User talk:TagoreEco

Would like to fix my entry Mudville so it conforms to your standards - don't know how!
Hi - I developed a Wiki entry for Mudville, and got these messages:

'''"This article or section needs sources or references that appear in reliable, third-party publications. Alone, primary sources and sources affiliated with the subject of this article are not sufficient for an accurate encyclopedia article. Please include more appropriate citations from reliable sources."

"This biographical article or section is written like a resume. Please help improve this article by revising it to be neutral and encyclopedic. (help)"'''

As to the first message, I cited several reliable sources in the Notes section. These are all reputable publications and the sources are also dated. What is it about these citations do you find objectionable? Or is there a more appropriate way to cite these sources?

As to the second message, I believe this passage may be an offending one (?)

"Core members Marilyn Carino and Ben (Benny Cha Cha) Rubin have distinguished themselves as adding sophistication to the genre with classic Hip-Hop stylings, elements of improvisational free jazz and attention to songcraft more influenced by Marvin Gaye and Duke Ellington than the minimalist, pop-based structure and lyrics by which the genre is most often characterized."

This, I felt, was an honest, somewhat personal description (but one that is echoed in many major publications) of why I believe Mudville deserves notoriety in Wikipedia, and why they have been influential in the "post Trip-Hop" music genre. I assumed there needed to be some sort of distinctive description to warrant the entry. Do you find it too editorial? Do I need to cite third-party sources to substantiate these comments?

The History/Bio section I felt was also rather straightforward - I included plaudits (fully cited, in the Notes section), again, to emphasize Mudville's noteworthiness.

I do not understand how this entry could be more neutral without losing its descriptiveness or making Mudville seem unworthy of inclusion here. I notice there are plenty of editorial comments in other artists' entries, but they somehow are allowed.

I am not Mudville or affiliated with them, by the way. I'm just a huge fan and I feel they are an important band. I would like to make sure they are included in the Wikipedia and given their due. Thank you for your assistance.

TagoreEco 04:56, 17 July 2007 (UTC)TagoreEco

Hello there! Looking at the Mudville article, it seems that some of the description, such as the example you provide above, includes what are known as weasel and peacock language on Wikipedia- which glorify the subject without attributing.

When you say something about the band, you must be repeating what an external source has said, and citing it- ie singer xyz is noted for her multi-octave range (citation) and unqiue fusion of jazz and pop (citation). in 2007, magazine ABC voted her the greatest singer of the year in an online poll, etc.

Attribute what you say, and do not assert it, but rather comment that someone else has asserted it. Does that make sense?

If you have any more questions or need more help, feel free to contact me on my talk page.

Have a nice day,

The Rhymesmith 05:37, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Image tagging for Image:MeMicheadRed1183.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:MeMicheadRed1183.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:
 * Image use policy
 * Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. 07:08, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Commercial use of Image:Meandben ringtorso350x350.jpg
Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Image:Meandben ringtorso350x350.jpg, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Image:Meandben ringtorso350x350.jpg is an image licensed as "for non-commercial use only" or "used with permission for use on Wikipedia only" which was either uploaded on or after 2005-05-19 or is not used in any articles (CSD I3).

If you created this media file and want to use it on Wikipedia, you may re-upload it (or amend the image description if it has not yet been deleted) and use the license GFDL-self to license it under the GFDL, or cc-by-sa-2.5 to license it under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike license, or use PD-self to release it into the public domain.

If you did not create this media file but want to use it on Wikipedia, there are two ways to proceed. First, you may choose one of the fair use tags from this list if you believe one of those fair use rationales applies to this file. Second, you may want to contact the copyright holder and request that they make the media available under a free license.

If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. This bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion, it did not nominate Image:Meandben ringtorso350x350.jpg itself. Feel free to leave a message on the bot operator's talk page if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot. If you have any questions about what to do next or why your image was nominated for speedy deletion please ask at Media copyright questions. Thanks. --Android Mouse Bot 2 19:54, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Commercial use of Image:MUDVILLE SEPIA RGB.jpg
Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Image:MUDVILLE SEPIA RGB.jpg, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Image:MUDVILLE SEPIA RGB.jpg is an image licensed as "for non-commercial use only" or "used with permission for use on Wikipedia only" which was either uploaded on or after 2005-05-19 or is not used in any articles (CSD I3).

If you created this media file and want to use it on Wikipedia, you may re-upload it (or amend the image description if it has not yet been deleted) and use the license GFDL-self to license it under the GFDL, or cc-by-sa-2.5 to license it under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike license, or use PD-self to release it into the public domain.

If you did not create this media file but want to use it on Wikipedia, there are two ways to proceed. First, you may choose one of the fair use tags from this list if you believe one of those fair use rationales applies to this file. Second, you may want to contact the copyright holder and request that they make the media available under a free license.

If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. This bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion, it did not nominate Image:MUDVILLE SEPIA RGB.jpg itself. Feel free to leave a message on the bot operator's talk page if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot. If you have any questions about what to do next or why your image was nominated for speedy deletion please ask at Media copyright questions. Thanks. --Android Mouse Bot 2 20:08, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image (Image:MUDVILLE SEPIA RGB.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:MUDVILLE SEPIA RGB.jpg. 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. BetacommandBot 02:01, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Non-free use disputed for Image:Mudville records RGB web.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Mudville records RGB web.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 11:19, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Mudville
If you have a close connection to some of the people, places or things you have written about on Wikipedia, you may have a conflict of interest. In keeping with Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy, edits where there is a conflict of interest, or where such a conflict might reasonably be inferred from the tone of the edit and the proximity of the editor to the subject, are strongly discouraged. If you have a conflict of interest, you should avoid or exercise great caution when:
 * 1) editing articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with,
 * 2) participating in deletion discussions about articles related to your organization or its competitors,
 * 3) linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Spam);
 * and you must always:
 * 1) avoid breaching relevant policies and guidelines, especially neutral point of view, verifiability, and autobiography.

For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have conflict of interest, please see Business' FAQ. For more details about what constitutes a conflict of interest, please see Conflict of Interest. Thank you.  dissolve talk  15:52, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Hey
Thanks for the note. The most appropriate forum for leaving messages is a user's talk page (such as yours, where I'm leaving this), not a user page, but it's fine. It seems the Mudville article is legitimate, so I'll keep an eye in case someone tries to delete it or files some motion against you or it.

If you're looking to get to know Wikipedia and its protocol better, there are a number of ways. I see you've been to the Help Desk, but you can also try adoption or mentoring, where you'll get one-on-one advice and coaching from an experienced Wikipedian.

Thanks, and have a nice day.

The Rhymesmith 05:31, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

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

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 03:58, 29 September 2009 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. ww2censor (talk) 03:58, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

TagoreEco (talk) 13:36, 29 September 2009 (UTC) Thank you, I will confirm copyright ownership with the artist.

TagoreEco (talk) Hello, Michael David has given me unconditional permission to use this photo. Do I need to do anything else to prevent it from being deleted? Thanks

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

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 23:23, 27 October 2009 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. feydey (talk) 23:23, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

TagoreEco (talk) 23:54, 27 October 2009 (UTC)I have FULL PERMISSION to use this image, it was taken by the artist. Thank you TagoreEco (talk) 23:52, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

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

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 23:23, 27 October 2009 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. feydey (talk) 23:23, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

This image was taken by the artist Michael David and I have FULL PERMISSION to use it. Thank you TagoreEco (talk) 23:53, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for File:Michael_David_Black_Christ.jpg
Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Michael_David_Black_Christ.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. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? feydey (talk) 00:38, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

TagoreEco (talk) 01:39, 28 October 2009 (UTC) I apologize for not being clearer about my rationale for being able to use the images I have uploaded to use on this page. I tried to modify the rationale on each image to note that each was created and provided by the artist directly, with full permission for their use on Wikipedia. Forgive me if I still don't have it right, I'm really trying to comply with your requirements and I welcome additional suggestions/directions to uphold Wikipedia's high standards. I just hope you won't delete the images! With thanks

Speedy deletion nomination of File:Greenhouse 5.jpg
A tag has been placed on File:Greenhouse 5.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section I3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an image licensed as "for non-commercial use only," "non-derivative use" or "used with permission," it has not been shown to comply with the limited standards for the use of non-free content. , and it was either uploaded on or after 2005-05-19, or is not used in any articles. If you agree with the deletion, there is no need to do anything. If, however, you believe that this image may be retained on Wikipedia under one of the permitted conditions then:
 * state clearly the source of the image. If it has been copied from elsewhere on the web you should provide links to: the image itself, the page which uses it and the page which contains the license conditions.
 * add the relevant copyright tag.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding  to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. ww2censor (talk) 21:52, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of File:Michael David Black Christ.jpg
A tag has been placed on File:Michael David Black Christ.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section I3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an image licensed as "for non-commercial use only," "non-derivative use" or "used with permission," it has not been shown to comply with the limited standards for the use of non-free content. , and it was either uploaded on or after 2005-05-19, or is not used in any articles. If you agree with the deletion, there is no need to do anything. If, however, you believe that this image may be retained on Wikipedia under one of the permitted conditions then:
 * state clearly the source of the image. If it has been copied from elsewhere on the web you should provide links to: the image itself, the page which uses it and the page which contains the license conditions.
 * add the relevant copyright tag.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding  to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. ww2censor (talk) 21:53, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for File:Chortens Hive.jpg
Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Chortens Hive.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file 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 file 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 'file' 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 "File" 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. ww2censor (talk) 21:54, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

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

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

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. feydey (talk) 01:09, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

File permission problem with File:Greenhouse 5.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Greenhouse 5.jpg I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file agreed to license it under the given license.

If you created this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either
 * make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
 * Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to , stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to .

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, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. 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 provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.  Zoo Fari  03:50, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for File:Michael David Dead Toreador.jpg
Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Michael David Dead Toreador.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file 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 file 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 'file' 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 "File" 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. Skier Dude ( talk ) 01:45, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Unreferenced BLPs
Hello TagoreEco! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot alerting you that 1 of the articles that you created  is an  Unreferenced Biography of a Living Person. Please note that all biographies of living persons must be sourced. If you were to add reliable, secondary sources to this article, it would greatly help us with the current Category:All_unreferenced_BLPs article backlog. Once the article is adequately referenced, please remove the unreferencedBLP tag. Here is the article:

Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 18:07, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Michael David -

File permission problem with File:MUDVILLE Marilyn and Benny.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:MUDVILLE Marilyn and Benny.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file agreed to license it under the given license.

If you created this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either
 * make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
 * Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to , stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to .

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, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. 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 provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in [ your upload log]. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.  MBisanz  talk 03:58, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

File permission problem with File:The Glory of Man is Not in Vogue.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:The Glory of Man is Not in Vogue.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file agreed to license it under the given license.

If you created this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either
 * make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
 * Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to , stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add OTRS pending to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to .

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 File copyright tags, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in [ your upload log]. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read the Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.  Ron h jones (Talk) 22:48, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

File source problem with File:Marilyn_Carino_and_Benny_Cha_Cha_of_Mudville.jpg
Thank you for uploading File:Marilyn_Carino_and_Benny_Cha_Cha_of_Mudville.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the page from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of the website's terms of use of its content. If the original copyright holder is a party unaffiliated with the website, that author should also be credited. Please add this information by editing the image description page.

If the necessary information is not added within the next days, the image will be deleted. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.

Please refer to the image use policy to learn what images you can or cannot upload on Wikipedia. Please also check any other files you have uploaded to make sure they are correctly tagged. Here is a [ list of your uploads]. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. feydey (talk) 00:05, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

File permission problem with File:Glory of Man cover new.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Glory of Man cover new.jpg, which you've sourced to Mudville's "The Glory of Man is Not in Vogue" CD cover. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file agreed to license it under the given license.

If you created this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either
 * make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
 * Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to , stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add OTRS pending to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to .

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 File copyright tags, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in [ your upload log]. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read the Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.  Ron h jones (Talk) 01:59, 5 December 2011 (UTC)