User talk:Lajbi/Archive1

Headline text

Reposting what I said before and adding more:

An article shouldn't contain long lists and tables. Our solution for this at Wikipedia has always been to make a seperate breakout page for the discography if it gets too long (notice that The Beatles' discography is not on their page, nor is The Rolling Stones'). We in fact have a whole category of discographies. It makes the articles more presentable and less list-heavy.
It is not against the neutral point of view to summarize. Everything Snoop Dogg has done, will do, or is doing does not have to be included here. Take a look at some of the featured music articles for examples. --FuriousFreddy 22:33, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
When writing a Wikipedia article, remember that it's an encyclopedia article, first and foremost. Therefore, it has to be writte nad formatted a certain way. In the Wikipedia, we try to keep a consistent method of formatting things like singles articles, album articles, etc. An article for a single should look something like this: Just My Imagination (Running Away with Me), or Where Did Our Love Go. As an example of the cleanup neccessary for the Snoop songs in question, here is the differences between your old version of Nuthin' But a "G" Thang and the current one (http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Nuthin%27_But_a_%22G%22_Thang&diff=32767626&oldid=26907267). Each singles article needs to be formatted the same as all the others for consistency, and revised, grammar and spell-checked, and containing only verifiable scholarly information, and no fan-page language or information. That means no introductiory lyric samples, use of the updated and current single infobox (and if you see any articles with the old one, try and update them please), and laying out the articles so that the style and qualities match the others. (if you need further existence or examples, let me know).
Links to commercial mixtape selling websites are not sources adequate for an encyclopedia. Mixtapes aren't official albums, and are really too unverfiable (and far too unofficial) to be accurately included (you and I both know that there has to be at least a couple dozen more Snoop Dogg mixtapes in existence, certainly more from his Death Row period). And, like I said, mixtapes very often share songs, if not entire tracklistings. An article on Snoop Dogg underground releases isn't such a bad idea, but the information would have to come from verifiable, professional, scholarly sources, not online stores and college websites. It'd be better to devote more energy to covering the studio releases. And even if such an article were done, I wouldn't write articles on each seperate mixtape; just mention the ones that were important/significant (with that source information available) all in one article.
Basically, just look around at how some hip-hop artists like Nas are covered. I think the collection of Nas articles, while still small, is at least verifiable and professional tone. Hopefully, my work on The Temptations is the same. Basically, just make your articles match those, and, if you can, make them even better.
As far as Snoop's article goes, that long list of trivia was just too much. If Snoop knew Tookie, then they had to have been friends before he got signed, so see if you can find a source from a magazine or a book and included it as prose, not as a trivia bullet point. Trivia sections should always be kept to as much of a minimum as possible.
Formatting: Read the Wikipedia: Manual of Style for information on title case, formatting, word usage, etc.

I'm not trying to drive anyone away, but I am quite a bit steadfast on maintaining the quality of hip-hop/R&B related articles, becasue, to be honest, not too many other people are gonna do it or care. Black music at large was very, very horribly miscovered and undercovered before people like me and User:BrothaTimothy got here (not to brag, becasue we've still got a lot of work to do, and, to be honest, I wish it wasn't just us putting in most of the work). --FuriousFreddy 14:28, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. If you don't know the chart info for a song, chances are allmusic.com has it. And, no, I wouldn't delete a mention of any official single from the singles chart; I'd look up the chart information and add it instead. --FuriousFreddy 14:36, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The infoboxes were reformatted recently for consistency; as I understand it, they're replacing the old tabular ones (the ones that have the excess of code) with the template becasue it's smaller. I believe they have a version fo the template wit hthe director and such in it, but it's really better to just mention it in the article body itself, so you don't have a long infobox hooked onto a short article (which is a problem wit ha lot of those Timeberlake, Beyonce, etc. articles). Now, taking allmusic with the proverbial grain of salt, it is a useful repository of information (well, 70% of the time at least). Their chart data comes directly from Billboard's data tables, so I can't honestly give you a better source for that information; that's really the best thing allmusic.com has to offer and the main reason I use it. --FuriousFreddy 19:43, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Those articles aren't that long (a long song article would be something like We Belong Together. I chose those two articles as examples because Just My Imagination (Running Away with Me) is a featured article, and both are about songs that had a significant impact on American music. Some of Dre. & Snoop's songs are the same, and it would be nice to have a Nuthin' But a "G" Thang article of that caliber, discussing the song's creation, impact, influence, and legacy. Now, granted, every single in existence doesn't deserve the red-carpet treatment (I try not to write an article on a single if it only amounts to reciting catalogue information, and you in fact caught me in the middle of merging a lot of singles articles I wrote into the relevant album article), but if you're going to write one, it should be detailed enough that it's complete, but accurate and verifiable. I'd say we should probably have good-sized articles on "Deep Cover", "Nuthin' But a "G" Thang", "Gin and Juice", "Who am I (What's My Name)", "2 of AMerikka's Most Wanted", "Still D.R.E.", "Snoop Doog (What's My Name, Part 2)", and "Drop It Like It's Hot". As for any others, they would have to be looked at on a case by case basis (I may have forgotten some of them).

Now, as far as the song articles you mentioned go:

Gin and Juice needed to be rewritten somewhat. Articles shouldn't start with a section, and a lot of the grammar was incorrect (but now that I know that English isn't your primarily language, I understand). I too kthe time to clean up this one for you as an example of how the rest of them should look.
Drop It Like It's Hot has too many sections for the small amount of text it contains. The text should be rewritten into regular paragraphs. --FuriousFreddy 21:17, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Let's Get Blown (which I just added the cleanup tag to) should be completely rewritten to match our style: The first sentences should say "This song is a [year] single by [artist], from [album]." or something very very similar. Also, the tracklist contents and pictures of the maxisingles are highly unneccssary and don't really provide any useful information. Is there anything notable/significant about any of the alternate versions of the song, or do they sinply exist?
Signs (song) was improved by removing the links to backstage photos (!) and the maxi single listings (!!). More content on the making of the song, what's it's about, and how well it sold/played are what needs to bexpanded upon.
2 of Amerikaz Most Wanted is a confusing read. It should be rewritten as well.
You can find the template, as well as more examples on how to write song articles, at Wikipedia:WikiProject Songs. I really have to go now; I'll check any more messages on my talk page in a few days. --FuriousFreddy 21:17, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and always cleanup articles if you can, reguardless of whether you wrote them or not. Otherwise, how is the quality of Wikipedia ever going to improve? --FuriousFreddy 21:29, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The track time is a mistake, but the credits, etc. come from allmusic.com. Also, simply putting a link isn't the same as giving a source. None of the external links from before were scholarly, verifiable sources: you have to use things like encyclopedias, news articles, books, magazines, etc. See Wikipedia:Cite your sources and Wikipedia:Cite sources/example style. I had left it blank until a better reference than allmusic.com could be found...but it's better than nothing.

As for the singles tracklisting...I wouldn't include them, but, as long as they don't take over the article, I suppose they're okay (I'd leave any alternate covers, etc. out though.)

There's plenty of books and articles on Snoop's work, to the point where you should be able to find good coverage to add more information.

It's okay to add all of Snoop's singles, and every single he's appeared on, to the singles table. I don't neccessarily agree with having a seperate videography from a singles discography (for obvious reasons of redundancy), so it would probably be best to add a "Video director" field to the singles table and annotate accordingly. Now, every single should be listed; charting album tracks should be left out of the table, and noted on the album page somewhere (like how I did for Stillmatic).

As far as collaborative singles/cameos, they can be listed either in the same table or in a seperate one (for someone with as many singles as Snoop, seperate is probably better). However, a big list of songs/videos with no year annotations doesn't do anyone any good. If you need time to work on an article, do it within your namespace, and when it's finally done, then post it. All of those remixes you mentioned (the J.D. one, the Tamia one) count as singles and should be in the table.

When the table is done, we'll need to go back and make a version for the main page that has only the top 10 hits on it (because the main page should give a brief example of the single's he's put out) --FuriousFreddy 22:59, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The MVD is a good starting place, but you'll need allmusic for chart information and for any singles that didn't have music videos (if there are any). --FuriousFreddy 23:22, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

{{web-screenshot}} tag

I've noticed you've uploaded some images tagged with {{web-screenshot}}. This tag is not meant to be used for images that came from Web pages; it's meant to be used for images of Web pages (such as Image:Wikipedia.PNG, for example). I've retagged the images below as having no license information. Please edit the image description pages to include information about the licenses these images are under. —Bkell 17:16, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Daddyvpic2.jpg

Snoop Dogg mixtapes

Instead of starting yet another wheel war (yawn!) about this article, why don't you take some of the comments made in the AfDs regarding the material? Several contributors have argued that Wikipedia is not the best place for material like this - Wikipedia is a record of the public record; it notes what others have said about a thing. If some comments on the mixtapes and their reception were added the article's place in Wikipedia would be uncontestable. Pilatus 19:35, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Vote-stacking

Please don't do vote stacking on your userpage. It is considered harmful. Besides, WP:NOT a soapbox, that is it isn't a vehicle to make worthy and obscure DJs better known. It merely lists what others have said about the really well-known ones.

Someone else recently asked what Wikipedia would have written about Van Gogh before his death, when he was all but unknown. The answer is that we would have been content to list Gauguin. Pilatus 19:48, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with Image:Whoo_kid_jewels-1-.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Whoo_kid_jewels-1-.jpg. However, the image may soon be deleted unless we can determine the copyright holder and copyright status. The Wikimedia Foundation is very careful about the images included in Wikipedia because of copyright law (see Wikipedia's Copyright policy).

The copyright holder is usually the creator, the creator's employer, or the last person who was transferred ownership rights. Copyright information on images on Wikipedia is signified using copyright templates. The three basic license types on Wikipedia are open content, public domain, and fair use. Find the appropriate template in Wikipedia:Image copyright tags and place it on the image page like this: {{TemplateName}}.

Please signify the copyright information on any other images you have uploaded or will upload. Remember that images without this important information can be deleted by an administrator. You can get help on image copyright tagging from Wikipedia talk:Image copyright tags. -- Carnildo 08:20, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

rappers vs hip hop musicians

we're currently in the progress of splitting up hip hop musicians. eventually it will link to lists of djs, rappers, hip hop groups, etc. however, we already have list of rappers. please put rappers like snoop dogg on that one. thanks!--Urthogie 20:39, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to report a user

I blocked him for one month. Thanks for letting me know. — FireFox • T • 17:09, 7 February 2006

Yo

Thanks, I love Snoop, and can't wait for the Doggy Fizzle Televizzle. Good luck. -Damien Vryce 18:27, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Request for edit summary

Hi. I am a bot, and I am writing to you with a request. I would like to ask you, if possible, to use edit summaries a bit more often when you contribute. The reason an edit summary is important is because it allows your fellow contributors to understand what you changed; you can think of it as the "Subject:" line in an email. For your information, your current edit summary usage is 33% for major edits and 5% for minor edits. (Based on the last 150 major and 150 minor edits in the article namespace.)

This is just a suggestion, and I hope that I did not appear impolite. You do not need to reply to this message, but if you would like to give me feedback, you can do so at the feedback page. Thank you, and happy edits, Mathbot 17:00, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image Tagging for Image:Doggystyle_logo.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Doggystyle_logo.jpg. The image page currently doesn't specify who created the image, so the copyright status is therefore unclear. If you have not created the image yourself then you need to indicate why we have the right to use the image on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the image yourself then you should also specify where you found it, i.e., in most cases link to the website where you got it, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the image also doesn't have a copyright tag then you must also add one. If you created/took the picture then you can use {{GFDL}} to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the image qualifies under Wikipedia's fair use guidelines, please read fair use, and then 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 want the image to be deleted, tag it as {{db-unksource}}.

If you have uploaded other images, please check that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, 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 unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion.

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you have any concerns, contact the bot's owner: Carnildo. 10:10, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with Image:213 wallpaper 1 1280x1024.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:213 wallpaper 1 1280x1024.jpg. However, the image may soon be deleted unless we can determine the copyright holder and copyright status. The Wikimedia Foundation is very careful about the images included in Wikipedia because of copyright law (see Wikipedia's Copyright policy).

The copyright holder is usually the creator, the creator's employer, or the last person who was transferred ownership rights. Copyright information on images is signified using copyright templates. The three basic license types on Wikipedia are open content, public domain, and fair use. Find the appropriate template in Wikipedia:Image copyright tags and place it on the image page like this: {{TemplateName}}.

Please signify the copyright information on any other images you have uploaded or will upload. Remember that images without this important information can be deleted by an administrator. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me. Thank you. Sherool (talk) 12:26, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Vandalism

Thanks for letting me know - I blocked him :) — FireFox • T [21:37, 16 March 2006]

Redundant categories

Hi, you inserted Category:Music festivals into the article Sziget. Please make sure next time to check whether a narrower category is already present in the article. In this case, Category:Hungarian music festivals was present, so Category:Music festivals is redundant (unnecessary). Thank you for your attention! Adam78 13:04, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, I think that category should be cleaned if possible. Adam78 14:35, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

good job

yo lajbi. you did a good thing by adjusting the page of How Do U Want It. You see, I'm not that handy with wikipedia but I like Tupac. I want to give some information about him but if you're not that handy with this thing it's kinda hard but thanks anyway! btw, are you a fan of hip hop music??—Preceding unsigned comment added by West side (talk • contribs)

Image Tagging for Image:BarrowJamal.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:BarrowJamal.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Image legality questions. 23:36, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Snoop Dogg editing criticism

Clearly you are a big fan of Snoop, and you've taken a lot of my edits personally. I certainly never intend to remove whole areas of text, and if I did that, I believe it was probably unintended. Maybe you could just reinsert what was removed and not revert. After I looked at your major complaint, I believe you were a bit hasty. I did not REMOVE that paragraph you complained about. If you look, you will see I merely placed the paragraph above the section about Death Row Records. Take a look. The comparison feature is not that sophisticated... it can't keep track of repositioning.

However, some of your criticisms are unwarranted. Charlie Wilson's link and 213's as well were removed as redundant. I left the initial mention of each intact. Usually within a section of lists, I err on the side of leaving it in. But standard Wiki practice dictates that every instance of a potential link should NOT be a link.

As for the deletion of Crip from the infobox, that was done because it is not an occupation. Please consider that as well. SidP 12:18, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We're cool. Maybe I should have just said your vigilance for this page is a matter to consider. I'm trying to fix the N.W.A. category too. Most of my edits are to only make the material clearer and more readable. I'm not interested in removing content (unless it's just plain wrong, which was not the case here). Some overeager people, in their wish to lionize, may go to far and they may not even realize it as a lack of objectivity. SidP 13:00, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:00 1 b.JPG

I doubt it can be made fair use since it is being used to illustrate Tha Dogg Pound rather than the The Source.Geni 16:00, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No. Fair use can only apply to a specific case. So while a reasonable fair use case could be made for useing the image in the The Source article the same is not true for the Tha Dogg Pound article.Geni 16:13, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Samples (Need help)

To answer your questions (in a different order and with a lot of text):

Do you convert and cut them yourself?

Yeah, I do this myself. The program I use is Audacity, which is free, and pretty easy to figure out, especially for something as easy as just trimming a section of a song. It's really easy, but if you have questions, let me know.

Bitrate, length, format?

The most important is format - .ogg (Ogg Vorbis). That's the only Wikipedia-accepted format. For length, fair use says that it should be short in relation to the original track. I don't know exactly what the limit is, but I try to shoot for 45 seconds or less. In a few cases, I stretch it a bit to ~50 seconds, but I would definitely keep it under a minute. Of course, these are all 3 and 4 minute songs; if it was a shorter song or something, I'd keep it proportional. As far as bitrate, the samples should be of lesser quality than the original. Truth be told, I don't look too hard for specific bitrates, and use whatever I have hanging around. 128, 160, 192. I'm converting from MP3, so there's already one lossy conversion in place. I wouldn't use anything higher than that though -- none of the 320 audiophile tracks.

How many samples are adequate to a page (I saw sometimes you upload one sometimes several of them)?
Is it a copyright violation to have more than one in an artist's page?
And if it's from a mixtape or a street CD, could it be uploaded while ignoring all the license restrictions?

I'll take all three of these together, I suppose. My opinion (and I don't know that there's anything official out there) is that we should keep the number of samples on Wikipedia to a minimum, since they're being claimed as fair use rather than a clearer public domain purpose. Additionally, as the number of samples increase, it gets harder to wade through them. It's like pictures -- there's thousands of available free pictures of trees, but the tree article only has 10 that show the main elements of a tree, and the main kinds of trees.

Each additional sample for a given artist, album, genre provides relatively less information -- if you know what Snoop sounds like on Gin and Juice, you can figure out what he sounds like on Lodi Dodi. Five samples of different artists would be more useful than five samples of the same artist, no matter how prolific.

The other thing I'm thinking is that it makes more sense to "fill in" more of the picture, rather than provide specific details. What I've been starting with is the genre list -- if someone knows what one or two G-funk songs sound like, they can take a pretty good guess that other G-funk artists sound similar. (This is why I've uploaded songs I don't like, like that Cowboy Troy piece of crap, even though I've only uploaded a few songs. It illustrated the Country Rap genre article.)

So with all of this being said, let me start answering your questions. You can have more than one sample if there's a good reason, and how many should be a function of the volume, importance and variety of the artist's output. A great example of someone who should have more than one is LL Cool J; he's been in the game for 20 years and is well regarded, and he's done everything from slow jams to Mama Said Knock You Out. Public Enemy? Sure. I'd give two or three tracks to Eminem, or Outkast. Warren G only needs one track. Three 6 Mafia only need one track at this point. It's a judgement call, but I figure there should be something in the range of 20-40 artists for the history of hip hop who need more than one track, at least as a start. We can always add more once there's good general coverage. Don't forget that there's samples of every track on Amazon, Allmusic and dozens of other places.

I've got four samples on the Dr. Dre page (and I'm adding a fifth). Only one is of him rapping -- his flow hasn't evolved that much, and he's probably had more of an impact as a producer. The other four are of him producing, and I didn't put them up just to have them on the Dr. Dre page (although some currently are); they're all songs for other important artists. (I think Snoop could use a second sample (I still need to link Gin and Juice, I think), from one of his more recent albums. Then after that, I'd be more concerned that we're missing a lot of key artists.

As far as the content goes, I'm generally going for most notable. I think that an artist's most-played song is probably a good example of what most people think of when they think of their music. This is sort of a problem with mixtapes and the like; I think they're still legal under fair use, but they're generally less notable than big hits off of studio albums. I can't think of a lot of exceptions; maybe in the case where a mixtape song becomes a breakout hit, but even then, there's usually a studio version made. Perhaps something like one of the Jay-Z/Nas beef mixtape tracks, although there's album tracks there, too.

Other notes of mine:

I've got a list of free use samples on my talk page here: User:ByeByeBaby/Hip Hop Fair Use Sample List. Please add any samples you upload to this list. The automatic list of samples made in Category:Fair use music samples has hundreds of samples, in all genres, some with unhelpful names. It sucks to maintain the list on my user page manually, but at least it's a way that people can see all the hip hop samples that are out there on one page. There's a template at the bottom of the list; just copy and paste.
When you're uploading, under licensing, pick "music sample" under the fair use section. I give the songs Artist-SongName.ogg for a title, when possible.
One thing I haven't done when I uploaded them, and am now having to do, is to cross-link all samples. We definitely should make each sample count as many times as possible, so I'm linking songs to the appropriate song, album, artist and genre page. It's easier to do this as you upload each sample.
FYI, I've got four tracks sampled but not uploaded; In Da Club (for pop rap to show the evolution since U Can't Touch This), Daddy Yankee - Gasolina (for reggaeton), DJ Shadow - Midnight In A Perfect World (for instrumental hip hop) and Boyz II Men - Mowtownphilly (for new jack swing).
If you're bored and don't feel like adding samples, most of the ones on my list still haven't been crosslinked everywhere - if you click on the file info, you can see what links to them, and check to make sure that they're all at least linked to the artist and the album (and the song, if there is one).

Anyways, that's a brain dump about samples from me. Thanks for all of your hard work on Wikipedia in general, and hip hop in particular, by the way. I must confess, I've always been a bit more of a west coast guy myself, too. --ByeByeBaby 10:42, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Snoop Dogg

Hello. Thanks for being so nice about adding to the Snoop Dogg discography. Yes, Real Soon did peak in the Australian Singles Chart > http://www.ariacharts.com.au/pages/charts_display.asp?chart=1S50. I got my other information from these sites>

[www.abc.net.au/rage/playlist|The Rage Website]
Data Snoop Dogg

Lillygirl

West coast hip hop

I was rearranging the section and I accidently deleted it. I was going to cut then paste it, but I guess I forgot to paste it and just continued editing. Sorry. Ted87 19:31, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I redid the Cali iz Active picture captioning at West Coast hip hop. Do you think it's okay or it should be done diffrently?Ted87 23:19, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edit to Swizz Beatz 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 our 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. // Tawkerbot2 17:27, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Yukmouth

The myspace page I saw you post was one put up by a notorious fake trying to pose as the real Yukmouth and in the past has posted fake news on his myspace account. That is why it was removed. It was replaced by smokealotrecords.com simply because it is not just the official site for Smoke-A-Lot Records but Yukmouth's Official site as well. So although your argument using Masaru Ibuka & Sony does have merrit in most CEO-Company situations, it does not in this case seeing as sony.com does not double as Ibuka's Official site, as Smokealot does for Yuk. It was inappropriate to have that myspace listed as his official site in the info box.//

Udstyle May 15th, 2006

Fair use problems

Thanks for uploading Image:Da Brat.jpg. Unfortunately, you forgot to add a detailed fair-use rationale and its current use is most definitely not fair use. I have marked the image as fairusedisputed. Please go back and add fair-use justifications to all other images you have uploaded, as you have already been asked to do, and let me know on my talk page that you have done so. I ask you to please refrain from uploading any further images until this has been done. --Yamla 15:45, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please let me know within the next 24 hours that you will be adding detailed fair-use justifications to all images you have uploaded. While you cannot be expected to provide the justifications within 24 hours, I do need to know right away that you plan on doing so. Otherwise, I'm afraid we will have to reject some of your images. --Yamla 15:48, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You have not yet informed me that you plan on adding detailed fair-use justifications to all the images you have uploaded. Once again, please let me know that you plan on doing this, otherwise I'm going to have to remove these images. That's a huge pain in the behind and I'm sure you can make a fair-use case for many of them. --Yamla 16:25, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For continuing to upload images and deliberately not providing the required detailed fair-use rationale, after multiple warnings, you have been blocked for 24 hours. --Yamla 16:13, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

dubcnn

Do you work for the dubcnn staff or something? I'm just wondering since you are putting up a lot of their links (some which are questionable to their relevence, but I don't care about that) in wikipedia articles. --Ted87 19:01, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Crip Walk. And don't expect to get paid to work at dubcnn. All the people there have real jobs and are pretty much working there pro bono. If anything the cost to maintain the site and money coming in (including dontations) are pretty much equal. :P --Ted87 21:46, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have an account at dubcc? --Ted87 06:02, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use responses

As a general rule, any time that a license tag says "detailed fair-use rationale", you need to provide additional text justifying their specific use. That is, why is this particular image being used in the particular article it is attached to? I'll respond in more detail in a moment. --Yamla 22:43, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As previously noted, you are obviously trying hard to get into compliance with the images. I believe I did not mark them specifically as fairusedisputed yet but if I have, please remind me and I'll make a note on the image page. Image:Da Brat.jpg, if it is a screenshot, needs a detailed justification on its use. Let's work on the assumption that it is NOT a screenshot but is in fact an album or single cover, scanned in. An acceptable justification could be "used in article named foo to illustrate album cover. It is a low-resolution scan, does not limit the copyright owner's ability to sell album in any way, and is significant because it illustrates the publication of the single in question". That's just an example, see [1] for more. The justification on Image:Sean paul.jpg and Image:Bilal.jpg are not only sufficient but are shining examples of how to do good fair-use rationales. You would generally note that the justification is for a specific article (or a group of articles). --Yamla 22:48, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As to posters, just listing the promotional tag is not enough. There has to be evidence that it came from a promotional kit or is primarily used for promotion. Even in that case, you still need a detailed justification. Even then, it can only be used for promoting that item. For example, a poster of a movie may be used on that movie page but probably not on the article of one of the actors. Though you can get past this last one with a more detailed justification. As to MySpace images, I'm not sure. Can you point me at the terms of use or copyright statement on MySpace? That'd most likely give the answer. I believe I have answered your questions now. If there's a point I missed or if you have additional questions, please feel free to ask. --Yamla 22:51, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lajbi, when you are done with the images, please let me know and I'll award you a barnstar for your tireless work. It is very much appreciated and you are doing a great job. --Yamla 15:16, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, about MySpace. What their license grants is the ability for MySpace to use the images. It does not grant anyone else this right, except that they are granted the ability to view the image while on MySpace's page. What this means is that images uploaded to MySpace remain copyrighted by the original uploader. MySpace has a license to use them but by default, nobody else, including Wikipedia, has any license to use them. Now, we may still be able to use the image under some fair-use rationale but by default, MySpace images are off-limits. --Yamla 16:18, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Strip_.GIF listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded, Image:Strip_.GIF, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there 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.

—mtz206 (talk) 19:35, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hot 100 succession boxes

Thanks for helping me out with these! -- eo 17:30, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

EDIT - hey, I'm thinking its best to link songs without taking into account the blips that happen when a song returns to number one, so that the "preceeding" and "succeeding" songs are not the same. Think of it as just a straight list of number-ones without any repeats.... just in exact chronological order so that there are no circular patterns if someone wants to follow the wikilinks. -- eo 17:43, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Cali Iz Active

http://www.kochentertainment.com/tha_dogg_pound.htm

Fair use rationale for Image:Snoop trial.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Snoop trial.jpg. The image description 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.

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.

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 01:09, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image Tagging for Image:FatJoeWhatsLuv.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:FatJoeWhatsLuv.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 10:21, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image Tagging for Image:Happy2.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Happy2.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 08:39, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image Tagging for Image:Snoop_we_just_wanna.gif

Thanks for uploading Image:Snoop_we_just_wanna.gif. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 09:25, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Snoop Dogg Samples

I got all the samples from the liner notes of the CD. I don't have the "No Limit Top Dogg" album so I might not be able to help you with those samples. I can do some looking around though.--Xxplosive 18:26, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hip Hip Wikiproject?

You asked me to join it, so how do I become a member?--Xxplosive 18:27, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

X3

Are you serious? Ok, maybe Rogue getting cured was BS, but otherwise, the movie was tight! Don ^MEGĂ|60645 16:56, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hip Hop Award

		The Hip Hop Award
		I, Tim Ivorson, award the Hip Hop Award to Lajbi for improvements to infoboxes.

I'll Help:)

Sure i'll help, whats the single called? Lillygirl 11:46, 9 August 2006.

What did Snoop Dogg say about it? It didn't chart in Australia but i have heard it and i love the important notice above your page. Lillygirl 10:46, 16 August 2006.

Hungarian hip hop

I can try to take a look sometime soon, but... I've been awful busy lately, so I won't guarantee I'll have time in the near future. Tuf-Kat 00:28, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re:File:DPGC - Real Soon.ogg

It worked on my computer. Try clicking here and downloading any necessary software if you haven't already. And I double checked, and it is 59 seconds long. --Ted87 18:53, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WikiLove!

Here's a fig tree for you! Fig trees somehow promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving something friendly to someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Make your own message to spread WikiLove to others using Template:smile! Happy editing! --TBCTaLk?!? 05:09, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Get it, a fig tree for Lajbi ? Anyhow, keep up the good work, you've contributed a lot to Wikipedia. :D (another ackward attempt at comedy by TBCTaLk?!?)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Punk music

Whats up? Hi, I'm trying to gather some more interest and support for the Wikipedia:WikiProject Punk music. Please check out the topics and lets get our WikiProject to function better. Recently, I've taken an interest in the Wikipedia:WikiProject hip hop and I consider that WikiProject to be better developed. I am now writing to usernames on the hiphopWP who might be interested in helping with the punkmusicWP. Hopefully we can all work together to improve articles relating to punk as has been done well with hip hop. Finally, I am trying to gather support and opinions concerning the punk house article and specifically the Theta Beta Potata article which is currently in AfD (x2) at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Theta Beta Potata (second nomination). Please check it out and voice your opinion. Xsxex 09:11, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]