User talk:Oskarg956

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Welcome!

Welcome!

Hello, Oskarg956, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! Spellcast 19:44, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Lead-in

Hi Oskarg, thanks for your message. There are several reasons why awards are usually best left for later in the intro:

  • WP:LEAD says "The first sentence in the lead section should be a concise definition of the topic". The main focus and topic of the article is the musician—not their awards. Winning awards is something they've done, but it's not what should be used to describe them from the start. With or without awards, they are musicians first and foremost.
  • You say it's seemingly bias to remove them in the first sentence. Consider the opposite: Let's say Pausini never won a Grammy but a Razzie instead (yes, I know she's not an actress but let's say she was). Would you consider "Laura Pausini is a Razzie-award winning actress" to be neutral? Aferall, it'd be true and she may be the first Italian to win one!
  • Nearly all those featured articles you gave mention awards later in the intro. Why is there such a need to repeat it in the first sentence? WP:NPOV#Fairness of tone states "Even when a topic is presented in terms of facts rather than opinion, an article can still radiate an implied stance through either selection of which facts to present, or more subtly their organization." When awards are presented in the first sentence (despite it already being said later in the intro), it's trying to cast the subject in a positive light.

I'm not making new arguments, I'm reiterating the points said in WT:NPOV#POV in first sentence?. Now User:FuriousFreddy said it's ok if the award was groundbreaking in some way. He gave Hattie McDaniel as an example because she was the first black actress to win an Oscar. I still disagree because she was an actress first and foremost. It's better to mention it later because you can specify which Oscar was won. When I started here, I remember adding "Grammy Award winning" on Pharrell despite it being said later in the intro. Looking back, I realised I had a positive POV of him (like "oh look, my favourite producer won a Grammy!"). Anyway, I see you've contributed to the NPOV talk page, so there will probably be more responses. There's also talk of adding this in WP:LEAD. Spellcast 19:44, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I can see why you think musicians have been targeted and not others. I edit mostly music articles, so I naturally come across "Grammy Award winning". But the same should apply for actors, athletes, authors, and other non-music biographies. Spellcast 16:30, 16 September 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Sentidos opuestos al sol que mas calienta.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Sentidos opuestos al sol que mas calienta.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 21:25, 5 December 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Gustavo cerati ahi vamos reissue.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Gustavo cerati ahi vamos reissue.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 22:52, 22 December 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Gustavo cerati ahi vamos.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Gustavo cerati ahi vamos.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 22:53, 22 December 2007 (UTC)