User talk:Mareino/Archive 6

Seeking community input re standardizing baseball roster pages

Hi ... I'm leaving you this note because you recently made edits to one of the Major League Baseball roster pages. I've made a proposal for standardizing the format, structure and content of these pages here and would appreciate your input so that we may reach a consensus. Thanks. --Sanfranman59 22:58, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stop retagging seals

Just because a state seal is a seal doesn't make it public domain. SOME seals are public domain. Others are not. It is a case by case determination. For example, you retagged California's seal, but as I recall there was heavy debate about the copyright status of this image of late that concluded it was copyrighted. Please stop. --Durin 20:33, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Please stop edit warring over this and continuing to retag images. I am raising this issue in other places and expect resolution shortly. It's highly unlikely the German embassy can release rights to these images. Your work will be undone. --Durin 20:44, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • They can and they have, mainly because (1) virtually every state waived its copyright on its seal, (2) virtually all of these seals are over 100 years old, so even if the copyright was not properly protected, it has expired. A lot of people label images "fair use" because they have no idea what the law is. Well, we have a whole host of state statutes and a federal government site saying that these seals are free. Who are you going to believe -- the anonymous person who posted the images as fair use, or the US government? --M@rēino 20:47, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The U.S. federal government has no authority to release the copyright rights of any state agency. The U.S. embassy simply does not have legal standing to do so, any more than they do to release your rights to a book you publish. They simply do not have it. Some seals are over 100 years old. Some are not. Some have been released. Some have not. That's why it's case by case. On Wikipedia, we presume something is copyrighted until it is positively proven that it is available under a free license. That's why things get labeled fair use around here, not necessarily because people have no clue. If you believe a federal government has, in law, released rights to these images would you be so kind as to cite the law where this was done? I can assure you it hasn't been done; they don't have the rights to do so. The U.S. German Embassy website is in error, pure and simple. --Durin 20:51, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • (ec)Mareino, Durin is saying that the German embassy most probably does not have the authority to release the rights on these images. It is connected the US government, but the US government does not explicitly have the right to release state seals. In any case, if Durin does revert, please do not revert back. It's best to discuss this matter completely before taking any action that may lead to protection or such. Nishkid64 (talk) 20:57, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am not saying that the US government has the authority to release the seals. I am saying that the US government would not have claimed the seals to be public domain unless they were. --M@rēino 20:59, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mareino, you should see http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons_talk:Licensing#Template:US_state_seal. Also note this appeals court case in Alaska [1] which held that Alaska could protect their rights. These images are not, by default, in the public domain but must be evaluated on a case by case basis. --Durin 21:30, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

White House naming conventions

Hi Mareino. could you please tell me what specifically troubles you on the White House page's naming conventions section? I will try to provide citation. Thanks. CApitol3 21:28, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi (again) Mareino. I've provided three new citations and removed a line I cn find no citation for. CApitol3 22:42, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pirates

Hah, sorry about that. Working on standardizing and replacing all the logo images. Usually, the primary team logo is the last one, so I accidentally replaced the wrong image. Did that with every time the two major logos were used, starting with the first in alphabetical order, so I must have gotten a bit careless by the time I got to Pittsburgh. It's fixed now.--Silent Wind of Doom 15:33, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Foghorn with hens.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Foghorn with hens.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 13:46, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

National Aviary

I had meant to rate it B. Now it's a B. Simple mistake. Dincher 01:07, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Mukasey

Have given this article a preliminary GA class review, and upgraded the article from Start to B. Left notes to bring article to GA. Good luck and good work on the article so far! SriMesh | talk 22:44, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mareino:
I find it amusing that you nominated the article for a Good Article review, without a conversation with other editors involved with the article about the readiness of the article for such a review. The typical result of a review conducted without a collaborative conversation prior to the nomination is the result obtained in this instance. A failed review. Often the best first step is to have a peer review, and ask for a human peer review, after responding to the automated suggestions. To request a peer review at the same time as a Good Article review is like running for president while also running for governor of a state. In any case, the amount of effort to bring a typical article to "A" class or "Good Article" class is not slight, and it helps to know that several editors are ready to take on the challenge before putting forward the nomination.
- Yellowdesk 02:54, 9 October 2007 (UTC).[reply]

  • Why on earth would I need to get the permission of other editors before putting an article up for Good Article review? The point of a good article review is not to get a laurel, but to get advice in creating a good article. I think SriMesh's suggestions were worthwhile; my only regret is that I don't have the free time right now to implement them. Once you, I, or someone else makes those changes, we can always nominate the article again; it's not as if there's a limit on the number of nominations one can make. --M@rēino 03:25, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Young Jeezy discography

Hi Mareino, album covers are explicitly not allowed in discographies - see WP:FU#Unacceptable_images. This is pretty well established. Album covers are generally only allowed in the album article. Also, all image needs a fair use rationale, not just the copyright tag. If you have any questions, just leave a message. Thanks. Spellcast 03:05, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Sigh -- Wikipedia is continuing to make up its own version of intellectual property law that is far sterner than what I learned in law school, but I'm only one person. Thanks for pointing that out Spellcast; I promise I'll adhere to the policy. --M@rēino 14:18, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Lily Tomlin--Hair helmet.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Lily Tomlin--Hair helmet.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 (talk) 20:46, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Lily Tomlin--Hair helmet.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Lily Tomlin--Hair helmet.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. After Midnight 0001 02:46, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Jeffrey..jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Jeffrey..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. Eachwiped (talk) 10:54, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Mumbly.gif

Thanks for uploading Image:Mumbly.gif. 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 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.

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 (talk) 18:58, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Woodland Critter Christmas

I appreciate your message. The problem I am having is the statement "This could be chalked up to a mistake by the show's makers, or in the alternative could be intentional, if Cartman meant the critter to be undead or reincarnated." because it offers a reading of the show that isn't contained within the origional script, and if that statement isn't backed up by a source shows only what an editors opinion of the situation is. I also don't think it holds true to the storyline because if he is in fact "undead or reincarnated" why does he show up in one scean and then disappears after that shot? this requires an elaberate explination that wasn't given within the show.

Personally I would like to delete the entire section because it is only a small step away from trivia, and I don't want that door to be opened ("...the mountain lion is a referance to Ansolon...the joke about Aids can be cross referanced to an earlier episode...This isn't the first time an abortion clinic was the topic of south park...Tray and Matt ordered chinese take out while writing this episode...etc.")however the other editors seem to like it so it stays. Those are my concerns.

If there is in fact dialog within the episode that backs up this claim, perhaps you could add that to the statement. however if this is just an observation you had about the show, it is my opinion that it should be deleted. Coffeepusher (talk) 16:41, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Frank LaGrotta

I agree with you, but I've reverted your edit until we can get consensus. Your participation on the talk page would be welcome. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 18:20, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Swingers Promo Still.png

Thanks for uploading Image:Swingers Promo Still.png. 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 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.

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 (talk) 08:12, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RfD nomination of ﷴ

I have nominated ﷴ (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) for discussion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. meshach (talk) 04:01, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ﷴ

A tag has been placed on ﷴ, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a redirect from an implausible typo.

Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself. If you believe that there is a reason to keep the redirect, you can request that administrators wait a while before deleting it. To do this, affix the template {{hangon}} to the page and state your intention on the article's talk page. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. 69.142.108.40 (talk) 11:58, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Disputed fair use rationale for Image:True Dough Mania.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:True Dough Mania.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 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.

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 (talk) 02:16, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

my Dean RAder article

thanks for your note . . .did I do the new article correctly? thanks, j-j —Preceding unsigned comment added by Beard-j-j (talk • contribs) 19:53, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A list of Catholic converts to Evangelicalism or Protestantism?

I think you misunderstood the question.  --Lambiam 19:50, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks. I decided to post a clarification of why I misunderstood, rather than remove the misleading information entirely, on the chance that my information is still useful to someone. --M@rēino 20:08, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Craig Bobble.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Craig Bobble.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. Rossrs (talk) 11:28, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Image Copyright problem
Image Copyright problem

Thank you for uploading Image:Franklins cartoon.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. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 19:56, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Julie Vargas

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Julie Vargas, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. If you agree with the deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please add {{db-author}} to the top of Julie Vargas. WLU (talk) 18:32, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've been removing these, as I feel they are inappropriate links to a commercial site under WP:EL. --Orange Mike | Talk 14:12, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cope Article

Nice find on the terrible towel/final game tribute to Cope! Isaacsf (talk) 15:56, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RE: S.O.B.

I think they're notable, as they're not only official releases by a notable band, which makes them notable (as opposed to just songs, which aren't released as a single or anything), but also because they're also (mostly) rare releases, and also contain alternate versions of various tracks, along with some unreleased tracks. I didn't oppose the removal of, for example, They Don't Know, because it was just a song off Razor Tag, and not an actual single. But those articles I put up are of notable releases, and, in my opinion, are important to have on wikipedia. Jay (talk) 20:21, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reaganomics merge

Hi there Mareino, I just wanted to let you know, as you seem to have been involved in the Reaganomics article, that I have merged the article into the Domestic policy of the Reagan administration article. Please see my reasoning at the link above, and if you have any questions, please feel free to contact me. Thank you, Happyme22 (talk) 19:27, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On second thought, I have reversed the merge; please see the talk page for my reasoning. Thanks, Happyme22 (talk) 20:15, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Myron Cope GA

I think it would be quicker if we contacted User:GaryColemanFan directly, since he did the first review. I think we could get a review quicker that way. What do ya think? Blackngold29 19:09, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I was just looking over the article, I think we should add more citations to the second paragraph of the "Family Life" section (concerning his work with autistic kids) and in the "Terrible Towel" section (those can be found in "Double Yoi!", I'm sure, just gotta find the page.) Shouldn't take too long; I'll be on in a few hours I'll try to find them then. Other than that, it looks good!Blackngold29


Little context in Category:Low-importanceAlaska articles

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Category:Low-importanceAlaska articles, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Category:Low-importanceAlaska articles is very short providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles.

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Category:Low-importanceAlaska articles, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. To see the user who deleted the page, click here CSDWarnBot (talk) 14:00, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Greenwich Village

I created the list of notable residents because the category is probably being deleted. You might want to comment there:[2]Modernist (talk) 23:23, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

They deleted the category, I'm watchlisting the page and the list. Hopefully for now we'll be able to keep it manageable. An alternative would be to create a separate article: People who lived in Greenwich Village or something similar. Modernist (talk) 18:49, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Myron Cope GA

I have placed the above article on hold for GA status, there are minor problems that need to be addressed before it is failed or passed. Please see here for more information.--~SRX~ 01:27, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]