User talk:Ukebloke

File permission problem with File:Dick Carruthers at work.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Dick Carruthers at work.jpg, which you've attributed to Dick Carruthers. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file has agreed to release it under the given license.

If you are the copyright holder for 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 permissions-en@wikimedia.org, 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 permissions-en@wikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Non-free content, use a tag such as non-free fair use 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. Diannaa (talk) 04:30, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Todd Slater
OK, you are new to Wikipedia & therefore unfamiliar with the rusles & wikietiquette: slack will be cut.

I made the changes to the article you created because IMO the made it read better. You will have to accept that once an article is online you don't own it: anybody can make edits. As for the inline link to an external website: yes, these are strongly discouraged. External links go at the bottom in their own section, along with peopples Facebook pages or whatever.

I changed the article on the book to a redirect because I very much doubt if the book passes WP:GNG. As references Amazon or the publisher's website leave mustard very much uncut. It is, I imagine, a collection of the man's poster designs, and as such is very unlikely that there is anything to say about it that is not actually about the artworks themselves. Dostoevsky it is not. So, I'm reconverting to a redirect: if you feel that strongly about it that you undo that, I will nominate the article for deletion, & we will see what the wikipedia community thinks. Obviously you know where my money is.

Lastly, and entirely leastly, talk page convention is to place new posts at the bottom of somebody's talk page: otherwise they are a pain in the butt to find & reply to. And the convention is also to keep conversations on one talk page: I have gone against this because I can't be bothered to find where exactly your post is....TheLongTone (talk) 14:26, 29 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Oh, and the use of tables to the list of artists is inappropriate. If you can master the syntax for a table you can, I am sure, manage that tor a list broken into two or three columns.TheLongTone (talk) 14:35, 29 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Hi and thanks for the comprehensive reply.


 * Obviously your opinion of what reads better will often differ from mine and many other people's. For that reason I really think it's unhelpful to waste so much time making trivial changes which may deliver a small benefit to readers who prefer your writing style whilst causing a minor irritation to those who prefer mine and others'. I appreciate and accept that I don't own any articles or content I contribute to Wikipedia and that anyone can edit it. However I stand by my earlier point that petty writing style modifications serve little if any real purpose.


 * Given your point regarding inline links to external websites, what is the recommended approach for helping readers find out more about an item for which no Wikipedia page exists? Inline internal links are perfectly acceptable and an intrinsic part of Wikipedia articles; is the only option to create a Wikipedia article for the item and then add an inline internal link? I did check Wikipedia guidelines on this point prior to adding the inline link and couldn't find anything which specifically forbade it; I'm just trying to create an informative article here. Guidelines are just that, not fixed rules. Surely blind following of such guidelines in situations where judicious use of a feature such as an external inline link might actually make an article more informative is counter-productive.


 * As for the book page, I created it because I couldn't find a way of adding the book title page image to the main article without breaching Wikipedia image licensing rules. I then considered that there ought to be enough information available relating to the book to justify an article of its own. I still stand by that. However as the book isn't due for publication for another few weeks I've only been able to obtain limited detail so far. I've seen plenty of articles with comments encouraging contributors to expand them rather than the summary introduction of redirects and would hope for similar treatment in this case. I'm trying to create informative content and would appreciate a little support from more experienced Wikipedians such as yourself, rather than the approach you seem to favour. I can't believe your preference for meting out editorial justice as you see it without even offering advice first (in the case of your initial redirect) is in the spirit of Wikipedia. You have made assumptions about the content of a book you have not seen in order to support a unilateral action many of your fellow Wikipedians appear not to favour. How do you believe this has improved Wikipedia?


 * Your suggestion that 'the man himself' may not be notable when by your own admission you 'have no expertise' in the area is a pointless statement; speculation based on ignorance is certainly not an approach likely to contribute to the richness or accuracy of the information contained in Wikipedia.


 * I added my comment below all other conversations on your talk page but above the SuggestBot section as this looked like something which might have been positioned at the foot for easy access. As you have indicated this was clearly a mistake and one which I will endeavour not to repeat.


 * Thanks for the feedback regarding tables versus columns. Your feedback is welcome although it might have been delivered with a better grace. Ukebloke (talk) 15:35, 29 August 2015 (UTC)


 * I think you are being oversensitive, especially in light of the fact that I deleted my comment about the man's notabilty within minutes of writing it. Terse maybe, but in no way impolite.TheLongTone (talk) 14:03, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

The Rock Poster Art of Todd Slater

 * I've added The Rock Poster Art of Todd Slater to the RfD list. Ukebloke (talk) 16:34, 29 August 2015 (UTC)


 * I must say you have a ver oversensitive view of what constitutes disrespectful language.TheLongTone (talk) 14:30, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Content formatting concerns
Some content I created for the Todd Slater article has been edited by another user (see conversation above) who has told me I’ve got things wrong but not explained why or how I could improve the affected content. I don’t want to revert edits without being sure of the validity of my actions; I certainly don’t want to get into an edit war.

The areas I’d like to understand so I can get it right in future are:


 * Inline external links: I used an inline external link where a supporting Wikipedia page didn’t exist. I believe this made the particular piece of content more informative for the reader. The discussion above explains my reasoning with respect to observation of Wikipedia guidelines. Is the inline link acceptable in these circumstances and if not what is the correct approach?
 * Amongst minor writing style edits my phrase “The following galleries carry his work” was edited to read “The following galleries sell his work”. The edit summary justification for the change was “They are shops, not lorries”. The term ‘carry’ in this context is in common use and has been for many years, particularly as galleries exhibit as well as sell. I believe this was probably the least justifiable of several unnecessary style edits and that the edit summary was inappropriate in its tone. Do I just have to live with this or can I revert it in a manner which minimizes the chances of an edit war ensuing?
 * I included a list of film posters produced by the artist and formatted them as a table as I believe this a) made them easier to read and b) improved the overall layout of the page. The table was replaced with a bulleted list with the following supporting explanation on my Talk page: “the use of tables to the list of artists is inappropriate” (I assume the reference to ‘artists’ suggests I change the other table in the page to a list too). Firstly, why is it inappropriate to list gig poster clients and film poster commissions in tables? Secondly, I tried to improve formatting by changing the single column list into multiple columns (as suggested) and it upset the page layout, forcing a poster image on the right-hand-side of the page further down. Finally, if tables mustn’t be used (is this a rule or a guideline?) is there a way I can list the information in columns without upsetting the page layout?

Any advice would be greatly appreciated. I’m reasonably new to this and just want to get things right; I’d rather spend my time creating useful content than fixing things I’ve got wrong. Ukebloke (talk) 17:56, 29 August 2015 (UTC)


 * First of all, the article's talk page, Talk:Todd Slater, is a good place to discuss issues concerning the article. To answer your questions:
 * Inline external links are, at the very least, strongly discouraged. Says the first sentence of WP:EL, the guideline on external links: "they should not normally be placed in the body of an article". If the link gives additional information on Slater but for some reason is not fit to be used as a reference (for example, his personal website), it should be added to a dedicated "External links" section at the end of the article. If the link does not give information on Slater, it would be considered off-topic in that article and should not be added at all.
 * If it were the Tate Gallery showing Slater's work, "carry" (or "exhibit", or something to that effect) would probably be more appropriate. Those galleries, however, do seem to sell his work and to exhibit it primarily in order to sell it, not out of sheer appreciation of art or for educational purposes. Thus "sell" seems more precise to me. "Carry" gives off a certain "marketingspeak" vibe, where terms relating to money are generally replaced by euphemisms: Companies would like to pretend they don't sell products, they "offer solutions". Wikipeida heavily suffers such spam, and maybe editors (including myself) are somewhat over-sensitized, but as long as "sell" is factually correct, I see no reason to avoid it. If you disagree (and I could understand differences of opinion here), the talk page is the place to discuss the issue and reach a compromise, or gain consensus for one version or another.
 * Tables are meant for tabular data, such as in List of countries by population or List of Presidents of the United States (which, despite the page titles, largely are tables, not just lists). I agree that the list of concert poster clients should also be turned into a list. One reason is that lists are far more easy to maintain than tables. Assume for a moment that tomorrow it's announced that Slater produced a concert poster for AaRON, and we wanted to add that - we'd have to re-do the entire table, re-sorting every single line. I'll take a look and see whether I can make the multi-column list work with the image. Huon (talk) 00:10, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the prompt and very helpful reply. That all makes sense and I've noted the purpose of article talk pages. My faith in Wikipedians has been restored. Many thanks Huon. Ukebloke (talk) 07:38, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
 * 1) My confusion with inline external links arose from the fact that inline internal links are an important and valuable aspect of Wikipedia. I added an external link to perform a similar funtion where no Wikipedia article existed. I appreciate this was wrong and that if any reader is interested enough to find out more they'll just go and check the external site out separately.
 * 2) Your balanced, helpful explanation re. 'carry' v 'sell' clarifies the point perfectly. Thank you.
 * 3) I'd appreciate some help with the column formatting thanks. Again your explanation was clear and objective.

Nomination of The Rock Poster Art of Todd Slater for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article The Rock Poster Art of Todd Slater is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/The Rock Poster Art of Todd Slater until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. TheLongTone (talk) 14:35, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Conflict of interest
I have to ask something: many of your photos say that you were given them directly by the publisher or individual. Were you asked to create these articles? If so that's fine - you can still edit - you just need to disclose this on your user page. For example, I perform edits for the Library of Virginia, so I've disclosed this on my userpage. You don't have to go as in depth with your disclosure as I have with mine, but just a short note somewhere should suffice. If you do have a COI I would recommend perhaps creating a separate account if you plan on making non-COI edits, since that way it's easier to keep the two accounts separate and for people to see which edits are COI and which are not. You can have two accounts in this manner as long as you post clearly on both accounts that they're by the same person, the reason for the separate accounts, and the COI. I've done this with my account for the Library of Virginia. I'll post the basic COI template in a moment, which has additional information. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)  06:22, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I have a life-long interest in popular and rock music, album and poster art. I have some contacts in the music industry through my involvement in a couple of small festivals and researching and writing content for some music-related apps. Through these contacts I've been able to source some images for pages I'm interested in contributing to. Ukebloke (talk) 17:04, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Managing a conflict of interest
Hello, Ukebloke. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with some of the people, places or things you have written about on Wikipedia, you may have a conflict of interest. People with a conflict of interest may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic. For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have a conflict of interest, see the conflict of interest guideline and frequently asked questions for organizations. In particular, please:


 * avoid editing or creating articles related to you, your organization, its competitors, or projects and products you or they are involved with;
 * instead, propose changes on the talk pages of affected articles (see the template);
 * avoid linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see WP:SPAM);
 * exercise great caution so that you do not violate Wikipedia's content policies.

In addition, the Wikimedia Foundation's terms of use require disclosure of your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation.

Please familiarize yourself with relevant policies and guidelines, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, sourcing, and autobiographies. Thank you. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)  06:23, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:The Rock Poster Art of Todd Slater - book cover.jpg
 Thanks for uploading File:The Rock Poster Art of Todd Slater - book cover.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 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).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 13:02, 8 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Hi The image has become orphaned as a result of the article it appeared in having been deleted. I wasn't aware of the fact that the article had been deleted until you posted this on my talk page. Clearly the image should be deleted too. Ukebloke (talk) 13:57, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
Hi, You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:49, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Clive Gregson seated with guitar.jpg
 Thanks for uploading File:Clive Gregson seated with guitar.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 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).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:24, 11 February 2017 (UTC)