User talk:Tzf

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

(I've deleted the previous junk from the top here, and no, I didn't archive it, OK? ;^) -Tzf (talk) 15:26, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Lyle Workman

Are you going to leave Lyle Workman that way or clean it up? --Jeanenawhitney 08:51, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

You need to cleanup the references you made. example instead of

<ref>[http://www.ssmt-reviews.com/db/searchrev.php?artistID=1491&showReview=true]</ref>

Do this

<ref>[http://www.ssmt-reviews.com/db/searchrev.php?artistID=1491&showReview=true Tabula Rasa, Review by Alec A. Head, Review date: 10/2007 at Satan Stole My Teddybear]</ref>

notice the space after the http tag and the word Tabula, everything after that space up to the ] gives a text tag so the above would look like[1]

  1. ^ Tabula Rasa, Review by Alec A. Head, Review date: 10/2007 at Satan Stole My Teddybear

--Jeanenawhitney 09:21, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

I used the references/ style of listing the references, and it looked OK to me, then YOU came along and changed the reference style, and on your third edit, put "insert reference title here" all over the place. If you're going to come along and make it MUCH LESS readable, I think it's YOUR responsibility to insert the reference titles! If you assume I have infinite amounts of time to devote to Wikipedia, you're wrong, my time is very limited, but I felt strongly that Lyle Workman is an increasingly important figure (and has been very influential on musicians around the world since his debut). Apparently the Wikipedia equation of $$$=notability got the previous Lyle Workman article deleted, but now that he's gotten a lot of press for a Hollywood hit movie, it's easy enough to argue that he's notable. I spent far too much time getting all the references, and all of the references, even the ones I did not include in the article, are posted on the talk page, ripe for the Wikipedia community to come along and Wikify to their heart's content. Please, help yourself.

Tzf (talk) 15:26, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Replaceable fair use Image:FaunFables-field-BridgetBell.jpg

Replaceable fair use

Thanks for uploading Image:FaunFables-field-BridgetBell.jpg. I noticed the description page specifies that the media is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this media is not replaceable, please:

  1. Go to the media description page and edit it to add {{di-replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.
  2. On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace the fair use media by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, fair use media which could be replaced by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if not used in an article), per our Fair Use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. – Quadell (talk) (random) 19:11, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

This is another example of Wikipedia policy wonks misguidedly pushing Wikipedia towards a lower-quality resource, for all the wrong, allbiet policy-litically correct, reasons. And I object most strongly to the tone of these notices above, where I am adressed as some kind of low-level employee who has not yet "learned the ropes". I used to think I had good reason to contribute to wikipedia as an editor, but that impression has all but vanished.

Remember when IMDB first appeared? It was a wholly collaborative NON COMMERCIAL site, yes, NON COMMERICAL. Like many people, I was an early contributor to IMDB, and like many people, I was greatly offended when it went commercial without so much as a thank-you to the early contributors.

Obviously Wikipedia is not going in the commercial direction (...er ...yet?), but it's no less offensive to find one's sincere efforts at improving the resource deprecated over and over again by people who care NOTHING for the thing that makes Wikipedia valuable in the first place: articles written by editors who are knowledgeable and passionate about the subjects they write about.

Here's what I wrote on the image page referred to above, which I expect to be deleted despite my efforts... on Christmas Day!

This image is in illustration of conceptual art piece which takes the form of a "band". Do not confuse the band with the art. This image in particular elicits an emotional response consistent with the subject.

Though Wikipedia is factually based, it is in itself by necessity artful when describing art and many other things. Many examples of this exist on Wikipedia. Putting concepts into language is itself an art, and those familiar with computer programming will say that the very php code in which Wikipedia is written is, once again out of necessity, artful.

Thus the importance of using an image in the article which is not simply a mug shot, but rather conveys the artist in context.

I took great care to:

  • note the particular fair use doctrine when I posted the image (a promotional photo from Faun Fables' promotional web site)
  • note the copyright holder when I posted the image,
  • contact the copyright holder to obtain permission to use the image on Wikipedia,
  • note here on the image page that permission had been obtained,
  • use the appropriate template tag to show the granted permission graphically.

Since permission of the copyright holder was obtained, I would hope that the image will remain on Wikipedia and on the Faun Fables article until such a time as another editor would actually take the time to make actual improvements to the article by using another image which does as much for the quality of the article as this one does, rather than degrading the quality if the article by simply removing the image.

That being said, I expect this argument to fall on deaf ears, and this commentary to be relegated to an archive that will never be read. My opinions about Wikipedia are given in more detail on my user page and user discussion page (q. v.).

-Tzf (talk) 23:31, 22 December 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Idiotflesh-9804.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Idiotflesh-9804.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) 22:23, 13 February 2008 (UTC)