User talk:Tarcil

Hello. Tarcil (talk) 04:13, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Stock splits

I added the following to your question about stock splits on the humanities refdesk, but it went straight into the archive for that day and so it probably won't come up on your watchlist:

If you go into http://scholar.google.com/ and type in stock split, a bunch of potentially useful results come up. Duoduoduo (talk) 18:34, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Commander in Chief Revert

I undid your change related to the CinC because that was the proper term most of the 20th century and when that photo was taken. "The Commander in Chief" was the President, but regional commanders were Commanders in Chief, (region or force), until some White House folks in 2002 threw out long historical usage in a fit of image polishing. Directive to Commander-in-Chief of United States Forces of Occupation Regarding the Military Government of Germany; April 1945 or Us Defense And Intelligence Abbreviations And Acronyms Handbook where you will see a long list. See for another example the Navy's page Atlantic Command, Commander in Chief US where you will find, my emphasis:

The title Commander in Chief, Atlantic Fleet was in common usage until late 1922 when the title Commander Scouting Force replaced it. Usage of the title Commander in Chief, Atlantic Fleet, was resumed on 1 February 1941, when the United States Fleet was reorganized to form the US Atlantic, US Pacific and US Asiatic Fleets, each with a four-star commander-in-chief. The title was changed in 2002 to Commander US Atlantic Fleet.

Palmeira (talk) 06:27, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reference errors on 1 April

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:23, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Guess Who image

Unfortunately I had to revert your addition of File:Albert Flasher.png because that is a fair use/non free image that only can be used on the Albert Flasher article to illustrate the cover. If you will look at the licensing section of the image page, you will see that restriction. I know, it's a pain, but we have to live with it. If you can find a public domain image, feel fee to use it. --rogerd (talk) 18:16, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently, it is not enough to explain the reasoning on the image page. You are only allowed to use cover art in the articles about that specific recording, which, is As is mentioned in the licensing section, use of this image is "solely to illustrate the audio recording in question" and "Any other uses of this image, on Wikipedia or elsewhere, may be copyright infringement." There is much more detail in Wikipedia:Non-free content. The purpose of this rather strictly enforced policy is to keep Wikipedia and the Wikimedia Foundation from encountering any legal trouble due to unauthorized use of copyrighted material. --rogerd (talk) 21:15, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I am asking some other people I know for clarification on this matter. --rogerd (talk) 21:23, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What I found out was that in order for non-free images to be used in this manner, there needs to be significant content or "critical commentary" about the about the album and album cover to warrant its inclusion in the article. I am not talking about commentary by wikipedia editors, but by notable commentators at the time of its publication. For example, see The Beatles, and the section about Sgt. Pepper. You will see that there is mention of this type of content and commentary about the album and the album cover in particular in the article, thereby satisfying the requirement for fair use. However, I don't see anything like that with respect to Albert Flasher. Just that fact that the album art is illustrative of what the band looked like in a given period is not enough to overcome the barrier. I hope this helps. --rogerd (talk) 20:00, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of File:La Brea Tar Pits Elephant Statues 1990 left.jpg

Notice

The file File:La Brea Tar Pits Elephant Statues 1990 left.jpg has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

orphaned image, no encyclopedic use

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated files}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.

Also:

This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 01:01, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]