User talk:A1octopus/Archived Talk, April 07

in regards to T-Rex

T-Rex was a given nickname to the individual and therefore, the copyright law won't be affect the individual. the law only applies if the individual uses name for monetary sake. another fact about this band is that they are releasing their cd not to be sold, but rather to be given for free, which means the copyright law does not apply. your statement is like saying no TWO person can be named Andrew.Alienbabyboy 08:55, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Just a note...

A note here, you noted that the name T-rex was copywritten. I think you mean copyrighted - copywritten would be the past tense of copywrite, which is just a wee bit different then copyright.

(Don't mind me, it's just the grammar nazi coming out...)

--Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 00:08, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

It's like walking through a mirror

Just ran into you on the Electrogoth AfD. Another edit history consisting entirely of dubious goth and indie bands and obscure railway stations — are you sure you're not my evil twin? - iridescenti (talk to me!) 16:25, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

• If I told you'd I'd published a book as well would that make it too freaky? A1octopus 17:02, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Bet yours sold more than mine though - I think mine shifted about 100 copies in total - iridescenti (talk to me!) 17:51, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
    • Only very slightly (317). A1octopus 18:53, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Cleanup templates

Just to let you know that most cleanup templates, like "unreferenced", "fact", "cleanup" etc., are best not "subst"ed. See WP:SUBST for more details. Regards, Rich Farmbrough, 22:22 22 April 2007 (GMT).

Walker Books

I have the links for walker books http://www.walkerbooks.co.uk/About —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Michael Redd (talk • contribs) 22:38, 23 April 2007 (UTC).

Thanks.

I would like to formally thank you for showing me that the page I helped create was against the rules. Thanks! --Orginality Is Key7793 01:02, 24 April 2007 (UTC) :]

Talk page blanking

Hi - I've reinstated your talk page, it's considered good practice to keep the talk page present, and just archive it now and then, see WP:ARCHIVE. Often useful when the same issues come up again (like Walker Books which has been reposted, despite an earlier dispute). --Oscarthecat 16:02, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Theagilmore.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Theagilmore.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. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, 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. (ESkog)^(Talk) 18:24, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Joshua (band)

Hello. Today, as you noticed, I created Joshua (band), an article about a band which clearly meets WP:MUSIC. Further, I took time to cite references, thus meeting policies WP:V and WP:ATT. How can you possibly justify speedily deleting this?

Previously I was not aware that the article had been deleted - looking at Speedy point 4, as referred, I see that an article is speedy "...provided that the copy is substantially identical to the deleted version and that any revisions made clearly do not address the reasons for which the page was deleted..." Looking at the provious debate I can see that the article was largely unsourced and made perhaps extraordinary claims (however I cannot verify this directly). I submit that this version sources it's claims using significant, reliable, third party sources - which seems to be the hinge point of the AFD. Dan, the CowMan 01:46, 11 May 2007 (UTC)