User talk:Shamrox

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Secretly Candian Records

Do you have any external links that you could post forSecretly Candian Records? I was interested to learn more about them. Stormbay 21:19, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

    • Thanks for the info . Stormbay 02:45, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Elliott Smith

Thanks for the kind words. It wasn't entirely fun digging through those references but I think the final result made it worth it. =) - Phorque (talk • contribs) 20:22, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

There's a new featured article nomination up, so go and have your say! - Phorque 16:53, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image copyright problem with Image:Garywilson.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Garywilson.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 07:36, 30 April 2006 (UTC)


Hi, this is Danny from the office. I just spoke with Kola Boof about her article, and she expressed certain reasonable concerns about it. Please do not revert it until these are investigated. Danny 21:35, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for understanding. I appreciate your concerns and will try to address them one by one. First of all, the picture that she prefers, while admittedly blurry, was given to us by her which makes it preferrable to a fair use image. The second major claim she has was that her relationship with Osama Bin Laden was against her will. I believe that, at least as it is stated in the article "she contends was against her will," because I have heard her say it. It still requires a reputable source, however, as do all the other claims. As with every living person, this is essential to the article. Her third claim, regarding the topless section, should be verified first, and then it should be determined whether it is encyclopedic. I think that the article can be edited freely, so long as we stick to the principle of verification and consider her claim with regard to the relationship with Bin Laden. I'd be happy to answer any questions or discuss any points with you. Thanks. :-) Danny 09:35, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Shamrox, I left a comment for you at clown will eat me. NoSeptember talk 11:06, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] License tagging for Image:Malachymccourt.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Malachymccourt.jpg. Wikipedia gets hundreds 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:

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. 19:09, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] tag

Hi,

You tagged "Warrenjeffs.jpg" with a GFDL tag. This is incorrect; please only use this tag for images that have definitely, provably been licensed under the GFDL.

I replaced it with the public domain FBI tag. Tempshill 07:34, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Da Vinci Code

The US is not the only country on earth. Several nations are having it released in thier country bfore the United States, including Austrlia, that's what makes it relevant. It's being widely released in Austrlia before any where elese, the screening Cannes was for a select aidience

[edit] "Mr. Smith Goes to Heaven"

Hey dun, I just wanted to note that I re-added the Gruvis Malt reference to the Elliot Smith page -- I made a username for the express purpose of making sure it was clear that I'm not a member of the band, but rather a fan, and I wanted to just make clear why I put back what you removed. The main reason is that GM has a wiki entry, as does the album in question, which makes them culturally relevant for purposes of inclusion in Wiki entries (i.e. they and their supporters have already won that particular battle). I did, however, abbreviate the explanation, and I might just add the further detail to the page for Maximum Unicorn. You may not have heard of Gruvis Malt but a lot of people have, and there are (as I said in the revision comments) lesser-known bands on the list of ES references.

p.s., how do I set up a Userbox like that one you've got on your user page? I'm having a little trouble locating a list of icons to include, if you could point me in the right direction I'd appreciate it. thanks! -- Pogopark


[edit] Copyright violation: Francine Busby photo

Photo of Image:Francinebusby.jpg. Possible copyright violation Copyvio from http://stuorg.ucsd.edu/~ucsddems/files/uploaded_images/francine-744862.jpg Dananderson 03:52, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Elliott Smith

Hey there. You removed the line and reference about Smith being the solo musician on his first three albums saying it was untrue, but what are your grounds?

He recorded those albums (at least primarily) on his own, and those reviews confirm that. Couldn't you have reworded it rather than just removing it. I feel it is notable that he did do those albums primarily "on his own", doing all of the vocal harmonies, guitar, bass and drum parts etc. I don't have the album sleeves to refer to, but aren't there very few exceptions to Smith doing everything himself? - Phorque (talk • contribs) 17:41, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Just wanted to commend you on your extensive work on the Elliott Smith article. It probably couldn't have become FA without you! Have a barnstar for your hard work!

The Original Barnstar
For improving the Elliott Smith article over an extended period and bringing it to FA status.

Phorque 19:06, 10 August 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Adding John Mark Karr to KARR

Don't reference a sicko pedophile with KARR! Don't even go there. I knew someone who try it, and it's a real shame that sicko shares a name with a fictional character but really it's not worth mentioning on KARR's page so DON'T! I'll remove it if you do it again and lodge a complaint. Cyberia23 00:17, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

To avoid this problem I made a KARR disambiguation page. Sorry to go off, but I hate pedophiles like Karr and seeing his name on KARR's page was irritating. Cyberia23 00:30, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
To be fair, i'm sure there are people who'd be irritated about seeing fictional characters on the page of something actually serious, too --W guice 10:55, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
Again, I'm sorry that I blew up about this. I wasn't trying to threaten you over it. Cyberia23 20:12, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Notice

Please see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Hajieh_Agha_Khanum.

--11:39, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Unspecified source for Image:Milankundera.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Milankundera.jpg. I notice the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this file yourself, then there needs to be a justification explaining why we have the right to use it on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you did not create the file yourself, then you need to specify where it was found, i.e., in most cases link to the website where it was taken from, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the file also doesn't have a copyright tag, then one should be added. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Fair use, use a tag such as {{fairusein|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may 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. --85.160.5.195 07:42, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Polygamy

Greetings. I see that you are making multiple edits to add people to the Category:Polygamists. Several of the additions you have made are spouses of polygamists, who do not themselves have more than one husband or wife. Technically these folks are not themselves polygamists. I have created the related [Category:Spouses of polygamists] to cover such cases. You may wish to consider using that instead. Kind regards. Dr U 02:53, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

I'd have to dispute the inclusion of Elizabeth Woodville and Lady Eleanor Talbot in this category. It is possible, but by no means proven, that Edward IV entered into a bigamous marriage with Elizabeth, but that hardly puts him into the same category as the others listed. Deb 20:34, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
I removed the polygamy-related cats from Edward IV and the two ladies mentioned by Deb. I find a lot of the additions of these categories nonsensical. And is it really worth flagging anyone who belonged to a society where polygyny or polyandry was normal as a polygamist ? It seems to defeat the whole purpose of categorization. Angus McLellan (Talk) 21:48, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Speedy deletion warning

A tag has been placed on Dear Nora, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the article seems to be a biographical account about a person, group of people, or band, but it does not indicate how or why he/she/they is/are notable. If you can indicate why Dear Nora is really notable, I advise you to edit the article promptly, and also put a note on Talk:Dear Nora. Any admin should check for such edits before deleting the article. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Please read our criteria for speedy deletion, particularly item 7 under Articles. You might also want to read our general biography criteria. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself. To contest the tagging and request that admins should wait a while for you to assert his/her/their notability, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and then immediately add such an assertion. It is also a very good idea to add citations from reliable sources to ensure that your article will be verifiable. MER-C 09:34, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Articles for Brigham's wives

Most should be deleted - each person on wikipedia needs to be notable in their own respect - and most of these are only notable becaue they were married to BY. From Wikipedia:Notability (people):

Standard of Notability (not-exclusive) BY Wives
  • The person made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in their specific field.
 No
  • Political figures holding international, national or statewide/provincewide office or members of a national, state or provincial legislature. (For candidates for office, see the ongoing discussion at Wikipedia:Candidates and elections.)
 No
  • Major local political figures who receive (or received) significant press coverage
 No
No
  • Sportspeople/athletes who have played in a fully professional league, or a competition of equivalent standing in a non-league sport such as swimming, or at the highest level in mainly amateur sports, including college sports in the United States. Articles about first team squad members who have not made a first team appearance may also be appropriate, but only if the individual is at a club of sufficient stature that most members of its squad are worthy of articles.
 No
  • Notable actors and television personalities who have appeared in well-known films or television productions. Notability can be determined by:
    • Multiple features in popular culture publications such as Vogue, GQ, Elle, FHM or national newspapers
    • A large fan base, fan listing or "cult" following
    • An independent biography
    • Name recognition
    • Commercial endorsements
 No
  • Published authors, editors and photographers who received multiple independent reviews of or awards for their work
 No
  • Painters, sculptors, architects, engineers, and other professionals whose work is widely recognized (for better or worse) and who are likely to become a part of the enduring historical record of that field
 No
  • Persons achieving renown or notoriety for their involvement in newsworthy events
 No
  • The person has been the primary subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the person. (Multiple similar stories describing a single day's news event only count as one coverage.)
 No

Although I realize the list is not exclusive - it is clear to me that most do not meet the standard. Eliza Roxcy Snow is the only one I can think of off the top of my head that warrants a seperate article - but there could be another one or two --Trödel 20:12, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Thought of another one as I reviewed the list: Zina D. H. Young. I'd have to say taht Ann Eliza Young is borderline but probably would be better as a redirect to the article about the book 19th wife or to the author of that book ---Trödel 20:17, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
Thx for the note - unfortunately I don't agree that they have reached renown or notoriety as a result of being his wife - other than being his wife. Now Ann Eliza is different since she claimed to be a slave or some such thing - there is abook about it, etc. There could be other stories like that, but I still think that most of the wives will not have much more than "y is the nth wife of brigham young they were married xxx xx, 18xx. They later divorced. They had z children." If that is all that the article says then it should just be a redirect (if the article exists at all) to BY's article since that info is there. for example, see Linda Hogan a co-star of a television show - but still a redirect to Hulk Hogan because there really is nothing unique there. --Trödel 13:34, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Renaming Category:Polygamists to Category:Christian Polygamists

Hi Shamrox: You seem to have created Category:Polygamists in haste. There are other views on this subject that you have not taken into account. Please see the vote at Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 September 7#Category:Polygamists to Category:Christian Polygamists. Thank you. IZAK 11:50, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] D'arcy mugshot?

The image Image:Darcywretzkymugshot.jpg that you uploaded and added to the page on D'arcy Wretzky was removed by someone who claimed it is actually a picture of Yelena Yemchuk. Is this correct? If not, could you provide your source for the image? Thanks. Michael Slone (talk) 16:22, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image tagging for Image:Rulonjeffs.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Rulonjeffs.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 09:53, 14 October 2006 (UTC)


[edit] The Casbah

Hi, I've noticed you put citations needed tags for The Casbah article. So I put forth the effort to cite the claims you felt needed sourced.

A quick google search was able to yield plenty of notable sites for "The Casbah is held in high regard as a staple in the San Diego music scene".

It was kind of hard backing up the statement about the DIY bands, the only web sites I found were blog sites that attested those claims, but if you look on Casbah's event list you will see that many bands that do exist among underground circuits do play at that venue. It helps to be familiar with indie/underground music to recognize it, I'm pretty sure you understand.

Well thanks for your time, I'd appreciate your feedback. I currently feel that the 'no references' tag isn't needed anymore, but I need a second opinion to confirm. RiseRobotRise 07:00, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Orphaned fair use image (Image:Mary ann jackson.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Mary ann jackson.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.

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) (email) (Contr.) 13:42, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] License tagging for Image:Billy kitties.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Billy kitties.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:

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. 08:04, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] wikilinks

hi - I'm sure you're trying to improve the article, but I think you're putting in way too many wikilinks on the Lennon article - it's getting in the way of reading the piece. I'm going to reduce it. We can discuss this on talk if you like. Tvoz 10:12, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../s/h/a/User_talk%7EShamrox_e013.html"