Image:Fogertyblueridgerangersaltcover.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Fogertyblueridgerangersaltcover.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. 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 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.BetacommandBot 04:57, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Fair use disputed for Image:Fogertyrevivalcover.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Fogertyrevivalcover.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. 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 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.BetacommandBot 04:57, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Fair use disputed for Image:Pastmastersvol1and2albumcover.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Pastmastersvol1and2albumcover.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. 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 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.BetacommandBot 05:24, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Compo (Serbian company)
This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Compo (Serbian company), and it appears to be very similar to another wikipedia page: :. It is possible that you have accidentally duplicated contents, or made an error while creating the page&mdash; you might want to look at the pages and see if that is the case.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot 01:26, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Done. Steelbeard1 01:49, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Cw46.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:Cw46.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. 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 all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 05:17, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

ABN AMRO North America
Hello. In order to keep the US Banks template matched to our source, the Federal Financial Institutions Examination Council's quarterly Top 50 bank holding companies report, I re-added ABN AMRO North America back into the mix. We should wait until FFIEC drops ABN AMRO from their list (late fourth-quarter?) and replaces it with another bank before re-removing it. I would like to avoid a repeat of my embarrassing August mistake where the "50 largest American banks" list only had 49 banks. --Kralizec! (talk) 23:04, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Fox66tile.jpg.JPG)
Thanks for uploading Image:Fox66tile.jpg.JPG. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. 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 all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 23:28, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Air Farce Live (album)
This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Air Farce Live (album), and it appears to be very similar to another wikipedia page: :. It is possible that you have accidentally duplicated contents, or made an error while creating the page&mdash; you might want to look at the pages and see if that is the case.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot 15:09, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Done. Steelbeard1 15:32, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Moving Pages
I noticed that you did a lot of copy/paste moving of pages at Air Farce Live and Air Farce Live (album). Please don't do that, it causes all of the history of the articles to get lost. Instead you should use the Move tool, which simply renames the article without eliminating all the history. I'm going to revert your changes now and request an admin to move them properly, but I just wanted to let you know for the future. --Maelwys 18:28, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Hello. I got your message minutes ago about the article; it seems that Bearcat took care of your request. Cheers, --Aarktica 10:03, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Your last question was rather cryptic. If you care to rephrase your last question, perhaps I can be of assistance. --Aarktica 16:00, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Air Farce Live
All that happened is that when the album article got moved, the talk page was redirected with it — so it was really just an easy case of "delete the redirect".

Having a separate article for the troupe as opposed to the show would probably be a reasonable idea. Bearcat 16:35, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Stateside-logo.gif
Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Stateside-logo.gif. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

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. Bbedn (talk) 03:03, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Looney Tunes
Just wanted to let you know, if you wish to weight in on the AfD for the Looney Tunes article, you need to do so at the AfD Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Looney_Tunes_Golden_Collection:_Volume_1, otherwise your comments may not be read. However, please also consider my response to you on the first article. Collectonian (talk) 02:37, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Popeye the Sailor: 1933-1938, Volume 1
Please cite sources for this article. Otherwise, it may be tagged as a candidate for deletion in the near future. Cheers. ++Arx Fortis (talk) 23:33, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm working on it. Steelbeard1 (talk) 23:35, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Great. Keep up the good work.  The message wasn't meant as a jab.  There are many users who patrol new Wikipedia pages.  Sometimes, those who monitor may not be aware of your good faith efforts and might recommend a speedy deletion based on unsupported notability.  It's difficult to tell who is or is not planning on adding citations.  (Unfortunately, there are users who add entire articles to Wikipedia without citing anything.)   Lately I've taken to using an  tag on the article and a brief mention on the user's talk page to head-off any knee-jerk reactions from other patrollers.  In the future, you may want to consider adding at least one or two sources in your first pass as you build an article.  Cheers.  ++Arx Fortis (talk) 04:08, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Rosegardenalbum.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Rosegardenalbum.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. 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 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.BetacommandBot (talk) 20:22, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Halo Burger
Thank you for edit... I would like for you to re-check grammar again at Halo Burger... that I did modify recently. Thank you CFB

Thank you for fix grammar and THANK YOU for added good external link beside Halo Burger's website. CFB!

What do with two boxes at top of Halo Burger? who will remove wikify? and other box? Thanks again I will check here later for your reply (here). CFB —Preceding unsigned comment added by CFBancroft (talk • contribs) 08:03, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Pastmasters2label.jpg
Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Pastmasters2label.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.--Rockfang (talk) 12:59, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Pastmasters1label.jpg
Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Pastmasters1label.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.--Rockfang (talk) 13:04, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you
Thank you for reverting my recent edit to Bank of America. I believe someone was playing around on my computer. --JKeene (talk) 19:04, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Non-free use disputed for Image:Pastmasters1label.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Pastmasters1label.jpg. Unfortunately, I think that you have not provided a proper rationale for using this image under "fair use". Please read the instructions at Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. 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. Note that the image description page must include the exact name or a link to each article the image is used in and a separate rationale for each one. (If a link is used, automated processes may improperly add the related tag to the image.  Please change the fair use template to refer to the exact name, if you see this warning.)

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted after seven days according to our Criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

The image is not low resolution.--Rockfang (talk) 23:05, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Non-free use disputed for Image:Pastmasters2label.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Pastmasters2label.jpg. Unfortunately, I think that you have not provided a proper rationale for using this image under "fair use". Please read the instructions at Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. 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. Note that the image description page must include the exact name or a link to each article the image is used in and a separate rationale for each one. (If a link is used, automated processes may improperly add the related tag to the image.  Please change the fair use template to refer to the exact name, if you see this warning.)

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted after seven days according to our Criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

The image is not low resolution.--Rockfang (talk) 23:11, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Thebeatlesraritiesusalbumcover.jpg
Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Thebeatlesraritiesusalbumcover.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.--Rockfang (talk) 23:14, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

disputed fair use on both past master images above
Please read this. It states the image should be low resolution. Even the licensing on the image's page states low resolution. That's why I made change. I also stated why I did that change in the 2 sections above regarding these images. I suggest you resize the images if you want to use the current licensing.--Rockfang (talk) 12:11, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Non-free use disputed for Image:Thebeatlesraritiesusalbumcover.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Thebeatlesraritiesusalbumcover.jpg. Unfortunately, I think that you have not provided a proper rationale for using this image under "fair use". Please read the instructions at Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. 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. Note that the image description page must include the exact name or a link to each article the image is used in and a separate rationale for each one. (If a link is used, automated processes may improperly add the related tag to the image.  Please change the fair use template to refer to the exact name, if you see this warning.)

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted after seven days according to our Criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

The image is not low resolution.--Rockfang (talk) 12:40, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Beatlescollectionrev.jpg
Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Beatlescollectionrev.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.--Rockfang (talk) 12:43, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

MCA vs. MCA Nashville
Most of the artists you removed were indeed on MCA and not MCA Nashville (e.g. The Oak Ridge Boys, Merle Haggard). I've removed the acts who were only on MCA Nashville, but added qualifying notes for artists who have been on both MCA and MCA Nashville (this includes Vince Gill, George Strait, Reba McEntire, Trisha Yearwood, etc.). Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 18:33, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
 * In my opinion, any recording which originated from MCA Records' Nashville office is considered to be MCA Nashville. The complication is the dissolution of MCA Records while the Nashville office continues to issue recordings under the MCA name.  If you look at the UMG Nashville article which incorporates the MCA Nashville Records article, it traces MCA Nashville to the formation of the country music division of Decca Records in 1945.  So as I stated, my opinion is that anything issued by MCA Records' Nashville office, whether it bears either the MCA or MCA Nashville logo, is considered to be MCA Nashville Records. Steelbeard1 (talk) 22:38, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Okay, thanks for clearing up the MCA/MCA Nash stuff for me. Ten Pound Hammer  and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 00:06, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Compo (Serbian company)
An editor has nominated Compo (Serbian company), an article on which you have worked or that you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes ( ~ ).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 23:14, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

(label) vs. (label) Nashville
Regarding the whole MCA/MCA Nashville mess -- would you happen to know if the same thing is true of Mercury Records and Mercury Nashville? For example, both of Sugarland's albums say just "Mercury" and not "Mercury Nashville", even though Sugarland is a country act. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 03:26, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
 * The difference is that Mercury Records is still an active label. Steelbeard1 (talk) 03:31, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the information, and of course, Happy New Year! Ten Pound Hammer  and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 04:26, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Wicker
I stand corrected.--Dr who1975 (talk) 03:08, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Deccaarrow.gif
Thanks for uploading Image:Deccaarrow.gif. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. 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 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.BetacommandBot (talk) 05:07, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Beatlesatco.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Beatlesatco.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. 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 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.BetacommandBot (talk) 06:55, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Beatlesmgm.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Beatlesmgm.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. 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 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.BetacommandBot (talk) 06:55, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Helpgeorgemartin.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Helpgeorgemartin.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. 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 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.BetacommandBot (talk) 16:54, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Talk:United States Senate elections in Mississippi, 2008
Please let me know if you agree with my suggestion.--Dr who1975 (talk) 00:19, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Remington Products
Howdy. The site that you've moved to be a reference for this article (http://iavbbs.com/gflinn/shaver1.htm) appears to be someones non-notable personal web page, which I do not believe can be considered a valid source for this article. Am I missing something? Regards &mdash;Mrand T-C 14:19, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Because most of the article was copied directly from the URL which was moved from an external link to a reference, it seems appropriate. Just compare the two. Steelbeard1 (talk) 15:29, 14 January 2008 (UTC)  (this response moved from mrand's user page)
 * Howdy again. I should have said that I'll watch this page for responses... to keep the conv in one place.  Back to the matter at hand: I realize it was copied there from that website (which may or may not be a copyright violation).  My main point was that Verifiability seems to imply that a personal website not a valid reference for this sort of topic.&mdash;Mrand  T-C 16:19, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Thebeatlegirls.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Thebeatlegirls.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. 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 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.BetacommandBot (talk) 10:41, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Reetpetite.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Reetpetite.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. 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 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.BetacommandBot (talk) 13:38, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

FBOP
Great; but please put the citation you gave me into the actual article. Peace--Pgagnon999 (talk) 03:13, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

FBOP Corporation
Sometimes I think the new page patrollers are a little too exuberant. Tagging FBOP Corporation for speedy deletion the same minute it was created is just nuts ! Regardless, nice work starting this article! --Kralizec! (talk) 16:19, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Sugarhilllogo.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Sugarhilllogo.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. 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 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.BetacommandBot (talk) 06:19, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Looney Tunes Golden Collection
I've just tagged this article for lack of referencing. I see that you've done quite a bit of work on this page and other related articles. If you can contribute more references, I'll be glad to lend you support. By the way, have you ever considered joining the American animation Wikiproject? I'm a member myself, and I'm sure we'd all enjoy having you as a member. — Cinemaniac (talk •  contribs) 22:22, 1 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Congrats!; thanks for joining the animation Wikiproject! If you have any questions, don't hesitate to ask me or any of our other members. — Cinemaniac (talk  •  contribs) 02:13, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

I found only three races with the format Dr. Who prefers. Revert
I'll stop edit waring with you if we can have a discussion. Which 3 did you find?--Dr who1975 (talk) 20:51, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

RFAR
Hi, is WP:RFAR a request for a new arbcom case, or is it regarding a prior case? John Vandenberg (talk) 17:56, 8 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Have you attempted other methods of dispute resolution ? John Vandenberg (talk) 18:10, 8 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Ok. I've removed the request for arbitration as it wasnt formatted correctly, and I think it was a bit hasty.  I'll try and help you two find a solution, or assist you get started on dispute resolution.  Bear with me a few minutes as I catch up. John Vandenberg (talk) 18:22, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

RfAr???
This appears to be a request for arbitration relating to Dr who1975 ... when you asked me for your input I was not aware of that. I would like to suggest that filing a case might be a bit premature... I have some not inconsiderable respect for you in working together with you on some of the MI election issues, but I think that filing a case was a bit over the top. I think that while Dr who might have some areas where approach could be improved, the same might possibly be true of you. I'd ask that in future you try to work things out if at all possible, and work the steps in dispute resolution in the proper sequence (for example, an RfAr should be a very last resort, not something you do before coming to an individual admin seeking an opinion). I hope that helps. ++Lar: t/c 21:36, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Producedbygeorgemartinhighlights.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Producedbygeorgemartinhighlights.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. 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 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.BetacommandBot (talk) 05:20, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

so
It looks like United States Senate special election in Mississippi, 2008 and United States Senate election in Mississippi, 2008 are going to be on the same day after all. Right?--Dr who1975 (talk) 16:49, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, that is the case. But due to the lengthy controversy section, they should still be separate articles. Steelbeard1 (talk) 17:08, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Palisadespark45.jpg
Thank you for uploading Image:Palisadespark45.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. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. 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.BetacommandBot (talk) 14:35, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for saving Bbel.jpg
I was away from Wikipedia for a while, so I missed the notice that Image:Bbel.jpg was in danger of being deleted. I wanted to say that I really appreciate your adding the formal fair use rationale while I was gone. Thanks. --Naughtius Maximus  F@H  Woof!  [mailto:archdude@iwon.com Meow ] MUN 20:17, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
 * You're welcome. Steelbeard1 (talk) 20:34, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

The Beatles Collection
Steelbeard, First, before I bring up a couple of issues, I think I knew you. Were you involved in the Prodigy/GEnie Beatles discussions in the 1990s?

Secondly, you're right. I misread the earlier wikipedia entery. The British version of the boxed set was heavily imported into the U.S. because of the limited availability of the American edition. (There were about 3,050 American copies -- 3,000 numbered copies and another fifty or so unnumbered copies given to Capitol VIPs.) I'm sorry, I misread the entry to say that the U.S. edition was released due to the popularity of the British entry, which was not the case.

Thirdly, I believe the released dates (Nov. 10 for the UK and Dec. 1 for the US) I had entered for the boxed set are good. They come from Harry Castleman and Walter Podrazik's third Beatles discography, The End of the Beatles? (Ann Arbor, Michigan: Peirian Press, 1985), p. 35.P).

MCB in Boulder, 3/24/2008. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.11.27.152 (talk) 03:56, 25 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, I was active in the old Prodigy Beatle discussions. I recall signing off with PARLOPHONE RULES!!! Steelbeard1 (talk) 10:57, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Jefferson Airplane
Thanks for pointing that out to me. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 20:00, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Comment + Stabenow
Hi Steelbeard. Great work on the Beatles-related articles - I've consulted these articles many times to satiate my own interest in the inimitable group.

Now to Stabenow, our present point of contention. I'll probably post something on the talk page, but I thought to communicate with you directly first. I think you have an understandable point regarding certain marital problems, like those referred to discreetly in the Cindy McCain entry. But is there not a significant difference between the two acts that render them incomparable? In Cindy McCain's case, we mention John McCain's non-detailed marital dissatisfaction since their relationship began while he was still married. There isn't any need to talk about the specific, mundane details of McCain's broken-down marriage. Here, Senator Stabenow's husband hired a prostitute while married. Doesn't it seem extremely furtive to refer to this far-from-mundane occurrence as a mere "marital problem"? And don't the other points I made - regarding the direct analogy of Silda Wall Spitzer's article, and relevance demonstrated by media coverage carry some weight too?

Thanks - looking forward to hearing your thoughts. Feel free to post on my user page or elsewhere. sæ (talk) 19:46, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
 * On articles about Michigan politicians, I usually look to frequent contributor BKonrad for input and advice. His feelings are similar to mine. Steelbeard1 (talk) 20:24, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Herb Abramson
Please have a look at my Talk page for your reply - Adrian Pingstone (talk) 07:42, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Vernor' ' ' ' ' s
How right you are about the apostrophe - how could I have missed that? Sorry! - DavidWBrooks (talk) 18:12, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Mississippi's 1st congressional district special election, 2008
I thought you only cared about Senate races in Mississippi. In any event, I have no objection to moving the campaign sites (although I do disagree with it) but please do not remove names from the page... we've had this debate before.--Dr who1975 (talk) 17:05, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
 * The link in the special senate race article led me to the MS-1 house district special election article which required the cleanup. Remember that only declared candidates belong in the candidates section.  Speculation and those who declined to run belong only in the body of the article. Steelbeard1 (talk) 17:10, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
 * There's a seperate section for the former candidates... that should fit your logic. You know you can't remove them from the page... do we really need to go to the trouble of putting a senetence for Jamie Franks in the description. His names been on there for months and the election is now only 2 days away.--Dr who1975 (talk) 17:14, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
 * BTW... you know this isn't personal... can't we compromise for once without a debate.--Dr who1975 (talk) 17:17, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I didn't see that you had put a senetence about Franks in there. I acted Rashly and I apologize. Thank you for compromising.--Dr who1975 (talk) 18:22, 21 April 2008 (UTC) FYI.. at some point I'm thinking of putting the whole general subject matter regarding listing declined candidates up for debate at the Congressional project. It won't be any time soon. I will let you know when I do so that you can write the agaisnt argument.--Dr who1975 (talk) 18:25, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I disagree, however, let me assure you I would never move Franks back to a bullet point without concensus. I hope we can respectfully disagree.--Dr who1975 (talk) 19:08, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Halo Burger
Thank you for update on Halo Burger CFBancroft (talk) 06:41, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Again Thank you for update on Halo Burger look wonderful! CFBancroft (talk) 05:34, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Again Again Thank you for update on Halo Burger in past sense.CFBancroft (talk) 13:51, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

May 2008

 * You are repeating yourself and you know what my response should be... if you want to remove them from the list then do so and put a sentcne or two about them in the text... you are removing information from the article. I am goingto undo what you did... please fix it correctly... it should not be my job topolice you.--Dr who1975 (talk) 23:31, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Final Warning
I am not going to apply the compromise for you again as I did on Mississippi's 1st congressional district special election, 2008... please apply the compromise to Louisiana's 6th congressional district special election, 2008 or leave it alone. This is your final warning.--Dr who1975 (talk) 14:36, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Your own revision violates your own compromise. Read the MS-1 special election candidates' list.  That's the format I followed. Steelbeard1 (talk) 14:39, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

RE: Parlophon
Thank you for pointing that out. I appreciate your commitment to the better education for all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Target Alpha (talk • contribs) 23:28, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Ben Nevers
I was fixing to get into another dispute with you but upon reading your comment on my page I realized that you have a point... wanted to let you know I'm not pig headed... what about Louisiana's 6th congressional district special election, 2008? Are you going to wait for those links to go stale and then remove those names? Please give me a specific, substantive answer (no generalities please).--Dr who1975 (talk) 15:55, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Because evidence exists that the links once existed, I'm giving those links some slack. Steelbeard1 (talk) 16:39, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I apreciate that (I will hold you to it on this and other pages, cases like Nevers non-withdstanding). I can also promise that I'll stop using bullet points for (properly cited) speculated candidates in future articles if you promise to move any olders ones you see that are already bullet pointed to the text instead of deleting them. Basically we'd both be promising to follow the original compromise.--Dr who1975 (talk) 18:59, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
 * While any speculation about persons who decided not to run for public office are fine for inclusion in the body of articles with citations, I have to stress again that any such speculation in candidates' lists are subject to deletion if they are found. Steelbeard1 (talk) 19:55, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
 * But that statement is a contradiction in and of itself... if it's viable for inclusion in the body... then it can be moved to the body... not deleted... c'mon... can we just come to an agreement on this.--Dr who1975 (talk) 03:31, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I told you before and I will tell you again. There has to be verifiable citations for the specuation to be included in the body of articles.  They why the Nevers speculation was removed because the citation you gave did not confirm the speculation. Steelbeard1 (talk) 03:35, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

The discussion has moved beyond Nevers... if you're going to be like this we can talk to Lar some more.--Dr who1975 (talk) 03:36, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Elections and Referenda. As the issue has arisen again, it is time to involve more people and start to write some guidelines. -- John Vandenberg (chat) 01:13, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

FYI

 * I made a mistake... could you be so kind as to remove myrecent comments from thepage as I requested you do?--Dr who1975 (talk) 21:46, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

No. Steelbeard1 (talk) 21:47, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
 * You had respect for me? When?--Dr who1975 (talk) 22:19, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Links to non existent pages
I used to think this was a no-no too. I changed my opinion after Markles corrected me on it a couple of times.--Dr who1975 (talk) 19:39, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Dead wiki links which don't link to any article are fine as long as there are plans to create the article the link is for. This issue here is links which link back to the main article. Steelbeard1 (talk) 00:59, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Well (and I mean this politely) you shouldn't assume I didn't have plans to create the article... in any event, your influence got me to create it today instead of in a few days as I'd hoped.--Dr who1975 (talk) 01:52, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Cameoparkwaylogo.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Cameoparkwaylogo.jpg. You've indicated that the image is being used under a claim of fair use, but you have not provided an adequate explanation for why it meets Wikipedia's requirements for such images. 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 description page for each article the image is used in.
 * That every article it is used on is linked to from its description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. --04:15, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image (Image:Trane logo.gif)
 Thanks for uploading Image:Trane logo.gif. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. 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 images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Tcrow777Talk 07:40, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Question for you at Talk:United States Senate election in Mississippi, 2008
FYI. Feel free to tell me I'm full of crap. I will no longer be offended (particularily if you showme that I am full of crap... it happens from time to time).--Dr who1975 (talk) 00:40, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
 * To be more specific the question I'm reffering to is this "How do the bullet points look now? Do they look ok or should we still consider splitting the page because they look awkward?"... please answer on the article's talk page. Thanks.--Dr who1975 (talk) 00:42, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
 * To repeat: Please answer the question regarding "How do the bullet points look now?" on the article's talk page. Thanks.--Dr who1975 (talk) 00:57, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Beatlesfirstdeluxe.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Beatlesfirstdeluxe.jpg. You've indicated that the image meets Wikipedia's criteria for non-free content, but there is no explanation of why it meets those criteria. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. If you have any questions, please post them at Media copyright questions.

Thank you for your cooperation. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 00:07, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Blueridgerangerscd.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Blueridgerangerscd.jpg. You've indicated that the image meets Wikipedia's criteria for non-free content, but there is no explanation of why it meets those criteria. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. If you have any questions, please post them at Media copyright questions.

Thank you for your cooperation. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 09:06, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Re:
Just because there are two different versions of the release doesn't necessarily mean we have to include both covers. We are the free encyclopedia, we try to reduce our non-free image usage as far as possible. The fact is, the cover of the one looks exactly the same as the other (bar a few words), so there is no need to include both. The purpose of identifying the album can be done with any one of the covers. Per our non-free content usage criteria #3a, "Multiple items of non-free content are not used if one item can convey equivalent significant information." Cheers, indopug (talk) 18:14, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Then sadly the compromise goes against official Wikipedia policy. Further, the prose you added discusses only the double LP, not its cover. I know that many users don't understand Wikipedia's "copyright paranoia", but the fact is we are the free encyclopedia, and we must cut down the use of non-free material as far as possible. This cover isn't particularly notable in any way either, I can't imagine any reader actually benefitting from its presence there. For an opposite case where two covers in an article is completely warranted, see Is This It, where they are significantly discussed in the prose and both significantly add to the understanding of the reader. indopug (talk) 11:09, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I guess you could. Wouldn't it be redundant to the existing articles? indopug (talk) 19:07, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Pastmastersvol1and2albumcover.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:Pastmastersvol1and2albumcover.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. 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 all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 00:58, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Samuel Goldwyn Studio
I see you made an edit at Samuel Goldwyn Studio, would you mind weighing in at talk:Samuel Goldwyn Studio, where I have left a note? Thanks! ~ WikiDon (talk) 05:15, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

PS: ever thought about archiving your talk page. I made a page just for image notification.


 * You didn't comment on my article name change proposal? And I still think you need to archive (from the for-what-its-worth bin 'O goodies). ~ WikiDon (talk) 20:35, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes I did in the talk:Samuel Goldwyn Studio page using the heading "The Lot". Yes, I should archive the old talk page entries. Steelbeard1 (talk) 20:57, 8 June 2008 (UTC)