User talk:CIS/Archive 5

Orphaned non-free image File:Tonight Show collage.png

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Tonight Show collage.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 for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

PLEASE NOTE:

I am a bot, and will therefore will not be able to answer your questions.

I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used once again.

If you recieved this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.

To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to somewhere on your talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 14:19, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Spiritual Machines

Hey! Nice pics of the band for the SM page. I'm thinking it looks good to go for another FA nomination. What do you think? Publichall (talk) 01:33, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hey man. Yeah I really think the article is starting to look great. Excellent work on Healthy in Paranoid Times as well; I'm going to try and find some fair-use images to upload and add to that article as well. I think we should both spend the next few days or so doing some final work and tidying on both Spiritual Machines and Healthy in Paranoid Times, and then we can nominate them both for FA status. I've also been doing some picture and copyediting work on the Our Lady Peace page, feel free to add to that article as well so we can get it nominated in the future. Great working with you, and again, excellent job on the OLP albums!. — CIS ^(talk | stalk) 12:49, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I'll see what I have to add... Cheers! Publichall (talk) 20:42, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. - You better take a good look at Healthy too. When I requested a peer review for it awhile back, one person responded basically saying there's so much wrong with it he wouldn't even bother with the whole thing. Ouch! Publichall (talk) 20:53, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

March 2010

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Easter. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing. I am leaving this message on the talk page of the other two participants. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 07:16, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

SM lead paragraphs and limited black case

Those changes were made during this article's first FA Nomination I made last year. The standards are to not cite anything in the lead paragraph as it will be covered later in the article.

Here's the log from the first FA thingy for reference:link

Publichall (talk) 01:23, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That was an editor's suggestion also, I'm not sure if they would allow it to be added to the infobox but after a look through FA articles in Music, Pink Floyd's The Dark Side of the Moon has an alternate cover so we could try. Publichall (talk) 02:20, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Last Call for Spiritual Machines Nomination

Well, I'm happy with the article if you are. I will be nominating it under both of our names tomorrow (Sunday) if I can remember to. Give me the go ahead soon if you can. Thanks! Publichall (talk) 01:57, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's on! Check the page for upcoming activity. Here's to the best! Publichall (talk) 00:55, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ehh. No problem. I know it still needs work but I can't believe that it bombed even worse than the first nomination! Maybe next time. Publichall (talk) 00:51, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:OLP Fox.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:OLP Fox.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 for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

PLEASE NOTE:

I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions.
I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to your talk page.
If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 00:16, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Larry King

Ok, I don't care that much about this, but is there any policy backup for your claim regarding what's "required" in the infobox about listing his current marital status? Adding that they've filed for divorce is accurate and clarifies the article regarding this well-publicized situation. Saying just "1997-present" without indicating that there's a pending divorce raises questions and likely will result in unnecessary and potentially incorrect editing from well-meaning editors (like changing the dates to 1997-2010 which we agree is wrong at present). So unless there's some compelling policy against it, I think we are better off having the divorce filing indicated in the infobox. Tvoz/talk 05:55, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, having the hidden text should stave off the well-meaning edits so I put it in, but I still think "present" will raise questions to readers who may have heard about a divorce. This way, the infobox is less informative as a quick "at-a-glance" fact-checking summary that an infobox is supposed to be - I don't see the template docs as more than guidelines, and I personally don't agree with an interpretation that gives less information to readers as this does, but as I said this is really not that important to me or at all, so I'll go along with this. Tvoz/talk 01:20, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File source problem with File:AD film.jpg

Thank you for uploading File:AD film.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, please add a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of that website's terms of use of its content. However, if the copyright holder is a party unaffiliated from the website's publisher, that copyright should also be acknowledged.

If you have uploaded other files, consider verifying that you have specified sources for those files as well. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged per Wikipedia's criteria for speedy deletion, F4. If the image is copyrighted and non-free, the image will be deleted 48 hours after 15:05, 27 April 2010 (UTC) per speedy deletion criterion F7. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 15:05, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for File:AD film.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:AD film.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the file 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 'file' 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 "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media 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. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 15:05, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Hello, world!

Thanks, CIS! Good to hear from you too. — Knowledge Seeker দ 06:15, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for File:Automatic Flowers.ogg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Automatic Flowers.ogg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the file 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 'file' 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 "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media 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. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 10:23, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Victoria Day

Feel free to revert now that the other editor's hypocrisy has been revealed. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:56, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"the late"

Do you know where on the guidelines pages it specifically says not to use "the late"? I'm not planning to restore it to the Gary Coleman article, but rather to remove it from other articles, but I will only do so if there is an actual guideline somewhere, and I can't find one. —Soap— 22:49, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer granted

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, will be commencing a a two-month trial at approximately 23:00, 2010 June 15 (UTC).

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under flagged protection. Flagged protection is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. –xeno^talk 16:55, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, xeno. I look forward to helping out as much as possible with this new feature. Great alternative to semi/full protection in many cases. — CIS ^(talk | stalk) 22:11, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jimmy Dean

Hello CIS. I noticed you removed the image from the infobox for Jimmy Dean citing WP:FU. Do you feel that the Rationale for fair use in Willard Whyte is correct? Do you feel similar fair use could be added for the Dean article? Thank you, RadioBroadcast (talk) 03:54, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, RadioBroadcast. The image of Jimmy Dean as Willard Whyte is a screenshot from a copyrighted film. Per Wikipedia's fair use guidelines, such images can only qualify for fair use of copyright when placed within articles relating to the film and its contents. So to answer your question, yes, the rationale for fair use at the article List of James Bond allies in Diamonds Are Forever is perfectly legit, but we would be unable to obtain such a rationale for placement in the Jimmy Dean article. — CIS ^(talk | stalk) 04:27, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Arnold Lanni and WP:DATEVAR

Regarding the date format change on Arnold Lanni, you need to follow your own advice here. The first date format established was actually DMY (international format) as done in this edit in October 2006 and had remained that way until your unexplained date change in this edit of July 2009. That went against MOS:DATE#Retaining the existing format. My edit of January 2010 included several aspects including a correction back to the existing format under which the article evolved for most of its existence. Regrettably, that should have been included in my edit summary at the time, however the MoS is clear that the October 2006 format (DMY/international) should have prevailed. Dl2000 (talk) 22:55, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reply at your talk page. — CIS ^(talk | stalk) 23:10, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much!

Thank you for removing the Michael Westbrook entry at the oil spill article. It was an early morning for me with little time and I was so stunned that it actually was difficult for me to process what I was reading. Perhaps you deleted it only because it was not appropriate, but there was more going on than just that. I really do think that he's got a few loose screws. The exchange between him and me is now deleted from our talk pages (by him) and I am just going to leave it at that. That you picked up on how inappropriate his entry was and deleted it saved me a great deal of...of...of creepy feelings?...I just don't know how else to put it. Again, thank you so much for your down-to-earth understanding of what's appropriate and what is just not! Gandydancer (talk) 22:35, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I too thank you...

I was inappropriate. I stand corrected. But to quote The Elephant Man, "I am not an animal." Let's all try to lighten up? I have no bad intentions. I mean no harm. I fancy myself a comedian. Is that so bad, in this day of drama? I would appreciate a response. Thankyou kindly. MichaelWestbrook (talk) 05:30, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Labeling edits as vandalism

Hi CIS. When reverting edits, I'd like to suggest that you be a bit more cautious in labeling edits as vandalism when they are not outright vandalism, as you did in this, this, and this edit. Vandalism is described as a deliberate attempt to harm the encyclopedia; while those edits may not be constructive, one cannot judge the editor who made them to have been wanting to harm the encyclopedia on purpose, as that would be assuming bad faith. This is especially a problem when one is labeling he edits of a new user as vandalism when they were just trying to help, as that can scare off a potentially new editor. I know that some of my first edits were reverted, but if they had simply been labeled as vandalism, chances are, I would have stopped editing right there. Thanks, ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 20:42, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're absolutely right, it seems I was mindlessly reverting the edits with TW without paying them enough attention. Thanks for letting me know, I appreciate it, cheers!. — CIS ^(talk | stalk) 20:57, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Blood Stone logo.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Blood Stone 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 for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

PLEASE NOTE:

I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions.
I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to your talk page.
If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 05:25, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]