User talk:Wasted Time R/Archive 2

Orphaned fair use image (Image:BDayTourPoster.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:BDayTourPoster.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 under fair use (see our fair use policy).

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 fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. This is an automated message from BJBot 21:14, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned fair use image (Image:LOVElogo.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:LOVElogo.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 under fair use (see our fair use policy).

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 fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. This is an automated message from BJBot 07:31, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned fair use image (Image:AnnabellaSciorraSopranos.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:AnnabellaSciorraSopranos.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 under fair use (see our fair use policy).

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 fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. This is an automated message from BJBot 05:29, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

enjoying your edit summaries
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bill_Clinton&curid=3356&diff=106749521&oldid=106743267

and another one - this one is priceless, when I look at the edit you were reverting.... by the way, I mean these 2 comments as compliments, so have renamed this section Tvoz | talk 21:47, 14 March 2007 (UTC) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hillary_Rodham_Clinton&curid=5043192&diff=115150577&oldid=115150277


 * actually that HRC edit you reverted was so funny I almost wish we could leave it there for comic relief. Hard to know where to start on that one, which is why your edit summary had me laughing out loud. Tvoz | talk 03:38, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned fair use image (Image:MariaBartiromoBookCover.gif)
Thanks for uploading Image:MariaBartiromoBookCover.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 under fair use (see our fair use policy).

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 fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. This is an automated message from BJBot 10:05, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Interview
A recent analysis I conducted for Techpresident.com identified you as one of the top editors of the Rudy Giuliani and Hillary Rodham Clinton Wikipedia entries. I'd like to conduct a short email interview about Wikipedia and its role in shaping the identity of political candidates. If you'd like to be interviewed, please drop me a line at fred at metalab.unc.edu. Thank you! Fstutzman 22:47, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

please revert your last rudi guliani edit
you have gone to 4 RRs i think, you could easily be blocked, please revert your last edit, and bring this to the talk page, it is perfectly legitimate to have a section on his positons on gays while mayor, it is also perfectly legitimate to have a section on his positions on abortions then, a couple lines of material was included post mayor to bring a little balance to the abortion section, he looks much worse (to republicans at least) without a little material on his more recent abortion stances next to his views while mayor...anyways please revert yourself your last edit in good faith as it was a 4th RR...otherwise your getting warnings and a possible block129.132.239.8 18:38, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Discussion about Romney political views/positions article title
Hi, You were involved with discussions about the section Political positions of Mitt Romney, now a separate article entitled Political views of Mitt Romney. In case you're interested, there's a discussion underway about whether it's an improvement to name it Political positions of Mitt Romney, over at Talk:Political views of Mitt Romney.
 * -- Yellowdesk 16:17, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

You have a problem?
Is there something wrong with what a write, maybe you should stop being such an a.... and let me write what I want. It's nothing inappropriate and most of what I write our actual facts. When was the last time someone changed that page before me, and now all of a sudden you have this feel do go and change the page. [18:03, 30 March 2007 Dffdfdf]

Spoilers, huh
So i doesn't matter whether it's the first 5 minutes or not, oh ok, well then, get a move on. Jackie Brown (film), Taxi Driver, Raging Bull, Cape Fear (1991 film), Casino (film), The Godfather Part II, Dog Day Afternoon, Heat (film) if what you tell me is ture, well here you are. And there are many more like these where there are "spoilers" in the begining. Until all this is changed, what I did for Cop Land was pereftly fine, based on all these movies who have similar articles in the begining. As for the trivia, here you go. The Godfather has similar trivias, so does Heat and many others as well. Lets go, get a move on.

Rudy Giuliani page
I really, really don't like anonymous edits. The Giuliani page keeps getting edited to include redundant information. It is like hit and run editing which reduces the value of the article. While I think full protection of the page is too much, I would be willing to support semi-protection of the page. Jmegill 18:57, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

ban
hi Wasted - thought you might be interested to know about this, in light of the disruptive edits you were dealing with. Cheers Tvoz | talk 04:14, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Regarding "Exploratory Committees"
You're invited to comment at Template talk:United States presidential election%2C 2008 navigation, on this proposal:
 * Proposed Deletion of category "Exploratory" and "Declared" for individuals filing with FEC.

And please note this argument on the same talk page. Exploratory equals Candidate.
 * Best regards, Yellowdesk 07:05, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Regarding edits to The Rascals
Thank you for contributing to Wikipedia, Wasted Time R! However, your edit here was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to remove spam from Wikipedia. If you were trying to insert a good link, please accept my creator's apologies, but note that the link you added, matching rule \bangelfire\.com\/, is on my list of links to remove and probably shouldn't be included in Wikipedia. Please read Wikipedia's external links policy for more information. If the link was to an image, please read Wikipedia's image tutorial on how to use a more appropriate method to insert the image into an article. If your link was intended to promote a site you own, are affiliated with, or will make money from inclusion in Wikipedia, please note that inserting spam into Wikipedia is against policy. For more information about me, see my FAQ page. Thanks! Shadowbot 15:10, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Give Peace a Chance
Sorry, but the song on Mad Dogs and Englishmen is not a cover version of the John Lennon composition. I own a copy of the original vinyl LP, so I should know. The song in question was written by Leon Russell and Bonnie Bramlett (as previously stated). Regards,

Derek R Bullamore 14:23, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Bruce Springsteen
In your edit summary when cutting the list of Music in Film & Television, you wrote: this whole section is unencyclopedic, unwikified, and probably a copyvio

I don't care one way or the other about the edit itself, but I want to point out that it can't be a copyvio; under U.S. law, facts aren't copyrightable, and lists of facts are only copyrightable to the extent that the list embodies some aspect of creativity in the selection or arrangement of material. A comprehensive list in a standard non-creative ordering, such as chronological, is inherently uncopyrightable. This was made the law of the land in the United States in Feist Publications v. Rural Telephone Service, which allowed totally copying of phone directories. As a counter-example, "best of" lists, such as a Rolling Stone greatest albums list, embodies the creative judgment of its authors and is copyrightable.

There's probably still some jurisdiction in the world where it would be a copyvio, but the international standard in the major treaties and intellectual property agreements is to leave such material uncopyrightable. Studerby 14:44, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Lotta good work on the Springsteen article recently. Thank you. David in DC 03:58, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Regarding edits to People Got to Be Free
Thank you for contributing to Wikipedia, Wasted Time R! However, your edit here was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to remove spam from Wikipedia. If you were trying to insert a good link, please accept my creator's apologies, but note that the link you added, matching rule \bangelfire\.com\/, is on my list of links to remove and probably shouldn't be included in Wikipedia. Please read Wikipedia's external links guidelines for more information, and consult my list of frequently-reverted sites. For more information about me, see my FAQ page. Thanks! Shadowbot 11:48, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned fair use image (Image:DonnaHanover.jpeg)
Thanks for uploading Image:DonnaHanover.jpeg. 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 under fair use (see our fair use policy).

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 fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 21:00, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Hillary Revert
Doh! Sorry --68.104.233.230 06:47, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Love is a Rose
I contest the redirect of this page - you aren't supposed to capitalize words like "is" in titles. Saber girl08 15:59, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much. Now, should I merge the other article into mine? Saber girl08 12:51, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you so much for all your help with the article. Have a wonderful day! Saber girl08 17:08, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Stub album articles
Hey, I see you removed the album-stub markers I added to some albums by The Animals. Assessing articles is not my strong suit, so I usually avoid it, but I do try to add to articles where it appears to have been forgotten. In doing so, I go by WP:ALBUM which says that if an album article lacks a "minimal list of credits" it is to be considered a stub article. I interpret that to refer to a credits section per WP:ALBUM. Perhaps there should be an exception for compilation albums, for which such a credits section is less useful than for studio albums. Anyway, that's why I added those stubs. Have a nice day. --PEJL 20:24, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

edits
Did you notice this?  

Followed by this

Well, that's one way to get consensus. Tvoz | talk 06:28, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

GA review
what did you think? Tvoz | talk 23:46, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Yup, I feel the same way about GA. I thought a couple of the points were not really necessary to cover in any case, but most would be improvements. Tvoz | talk 03:31, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

NME Tours - NME New Rave Tour
I noticed that when you created the NME Tours page, you added a section about the NME New Rave Tour. After scouring the web for any mention of the tour, all I could find was lots of pages on the NME Indie Rave Tour - which is already mentioned on the page. I'm going to remove it, please cite the section and then re-add it. Thanks --SteelersFan UK06 00:15, 1 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Please ignore my last comment, I have noticed that it infact wasn't you that added these details to the page, all you did was move them from the NME article. This edit was made by Stuart1000 (talk | Contribs ), here. Apologies if i sounded harsh. --SteelersFan UK06 01:05, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

HRC - GA review
Hi., can you please leave a note on my talk page once you are done addressing my comments on the Hillary Rodham Clinton article. Kalyan 19:17, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for leaving a note. I have struck off most of the comments. a couple remain before i want to close the case on GAN. Can you please respond to them. Kalyan 05:53, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Hi., Hillary Clinton is now a GA article. Kalyan 13:03, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
 * no probs. any chance that this article will make it to FA? Barrack Obamma is a FA. I think this one should also be. Kalyan 15:54, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

DEFAUTSORT:
Howdy, DEFAULTSORT (Template:DEFAULTSORT)says to use ":" and not "|". Ref: The Birds of St. Marks Thanks! Schmiteye 05:22, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

decorum protocol
Stop the nastiness. Your tone is outside of wikipedia protocol.

Keep the tone professional. No personal attacks. You're jumping to conclusions.

I'll respond to the substance of your comments later, when time affords. Dogru144 08:24, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Map Roomgate, Wampumgate, Totempolegate, Tailgate, Gardengate
Hi Wasted Time®, glad that brought a smile. Yes, like the Kennedy Assassination, the Challenger Disaster, or 9/11, most Americans remember exactly where they were, and what they were doing, when they first learned of Lincoln Bedroomgate. I suppose I was being silly. CApitol3 04:32, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image (Image:GHEBAnimals.gif)
Thanks for uploading Image:GHEBAnimals.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. BetacommandBot 11:04, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Image:RRHF500Kiosk.JPG listed for deletion
An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:RRHF500Kiosk.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. Thank you. Psychonaut 02:59, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Hillary Clinto for FA?
any dates/idea of when you plan to take this to FA? --Kalyan 19:02, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Christian Regenhard
Whenever you get a chance, I would love to hear your voice on the proposed deletion of [{Christian Regenhard]]'s article. You helped so much in getting the original article in order and thought it would not be fair to not hear your voice. Here is a link to the article. Many thanks!--XLR8TION 19:05, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:RollingStones1973EuropeanTourPoster.jpg
Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:RollingStones1973EuropeanTourPoster.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 insure 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 fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and 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. Videmus Omnia 17:16, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Judy Giuliani
The citation that I removed in regards to her saying that she attended the University of Pennsylvania seems to be false. I can't seem to dig up the original Times clip of her quote, but the Daily News clip cited makes it clear that they couldn't find evidence of her saying it either, citing the times, citing her. Please let me know if there's a clip around to substantiate this. Also, is there relevance for including this in the footnotes? Thanks.

Icfische 13:59, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Hillary for FA?
when are you taking Hillary's article for FA? --Kalyan 18:28, 4 July 2007 (UTC)


 * First must sort out the Controversies subarticle; see Talk:Hillary_Rodham_Clinton_controversies. Wasted Time R 02:21, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Rudy Giuliani campaign
Reply to this on my talk page; I think that the changes I made to this article really helped and I don't think it should be reverted back to that POV garbage that it was. Please try and help me with this because what I did really made the article better.--Southern Texas 05:26, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Title of two Amnesty tour articles
I'm writing to you as the creator of the two articles about the Amnesty International tours. Both of them are important articles that you are to be commended on starting and working hard on. I have a thought to offer about the article titles. I hope you will regard it as a constructive comment. I think the official titles - and the most popular references to the two Amnesty tours - did not include the word "tour" as part of their actual titles. ie the 1986 tour was called "A Conspiracy Of Hope" and the 1988 tour was called "Human Rights Now!". The descriptive word "tour" was not a part of he official title of either. Since there is not an abundance of other articles with those titles - should the descriptive "tour" really be a part of the Wikipedia article title? The Live Aid, Live 8 and Live Earth articles do not include the descriptive "concert". The Concert For Bangladesh includes the word "concert" in its article title because the word "concert" was part of the official title. So I'm wondering if the title of each of those articles should be simply "A Conspiracy Of Hope" and "Human Rights Now!". If there were separate articles about TV specials or albums derived from those tours - then those would be suffixed (album) - and the original articles might be suffixed (tour). What do you think? Davidpatrick 14:07, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Glad you see my perspective on this. I will try to make the change - but I'm not sure if I know how to do it correctly! If I mess up - I hope you'll be able to help me correct my mistakes! Many thanks. Davidpatrick 15:07, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

John McCain presidential campaign
Good work on this article, it's very nicely done now.--Gloriamarie 03:37, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Image:AlistairMacLean.JPG
I have tagged Image:AlistairMacLean.JPG as no rationale, because it does not provide a fair use rationale. If you believe the image to be acceptable for fair use according to Wikipedia policy, please provide a rationale explaining as much, in accordance with the fair use rationale guideline, on the image description page. Please also consider using or one of the other tags listed at Image copyright tags. Thank you. MER-C 12:58, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Giuliani, Clinton, and Thompson
Hi there. The main Fred Thompson article wikilinks to a separate article about controveries about him. There is currently a deletion request here.

I understand that you may be in favor of eliminating the controversy articles for Clinton and Giuliani. I am leaning the other way, but I respect your opinion and would welcome your participation in the discussion about the Thompson controversy deletion request.

My concern is that if the controversy article is eliminated, then all of these controversies will migrate into the main article in a big way, and bickering among editors at the main article will increase a hundred fold. If the controversies are in a separate article for each candidate, then each controversy can be detailed and rebutted in an NPOV manner without totally swamping what's in the main article for each candidate. I hope you will reconsider your support for deleting the controversy articles for each candidate. Thanks.Ferrylodge 06:01, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

P.S. Here's a similar situation, regarding Pres. G.W. Bush. As happened with the Bush criticism article, I would prefer for the Thompson controversy article to be neither deleted nor merged --- but merger would seem far more appropriate than deletion.Ferrylodge 09:26, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Rolling Stones singles template
What would you think about creating a template for the Rolling Stones' singles, and then placing the Stones' main template on each of the individual song pages? Here's the Beatles' template which is what I'd base the Stones' on.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:The_Beatles_Singles Stan weller 08:56, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Unspecified source for Image:Barry_Gray_(radio).jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Barry_Gray_(radio).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 11:18, 22 July 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. MER-C 11:18, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Peer review for Street Fighting Man
Would you mind contributing to the peer review for "Street Fighting Man"? Thanks in advance. Stan weller 04:24, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

SFM review
Thank you very much. I'll get to work on it right away. Stan weller 16:20, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:TurnItOnAgainTheTour.jpg
Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:TurnItOnAgainTheTour.jpg. 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. —Angr 17:25, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Replaceable fair use Image:BobGrantPub.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:BobGrantPub.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. MER-C 10:30, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

controversy merges
Just had a chance to look at this - you've done it brilliantly. Great job, Wasted Tvoz | talk 04:08, 3 August 2007 (UTC)


 * We could ask that it be "move protected" which would stop the redirect problem. Tvoz | talk 14:28, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject The Rolling Stones
Care to join the WP for the band? Stan weller 00:43, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Judith Giuliani
I have reverted some of your changes to my changes. Her legal name is Judi Ann; even her parents have said that in the latest issue of Vanity Fair, which is cited. "She was born Judi," as her father has told the magazine and which is cited in a footnote. Please do not revert changes whose factual substance supercedes previous cited material. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.126.251.62 (talk • contribs)


 * It does not seem clear to me that we know what her legal name is - I'd say more research is needed. Meanwhile, you might try to work out a compromise on the article's talk page. Tvoz | talk 22:21, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

The Rascals chronology
According to Albums, "Only studio albums, usually excluding live albums, compilations, singles and EPs should be included in the chronology." So Time Peace: Greatest Hits belongs in the separate compilations section, not in the normal album chronology. It doesn't matter that it was put out when the band was still together. Snow1215 15:58, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

thanks
Wow, I created the article on Earth vs. The Radiators: the First 25 (film), and I just now created an article on "Midnight Rider" (the absence has been bothering me for a while), and yet you managed to link the two before I could get around to it. That was quick! Good show, dude, thanks. :) Xtifr tälk 11:05, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

License tagging for Image:SnoopysHomeIce.JPG
Thanks for uploading Image:SnoopysHomeIce.JPG. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

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

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Media copyright questions. 04:10, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:JuliaDeMato.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:JuliaDeMato.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 01:17, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Progressive rock
See the talk page here. And I don't necessarily appreciate you stalking and changing my edits. That's a pretty lame thing to do.--Fightingirish 00:51, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

whitewater edits
hi, i'm new at editing, and want to thank you for your helpful edits to my stuff...

apparently i'm not putting references in correctly. i've done a cut & paste of yours to insert some more, but i see your comment about changing a date tag.

clearly i need to learn about editing wikipages - can you recommend a good web site to educate myself?

thanks, jill —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vjillh (talk • contribs) 23:53, August 27, 2007 (UTC)

Fair use disputed for Image:Image:BruceWorldTourFrankfurt.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Image:BruceWorldTourFrankfurt.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 10:09, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Van Halen tours
Any chance you could find any pictures to go with them? I'm a damn good writer, but finding and providing fair use for pics is something I'm not so hot on. (15:58, 2 September 2007 (UTC)) [The Elfoid]

Sorry, usually put these things in right place. Simple mistake :P.

Fans can submit photos freely to VHND, might be able to get some kind of permission from there I guess. (The Elfoid 17:38, 2 September 2007 (UTC))

Orphaned non-free media (Image:TurnItOnAgainTheTour.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:TurnItOnAgainTheTour.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 05:19, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Fair use disputed for Image:SickOfTheStudio07.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:SickOfTheStudio07.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 04:45, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Fair use disputed for Image:MacAruthurParkSingle.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:MacAruthurParkSingle.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 04:50, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Fair use disputed for Image:BeforeWeWereSoRudelyInterrupted.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:BeforeWeWereSoRudelyInterrupted.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 05:21, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Ha!
I suspected you were a fellow traveler, agewise - must be your music sensibilities... Your interview may not have been read by as many people (I heard from someone I haven't been in touch with in almost 40 years!), but you had the opportunity to expand on your comments and you were well quoted - mine is a typical newspaper article which boiled down an hour or more long interview to a very few short points - and put the emphasis in a way that I might not have. (E.g., I didn't "insist" on anything!) So congrats to you on yours. But I am happy with the piece - I think it overall gave a good view of how Wikipedia works in this area, and it was, after all, front page of the Washington Post which ain't bad. And as I've said elsewhere - this isn't a CIA mission (as far as I know) - so "revealing" my identity was no big deal. Thanks for the note! (No email?) Tvoz | talk 15:01, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Couldn't resist
Sorry, I couldn't resist trying to sneak the president category in for Hillary. I think we all know it's going to happen by now though; Bill Maher's observation about the Republicans basically going "oh shit, maybe we should try to make them vote for the black guy instead" was pretty accurate. You might as well revert my edits to Iron Lady, since it seems to have been overlooked. Paliku 11:36, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Downbound Train
Thanks for expanding this, I think this is a great song and one of my favs from the album. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tprayx (talk • contribs) 16:23, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

still bothering me
How do you feel about revisiting this? Tvoz | talk 20:12, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Yeah - I agree with that strategy. I'm asking because a prime mover behind insisting on the reinstatement, and the accompanying list, may be gone from these parts, and we might be able to have another discussion on this and get back to the consensus that I think we had reached previously regarding integrating controversies into the various articles - which you've done a great job of. To me the short section in the main article is unneeded and somewhat awkward, and the list defeats the purpose of not having segregated controversy sections and articles. But I'm certainly willing to wait to see if this is raised n FA discussions, and I don't think it's crucial. Just an annoying thing that I think we had handled well previously. Tvoz | talk 01:27, 24 September 2007 (UTC)


 * About preparing for FA - I had forgotten that I said I'd work on the formats. I picked up a few tonight - are there any sections you think need attention on that? I don't mind doing that.  Or any other areas you think need attentio? Tvoz | talk 04:15, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

the latest
Sigh. I don't recall - did you have any interactions with this? I'm getting familiar vibes. Tvoz | talk 22:59, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
 * You have no idea how lucky you are, if you had no such interactions. Trust me. Tvoz | talk 01:27, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Soul2Soul2007.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:Soul2Soul2007.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 05:18, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Paul v. Clinton revert
Should we put a citation after every single word? I don't think that would look good. What do you say? Isaac Pankonin 09:21, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Interview...
The interview was inspiring, I'm glad to discover a human face behind these monikers that consume my online thoughts. I met Hillary a few years ago, and have watched her page since. You're right that Tony Bennett was a mess, I've worked so hard to get Sinatra into some kind of shape, and think I'll apply for Good status soon to get a few pointers. Thanks for all your good work. Gareth E Kegg 17:58, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:ThePoliceReunionTourPoster.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:ThePoliceReunionTourPoster.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 03:58, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:TheRisingSingle.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:TheRisingSingle.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 04:15, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Bobby DeLaughter
Thanks for this. I was actually on my way to do that, but I saw that you had already done it :-) Happy editing! -- Ag ü  eybaná  22:05, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:MagicBruceSpringsteen.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:MagicBruceSpringsteen.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 02:59, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:HOBM+M'S.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:HOBM+M'S.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 04:53, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

FAC
I'm not sure of the protocol here - I assume that involved editors don't comment on the FAC? If otherwise, let me know as I'd be happy to say something. Good luck - you've done a terrific job with these articles. Tvoz | talk 16:26, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

wow
I am speechless. Email me if you want to know why. Tvoz | talk 03:58, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

victim
I'll self-revert if you don't agree with my last edit - let me know Tvoz | talk 23:26, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh hang on - I got caught in a WIkipedia Foundation error message. I'll post my suggested change here in a minute. Tvoz | talk 23:28, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't love the "victim" here or in the other instance, but I think this might improve at least this mention: change to "...not for any professional or political achievement of her own but for being seen as the victim of her husband's very public infidelity." That might be why people have added "alleged" - it's not that his infidelity is alleged, is that her victimhood is alleged - I'd like to come up with a better word than victim, though. Tvoz | talk 23:33, 4 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I give up - now I see that my change did go through - I'll self-revert if you don't like it so you don't add onto your reverts today. Tvoz | talk 23:35, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

second term
I did a little rearranging of 'second term' to try to accommodate the stubbiness complaint, before seeing that you had said you didn't think the section needed redoing - see what you think of what I did, and if you don't like it, it's ok with me to revert. I don't love combining the 1st and last graf, but there's no particular reason to lead with the financial, is there? I do think the section might benefit from an intro sentence in any case, and a little expansion of the section might be a good idea. Tvoz | talk 19:12, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Trying the financial disclosure sentence in the 2008 Presidential campaign section - it's not really about her second term as Senator, just took place during it, and is more closely associated with the campaign, I think. What do you think? Tvoz | talk 19:15, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

approval ratings
I answered the question about her approval rating height based on the sources I have, but could you confirm that or correct it? thx Tvoz | talk 08:39, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Reference tool suggestion
If you are not doing so already, try using this reference generator tool to speed standardization of article references. Just open the cited articles in another window and use Control-C and Control-V to move the text for each field across. --HailFire 11:23, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Good heavens - that's fantastic! Tvoz | talk 05:13, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Image source problem with Image:HartfordWhalersBanners.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:HartfordWhalersBanners.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.

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 14:43, 7 October 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI 14:43, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Image source problem with Image:HartfordCivicCenterSoldOut.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:HartfordCivicCenterSoldOut.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.

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 14:43, 7 October 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI 14:43, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Paul vs. Clinton FAC
Howdy WTR! Actually Ron Paul is my first serious Wikipedia attempt (along with anything I do with HRC). Now that there are two presidential FA candidates, and anticipating that we two will both have long strings of significant comments on "each other"'s articles, might it be better not to clog up the FAC page after our initial salvos by instead creating "Cleanup for FAC" sections on both talk pages? I will certainly be working on your comments. John J. Bulten 20:18, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Cite templates
Hey, I never got back to the cite template questions/issues on the Clinton FAC (got sidelined by dental issues), and I meant to give you some examples. Cite templates are not required on FAs; WP:WIAFA requires consistently formatted citations, but doesn't specify the method. I only raised the issue because someone apparently gave you the idea they were required, which is completely incorrect, although I recognize that going backwards to manual citations isn't likely to happen. When they're used, they often require just as much cleanup as some articles that are manually cited, as editors don't always use them correctly. Lots of editors hate the cite templates because they return inconsistent results, are clunky, and they *seriously* chunk up the article size. Article size isn't normally an issue, but when long articles are additionally burdened by extra KB in citations, they can be very slow loading. According to someone (I can't remember, and I didn't verify this myself) from when I fought the Extra Long Article Committee, half of the world still uses dialup; I know that when I travel, I'm often forced to use dialup, and an article like Clinton just won't load so I can't even work on it. To give you an example, compare Barack Obama to Tourette syndrome. They're almost exactly the same prose size (Obama is 32KB readable prose, TS is 33 KB) and they are both heavily cited articles. But, Obama uses cite templates, so has 34KB in references—more than the prose !! I manually cited TS, and even though it's as heavily cited as Obama, it has only 17KB in references, and I don't have problems loading it on slow connections. Anyway, this is not to say that you can change Clinton back at this stage (although if someone wrote a script to generate manual refs from cite templates, I'd use it all over the place), but just to give you an example of how much overhead the cite templates add. The argument that they are consistent isn't valid; they amount to garbage in-garbage out, and so many editors use them wrongly that they can return results just as bad as manual citations, and the different templates aren't consistent (for example, they handle dates differently, and cite journal returns irritating punctuation and spacing problems that you don't get when manually citing). The last time I looked at Clinton (several days ago), there were quite a few citation errors. I'm going to get over there sometime today to make some sample edits so you can see what I mean, but first I need to find time to enter a serious Oppose on Ron Paul, because I'm surprised that an article that is so clearly unprepared for FAC has gotten any Supports, so I first need to weigh in there. Regards, Sandy Georgia (Talk) 15:54, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I left you some sample issues to work on in edit summaries; I normally would do much more, but honestly, working on this article is a bear. The article is so large and so slow-loading (even on a good connection) that each minor edit took me two to three minutes.  Ugh, I really wish ya'll would make good use of summary style and move some content to daughter articles.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 16:56, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't think there's anything you can do about the way the cite template chunks up the size; we're stuck with that until/unless someone writes a script to manually undo them, and I don't think there's a lot of demand for that. But you can so something about the prose size, which (last time I checked) exceeds WP:SIZE guidelines of 30 to 50KB prose, but making good use of summary style and daughter articles. In both articles (Reagan and Clinton), we should be able to use higher quality sources than Newsmax and Newsday. My point on Clinton was that using only one source of that (lower) quality and not the other made it look like cherry picking, since one presented it one way, and the other presented another side of the story. In the case of Reagan, there really should be higher quality sources available as well; it's just a matter of getting to a library to find them, I suspect. HTH, Sandy Georgia (Talk) 01:37, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Here's a bit more: . We should strive to use the highest quality sources available on BLPs, and in all of these cases (both Reagans and Clinton), high quality sources should be available.  If they're not, the statements sourced to lesser quality sources probably aren't that noteworthy.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 02:06, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

You know John J is trying to derail the FAC
Here is a quote from him. "Rest assured that, as one of 50,000 Ron Paul supporters, I will be happy to use only valid, well-precedented stall tactics to slow or prevent FA status." From his actions on the page you can see that is exactly what he is doing. I am pretty sure he is a sock of some kind anyway. Turtlescrubber 16:21, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

The Animals articles
Thanks for the feedback on The Animals articles. I've mostly done baseball related articles but have been a big fan of The Animals since I was a teenager in Detroit back in the 1970s. Some of the best music ever. Thanks also for your help in improving. Cbl62

Re: Introducing information in album infoboxes
While I admit that many album articles include certain info only in the infobox, doing so is generally discouraged. We have guidelines about personnel sections (WP:ALBUM) and release history (WP:ALBUM) to promote inclusion of such info in the article body. In the case of personnel, such info should definitely exist in the personnel section, per WP:ALBUM and WP:ALBUMA. Note also that certain info should only exist in abbreviated form in the infobox (see WP:ALBUM and WP:ALBUM), with the full information in the article body. --PEJL 13:13, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

hahahaha
"High-voltage", eh? Well, I'm not going to be the one to take it out. Tvoz | talk 06:35, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:AnimalTracksUSCover.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:AnimalTracksUSCover.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 12:01, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Animals Don't Bring Me Down.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Animals Don't Bring Me Down.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 12:06, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:DestinyFulfilledTour.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:DestinyFulfilledTour.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 08:37, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:1985-SunCity.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:1985-SunCity.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 09:55, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Nancy Reagan
I added the photo. I didn't replace the Drug Abuse conference one with it, but moved that one up and put this one underneath it. Now about the caption; should it mention anything about "the gaze?" As of now, I have nothing about it. Happyme22 02:30, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Beatles1965USATourBooklet.jpeg
Thanks for uploading Image:Beatles1965USATourBooklet.jpeg. 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 21:21, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:BloodBrothersEP.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:BloodBrothersEP.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 23:57, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

A note
Hey, WTR, in the interest of not escalating the issues (which are quite problematic), it may be best not to use the he/she/it construction when referring to a person. Best regards, Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 23:14, 30 October 2007 (UTC) P.S. I understand that "it" probably refers to the issues, but s/he may not.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 23:15, 30 October 2007 (UTC)