User talk:Jameslenton

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Welcome

Hello, Jameslenton, 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:

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! --Geniac 19:44, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Orphaned fair use image (Image:SecondPersonBedfordDVDCover1.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:SecondPersonBedfordDVDCover1.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 19:12, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Replaceable fair use Image:Alvarolopezsecondperson.jpg

Replaceable fair use

Thanks for uploading Image:Alvarolopezsecondperson.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 {{di-replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.
  2. On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace the fair use 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 fair use images which could be replaced by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted 7 days after this notification, per our Fair Use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Videmus Omnia Talk 22:11, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Theelementsinsidewoodsclear.jpg

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

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 00:12, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] AfD Nomination: City Rats (film)

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! We welcome and appreciate your contributions, but all Wikipedia articles must meet our criteria for inclusion (see What Wikipedia is not and Deletion policy). Since it does not seem that City Rats (film) meets these criteria, an editor has started a discussion about whether this article should be kept or deleted.

Your opinion on whether this article meets the inclusion criteria is welcome. Please contribute to the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/City Rats (film). Don't forget to add four tildes (~~~~) at the end of each of your comments to sign them.

Discussions such as these usually last five days. In the meantime, you are free to edit the content of the article. Please do not remove the "articles for deletion" template (the box at the top). When the discussion has concluded, a neutral third party will consider all comments and decide whether or not to delete the article. Accounting4Taste 23:56, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Sellabandlogo.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Sellabandlogo.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image 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 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 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. Same goes for Image:Sellabandcombandpage.jpg, Image:SecondPersonBedfordDVDCover.jpg, Image:SecondPersonChromatographyAlbumCover.jpg, Image:SecondPersonGoneFishingGirlSing.jpg, Image:SecondPersonFourLeafCloverSB6.jpg and Image:Mouchedollsmall.jpg. --Geniac 00:10, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

DVD covers and screenshots often qualify as fair use, yes. See Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline for information on non-free use rationales including a blank template for easy placement of one with all the necessary components. There are more specific use rationale templates in Category:Non-free media rationale templates. You said you have permission from the copyright owners for some images; see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission#When permission is confirmed for instructions on what to do with those emails. --Geniac 13:00, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re City Rats (film)

I've switched the discussion to your talk page because it's not really appropriate in the Articles for Deletion discussion. I don't think you've really grasped what I was trying to tell you. You need to add impartial arm's-length third-party sources that demonstrate the notability of the film -- this would be things like articles in newspapers and magazines that are written by people who aren't connected with the film. Things that the creator of the film say about it are not relevant, because they are not impartial... even things that you assert (I have no idea if you're connected with the film or not) are not relevant because they are not sufficiently significant for someone to have paid you to say them, like a film reviewer, etc. IMDB is not considered an impartial source because anyone can add material to it (and, as you may not know this, Wikipedia itself is not considered an impartial source for the same reason). I did a search for "City Rats" + film before I nominated the article for deletion, and found nothing that seemed to be relevant. You may be able to offer something... and remember that whatever you quote must be verifiable, in that other editors must be able to look at what you quote and verify the citation. I hope this helps. I think you may have to resign yourself to having the article deleted UNTIL it is released, at which point I don't think anyone would nominate it for deletion, and you could re-create it then... you will then have access to third-party sources like film reviewers that can be added to demonstrate notability. If you have further questions, you can leave a note on my talk page. Accounting4Taste 01:46, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re: City Rats (film)

Hi there, thanks for your thoughts on the above article. I have managed to find external links /references to this film, but if they are not enough then I don't want to risk my wiki reputation on defending a page that I don't really care too much about. I have been on Wikipedia for a while and can't really work out why certain pages get deleted and others stay up without challenge. Should we be challenging more pages? This film should provide some interest to British film fans, regardless as to how well it does. Maybe I should just repost it when the film comes out but since the band working on the score credit it already and there are articles in the British press about it, I thought it might be nice to have some information up on wiki about (afterall this is where I come for most of the stuff I'd like to know about). Jameslenton 00:16, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

In my opinion we absolutely should be challenging more pages (not necessarily deleting them, though). My experience is that anything with even the slightest modicum of notability outside a small town/area will be kept once it is verifiable.
I know Wikipedia is great but don't forget you can still use other sources too :) Stifle (talk) 09:30, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
I agree, do you think I should bother with this page any longer, is there anything that should be added? Rather than trying to keep this page, I'd like to get a little better at editing pages, and knowing if there's no point would be a good learning experience for me. If there is anything I should add to keep it notable then that would be useful to know too, again, it'll definitely help me learn. Jameslenton 15:46, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
It's unlikely that you can "keep it notable", as the film is either notable or it is not. As such, I suspect it will not be saved, but when it is released if it satisfies any of the general principles at WP:MOVIE, you will be able to recreate the article, taking care of course to cite some reliable sources that back you up. Particularly, "films that have already begun shooting, but have not yet been publicly released (theatres or video), should not have their own articles, unless the production itself is notable per notability guidelines".
It won't very much affect your reputation if you support the article being kept, only doing this repeatedly against general consensus would be detrimental. Hopefully you will be able to accept the result and move on.
Finally, when you're writing the article take care to use an appropriate tone. As I mentioned in the AFD discussion, an article that has to tell you why the subject is notable is already on a hiding to nothing. Don't be downhearted - there's plenty to write about and do. Stifle (talk) 16:35, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Disputed fair use rationale for Image:City-rats-mov-poster.jpg

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

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 02:58, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Disputed fair use rationale for Image:CityRats2.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:CityRats2.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 12:07, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Duplicate images uploaded

Thanks for uploading Image:ElementsCover.jpg. A machine-controlled robot account noticed that you also uploaded the same image under the name Image:ElemetsCover.jpg. The copy called Image:ElemetsCover.jpg has been marked for speedy deletion since it is redundant. If this sounds okay to you, there is no need for you to take any action.

This is an automated message- you have not upset or annoyed anyone, and you do not need to respond. In the future, you may save yourself some confusion if you supply a meaningful file name and refer to 'my contributions' to remind yourself exactly which name you chose (file names are case sensitive, including the extension) so that you won't lose track of your uploads. For tips on good file naming, see Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions about this notice, or feel that the deletion is inappropriate, please contact User:Staecker, who operates the robot account. Staeckerbot (talk) 17:14, 7 January 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Disputed fair use rationale for Image:SecondPersonChromatographyAlbumCover.jpg

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

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 13:02, 21 January 2008 (UTC)