User talk:Rossrs/archive3

You are an excellent editor!

Before I leave, I just wanted to say that you are an excellent editor. Not only are the articles on Sharon Tate, Sunset Boulevard and Kylie Minogue great articles on their own, but I was influenced by them when contributing to other articles on similar topics. I'm sure many other editors are influenced by them as well, so your edits really do benefit Wikipedia more than you may realise. I felt really glad when you decided to pitch in with the efforts at Mariah Carey. Your attitude is also admirable...you should become an admin! Well, anyway, see you. Extraordinary Machine 23:13, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Singapore FAC

As per your objection at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Singapore, I have done something to try and address the issue. Please have a second look now, and reconsider your opinon. If you are still not satisified with the change, let me know on my talkpage so that we can further discuss about it. Thanks! - Best regards, Mailer Diablo 16:57, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thank you so much Rossrs, I really want to have a barnstar I really appreciated it--hottie 21:57, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sample

Hey there, R. Its me again, and I've come to bother you :). I was wondering (if it was not too much trouble) if you could upload a sample of WBT for me again. If its possible, how about uploading a 30 second sample of the high part (climax) of the song. Thanks in advance. Oran e (t) (c) (e) 04:37, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Samples for Supernature

Hello. I know that you are busy and don't have much time to be running chores for others, but if you have the time, I would appreciate it if you could upload three songs from Goldfrapp's album Supernature (2005). I am attempting to enhance the article to the point where it reaches featured article status. You may not be familiar with the duo, but if you accept my request, I would appreciate it if you downloaded the songs "Ooh La La", "Let It Take You" and "Satin Chic". Much thanks! —Eternal Equinox | talk 01:51, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I will definitely provide the songwriting material, etc., etc. I will also provide you with a barnstar in the near future, though not at this very moment. Thanks for all your work! Also, you may or may have not noticed that I accidentally posted a comment on your user page instead of here on the talk page. A big sorry in advance! —Eternal Equinox | talk 14:29, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

DYK

Did you know? has been updated. A fact from the article Boots Mallory, which you recently created, has been featured in that section on the Main Page. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

--Cactus.man ✍ 15:37, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Madonna page again!

You better get ur pert Aussie butt to the Madonna discussion page! PatrickJ83 08:08, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:OscardelaHoya-press.jpg

The image is from an online press kit sent to multiple major boxing sites pretty much everytime de la hoya fights, however before the new press pictures for the fight are taken. Frankly im too tired to bother protecting the pic and another user put up a new (though less fitting and lower quality) image for de la hoya, because of your actions. So if you want to be the wiki-nazi on the image, I leave the choice of 'edit with that info' or 'let it be deleted' in your hands. --Midusunknown 04:51, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image Tagging Image:Witchofwest.jpg

Hi, this pic is from a magazine but I guess it's a screenshot from the film. It's under the fair-use guidlines though.

>>I think it's better labelled as a 'screenshot' as it's from the film. Ellectrika

See discussion on Ellectrika's talk page. The JPS^talk to me 22:20, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with Image:VivianeRomance.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:VivianeRomance.jpg. However, the image may soon be deleted unless we can determine the copyright holder and copyright status. The Wikimedia Foundation is very careful about the images included in Wikipedia because of copyright law (see Wikipedia's Copyright policy).

The copyright holder is usually the creator, the creator's employer, or the last person who was transferred ownership rights. Copyright information on images is signified using copyright templates. The three basic license types on Wikipedia are open content, public domain, and fair use. Find the appropriate template in Wikipedia:Image copyright tags and place it on the image page like this: {{TemplateName}}.

Please signify the copyright information on any other images you have uploaded or will upload. Remember that images without this important information can be deleted by an administrator. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me, or ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sherool (talk) 17:38, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

you give me faith in wikipedia

Not sure this is the right way to do this, but I'll be bold.

I was prejudiced against wikipedia because the sound-bite description of "an encyclopedia anyone can edit" made me imagine chaos and I don't believe a thousand monkeys can reproduce Shakespeare, nor even consistent POV, and I don't believe all monkeys have equal abilities.

My first attempt to read some wikipedia discussion was not positive either, I found a particularly messy fight (I won't bother with the details).

However the Kylie Minogue article (hope that link works) impressed me and I wanted to understand how it came about. I quickly discovered that it had been a featured article (so wikipedia has a way to recognize quality after all) and that you seemed to be the lead contributor.

This revealed to me that wikipedia has evolved structure to contain the chaos and combine the work of a thousand monkeys of varying abilities with a lead contributor into something neither could achieve without the other.

I now believe wikipedia can work, I have created an account, I'm writing this, and I will go on to look for ways I can contribute.

Thank you.

Ideogram 20:34, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

help

I've gotten myself in trouble over the editing of functional programming. I realize you must be very busy but do you have the time to review the controversy and give your input on the matter? If you think I am in the wrong can you help explain it to me? I would appreciate it. Ideogram 07:41, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your help. I certainly didn't expect you to provide input on the technical details of the subject :-). But your comments on the social realities of Wikipedia were very helpful. I have already decided that this particular fight is not worth it and to refrain from editing functional programming for a while, if not permanently.

I think the conflict stems from differences of opinion on the perfect article. I believe an article which is shorter and concentrates on the most important topics in a balanced way is better, in accordance with Strunk and White. My opponent seems to believe something longer that covers more of what's topical (not sure what he means by that) even at the cost of balance, is preferable.

My problem is that he seems to think length is a goal in itself. He seems to think I believe shortness is a goal in itself. My position is actually that length depends on how much you have to say, and how much of that is important to the reader, and consistent with that goal is brevity. To some extent the traditional emphasis on brevity can be relaxed in this new medium, since we are not fighting for a contrained resource like newspaper space and less relevant detail can be hidden behind a link. But there is one resource we should still try to conserve, namely the reader's time.

I must say this experience with Wikipedia gives me pause. I will certainly be more cautious in any future edits I make. I've decided not to leave entirely, although I will probably mostly interact on talk pages.

Thanks again. Ideogram 21:05, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

help again

I am finding a user is essentially reverting my edits of a disputed sentence and ignoring my pleas to discuss the changes. What should I do? Ideogram 21:10, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Elisha Cuthbert

Thanks for your comments, I've tried to fix the specific objections you raised and will happily fix anything else you object to. Staxringold _talk^contribs 22:05, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again for the fast reply. I've further updated it, per your request, replacing basically every quote from reviewers with quotes about Cuthbert's performance specifically. Staxringold _talk^contribs 10:06, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My RFA

Hey Rossrs! I have received a nomination for adminship which can be seen here. Please feel free to add to it and I hope to continue working with you improving the Madonna article.  :) -- Underneath-it-All 22:07, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

FYI...

Hey there. I know you're in Australia but just in case there is some sort of simulataneous release, Harlow's "China Seas" and "Wife Vs. Secretary" is being released next Tuesday as part of the Clark Gable Collection. PatrickJ83 20:10, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Long talk page

Greetings! Your talk page is getting a bit long in the tooth - please consider archiving your talk page (or ask me and I'll archive it for you). Cheers! BD2412 T 00:28, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How Are You?

Greetings, Rossrs!
I've been away for about six weeks. I am pleased to see some of my articles have been patrolled in my absence (e.g. Katie Holmes). Haven't heard from you in a while. How are you doing? PedanticallySpeaking 16:50, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your note. PedanticallySpeaking 14:57, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For some time I have been working on revisions to the Bricker Amendment article. I finally posted it and have a PR at Wikipedia:Peer review/Bricker Amendment/archive1. I'd welcome your comments. I know you won't like all those references, but I'm hoping to get it as an FA and those voters want lots of footnotes. PedanticallySpeaking 16:18, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Time to say goodbye

I wish to talk with you someday again. My final edits will be made on Wikipedia on June 26. After this date, the only edits I will make will be occasional pop-culture updates. Thanks for your kindness and your time. Take care! —Eternal Equinox | talk 22:59, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Abusive member

Hi There,

There is a member on here who keeps editing pages on the below page with abusive comments about myself and my contributions to the page and they keep editing out facts:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_unreleased_songs_by_Kylie_Minogue

This is the user: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&target=88.108.137.255

Can something please be done about them?

Thanks x

help yet again

Hi, it's me again.

I'm having a dispute with the same editor from the first help request. Could you please intercede? I would like to ask for two things. One, advise him to stop accusing me of WP:POINT and to assume good faith. Two, as someone with multiple Featured Articles you have the authority to explain to him that Featured Articles require citation of all facts, including those that seem obvious to him, and not just those that might be disputed. Thank you very much. Ideogram 04:53, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Are you on?

I need assistance. There's an edit war between two people who demand differing logos at WVTM-TV. One image is one of the logos available at http://www.nbc13.com/nbc13logo/index.html; the other combines two of those images, clearly paintshopped to include "WVTM/DT". The user with the paintshopped version insists that this is the way the logo is currently presented in broadcast; the website, however, does not reflect this change at all (that I can find). I would be tempted to tell this user that the altered logo would be fine if he can provide a photograph or screenshot of the broadcast logo, but I'm frankly not sure if that's accurate. Input is welcome. RadioKirk (u|t|c) 19:13, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the page is fine for now, but the issue is for the long-term, and the use of that photoshopped image, either with or without confirmation from the TV station that its current logo is represented by that image. Thanks. : RadioKirk (u|t|c) 22:14, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Signed comments

Please don't change someone else's signed comments, even to correct a mistake. If you want to correct a link, you'll have to remove their signature and replace it with something like {{unsigned|Btljs}}. You are clearly acting in good faith but signed comments are signed comments. --Yamla 14:16, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sculptor?

Would you happen to know the name of the sculptor of the Anne Frank statue in Image:AnneFrankstatue.jpg? Robert Happelberg 22:51, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Created by Mari Andriessen and unveiled in 1977 as per [1] Rossrs 00:37, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Version 0.5 eligibility

Ross, I appreciate very much your support at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.5 Nominations about the Wikipedia:Articles eligible for Version 0.5. I'm glad a few people think clearly and don't jump to conclusions and are kind enough to speak up for others. Maurreen 05:03, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's me again :(

I was wondering (please) if you could upload a couple music samples for me. They are for the Celine Dion article. If it's possible, how about uploading:

• "Beauty and the Beast" from Celine Dion
• "Where does my heart beat now?" from Unison (the part featuring the eletric guitar would be nice).
• Also, any song from Falling Into You would do, but preferably "Its all Coming Back to Me Now", "Call the Man" (the very last thirty seconds, where the humming and chanting is), "Falling into You", and the drum interlude in "River Deep, Mountain High.".
• "Think Twice" from the Colour of My love (the climax of the song).
• "A New Day Has Come".

I know that its probably a huge bother, and you're thinking "damn it, I don't have the time", but it would really mean a lot to me. Thanks. Orane (talk • cont.) 02:40, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much. Orane (talk • cont.) 13:32, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Richard III Music

Fixed. I hope. ...._(Complain)^(Let us to it pell-mell) 08:44, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Madonna

Yes, I think that the article has degenerated into the fan page that it was. It seems as if the singer simply has too many fans who are determined to worship her every chance that they get. Is the article a lost cause? I don't think so, but it will take a few days of strict editing to return it to encyclopaedic form. After reading the article only once, I've realised that there are many glaring problems. For example, there is fan gush in the lead, which mentions that Madonna is the "most successful/greatest" at least three times. The article has gotten much too long (72kb!!): the literature is verbose, or otherwise provides too much detail. For example, take this excerpt from "Italian heritage, family and Catholicism" (a section which is 1200 words/11 paragraphs long):

The name "Madonna" derives from the two Italian words "Ma" and "Donna", meaning “My Lady". In Italy there is a vulgar term "Madonna Mia!", which translates into "My Madonna," a rough equivalent to the English language curse of "My God!" While filming in Venice, Italy, Madonna commented on hearing this expression and being confused as to whether people were cursing or talking to her. Italian Americans are sometimes depicted as using the abbreviated version of "Madonn'"[21]. — Do we really need points like these? What do they add to the article?

Additionally, parts about her personal life are unnecessary (like her romantic history — this is not a timeline), as well as the long quotes about her political and sexual views. In order to make everyone happy, however, we need to write spin off/daughter articles instead of deleting the whole thing. I'd be willing to give a hand where necessary. Hope that helps. Orane (talk • cont.) 16:11, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Music samples

Sorry for responding so late. I don't have a lot of time but I think it would be better to list them as copyvios instead than in tfd. Check here. CG 08:32, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bette Davis

I agree with you that "Trivia sections" should be avoided. But what do you do when people insist on posting trivia in the main body of the article? The items of trivia which I placed in a Trivia section -- and which you reverted -- have nothing to do with a biography of Bette Davis; they are inconsequential and completely extraneous to her life or work. Orbicle 23:54, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your thoughtful responses. I can understand your repugnance for trivia in an encyclopaedia. I think that if it has to go somewhere (especially if it is contributed), a "legacy" section is as good a place as any.

PS I read your pet hates -- among mine at the moment are the use of the word "iconic" to mean of marginal importance or I've heard of it... and the American "I could care less" to mean "I couldn't care less"... Cheers Orbicle 09:02, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of HIV-positive people

Hi, I saw your comment here. This message is just to tell you you're not the only one. :) I also am trying to find sources for this list. Too bad finding good sources is quite hard, one knows for sure that a person belongs on the list there but if the only source one can find is IMDB or a forum.... Garion96 (talk) 17:03, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. I btw found a good article which has a list of entertainers who died of aids. I used it for multiple persons included on the list. You happen to know how to make a ref to an earlier used source. Couldn't find it so fast, now I just added the same ref multiple times. Will check it out later. That source also replaced some imdb sources. I still don't like imdb as a source since it's user submitted, with some control but still. Oh, and I placed a message here, perhaps they know a good source. Garion96 (talk) 21:56, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User needs help

I was referred to you by Journalist, he told me that you may be able to help me upload music files onto Tireh's page.. its very out dated and i need to add music files for verfication.

Hi, I don't mind adding any music samples that may be needed, but I don't have anything by Tireh, so I wouldn't be able to help on this occasion. I notice that a sample has been added. I'm concerned that it appears to be the entire song (3 minutes 48 seconds in length). Might be a good idea to read Wikipedia:Music samples for info about what is acceptable without violating copyrights. In this case the standard is to used a reduced quality sample of 10% of the total work, or no more than 30 seconds. Rossrs 15:23, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

License tagging for Image:BetteDavisTheLetter.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:BetteDavisTheLetter.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:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia: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 Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 14:05, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Blondie

Just wanted to congratulate you on the great job you did with the Blondie page - I'm impressed! You've created a really good article, much better than the atrocious thing that was there before. Keep up the great work! Paul75 23:31, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bette Davis - Bravo!

Just another in your clearly lengthy list of fan-notes -- the editing you been doing on Bette Davis has transformed what was a mess into a fine article -- I'm especially impressed at your ability to weave what a lot of editors would have simply deleted seamlessly into the text. We can only hope that this will dampen the howls of fans who would be bereft at the loss of their favorite factoid... 15:06, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Blondie

		The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
		Belated barnstar! I, Kilo-Lima (aka Iolakana), hereby award Rossrs for their excellent and tremendous work on Blondie. The cleanup was excellent, and the article actually means something now. I will try to help it too, and try to get it to FA. Belated congratulations! Iolakana•T 19:51, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Laurence Olivier: Sir Toby Belch

Sir Toby Belch is a real character, he is Olivia's uncle in Twelfth Night, or What You Will. Orbicle 14:18, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Orbicle beat me to it. Yes, he's "real", and rather as his name suggests. Suggestion: take a little break from Olivier. Not for long, just for half a day or so. If you want minor diversion during this time, consider somebody whose genius, whose wealth, and whose sheer beauty put Olivier in the shade. I present this chap for your delectation. [Belch!] -- Hoary 14:41, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

John McLoughlin image

The image was not uploaded by me, mind you, but I wonder whether it might be restored with the proper tag? I do believe it is fair use.--Mantanmoreland 15:44, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your reply. The location of the picture is from the Yahoo Movies website[2] along with a bunch of publicity photos from the movie. So it strikes me as falling into the "promotional" or "promotphoto" template category, don't you think? I've added back in the image with that tag. Please do let me know if my assessment of this image is incorrect, as I have no previous experience with uploading images!!! Feel free to delete if I've goofed up.--Mantanmoreland 22:40, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Red Headed Woman

Hi Rossrs long time no talk

I wanted to let u know that Red Headed Woman is coming out on DVD (in the US, anyway) on December 5. Sadly NOT part of a Harlow box sex but part of TCM (Turner Classic Movies, a cable channel)'s "Pre-Code" set. PatrickJ83 18:21, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

LOL. I said "box sex". I meant box set. Freudian? PatrickJ83 06:55, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Completing Version 0.5 reviews

Hi Rossrs, thanks for your help on V0.5. We've made it over 1000 articles! Now we only have about four weeks left to review articles for Wikipedia:Version 0.5. I was wondering if you could take a look at Wikipedia:Version_0.5/To_do and sign up for something? I'd like us to make sure we don't miss anything important. And once the end of the month rolls around we can take a well-deserved break...! Any help you can give would be most welcome. Thanks, Walkerma 21:06, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Paulette Goddard

It's my pleasure. I downloaded the Second Chorus movie because I had it on VHS and I thought it would be a good source of PD stills. I also did a screen cap of Artie Shaw. I'm still scrubbing the movies for a good still of Fred Astaire and a young Burgess Meredith. --SeanO 15:49, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kylie Minogue

It thinks its very rude of you to say on my talkpage I was rude to change your changes without consultation, but that you can change your my additions without consultations. The Kylie Minogue article was there before your contributions, and is there after. You do not own the article. I have an incling you are a Madonna Fan, and they always hate if I use "Queen of Pop" to describe Kylie. I have read alot of news articles, and even the Kylie.co.uk (biggest Kylie fansite) uses "Queen of Pop" to describe Kylie. If you will head over to Madonna's page you will notice they use Queen of Pop at the end of the first paragraph without citation might I add. I think its a double standard, and I think it should be noted in the first paragraph that 1) Kylie is Europe's and Australia's biggest selling female recording artist since 1987 2) That she has lately been consistently called the "Queen of Pop" especially in the UK and AUS. This first paragraph should introduce a reader to Kylie, and I think her terms of success are a big part of who she is.

P.S. I also did go thru the edit history and noticed you added alot of comparisons to Madonna, or Madonna items to the article. Many uncited. I'm not stupid, I know where this is comming from!!!! UltimateKylie 08:24, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I hope you feel better now that you've got that off your chest. Rossrs 02:48, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry for causing any problem. I've just had some ***issues*** with Madonna Fans on wikipedia and elsewhere when it comes to removal of items considered to compete or differ with their vision of Madonna. I do think it should be noted in the first paragraph her greater accomplishments. If you will notice on the Showgirl DVD, you will notice The Sunday Mercury is quoted on the packaging saying "Superstar Kylie Minogue showed exactly why she is the undisputed Queen of Pop with an amazing show" This was a critique of the Showgirl Tour 2005. The first paragraph should give an over view of what this article is about, and people should catch her success. An Encyclopedia must include all references (as I've had to point out several times). In 2100 when people look back to 2000-2010 they should be able to note that more people than just Madonna were refered to as "Queen of Pop" in the media as a term of ultimate success. I will see how I can work into the article better, including a sumary in the first paragraph about her success. What I hope you do next time is tell people why you removed their stuff... People get defensive when you remove their stuff without major explaination, and your explaination seemed to infer you didn't think Kylie is the Queen of Pop just because one newspaper called her that. The fact is she has been called the "Queen of Pop" as I wrote. There are several articles, including critical reviews that call her this. Thus I urged you to do your research, because you didn't seem aware of this from your comment. Please let me know next time how I could have done it better instead of just removing it or help make it better because the two facts remain UltimateKylie 08:24, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jake

Thankyou very much for cropping that image. It looks much nicer now. Dev920 09:27, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's All Coming Back to Me Now

Hi Rossrs. I've been using the sample you made of It's All Coming Back to Me Now on that article (you'd created it for Celine Dion). A suggestion has been made at its peer review that it should have a clip from each of the three versions discussed. Since you are more experienced than I in these matters, is that a safe thing to do in terms of fair use? The JPS^talk to me 21:12, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers -- I've gone ahead and made the two other samples. It's the first time I've created .ogg files for Wikipedia (or at all, for that matter), but I think I've done it OK. I decided to correct that spelling of Cathy: I thought about using [sic] for a while, but then felt it might be a bit petty for a pretty uncontroversial typo. The JPS^talk to me 21:03, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Impossible Princess article

Hello. I have been working on the Impossible Princess article for sometime now and have already made it a Good Article. I would now like to turn it into a Featured Article and was wondering if you could go through and give it a copy-edit. Thanks so much. -- 01:33, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Hey! Thanks for going through the article. You made some good suggestions and I will look over them within the next few days. Also, thanks for directing me towards the discussion on the actor infobox. -- Underneath-it-All 16:27, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Images incorrectly described as GFDL

You said: "Hi Yamla, I've noticed that you've been asking for sources and fair use rationales etc, so I'm thinking if you can't answer my question..... I don't know who can. There are several images in Nelson Eddy that are down as being GFDL but very obviously are promophotos/music sheets. Whatever they are, I'm sure they're not GFDL. What would be the correct tag to put on them to get them reviewed and/or deleted? I've looked everywhere I can think of but can't find anything I could use, and I'm sure I've seen such a tag used somewhere in the past. Thanks for any help you can give me. Cheers"

You are right, probably none of those images should be licensed thus. Please excuse me if you already know most of what I'm about to say. First, they all seem to be missing the source. So add {{subst:nsd}} to each image (and copy the notification to the uploader's talk page). Now, I'm assuming the uploader believed that because he or she scanned in the images, the uploader could release the image under any license they chose. This is incorrect. Simply scanning in an image does not transfer ownership of that image to the scanner. Really, only the uploader is likely to know where the images came from and so what license can be used. Maybe {{tl:film-screenshot}}. Maybe {{tl:promotional}}. But these would require justifications (an image should not be tagged promotional unless evidence is provided that it came from a promotional kit, for example). In any case, these images should either have an accurate license specified or should be deleted within a week. You can mark an image as missing a license by using {{subst:nld}}. --Yamla 16:23, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stage Door Canteen

You pictures from Stage Door Canteen are great. Where did you get the film? It would be great if we could get a better source, some of the pictures are really really fuzzy. Compare the Count Basie picture with the Art Tatum picture. EEP!

Anyhow, they look great. I've been posting some pictures to the commons after your example (see also Tommy Dorsey, Jimmy Dorsey, Charlie Barnet). Finding good PD pictures is very very satisfying. --SeanO 12:16, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Work in list by years

Hi! I am doing lately work in the list by years. To avoid writing here too much, here are links to my posts: 1 , 2. Now I found that you are quite involved in this side of the project, so I would like to align my work with yours. I also noticed that you introduced tables in births and deaths. Most of the years from 1910 to 1990 don't have tables and are quite easy to use visually. In the 1900s it is harder to find names. Also in the latest years, it becomes very hard to locate a film (as they are in tables sorted by date and later in sub pages. I know the amount of films is big in later years, but I still think it is very hard for members to contribute. As you may read in the linked talks, I am planning to come as far as possible making a complete alphabetical list for each year. I respect your efforts and wouldn't like to create a competing listing system. When you are back from the Wikibreak, can you please get in contact with me? Hoverfish 15:38, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Later development: I asked for Rje's opinion, who had also contributed, making tables for data in the later Years in film. The answer I got is here. Since I have contributed and keep a maintaining care for the list by years, it would be good to come to some consensus, so no editing time and enthusiasm is wasted. I've lately had a little part of my work wasted, when AMK152 started introducing another year navigation box from the 1980s on, without previously discussing on it. I suggest we all discuss about it in Talk:Lists of films. By the way, there is a lot of work generally in the lists of films lately, making it as comprehensive as possible. The lists by year and letter are being updated and corrected to become, hopefully as all inclusive as possible. I think it's worth finding a uniform presentation for all years, leaving the possibility for some additional tables in the later years. Hoverfish 08:26, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your answer and recognition of my effort. Whatever I do comes from enthusiasm, so I really don't wish to reduce anybody else's enthusiasm with my efforts. I need more opinions from film members and cretainly a project notice before I apply changes, but it's very relieving to hear from you. Hoverfish 13:56, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

McGrory image

Go ahead & remove it. I don't care if the article has a picture or not. Cabreet 11:27, 02 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:ZakSpears.jpg

The image shown is not the original image I uploaded for actor Zak Spears. It seems that another Wikipedia user (User:Queena87) replaced the PG rated image I had of Zak Spears to one that is X rated. This change is probably why the image was removed from the page. I will change the image and re-enter onto the article page. Artemisboy 17:11, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Peer review

Hola. I have put Blondie onto Peer Review. I would really appreciate your comments at Wikipedia:Peer review/Blondie (band). Cheers, Kilo•T 17:47, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just saying hi

I've come across your name several times while looking at articles, most recently the one about Pia Zadora (fab actress, btw). We seem to have very similar interests, judging from your user page. I'm into VOTD and Earthquake, too, for starters. anyway, like the subject header said, "hi".Jeffpw 19:24, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I made this in a moment of silliness. Feel free to use it if you want.Jeffpw 08:31, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Ya gotta love Wiki and their rules! I didn't check the image tags before I made it. The Dorothy image on my "Friend of Dorothy" userbox is listed as Public Domain, though I don't believe that for a second. However, I will use it til the image tag is changed. Anyway, judging from your contributions, you might enjoy the article I wrote about James Robert Baker. I'm rather proud of it, I must say. Jeffpw 11:39, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the compliment about the Baker article. I am actually writing a book about him now, in cooperation with his Literary executor and friends/associates. I am hoping it will be published before the end of next year. I could have added more to the Wiki bio, but that would have been original research. Jeffpw 12:02, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image tagging

Regarding the tagging of Image:Viviennewestwoodpromophoto.jpg, I'm wondering if you're willing to work with me a bit and enlighten me if there are any ways to ensure that this image remain on Wikipedia? Could it stay, for example, if a smaller, lower-resolution image were uploaded? Feel free to reply here on your own page, if you want. -Wisekwai 10:33, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your kind reply. I still wonder if it's possible to craft a fair-use rationale that would pass muster. I feel the photo uniquely captures an image of Vivienne Westwood at a particular stage in her career and would be difficult to duplicate otherwise.–Wisekwai 10:32, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. Thanks again. You are most kind. Thing is, I don't feel a particularly strong attachment to the image or the subject, but I will look into implementing your suggestions. It'll be a good exercise. -Wisekwai 11:09, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Angelina Jolie FAC

I just wanted to let you know that I re-nominated the article. A few weeks ago you helped with a copy edit and asked me to notify you, should I decide to submit it again. The page is almost entirely in the same stage as it was then. -- EnemyOfTheState 00:06, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:M(DVDCover).jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:M(DVDCover).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. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:

1. Go to the image description page and edit it to add {{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 the fair use image by finding a freely licensed image of its subject 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 any fair use images which are replaceable by free-licensed alternatives 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. --Chowbok ☠ 23:54, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Don't you dare

Regarding this edit you are absolutely not allowed to retire! --Ideogram 01:28, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Mia Farrow cover.jpg

Hi, and thanks for your message about Image:Mia Farrow cover.jpg. However, I have no idea what exactly you want me to do. You say it is "currently" not being used because it has been removed from the Mia Farrow article. It turns out it has been removed by you yourself. I'm told in your message that I may add it back but reminded at the same time that doing so is against Wikipedia's fair use policy.

So again: What am I supposed to do? As I find it exceedingly hard to understand the phrase "to illustrate the publication of the issue of the magazine in question" all that seems to remain for me to do is beg you: Please put it up for deletion! Am I mistaken?

Best wishes, <KF> 22:15, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your answer! <KF> 13:37, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actor infobox

Sorry for taking so long to reply, I've had a small Wikibreak. The reason I'm loath to see the field go is that, in my opinion, nobody has provided a satisfactory reason why it should be deleted against my reasons that it should stay (as long as it's sourced, it takes up no space in the infobox (1 line), and contains information that would be difficult to fit anywhere else). The main reason I can see it is being removed is based on a vote; and Wikipedia doesn't make decisions based on votes (WP:NOT#DEMOCRACY). Cheers, CelebHeights 17:15, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:0 b 0.jpg

What should I do for Image:0 b 0.jpg? I stated a reason for it to be kept, but I dont know what else to do. Can I simply just scan the picture from the CD I own, and re-upload it? Planecrazy22 06:33, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But there is some mention of the image in the article. It is actually the picture from the cover of her latest English studio album, which is mentioned in the article, as well as her new "style".Planecrazy22 01:46, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:AlbertBarille.jpg

i also aded this

Rational

To ilustrate the person in his biography

What fair use rational?What is doing a photo of a person in his won biography?What a strange idea.The image is not orphaned.because he is alive that don't mean that fair use don't aply,i never meat him,i don't now any won that did,dada fair use.

• Always use a more free alternative if one is available

if you don't like my rational fill it your self.--Pixel ;-) 17:09, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Happy now,it basicly repeats what is alredy on the fair use tamplate.--Pixel ;-) 11:57, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

1. You are a bigot
2. Bigotry cause me apoplexy
3. "brain dead" because you simply follow rulles whith out any critical mind.
4. We just leave it here OK.--Pixel ;-) 14:36, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned image: Clark Gable

You removed the image in the Clark Gable article and then informed me that it was orphaned and not used in any article! Why is the use of a TIME Cover depicting the subject of the article not fair use when the sole fact of appearing on a TIME cover is of itself a comment on the fame of the subject? You know what? Don't worry about it. I am growing increasingly weary of people who nitpick and edit seemingly just for the sake of it. In my view, it is fair use; in your view it is not. Have a good day. Orbicle 14:54, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The fair use of any image is not self evident but must be supported. The image was not discussed in the article, there was no image caption, and no fair use rationale on the image description page - it was completely unsupported. It was just sitting there in the middle of the article. TIME covers are used only in exceptional circumstances because TIME still uses these images for sale. They're probably more likely to exercise their rights than some other copyright holders who don't actively sell their images. Who knows? The tag you added to the image reads in part that the image could be used "to illustrate an article, or part of an article, which specifically describes the issue in question or its cover", but it didn't. I grow increasingly weary of editors who disregard Wikipedia's policies, but think that if someone brings it to their attention, they have the right to respond in a rude manner for no reason other than that they disagree. It's also unfortunate that instead of limiting your discussion to the issue at hand, you chose to personalise this by making an assumption about my motives and commenting on your view of my shortcomings as an editor. Rossrs 06:56, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:JuliaStilesinMonaLisaSmile.jpg

This file may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:JuliaStilesinMonaLisaSmile.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. When you use a generic fair use tag such as {{fair use}} or {{fair use in|article name}}, 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.

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 fair use images 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. Oden 07:07, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:JuliaStilesinMonaLisaSmile.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:JuliaStilesinMonaLisaSmile.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 {{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 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 any fair use images which are replaceable by free-licensed alternatives 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. Oden 07:07, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Um yeah.

The Naomi Robson pic is a screenshot that was on Melbourne TV saying "Thanks for watching Melbourne's Channel Seven". I don't see why it should be deleted.. it's just a screenshot. --Jamesbehave 09:24, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

James Cagney

I agree with your removing the stamp image, but for ascetic reasons. In your opinion would the picture herebe useable? I checked through the copyright policy but couldn't come up with a clear answer.--Mantanmoreland 15:21, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey thanks! I'll upload that image and get it on the page. I was unhappy with the stamp because of all the great shots of Cagney out there.--Mantanmoreland 22:57, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Great, thanks. I'm new to this photo stuff. Incidentally, I added a new photo to Spencer Tracy, as the one that was there before was a low-quality screen short from Inherit The Wind. I'll add the rationale you added to Cagney, as it is the same situation.--Mantanmoreland 15:08, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gable Pic

The pic in question, Rossrs, was one I bought at auction. It is an autographed 8X10 glossy, presumably taken by MGM in the very early 30s. I cropped it. I horozontally mirrored it. I added sepia tones. I angled it. I added extra pixles. I added blue tones. I added red tones. In short, I took an image of a dead person and made it a creation of my own, which I then freely licensed to Wiki out of the goodness of my heart. If this still does not satisfy the Wiki Brownshirts who are currently running rampant on this site, then by all means delete it and I will take a screenshot from the theatrical trailer of Gone With The Wind. Jeffpw 09:58, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't know why on earth you think I am offended, and why you think the reference to Brownshirts would be directed to you. Having drunk the Kool-Aid, I automatically WP:AGF and would fall on my sword before I breached WP:CIV. Perhaps you have a guilty conscience? :-) Jeffpw 10:35, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• So be bold, Rossrs, and fix it! The image is just sitting there, crying out to be properly tagged. Jeffpw 15:35, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bee Gees

Thank you, Ross. I think I may have earned a barnstar with this one! I also just did some rewriting of the 3 individual pages for Barry, Robin and Maurice - tried to keep with the writing style the editors there had set up so as to not ruffle too many feathers in one night (although some of it is not the best - an understatement), and aimed for consistency. I won't be surprised if any or all of it is shot down on the 4 pages, so I appreciate your support. Best wishes. Tvoz 07:13, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh - by the way - I laughed out loud at your "Things that annoy me" -- you are so right! In your honor, I removed the line "He was 53 years old" from the Maurice Gibb page. Let 'em do the math.Tvoz 07:16, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ha! The Andy Gibb edit was great. I've now removed "at the age of" from 4 or 5 others. And I'm on the lookout for the "unfortunately"s. I'll probably incur all kinds of wrath now, and I'll just blame it on you... Tvoz 08:04, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, I can read - have been since I was three. As for math, well, let's just say that I took a couple of years of trigonometry and calculus back before the flood and I couldn't begin to tell you a single thing about either one. Algebra and geometry, yeah. But adding, subtracting, multiplying and dividing? I'm a genius. ANd the good news is, believe it or not, NO REVERTS yet, as far as I've noticed, and not even a crabby note. Now I am sure I've earned a barnstar. Tvoz 04:32, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

THANK YOU!!! You definitely made my day! Tvoz 06:57, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(However.... how pathetic that a Wikipedia barnstar makes my day? Oh well, you takes it where you gets it.) Tvoz 07:01, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Commons

I appreciate much the crash course in Wikipedia Commons, and I'm ashamed to admit I really had no familiarity with it! Thanks again for your help with this photo business. I really find this quite interesting and also think that adding a good photo to articles is a very low-sweat way of improving them.--Mantanmoreland 13:59, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WP:FILMS Newsletter

The November 2006 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. Cbrown1023 23:31, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Question about pictures

hi again - now you'll see the depth of my ignorance.... I have read WP:FU (many times) and a variety of other photo-related wiki policy articles, but I don't completely get it. You seem to, so: I understand that a publicity photo, so identified by the source, can be considered an acceptable pic under the fair use guidelines. So, if I want to post a picture from a (dead) singer's official website that has the caption "Publicity photo" and no other indication of copyright status, can I get away with it? Specifically: http://www.casselliot.com/imagepage2.htm the photo captioned "ABC/Dunhill Records publicity photo, 1971". If you think yes, then do I indicate where I got it and add the promo photo licensing tag and expect to see it survive on the page? Thanks for any insights you can give me - I find this aspect of wikipedia somewhat opaque, and in fact I don't agree with their uber-restrictive view, because of what "fair use" actually means, at least in the US. But that's another story - I'd like to attempt to follow their guidelines, but have not been totally successful when it comes to pictures. ANd if you can explain this to me in ENGLISH, I may have to ask you to then explain Commons. thanks Ross Tvoz 00:45, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Tvoz, well I don't agree entirely with all of Wikipedia's uberrestrictive policies either, despite my recent spats with some other editors, but I think that the way to change a policy is to discuss it, not simply disregard it - I understand our policy errs on the side of caution rather than applying fair use doctrine to the letter. Anyhow I think the big question with promo photos is this - can the image be replaced with a free alternative that would provide the same information? Often the answer is yes, especially with a living celebrity because it is theoretically possible to get a free image (not necessarily easy, but possible). The difference with a dead celebrity is that the number of photos in existence is finite and if a free image doesn't exist already it's too late to create it. Lately a school of thought has emerged here that cont ends images of dead celebrities are more allowable and less likely to be challenged than images of living celebrities. I think the image you've found is therefore as acceptable as many other images that are regarded as acceptable. I would upload it, ensure you link to source, but most importantly provide a fair use rationale. Then .... double check that a "replaceable tag" has not automatically been applied to the image. Something has been changed recently in the upload process that automatically adds the tag, but I don't know under what circumstances it's added. I think if you choose a licence it doesn't like, it automatically tags it. If the tag is added, you should remove it because it wouldn't apply. I've been adding generic fair use rationales to previously existing images of dead celebrities. A couple of examples are Image:Fredginger.jpg (Fred Astaire and Ginger Rogers - I got a bit specific with this image because I wanted it to cover use in both articles), and Image:Gloria3.jpg (Gloria Swanson - this is more generic and I've applied this to numerous similar images of various people.) Let me know if there's anything you need a hand with. As for Commons - I've uploaded some screenshots from public domain films on there. I haven't spent much time there and I'm not as familiar with how it all works - I find it a little scary to tell the truth! Happy uploading. You could really be mischievous and choose the Witch Hazell image instead. It's very .... ummmm.... nice? No? Cheers Rossrs 05:17, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PS. I've also seen some discussions that suggest we should extend this idea to include living celebrities if we're looking for an image that represents a person at their period of fame. The example given was Bettie Page an 80+ year old woman who was a popular pinup 50 years ago. The question there is - do we want a picture of 80+ year Bettie (preferably with her clothes on) to show what she looks like, or do we want 25 year old Bettie in a bikini to show what she looked like when she was famous? No decision on that one, but it's interesting isn't it? Rossrs 05:24, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks - Let me try to absorb that and I'll get back with any questions (really appreciate this, by the way). One of my questions will undoubtedly be - what makes an image a free image? (I'm being dense, no doubt.) As for Bettie - uh, yeah. Tvoz 05:57, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Of course if I had bothered to right-click on the image I wanted to use before bothering you I would have seen that an advisory box pops up saying "Site content copyright protected. PLease respoect our copyright and do not attempt to copy or save images!" With exclamation point! Ok! Well even I understand what that means. Under fair use there could be an argument, but Wiki would never go for that, and I'm not about to try. Back to the drawing board. Love the picture of Gloria. Tvoz 06:20, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

i'm sorry

i'm new to this whole editing process here on wikipedia. i'd just like to see more done to the pages of the classic film stars :) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Thismightbezach (talk • contribs) 20:41, 7 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Batman Begins

Some time ago, you voted against the nomination of Batman Begins as a Featured Article. The article has come a long way since, and I was wondering if you could take the time to share any suggestions you might have, either on my user talk page or the film article's own talk page. I do not believe that the article is yet ready for another FA nomination as I have improvements in mind. I hope that you will be able to share any insights you might have to help improve the article. --Erik (^talk/_contrib) @ 01:26, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your tremendous advice! I'll be sure to implement your suggestions. Also, I don't want to take all the credit for improving the article. There's been some fine editors who have helped contribute to the article (though I can say that the Design section is mostly my baby). It's been a while since I've seen the film itself, so I've been hands-off the Plot section. I'll see if I can make the appropriate recommendations for its improvement, and I totally understand that the critical reception needs to be expanded. That was one of the things that needed work, in my mind. Once more, thank you for your constructive criticism and supportive words. —Erik (^talk/_contrib) @ 15:00, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned fair use image (Image:ImmortalityDVDcover.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:ImmortalityDVDcover.jpg. I notice the 'image' page currently specifies that the image is unlicensed for use on Wikipedia 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. Gay Cdn (talk) (Contr.) 20:47, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

k.d. lang Image reomval

Please can you initate a discussion on the page before removing images form the pages. an you also provide an alternative under fair use to illustarte the person in question rather than blanket removing the image of the artist. In future considerate discussion on the talk page would be a better way to go about this as the image had been opn ther page soem time and nobosy else viewed it as a fair use infringment. It also allows people enough time to find a replacemenbt image for the fair use infringment.--134.225.235.13 18:16, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also replied to Talk:K.d. lang

Please look at the licence tags for album cover, and for magazine cover on the image description pages of the two images I removed. The tags clearly state what constitute fair use. Album covers are to be used to provide critical commentary for the album - "solely to illustrate the audio recording in question". Here it was used to illustrate the person - not fair use. Same with the magazine cover - "to illustrate the publication of the issue of the magazine in question" and "It is not acceptable to use images with this tag in the article of the person or persons depicted on the cover, unless used directly in connection with the publication of this image. Such usages will be removed." There was no direct connection except for a one line reference under the heading of trivia that did not discuss the magazine or the image in any way. This is not up for debate as this has been Wikipedia policy for a long time. There are so many incorrectly used images that it takes time to identify them all, so you'll probably notice there are a lot of articles which use album covers or magazine (or book) covers in this way. But they're wrong and eventually they'll get fixed too. It's not our policy to keep offending images in articles until we find a replacement, as this offers no incentive for anyone to actually find a free image, so please do not revert. Rossrs 21:04, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for that reply If you could do that before removing images for m a page that would be most helpful thanks.--Lucy-marie 01:27, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

also replied to Lucy-marie's talk page as follows:

Hi Lucy-marie. Thanks for your message regarding the k. d. lang images, but your suggestion is not practical. I'm not going to post a message to every talk page that I remove a copyright violation from. The onus is on the uploader and the people who work on those particular pages to familiarise themselves with Wikipedia's policies and act accordingly. I appreciate that you may not have been aware of Wikipedia's policy in this matter, but now that I've made you aware, I shouldn't have to keep telling you. I always put an explanation in my edit summary and that will have to suffice, but if you ever want me to clarify, you're welcome to message me. If you ever disagree with me, I'm also happy to hear from you, and we can talk about it on a case-by-case basis if you like. Thanks Rossrs 08:52, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Minogue

You shouldn't remove good faith edits such as these [3] What did you think that Minogue was also a welsh name? sheesh, take a look at her siblings page PLEASE Superdude99 22:45, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to be assuming that my edit was not also in good faith. I removed the category in good faith because (as I said in my edit summary) there was no mention of Dannii Minogue's Irish ancestry in her article - there still isn't as a matter of fact. Why is that? True enough, it's in the Kylie Minogue article, but I wouldn't think to crosscheck Kylie's article when I'm looking at Dannii's. I don't see a problem with removing unsourced information, and you can quite easily revert my edit if you disagree, but the process of Wikipedia legitimately includes editing, changing, and removing previous edits, most of which were made in good faith. You could fix the information in the Dannii Minogue article so that it is complete and correct and the problem would be solved. I understand you're frustrated, but let's keep it polite ok? Rossrs 07:59, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"I don't see a problem with removing unsourced information"

Maybe, but I thought that's not the way this project works, If I was to remove ALL the uncited information on a random page, a LOT of info would be removed. In fact if all the unsourced info was removed on sight, this website would become unworkable Superdude99 14:45, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

one more for your December archive/Bee Gees

As the bestower of my one and only barnstar (now enshrined on my user page as well as my talk), I thought I should tell you that I am going to kill someone. [WIKI COPS: THAT WAS A JOKE]. I thought my removal of "Origin" from the infobox was rather inspired, actually, but now there's an idiot making clever comments about a missing song. DON'T THESE PEOPLE HAVE ANYTHING TO DO??? Ah, but you should see what's going on at Barack Obama - a man who may become President of the United States sometime, but not if these people are any indication of the mentality of the rest of America. I think I should go to sleep now. So, how are you? Tvoz 04:48, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, glad I made your day this time! You're probably right about More than a Woman, although I think in the States it may have been a single - or at least it did get a lot of AM airplay which would be odd for an album cut in those days. Too tired now to look it up. Thanks for jumping in there. The Manx-England folks reared their heads again, but I think I beat them off. For the moment. (May have been on one or another of the Gibb pages - I don't recall now.) Anyway, Ross from Brisbane - thanks for the support, again Tvoz 09:07, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yeah, I remember part - someone insisted on removing the "Manx people" category. Truth is, I could not care less about that so I'm not even responding. I did change wording in the individual Gibb pages to match the Bee Gees on this all-important point. AAAAHHHH Tvoz 09:09, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Guess what has come up again! If you're so inclined, could you take a look at the latest exchanges on talk and weigh in? WHo knows, maybe the edit warriors have moved onto something else, but we've had some stability as I said and I hate to see this opened up again. I mean, if it is, do I have to return my barnstar or something? You are still the only wikipedian wise enough to give me one.......Tvoz |talk 03:31, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:FILMS Newsletter

The December 2006 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. Please also, if you have not already, add your name to the Member List. Cbrown1023 00:52, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned fair use image (Image:CelineDionRiverDeepMountainHigh.ogg)

Thanks for uploading Image:CelineDionRiverDeepMountainHigh.ogg. I notice the 'image' page currently specifies that the image is unlicensed for use on Wikipedia 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. BigDT 05:39, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, if, in fact, this sound clip is being used and just doesn't show up on "what links here" or file links for whatever reason, you can add {{Not orphan}} to the image page to indicate that it is in use and should not be deleted. Thanks. BigDT 05:41, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

happy holidays

I will always believe that Christmas-New Year's is celebrated in the WINTER, but I hope you enjoy yours! Tvoz 08:11, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm in New York, where it does not look like it's going to snow today - in fact it was 60 degrees (Fahrenheit!) a couple of days ago, so we're not there yet. But soon enough I'll be hoping for Spring, and you'll be celebrating Fall. It's weird. My husband and I have an old friend from England who has lived in New Zealand for many years- New Zealand, which to American brains is right around the corner from Australia, even though I know that's not exactly right - and he always regales us with stories about celebrating Christmas on the beach which he doesn't mind, but he does draw the line at Santa Claus (St. Nick?) in Bermuda shorts and a t-shirt! Have a good one! Tvoz 17:46, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ha - you saw Col Joye - I am laughing! Tell me the truth - I will not be offended, trust me - is the article accurate and reasonably comprehensive (for a stub, that is)? Seems pretty sketchy to me. I have to tell you - I never heard of him before but when I was editing Bee Gees and looking at other Australian artists, I kept seeing this red name "Col Joye" and wondered why whoever or whatever it was didn't have a Wiki page since he was popping up all over the place. So I googled him and thought what the hell, I'll put up a page for him. Except that I knew exactly nothing about him. I had a great time doing this - but I have no way of judging if it's a reasonable start because I have no gut instinct about it like I do, say, about John Lennon. I figured other people would come in and make more of a page out of it, but amazingly there have been no changes other than some wikilink type stuff. So.... I hope I've done the old boy a decent start. This is what I love about Wikipedia... among lots of things I don't love at all, like the cabal of teenagers who think they know everything and all they can really do is cite rules and squeeze the creativity and joy out of everything they touch. (Hmm, do I sound bitter??) But meeting folks like you from across the planet, with senses of humor, and no chip on your shoulder, makes it worthwhile. Happy new year! Tvoz | talk 23:56, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What is it with the South Pacific and rock musicians falling out of trees??? Keith Richards I blamed on, well, being Keith Richards .... but old Col too? hahahahah Tvoz | talk 19:06, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]