User talk:E tac/Archive 1

Your edit to Holy Hell

Your recent edit to Holy Hell (diff) was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to recognize and repair vandalism to Wikipedia articles. If the bot reverted a legitimate edit, please accept my humble creator's apologies – if you bring it to the attention of the bot's owner, we may be able to improve its behavior. Click here for frequently asked questions about the bot and this warning. // AntiVandalBot 01:27, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Wikiproject

I would probably be able to work on the project, but I'm new to wikiprojects and don't know much about what is exactly involved. Is it just adding to articles relating to the topic and creating new ones if need be, and if so, what is the reason for the "project" designation? Tim Long 03:06, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for the Cristian Metal project link. --Trusader 00:32, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned fair use image (Image:Pyramaze.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Pyramaze.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. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).

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) (Contr.) 02:14, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Christian metal

looks as if it does now, jimfbleak 19:12, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Dave Mustaine

I have recently reverted an edit of yours where you re-inserted an image on the article of Dave Mustaine. The image copyright tag says that the image comes from an album or video, therefore the image is violation of the policy at WP:FU since it is not being used as "critical commentary" on the album or video from which it came. -- moe.RON ^{Let's talk | done} 06:20, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly, as you are doing in Dave Mustaine. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. Rather than reverting, discuss disputed changes on the talk page. The revision you want is not going to be implemented by edit warring. Thank you. -- moe.RON ^{Let's talk | done} 23:30, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia Fair Use Policy

Please do not re-insert images that are not correctly sourced. Your recent upload has been auto-tagged for speedy deletion. If you continue to breach policy by re-inserting an unlicensed image, you will break WP:3RR and will be blocked from editing. Read WP:FU if you wish to learn more about proper image use on Wikipedia. Anger22 (Talk 2 22) 23:29, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

"Wikipedia permits the "fair use" of copyrighted material only if the image or content is, in essence, not reasonably repeatable; that is, it would not be possible to replace the image or content with an equivalent free image." Also, those images that do pass this must have "a detailed fair use rationale". At this point in time, it is VERY probable to go to a concert and take a picture of the person in question, therefore fair use images on such a page should not be used. Make sure to read WP:FU#Images and WP:V before uploading any more images that may be considered "promotional". If you have any questions, feel free to ask. Cheers! -- moe.RON ^{Let's talk | done} 23:43, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

In response to your comment on my talk page: images such as those that are consider promotional are still under scrutiny of copyright violation issues. The resolve for such things, other than obtain your own WP:GFDL image, is to request for permission from the band/person in question. This may be overlooked if the page(s) provide a statement where any pictures on the site can be used under free distribution. -- moe.RON ^{Let's talk | done} 23:54, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, before we would even consider copyright issues with the yearbook picture, we would have to address that it didn't come their official site, but from http://www.rattleheadhq.com , which is a fan page. -- moe.RON ^{Let's talk | done} 00:05, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Images labeled as screenshots

Please do not add images into pages that the uploader has the label template:musicpromo-screenshot unless it is being used as critical commentary on the show, movie, ect. in question. Cheers! -- moe.RON ^{Let's talk | done} 00:13, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Ha!

Your edits to the sandbox is funny. You should be a user at Uncyclopedia, if you aren't already. --66.218.12.113 04:15, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Theocracy image and tag

Hi - when an editor feels that in image is replaceable fair use, they have every right to mark it as such and add the tag to the articles, for an administator to later decide on the validity of the request. By reverting the addition of the notfication tags, you are, I feel, in some violation of WP:OWN, and you are most certainly edit warring. I suggest that you leave the tags for an admin to decide - if you have permission (or can get it) from the copyright holder, please send a forward of that permission (to license under a free license such as GFDL or CC-by-SA 2.5), along with the emailer's assertation of ownership to permissions-en (at) wikimedia (dot) org. Also see WP:COPYREQ. Thanks, Martinp23 19:08, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

No personal attacks

You have been temporarily blocked from editing for disrupting Wikipedia by making personal attacks. If you wish to make useful contributions, you are welcome to come back after the block expires. Martinp23 19:56, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Apology accepted

Regarding the SSP, thank you for your apology, which I accept. It is important to assume good faith and keep a cool head when the editing gets hot. Thanks, Prolog 20:55, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

About Nightwish and Kamelot

Look I know you are just hell bent to list both Nightwish and Kamelot as Prog Metal. But netiher one of them are Prog Metal

Nightwish does not have one thing Prog about them. As for kamelot have one concept album does not make them Prog show some proof of what you are talking about then go ahead and list them. Until then listing them as such is wrong.

So show me and others where Nightwish is Prog Metal? Show me and others where Kamelot is Prog Metal? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Turemetalfan (talk • contribs) 00:09, 11 January 2007 (UTC).

And where is your proof that Kamelot, Nightwish, and Sonata Arctica are Prog Metal. Other then odd time signatures and long songs on any album here and there. Show some real proof to what you are claming. I have shown you proof.

Nightwish is not Prog metal They are Symphonic metal and Power metal or what is called Symphoinc Power metal. Kamelot is Power Metal, Sonata Arctica is Power Metal. That's what many many many sites list them as. Ever review site and even Last.FM. AMG is a really poor site to use when the list Ngihtwish as a Symphoinc Black Metal band.

By the way I have shown you more then enough proof. I listed three sites two of which aer very big sites that list them as Power Metal not Prog Metal. You listed three bands as Prog Metal Kamelot, Nightwish, and Sonata Arctica but never gave any proof as to why they are Prog Metal other then you feel that they are.

You did not just list Kamelot is Prog metal you listed Nightwish, and Sonata Arctica as prog Metal to and they were both taken off. So again I will ask for the last time. How is Nightwish Prog Metal? How is Sonata Arctica Prog Metal? How is Kamelot Prog Metal? What site has them listed as Prog Metal. And using AMG is not a good enough place. I listen too all three of those bands and they are not Prog Metal in any way what so ever. Nightwish is Symphoinc Metal. Sonata Arctica is Power Metal. Kamelot is also Power Metal. So what was your reason for listing those three bands as Prog metal?

In what CD is Nightwish Prog Metal and what song of there's is Prog Metal? Samw answer for the other two bands. truemetalfan Jan 14, 2007

Fair use tags

Please don't remove valid fair-use-replacable tags from images and articles - your habit of doing so is beginning to violate WP:OWN and perhaps WP:POINT. Please, stop. Martinp23 20:09, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Please accept my apologies - I didn't look carefully enough at your edits - sorry! However, please note that the permission provided in those forums is not acceptable for Wikipedia. We need, in an email, a clear statement of ownership and licensing under the GFDL or CC-by-SA 2.5. Thanks, Martinp23 22:51, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but you have removed the tag in the past (from the image). Anyway, it would help if you coudl obtain exact permission as detailed above - I'm afraid that the image will be deleted if we don't get that permission. Martinp23 22:55, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi - we have to be very careful about permission on Wikipedia to avoid the chance of a lawsuit against us, and to ensure that everything is straight in line with the law, we have very stringent conditions for permission. Where the permission presented is ambiguous (which, by all means, a forum post is (and it is ambiguous in its content)), we require an email to be sent from the copyright holder (or a forward of such an email) declaring that the content is released under a free license (such as GFDL or CC by SA) - unfortunately we cannot accept permissions which give Wikipedia free use of content, for licensing reasons. If you cang et email permission from the copyright holder, I encourage you to send it to permissions-en (at) wikipedia (dot) org, where a voluteer (such as myself) will be happy to approve the permission or seek clarification. If you need any more information, please feel free to contact me. Martinp23 23:10, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry - I knowthe rules are often ambiguous, or just plain strange like this, but we've got to follow them. It would help if you coudl obtain permission from the copyright holder by email, and forward it to us. Thanks, Martinp23 07:23, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing that to my attention - I don't usually go around looking for images to tag, but might just stumble upon them, so I've tagged that one. You can, in future, do the same using {{Replaceable fair use}}. Thanks, Martinp23 22:26, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi - thanks for marking some of those images as replaceable fair use. Please be sure to put {{subst:replaceable|<imagename>}} ~~~~ at the bottom of the uploaders' talk page, to give them a chance to rectify the problem (eg {{subst:replaceable|Rudd-Williams-Johnson2.jpg}} ~~~~). Could you please do this for the four or so pages you've already tagged? Thanks, Martinp23 21:24, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks ofr your willingness to do this - you seem to have put them on the image pages themselves - you should place the warning on the user talk page of the uploader, as is noted on the image description page. Sorry for the confusion - I've removed the messages you left on the image pages themselves. If you need any help, just ask. Thanks, Martinp23 21:36, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, that was a mistake on my part - I fixed it on Image:Limp bizkit.jpg Image:Korn.jpg and Image:SOADypromo.jpg. Those still need the messages on the uploaders' pages. Sorry for the inconvenience, and thanks. Martinp23 21:49, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Image:Majestcvanguardband.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Majestcvanguardband.jpg. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image 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 image could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:

1. Go to the image description page and edit it to add {{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 image by finding a freely licensed image of its subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or a similar) image 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 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that any fair use images which are replaceable by free-licensed alternatives 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. -- moe.RON ^{Let's talk | done} 00:20, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

A tag has been placed on Temple of Blood, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the article seems to be about a person, group of people, band, club, company, or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable, that is, why an article about that subject should be included in Wikipedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not assert notability may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, and if you can indicate why the subject of this article is notable, you may contest the tagging. To do this, add {{hangon}} on the top of the page and leave a note on the article's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm its subject's notability under the guidelines.

For guidelines on specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for bands, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Esurnir 20:47, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

• Answer : Because I didn't saw any referrence about the notability on the band. One album is not enough (two under a major label or a big independant label). If "It has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent from the musician/ensemble itself and reliable." but not "Works comprising merely trivial coverage, such as newspaper articles that simply report performance dates or the publications of contact and booking details in directories.". Please state it. One month old article is not a criteria sadly about notability. But they "may" be notable, if they are, I strongly advise you to find some statement that can prove it, refer to WP:MUSIC (and fill it in the talk page). -- Esurnir 21:25, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Well perhaps I was wrong, to speediing that article, but I'm not the guy to convince now that it is done :-/ -- Esurnir 21:30, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Flag on Iron Maiden article

I was interested that you reverted my edit removing the flag icon. You might care to read the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Music and justify there why you think having the flag there is a good idea. WP:FLAG also makes interesting reading. Best wishes, --Guinnog 22:10, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Pat Robertson

Please don't do this again. You know what you are doing, and frankly you are wasting both my and your own time. -- Karl Meier 21:57, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Very well. No problem then. -- Karl Meier 21:58, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Indeed ;-) I'd look great on a t-shirt or perhaps a CD cover. Pat 'Headbanger' Robertson, listening to heavy Jesus music. -- Karl Meier 22:10, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

I think it's good if we ask ourselves the question, if Encyclopedia Britannica would use that image on that article regarding that subject. I believe the answer would be no. Another issue is that the fair use license doesn't apply on that specific article. -- Karl Meier 22:15, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned fair use image (Image:Patrobertsonmetaler.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Patrobertsonmetaler.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. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).

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. BigDT 01:29, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Apology accepted

Apology accepted. I was actually more amused than upset. Asarelah 04:05, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Its hard to explain. Asarelah 04:07, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Now that's amusing. XD Asarelah 04:10, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

I think Metallica was replaced by alien pod-people in 1996 or so. Asarelah 04:16, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm flattered that you would want me as a friend, but I don't think it would be appropriate. Wikipedia isn't meant to be a place to start buddylists or a Myspace, its an encyclopedia. Please don't take it personally, but I'm really not here to socialize. Asarelah 16:01, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

re: Automobiles

The video clips do not look too promising. James needs to stop writing about "emotions" and get back to writing about sea-monsters. Nice work getting your project underway BTW. Anger22 (Talk 2 22) 04:31, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

It's a good idea for a project(why didn't I think of it?) Actually, since the wiki-metal project is over-populated with 13 year olds who think that Nickelback is a heavy metal band....having a splinter group of editors dedicated to such a unique sub-genre like Christian metal is a good thing. My local Christian FM station play happy happy "boyband" faith music all day long...I always get a chuckle when I flip it on around midnight and hear Extol or Mortification. Pretty broad ends of the spectrum there. You should take your project to the next step. Format a project page. Create guidelines, tasks, infoboxes, templates...etc. The more "pro" the project looks...the more editors will take interest in it. Good Luck. Anger22 (Talk 2 22) 04:48, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

WP:PROJGUIDE Anger22 (Talk 2 22) 04:55, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

And you forgot to sign yourself

I haven't done what you think YET, will after you respond; I'm slightly confused.

Anyway even if it isn't fair use I have the right to use it - it was released to the public to be used freely. So if it isn't fair use how else should I tag it, as it can be used on wikipedia? --Mudel 08:47, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

page move

Chill out, be patient. Links can be fixed, and I'm sure there arent many broken ones. If I thought there would be I wouldnt have made the move. -Ste|vertigo 05:05, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

"you could have just put a link to belief at the top of the believer page rather than moving the existing "believer" page and creating a redirect to "belief" from where it used to be." You are right about the otheruses link, but you got it backwards about what belongs there. The word "believer" is most associated with (choose one) a belief in a supreme being, or... a rock band from the 80s.

"It should have at the very least, been discussed first." You have a point there, but discussion can also come second. Ill fix any links. -Ste|vertigo 05:16, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

You are right, "band" is better. -Ste|vertigo 05:25, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

We typically label such things (band), and thats the way it is. We dont put God (band) at God and ask people to click on God (god) for God. -Ste|vertigo 05:39, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Ah yes, your logic is sound. But now there is a redirect from believer to belief, which required the moving of the band article. -Ste|vertigo 05:47, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Why? Required? Well, these questions go back to the old days. It used to be thought that redirects were bad, and we should avoid them, trying as hard as we can to replace them with the precise name. Then it was discovered that Google found things easier through redirects, and they provided a way for us refine Google's search semantics quite a bit. So it helps people find what they want, and avoids the problems of having to be too precise about linkages. Its more of a wiki way to do it. Not to mention that this type of linkage comes from our disambig policy, to use disambig pages liberally, but always be hierarchical according to common sense. More recently it was discovered that tools to "fix" redirects (like the one in WP:POP) are hugely taxing on the server, so that ended the last of the purists crying about link precision. The funny thing is that link precision is actually a hindance to semantic searching. So, over the years the idea has been to make WP redirects function as a part of the semantic web. That's an explanation in a nutshell. -Ste|vertigo 06:05, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

I dont see what WP:WINAD policy has to do with it. We point things according to an order of importance. There are lots of kids who want their favorite band to keep a top word association, even when it goes counter to the basic definition. Thats not a case of violating WINAD, its a case of violating WP:WWIN - namely WP is not a fansite for musical acts. -Ste|vertigo 06:14, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

"Well so far you are the only one to raise this issue with this page" - Yes, according to a linear concept of time, things dont happen before they do. I've just gotten around to it.

"and honestly, would you find believer, as in one who has belief in any encyclopedia? a dictionary yes, an encyclopedia no" - I assume you are asking me if the word "believer" would normally be found in a dictionary or encyclopedia, as if it was a choice of either or. I dont accept your premise that there is a choice, though there are people who might disagree.

Keep in mind that WP is different from a standard, say text-based encyclopedia. Its linkages and even its writing styles are intrinsically web-like. -Ste|vertigo 06:23, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

We can change that! ;) -Ste|vertigo 06:25, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Its possible. Regards, -Ste|vertigo 06:28, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

List of progressive metal - Kamelot

E Tac: I suggest you read the discussion page of List of progressive metal artists before adding again Kamelot. --Dexter prog 22:28, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Many user have explained it in the talk page. An example of a prog power metal band would be Angra in their later works. See they use complex time signatures, share structures with prog rock and mix music genres. Kamelot is just a power metal band that may ocassionally use some different time signatures, but it is still power metal --Dexter prog 22:35, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

On top of that using progarchives.com is the wrost site to use. Tell me E tac do you really trust a site that lists Nightwish as a Prog Metal band? How do you list Nightwish? Just answer what I have asked. Why use a site that's lists a band as Prog Metal when they are not. Progarchives.com is wrong in what they say. The other prog metal site you listed as also wrong. Do you think Epica is really a Prog Metal band? How about the band Within Temptation and Visions of Atlantis? How can your sources be good when they don't even list the bands right? Within Temptation, Visions of Atlantis, Epica, and Nightwish have never been Prog Metal? Yet two of the sites you listed list them as that. On top of that a myspace site is not a godo place to get info. turemetalfan Jan 22nd, 2007

Image:Theocracygroupshot.jpg

Hey there again! I just noticed you uploaded Image:Theocracygroupshot.jpg, but there are two concerns. 1) It doesn't have a copyright tag. 2)The image is "public" in the sense that anyone can see it on flikr; this doesn't nesscarily mean that the image is "released to the public." (there is a copyright symbol and the words "all rights reserved" under additional information.) Perhaps if you can contact the photographer and ask them to released it under GFDL. Let me know if you have any questions. -- moe.RON ^{Let's talk | done} 22:03, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry if this all seems unjust, but it is about being safe and adhering to the photographers rights. You can search Flickr for images that can be used here, under the Creative Commons, by doing and advanced search here and checking the box near the bottom that says "Only search within Creative Commons-licensed photos." Again, you should try and contact the user and ask if he will release one of the images under the GFDL/CC agreement. -- moe.RON ^{Let's talk | done} 23:36, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, the admin who deleted that one was Angr (talk · contribs), so maybe if you ask them, they can tell you more. -- moe.RON ^{Let's talk | done} 00:34, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Kirby Puckett

If you'd like to add information about Kirby Puckett's legal problems, please make sure to cite a reliable source. I noticed on your user page that you're a Puckett fan. If you check out the talk page of the Puckett article, you'll see that there have been a number of problems with vandals adding unfounded attacks against him. If we let positive information in without sources, it makes it harder to keep the negative stuff out. Thanks. --djrobgordon 11:42, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

The difference between the urination allegation and your theory that there was an impostor is that one was made by a respected journalist in a responsible publication (Sports Illustrated), while the other was made by you. Same thing for the groping charge. It is a fact that Puckett was charged with a crime, then acquitted. It's your opinion that the accuser was out for money, and that the restaurant was crowded enough someone would have seen him drag her into the bathroom. Again, with a little effort, you could probably find some newspaper or magazine reports making these same speculations, but your personal opinions of the case aren't suitable for an encyclopedia article.--djrobgordon 12:04, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

If these ideas have been explored in the local media, then you shouldn't have any trouble finding those articles and citing them as sources.

As I'm sure you're aware, not all Wikipedia readers live in Minneapols and have access to your local media. If we have an article that says Kirby Puckett's accuser is a money-grubbing liar, we must be able to show our readers where that information came from. Otherwise, they have no reason to trust Wikipedia as a source.

I'd ask you to take a look at Wikipedia's policy concerning biographies of living persons. While Puckett is deceased, his accuser is still alive, and any even slightly controversial information about her has to come from a source that can be checked, in order to protect Wikipedia from a libel suit.

I'm speculating here, so excuse me if I'm off base, but it seems like you think that, because Puckett was acquitted, there shouldn't be any mention of the allegations in the article. Wikipedia is reporting the allegations, not agreeing with them is. The lawsuit was a major piece of news -- it's probably the one thing about Puckett's life after baseball most sports fans remember -- and to not report it would be to give an inaccurate depiction of his life. Fatty Arbuckle was never convicted of anything, but what would that article be without an account of his trial? For that matter, neither was O.J. Simpson. If you think he's guilty, that's fair. Someone else may think Puckett is guilty. The bottom line is that legal charges filed against a celebrity, whether or not they turn out to be true, are notable and must be included in their articles.

I'm taking the time to write you a thorough response because I think you're intentions are good, and I'm hoping you can understand why Wikipedia has to take sources so seriously. Please take a few minutes to look at the policy links I've put here and in my previous posts. It doesn't do anyone any good if you're spending your time adding content that cannot be kept. --djrobgordon 00:55, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Progarchives.com is wrong Nightwish is not Prog Metal.

Unless you can tell me how Nightwish is Prog Metal. Why becuase they list Nightwish as Prog Metal. So until you can show me why that site is right then stop putting Kamelot as Prog Metal. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Turemetalfan (talk • contribs) 00:07, 26 January 2007 (UTC).

Eternal Decision

The discussion concerning the deletion of the article is happening at a separate page linked to from the article's tag. Click here to go to it. The AFD tag stays until the discussion is complete, regardless of any concerns you have regarding the validity of the nomination. Removing the tag does not stop the discussion, all it does is prevent other editors of the article from discovering that it is taking place, which only hurts your cause. If you disagree with the nomination then the proper course of action is to go to the AFD in question and protest it there. There you have the opportunity to put forth whatever evidence you have concerning the deleted article. Seeing as this is a band, I would recommend going to WP:MUSIC, which contains various notability requirements for music related articles, and proving on the AFD page that those notability guidelines are sufficiently met to warrant keeping the page. Be sure to include reliable sources in your arguments. If you have any further questions about the AFD process feel free to respond to this either here or my talk page and I'll be sure to get back to you. But be sure to stop removing the AFD notice.--Dycedarg ж 09:30, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

As I said in my note above, each article must pass certain notability guidelines in order to warrant inclusion. Also, while some leniency is given as to whether or not every single fact needs to be sourced, all articles require at least some verifiable sourcing. Notable does not mean popular, what it means is that the band's work has been deemed significant by sources other than themselves. The primary criterion of WP:MUSIC is that "it has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent from the musician/ensemble itself and reliable." If you can find published sources on the Internet with articles concerning the band apart from the band's own website than that would be an indication of notability. Merely publishing albums is not in and of itself indicative of notability unless the label under which they were published is itself notable. I can't even find any references on the internet pertaining to Godfather Records at all, so that's definitely out. The thing about their being confused for Metallica would be notable if there was press coverage of the phenomenon by multiple independent and reliable sources. Your only recourse at this point is to find reliable, independent, and verifiable sources concerning this band, be it press coverage of a national tour they went on, press coverage of a national competition they won or placed in, or something similar. Otherwise there is no justification for the inclusion of this band. Also, as someone noted on the AFD page about your comment: AFD is not a vote. People state their opinion of whether or not they feel it should be kept, but must then base their opinion on established policy. Someone who voted delete or keep with no reason for doing so or if the reason was based on something other than policy would have their votes discounted out of hand.--Dycedarg ж 21:52, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned fair use image (Image:Jdlogo.JPG)

Thanks for uploading Image:Jdlogo.JPG. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free 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. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).

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. This is an automated message from BJBot 21:08, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned fair use image (Image:Stryper_logo.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Stryper_logo.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free 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. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).

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. User:Gay Cdn (talk) (Contr) 23:03, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned fair use image (Image:Theocracybandpic.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Theocracybandpic.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free 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. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).

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. This is an automated message from BJBot 05:28, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eternal Decision

Right, apologies if I took offence early, I just feel that, for me, anger had been building up over a long time. When I first joined the discussion, reading through it, you were been rather challenging, didn't understand the issue with the article, and challenging people's comments about directories. You showed little understanding of the AfD process, little understanding of notability and sourcing guidelines, yet were still throwing around Wikipedia policies and comments to disagree with everyone else. Also, what you said about the idea that Wikipedia says 'If a band isn't on MTV selling millions of records it is not notable' really irritated me. Then, when I linked to the article on Voltaire, you talked about how it was sourced from only his MySpace page, his official site and Projekt Record's official site. This was blatantly untrue, as I explained. However, then, when I explained this to you, instead of apologising, you said 'Hmm I sourced 1 independent interview, and an independent biography, I could probably find more interviews but the information doesn't currently require it. So why did you vote delete? Just because you never heard of the band?' I found this VERY offensive. You had not said that you had resourced the article, and I didn't even have it on my watchlist. How on Earth was I to know? Yet still, you accuse me of blatantly ignoring Wikipedia policy and voting delete because I hadn't heard of the band. That is not the way I behave. I am a fan of alternative music, and I spend a lot of time in AfD debates. There is no way on Earth I am going to vote delete to something because I haven't heard of it. Put short, you were confrontational in your tone, showed little understanding of what you were talking about (AfD procedure, Wikipedia policy, the Voltaire article) and made things overly personal, partly because of the fact you were accusing me of voting delete just because I hadn't heard of the band. When you behave in such a manner on AfD, it does not help the case of the article you are trying to support. J Milburn 20:28, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I nominate a lot of articles for deletion. Basically, you have to use your common sense as to whether it is the best thing to do. Please see this guideline. Of course, nominating articles for deletion is nearly as important as writing them, becuase it keeps the integrity of the encyclopedia. Here is what I would reccomend you do- save the article on this band to your sandbox, and work on it for a while. Ensure it looks good, and, most importantly, that notability is indisputably asserted. If you don't already use your sandbox, you can find it here. You can create subpages in your userspace by simply naming them User:E tac/[pagename], and so a lot of editors use this space to help keep themselves organised in different ways. If you work on it for a while, then get in contact with me, I will review it, and see if I reckon it looks valid. Alternatively, I could help you write it, if you like. I have worked heavily on articles for other musicians, I would be more than happy to help. J Milburn 22:47, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, I have seen the way that you have CONTINUED to behave in the AfD, calling another editor a hypocrite, still arguing with policy, basing what you say on nothing, dragging other editors' articles into the discussion. Basically, I am no longer happy to help you rewrite the article, and I think you should seriously think about the way you have treated this discussion. You have offended at least two other editors, including myself, and failed to provide any reason that the band is notable beyond, ironically, 'I have heard of them.' J Milburn 17:27, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't know whether you are deliberately trying to be funny or sarcastic here, but, if you are, it hasn't translated well. Yeah, I brought up Voltaire, but I wasn't saying 'You can't vote, because you have also written an article on Wikipedia.' I was using the article to point out that a band does not need to be hugely famous to be notable, and you know I was. The discussion was about Eternal Decision and Eternal Decision only, bringing up the other article was just a waste of space. Please see this. The reason I voted 'abstain' was because I realised that there was no way I could make a fair assessment of the article when I had you shouting rubbish and hurling abuse around, and no matter how well sourced the article was, I was going to want it to be deleted, just because you wanted it kept. As for the matter of me 'bothering to even read it', like I have already said, I am not watching the article, but I will take a look now. Ok then, we have four sources cited. Clumsily, but cited nonetheless. Let's go through them.

1. Allmusic- It was deemed at the AfD discussion that this was just a press release by the band. Irrelevent
2. Heaven's Metal- Just a directory entry, just a listing of their albums. Irrelevent
3. CD Baby- A description of the product offered, doesn't count as an article in itself, but the awards may count for something. Possibly relevent, irrelevent as part of the primary notability criteria
4. Freeservers- Freeservers is NOT reliable source, at all. I could have something on there saying completely the opposite in a few minutes. Irrelevent, not allowed to be used as a source

But wait! There are more that could be relevent in the external links section! I must check them as well!

1. Official homepage- Usable as a primary source, no good to prove that they are notable. Irrelevent
2. MySpace- Ditto. Irrelevent
3. Allmusic- Hey, I've seen that link somewhere before... Irrelevent
4. Metal Archives- Another directory entry, AND it was user submitted. Irrelevent
5. Firestream- Directory entry, user submitted photos does not make it any more valid. Irrelevent
6. NoLifeTilMetal- Well, it looks DISGUSTING, but, Goddamn it, that MAY JUST BE A VALID SOURCE! However, looks rather directory-ish, and that guy is amateur. To be honest, it is a big Freewebs with a nice domain name. Possibly relevent
7. Tollbooth- To short to really count for anything in terms of notability, could be used as a source though. Nearly in the realms of relevent
8. MP3tunes- Directory entry, but there is potential there. Possibly relevent

There, just for you, I looked at your article. I would still vote to delete. As I have mentioned before, the reason I am saying you have not done anything is that you don't tell us that you have done anything, and, on top of that, become incredibly aggressive when we don't realise that you have done something. And I stand by the fact that you are being abusive and challenging, I stand by the fact that most of your 'arguments' are a joke, and I stand by the fact that you do not back up what you say. You know what? Give me a specific example of something I have said to you that is a joke. Maybe there is something. Maybe there are even a couple of things. I would love to see them. J Milburn 22:11, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Please be kind enough to point out where I am making no sense, or where my logic is flawed. J Milburn 22:17, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I have already explained all of these points. Firstly- using the band's site as a source is fine, in many cases. It depends on the information that you are referencing. They are the most obvious primary sources. However, multiple, published, reliable, non-trivial published sources are required to prove notability. Now- freewebs articles can be written by anyone. I could have a freewebs article up tonight with an 'interview' with the band. Also, I could, on the same site, have an entirely genuine interview with my friends' band, which I have already mentioned in the AfD disscussion, who are not notable, and won't be for a fair while. That would NOT make them notable. As for whether the Allmusic article was deemed to be a press release or whether it was just said to look like one- a small fault of mine. In any case, I was going on what another editor said, (Tractorkingsfan, if I remember correctly) not my own judgement. As for the MySpace question- it was written by Voltaire, it will pass as a primary source. Another point- yes, I said the official site was irrelevent- What I was trying to determine there was whether there were sources that helped the article meet the primary notability criteria. On the subject of bringing other articles into the discussion, there is a difference between accusing someone of hypocrisy and a flase agenda by throwing stubs they wrote at them, and showing someone an article that would help them understand Wikipedia policy. I have already explained just how many secondary sources are cited in the Voltaire article. In any case, I can argue notability for having multiple albums released on Projekt Records. As you seem to be stuggling to follow this conversation, I feel that debating so many points at once is not going to be awfully beneficial. J Milburn 22:44, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, just to clarify my comment about the Allmusic description of the band, I never said that I knew it was a press release. As a person who works with bands and booking, I know that when we send out descriptions of upcoming shows on our mailing list, the booking agent in question usually uses the band's press release to describe the band. So I've seen a lot of them. The language and style of what was on Allmusic sounded very similar to me, so I figured they might have done the same thing. But I certainly have nothing even approaching definitive evidence for that. I've chosen to remove myself completely from the debate regarding the article, but I wanted to make it clear that I didn't mean to mislead about the press release issue. Thanks, --Tractorkingsfan 02:24, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Unspecified source for Image:Theocracygroupshot.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Theocracygroupshot.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, then you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, then their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. 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 {{Non-free fair use in|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 tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 20:49, 29 January 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. -- moe.RON ^{Let's talk | done} 20:49, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned fair use image (Image:Theocracybandpic.PNG)

Thanks for uploading Image:Theocracybandpic.PNG. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free 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. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).

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. This is an automated message from BJBot 02:39, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

You calling me names

So, since I created an article on a band, I have to defend every other article on bands? I created the article on Heavy Trash because I think they are notable. I voted delete (after a lot of thought, you should notice by my previous comments) on Eternal Decision because I don't honestly think they are notable. I'm trying to be principled about this. I want the articles to stay or go based on the notability of the band. If the one I started deserves to go, so be it. But I don't understand how that makes me a hypocrite, and I don't think you should be throwing around that word, as I'm trying to act honestly. Sorry if I offended you, but you have for sure offended me. Deeply. I'm no hypocrite man. --Tractorkingsfan 09:48, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Anybody who edits wikipedia has a right to be involved in anything, so I don't have to answer to you in terms of why I'm where. What you said to me doesn't make a whole lot of sense, but I would say I'm being the grown up one here. You're clinging to this article like a child because you created it, which is clear to everyone except you. And you called me a hypocrite. Is that true or false? And you can't seem to explain why, all you're saying is that you're mad at me for not supporting your article. Well, sorry, but what matters here is policy. If you don't like that, go somewhere else.

Look dude, I'm into music too, I like metal, I like sports, whatever. There's no reason for us to be going at it like this. Just give me a little bit of understanding here and realize that I'm not being a hypocrite because I support one article and not the other. I have listened to what you are saying, but you seem really really pissed off about this. I'm willing to let it die. But you shouldn't have called me that, and you know it. --Tractorkingsfan 10:01, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

No worries man! Yep, I lay it on a little thick sometimes with the reasoning. That's why I joined this thing, because it's like a little debate club. But I realize that can be really irritating with an article you spent an hour and a half creating and fine-tuning. Shit, maybe Heavy Trash should go, who knows. I'd probably react the same way if somebody came after it as hard as I did. Well, I'm not even going to look at that deletion debate again; it got me way too fired up. But yeah, apology accepted, I'm sorry to you, let's forget it it's just wikipedia. Cheers, --Tractorkingsfan 10:17, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Eternal Decision

Huh? As far as I know, I've never deleted this article or commented on it one way or the other. And I do give deletion reasons, both in my edit summaries and on the authors' talk pages. NawlinWiki 22:03, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

"Delete, fails WP:BAND, arguably speediable but probably better to settle it here. NawlinWiki 13:31, 27 January 2007 (UTC)" Why does it fail WP band? I'd say 3 albums released in 16 different countries gives them notability, they are known for their song hunger being thought to be a bootlegged new metallica song, They have had several songs near the top on a Christian Rock Chart. They are on may online music directories.--E tac 22:10, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

OK, I did vote, and I stand by the vote. The band's notability is not backed by verifiable sources, as is explained in detail by many of the other contributors to the AFD. That's all I have to say on the subject. You'll find that haranguing people and accusing them of bad faith is not the way to get them to agree with you. NawlinWiki 22:16, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Images

How do I go about putting images on a page that aren't free use? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Alldaiallnite (talk • contribs) 00:56, 1 February 2007 (UTC).

Sources

No problem. Just a quick note to say that sources don't all have to be on the web. If there are newspaper/magazine articles, etc., that can be cited as well. WP:CITE/ES. Cricket02 14:29, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned fair use image (Image:Theocracyalbum.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Theocracyalbum.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free 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. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).

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. This is an automated message from BJBot 09:04, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned fair use image (Image:Mort envision.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Mort envision.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free 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. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).

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. This is an automated message from BJBot 10:18, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned fair use image (Image:Robrockholyhellcover.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Robrockholyhellcover.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free 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. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).

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. This is an automated message from BJBot 10:23, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned fair use image (Image:Narnialogo.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Narnialogo.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free 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. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).

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. This is an automated message from BJBot 10:49, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned fair use image (Image:Jplogo.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Jplogo.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free 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. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).

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. This is an automated message from BJBot 11:47, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned fair use image (Image:Celladorindexlogo.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Celladorindexlogo.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free 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. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).

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. This is an automated message from BJBot 11:54, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned fair use image (Image:Savatagelogo.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Savatagelogo.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free 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. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).

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. This is an automated message from BJBot 11:54, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned fair use image (Image:Majestic vanguard logo.gif)

Thanks for uploading Image:Majestic vanguard logo.gif. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free 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. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).

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. This is an automated message from BJBot 14:00, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned fair use image (Image:XPantera logox.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:XPantera logox.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free 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. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).

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. This is an automated message from BJBot 14:16, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned fair use image (Image:Helloweenlogoxxx.gif)

Thanks for uploading Image:Helloweenlogoxxx.gif. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free 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. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).

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. This is an automated message from BJBot 14:39, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned fair use image (Image:Skilletband.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Skilletband.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free 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. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).

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. This is an automated message from BJBot 18:11, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned fair use image (Image:Avianband.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Avianband.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free 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. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).

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. This is an automated message from BJBot 22:25, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

3RR notice

You have breached WP:3RR on St. Anger. However, I have not blocked you for violation but protected the article. Please discuss changes on the talk page of the articles, as it is more productive. Regards, — Nearly Headless Nick 14:32, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Kamelot

Either give proof that Kamelot is Prog Metal ot stop editing. And the link you post is not proof of anything Unless you can tell me how Nightwish is Prog Metal.

So stop editing them as Prog Metal when you have not proof.

The link that is already there says they are progressive as DO MANY reliable sites and sources that I will begin to list if you keep contesting this. What does Nightwish have to do with anything, we aren't talking about Nightwish we are talking about Kamelot. Maybe Nightwish is prog I have never listened to them so I couldn't tell you, nor does the fact that one site list them discount the fact that a site also lists Kamelot as MANY other sources list them as progressive as well. If you have a problem with Nightwish talk about it on the Nightwish article, otherwise stop guarding articles with your POV like they are your own children or something. Also sign your posts please. --E tac 02:46, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Wow it's more like your point of view and why do I bring Nightwish into this. Because you keep listing Kamelot as Prog metal with nothing to back it up but prog metal sites most of which list other bands that have nothing nothing to do with Prog.

Two such sits are:

http://www.progarchives.com/Progressive_rock_discography_BAND.asp?band_id=1486 they list Nightwish as a Prog Metal band. So right away this site is wrong and is not reliable http://www.proggnosis.com/MUSIC_DBArtist.asp?txtArtistID=724 They are listing bands that don't even have anything to do with Prog metal. 99% of the bands listed on this site are not prog metal. Half them are Gothic metal bands. The other half are Power metal bands.

So I ask what songs are Prog Metal? What CD's etc etc etc. Where is your proof? Other then listing sites that are not reliable.

And a myspace site is not a reiable site.

http://www.metalstorm.ee/bands/band.php?band_id=136&bandname=Kamelot that is a reliable site.

But if you really most keep this up then this is the only way I will accpet the change:

Kamelot is a melodic power metal band with some progressive metal elements from Tampa, Florida, founded by Thomas Youngblood and Richard Warner in 1991 truemetalfan

And as for not listening to Nightwish you sure felt the need to go and edit that they were Prog Metal for some odd reason.

give me a break, metalstorm is no more reliable than any site i have listed as it is ran by 4 people with no special credentials and i never said they are not power metal which the site is right about but that they also are progressive which nowhere does that site dismiss.--E tac 00:15, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

http://www.metalstorm.ee/bands/band.php?band_id=176&bandname=Metallica they also list metallica as a nu metal band, which wikipedia does not state therefore by your logic that site is as unreliable as progarchives which by the way has a lot more collaborators.--E tac 00:20, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Wow there is just no point in doing this with you any more. You just don't care you are so blind and don't care what any one else has to say. You still have yet to point out where they are Prog Metal by the way. And I guess you never will.

I'm done here. truemetalfan Oh and by the way if you can't go into my discussion area to leave a topic then please stop. I don't leave messages on your frotn page.

Hah this is funny you accuse me of not being able to point something out and when I do you say its not reliable even though you completely contradict yourself.--E tac 11:59, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Make amends

Hi, I know we had a fair dispute recently (over Eternal Decision, if you don't remember) and I have just come to make amends. I know that you aren't a bad faith editor, and thanks to your work on the article, it is now a good one. If I was offensive in any way, then I really do apologise, I understand that you were creating (and editing) this article purely to try and improve the encyclopedia, and had no hidden agenda with it. I wish you the best of luck with future articles. Happy editing! J Milburn 19:00, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I've changed the naming of the band's style by adding "with progressive metal elements" to make everyone happy. I also added a small section about "upcoming music videos", since the band officialy announced that the shooting of the video for Ghost Opera is done. No words on the album's name though.

Re: DragonForce

That's okay, sorry as well, I was a bit hasty. The edit histories were both in the same minute. Only realised that after checking. --Dane ^~nya 11:39, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Aletheian

If you liked Becoming The Archetype, I recommend checking out The Red Chord's newest release, Clients, on Metal Blade Records. --hXc ryan-- 18:52, 7 February 2007 (UTC) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Hxc ryan (talk • contribs) 18:52, 7 February 2007 (UTC).

Image:Puffyjeffdubay.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Puffyjeffdubay.jpg. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image 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 image could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:

1. Go to the image description page and edit it to add {{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 image by finding a freely licensed image of its subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or a similar) image 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 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that any fair use images which are replaceable by free-licensed alternatives 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. MECU≈talk 23:52, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Holy Blood

Just so you know, the redirect does not need to be deleted before you write the article. Just. Write the article. :) --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 11:17, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

If you just want the redirect deleted, I'd suggest taking it to redirects for discussion instead of tagging it for speedy. --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 11:19, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Alright, thank you for the info --E tac 11:40, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Image:Theocracyband.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Theocracyband.jpg. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image 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 image could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:

1. Go to the image description page and edit it to add {{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 image by finding a freely licensed image of its subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or a similar) image 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 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that any fair use images which are replaceable by free-licensed alternatives 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. -- moe.RON ^{Let's talk | done} 23:03, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

This is still a copyrighted image that is not tagged on an appropriate web page (not a forum) as a GFDL image; as such, it is still considered a FU image unless uploaded by original photographer. I will get an admin who deals with photos to take a look at the problems surround fair and free use of this picture. -- moe.RON ^{Let's talk | done} 17:27, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

I just wanted to see if you were going to replace the tag you removed as we discussed on the talk page. Like I mentioned, only admin's should remove the tag, but I am hoping you will replace it for a fair evaluation. Thanks! -- moe.RON ^{Let's talk | done} 01:14, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Question

What's up E tac, I'm the guy who you argued with on the Eternal Decision deletion debate. So you might find it funny that I'm asking you this, but I'm looking for your help on the only band article I've ever created, Heavy Trash (remember we discussed it in the aforementioned debate). Everything I said to you aside, I've paid attention to the Eternal Decision article and it's become very solid. And the amount of band articles you've created is, to say the least, impressive. So, if you can help me expand this, in any way, that would be much appreciated. Doesn't seem like your type of music, but maybe check the internet or help me with some format, my wikipedia article-creation skills are weak. I'm looking for basic stuff like how to upload images that are okay to use, I've never done that. No problem if you pass on this, but, again, your help would be appreciated. No time frame. Later, --Tractorkingsfan 06:21, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

License tagging for Image:Heavy trash.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Heavy trash.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:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

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. 10:06, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned fair use image (Image:Mortlogo.gif)

Thanks for uploading Image:Mortlogo.gif. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free 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. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).

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. This is an automated message from BJBot 14:45, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned fair use image (Image:Mortlogo.JPG)

Thanks for uploading Image:Mortlogo.JPG. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free 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. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).

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. This is an automated message from BJBot 14:45, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned fair use image (Image:Logo green mort.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Logo green mort.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free 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. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).

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. This is an automated message from BJBot 14:45, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned fair use image (Image:L 2b396baea01e05bb9f7728a956e0ac61.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:L 2b396baea01e05bb9f7728a956e0ac61.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free 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. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).

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. This is an automated message from BJBot 21:00, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Deletion from homophobia

Hi, I don't why you removed a photo from the Homophobia article with this edit: [1]. The photo is free from copyright and was originally from the website of the church in question, which is apparently proud of its anti-gay activism. Could you explain your reasoning (it might have been helpful if you'd used an edit summary). Thanks, WjBscribe 09:25, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Rock music Wikiproject invitation

Hello WikiProject Metal member.
WikiProject Metal music is important in expanding encyclopedic coverage of the metal. It brings attention to the lesser-known bands, and significantly improves the quality of the famous ones. Five Featured articles and two formers is proof of that.
This is the stuff I wish to achieve with the somewhat recently resurrected WikiProject Rock music. I hope to also attract attention to rock music articles of all sorts, and hopefully change some to GA or FA status. I invite you to come join us, and embrace the links between metal and rock music in general.
Rock on.
-- Reaper X 04:50, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Removal of AfD notices

Welcome to Wikipedia. Please do not remove Articles for deletion notices from articles or remove other people's comments in Articles for deletion pages, as you did with Theocracy (band). The notices and comments are needed to establish community consensus about the status of an article, and removing them is considered vandalism. If you oppose the deletion of an article, you may comment at the respective page instead. Thank you. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me Please review me!} 06:01, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Please stop removing AfD notices. No one but the administrator who closes the AfD may under any circumstances remove these notices. If you wish to speak against the proposal to delete, please follow the link provided in the AfD notice and make your comments there instead. Removal of AfD tags may be seen as vandalism and lead to a block. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me Please review me!} 06:06, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Theocracy (band)

I've nominated Theocracy (band), an article you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but in this particular case I do not feel that Theocracy (band) satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion; I have explained why in the nomination space (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and the Wikipedia deletion policy). Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Theocracy (band) and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Theocracy (band) during the discussion but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. -- moe.RON ^{Let's talk | done} 06:03, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Theocracy AfD

Rather than clog up the AfD page any more! To be fair to Moeron he has said he'll get a photo-experienced admin to look at your theocracy.jpg picture. The problem is that even if the band has said you can use a picture posted on a forum, it may well still be the copyright of the original photographer. Perhaps you could ask on the forum again to make sure the photographer is OK with its use? As regards the AfD itself, WP:MUSIC unfortunately does stack itself again "less popular" sub-genres sometimes precisely because they don't get the exposure that more "mainstream" music does. As regards that I agree that the guidelines can seem overly harsh sometimes - all I can suggest is to pack as much reference into your article as you can, and have a look here especially at items 3 and 6. EliminatorJR 09:29, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Hey there! Just wanted to let you know that I am not on a WP:POINT at all! I watch certain pages since their creation, especially ones that don't seem to pass notablity. Once sufficient time is given, I will ask on talk pages or WP:PROD an article and then go from there; it just seemed that you met the "importance" tag with such hostility that there would be no compromise. I am a fan of Theocracy, but just like other bands that I like that are just getting recognized in their genre over the last couple years, they need more right now to be on Wikipedia. I will gladly help create a better page, sourced and all, once they become more popular in Chrisitan metal. Cheers! -- moe.RON ^{Let's talk | done} 18:46, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

P.S. When you get a chance, I have poised some questions at JAG (band) and I see you have edited that page recently. I welcome your comments! -- moe.RON ^{Let's talk | done} 18:46, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

I think we are finally understanding each other! This is great! Anyway, that picture you mentioned is going to be speedily deleted very soon. Thanks for pointing that out. -- moe.RON ^{Let's talk | done} 22:18, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

It seems we have a common goal...

Hey E tac! I just wanted to thank you and introduce myself. I'm chrisw357 and I wrote the original entry that got deleted. Now, imagine my surprise when I do a kicks-and-grins search on bands I like and I see your entry. You succeeded where I failed (It just wasn't the right time for that article) and I thank you immensely. I'm glad you cleared up the air about your identity in relation to my blog, as I don't want anyone's deeds to be mistaken for my mistakes... LOL.

Whatever I can do to help in keeping the article alive in Wikipedia, just name it. I support you 110%! Besides... you have the almost exact same taste in music as I do, with that list of bands on your user page being 90% of what I listen to!

Sincerely,

Christopher —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.251.254.161 (talk) 00:33, 24 February 2007 (UTC).

Look me up

Sorry about the lack of WP etiquette... I forgot I had to sign in for proper editing!

Chrisw357 02:58, 24 February 2007 (UTC)Chrisw357

Thank You!

It took me way too long to say that, I just forgot. But your help with the photo and advice on the Heavy Trash article is much appreciated. Take it easy, --Tractorkingsfan 09:37, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

question

Would you like to join Conservapedia as a editor? Conservapedia is looking for good editors and Admins. Please send me your email if you want to join Conservapedia. If you feel reticient about giving out your email address you can simply create a new account at hotmail and yahoo so you don't risk getting a lot of junk mail. Regional123 01:33, 7 March 2007 (UTC)Regional123

Age category

Hello! If you are receiving this message, that means that your user page is in a specific year category. Per a recent user-category per deletion, all specific year categories are to be deleted. If you wish to continue using year categories, you have two options:

• Using an age group category, such as Category:Wikipedians in their 30s
• Using a decade category, such as Category:Wikipedians born in the 1970s.

If you wish, you may do both. Hopefully, this change in categorization will be quick and painless. Happy editing! --An automated message from MessedRobot 13:12, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Unspecified source for Image:Theocracyband.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Theocracyband.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, then you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, then their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self-no-disclaimers}} 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 {{Non-free fair use in|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 tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 18:36, 13 March 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Martinp23 18:36, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

List of Christian Music Videos

Well, the above article had been up for five days and only had three entries. Anyway, I've copied the content to your userspace at User:E tac/List of Christian Music Videos. Feel free to repost when you've populated the list a little more. NawlinWiki 20:37, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Image copyrights

Hi E tac. I've deleted the Theocracy image yet again, as the ownership *remains* unvierifiable, and we have no real statement of free licensing. Please read Image talk:Theocracyband.jpg, and I must warn that if the image is reuploaded without the appropiate permission having been forwarded to me by email (or to permissions at wikimedia dot org, who will be able to undelete the image when permission is granted), I will be forced to block you for a short time as a result of your blatant disregard for policy. Martinp23 20:55, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Please assume good faith. I am following to the word of our strict image policies, and am not trying to "feel big" - to be perfectly honest, there are things I'd much rather do than repeatedly delete the image, or even have to block you. I've advised you about 4 or 5 times on the *rules* for this issue, and if you can't comply with them, I suggest that you go out to a concert/whatever, and get an image of the band on your own camera, license it under CC-by-SA or compatible and upload it to Wikipedia. Martinp23 21:37, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Unspecified source for Image:Theocracybandname.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Theocracybandname.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, then you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, then their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self-no-disclaimers}} 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 {{Non-free fair use in|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 tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 16:54, 17 March 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Martinp23 16:54, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Theocracybandname.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Theocracybandname.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. Martinp23 16:54, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Vengeance Rising logo.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Vengeance Rising logo.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. Martinp23 17:12, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Images

Hi - could you please take a quick look through your upload log and fix the licensing problems with most of the images in there. I've pointed out a couple of problems by use of warnings above, but rather than fill your talk page up with them, 'd appreciate if you'd take a look and fill in the various required details. Please bear in mind that these aren't just Wikipedia polices which you need to comply to - they are the copyright laws (of the US). Martinp23 17:14, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Good work!

Thank you for your recent tagging of images, such as Image:Moegroup.jpg. This worked out good since I was able to find an image Image:Moeband.JPG, that does not violate WP:FU and that a photographer has given up for the public domain. Keep it up! -- moe.RON ^{Let's talk | done} 19:10, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Image:Dragonforceband03.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Dragonforceband03.jpg. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image 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 image could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:

1. Go to the image description page and edit it to add {{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 image by finding a freely licensed image of its subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or a similar) image 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 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that any fair use images which are replaceable by free-licensed alternatives 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. -- moe.RON ^{Let's talk | done} 19:45, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Image:Tourniquetbandpic.JPG

Thanks for uploading Image:Tourniquetbandpic.JPG. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image 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 image could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:

1. Go to the image description page and edit it to add {{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 image by finding a freely licensed image of its subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or a similar) image 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 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that any fair use images which are replaceable by free-licensed alternatives 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. -- moe.RON ^{Let's talk | done} 02:14, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Image:Audiovision band.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Audiovision band.jpg. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image 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 image could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:

1. Go to the image description page and edit it to add {{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 image by finding a freely licensed image of its subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or a similar) image 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 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that any fair use images which are replaceable by free-licensed alternatives 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. -- moe.RON ^{Let's talk | done} 02:14, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Recent album cover images

You have recently uploaded several album covers for the WOW Hits series to go with their album articles. The images are certainly appreciated, but if you could, please provide fair use rationales for these images. Thanks! -- moe.RON ^{Let's talk | done} 02:14, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Take a look at Wikipedia:Image description page#Fair use rationale; that will explain how to provide a rationale for the image. Fair use images that don't have rationales are subject to deletion. If you have any other questions, feel free to ask. Cheers! -- moe.RON ^{Let's talk | done} 02:54, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned fair use image (Image:Justin Morneau2.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Justin Morneau2.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free 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. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).

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. —Wknight94 (talk) 02:43, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned fair use image (Image:Justin-morneau-ttrookie.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Justin-morneau-ttrookie.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free 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. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).

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. —Wknight94 (talk) 02:44, 20 March 2007 (UTC)