User talk:Strobilus.html



Welcome

Hello, Strobilus, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} and your question on your user talk page, and someone will show up shortly to answer. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

• The Five Pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Editing tutorial
• Picture tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Naming conventions
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, you can sign your name on talk and vote pages using four tildes, like this: ~~~~. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome!DUBJAY04 03:26, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Citations

Hi and welcome. You'll find citation information here: WP:REF. Rklawton 17:27, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

The tag is directed at the article in general. Rklawton 18:33, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Does (album)

Hi, that is a problem that comes up quite often. A quick google search should be able to find some good sources- The band's website, the record label's website, shopping websites, directory websites and the like, which will have most of the information on. On the other hand, referencing the CD insert for any information that you can't find reliable sources for would be a perfectly valid option. Feel free to contact me if I can be of any help. J Milburn 19:21, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

For websites, Template:Cite web arranges it very nicely. J Milburn 19:31, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Oh, sorry, forgot to mention, cite web works best when you use the <ref></ref> tags. They are explained here, and aren't nearly as complicated as they first look. J Milburn 19:33, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Yep, much better. Thanks for doing that, most new editors just can't be bothered to. Good work. J Milburn 19:53, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Free Software

Hi Strobilus, I notice that you're interested in open-source/free software. Please consider joining WikiProject Free Software. We're just starting out, and we could really use some members. Thanks! Geekman314^{(contact me)} 22:18, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Removing Discussions

Hi Strobilus. Just a quick heads up, we never remove discussions, if the page is full (read too long) we archive them, so we can gaze back on history and know why we have done what we have done. I leave it with you to restore that discussion, I think you should. WayeMason 13:52, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

The WikiProject Biography Newsletter: Issue II - April 2007

The April 2007 issue of the WikiProject Biography newsletter has been published.You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. BetacommandBot 20:24, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Request for peer review

Hi, I put an article up for peer review, Date cultivation in Dar al-Manasir, and found your name in the horticulture wikiproject list of people. If you have some time, I think it would make a great FA and wanted to get some expert advice. cc: user:SB Johnny, quercus robur, user:NoahElhardt, Cas Liber, User:Doc Tropics, Lynnathon, Benjamin, HelloMojo, Strobilus. Thanks, Rhetth 01:39, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

WP:MUSINST Newsletter!

Hello. This is just a friendly reminder that the Musical Instruments WikiProject has released their current newsletter. Please spread the word about the newsletter, our project, and the work we are performing.

You are receiving this notification because you are listed as an honoured guest of the Musical Instruments WikiProject. Opt-in and Opt-out delivery notifications are currently undergoing discussions. Please contribute to expand these options.

For the WP:MUSINST newsletter - NDCompuGeek 19:37, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

TfD nomination of Template:Infobox Guitarist

Template:Infobox Guitarist has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. — Kudret abi 05:53, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Horticulture and Gardening Collaboration of the Month

Wassupwestcoast 05:16, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Dionne albums

Hi! I am really enjoying the work you've been doing on the pages for Dionne's albums. I had wanted to write a narrative on "Presenting Dionne Warwick" but had not been able to get it done as of yet. Now that you've created the page, I will consult my sources here and expand the article. As for "Here Where There Is Love" your suggestion makes perfect sense. Even those at Scepter were confused with the title, as some prints of the actual label have a comma, some do not. Have a great day! Dma124 22:10, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Reply

I guess the site can be removed, but it doesn't hurt to leave the info in, even if it does have no source (yet). They have a new album coming out soon, so perhaps we'll get some more reliable sources then. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 02:58, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

General references

Regarding the reference change at [1]. Please note that references often apply to several parts of an article or an article in its entirety, and not only to a single sentence, so it is misleading to convert such a reference to a footnote for a single sentence. —Centrx→talk • 21:40, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't think a footnote necessarily refers to a single sentence, but rather to a portion of text—in this case, the entire two sentence article. I'm easy though and have no objections to the change you've made. What is the purpose of the asterisk you've added? Strobilus 22:14, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

That was an error. The problem with putting a footnote at the end of a portion of text is when someone adds a sentence in the middle of that portion of text or moves the sentence with the footnote, which always ends up happening at some point. Then the footnote would appear to be the source for a sentence for which there is no source, or if another footnote is inserted in the midst of the portion of sourced text it divides the sourcing, etc. Partly the problem is that the Wikipedia reference system is deficient. —Centrx→talk • 01:45, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Cape Breton fiddling

Hi, could you take a look at the article again? I appreciated your comments! jmcw 15:34, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! jmcw 23:20, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Canadian music

Hi S. I just wanted to let you know that I've been noticing the work you've been putting into Canadian music articles. It's great to see that! Cheers, --Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 16:09, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Candyrat rooster roster :) and stuff

Hi strobilius, thanks for your quick reaction to my reworking of the Don Ross article. As I'm not a native speaker it is a good idea to look over my english. I'm quite impressed by the templates on WP:en, wish we had those on WP:de. Please help me with the assessment tag: what could be done to improve the article (except finding an image)? Elaborate more on his playing, adding more info to his publications (see de:Don Ross)?

I noticed you changed the Candyrat artists on both Don Ross articles. I assume you're right, but I wasn't able to find a reference showing those artists who really are on the Candyrat roster and not only in the boutique. Could you please provide a reference? --Jo (talk) 14:25, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

OK, thanks for the quick answer. I'll try to add a reference on behalf of the Candyrat artists following your explanation. I can provide picture, sound sample and video link. I'm still struggling with the fair use license, but once solved I'll go for it. --Jo (talk) 16:28, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Asked Don Ross for a picture. He sent me one, but has not agreed to a GNU license yet. Let's wait and see. Another question: you removed the from the Vicki Genfan article. Are there any guidelines for not having the flag at this place? Saw them in several articles ....--Jo (talk) 00:33, 24 December 2007 (UTC) OOps, overlooked the explanation for the Thomas Leeb edit you did just before. That's a good explanation, never thought of it. But these flags are so cute :( --Jo (talk) 00:37, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Kathak page

Hi there. Sorry -- I had to remove the picture you added to the Kathak page as the subject is dancing Bharatanatyam and not Kathak (you can tell by the pose and the costume). I understand that the picture came from a Flickr page and the picture is mislabelled there too. H1es- (talk) 13:17, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Percussion WikiProject

		WikiProject Percussion
		User:EvanSeeds and User:Kakofonous are starting a percussion WikiProject. If you think you may be interested, please leave either of them a message or check out the temporary project page.

I saw on the WP:MusInst page that you'd be interested in percussion instruments, so I though you may be interested in helping get a percussion wikiproject off the ground. --Evan ¤ Seeds 18:09, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Fucking move

Hi ...

I was looking at pages randomly for example and copyedited the Fuck page removing some red links. I saw that Fuck the band was formatted Fuck (band) and thought they should all be the same.

Obviously the eponymous "Holy Fuck" as a profanity, after which the band is marketed, is far more common and has a much longer history that Holy Fuck (band) but I don't suspect it warrants a page on its own, or that I could be bothered. Hence the redirect to Fuck right now.

Do all or any of these bands warrant inclusion in the WIkipedia at all, even on that Fucking page? In my opinion, I would say no. Not at all

They are neither notable nor influential enough and all the fuck talk is really just young people being naughty reflecting on the demographics of this website, e.g. young, male, WASP etc. Is it not borderline advertising or fansite stuff that belongs on myspace really?

But ... having said that ... I am not a deletionist and if it makes someone happy and Jimbo is not freaked by it, then it is fine by me.

I just think that, in fairness, the original use, or most commonly used term, deserves priority. Would you like to write a page and then stick a link to the band at the top? Find a definition and a few citations ... it will probably stick. --Lucyintheskywithdada (talk) 03:44, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

The page move does indeed need to be undone, not just for the reasons that Strobilus mentioned, but also because it has created a major problem with the incoming links to the Holy Fuck page, all of which have to do with the band, not to the exclamation. --Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 14:41, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi Paul, I've responded to User:Lucyintheskywithdada on his or her talk page about moving the Holy Fuck article, and User:BarryNorton has redirected Holy Fuck to Holy Fuck (band) for now, though it is not an ideal solution to the problems created by the move. So what do you reckon we ought to do now? Do we request that the article be moved back to where it was or do we turn Holy Fuck into a disambiguation page and fix the misdirected wikilinks to Holy Fuck (band) manually? Cheers Strobilus (talk) 16:37, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi S. I don't see any compelling reasons to turn it into a disambiguation page, especially since all the incoming links are related to the band. So I think Holy Fuck (band) should be moved back to Holy Fuck, which likely can be done using the {{db-move|PAGE TO BE MOVED HERE}} template. Cheers, --Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 16:46, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to copy this discussion to my talk page and continue it there so User:Lucyintheskywithdada can weigh in and we can keep the discussion in one place. My inclination is to move the article back to its original location and put an other uses disambiguation link at the top of the page to point to material about the use of the term as an exclamation. If there are no objections I'll do so tomorrow or the next day. Strobilus (talk) 17:46, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I'd vote for disambiguation page just to be "proper". Its looks too much like marketing for a contemporary band that really has not overeached the notability of the original use of the term. I am not the sort to spew policies and WP:SHORCUTS as I am sure you all know them fine. Let's be honest, the choice of the words are not unique and were a simple marketing choice. If you went for a page revert to the original, generic term; I would explore an other route to deal with this.

The simple bottomline is that Holy Fuck the band are not Holy Fuck the words. (And we have no idea how much of which traffic is going where).

I am working on other stuff right and so cant explore what is already out there, e.g. "lists of profanities" or a related specific definition page. I know the original use is notable enough to support a page on its own if someone cares to write it. I suspect those interested in the band wont be ... --Lucyintheskywithdada (talk) 03:57, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I have been looking into the possibility of an article about the exclamation "Holy fuck". I did a search of that phrase in a library database of news and magazine articles: There are 82 results. About two-thirds of the results are about the band Holy Fuck, and about one-third of them are articles that use the phrase, usually quoting someone, but not a single one discusses the phrase. I also searched the database Scholars Portal, which includes social sciences and arts and humanities journals. There are no results at all for the phrase. I also checked Google Scholar and of the 50-or-so hits the only one that actually included some sort of discussion of the phrase was this one, not enough to write an article. I've done a good-faith set of searches and I am unable to find anything substantial to support Lucyintheskywithdada's contention that "the original use is notable enough to support a page on its own if someone cares to write it". --Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 05:01, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

It is complete untrue to say that the academic networks have none. I had a stab at starting the article with a few.

Does the OED or other related dictionaries mention it? I'd be especially interested in the earliest usage.

I think we have to be real here. The band is named after the rather common interjection. Google is fairly indiscriminate to sources.

May be you want to move this talk back to the actual article now? --Lucyintheskywithdada (talk) 05:32, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

It looks like Lucyintheskywithdada has created an article about the exclamation. I think Holy fuck ought to be merged with Fuck and Holy Fuck (band) moved back to Holy Fuck with a disambiguation link attached. If Holy fuck were made a disambiguation page that would be fine by me as well, but fixing all the misdirected wikilinks to the band's article seems like a tedious task that we can avoid. Strobilus (talk) 19:39, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Donna Jean Godchaux

I handled the move for you. y'american (wtf?) 19:44, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Image source problem with Image:Chris Hannah.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Chris Hannah.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, 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, 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:Non-free content, 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 03:20, 28 April 2008 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Polly (Parrot) 03:20, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Source info added to image description page. Strobilus (talk) 21:23, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Image source problem with Image:Chris Brown and Kate Fenner at Barrymores.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Chris Brown and Kate Fenner at Barrymores.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, 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, 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:Non-free content, 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 03:20, 28 April 2008 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Polly (Parrot) 03:20, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Image source problem with Image:Chris and Kate at Barrymores.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Chris and Kate at Barrymores.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, 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, 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:Non-free content, 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 03:23, 28 April 2008 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Polly (Parrot) 03:23, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Image source problem with Image:Doug MacGregor.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Doug MacGregor.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, 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, 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:Non-free content, 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 04:12, 28 April 2008 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Polly (Parrot) 04:12, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Source info added to image description page. Strobilus (talk) 21:23, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Image:Eric's Trip at George's.jpg

A tag has been placed on Image:Eric's Trip at George's.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section I3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an image licensed as "for non-commercial use only," "non-derivative use" or "used with permission," it has not been shown to comply with the limited standards for the use of non-free content. [2], and it was either uploaded on or after 2005-05-19, or is not used in any articles. If you agree with the deletion, there is no need to do anything. If, however, you believe that this image may be retained on Wikipedia under one of the permitted conditions then:

• state clearly the source of the image. If it has been copied from elsewhere on the web you should provide links to: the image itself, the page which uses it and the page which contains the license conditions.
• add the relevant copyright tag.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you. Polly (Parrot) 15:32, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Image:Holy Fuck at Evolve.jpg

A tag has been placed on Image:Holy Fuck at Evolve.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section I9 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the image appears to be a blatant copyright infringement. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted images or text borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Polly (Parrot) 22:09, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Image:Jimmy Swift Band.jpg

A tag has been placed on Image:Jimmy Swift Band.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section I3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an image licensed as "for non-commercial use only," "non-derivative use" or "used with permission," it has not been shown to comply with the limited standards for the use of non-free content. [3], and it was either uploaded on or after 2005-05-19, or is not used in any articles. If you agree with the deletion, there is no need to do anything. If, however, you believe that this image may be retained on Wikipedia under one of the permitted conditions then:

• state clearly the source of the image. If it has been copied from elsewhere on the web you should provide links to: the image itself, the page which uses it and the page which contains the license conditions.
• add the relevant copyright tag.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you. Polly (Parrot) 23:44, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Image source problem with Image:Julie Doiron.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Julie Doiron.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, 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, 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:Non-free content, 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 21:11, 29 April 2008 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Polly (Parrot) 21:11, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Image:Ohbijou.jpg

A tag has been placed on Image:Ohbijou.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section I3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an image licensed as "for non-commercial use only," "non-derivative use" or "used with permission," it has not been shown to comply with the limited standards for the use of non-free content. [4], and it was either uploaded on or after 2005-05-19, or is not used in any articles. If you agree with the deletion, there is no need to do anything. If, however, you believe that this image may be retained on Wikipedia under one of the permitted conditions then:

• state clearly the source of the image. If it has been copied from elsewhere on the web you should provide links to: the image itself, the page which uses it and the page which contains the license conditions.
• add the relevant copyright tag.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you. Polly (Parrot) 23:38, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Image source problem with Image:Rick White.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Rick White.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, 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, 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:Non-free content, 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 01:39, 1 May 2008 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Polly (Parrot) 01:39, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Image source problem with Image:Slowcoaster Steve.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Slowcoaster Steve.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, 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, 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:Non-free content, 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 22:28, 1 May 2008 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Polly (Parrot) 22:28, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Source info added to image description page. Strobilus (talk) 21:23, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Image source problem with Image:Steve Lambke.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Steve Lambke.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, 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, 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:Non-free content, 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 22:49, 1 May 2008 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Polly (Parrot) 22:49, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Source info added to image description page. Strobilus (talk) 21:23, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Image source problem with Image:Tony Scherr.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Tony Scherr.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, 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, 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:Non-free content, 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 23:31, 1 May 2008 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Polly (Parrot) 23:31, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Image source problem with Image:Will Kidman.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Will Kidman.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, 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, 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:Non-free content, 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 00:17, 2 May 2008 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Polly (Parrot) 00:17, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Source info added to image description page. Strobilus (talk) 21:23, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Image source problem with Image:Wintersleep live.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Wintersleep live.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, 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, 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:Non-free content, 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 00:23, 2 May 2008 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Polly (Parrot) 00:23, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Source info added to image description page. Strobilus (talk) 21:23, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks again

Thanks again for fixing my mistakes on the Gourds page. This last time around, I was basing my faulty "label(s)" edits on the way the Uncle Tupelo page is set up, mostly b/c I noticed it was a featured article and decided to trust it...but I should have just gone to the appropriate template, instead. Sorry about the confusion. D3gourds (talk) 18:50, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

external links

I've read the external link guidelines many times, I feel it is too restrictive especially in regards to videos as they relate to bands. I mean, what's the difference between a link I to a decent quality live video session and a link to a cbc radio session? I feel that the link is of relevant interest to readers of the page. Also, the videos linked are shot and distributed with permission from the band(s) and their management. 72.25.128.186 (talk) 17:31, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Awards for Music Artist Discussion Ongoing

Hi! You might be interested in the discussion at Template_talk:Infobox_Musical_artist#Add_awards_section.FilmFan69 (talk) 02:47, 20 August 2008 (UTC) --FilmFan69 (talk) 02:47, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Image:Shoulder album cover.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Shoulder album cover.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 23:45, 3 November 2008 (UTC)