User talk:Tuzapicabit/Archive

The Nolans

Just saw the date correction for the name switch. Don't know if you saw my note re the copyright problem -- might be good not to make changes until the non-violating version goes up (should be done by tomorrow). Will make sure the corrected date goes in of course. Gusworld (talk) 02:00, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry 'bout that. Didn't see your note. I didn't mention it because I considered it such a minor alteration, but it's more accurate to say before 1980 than before 1979 as they were still The Nolan Sisters all the way through 1979 (in fact still so in early 1980) - as evidenced on their self-titled album. --Tuzapicabit (talk) 15:15, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Hey, no worries -- the current version is a bit rambling re the changeover, but the way you've summed it up is dead right. I was more concerned that you might make other changes and that I'd miss them when producing the non-copyright version, which would be unfair both to you and the article. Gusworld (talk) 21:30, 4 April 2008 (UTC) OK, the new copyvio-free version has gone up, and I've explained what's changed on the article talk page. If you get the chance to read over it and can suggest other areas that need improvement, expansion or correction, that'd be great. Gusworld (talk) 05:00, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Brotherhood of Man

Hey Tuzapicabit. Glad to hear you didn't think my review was to harsh! Also glad to hear you've already started to work on the addressing some of my concerns. The source of information is basically where the url come from. So http://www.emusic.com/artist/1171/11711781.html is from EMusic. That's what I meant. Before you start fixing up the citations, however, I'd like to highly recommend using Citation templates, as they do all the formatting for you. You just plug in the url, publisher, accessdate whatever and it does the rest for you. They're a little tricky at first, but check out the code of a few other articles and should be pretty easy to figure out. As for the birthdays and stuff, I brought that up because the article is supposed to be more about the band rather then the people. When they were born doesn't really have much to do with the band. Usually that stuff would be put into articles for each of the members themselves. The fact that the members don't have articles as of yet is unfortunate, but the info still doesn't really apply here. As for the discography, it's perfectly alright to have a discography page be pretty long. Take a look at Nine Inch Nails discography, it's huge! My point was that it's better to have super-specific info like that charts on a separate page rather than the band page. Again, because the article is about the band, not necessarily all of their releases. Let me know if you have any more questions. Drewcifer (talk) 11:25, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Jay Aston

With regard to this, "What on earth have you done to this page? I was in the middle of expanding/rewriting it as well as adding a picture and not only have you changed it - you've knocked off the second half of the page - including ALL the references." What on earth have I done? Firstly I haven't changed anything other than remove spaces in sources that I added, and I also expanded the infobox to the correct format. I did nothing else to the page and have not changed anything. I previewed after my last edit and I can assure you that the second half of the page was not "knocked off" and nor were the references missing. If you check you will find that it was your last edit that "knocked off the second half of the page including ALL the references" when you missed off ">" at the end of </ref>. Your was the last edit, and it was your last edit that removed all the content you believe I removed. I have therefore reverted your last edit to restore it then you can edit it to your hearts content and add the content back in again with the refs etc correct. All I did was remove the spaces from the sources (the sources which I had added some time ago) and amend/expand the infobox to the correct format. Have fun. When doing major edits and re-writes etc it helps to add the "inuse" tag on articles. That way other users will know to wait and know that yor are "in the middle of expanding/rewriting" it and leave it alone until you finish.♦Tangerines♦·Talk 20:21, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

And as you will now see as you have chosen to revert my edit which restored the article back to the correct format, it was your edit, not mine that removed the content as it is now again (after your last edit) back without the references and the rest of the content.♦Tangerines♦·Talk 20:27, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I see that you have now discovered where you (and not me) knocked off the second half of the page including all the references and you have corrected the error. Just FYI though, your reverting my edit also removed deletion of spacing which will need removing at some point. And as you have not added the inuse tag I have added it for you so that other users know.♦Tangerines♦·Talk 20:35, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

No worries, but it does help to check first!!! :) I will say though that the article did need work doing on it and it is great that you are doing so. As I said though the spacing in the ref templates still needs removing. I can do that after you finish editing if you like? And the reason I expanded the infobox was so that it could have a lot more information in it than just her pic! Good work though, keep it up.♦Tangerines♦·Talk 20:40, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Aye, the infobox to be honest I had "nicked it" from the Alicia Keys article and just left in the solo singer and actress bits as I realised that perhaps they weren't too relevant! Missing off even one character when adding sources though virtually always has the result as you have seen where much of the content goes missing> I know as I have done it myself before now and then spent ages trying to find where I messed up so I am good at finding the missing characters now!!! I will expand the BBC source you added to one of the templayes though later. And I presume it's ok to remove the inuse tag now?!♦Tangerines♦·Talk 20:57, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

BoM discography

I can't believe you've just completely changed my page on Brotherhood of Man discography. Several administrators had seen the page, but none had told me to remove anything. All the pictures were fair use. The page as it stands is completely useless, and may as well be completely removed. Why do you so desperately want to ruin an informative page like this? One that I'd spent a lot of time putting together? It was a good refernce as to what songs were on each album and to what each album looked like. I'm disgusted.--Tuzapicabit (talk) 19:48, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I've just realised that you're one of the administrators that has viewed the page and gave me advice on it! Why did you suddenly decide to do this?--Tuzapicabit (talk) 19:51, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry if my edits came across as a bit destructive. Let me try and explain. As far as the images go, there's been a huge amount of discussion and (eventually) consensus that copyrighted images (regardless of if one is claiming fair-use or not) are not allowed in lists such as discographies. The reasons for this are pretty complicated (having to do with copyright laws, fair-use laws, Wikipedia policy, and the like), but just trust me on this one. As for the track listings, these are generally discouraged in discographies simply because a discography, by definition, is a list of releases, not the individual songs/tracks on these releases. It is a discography, not a songography. As for the infoboxes, these are generally used for articles of the album itself, but, again, not a list of the releases, mainly because the infoboxes go into more detail then a discography requires and because they depend to a large degree on an image of the album cover.

But! All is not lost. It's obvious you put alot of work into the page, and I wouldn't want all of that hard work to go to waste. So, here's what I recommend: infoboxes and track listings and the like don't belong in a discography, but there's no reason why you can't move that same info over to articles for the albums themselves. So, I got the first one started for you: United We Stand (album). I'd recommend moving all of the info into individual pages, then linking the discography and the main BoM pages to the album pages.

As for the discography itself, it does look a little bit sparse now, but it too is certainly not beyond help. First, I'd recommend taking a look at MOS:DISCOG, a style guideline I wrote for people in your shoes. I'd also recommend taking a look at other discographies, particularly those deemed "Featured lists" (reviewed to be the best lists in Wikipedia). My personal favorites being Nine Inch Nails discography and The Prodigy discography.

Anyways, I hope my explanations of stuff have been a little helpful. Please let me know if there's anything I can do to help. Drewcifer (talk) 20:06, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I see you're involved in the Nine inch Nails page - well, what interest can Brotherhood of Man possibly have to a Nine inch nails fan? You've done this out of pure spite. I've deleted the info completely, because the page is completely useless as it was. --Tuzapicabit (talk) 20:06, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Just got your response, but the fact is Brotherhood of Man albums (all of them?) don't warrant a page each (only some of them actually charted)- hence the reason why I put all the albums on one page. So it's like a load of mini album pages in one. By the by, I'm certainly not spending any more time on this - I did my work and you took it away. Just forget it now. I'm done with Wikipedia. It was a labour of love at first, but it's been a nightmare since.--Tuzapicabit (talk) 20:11, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Again, I'm sorry to hear if my edits came across poorly, or if you feel they were destructive in any way. I have a fair amount of experience in editing discography articles, so perhaps my edits/deletions were a little quick on the draw. That said, it was (and usually is) my intention to make Wikipedia a more consistent place, meaning that discographies as a whole usually work best written and formatted a certain way, the conventions being figured out through trial and error and alot of hard work (much of which is eventually deleted, my own edits being no exception). But like I said, all is not lost. I disagree that the BoM albums don't deserve a page of their own - charts are generally not an indicator of notability, notability being the chief indicator of what should and shouldn't be on Wikipedia. BoM are "notable" therefore I would argue that most of the albums are in turn "notable", and therefore worthy of articles.

And the good news is that alot of the work has already been done: when I made the United We Stand article a few minutes ago, literally all I did was copy+paste the stuff you already did from the BoM discography to the new page. A few minor tweaks here and there, and it literally took me 2 or 3 minutes.

The discography article itself is a different story, that will probably take a bit more work, but I do hope you are up to it. I'd be more then happy to help you in the process, if you wish.

Lastly, I don't think my concentration on Nine Inch Nails articles really have any bearing on the situation at hand: I've worked on plenty of "less edgy" articles, and assisted other editors in countless more on topics ranging from Buddhism to the Solar System.

So, I hope you reconsider leaving Wikipedia, as it seems you're the only editor consistently adding information on a niche topic. I know Wikipedia can be a frustrating place, but try and assume good faith, and consider everything I've said. I'd be more then happy to help you out with all of the above - rather then dumping a ton of work on your lap and moving on - but ultimately that's up to you. Drewcifer (talk) 20:29, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Okay, since things have calmed down, I've taken your advice and redone the BOM pages as seperate album pages. I do apologize for my over-reaction to your edits (can you tell I was having a bad day?!!) and my assumption that you were an administrator. I do understand of course the need to keep Wikipedia accurate and to the correct format. I myself have made several edits to other people's articles (although perhaps not as big, unless I am fairly confident I can radically improve the subject matter, but I bow to your greater experience). Again, please accept my apologies and hopefully in time I will learn to take these changes on the chin a little more. Thanks for being so patient (and more mature!)in your replies.--Tuzapicabit (talk) 00:50, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Glad to see you're back! Don't worry about the other day: I know Wikipedia can be a frustrating place for new users, especially when so much time and commitment goes into stuff that might be deleted or completely redone. I myself have been in a similar situation countless times. For example, I worked on Ian Svenonius discography for weeks: it was beautiful! But long story short, it doesn't even exist now: once I realized the many problems with the article, I was the one who asked for it to be deleted! So I guess that's my little "back-in-the-day" schpeel. I'm glad to see the BoM page back up and looking better then ever. I know I already mentioned this, but consider taking a look at MOS:DISCOG for some more advice on how to keep improving it. I'd also recommend taking a look at a few good examples of other successful discographies , perhaps even – gasp – Nine Inch Nails discography. If you need any help along the way, don't hesitate to drop me a line. Drewcifer (talk) 02:16, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply. Having looked at it, I have to agree the Nine Inch Nails discog is really impressive and has given me allsorts of ideas (I'd never even considered putting a write-up on a discography page - I thought of it as just a list page). It's a shame the picture crteria is so strict as the Live picture you've used somehow doesn't really fit the article (not unless the concert in question was released as an album) - or perhaps a photo of all their albums/singles laid out might work. It's given me an idea for a few other acts as well - funnily enough, Brotherhood of Man are not my favourite artist (they were my first love - so I know quite a lot about them), but other artist pages I can't get near, although perhaps I could do a discography on Bucks Fizz. Their page is not great (I've done pages for all their albums and members), but I know the guy that wrote the main page, so I'm reluctant to tamper with it. (Although I suppose I'm lucky in that I have one group that no-one else seems really to want to write about (although I do know a few mega-fans - but perhaps they've got lives!) - so it's all down to me! My brother is an Abba fan - so you can imagine how far he'd get on their page before it was pounced upon!) Anyway, this is me just thinking aloud - ignore my ramblings. Thank you again for opening my eyes to the possibilities and being so understanding. --Tuzapicabit (talk) 07:14, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Eurovision '81

I saw you've been a heavy recent contributor to the Eurovision '81 article. I started the article on the presenter and I was wondering if you had any sources or would like to help me build up her article. Please let me know. Mike H. Fierce! 21:01, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I went ahead and moved all the other external links to reflist style. The early life stuff is very interesting...what sources can we cite for it? If it's from the brochure you created, maybe you have some notes scribbled down either from a book you had read or if it was cited on the Eurovision broadcast. Either way, we can cite it that way and it should have refs sooner rather than later. Mike H. Fierce! 23:29, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, that was one of my big fears. I kept using "she" because I didn't know how to use Irish names. If you know the correct way to phrase it, please change it; I just don't want to continue using "she." Mike H. Fierce! 23:41, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Also, do you have a year of birth for her? I figured if you knew where she graduated you might know when and could surmise a year from that. I can only assume she was born somewhere between 1950 and 1954 but I don't know it for certain. Mike H. Fierce! 23:48, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Flagicons in infoboxes

Please read Wikipedia:Manual of Style (flags) before adding any more flagicons to artist/band infoboxes. Specifically read Wikipedia:Manual of Style (flags)#Not for use in locations of birth and death for flagicons in artists infoboxes and Template:Infobox Musical artist#Origin for flagicons in band infoboxes. Aspects (talk) 23:28, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Eurovision '86

Now I'm trying to improve some of the '86 articles, specifically J'aime la vie, which I find humorous, since I think it's one of the worst winners...at least before all the Eastern European countries started voting for one another and racking up wins. I just added a quote from an interview Sandra Kim did with a Belgian Eurovision website. How much did '86 interest you, and would you like to help there too? Mike H. Fierce! 04:39, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Doireann Ní Bhriain

On 10 June, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Doireann Ní Bhriain, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--BorgQueen (talk) 08:49, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Commis chef

I assumed it was a training level in a European country of some sort as we here in American pretend to be chefs after our first day of culinary school. I would just like to add a source to the addition as the rest of the article other than the uniform information that was added recently has been sourced (mostly by me). Also it will help by explaining the countries in which that time frame exits as we here in the US barely ever see the term commis chef used anymore, sort of went out with Escoffier (sadly in my opinion). I personally do not think that commis chef is a large enough topic to warrant its own article at this point. I would think it best to working on expanding chef as it is a relatively small article itself. I actually removed quite a few of the chef de partie positions about a year ago and merged them into the chef article as well.Chef Tanner (talk) 10:07, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:BF Rules of the game.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:BF Rules of the game.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:18, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Doireann/Eurovision

I've done a good job building up her article and sourcing the hell out of it. But there are some things in the Eurovision section that you wrote that need a source some way or the other. I'm specifically thinking of the statements:

• ...in which she said the jurors could vote in any language they liked.
• ...when she said her favorite Eurovision song was "Ding-a-Dong."
• ...her appreciation for Planxty.

I think that's it, but considering the interview I read with her from The Times where she really seems to dislike being known for Eurovision, I figure that section needs sourcing more than anything else just for relevancy's sake. We don't have to remove any of the statements, just add sourcing, even if it's something as simple as "she said it on the broadcast," that would work. Mike H. Fierce! 20:09, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know where the statements were from. A lot of the info came from an interview she did for The Times of London, which was dropped in the article by an anonymous IP (I'm assuming the IP was Doireann herself; Alison wrote an e-mail to her, in Irish for extra brownie points, asking her for more news clippings and things to help with her article). Mike H. Fierce! 04:13, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

BBC Television Center London calling...

...and here are the results of the United Kingdom jury. (New article I wrote, read it, tell me what you think, and see if there's anything you think you can add.) Mike H. Fierce! 05:59, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

When We Were Young

Please create a new article at When We Were Young (Bucks Fizz single) instead of moving articles about just because you think one is not notable and the other is.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 11:37, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

To be fair - When We Were Young by Bucks Fizz is a well known song and a hit in many European countries. The album doesn't seem to be notable at all - as evidenced by the album's page itself.--Tuzapicabit (talk) 11:42, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, the album's article was here first.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 11:42, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I've also seen that you've been doing this to other articles, renaming them to place the Bucks Fizz song instead, including a Beatles' song. Please stop these moves.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 11:44, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

That's not true - I changed the Run for your life article to Run for your life - Bucks Fizz single - I conceded that the Beatles song was more notable.--Tuzapicabit (talk) 11:45, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

This may be true, but the moves were not undone. I had to fix a couple of moves that you made to more notable songs to put them back at their original titles. It may seem that the Bucks Fizz song is more notable, but one person cannot decide this.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 11:47, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

And you moved the album article to the single title. I have to fix this now, too.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 11:48, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Stop moving the pages. Please. Use what you were typing at When We Were Young and put it at When We Were Young (Bucks Fizz single). Stop moving things around.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 11:54, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm halfway through doing the page - why can't you wait till I'm done? --Tuzapicabit (talk) 11:56, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Because you're making more of a mess than is necessary.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 11:57, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Well can you at least put what I've written so far into the new page so that it's not lost?--Tuzapicabit (talk) 12:01, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

The following is what you wrote. When you can edit again, you can put it at When We Were Young (Bucks Fizz single):

"When We Were Young" is a single by UK pop group [[Bucks Fizz (band)|Bucks Fizz]].

Released in June 1983, this was the group's ninth consecutive top 20 hit. The song eventually peaked at No.10 and remained on the chart for 9 weeks. It was the first and only single to feature lead vocals by [[Jay Aston]].

The song was notable for it's change in direction for the group. The production was heavy and the song had an ominous tone far removed from the group's usual pop sound. This was to be Bucks Fizz's last top 10 hit for three years.

The [[Promotional video]] for the song featured Aston dressed in rags with long unkempt hair against a garishly-coloured [[chroma key]] background.

"When We Were Young" was later featured on the group's first [[Greatest Hits - Bucks Fizz |Greatest Hits]] album and was also released as an extended 12" version.

—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 12:11, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

how to find it (maybe)

I would suggest web searching "Doctor Who" and "Bionic Woman" or the episodes themselves. You might need to look at those sites that rate episodes, maybe even send them an email specifically enquiring about that. Until then, i am thinking you should remove the uncited info. Good luck.- Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 23:17, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Bionic Woman cancellation

Just FYI I reverted the removal of the statement regarding the cancellation, but added a citation from Herbie Pilato's book on the history of the Bionic series. 23skidoo (talk) 03:23, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm Never Giving Up

So I was going to write some of my favorite UK Eurovision entries, and I found that between 1981 and 1996, there were no articles on the UK entries. So I wrote one; let me know what you think and if you'd like to help with any other entries. Didn't you tell me you liked Runner in the Night by Ryder? Mike H. Fierce! 07:12, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Tonight I wrote the article for "Love Games," I forgot to tell you. Take a look at that one. Mike H. Fierce! 08:12, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Now "One Step Further" is created. "Love Is" is next. Mike H. Fierce! 04:01, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Love Is is done; I'm gonna have a stab at redoing "Runner in the Night." Read over them, let me know what you think, and tell me what your progress is about finding old 45 sleeves! Mike H. Fierce! 05:57, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

"Only the Light" done now. ...that was painful. Mike H. Fierce! 20:27, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

It'd probably be quicker to follow a lot of the links from the proposed template I'm making in my user space. I've made a lot of progress (as of this writing I finished the 1991 article). Mike H. Fierce! 09:51, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Replaceable fair use Image:BOM 1976.jpg

Replaceable fair use

Thanks for uploading Image:BOM 1976.jpg. I noticed the description page specifies that the media is being used under a claim of fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first non-free content criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this media is not replaceable, please:

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

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

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per our non-free content policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? J Milburn (talk) 11:23, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Brotherhood of Man image

Well, for the infobox image, I don't think it is really acceptable- if a free image is possible for the infobox, it should be used. However, I do see where you are coming from, and I think a smaller version of the image you uploaded could be used on the main article (but not the discography article). Is the band lineup different on the image you just uploaded? Does the article talk about the 'image' of the band in the earlier days? J Milburn (talk) 11:55, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

No, do it the other way around- put the modern, free image in the infobox and on the discography page (just add a caption explaining that it's a recent shot) and stick the older image in the history section, in the same sort of place that the article discusses the band at that time- I'll add a rationale, as the standard 'album cover' one doesn't really cover it. J Milburn (talk) 12:11, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I've added a rationale to the non-free image- you may want to add something similar to that to the other album covers you're using in the article. The automatic album fair use rationale only works for album covers in infoboxes in album articles- in the artist page, you are not using them as album covers, you are using them to show the band at different times. Also, you are using quite a lot of non-free images in that article- it may be best to remove a few of them, otherwise you may find someone removes them all and nominates them for deletion. J Milburn (talk) 12:34, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:BOM - Save.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:BOM - Save.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:23, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Replaceable fair use Image:BOM_1976.jpg

Replaceable fair use

Thanks for uploading Image:BOM_1976.jpg. I noticed the description page specifies that the media is being used under a claim of fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first non-free content criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this media is not replaceable, please:

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

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

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per our non-free content policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Melesse (talk) 10:45, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Re: Brotherhood of Man

Thank you for looking into the photo I'd put up of Brotherhood of Man and reducing the size as I didn't know how to. Someone pointed this out to me yesterday. I figured the picture was important due to the fact that it isn't realistically replaceable with a fans-own picture taken during the era that the group was successful (mid-late 70s). There is a fair-use picture I could use of the group from 2007, but doesn't seem really appropriate to the main body of the article.

Thanks for your help, but I'd be interested to hear what you think as per my explanation above - it's a portion of an album cover, but I'm not sure if this is good enough reason? Can you help with this, or should I just use the 2007 photo?--Tuzapicabit (talk) 14:42, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

If there is a freely licensed picture available, you must use that one instead. Melesse (talk) 23:27, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

No. Please read the non-free image criteria. I'm going to say it again, if there is a freely licensed picture available, you must use that one instead. Melesse (talk) 23:33, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:J Aston.jpg

Image Copyright problem

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

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. Sdrtirs (talk) 02:37, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Eurovision

Hello, you appear to have listed yourself as a member of Wikipedia:WikiProject Eurovision. A discussion is currently ongoing on the talk page on reform of this projects goals and organisation. Proposals have been made on the future covering and scope of WikiProjects relating to the Eurovision Dance Contest, Eurovision Song Contest, and the Junior Eurovision Song Contest. These proposals include possibly re-naming WikiProject Eurovision to WikiProject Eurovision Song Contest and starting a new project called WikiProject Eurovision Dance Contest. As a member of this project, you may wish to give your input at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Eurovision. Thank you. Camaron | Chris (talk) 08:42, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Sonia

Go ahead and edit the meaning of the line if you like...I was going through a marathon of those articles and songs and that was the last one in a string of 12 or so I did, and it's reasonable enough to expect things to get past me by that time. I went ahead and put the summary template on the picture. Mike H. Fierce! 02:50, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

I also did Knock Knock, Who's There? Mike H. Fierce! 02:50, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Bardo

I went ahead and put an addenda on the article as far as the Eurovision and single versions sounded...the Harrogate version sounded almost deliberately retro, but I added the sentence The single version and subsequent live versions sampled many facets of electronica music popular in the early '80s and had more of a contemporary feel. Do you feel that's correct? Let me know. Mike H. Fierce! 06:27, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Then I'd try to edit it into something more reasonable...it has electronic sounds (some of Sally Ann's first lyrics sound digitized), and the beginning has a lot of keyboard sounds that come across as very 1980s. Maybe it's not electronica per se, but it has to be described accurately and maybe you can reword it better. The kids sing on Cheggers Plays Pop! There's something about Sally Ann that's very captivating; I think it's her beauty...she looks like Karen Carpenter (obviously when Karen was a healthy weight)...I think it's the hair and eyes that set off the resemblance. Mike H. Fierce! 05:52, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Image without license

Unspecified source/license for Image:Dollar david and thereza.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Dollar david and thereza.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. Even if you created the image yourself, you still need to release it so Wikipedia can use it. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you made this image yourself, you can use copyright tags like {{PD-self}} (to release all rights), {{self|CC-by-sa-3.0|GFDL}} (to require that you be credited), or any tag here - just go to the image, click edit, and add one of those. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by MifterBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. --MifterBot ^{(Talk • Contribs • Owner)} 15:43, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

You can have it - it's a terrible picture anyway!--Tuzapicabit (talk) 16:57, 8 August 2008 (UTC)