User talk:Steve3849/Archives 02

Saxa
Hi Steve, I try to keep the music articles factual, and remove all the effusive praise that often gets put in. So many articles about musicians, singers, and bands include the phrases "the legendary", "the most acclaimed", "brilliant", "widely considered to be the best", etc. These phrases are fine when used on the back of an album blurb, but I don't think that they are useful in an encyclopedia article. The Wikipedia policy guide says that if a person really is great (or legendary, or brilliant), this should come out in the article. For example, if the person is a brilliant concert pianist, this would normally mean that they won XYZ piano competition and ZZZ piano award. About Saxa, I think it would be good to get a quote from the most reputable critic, like "Jamaican ska and reggae historian John Doe has called Saxa's playing a......", with a reference source. Thanks for your letterNazamo 13:38, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:GarageATrois01.jpg
Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:GarageATrois01.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. Rettetast 22:03, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

...threat to civilization
Hi Steve,

Your edit has been removed by a anonymous user. I think an edit made by a regular user can only be removed by another user with due authority, therefore i will undo the removal. You put several references in your edit, so i think that a discussion in the talk page is appropriate before removal.--Daanschr 07:26, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Though by the time I've read this I see its already removed again. Too controversial I suspect, grim reality that it is. - Steve3849 talk 01:44, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
 * It has not been removed by a user and an anonymous. Just check history. It is weird. It is gone, but i don't know by whom. I guess someone hacked into Wikipedia.--Daanschr 09:23, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Hmmm, fitting, who in this picture is above the law? Whatever. - Steve3849 talk 09:46, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
 * It is censorship. Probably unauthorized by Wikipedia, because administrators would remove it differently, i think. But, i am living safely in Europe.--Daanschr 10:18, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I will put the information back. Not because i want to guard it persé. I started it as a joke, the whole article on threats to civilization is a joke. Still, i don't like outside attacks and deletions by anonymous users. It is a small effort to make a user adress.--Daanschr 17:45, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
 * It has been removed now by a regular user. So, no more Mr. Anonymous and Mr. Hacker.--Daanschr 07:43, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Visual Kei
I am contacting a few people in the WikiProject Music genres project to please come and give a Neutral point of view on if we should consider Visual Kei a "genre". There is currently an edit war that has been going on since January of 2007 - we really some outside opinions. I have put some information on the WP Music Genres talk page, if you have time to look. Thanks either way. Denaar 06:49, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Chamberlain discography
Thanks, I appreciate the compliment. -5- 07:04, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Replaceable fair use Image:Mcbride_poster_2003.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Mcbride_poster_2003.jpg. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:


 * 1) Go to the image description page and edit it to add, without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.
 * 2) On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace the fair use image by finding a freely licensed image of its subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or a similar) image under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on [ this link]. Note that fair use images which could be replaced by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted 7 days after this notification, per our Fair Use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Videmus Omnia Talk  02:42, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Tony Levin discog
Thank you for taking an interest in the Tony Levin article. I've tried to place a limit on which albums we include in his discography. If we didn't, it would get out of hand, since he's played on hundreds of records. It's true that Tony is a member of Peter Gabriel's backing band. He is very talented, and no doubt has a bit of creative input to the parts he plays, he does not contribute greatly to the composition of Gabriel's songs. But this could be said about most of the albums Tony plays on. I mean, why else would you hire him? But we can't add all these records to the discography. Not only would the discog be inordinately long, but you'd lose track of the records where Tony really did write the songs. Thus, I have removed Peter Gabriel's albums from the discography. -Freekee 02:06, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for clarifying at the Levin talk page. - Steve3849 talk 08:35, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Fair use disputed for Image:Skerik03.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Skerik03.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 23:29, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Replaceable fair use Image:Horvitz_spain.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Horvitz_spain.jpg. I noticed the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:


 * 1) Go to the image description page and edit it to add, without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.
 * 2) On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace the fair use image by finding a freely licensed image of its subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or a similar) image under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on [ this link]. Note that fair use images which could be replaced by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if not used in an article), per our Fair Use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Rettetast 18:18, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Reply from DitsyDaisy
Sorry about the blunder, am trying to get used to things in a hurry and am not feeling all that well, will try to be more focused in future --DitsyDaisy 11:17, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Album review formatting
Hi there. Regarding this change, please note that reviews that don't use star ratings should not be shown using them, per WP:ALBUM. Have a nice day. --PEJL 14:41, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
 * thanks - Steve3849 talk 02:32, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Coalition2006.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Coalition2006.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 07:36, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

K. Denson
yo, thx 4 creatin' dat karl den- paige. it waz bumming meh out when it waznt there b4. u r totlly cool 4 makin it. teh good peeple of teh kommunity dat lykes good muzic like fish and dead and blugrazz appl4ud ur hrd work! — oac old american century talk @ 20:10, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Chamberlain discography
I'd like to keep the discography to just album releases, but the DVD is something that can be added to the Critters Buggin article and template.-5- 07:32, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Sst7.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Sst7.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) 20:13, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Jam bands
Hi, Good point about the "danger" of provoking speculative original research. I have just removed all original research from the Art Rock article.... lots of editors were putting their personal views on how to define Art rock. Wikipedia is supposed to be a reliable encylopedia of facts that are sourced from reputable reference sources and books, not a chat page-style collection of opinion. Anyway, back to the Jamband article, I was just trying to show that the term has a 1970s usage in relation to the Grateful Dead, and then a 1990s-ish usage which included a much broader range of groups and styles, including bluegrass jam bands, organ trio jambands, etc.,, Thanks for your letter... a pleasure to work with people like you who are polite and friendly.Nazamo (talk) 15:16, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Replaceable fair use Image:Skerik03.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Skerik03.jpg. I noticed the description page specifies that the media is being used under a claim of fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first non-free content criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this media is not replaceable, please:


 * 1) Go to the media description page and edit it to add, without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.
 * 2) On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on [ this link]. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per our non-free content policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. —Bkell (talk) 16:52, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Skerik03.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:Skerik03.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) 09:24, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Image:Skerik with Dillon 01.jpg listed for deletion
An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Skerik with Dillon 01.jpg, has been listed at Images and media for deletion. Please see the to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. —Bkell (talk) 14:52, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
 * On behalf of wikipedia I'm saying thanks for your current and ongoing free work with non-free images and the deletion thereof. Wikipedia has stated that it really needs to be absolutely free as we're all spending lots of free time contributing our free services for something so free that it must be allowed to in the end be out of our hands and freely commercial... er ...ah ...which isn't ah free. That is why this image you are putting into the deletion process is not considered free... because if an exploitive party desires to benefit from it commercially in the future outside of wikipedia there is a restriction. There is a paradox here. Wikipedia, the ultimate service encyclopedia in a very corporate world. - Steve3849 talk 16:15, 22 January 2008 (UTC)


 * You might care to read The Case for Free Use: Reasons Not to Use a Creative Commons -NC License for some of the reasons that Wikipedia does not consider non-commercial licenses to be free. —Bkell (talk) 16:25, 22 January 2008 (UTC)


 * The NC page does help with understanding the rationale, but it does not remove the paradox. Wikipedia is entirely dependant on free labor, yet civilization demands our lifelong cooperation with commercial enterprise. Free media is both Wikipedia's strength and its weakness. The article mentions "free content communities" though I didn't see a specific link, or reference to a specific community. Is that us? - Steve3849 talk 16:58, 22 January 2008 (UTC) PS Nevermind, it actually links several  - Steve3849 talk 17:03, 22 January 2008 (UTC)


 * It is not the express purpose of Wikipedia to produce things for commercial use, but we are producing a free encyclopedia which anyone can use in any way, without placing restrictions that it must be used only for non-commercial purposes. We are not designing Wikipedia with the intent of commercializing it, but we are also not arbitrarily restricting the content so that it cannot be used commercially.
 * If you are worried about "exploitive parties" taking Wikipedia content and selling it for money, you should consider that all Wikipedia content is monetarily free for everyone already, so how could anyone make money selling it? If anyone manages to make money that way, it must be because they are adding value to it somehow (by putting it on a physical CD, or printing it in a book, or including it in a searchable clip art gallery, or something). Also, if you license your content under a Creative Commons Share-Alike license or the GFDL, for example, anyone who redistributes your content (or a modification of your content) must do so under the same license; so a commercial enterprise that compiles Wikipedia content into a CD or something and sells it is required to make that CD free for everyone to copy. There doesn't seem to be much room for exploitation here. From another perspective, I am perfectly happy allowing anyone to use my contributions for commercial purposes, because I don't plan to make any money from them anyway (I don't contribute Wikipedia content with the goal of making a profit), so why should I care whether anyone else does or not? If someone manages to do that, more power to them. It doesn't affect me one way or the other.
 * I realize that it sounds contradictory that Wikipedia, the "free encyclopedia," requires all of its content to be usable for commercial purposes. But that should be viewed as removing a restriction from our content, to make it freer. —Bkell (talk) 20:19, 22 January 2008 (UTC)