User talk:ForefrontFollower
Welcome ForefrontFollower!
Hello ForefrontFollower. Welcome to Wikipedia and thank you for your contributions!
I'm Walter Görlitz, one of the other editors here, and I hope you decide to stay and help contribute to this amazing repository of knowledge.
| Some pages of helpful information to get you started: | Some common sense Dos and Don'ts:
|
| If you need further help, you can: | or you can: | or even: |
Alternatively, leave me a message at my talk page or type {{helpme}} here on your talk page and someone will try to help.
There are many ways you can contribute to Wikipedia. Here are a few ideas:
|
|
To get some practice editing you can use a sandbox. You can create your own personal sandbox for use any time. It's perfect for working on bigger projects. Then for easy access in the future, you can put {{My sandbox}} on your user page. By the way, seeing as you haven't created a user page yet, simply click here to start it.
Please remember to:
- Always sign your posts on talk pages. You can do this either by clicking on the
button on the edit toolbar or by typing four tildes ~~~~at the end of your post. This will automatically insert your signature, a link to your talk page, and a timestamp. - Leave descriptive edit summaries for your edits. Doing so helps other editors understand what changes you have made and why you made them.
Sincerely, Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:57, 13 April 2022 (UTC) (Leave me a message)
Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:57, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
Code of Ethics edit problems[edit]
I will address the problems in this edit on your talk page, but be prepared for a major revert on your part.
- The image you added to infobox is copyrighted album art and there is no fair use rationale for it to be used on the subject's article. Even if you were to add it, it would be challenged. The fact that you did not add a valid copyright notice when uploading it to commons also means it will likely be deleted.
- The genres are not sourced in the article. They are also incorrectly capitalized. If there are more than three (sourced) genres, they should be presented as a list. The link to the band's details at JesusFreakHideout.com does not support the genres. They are listed in a "genre cloud" and no author is responsible for that so it cannot be used to support any genres.
- The infobox documentation for {{Infobox musical artist}} makes it clear that you should not list "records". Pipe it out.
- Just because Ian Eskelin is a friend of the band's does not make him an associated act.
- The genre in the lede is also incorrectly capitalized (although that was already there).
- The layout is completely atrocious. See MOS:LAYOUT and do not create all the headings and sub-headings. You have an empty "history" section followed by a one-paragraph section and a sub-heading with another single paragraph. It gets a bit better as you progress, but take the advice of the MoS: "Headings introduce sections and subsections, clarify articles by breaking up text, organize content, and populate the table of contents. Very short sections and subsections clutter an article with headings and inhibit the flow of the prose. Short paragraphs and single sentences generally do not warrant their own subheading."
- All references should be placed after punctuation, not before.
- You consistently mis-spell Blaze's name, and he should be called "Barry" anywhere other than listing his name as "Barry Blaze" once.
- Much of what you added was entirely unsourced. Either remove it or source it.
- Date ranges in prose should use words and in headings and tables the dash should be an en-dash ( – per MOS:DATERANGE).
- Tables with a row- or column-span of 1 are unnecessary.
- The "Chart positions" heading should probably just read "Charting". The format for charting like this should not be broken down by album like this. Instead, add an album column
- None of their chart positions or two Dove nominations are sourced.
I will let you address these concerns and if I see more, I will comment here. I will likely revert everything within a day or two you take no action. Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:52, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
- If I may please respond to your thoughts on my edits (and before you get into the meat of my thoughts, I wanted to let you know I am working on most all of these edits per your suggestions-thanks for the input):
- The image was taken by me of a press flat for radio and record stores and then I uploaded via wiki media. Someone had messaged me there and I responded days ago, but with no further follow-up from anyone. The usage falls in line with usage of other images by other artists, both in the Christian and Mainstream realms. I have read what was said, and the reason why it was used as fair use, and those images were not removed. So I am trying to use the same as what they did. View my message here asking for help, or to guide me to do something else. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:ForefrontFollower
- Fair. I was using what was capitalized already, as also is capitalized on the wiki musical genre page. I'll make changes and streamline things.
- My fault for not removing the words when I copy and pasted. I'll edit that.
- Regarding Ian, as listed in the page, was a part of the band at one time. Per the {{{inbox musical artist}}} documentation, Ian should stay as an associated act:
- For individuals: groups of which they have been a member
- Acts with which this act has collaborated on multiple occasions, or on an album, or toured with as a single collaboration act playing together
- I know as "contemporary" is an adjective, and not a proper noun such as "Christian". But to your point, that is how the other wiki has it. I may just go ahead and change it regardless.
- Wow, that is a bit harsh, especially for a newbie. You could have simply said it was is "poor form", or something alone those lines. Sorry about the "History" section being empty. As things evolved, I created new sections and ended up not using the "history" section, and I didn't catch not removing it. I'll remove that. My methodology was to flow in a chronological order with the background of what was happening when the band signed with a new label, and then broke down per album and ensuing tour. And as for short paragraphs, etc., I not only followed other examples (look at DC Talk's DC Talk section, or their Free At Last movie section), but was using what is generally accepted, which is a minimum of three sentences to carry a thought forward. If you feel they are too short, I can rework them rather easily.
- Sorry about that. I tried to catch them all. Tired eyes and all. I will fix that.
- Actually, his last name is legally Blazs, and only professionally changed it after signing with Forefront. So provided "Blazs" is used prior to the release of the self-titled album, and "Blaze" afterwards, then it is absolutely correct. I will verify that the correct one is used at the correct time, but if they are, I believe they should stand as it unless you can provide documentation that an entry can only use the current professional name. Furthermore, per my journalism classes in college, last names are preferred after the introduction of the person's full name, with an occasional change once to keep from redundancy. Also, see other artists such as Kanye West where his last name "West" is used extensively.
- Much of what I added was unsourced? I took an article that literally had only 3 citations and now it has 25. I spent hours researching websites, Billboard, books, etc. But what about other wiki's, such as the band Guardian. It has at least half of the sources I provided. Not to mention their last two sub-headings for their History. They don't really even have paragraphs, but simply a sentence, followed by another, by another. Isn't that contrary to MOS:LAYOUT?
- Really? I never would have guessed because all the examples I studied never used en-dash. So I guess literally all of the music entries are wrong. (DC Talk, Audio Adrenaline, Kanye West, etc).
- Again, I was only following examples that already exist. I can see how it would be superfluous in the code, but if it doesn't matter to the observer, and all these other pages are using it, then does it really matter, and should I as a newbie be called out for something when I'm following by example?
- Again, I am just following what already exists. See: Jesus Freak (album) , Heart in Motion. Also, since "Charting" is a verb, and "Chart positions" is a noun, "Charting" would not be correct. Per your comment about not breaking down by album, and to instead add an album column is helpful. I'll change that.
- Actually, they are sourced in the sections above and I felt to do so again in the charts would be redundant and superfluous. But I can add these sources. Most of what I have seen with DC Talk and Amy Grant were rarely sourced. Out of the 23 lines from the aforementioned Jesus Freak page, only 2 lines are sourced. As for Heart in Motion, only about half. Again, I thought since I had sourced them earlier in the page it would suffice.
- Thanks again for the help, and now I'll start on revisions. ~~~~ ForefrontFollower (talk) 13:02, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
- @Walter Görlitz: Hello there, how are you today? I noticed the changes you made. Thanks for that. I thought you might have helped guide me a bit more and let me make changes instead of doing them yourself. Practice is only going to help me get better. Wiki is a lot to absorb with their markup and standards. Below are a couple of apologies and a comment.
Some of the changes you ended up making were because I didn't fully comprehend what you intended to convey. For example, I left the subheadings for the three albums from the Forefront era based upon your previous comment that things got better as I progressed. Those sections were much bigger than the previous section with a heading of the band's creation followed by a subheading of Visual Paradox. Therefore, I assumed you were saying they were ok to leave. My fault.
The reason why I left Skippy as it was instead of using his last name is because he goes by a mononym. Rules are different for someone using one. Much like how Bono is named "Bono" throughout this article: https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/02/arts/u2-bono-loses-voice.html instead of his actual last name "Hewson", but Kanye West is named "West" throughout this article: https://www.nytimes.com/2022/04/06/arts/music/kanye-west-coachella-swedish-house-mafia-weeknd.html . However, it's such a minute thing, who cares at this point? Just sorry you went through and made changes.
Regarding your comment on Ian, what would I need to do to prove that he was temporarily part of the band? Ian's name is linked back to his page which already states that he was with Code for a short time. Should I find a copy of that Mix CD, take a photo of it and upload it? Haha. The statement on his page doesn't have a comment asking for verification. Should there be one since there is one on the Code of Ethics page?
Anyway, thanks for the help. Just be patient with me. It's a lot, and I want to continue to be a contributor. I am going to take a break for a few days, then I'll come back and try to fill in more gaps with sources. ForefrontFollower (talk) 16:24, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
Non-free rationale for File:Code of Ethics Blaze promo image.jpg[edit]
Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Code of Ethics Blaze promo image.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under non-free content criteria, but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia is acceptable. Please go to the file description page, and edit it to include a non-free rationale.
If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified the non-free rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' 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 "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described in section F6 of the criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:30, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
- Hey Walter! I fail to understand why the file doesn't fit under the nfcc as I checked off all the components from the non-free use guidelines before uploading. Of the multiple other artist entries that I used as references, they use a simple boiler plate explanation. I at least went through and gave further detailed information as to why this image, promotional in nature, would further qualify under nfcc. Furthermore,I shrank the image, and gave it a lower resolution to fit the standards that I found on wiki. If you think I should shrink it down more, and to a lower resolution, then of course I will, but I thought I was following guidelines that I found on wiki. If this is still an issue, then please point me to the specific article with the size and resolution protocols because apparently what I found is incorrect and I don't want to keep making similar mistakes. Thanks! ForefrontFollower (talk) 00:13, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
- Even a photo of a copyrighted image is still copyrighted. There is likely to be another image that is not copyrighted, or a publicity photo of the band (I may even have one since I got a lot in my "radio" days) that would be appropriate, but an album cover almost never qualifies for this use. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:20, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
- You can make your appeal at the image. Something along the lines of "we can make it smaller, and no other image can be found" may work. Let the admin decide if it's a valid reason. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:21, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
- I know a photo of a copyrighted image is still copyrighted. It's called a derivative work. But under the fair use exemptions as provided by the Copyright Act, one can use copyrighted properties for a handful of reasons. Most importantly this image does nothing to impede, nor devalue, the artist's interest, nor commercial value. Not to mention I did reduce the image resolution and reduced the overall size of the image. If someone tried to print it, it would be all pixelated and janky compared to what the original one from Word Records printed and released. No one is selling the image, and there is no intrinsic commercial value in posting the photo.
- Any image that you would have would also have a copyright. That's what the Copyright Act from 1976 provided. It granted automatic copyright protection for anything by simply being fixed in a tangible form. It didn't need to be published, nor registered with the Copyright office. That old requirement was done away with. Everything now literally has automatic Copyright protection.
- You say you may have a publicity photo of the band? That's what this is! It wasn't the album cover. It was a promotional image Word released for the record. Furthermore, there are several album images on other pages here on wiki for the vast majority of artists...here's a few: (Nu Thang, Free at Last (DC Talk album), Jesus Freak (album), Supernatural (Santana album),Yourself or Someone Like You, Under the Table and Dreaming, etc etc etc). All of the pages display copyrighted images which is held by their respective record labels. And they all have been approved as fair use, and these all have been on wiki for years. No admin has removed them because they all qualify as fair use.
- As I mentioned earlier, I'm only following by example since I am new to wiki contributions. If other contributors and admins allow things to be contributed and exist, there must be a reason. I wanted to help the artists that I grew up listening to, to have the best page they can. I feel they deserve it. Some artists have better, and more detailed pages. DC Talk, obviously, has the most of any Forefront artist. But I wanted to help the rest as best as I can.
- Thanks for understanding. ForefrontFollower (talk) 12:56, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
- It is my understanding that a derivative work is if you actually modify the original, not simply photographing it. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:31, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
- It is not. As stated in 17 U.S. Code § 101 - Definitions - A “derivative work” is a work based upon one or more preexisting works, such as a translation, musical arrangement, dramatization, fictionalization, motion picture version, sound recording, art reproduction, abridgment, condensation, or any other form in which a work may be recast, transformed, or adapted.
- Simply put, a copy of anything is a derivative of the original. No modifications, nor changes have to take place. Even reducing a digital image in resolution or size, is also considered a derivative.
- They required Copyright law class for journalism students in college, so I had to learn the law and its exemptions, as painful as it was haha. The reason is two-fold. First of all, the piece by the journalist is a new work and would have it's own copyright (be it work-made-for-hire for some company such as the New York Times, or for a story you license via syndication is another story) and offered the same protections as the latest Jeff Koons art that Sotheby's is auctioning. Secondly, the journalist also needs to know what reproductions would fall under the fair-use exemption. Doing a review of someone's album (or single) where you reprint lyrics, and/or display the album cover would fall under the fair-use exemptions. These reviews of Toby all fall under the fair-use exemptions. https://www.ccmmagazine.com/reviews/tobymac-the-elements-album-review/ https://truetunes.com/toby-macs-help-is-on-the-way/
- If you know all of this, then I'm sorry if I am telling you things you already know. I can't assume everyone took Copyright law class in college like I had to.
- Fair use has 4 factors:
- (1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
- (2) the nature of the copyrighted work;
- (3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole
- (4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work
- To qualify for a fair use exemption, you do not have to meet all 4 factors. Historically, the 4th factor is the one the courts weigh the most heavily, as it directly financially impacts the creator of the copyright. But let me walk through the CCM review of Toby's The Elements and how the court would view fair use applicability.
- (1) CCM is a commercial entity which sales advertisements because it is a repository for information regarding Christian music.
- -By CCM being a business and commercial in nature means CCM fails factor 1-
- (2) music, and imagery is artistic in nature.
- -Courts view art as deserving more protection than say a cookbook, or a car manual which is non-fiction or more informational. CCM fails factor 2-
- (3) the portion of the image used is small compared to the original images. No music is used, nor lyrics. Song titles have no copyright protection
- -CCM passes factor 3-
- (4) the effect on the potential market is extremely positive. In fact, the argument to be made is that the market, and in turn value, would be significantly smaller, if not non-existent without the album review.
- -CCM passes factor 4-
- As a result, CCM passes 2 of the 4 factors, with number 4 again being the most weighted. Now you get the idea.
- Anyway, enough law stuff. Go have a good weekend man! ForefrontFollower (talk) 10:50, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
- You assume Wikipedia is only beholden to US copyright laws. In short, a photograph of a work is not considered a derivative; it is considered a copy. The difference between a derivative and a copy is that something has to be done to the original. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:09, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
- I have seen photographs of public spaces in South Africa be removed as their copyright law does not allow for it. I have seen other photos be removed for various copyright issues. We'll see if it holds on this image. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:11, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
- Actually , I do not assume that. The US aligned it's Copyright laws to better reflect what existed in the rest of the world when they passed the 1976 update and the DMCA. And being part of WPIO and GATT, it has become easier to enforce Copyright protections across the many nations. There is a reciprocity for protection regardless where the work is, and Wikipedia would fall in line with that. And let me take this moment to apologize to you. Apparently, you are correct. The art reproduction and condensation factors don't apply to photographs of existing works (despite there being judgements in Federal court saying just that).
- Yeah, I know about some other cases like the South Africa one you mentioned. Remember the "bean" in Chicago? Years ago, security guards tried to prevent people from taking photos of it. The city was trying to protect the artist's copyright. Or like the case about the stamp the USPS created based on a photo of the Korean War veteran's memorial in DC. The artist took the post office to court and won because it had infringed on his copyright.
- Anyway, like you said, I guess we'll just see. Ok, I've got to go and pack for my trip tomorrow. Hope you have a good week! ForefrontFollower (talk) 16:40, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
- The deletion for lack of FUR was removed because you added one retroactively, so it should be OK for now. Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:48, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
- You assume Wikipedia is only beholden to US copyright laws. In short, a photograph of a work is not considered a derivative; it is considered a copy. The difference between a derivative and a copy is that something has to be done to the original. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:09, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
- It is my understanding that a derivative work is if you actually modify the original, not simply photographing it. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:31, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
- Even a photo of a copyrighted image is still copyrighted. There is likely to be another image that is not copyrighted, or a publicity photo of the band (I may even have one since I got a lot in my "radio" days) that would be appropriate, but an album cover almost never qualifies for this use. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:20, 22 April 2022 (UTC)