User talk:MrFizyx/Archive4

This page is now an archive. Please leave new messages on my current talk page.

• Archive1, March - July 2006
• Archive2, August - October 2006
• Archive3, Nov 2006 - Dec 2007

Fair use rationale for Image:Born2Add.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Born2Add.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 Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Rockfang (talk) 00:01, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

NEED PERMISSION TO START MY SONGS PAGE

I had previously saved all of the articles under "Songs" that were deleted 2 months+ ago. I'm going to post it on my personal subpage within a week and I need your permission for me to post them. Thank you, and good afternoon (from my place) iaNLOPEZ1115 (talk) 08:17, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Ohio Wesleyan University

Hello MrFizyx. From looking at the talk page of Ohio Wesleyan University, I have seen that you have extensively contributed to the article and its amelioration. Could you please comment on the current discussion here. Your opinions on the issue would be highly valuable. Thanks in advance. With regards, Anupam^Talk 02:17, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Non-free use disputed for Image:Born2Add.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Born2Add.jpg. Unfortunately, I think that you have not provided a proper rationale for using this image under "fair use". Please read the instructions at Wikipedia: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 Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page. Note that the image description page must include the exact name or a link to each article the image is used in and a separate rationale for each one. (If a link is used, automated processes may improperly add the related tag to the image. Please change the fair use template to refer to the exact name, if you see this warning.)

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted after seven days according to our Criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Rockfang (talk) 05:27, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I dispute your cliam that there should be a dispute. No rule states that each use & rationale have its own template nor are templates required at all. Feel free to split it up into as many templates as you please. -MrFizyx (talk) 05:36, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Please read Non-free content criteria (item 10c). It states: The name of each article (a link to the articles is recommended as well) in which fair use is claimed for the item, and a separate fair-use rationale for each use of the item, as explained at Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline. The rationale is presented in clear, plain language, and is relevant to each use. 10c is part of the non-free content criteria policy. Below item 10c in the enforcement section it states: An image that does not comply with this policy 48 hours after notification to the uploading editor will be deleted. This image does not comply with 10c because it does not have a separate fair-use rationale for each use of the item. This is why I tagged it. Do you disagree with this reply?--Rockfang (talk) 06:03, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Yep, I disagree. First, I have linked both articles and provided some rationale within the template under the section "description". There is no need to create a second template for the second rationale, in fact one need not use a template at all. Please read the page before you decide that rationales aren't there. If you wish to discuss the language or relevance that is another matter entirely, but if the format bothers you, fix it yourself. Second, I do not feel your interpretation that a violation of NFCC 10c should lead to the deletion of an image within 48 hours is sensible. If an image has at least one valid, fair use on Wikipedia that is supported by a rationale, why should it be deleted? -MrFizyx (talk) 06:55, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Ok. Here's the deal. That image as it stands right now, is not following Wikipedia policy. I'm going to address your issues point by point.

1. You state: There is no need to create a second template for the second rationale, in fact one need not use a template at all. I never said a using a second template (or any template at all) is required.
2. You state:Second, I do not feel your interpretation that a violation of NFCC 10c should lead to the deletion of an image within 48 hours is sensible. NFCC 10c is policy. I never interpreted anything. I quoted official Wikipedia policy. I don't make policy. I just try to follow it. If you don't like a policy, I'm not the one to talk to.
3. You state:If an image has at least one valid, fair use on Wikipedia that is supported by a rationale, why should it be deleted? Deletion isn't the only result of tagging images in the manner I did. When I tag images as violating policy I also attempt to notify the uploader of the image so they can remedy the situation. But, if an image is used twice and only has 1 rationale, then it needs to be tagged for fixing which could lead to deleting if it doesn't get fixed in time.

If you still don't understand what I'm trying to get across, then I'll ask someone else to explain it to you better.--Rockfang (talk) 09:22, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

You have yet to explain why the rationales are not followng policy?

1. My point is that both rationales have been provided in the same paragraph with the desired links to the articles. I don't think this is a violation; it just doesn't mesh well with the template I've chosen. Which use do you feel lacks a FUR?
2. Fair point. I probably should fight the policy...when and if I find time to waste doing that... Regardless, I think your choice of how to go about enforcing it is unhelpful. I don't think I'm the first point this out to you. In cases where one valid FUR exists deletion of the image should be a rather unlikely outcome. Although your latest note almost ackowledges this, it is not what you treaten here when you quote, "An image that does not comply with this policy 48 hours after notification to the uploading editor will be deleted." Perhpas you are taking this just a bit out of context or at least not grasping the spirit of the policy. This is merely my own opinion as I've had little to do with the development of that policy.
3. See 1 & 2.

Go tell your mamma and pappa if you want. -MrFizyx (talk) 22:10, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

You win. I give up trying to discuss things with people. All they do is just insult me.--Rockfang (talk) 22:52, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Alrighty then! -MrFizyx (talk) 14:47, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Image:SO!vol50_2.PNG

I have tagged Image:SO!vol50_2.PNG 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 {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags/Non-free. Thank you. Rockfang (talk) 09:46, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Image:SO!vol49_2_Pete_Seeger.PNG

I have tagged Image:SO!vol49_2_Pete_Seeger.PNG 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 {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags/Non-free. Thank you. Rockfang (talk) 09:47, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Mankita Dogs.jpg

Thank you for uploading Image:Mankita Dogs.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this image under "fair use" may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the image description page and add or clarify the reason why the image qualifies for fair use. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a fair use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for images used under the fair use policy require both a copyright tag and a fair use rationale.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it might be deleted by adminstrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 16:26, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Album sources

Would you care to weigh in on this discussion of reliable sources for album reviews? Thanks Jgm (talk) 15:14, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Page Edit

Hello, I am a university student who had the assignment of creating and keeping up a wikipedia article this semester and I would appreciate it if you could take a look at my article and give me some comments. The article is Waukee United Methodist Church

Thanks, Kbeichle (talk) 17:03, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Image:DaveCarter-smaller.jpg

I have tagged Image:DaveCarter-smaller.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. Some examples can be found at Wikipedia:Use rationale examples. Please also consider using {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags/Non-free. Thank you. Rettetast (talk) 14:14, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

another Dave Carter tribute song

FYI if you are editing on Dave Carter page...

See bottom of this page re another Dave Carter tribute song... http://www.patwictor.com/index.php?page=bio&category=Interviews_and_Articles&display=229

Song is on album here... http://cdbaby.com/cd/wictor5

68.35.127.169 (talk) 09:02, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Blue Jordan-related edits

Look, I understand that you want to keep these articles, but you really need to read the relevant policies on WP:MUSIC. A CD review, which you added to Janet Pressley, is clearly stated to be trivial coverage. In regards to general sourcing, the "articles" you added from HighBeam are from a pay service, and you only used the first few lines because that was what was free. That doesn't show how long the article was; what if that free part is the extent of the article? That would mean, again, that the coverage is trivial. You need beter sources, and I will bet they don't exist, because I looked. Most importantly, please explain to me how such a "notable" label has lost most of the artists it started with, and only released 19 albums in 11 years? There is a minimum criteria that needs to be met for notability, and these articles just don't cut it. MSJapan (talk) 16:28, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I have at times been involved in editing and discussing the policy, WP:MUSIC. You might read it too. It does not discuss record label articles. Thus notability for the Blue Jordan Records article would fall to WP:N, I feel I've presented an article that passes this criteria. WP:MUSIC does not state that "a CD review is trivial coverage" although we have at times discussed this on the talk page. Thanks for sharing your concerns, but I don't share them with you and you are not the "decider guy". FYI: I am done working on these article for now, so the {prod} on the other artist articles is likely to carry through. Good day. -MrFizyx (talk) 16:49, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Brhannan SSP

I created it after the account blatantly showed itself to be an SPA more interested in keeping an article than improving the encyclopedia. That "new user" was oversigning all his sigs, too. That's not the sign of either a new or a GF user. I didn't expect a COIN answer due to backlog, and ANI was borderline anyway - they're there for documentation purposes. MSJapan (talk) 23:34, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Comment I don't understand the intensity of this person's reaction, but I am deeply sorry for the mistakes I made. I have contributed to Wikipedia in the past; for example, I contributed a photograph that I took (Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dayton_Daily_News) because it seemed odd that the entry on a Pulitzer-prize winning newspaper would not have it. I contributed to the Katie Reider entry because I know something of the artist and had information to contribute that would enhance the entry. I did not create the initial entry; I only sought to make it better after I learned of her death and visited Wikipedia to learn more about what happened. The entry was clearly lacking! I appreciate the comments you've made on my behalf in other forums, so I'm stopping by here to let you know your interpretation of events is correct and to offer my side of the story. Nomad 2 (talk) 19:45, 1 August 2008 (UTC)