User talk:Soundvisions1/Talk/Archive/Archive1

Image:Aquanettas.gif

Thanks for sticking to your guns about your right to license your own work in whatever form you see fit. Crypticfirefly (talk) 03:58, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

If you'd like to reupload this image and you are indeed the creator, please remove the watermark. Thank you, Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP! :)} 03:51, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

You said: If you'd like to reupload this image and you are indeed the creator, please remove the watermark

First - what I am about to say is not a personal attack on you but a comment on the way this issue has been handled.

I will stress what I said on the image page - I am the photographer and I own all rights. How I choose to license any of my images in up to me and me alone. The License I chose is:

This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 United States License. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/us/ or send a letter to Creative Commons, 171 Second Street, Suite 300, San Francisco, California, 94105, USA.

I do not think you, or any other mod, took the time to read what I posted on the images talk page and the clear citations of the Wiki rules as they apply to my images and how the images are allowed and should not be deleted. If you, or any mod, had taken the time to read and not just delete I would have seen the discussion on the topic. There were none.

As for your specific comments to me: perhaps you are not a photographer or, if you are, you have no objections to your work being given away without any form of protection. That is fine if so, however as I would never tell you how to release your photographs or work I would appreciate you not telling me how I can, or can not, license my work. Your comment implies I am not the photographer but if I really were all I have to do to prove it is to upload a "clean" image. After 30 years in the industry I can say this with all seriousness - Do you think I am stupid?

Soundvisions1 (talk) 04:25, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

In all fairness, I can claim to be a champion ballroom dancer right now and go on to edit every ballroom dance article the way I see fit. However, assertions of experience aren't very solid on the Internet, and I'd get reverted in a heartbeat. If you can't prove that you own the photograph, it has to be deleted. I did read the talk page, but just because you say you're the author doesn't mean you are (I'm not calling you a lier or picking on you, this is how I'd respond to anyone who tried to upload a watermarked image).

As for protecting your work, sadly that's an issue. If you upload an image, you're agreeing to do so under the GFDL; if you don't want it to be mercilessly edited, then don't submit it.

Anyway; I'm afraid that you'll have to submit the image without a watermark, or else you can't prove ownership. Cheers, Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP! :)} 04:29, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Ahhh...you are only saying what suits your deletion now. If you upload an image, you're agreeing to do so under the GFDL is what you say - but no I am not using that, nor does Wiki demand that. I am using a Creative Commons license which Wiki allows. Also you had sited a rule under the WP:CSD as to why it was deleted. It was under Images and mediaSection 3 which starts off: Improper license. Images licensed as "for non-commercial use only", "non-derivative use" or "used with permission" that were uploaded on or after May 19, 2005 and that seems to be all you bothered to look at. However if you continue to read it that goes on to say: except where they have been shown to comply with the limited standards for the use of non-free content. This includes images licensed under a "Non-commercial Creative Commons License" and that links to the Creative Commons license page.

Now Unless Wiki has updated their rules in the last 30 seconds and it clearly says the following:

There are thus six regularly used licenses:

1. Attribution alone (by)

2. Attribution + Noncommercial (by-nc)

3. Attribution + NoDerivs (by-nd)

4. Attribution + ShareAlike (by-sa)

5. Attribution + Noncommercial + NoDerivs (by-nc-nd)

6. Attribution + Noncommercial + ShareAlike (by-nc-sa)

Now take a close look at number 5 and compare it to my license: This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 United States License. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/us/ or send a letter to Creative Commons, 171 Second Street, Suite 300, San Francisco, California, 94105, USA.

I'm afraid that you'll have to submit the image without a watermark, or else you can't prove ownership, That is a very naive statement for you to make. Pretend you are a bank teller and I walk into the bank. I say to you "I would like you to give me all your money" You say "But I can't do that" so I say "I'm afraid that you'll have to turn over all your money, or else you can't prove that you are really a bank". Or most people would just call that a bank robbery.

Soundvisions1 (talk) 04:54, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

The deletion reason stands because of the watermark; the watermark implies that the image is fair-use only, while you are saying it is not. Also, I'm pretty sure those are all GDFL licenses.

Whatever, though. I'm not going to pick apart that metaphor apart from saying that Wikipedia isn't at all like a bank. There's no use bickering though; if you can't upload a free-use image, the deletion stands. Sorry, Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP! :)} 05:02, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

I have debated the watermark issue elsewhere but I will ask MoP directly here why they insist "I'm afraid that you'll have to submit the image without a watermark, or else you can't prove ownership" and that my image was deleted "because of the watermark" yet Special:Contributions/5b3TnY seems to also watermark their images (of which there are many) and that is not an issue. In looking over many of the images I see nothing to indicate there was ever deletions of them for any reason. Soundvisions1 (talk) 15:10, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

I stumbled across this Image:01-16-06_0006.jpg and it's watermark if far, far beyond anything I would consider doing. Yet it has not been deleted or even nominated for deletion. On April 5, 2008 there was a request to supply licensing information yet no mention of speedy deletion because of a watermark. At this point I not going to assume that MoP has anything against the Aquanettas, or against me personally, and will go off the observation that it was because MoP had a misunderstanding of guidelines. Soundvisions1 (talk) 21:13, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Creative commons licenses

As I noted above, I don't approve at all of the idea that just because something is watermarked it somehow can't possibly have uploaded by the image creator. I think it is a silly waste of time in the context of your photograph, not to put too fine a point on it.

That aside, the rules on what is considered "free" for Wikipedia purposes is more than a little different from what is considered "free" everywhere else in the world. There's a page here that sets out which Creative Commons licenses are considered "free" for Wikipedia purposes: Wikipedia:Image_copyright_tags/Free_licenses. Alas, "Attribution + Noncommercial + NoDerivs (by-nc-nd)" is one of the licenses that Wikipedia considers to be "non-free" for its purposes. Wikipedia's loss, if you ask me, but that's the way the Wikipedia Foundation wants it.  :-)

So at any rate, to the extent that someone is giving you a hard time for watermarking images, they are simply wrong. It is unfortunate that they've focused on asking you to upload the image without a watermark instead of asking you to upload it with a Wikipedia-compatible license. Crypticfirefly (talk) 02:31, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

You know what is funny in a way - I tried to cite what was clearly visible and did as instructed in regards to a discussion with a -hangon- tag. However as you see above there was no pre-discussion as the mod simply deleted it and went on their way. I had to start another discussion here which went nowhere. So after a few days of digging and suggesting changes so everyone is "on the same page" when it comes to images I found a little bit of info that blows the "Wikipedia never allows Noncommercial images at anytime" argument out of the water:

If an image is licensed under non-commercial use and is used on Wikipedia, it must be used in :::accordance with the Wikipedia:Non-free content policy. In addition to a fair use tag and a

fair use rationale, tag the image with -Non-free with NC-.

And this goes back to the fact that many of the mod do not really know what they are doing in certain areas, I mean no disrespect with that comment but seriously I would never go into a page about, say, Physics Analysis Workstation and delete things. Someone who "likes" is not the same as someone who "knows IP law" when it comes to music copyright issue or even photographic copyright issues. In the world of the internet Wikipedia is still an infant and over the last few weeks I have seen the baby side of it for sure. Soundvisions1 (talk) 21:21, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Initial comments

I've made some comments at WT:IUP. You raise several good points and as a photographer myself I agree with many of them. Coupling them with Wikipedia policy might not always be straightforward though.

Just to note that you used the word "wiki" a lot. Wiki is a generic term referring to a site that anyone can edit. Wikipedia is one of many wikis, but using the word "wiki" to refer to this wiki, i.e. Wikipedia, may be confusing. Stifle (talk) 11:05, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the tip - I will try and use "Wikipedia" more now.

I was excited about the prospect of contributing to Wikipedia and as a person who has photogrpahed several artists who do not currently have images I was more than happy to upload some of mine. The only delete issues I have had were last year when I was trying to use publicity images, that I had done, and were deleted because they were...publicity photos. I did not fight it as there was another one someone uploaded for use. This current go round with the Aquanettas image had to do with a personal issue that, because my image was on their page, put me into it all. As you can read above the only option I was given to prove I am a photographer was to give away my work for free of get lost. I am not doing that but I am holding off allowing any more of my images to be used on Wikipedia until there are more photographer user-friendly "rules" and licenses allowed. Watermarking is just a way to assure photo credit is given in my case. It is also a way to deter someone from claiming they took the image. I think the current "blanket" rules are in great need of refining. Perfect example is the term "remix" on the CCL. In all my years I have never once been asked if someone could "remix" my image. Likewise "royalty free" could apply to images but mainly applies to films, TV and music. Images are more of a "per use" flat fee unless it goes over the wire - which I have also had done. I was paid a fee to shoot the Grammys one time and my images went to AP who made all the money from selling them. I am sure some of my work was published but I have no idea where.

I would love to see various Wikipedia mods being appointed to carry out specific things such as photography and then sub categorize to things such as music, film, landscape(nature) and so forth. If it were up to me I would make sure every one of the people on that "top tier" of "Photo Mods" understood that "commercial" use for a photograph is not the same as "commercial use" for a film, a song, a book or a chart. The concept is same but you don't need, for example, a sync license to put a book in a film. You don't have to worry about a TV show being put on a T-Shirt or a poster and sold. These are issues that are for sure part of music and I know photogs who have very detailed contracts that are very different for merchandising use and "free" use. I also find it ironic that for a photograph Wikipedia does not allow you to say "No Merchandising" however for "text" you can choose a license that clearly states "No front cover, No rear cover" (hmmm..as I type this I think it is a good point to bring up over one the discussion) Soundvisions1 (talk) 18:53, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Har har

Very funny. The problem is that you were disrupting a policy discussion on whether lists are subject to notability with a post that was 1. blatant canvassing and 2. related to whether entries of lists are subject to notability. You were in the wrong venue, disrupting an existing discussion, and you should have noticed that the notability policy specifically says "notability does not limit article content". That's about as clear a statement as you can get that your question about list entries (a specific part of articles) was misplaced. --erachima talk 06:50, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Actually I was asking what makes a list notable, not the other way around. If my post was read as something else is was not meant that way at all. Irregardless of where the topic had been discussed my questions and discussion were based on the concept that a spin-off lists notability comes from its parent article. As I read the discussion you were having I saw a lot of conversation on exactly what I have been talking about elsewhere. But the bottom line is that I am now going off the consensus that GNG and SNG's are not important as far as lists go, that any list, even if it is a spin-off, needs to stand on its own and the primary guideline of a lists notability is "does the list have entry's that have their own Wikipedia articles?". And maybe that is why you felt I was only asking about a list entry's notability. As this is my personal talk page it is ok to have a point of view - and I strongly feel that a spin off list should inherit it's parents notability and subject specific guidelines. Soundvisions1 (talk) 07:11, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism Warning #1

You have asked me to use the article's talk page, but I don't see anything from you there on the subject, so I am unable to address your concerns. I do, however, have some concerns and comments. It doesn't seem appropriate to make them on that page - here seems the appropriate place.

1. I don't appreciate you vandalising my talk page. Please do not do it again. Consider this to be vandalism warning #1.
2. Two of the references you have provided are extremely vague. I have, politely, twice, asked you to supply more information. Why is this a problem for you?
3. Until you supply more information, I will continue to ask for it.
4. If you continue to vandalise my talk page, continue to be rude to me, and continue to revert my edits without good reason, I will ask an admin to block you.
5. One of the references you quote contains errors of fact. I have noted this. Why do you have a problem with this?
6. You have put a diatribe on my talk page. I have not read it. I am rather annoyed that you have vandalised my talk page and unjustifiably reverted my edits. When I am no longer annoyed, I will read it. (However, if it is a load of waffle, I will not be wasting my time responding.)
7. It is not up to me to explain to you the difference between fact and opinion. It is up to YOU to work it out. There are plenty of WP "help" resources available to you. Use them. For example, had you asked me politely, I would have explained. But you haven't. You have only ever attacked me and been rude to me. Did you know WP has a policy of no personal attacks?
8. If you are new to WP, ask for help - don't assume and then pick fights with people who don't agree with you. If you are not new, you should know better.

Pdfpdf (talk) 13:30, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Opening a discussion on a user page is not vandalism. The fact you admit to not even reading the topic posted nulls out most of this post you made in response. Per your wishes I will not attempt to talk to you via your user page. You are still welcome to talk to me via mine provided you keep it civil and do not make further posts like this one. Soundvisions1 (talk) 13:35, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

We seem to be having significant communication problems. I don't know why. In reading your communications with other people, you seem like a reasonable, rational and sensible person. However, you seem to behave differently towards me. You seem to take a different meaning from my words than I intend - take a simple example. I asked: "Where would you like me to reply?". You responded: "You may use the Heart (band)'s talk page". To me, that sounds like an answer to a different question, and I'm still not really sure where you would like (i.e. prefer) me to reply.

I haven't been able to work out which timezone you are in; if you look at my user page, you will see mine. It's now 12:45am here, (i.e. midnight + 45mins), and it's my daughter's bithday today, so I intend to go to bed very soon; I'm afraid I don't have time at the moment to give you a proper reply. Let's see what I can cover briefly:

• "Opening a discussion on a user page is not vandalism." - Agreed. However, I don't understand what point you are making.
• "Per your wishes I will not attempt to talk to you via your user page." - I don't understand. (It is not my wish that you don't communicate on my page.)
• "The license and rationale is clearly stated on the image page. Are you referring to something else?" - Possibly. As I said, I'm no expert. It's just that in the past I've had people complain that I haven't had a FUR which specifically mentions why a particular picture is fair use on a particular page. I expect you know more about it than me. Believe-it-or-not, I was trying to be helpful, and trying to ensure that the picture would stay on the page and not be removed by some picture-license-zealot.

I will continue at a different time-of-day. Pdfpdf (talk) 14:35, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

I am not going to debate the issue any further. The thread(s) and the log(s) speak for themselves. Lets move on. Soundvisions1 (talk) 23:15, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Fact vs opinon

OK. I have scanned your comments. They are not waffle. I agree with most of them, though I'd like clarification on some. Where would you like me to reply? It seems to me that the Heart talk page would be a good place for your comments and my response. But you may prefer otherwise. Pdfpdf (talk) 13:46, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

::You may use the Heart (band)'s talk page. Please do not make a new sub header as there is already an active one for the early years. Soundvisions1 (talk) 13:38, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

I decided to create a new section because my answers to your questions are so buried in the discussion(s) even I have a hard time finding them. So there is a new sub header where I list only the references in hopes it makes clear to everyone why I made the changes I did. As I say on the Heart (band) talk page I do not intend to answer any more questions about those topics now. I may, however, add more references as I sort though information. Soundvisions1 (talk) 23:21, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

OK. So just to clarify, does this mean you do not want me to respond to your posting User talk:Pdfpdf#Fact vs opinon? Pdfpdf (talk) 00:30, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

See the Heart (band) talk page. I really think that covers it all. Soundvisions1 (talk) 00:40, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm. I have, and I don't. If I did, I wouldn't be here asking you for clarification.
So, I ask again, "does this mean you do not want me to respond to your posting?". Pdfpdf (talk) 00:56, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

New picture on Heart page

I'm glad you were able to find a picture of the pre-Wilson Heart. Two comments/questions:
Mike Fisher is not in the picture. What does that mean? I was under the impression he was a band member until Nancy came along. This picture implies otherwise. Can you clarify this? If so, you might also want to copy your answer to the talk page.
I'm not an expert on picture licenses & WP, but I have the impression that a non-public-domain picture needs a fair use rationale, and it seems to me this new picture doesn't have one. I may have things completely wrong, but if I'm right, somebody is going to come along and complain.
Pdfpdf (talk) 13:55, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm. I've just read the rest of your talk page. Hmmm. It seems I might not be telling you anything of which you are not highly aware!

Changing focus, I'm not super-happy about the fact that the photos I upload can be used by anyone for any reason, but I've been too lazy to jump into what seems like the stagnant and turgid pond containing more information. If you resolve your issues to your satisfaction, I'm fairly confident that there is a large number of people who would be interested to hear about this. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 14:15, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

The license and rationale is clearly stated on the image page. Are you referring to something else?

Mike Fisher is not in the picture, correct. What does that mane? The obvious thing is it means he is not in the picture. Beyond that I would guess he was not in the band. My other guess, based on the date, is he might have already been living in Canada.

I am not sure what you mean by the other comments. Soundvisions1 (talk) 13:42, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Third opinion project

Your request for a third opinion has been edited to comply with Wikipedia:Third opinion#How to list a dispute. If your entry as originally worded contained information vital to an understanding of the dispute, please add those details to the article talk page where the dispute exists. Thanks. — Athaenara ✉ 15:21, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Your edit has made the overall issue more vague with only one link to one out of three links. I followed Rule 2: "Provide a section link to the specific talk page section followed by a brief neutral description of the dispute." I tried to provide the needed description with links however, baes on your edit, would you advise I add 2 more links that cover the other two locations? Soundvisions1 (talk) 15:29, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

If you want to list each dispute, and can provide a discussion link and a brief neutral description for each one separately, I don't see why not. There seemed to be two or possibly three disputes (a year and a warning?) as you originally listed them (diff). — Athaenara ✉ 15:45, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

I reedited the listing to read more clear. The warning dispute seems the have been cleared up. (Wikipedia guidelines say It is ok to delete warnings from user pages) The other issue goes along with the "date" issue but has more to do with what is considered a "fact" and what is considered an "opinion" and that is coming out more in the user talk pages. Soundvisions1 (talk) 15:54, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Differences between "fact" and "opinion" are resolved on Wikipedia by using independent reliable sources as per verifiability policy. — Athaenara ✉ 16:10, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that wasn't what I was saying though. But as you brought it up this whole issue arose because I found interviews and articles (that I do cite) that contained information different from the information (was not cited) on the main article. This has lead into me citing where I got the information from and being asked over and over to prove it because it is not "fact" it is just "opinion". Thusly my original 3O request.Soundvisions1 (talk) 16:24, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Verifiable reliable sources trump uncited claims so long as the Wikipedia:No original research policy is respected. — Athaenara ✉ 16:37, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

(WP:NOR applies to uncited claims as well!) — Athaenara ✉ 17:07, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Hmmmm. Interesting.

I see you have summarised out interaction quite differently from the way I would.
I can now see some explanation of what you think is going on.
To me, it looks like misunderstandings of intent, misunderstandings of words, and generally poor mutual communication.

Short version ... however now has turned slightly ugly as Pdfpdf simply deletes/adds comment and has not given any factual reason as to why. - Hmmm. That's not how I see it, and not what I think I'm doing. I think my edit comments are explaining my rationale, but it would seem that you are not finding them sufficient. OK. I can address that by expanding my coments on a talk page. Have you a preference as to which talk page I use?

" ... I Tried to open a conversation on Pdfpdf's talk page yesterday however Pdfpdf ignored it and made the same edits/revision with more comments aimed at me. This morning I Issued warnings on the last edits." - I did not "ignore" your comments. You made them in the middle of my night at something like 2am my time. I simply did not see them because I was asleep, and then doing other things. When I did get back to WP, it was after you had posted the warnings on my page. Lets look at the sequence of events in my time frame:

• 20:44, 3 October 2008 Soundvisions1 (Talk | contribs) (26,458 bytes) (→Members and former members: Re-corrected dates)
• 21:57, 3 October 2008 Pdfpdf (Talk | contribs) m (26,458 bytes) (1973 is just your preferred interpretation of the data. You don't have any hard data. (Nor, it seems, does anyone else.) Revert if you wish, but dont present your interpretation as "fact".)
• I thought I was being reasonable. Your comment said you had "corrected" the dates. That implies you have hard facts to support the "correction". You don't. (They don't exist). So I said, "OK, put what you like, but realise that it's your interpretation - don't present it as being hard fact."
• I went to bed.
• 01:38, 4 October 2008 Soundvisions1 (Talk | contribs) (26,336 bytes) (Dates based on cited facts. Added to "citation" needed tags. Removed nonsense comments from the ref section.)
• Don't you think that was somewhat provocative? Certainly, calling them "nonsense comments" is, at best, insulting.
• 11:06, 4 October 2008 Pdfpdf (Talk | contribs) m (26,564 bytes) ("Dates based on cited facts" - Include the citations. "Removed nonsense comments from the ref section" - Restore valid comments and observations.)
• So, before lunch on Saturday, I sit down and have a look, and see your 01:38 comments. I decide not to be provoked by your comments. I restore just my comments - I don't touch any of your other edits - I ask, "well, if they are based on cited facts, include the citations", and in response to your insult, I say "they are valid comments and observations".

Sorry, but is now 2am here. I really must get some sleep. Pdfpdf (talk) 15:29, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

I am not going to debate the issue any further. The thread(s) and the log(s) speak for themselves. Lets move on. Soundvisions1 (talk) 23:11, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

OK. However, I do not think it unreasonable to ask you questions. Do you think it is unreasonable? Pdfpdf (talk) 00:33, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Reversion of my edits

Regarding this edit. Despite me asking two or three times why you keep reverting my edit, you have not explained. As I have said, these are reasonable and valid observations. Why do you keep reverting them? Is it because you don't understand my intent? Do you want me to explain my intent? Is it because you don't like me putting such observations in the citations? If so, please explain where you would prefer me to put such observations - next to the citation seemed the obvious place to me; I have the impression you don't agree that is the obvious place to put them. Pdfpdf (talk) 00:58, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Placement of citations

I'm not sure, but I think you think I am complaining about the contents of your references. This is not what I think I am doing. I don't believe I've challenged the content of any of your references, except to say they are opinion, not fact. (Oh, I did challenge the statement: "Heart, a band founded by her older sister, Ann, in the mid-’70s.").

It is my understanding of WP that when you make a claim, you put a citation next to it to support your claim. What I have been trying to communicate with you is that I think you need to put the links to the citations next to the claims.

Pdfpdf (talk) 00:58, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Heart Timeline

At one time you suggested we constuct a pre-Heart / Heart timeline. I think that is a good idea, but somehow got distracted before I said so. Pdfpdf (talk) 00:58, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Hello?

I have asked you a number of questions a number of times, and still received no response.
If I do not receive your input, I will proceed with edits which, I am fairly confident, you will disapprove. My problem is that because you will not answer questions, I do not know how to proceed in a manner that is consistent with your wishes. If you will not answer, then you have no right to complain about what I do. If you do complain, I will class it as vandalism, and behave accordingly. This is all very nasty and all very unpleasant, and all very unnecessary.
So why don't you just short circuit it all and answer my questions? Pdfpdf (talk) 12:34, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

P.S. I want answers to the questions I have asked. If you are not sure what I'm referring to, ask, and I will clarify. Answers to different and irrelevant questions will not solve this situation. Pdfpdf (talk) 12:34, 6 October 2008 (UTC) P.P.S. And just so you don't get twitchy, I will be signing off soon and won't be back for at least 18 hours. Pdfpdf (talk) 12:34, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Suggestion

Before slapping proposed deletion templates on all these band or album pages, why not first see if those articles can be improved? Snuppy 02:56, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

I did, and do. Many of them are albums and they do not meet criteria as written for having their own article. Besides I am trying to use templates that do ask for improvement before deletion...lets see - one says "If you can address this concern by improving, copyediting, sourcing, renaming or merging the page, please edit this page and do so." Another says "Please help improve this article by introducing appropriate citations of additional sources." If you have a template that you would use that make it more clear than the ones I am using please let me know as their are really a lot of templates to choose from. Soundvisions1 (talk) 03:19, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

My concern is that those templates contain this notice: "The article may be deleted if this message remains in place for five days." Some editors don't use Wikipedia that frequently, and many articles have very few editors. If those editors are not available during those five days, their work is gone. I would recommend using a simple notability template; if changes are not made in a few weeks, then you can assume the article has been largely abandoned. Snuppy 04:06, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

I saw one of them was tagged 10 months ago by someone and nothing has been done on it in that time. I do tend to look at the history and check links before I suggest a deletion. If I see some major change was done this month or last I don't touch it. Soundvisions1 (talk) 04:28, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Rfa Spam

Thank you so much for your support on my RFA, which today passed unanimously. I will do my best to make sure that I don't let any of you down. If you ever need any help with anything, feel free to ask me, i'll be happy to. Thanks again--Jac16888 (talk) 17:02, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Re: Go betty go

Looks like User:Orangemike already got it. Thanks for the tip though. If you see it again in the near future, let me know and I'll salt it for a while. Regards, Thingg^⊕⊗ 03:29, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ac acoustics

Hi Soundvisions1. Just wanted to let you know that I've added some sources to the article, which might address your concerns at this AfD. Cheers, Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 02:58, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Copyright concerns; tagging

Hi. :) I wanted to let you know that the tag that you placed on the image Image:Kirk lisbon2007.jpg, {{copyvio}}, is specifically used for text that violates copyright. For images that are clear copyright violations, you can follow the procedure for speedy deletion. For images that are suspected to be copyright violations, we have a review board for possibly unfree images. For images used under suspect non-free content criteria, we have non-free content review. This happens often enough that I have a form letter for it (part of which I've pasted here) and that I created Wikipedia:Guide to image deletion. :D Ordinarily, my form letter would tell people at this point that I had moved it to the appropriate venue for them, but unless you want me to I'll leave you to do that yourself. I know that you know your way around. :) The other one you listed has already been handled. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:28, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

I have been using TW a lot of late so I am guessing that is the root of all "evil". I found out it is tagging wrong for CSD I11 as well. Maybe automated isn't the way to go. Soundvisions1 (talk) 19:16, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Eep! An issue. I'll try to look into that. :/ --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:21, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Serj Tankian singles

Hello. You should know that two of the Serj Tankian singles you nominated for deletion, Sky Is Over and Empty Walls are both notable due to their Billboard chart positions, as Billboard Hot 100, Modern Rock Tracks and Mainstream Rock Tracks are all notable, national and significant music charts. Thanks. Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 13:28, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

I was going more off the "internet only download", "promo only", "single/song" descriptions and why it was taken to AfD. Some of them have already been there before as well for the same reasons. There are many many many songs that have been in the billboard charts over the years and that does not automatically mean they all get there own article. Same goes for an artist's album, just because it is on a major or because the artist is notable does not automatically mean every album, EP and single is also worthy of an article of it's own. Currently there is not an Wikipedia Policy or guideline that says an artist who is popular and on a major label automatically gets articles for all of their releases. (Demos, EPs, internet downloads, promo only, DVD's, music videos, singles, etc) Soundvisions1 (talk) 19:25, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, here's the thing: Starting in the late '90's, it was commonplace for American labels to no longer release retail singles for artists. This is why songs like "Don't Speak" by No Doubt or "Fly" by Sugar Ray never appeared on the Billboard Hot 100 despite massive radio airplay and popularity. In 1999, Billboard changed its rules so that singles without a retail single could chart on the Billboard Hot 100 and since then, it has been even more commonplace for singles to not be released in physical form. Actually, it is Wikipedia policy that albums that chart on the Billboard Hot 200 or equivalent worldwide charts are notable, and according to WP:NSONGS, Songs that have been ranked on national or significant music charts, that have won significant awards or honors or that have been performed independently by several notable artists, bands or groups are probably notable. Notability aside, a separate article is only appropriate on a song when there is enough verifiable material to warrant a reasonably detailed article; articles unlikely ever to grow beyond stubs should be merged to articles about an artist or album. The article for Empty Walls certainly has enough information to warrant a reasonably detailed article, but the other three, i'm not too sure about. "Empty Walls" charted on no less than three Billboard charts, along with the UK Singles Chart. Not only that, but you should remember that both Billboard rock chart exclusively comprise of radio airplay, as do many - if not all - genre-specific charts. Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 13:07, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

I am not arguing the point about charting or if it is a "notable" item or not, what I said was "Currently there is not an Wikipedia Policy or guideline that says an artist who is popular and on a major label automatically gets articles for all of their releases." The part of the guideline you quoted is one I have also quoted as well when discussing singles and songs. It does not say that a single or song that has charted automatically gets an article, it says the song/single is probably notable and goes on to say: "Notability aside, a separate article is only appropriate on a song when there is enough verifiable material to warrant a reasonably detailed article". Take, for example, Sky Is Over. What does the article say about the song? It says it was the "second CD format single" and that "It has charted". Then there are various releases of the single listed, along with a tack listing of each. It has a brief quote about the song being inspired by a website, a section about the music video and the chart position of the song/single. The article is not about the music video so that section is more secondary information and adds nothing to the notability of the song/single. The information about the single/song charting is already part of the Serj Tankian article. WP:NSONGS says that "a separate article is only appropriate on a song when there is enough verifiable material to warrant a reasonably detailed article", and this article does not show that it is. Soundvisions1 (talk) 15:17, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you there. I am starting to lean to "Sky is Over" simply being merged into the page for the album. The "Empty Walls" article - as I explained above - has enough information and was released as a CD Single. I said above that The article for Empty Walls certainly has enough information to warrant a reasonably detailed article, but the other three, i'm not too sure about. Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 15:35, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Image CSD tags

Soundvisions1, you have marked multiple images (such as Image:Random Dot Stereogram Pair.gif and Image:Ratnadeep adivrekar refraction of ideas.jpg for speedy deletion on the grounds that they are "a redundant copy, ... which is on Wikipedia, and all inward links have been updated." however (such as the top two above) these images are showing to not be orphans, but in use in articles. Please go back and check these. If they are duplicates, please update the articles to make these orphans before tagging for deletion. Thank you, — xaosflux ^Talk 14:15, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

You also tagged Image:Raptures End Cover 001.jpg as having no image, but there is an image there. — xaosflux ^Talk 14:18, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

I've reverted a few of your edits so as not to lead other admins in to deleting active edits. — xaosflux ^Talk 14:20, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

For [1] it comes up just fine for me (note it is an orphaned, duplicate of a file on commons:). As for the others, all I'm asking is that you do not tag a duplicate for deletion unless it is an orphan, the file with the best license, then the best resolution is the most appropriate one to keep, but the articles using the file need to be updated to the one being kept or they will have missing images in them, that type of change does not require an admin to to (unlike the deletion). Thank you for helping! — xaosflux ^Talk 14:37, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Taken care of. Thanks Soundvisions1 (talk) 15:04, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Copyright status of Image:Redding Album Cover.jpg

When you see an album cover such as Image:Redding Album Cover.jpg that has an incorrect copyright tag, it is better to replace the bad copyright tag with a correct one (in this case, {{Non-free album cover}}) rather than to ask that the image be deleted. I fixed the copyright tag, so the image should be fine now. -- Eastmain (talk) 16:53, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

User talk:Ssabarr

Please don't nominate user talk pages for speedy deletion as promotional. After all, if the user talk page is deleted, there will be no record of the fact that you informed the user that the page was promotional, and the user might not even have seen the deletion warning notice. It would be better just to blank the promotional content and leave a note explaining why. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:23, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

It is blatant advertising from an SPA...all the user ever did was upload their logo, put in on their front end user page and then put the "sales pitch" on their talk page. Please give another alternative to blanking all the pages. Thanks! Soundvisions1 (talk) 04:27, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

• If the user is engaged in blatant advertising on other pages, naturally you and other editors will want to give the user appropriate warnings on their talk page. But if we delete the user talk page, then all those warnings will disappear as will the history of those warnings, which I don't think is your intention. That is why I prefer not to delete any user talk page if at all possible. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:38, 2 November 2008 (UTC)