Jump to content

User talk:Steelbeard1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

For older entries, see User talk:Steelbeard1/archive3

You need to forward slash or you create a new user name. PS: Did you know you already have some archive pages?

User talk:Steelbeard1/archive1
User talk:Steelbeard1/archive2

Berliner

[edit]

You have reversed my move from "Berliner Gramophone" to "Berliner Records" as you stipulate that the company was never called "Berliner Records." The company was called the United States Gramophone Company and its records were issued under the logo of "E. Berliner's Gramophone." But no one in the collecting or scholarly community uses that; they are officially called "Berliner" or "Berliners;" even EMI calls them that. And the Wiki Labels Project requires that a record label be preferably suffixed with "records." "Berliner Gramophone" is inaccurate in describing the label; that is why I changed it as "Berliner Gramophone" is the name of the machine that played the records, not of the records -- it is like calling a disc of computer software a computer. There is no article about the machine, and I kindly ask that you change it back. Berliner did not use a conventional label, as they did not exist for flat disc records until Eldridge Johnson added one at Victor. If you have any doubt, check the EMI Archive Trust link on the page itself, or this auction listing: http://www.78rpm.com/auction_frame.htm Pinikadia 21:13, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Studios

[edit]
I saw that. But, starting a new section is not responding to an existing one. It is starting a topic. This is responding to an existing topic, in that topic with semicolons. How can I deduce that you were responding to my proposal if you start a whole other topic? I can't. Are you saying you want to move the article to "The Lot"? Please modify for clarity. — Archive! Archive! Archive! Archive! Archive!...the monkeys from the Wizard of Oz said as the flew away. ~ WikiDon (talk) 21:13, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RCA

[edit]

I saw the message you sent me. So you're saying that RCA corp doesn't exist, but thomson owns it and thomson is making their products with the rca brand??? I don't gfet it/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Guy1423 (talk • contribs) 23:00, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I get it! RCA Corporation was discontinued, but the trademark still exists and is used by some companies? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Guy1423 (talk • contribs) 23:11, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This could make things clearer to some editors/readers ;) Gwen Gale (talk) 00:11, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Masterworksbroadway.jpg)

[edit]

Thanks for uploading Image:Masterworksbroadway.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

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 all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:13, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Popeye DVD 2

[edit]

I'm wondering which version of the DVD I got. I don't think it was the a.a.p. version. Maybe that only went out to some shipments, not all? I would say there are some other quality issues, but we're dealing with 70-year-old cartoons here. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 07:36, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Some of the specials were good. It was interesting to hear Jack Mercer's real voice, which is surprisingly high-pitched. He also sounded like he was reading from a script, but whatever. They had a nice special about Mae Questel. Too bad they didn't have an interview comparable to the Mercer interview. The Fleischer documentary was excellent, and poignant. What they might have accomplished, had they not let personal issues get in the way, who knows? Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 07:39, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your note. It's still not clear to me what the issue is, but I don't think it's worth going through the trouble. Maybe the original mistaken disc will become a collectible of sorts. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 12:55, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Thanks for letting me know. I will get on that. America69 (talk) 18:49, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Elektra Records

[edit]

I changed the logo to the last one because the releases of new material up until the absorbtion by Atlantic Records used that logo. Even the Elektra releases under the Atlantic aegis use this logo, so I think it should be the one that one sees when they access the page. The sooner that Time Warner buys WEA back from that Canadian maniac, the better. Peace. —MuzikJunky (talk) 07:00, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Then should there be an infobox at all with the dormant label? Steelbeard1 (talk) 11:20, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Beatles Newsletter

[edit]

Beatles editor, Dendodge, wants to start sending out The Beatles Newsletter again. If you would like to receive it, please leave a message on this page. All the best, --andreasegde (talk) 17:27, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Popeye as a Scot?

[edit]

Maybe his Scottish brogue gave it away. Or his Scottish surname. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 14:12, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And Popeye is into spinach. I don't know that that's a traditional Scottish dish. Haggis would be. Popeye has dealt with the Sea Hag, but not with Haggis. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 15:11, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of active drive-in theaters

[edit]

Sorry it took so long to respond. My reply can be found on the article's talk page. --Reverend Loki (talk) 20:12, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Beatles Day!

[edit]
Happy Beatles Day! Just a message from the Beatles WikiProject! Have a great day, Steelbeard1!

...... Densock .. Talk(Dendodge on a public network) 10:09, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Beatles newsletter July 2008

[edit]

WikiProject The Beatles Newsletter
Issue 013 – July 2008

Beatles News
Project News
  • As you may have seen, the talk page banner changed a bit. It has a couple of bugs (most notably the categorisation problems), but the {{WPBannerMeta}} standardisation was long overdue. Thank you to Dendodge for sorting it.
  • The newsletter's back after a very positive reaction, and thanks are again due to Dendodge.
  • Article adoptions: Heather Mills will be a hot topic next month, as the truth will be referenced.
  • The hottest Project page this month has been The Quarrymen (now a GA). It reveals the most accurate history of their early days, because so many other web pages tell a completely untrue story (one web page said they lost a Carroll Levis competition to a woman who played the spoons :)
Other Project news
Member News
  • New members to the project (since the last issue, which was a long time ago) include a lot of names, which can be found here....
  • Project member news:
Issue of the Month

Apart from the usual vandals, there is an ongoing problem with Wikipedia editors deleting free and fair-use photos because they don't think they are of any value to articles, even though this sometimes leaves articles with no photos at all. These editors do not leave notes on talk pages, so if you see that a photo has vanished, check the talk page and the history log.

From the Editors

It's been a while, but the newsletter's back! After a short discussion on the project talk page, seemingly unanimous consensus to bring it back was reached. This issue, and subsequent ones, will probably be shorter - as we kept running out of things to say before! There's a lot to say this month, purely due to the long absence of a newsletter, but we'll keep it as brief as possible.

In order to get delivery by Denbot sorted, the special delivery interface has been changed slightly - but existing delivery options still stand. Inactive participants who want delivery should place their names on this list.

If you've just joined, add your name to the Participants section of Wikipedia:WikiProject The Beatles. You'll get a mention in the next issue of the Newsletter and get it delivered as desired. Also, please include your own promotions and awards in future issues. Don't be shy!

Lastly, this is your newsletter and you can be involved in the creation of the next issue (Issue 014 – August 2008). Any and all contributions are welcome. Simply let yourself be known to any of the undersigned, or just start editing!

Contributors to this Issue
Complete To Do List
Make visible or invisible by clicking Show or Hide, respectively.


Want to help on next month's newsletter? Don't want to receive these in future? Don't want it subst'd next time? – It's all here.

{{../Issue-nav|013}}...... Densock .. Talk(Dendodge on a public network) 10:04, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RE: User:Rebafan11

[edit]

Thanks, I caught him last night, and even though I thought it obvious he was another sock, I didn't have any evidence of disruptive editing at the time. I'll check his work again. dhett (talk • contribs) 23:20, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Abbey Road (album)

[edit]

The songwriting credit is to "Starkey", not "Richard Starkey", at least on my vinyl & CD; that's why I always render credits verbatim and wlink if necessary, so as not to lie about the credit. --Rodhullandemu 18:30, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Likewise, on my copes, credit is to "Harrison" rather than "George Harrison". I think the credits should at least be consistent and correct rather than consistent and wrong. --Rodhullandemu 18:46, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Across The Universe (film)

[edit]

Thanks for the comment on my talk page about Across The Universe (film) on the Beatles template. Please note that I did not add this film to the template in the first place, I only modified the formatting. If you are of the opinion that that Across The Universe (film) should not be on the template, feel free to remove it. Personally, I feel that there are a number of off-topic references on this template. --Countdown to oblivion (talk) 13:16, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see that you already removed it from the template. --Countdown to oblivion (talk) 13:19, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Stub

[edit]

It may not be a stub okay, its start but not a B. A B is Def Leppard discography, Stone Temple Pilots discography, Pink Floyd discography or Eminem discography but not this one. But it doesn't have sources, ut has track listing at the page, it has a short lead to short, if you want to i can get the leader of the wikiproject discography to take a look at it. He'll probably call it a stub or a start just as me. I'm not goin to revert your edit if you want to denie it.

I can show you the guidline for whats a stub, if you want. --Be Black Hole Sun (talk) 13:32, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

personal attacks

[edit]

Regarding your comments on Talk:ABN AMRO: Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks will lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you.--Tikiwont (talk) 10:55, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Example please? Steelbeard1 (talk) 10:58, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Such as [1]. --Tikiwont (talk) 11:15, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Changed anal retentive to obsessive "strictly by the book" . Steelbeard1 (talk) 11:22, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ABN AMRO

[edit]

Can you add you input into another stupid edit war involving the Dutch financial institution ABN AMRO: I'm afraid this is a topic I know absolutely nothing about, and if I edit or contribute to talk I could end up making things worse. But good luck. Ward3001 (talk) 17:25, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If that company calls itself by all capital letters, and legal documents also call it that way, then that's what it is, and it is not wikipedia's place to try to change that by applying so-called "grammar rules" to it. This is the same debate as The CW, and it's worth pointing out that the guy who kept insisting it couldn't call itself that, got himself indefinitely blocked for disruption. [I also posted this comment on the article's talk page.] Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 17:46, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's on my watch list. That guy is hung up on rules, like the late, unlamented Rollosmokes was. The first rule is, get it right. Don't make wikipedia look stupid(er). Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 18:33, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The "the" THING

[edit]

Oh bugger, it's here again, and just after I had stopped waking up and screaming "definitive article!" to the consternation of my neighbours. :))) --andreasegde (talk) 01:43, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RE: ABN Amro

[edit]

Please check out Wikipedia_talk:Requested_moves#Removal_of_statements_contesting_proposed_move before proceeding with any further discussion on the WP:RM proposal page. Thanks. JPG-GR (talk) 00:11, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • And on a related note calling people anal retentive, while arguably an appropriate description of a class of behaviour, does not really help to avoid drama. Is it likely to encourage them to gracefully back down, or is it drawing battle lines? I'd say the latter. You have the facts on your side, and I believe also the best arguments, it's unnecessary to resort to rhetorical exuberance. Guy (Help!) 21:20, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Allow me to emphasise Guy's comment - that was uncivil behavior on your part, unnecessary, and not acceptable behavior. Please don't do it again. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 20:24, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Request to move article Ron Richards incomplete

[edit]

You recently filed a request at Wikipedia:Requested moves to move the page Ron Richards to a different title - however your proposal is either incomplete or has been contested as being controversial. As a result, it has been moved to the incomplete and contested proposals section. Requests that remain incomplete after five days will be removed.

Please make sure you have completed all three of the following:

  1. Added {{move|NewName}} at the top of the talk page of the page you want moved, replacing "NewName" with the new name for the article. This creates the required template for you there.
  2. Added {{subst:RMtalk|NewName|reason for move}} to the bottom of the talk page of the page you want to be moved, to automatically create a discussion section there.
  3. Added {{subst:RMlink|PageName|NewName|reason for move}} to the top of today's section here.

If you need any further guidance, please leave a message at Wikipedia talk:Requested moves or contact me on my talk page. - JPG-GR (talk) 05:23, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Apology from Fangusu

[edit]

Steelbeard1, I'm very sorry about confusing the rabbit character in Porky's Hare Hunt with the official Bugs in A Wild Hare. He may not be the gray rabbit that we recognize, but he is supposed to be Bugs in prototype form, right? Fangusu (talk) 10:46, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You just need to read the history more, before making changes. We had this discussion some months back. "Happy Rabbit" was a figment of Mel Blanc's later imagination. The early rabbit characters are usually referred to as Bugs Bunny "prototypes", and Wild Hare is regarded by cartoon historians as the true debut of Bugsy. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 10:53, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Producers

[edit]

The Beatles Box Set I responded at the talk there. Apparently, I was ill-informed, but I retained one of the production credits. Please post on my talk if you need me again. Thanks. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:08, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed non-free use rationale for Image:TheBeatlesBoxSet.JPG

[edit]

Thank you for uploading Image:TheBeatlesBoxSet.JPG. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this image on Wikipedia may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the image description page and add or clarify the reason why the image qualifies under this policy. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a non-free use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for images used under the non-free content policy require both a copyright tag and a non-free use rationale.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under the non-free content policy, it might be deleted by an administrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 12:38, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Ohio's 11th congressional district special election, 2008

[edit]

You are invited to contibute to the deletion discussion on this page.--Dr who1975 (talk) 17:53, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Americanstandardlogo.jpg)

[edit]

Thanks for uploading Image:Americanstandardlogo.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

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 all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:12, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nader Polling in Michigan

[edit]

For whatever reason, I'm unable to open Time's website, but this link clearly shows the results of the poll showing Nader at 6%

http://blogs.courant.com/capitol_watch/2008/09/ralph-nader-at-6-in-michigan-4.html

--Criticalthinker (talk) 22:41, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was not the one that originally added the poll. Does the poll at the Time magazine link not show Nader with 6% in Michigan? --Criticalthinker (talk) 22:55, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Thanks for uploading Image:Johnfogertymillenium.jpg. You've indicated that the image is being used under a claim of fair use, but you have not provided an adequate explanation for why it meets Wikipedia's requirements for such images. In particular, for each page the image is used on, the image must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Can you please check

  • That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for each article the image is used in.
  • That every article it is used on is linked to from its description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --FairuseBot (talk) 02:28, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Polling figures

[edit]

The "Notes" at the end of the "Latest Results" section in the article clearly state: "'Likely' states are states that have polled ahead for a candidate in each circumstance for the previous 5 months (including polls in archive)." I agree that Michigan can be considered "Likely Obama" if you use different criteria. However, according to the rules agreed upon for the article Statewide opinion polling for the United States presidential election, 2008, Michigan cannot be considered "likely Obama". Otherwise, Iowa should have been labeled "Likely Obama" for a long time. 85.178.69.10 (talk) 14:31, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Thanks for your uploads. You've indicated that the following images are being used under a claim of fair use, but you have not provided an adequate explanation for why they meet Wikipedia's requirements for such images. In particular, for each page an image is used on, the image must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Can you please check

  • That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for each article the image is used in.
  • That every article it is used on is linked to from its description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --08:32, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Thanks for uploading Image:Polydorearly78.JPG. You've indicated that the image is being used under a claim of fair use, but you have not provided an adequate explanation for why it meets Wikipedia's requirements for such images. In particular, for each page the image is used on, the image must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Can you please check

  • That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for each article the image is used in.
  • That every article it is used on is linked to from its description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --FairuseBot (talk) 23:17, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Thanks for uploading Image:RCAVictorLogo.gif. You've indicated that the image is being used under a claim of fair use, but you have not provided an adequate explanation for why it meets Wikipedia's requirements for such images. In particular, for each page the image is used on, the image must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Can you please check

  • That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for each article the image is used in.
  • That every article it is used on is linked to from its description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --FairuseBot (talk) 04:35, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image (Image:Image:Ranwood logo.gif)

[edit]

You've uploaded Image:Image:Ranwood logo.gif, and indicated that it's used under Wikipedia's rules for non-free images. However, it's not presently used in any articles. Wikipedia policy requires that non-free images be either used or deleted, so if this image isn't used in an article in the next week, it will be deleted.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions.

Orphaned non-free image (Image:Rhinologo whiteonwhite.gif)

[edit]

You've uploaded Image:Rhinologo whiteonwhite.gif, and indicated that it's used under Wikipedia's rules for non-free images. However, it's not presently used in any articles. Wikipedia policy requires that non-free images be either used or deleted, so if this image isn't used in an article in the next week, it will be deleted.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 20:47, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Emiclassicslogo.gif)

[edit]

Thanks for uploading Image:Emiclassicslogo.gif. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

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 all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 07:03, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Angelrecordslogo.jpg)

[edit]

Thanks for uploading Image:Angelrecordslogo.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

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 all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 12:09, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Mercuryrecords.gif)

[edit]

Thanks for uploading Image:Mercuryrecords.gif. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

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 all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 12:18, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Legacyrecordings.gif)

[edit]

Thanks for uploading Image:Legacyrecordings.gif. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

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 all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 12:21, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Parlophone.jpg)

[edit]

Thanks for uploading Image:Parlophone.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

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 all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 12:29, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Vanguardclassics.gif)

[edit]

Thanks for uploading Image:Vanguardclassics.gif. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

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 all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 12:32, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Decca logo.gif)

[edit]

Thanks for uploading Image:Decca logo.gif. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

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 all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 12:33, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Sonyclassicallogo.gif)

[edit]

Thanks for uploading Image:Sonyclassicallogo.gif. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

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 all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 12:33, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

An American Carol

[edit]

Thanks for this addition. I know it may seem kind of ridiculous, but if we're going to make claims like this, no matter how obvious, they need sourced, as it may not be obvious to everyone (in that case, they need to get out more). GrszX 16:57, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Religulous

[edit]

It's cited, but it's still irrelevant, and, thus, doesn't belong. 98.168.194.130 (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 00:41, 12 October 2008 (UTC).[reply]

As I said on the article talk page, where are the citations COMPARING the viewership figures of the two films? And what on earth does "But they use the same citations and that matters" mean? It doesn't make any sense to me. Nil Einne (talk) 13:13, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion of Garpax Records

[edit]

A tag has been placed on Garpax Records requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about about a person, organization (band, club, company, etc.) or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not indicate the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable

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. cf38talk 15:47, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]


WJRT

[edit]

here's the proof that WJRT's digital signal will be 12 after February 17, from the FCC database.


WJRT-TV MI FLINT USA (Digital) 

 Licensee: FLINT LICENSE SUBSIDIARY CORP.
 Service Designation: DT   Digital television station

 Channel: 12     204 - 210 MHz   Construction Permit


The link is already on the page as well on the template "Wuery the FCC database for WJRT".

Stop removing the information from the page or I will report you for vandalism.

The information is from FCC database for WJRT.

Please read the entire page before making unneccessary edits.

TomCat4680 (talk) 04:11, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're the sloppy editor. You took off half of a sentence and turned it into a fragment and made a claim that was obviously untrue about what it will do after the conversion, then kept reverting my edits. I was just pointing out your errors. I'm not apologizing because I already corrected it twice and you keep uncorrecting it. Just accept the fact that you were wrong. Also I already told you, the link you just put in is already there, someone made a template (or shortcut) under the external liks section of the article for the exact same link, so putting it there again was unneccessary. Like I said, read the entire message (or page), instead of just what you want to read.TomCat4680 (talk) 04:30, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
He made several sloppy edits if you look at the WJRT history. Steelbeard1 (talk) 04:49, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I saw your citiation. Its already on the page in the form of a template under the External links section of the article. You must be slow so I'll it explain it for you. Hold shift and press bracket twice then TVQ then a straight line then the callsign then close the brackets

look

  • WJRT in the FCC TV station database

it can do the same thing with any other station. for example:

  • WSMH in the FCC TV station database
  • WEYI in the FCC TV station database
  • WDIV in the FCC TV station database

So the link you added is already there. Please don't put it back up. Its unneccessary and redundant.

I think you both are edit warring on this article. Please review the three revert rule and remember it is a bright line, not an entitlement. I am warning both parties. ++Lar: t/c 12:38, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

2010 Governor election

[edit]

Don't add random candidates to the races, we don't know, and it's considered WP:CRYSTAL unless a source comes up. BrianY (talk) 01:58, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So, here's a pargraph I deleted:

Potential Republican candidates include 2006 nominee and businessman Dick DeVos, state Attorney General Mike Cox, Congressman Pete Hoekstra, state Secretary of State Terri Lynn Land, Congresswoman Candice Miller, state Senate Majority Leader Mike Bishop

All those people have said to news sources they aren't running/are/or something related? Or am I confused? BrianY (talk) 02:38, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If I understand, since DeVos said he won't seek the office, there is a possibility that Cox/Lynn Land/Miller/Bishop might run but haven't said anything? If they haven't said anything, it would be speculation. BrianY (talk) 02:44, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As a side note, I have found a reference for Dennis Archer. BrianY (talk) 02:49, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject The Beatles newsletter issue 16 - November 2008

[edit]

{{../Issue-nav|016}}

WikiProject The Beatles Newsletter
Issue 016 – November 2008

Beatles News
Project News
  • We now have a barnstar - it can be placed on anybody's talk page using {{subst:Beatles barnstar|Message. ~~~~}}
  • 0 new articles have been listed in the Project Log since 1 October. The project log seems to have been neglected recently, and we request that project members help us to bring it up-to-date.
Member News
Issue of the Month

History of The Beatles has been recreated following the advice given in a peer review of The Beatles. We request your assistance in summarising the History section of The Beatles so they are not just carbon copies of each other.

From the Editor

Please take the time to review some articles (or submit your own) at our internal peer review page. It will help us to improve our articles.

If you've just joined, add your name to the Participants section of Wikipedia:WikiProject The Beatles. You'll get a mention in the next issue of the Newsletter and get it delivered as desired. Also, please include your own promotions and awards in future issues. Don't be shy!

Lastly, this is your newsletter and you can be involved in the creation of the next issue (Issue 017 – December 2008). Any and all contributions are welcome. Simply let yourself be known to any of the undersigned, or just start editing!

Contributors to this Issue
Complete To Do List
Make visible or invisible by clicking Show or Hide, respectively.


Want to help on next month's newsletter? Don't want to receive these in future? Don't want it subst'd next time? – It's all here.

{{../Issue-nav|016}} Denbot (talk) 17:43, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Popeye

[edit]

Part of his argument is that it's just a list of the cartoons. But is there a separate list of the cartoons anywhere in wikipedia? Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 02:54, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

MfD nomination of Wikipedia:WikiProject Bank of America

[edit]

Wikipedia:WikiProject Bank of America, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Bank of America and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Wikipedia:WikiProject Bank of America during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. John Carter (talk) 19:17, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bugs Bunny edits

[edit]

I just found your note on my talk page about reverting my edit on Bugs Bunny. Are you on drugs or something? I've never made any edit such as you describe, and the most recent one that I have done there has not been reverted. --Ted Watson (talk) 22:53, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Misread edit change so an apology was sent. Steelbeard1 (talk) 02:32, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RCA Victor SelectaVision CED video discs

[edit]

I just stumbled across your RCA Victor page, and I have to say, it's pretty complete. But, you left out (and I added) a section on the RCA Victor SelectaVision CED video discs from 1981-1985. What is funny is that my old boss at RCA-Camden, Charlie Horton (who also invented the VCR), was sent out to the Rockville Road plant in Indianapolis to run it.

Ahh, those were the days... Discpad (talk) 05:35, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image (File:Parlophonelogo.jpg)

[edit]

You've uploaded File:Parlophonelogo.jpg, and indicated that it's used under Wikipedia's rules for non-free images. However, it's not presently used in any articles. Wikipedia policy requires that non-free images be either used or deleted, so if this image isn't used in an article in the next week, it will be deleted.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 01:25, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

I put a new image in the Article RCA Records, but you undo the change, i think the new image is better by the before version, that new version is a SVG Vector Image, and with transparency, thanks. zzebah_punk™ Contact with me!!! 20:52, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But the logo is too big in relation to the RCA Victor logo. They should be equal in size. Steelbeard1 (talk) 21:25, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
But is a Vector Image, if you don't like the size I put, resize the image of a size you like, but the other image is ugly, don't have transparency and is very small. zzebah_punk™ Contact with me!!! 21:28, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
But it should be small as logos are not supposed to be prominent in infoboxes. Steelbeard1 (talk) 21:29, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I put the image with the size of 50px, look now please (RCA Records) zzebah_punk™ Contact with me!!! 21:32, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free media (File:Rcarecords.gif)

[edit]

Thanks for uploading File:Rcarecords.gif. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

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 all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:13, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

religulous

[edit]

i haven't edited wikipedia all that much (its mostly my brothers who edit it but i havent asked them yet), but from what i've read, talk pages are for discussing the article and not the general subject, and the latter is usually removed. wolfenstein was just making a snide comment about religion in general.--71.233.128.202 (talk) 21:05, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

TomCat4680 (talk) has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy munching!

Spread the goodness of cookies by adding {{subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!

TomCat4680 (talk) 14:39, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

RCA Class-action lawsuit

[edit]

You removed the class action lawsuit section I added. You said in the edit summary that it had something to do with GE. Could you tell me more about this because it seems like just about every RCA TV from my high-end 1987 RCA Dimensia to my early 2000s pos RCA Entertainment Series have that problem with the RF input. I always thought RCA products were of fairly poor quality, actually. Daniel Christensen (talk) 12:44, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

PS: I know about the lawsuit because my grandma was part of it when her then new 1993 RCA Colortrak TV had the problem. She got it fixed and actually got paid or something as part of the lawsuit. Daniel Christensen (talk) 12:44, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Replied in his talk page. Steelbeard1 (talk) 13:46, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

CBS Records

[edit]

When you want to fix an interwiki you need to fix it on all sites, so in this case you need to link the japanese article to the correct article on the english site or bots like mine will keep adding the interwiki like it looks like has been happening. I will go and manually fix the japanese article so it doesn't keep happening this time. But in the future just reverting on English won't solve the issue. -Djsasso (talk) 15:33, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Beatles in 1960

[edit]

Your totally right. I was meaning to write the members of The Beatles, but I must have forgot to erase the founded by part, honest mistake. Chasesboys (talk) 21:13, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Beatles Stereo/Mono

[edit]

Just because a stereo mix has vocals on one side and instruments on the other does not make it "unmixed". The stereo mixes on the albums had more reverb and compression than the twin-track session tapes, implying that they were mixed.

The statement that "The first two albums, Please Please Me and With the Beatles, were mixed in mono only" clearly contradicts the information later on in the page that gives mono and stereo catalog numbers for the first two albums. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.45.114.67 (talk) 02:39, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

John Barry

[edit]

Hello, why did you undo my edit to Columbia Graphophone Company? Rothorpe (talk) 22:37, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Replied in Rothorpe's talk page. Steelbeard1 (talk) 11:24, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've fixed the disambiguation; sorry I didn't see your point there. The list of EPs in 'External links' shows a couple of Barry's EPs on Columbia. I've also mentioned two of his hits with the JB7 in the Barry article. I hardly thought it worthwhile to mention the label, especially since the Adam Faith records were on Parlophone, but I did point out there was no EMI label at the time. Rothorpe (talk) 13:23, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image (Image:Deccabroadwaylogo.gif)

[edit]
⚠
⚠

Thanks for uploading Image:Deccabroadwaylogo.gif. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

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 non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude (talk) 20:47, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Steelbeard1. You have new messages at TomCat4680's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

TomCat4680 (talk) has given you a kitten! Kittens promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Kittens must be fed three times a day and will be your faithful companion forever! Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a kitten, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.

Spread the goodness of kittens by adding {{subst:Kitten}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message!

Orphaned non-free media (File:Kmartlogo.png)

[edit]

Thanks for uploading File:Kmartlogo.png. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

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 all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:27, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Beatles in Hamburg

[edit]

Nice one, Steelbeard1!--andreasegde (talk) 20:17, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. The article needed a formal intro. Steelbeard1 (talk) 20:29, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

No problem, man. I went to the wrong site, or misinterpreted something. It wasn't that hard adding it, though. ;) Connormah (talk) 03:35, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Windows Media Center edits

[edit]

Hi, thanks for your contributions to Windows Media Center. Although you've added sources to attribute your information, you've improperly formatted those sources for use on Wikipedia. I have formatted them, but for future reference, you may be interested in reading how to format citations from the Manual of Style. Thanks again. Brian Reading (talk) 18:21, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Trane/Coltrane

[edit]

The reason I moved the page is that "Trane" is more than a nickname. It is completely unanimous with Coltrane, such as "Bird" is with Charlie Parker and "Satchmo" is with Louis Armstrong. Jazz scholars, listeners and fans will most likely search for "Trane" to find material about Coltrane. His legacy and impact on American culture is no less notable than the financial impact of "Trane" the company. Considering all this, categorizing it as Trane (company) and creating a dab page puts both in equal perspective, without giving the company the unduly importance, which also goes against WP:NPOV. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 08:45, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Most people looking up Trane are looking up the heating and air conditioning company, not John Coltrane. Most people looking up John Coltrane's article would simply use his real name, not his one-word nickname. Steelbeard1 (talk) 20:53, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is where you are wrong... it is what I've been trying to explain: even if a smaller percentage of readers will look up "Trane" to find John Coltrane than the HVAC company, it still justifies the dab page. Any particular reason you are so strongly against it? Hearfourmewesique (talk) 12:26, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Trane Inc. is a leading multinational HVAC company with nearly 100 years of experience. There is no other Trane, Coltrane notwithstanding, in a Wikipedia article. This is different from Satchmo, the nickname for Louis Armstrong which is also the name of a little known computer application. The dab page for Satchmo is therefore appropriate. If there are more than two articles which use the name Trane, then I can see a separate dab page. Steelbeard1 (talk) 13:36, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There is no other Trane, Coltrane notwithstanding, in a Wikipedia article. I see that sadly, my explanations have landed on deaf ears; Coltrane's legacy and cultural impact is no less than Trane Inc.'s 100 years of experience. I am reminding you again about WP:NPOV since this is clear promotion of the monetary organization over a musical legend. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 14:20, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Looking over John Coltrane's extensive discography, there are a handful of albums which use the name Trane, but sadly there is no John Coltrane album which is titled "Trane" listed. So my statement, unfortunately, still stands. Steelbeard1 (talk) 21:12, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The thing is that many people still know him as Trane and these people shouldn't have the HVAC company article just pop up when looking up the word "Trane"... smells a little like spam, won't you agree? Being non-American, I personally felt awkward when that was my search result and I am positive many others felt and will feel the same way. Although his name was never officially fully substituted, he is still known to many as Trane and it is a good reason for the dab page to exist, just like with Satchmo (the company's popularity plays little importance). Hearfourmewesique (talk) 06:16, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you look at any article about John Coltrane, they are listed under his real name instead of his nickname. There are examples in which the nickname is more prominent than the real name such as Buffalo Bill instead of William Cody. That's why the Wikipedia article for William Cody is actually called Buffalo Bill. Steelbeard1 (talk) 18:49, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Group or band – which one?

[edit]

We are holding a straw poll (in a very friendly way, of course) to decide if The Beatles should be called a group, or a band. You can add your user signature to one or the other by clicking this link, Group or band – which one?. Thanks.--andreasegde (talk) 23:46, 19 July 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.181.171.159 (talk) [reply]


Re: Grammar (Love Me Do)

[edit]

I'm not sure what the rules on transatlantic dialect conventions are, but, in UK English, one says "in Abbey Road" rather than the American "on Abbey Road" Solicitr (talk) 20:04, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Steelbeard1. You have new messages at TomCat4680's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

File:Elektralogo.png

[edit]

Hey, just letting you know, please don't revert my version without giving a reason. I spent a lot of time using GIMP to cut out the white edges, you know not trying to leave a lot of empty space as most of the logos on here leave no empty space, so it looks bigger. That's all. --Taylor Karras (talk) 00:27, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Replied in his talk page. Steelbeard1 (talk) 02:09, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Steelbeard1. You have new messages at Taylor Karras's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Labels

[edit]

Hey there, I was refereed to you by User:TenPoundHammer, who believes you can provide some insight into the following record label issue. Imperatore (talk) 01:00, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have replied here. Imperatore (talk) 02:18, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have now moved the discussion to my talk page so that it won't intrude on TenPoundHammer. You can respond there if you wish. Imperatore (talk) 21:59, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the facts under "columbia pictures", but that section was for a completely unrelated discussion to the record companies which I started on User:King Shadeed's page. Do you still have any suggestions for the previous issue surrounding Celine? Imperatore (talk) 03:29, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for File:Rcaredseal.jpg

[edit]

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Rcaredseal.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use. Suggestions on how to do so can be found here.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. 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 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. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? –Dream out loud (talk) 21:40, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Apology

[edit]

I have flipped a couple of times between accusing you of being stubborn regarding a change I proposed, to acknowledging that you were correct, or the problem was not as great as it first appeared to me. Now I'm apologizing again, and I withdraw any accusations made. I do a lot of editing on music related articles, and feel most of my edits are done properly and are well researched, and I don't often make accusations like the ones I made about you. In fact I often jump in to mediate when others make accusations over a misunderstanding. Please accept my apology, and hope to see you around on WP pages. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 19:04, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Accepted. Steelbeard1 (talk) 19:10, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please check the FFEIC list.

[edit]

Please see entry 48 in the FFEIC table at http://www.ffiec.gov/nicpubweb/nicweb/Top50Form.aspx to find City National Bank of California (whose . Someone must have missed this bank holding company when revamping this template for the June 30, 2009 update, and forgot to remove Webster Bank, the former #51 until Colonial failed. Colonial is now nowhere in that table. Jesse Viviano (talk) 21:14, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

He is right about Colonial Bancgroup being replaced by City National Bank (California) on the source. I was very surprised to see that the FFIEC did a mid-quarter update of the list without changing the "as of" date. — Kralizec! (talk) 07:29, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Steelbeard1 (talk) 10:55, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sony Music

[edit]

Hey again. I noticed you made some modifications to the history section of Sony Music which I had tweaked over the summer months. The problem right now is in the first paragraph as its contradictory, suggesting it can trace back to 1888, but in the following phrase, to 1929 (which you added). I figured you have more input and knowledge on the history so let me know how we can remedy this. Imperatore (talk) 04:51, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take a look at the early history section again to see if I can clarify the text further. Steelbeard1 (talk) 12:28, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nice! Seems coherent enough now. Imperatore (talk) 17:31, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The details on Date Records and other historical subsidiaries are nice, but seeing as the article is still very brief, I think including such details makes it look less comprehensive / not getting to the core of things??? Just wanna confirm if these historical/discontinued "sublabels" are notable for the evolution of "sony music". Ultimately, I think the juice of the company history lies in the Columbia Records article; definitely would be appropriate to transfer some info as the columbia article is very well detailed, albeit disorganized at the moment. Imperatore (talk) 02:13, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As for what is more appropriate for Columbia and more appropriate for Sony Music depends on the time frame. Okeh was acquired by Columbia so it fits in the Columbia article. Epic is considered to be a sister label of Columbia, as was Date. So Epic and Date are more suitable for the Sony Music article. I hope this helps to clear things up. Steelbeard1 (talk) 02:29, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Release History for digital

[edit]

I noticed a pervasive issue with the release history table on albums. Digital format release is usually a common date across all territories of the big four for high profile releases, whereas physical release can vary significantly. On I Look to You for example, the digital release date is the same date under major and minor Sony Music markets, with the exception of the UK under RCA UK in October (justified by iTunes). But as the format reads now, it would appear that the digital release is in-line with the physical release date. Any suggestions?? Maybe wp:albums can help? Imperatore (talk) 23:45, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We can ask for consensus in the appropriate talk pages. I believe physical media release dates should prevail over digital download release dates. Steelbeard1 (talk) 02:29, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
i would like to add some input since i sourced the majority of the european and international releases for this album. In my experience it varies country by country. what tends to happen especially under Sony Music (whereby the artist is signed to a label who's parent company is sony) is that Sony Music distributes and markets the album in European Countries. The general case appears to be that continental Europe recieves the physical release of an album before the US and UK. With I Look to You the A&R was done Arista Records and so Arista focusses the release in the US - often the US recieves the download at the same time as the physical release. However Arista releases in the UK in partnership with RCA records whom have an unpredicatable pattern in their release dates. For example Ciara's Fantasy Ride was released to Amazon Download on the May 3, iTunes May 4 and CD May 5. As for trying to reach a consensus the only point i would like to make is that sometimes it is difficult to source exact download and physical releases for an album. Sometimes it is only possible to source one and not the other. With the case of I Look to You i refrained from using itunes because it is not accessible to everyone, i chose instead to search for the largest music retailers in those countries and source release dates from there which proven to mostly be phsyical CD releases. If individual release dates can be found for digital and CD releases then they should both be listed however in reality often only one of the release formats is usually found and properly sourced. both Amazon and iTunes confirm that the album is not released till october, something which i cannot understand personally. I hope this has helped. (Lil-unique1 (talk) 01:05, 5 September 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Can the discussion be switched over to the appropriate talk page(s) concerning this subject? Steelbeard1 (talk) 01:16, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Post Masters

[edit]

Hi, Steelbeard1. I think you might want to have a look at this, please. The remastered CD of Past Masters excludes from the previous versions three songs: "The Ballad of John and Yoko", its B-side "Old Brown Shoe" and "Let It Be". Now, "Let It Be" is, of course, included on the album of the same name. What's missing, however, from this collection are the other two songs. Am I correct? That is very strange about this. Best, --Discographer (talk) 23:14, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Disregard, Steelbeard1...I see, it's the mono version. Chat at you later. Best, --Discographer (talk) 23:29, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Goodbye

[edit]

Hi, Steelbeard1. Well, the way the remastered series has the comma is our answer. You have the honours...Best, --Discographer (talk) 08:52, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Steelbeard, I took comma back out. It only makes common sense in not having the comma in the song title, as practically everything there is does't show it anyway. Even the remastered series doesn't have it. That's definative enough. Best, --Discographer (talk) 13:48, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, bad news: The German single for "Hello, Goodbye" (see its Talk page) ahows the comma, though Magical Mystery Tour doesn't. Also, the compact disc for the remastered album shows it too. Best, --Discographer (talk) 20:46, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Beatles discography

[edit]

Hi Steelbeard... I was wondering might you have a look at (click-on) this and see what you think. Best, --Discographer (talk) 12:38, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The idea is sound, there are flaws which some people would comment on. My quibble is with the "canon albums" list with its inclusion of MMT and PM. Of course MMT was issued as a double EP in the UK and not initially as an LP was it was in the USA. PM was initally issued as two separate CDs and a double LP in 1988 and is considered to be a compilation as opposed to an original album in order to get The Beatles' entire musical output on CD along with the MMT album. Of course, PM was reissued as a double CD in 2009 along with the original British albums and the MMT album as compiled by Capitol in the USA. Steelbeard1 (talk) 14:46, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I know the biggest concern is with PM, that it is just a comp. album and also what you've said. The only reason I've included it is for the sake of discographical completeness concerning all their singles/songs, and had it not been included in The Beatles Stereo Box Set. However, if the majority of the veteran editors (yourself) of which I'm seeking concensus on in this do not want PM listed, I will remove it without any questions asked. Thanks! Best, --Discographer (talk) 15:29, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You could add footnotes to MMT and PM to give such info as MMT making the British charts as an American import and that PM was a double compilation album originally issued on separate CDs and a double LP in 1988 to ensure that The Beatles' entire commercial output from EMI was available on CD.
I took your advice, and done just that. I see you have 120 edits done on The Beatles discography, being the only person who has more edits than me. Anyway, the point I'm trying to make, is ...I'm asking... if you could please help me on my sandbox page, and maybe we can turn this discography into an FL status one. I know you can write good (and good narrative prose), maybe you can work on the prose like you've done for the original discography, or do what you feel needs improved, I won't mind. So, you have my permission to edit on that sandbox page, if you like, and when it's all done, maybe we can transfer it over in place of the discography that's already there. I need and want help on this, and you're the best! Thanks! (Awaiting your response} Best, --Discographer (talk) 20:42, 28 September 2009 (UTC) Steelbeard1 (talk) 01:46, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Also, what do you think about having the track-listings shown for the canon albums? (Curious). Best, --Discographer (talk) 21:25, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
First of all, those footnotes should have <ref>...</ref> right after the title requiring the footnote so users will look for the footnote info. The canon albums can have the track listings. Those revisions I made were made over a period of months and years so I don't know if I have the time to make major changes all at once.
I'd like to work alingside with you and put these track listings in, though I was hoping that might you take care of the refs and anything else you think needs done. You are absolutely correct in that this will take time to do, as I was hoping for it to be done and out by the start of the new decade... so, there's no rush at all. I know there's still much to be done, and I think with us working together on this that we can turn it into a Featured List. I'd rather go about doing this slowly and making sure everything we have is correct, and also that nothing is left out. As you can see, the music videos list is far from done (directors, references). I really would like to make this not only the best we can, but the best appearance-wise too. Thanks! Best, --Discographer (talk) 05:34, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Would it be OK to shift this discussion to Talk:The Beatles discography? Steelbeard1 (talk) 10:40, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sure it'd be O.K. Also, I'm about done with the canon track listings. Best, --Discographer (talk) 19:08, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Beatles discography Wikipedia:Featured list candidates

[edit]

Hi, Steelbeard1! I have nominated our discography for FL. Please, if you don't mind, clicking on the above link and show your support for it on that page. Thanks my friend! Best, --Discographer (talk) 03:12, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've withdrawn nomination for now. Best, --Discographer (talk) 19:39, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I had noticed there were issues with the article in the comments showing it needs additional work before it is nominated again. Steelbeard1 (talk) 20:19, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hickory Records

[edit]

Okay, thanks for that. The article didn't make it clear so it seemed fishy to me that there was a 30+year gap in the chronology. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 13:29, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reply

[edit]

There is a difference between what publishing credits say and who actually wrote a given song, especially if sources verify that thet two differ. For comparison's sake, film articles always indicate actual writing credits in the infobox, regardless of what the "official" credits are. See WP:Verifiability. WesleyDodds (talk) 07:50, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Because I help maintain the "Hey Jude" article, given I rewrote it when it underwent Featured Article Review. WesleyDodds (talk) 10:58, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You have not established proof of any standard being established on Wikipedia. So far the only standard seems to be "who wrote it". WesleyDodds (talk) 03:25, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Hey Jude"

[edit]

Oh, I was only fixing the link in the notes via the infobox. I'd nothing to do with the actual article itself. Best, --Discographer (talk) 17:19, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Elektrabox.jpg

[edit]

I have tagged File:Elektrabox.jpg as {{no rationale}}, because it does not provide a fair use rationale. If you believe the image to be acceptable for fair use according to Wikipedia policy, please provide a rationale explaining as much, in accordance with the fair use rationale guideline, on the image description page. Some examples can be found at Wikipedia:Use rationale examples. Please also consider using {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags/Non-free. Thank you. Rettetast (talk) 14:52, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Steelbeard1 (talk) 14:59, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Let Be and Get Back infoboxes

[edit]

I am glad you like the solution of using two infoboxes, and I appreciate your help making them accurate. — John Cardinal (talk) 16:21, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So am I. Thanks again. Steelbeard1 (talk) 16:44, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of HMV POP artists

[edit]

Hi, I've started an HMV list too. You may wish to change the alphabetical style, I'm easy. Same with the Parlophone list. Rothorpe (talk) 18:47, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fever

[edit]

It pleases me to tell you that you have my full support for the merge. Whether it will happen is another matter. Maybe AfD would sort it out? --Richhoncho (talk) 23:01, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:TheBeatlesBoxSet.JPG

[edit]
⚠
⚠

Thanks for uploading File:TheBeatlesBoxSet.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).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. 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 images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude (talk) 06:39, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Pastmasters2label.jpg

[edit]
⚠
⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Pastmasters2label.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).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. 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 images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude (talk) 06:44, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Pastmasters1label.jpg

[edit]
⚠
⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Pastmasters1label.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).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. 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 images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude (talk) 07:03, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Pastmastersvol1and2albumcover.jpg

[edit]
⚠
⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Pastmastersvol1and2albumcover.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).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. 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 images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude (talk) 07:08, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation of songs

[edit]

You recently opposed a suggestion to disambiguate songs by year, rather than artist or performer, something which I am in favour of. Perhaps you would like to revisit the discussion and add more weight to your arguments (or better still, change your mind!). I'd like to add it to the guidelines, but as you are the major dissenter I thought you should be given a chance to elucidate further, make alternative suggestions or as you feel. The discussion is at WikiProject Songs. Cheers. --Richhoncho (talk) 21:13, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Epicrecords.jpg

[edit]
⚠
⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Epicrecords.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).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. 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 images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. ZooFari 03:38, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

RE: Edit war

[edit]

Unfortunately I am not familiar enough with Wikipedia policies and procedures in the realm of music content to be able to weigh in on this issue. Sorry, — Kralizec! (talk) 14:00, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Mcanashvillelogo.jpg

[edit]
⚠
⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Mcanashvillelogo.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).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. 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 images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude (talk) 05:34, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unreferenced BLPs

[edit]

Hello Steelbeard1! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot alerting you that 1 of the articles that you created is an Unreferenced Biography of a Living Person. Please note that all biographies of living persons must be sourced. If you were to add reliable, secondary sources to this article, it would greatly help us with the current 139 article backlog. Once the article is adequately referenced, please remove the {{unreferencedBLP}} tag. Here is the article:

  1. Eddie Hodges - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 20:12, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

" somehow the reply is not appearing"

[edit]

Steelbeard1, I am not sure what you mean by your editto my talk page with the comment " somehow the reply is not appearing". I see your edit from a week or so ago (a message about Das), then an entry by Das today, then my response to Das. What's not appearing? — John Cardinal (talk) 01:25, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I saw Das' reply and was about to reply to that when I saw that your reply (similar to what I was about to write) was already in the editing area. I returned to the talk page and your reply disappeared. I noticed the double space between Das' reply and your reply so I removed the extra spacing and your reply appeared on the talk page. Steelbeard1 (talk) 03:14, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm. My reply was visible when I looked at the page. Anyway, all's well that ends well. — John Cardinal (talk) 04:06, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

EMI Group Ltd should remain as EMI

[edit]

Steelbeard1, you're an expert on record music labels; see this redirect/move done by Electron9 concerning EMI. Personally, I thought it was okay where it was at, which was EMI. Best, --Discographer (talk) 09:48, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. The article name should be EMI. Steelbeard1 (talk) 11:37, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Steelbeaerd1, I also left a note on LessHeard vanU's talk page about Electon9's EMI move. It absolutely must be changed back to EMI, or we'd have hundreds (maybe thousands!) of articles to change just to avoid re-directs! Best, --Discographer (talk) 20:28, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Le Historie de Populaire Musica

[edit]

Hi my friend, read (click-on) this if you will, and let me know what you think. Thanks. Best, --Discographer (talk) 23:28, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We could possibly create a timeline of the music labels from past to present that now make up the big four. It could be based on The Beatles timeline. You've provided UMG's on John Cardinal's talk page, if maybe you get the other three, then maybe we can "copy" them together to form one single timeline for Wikipedia. We'd only have four sources to use as each of the big four's own timeline would qualify as its own source. John and I can set the timeline up as to where you can put it together with our help. What do you say about that? (Hello, Nipper!) Best, --Discographer (talk) 08:10, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I found the Warner Music Group timeline dating back to the founding of Chappell & Company in 1811, the forerunner of Warner/Chappell Music, at http://mobile.wmg.com/wmglinks?page=aboutwmg&subpage=timeline Steelbeard1 (talk) 11:44, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Okay my friend, two down and two to go. Also, what should this timeline be called? Music industry record labels timeline? Or something else. Best, --Discographer (talk) 22:29, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I left a note on John's talk page (please see)! Also, do you know which countries correspond to these four WWII devices: ULTRA, MAGIC, PURPLE, ENIGMA? Best, --Discographer (talk) 19:39, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

MGM Nashville.

[edit]

Definite hoax; read here. No way would Metro Goldwyn Mayer let some small label use the same name. Found absolutely no evidence of a Brian Keith country singer at all, much less on that label. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 20:05, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Get Back

[edit]

Thank you for pointing that out, I didn't know there is a different version. But, by the way isn't almost every single got "single version"/"radio version" of the song? I think they're still considered single from/to promote the album.

For example, The Boy with the Thorn in His Side (song), by The Smiths, which got an "alternate mix" for the single.
Atomic (song) from Blondie, which got 7`` mix, and whole many other I think.

They still considered from the album, rite? CMIIW
But Thanks hey. passport90## (talk) 04:44, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Beatles discography singles

[edit]

Hi old Steelbeard1, quick question here, is there such a thing as "canon" singles, and also would that go thru "Let It Be" or "The Long and Winding Road" or something else, and include EMI-only releases worldwide, or just British? Also, since I truly believe you are the most knowledgable person in all of Wikipedia on this very subject, what changes, personally that is, would you (like to) bring about The Beatles discography, if any? Yes, I am curious, as you set the original precedent for this whole thing. Best, --Discographer (talk) 20:28, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This gets complicated as some of The Beatles' biggest hits (think "Eight Days A Week" and "Yesterday" as examples) were not issued as singles in the UK. Steelbeard1 (talk) 21:30, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Only UK singles are considered canon then, I take it. That's understandable. Best, --Discographer (talk) 21:34, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. I can't see any changes that need to be made to The Beatles discography, as I find it "complete". How about you? (I will go along with any ruling you make, but no one else!) Best, --Discographer (talk) 21:39, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think so. Steelbeard1 (talk) 21:40, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, my friend! So much for the discussions on that talk page! Oh well! Best, --Discographer (talk) 21:43, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Columbia/Epic Label Group

[edit]

You have done some work on the Columbia label, so maybe you can look at recent edits to Columbia/Epic Label Group and see if they are valid. I can't tell because the article has no references. Another editor changed year of founding from 2009 to 2003. I reverted because the change was incomplete (and it's still incomplete; the category still says companies founded in 2009). The editor put it back, and also identified a 2003 album on the label, which I suspect is the reason for the change. The article now alleges this is the label's first release, but there is no citation for this, and the album's article does not mention it. This could just be a guess on the part of the editor. What we really need are some references for the whole article. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 12:33, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Finding on line journalistic citations is difficult for this article. The Sony Music web sites do not have a Columbia/Epic Label Group URL, there are separate URLs for the Columbia and Epic imprints. Steelbeard1 (talk) 12:54, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Gubernatorial Troll

[edit]

I'd reported the gubernatorial troll, too, but for whatever reason, the entry isn't showing on that page. --Criticalthinker (talk) 03:05, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The entry found at [2], like all entries, have internal links. The fun part was finding each example from the edit history to past them for the report. Steelbeard1 (talk) 10:56, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for File:Beatlescoll2.jpg

[edit]

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Beatlescoll2.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) 21:41, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Steelbeard1 (talk) 21:48, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Levin

[edit]

Looks like someone beat me to it. Best — e. ripley\talk 02:16, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

IP address still blocked

[edit]

Your request to be unblocked has been granted for the following reason(s):

Autoblock #1941837 lifted or expired.

Request handled by: jpgordon::==( o )

Unblocking administrator: Please check for active autoblocks on this user after accepting the unblock request.

Orphaned non-free image File:Columbiajapan.jpg

[edit]
⚠
⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Columbiajapan.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) 06:15, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jewel Records (Shreveport record label)

[edit]

Can you please explain to me why you didn't approve of the source I gave you concerning the fact that Jewel Records had a subsidiary label named Sue? You were right when you wrote on the discussion page that the wikipedia article Sue Records had nothing to do with Jewel Records but there really was an unrelated subsidiary label called Sue which is confirmed on two different pages in the "Encyclopedia of the Blues", page 523 and page 937. --Popiloll (talk) 19:49, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Because it was not made clear that it was a different Sue Records and the citation was NOT verifiable. Steelbeard1 (talk) 19:59, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What do you want me to do? I can't help that the Encyclopedia of the Blues is not available for reading in Google books. I will get back to you if and when I find a link. --Popiloll (talk) 20:24, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I've found a link here. Write 588 or 1002 in the rectangle right above the book and push enter and that will prove that I'm right. --Popiloll (talk) 20:48, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid a review of the cited book at [3] says otherwise. Steelbeard1 (talk) 22:38, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps any of the sources given by the encyclopedia could corroborate the statement; Blues Access Magazine no.26 (1996) and Living Blues Magazine no.141 (1998). However, they are not available anywhere on the web unless you buy them. --Popiloll (talk) 05:40, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've searched everywhere on the web and I can't find another source that mentions the sublabel Sue. It could have been a very short-lived label for all I know. If you still don't believe in the existence of a subsidiary called Sue despite the fact that it's written in an encyclopedia, feel free to remove that info and I won't interfere. I think I've proven my point. --Popiloll (talk) 06:15, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A linkable citation was found that Sue Records of Louisiana owned Jewel/Paula/Ronn Records at one time. Steelbeard1 (talk) 14:35, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File source problem with File:Cameoparkwaylogo.jpg

[edit]

Thank you for uploading File:Cameoparkwaylogo.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 20:32, 9 June 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) 20:32, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are now a Reviewer

[edit]

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes 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. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.

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. Courcelles (talk) 17:48, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Instant Records

[edit]

I have re-taged the Instant Records article for {{notability}} as I don't think the company meets WP:CORP or WP:ORG, I agree that http://www.bsnpubs.com/imperial/minit.html is coverage but not what could be called significant. Codf1977 (talk) 15:44, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Y

[edit]

Hello. I like the compromise of The Y (disambiguation). I still think that it's an unlikely search term but if any reader does make that search, the new dab page will be exactly what he needs. Cheers, Pichpich (talk) 17:56, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Theylogo.jpg

[edit]
⚠
⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Theylogo.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).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. 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 images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 10:06, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]



Merge discussion for Manfred_Mann

[edit]

An article that you have been involved in editing, Manfred_Mann , has been proposed for a merge with another article. If you are interested in the merge discussion, please participate by going here, and adding your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. KoshVorlonNaluboutes,Aeria Gloris 17:03, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Monument Records

[edit]

Did I add a speedy delete to the Monument Records page? I didn't intend to do so. I need some help here. I am trying to amend the page as the information as originally presented on the page was incorrect. My husband was a partner in the Corporation. If I must cite SEC records I will. Can you please tell me how to so? TeenkingTeenking (talk) 01:53, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've never edited the Manfred Mann page. What the? -teenkingTeenking (talk) 01:59, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You forgot to add a new heading. Steelbeard1 (talk) 02:24, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Dorothyshay.jpg listed for deletion

[edit]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Dorothyshay.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files 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. Skier Dude (talk 02:53, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry - Sugar Hill

[edit]

Sorry, I was messing up your editing while you were doing it on the Sugar Hill page. I'll stay out! Airproofing (talk) 15:12, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:7uplogousa.jpg

[edit]
⚠
⚠

Thanks for uploading File:7uplogousa.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) 05:14, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:The Beatles discography

[edit]

Hi Steelbeard1! Care to vote on this matter concerning the song "Something" (peak position)? Thanks! Best, --Discographer (talk) 20:53, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Beatles members

[edit]

Ok. Thank you for clearing that up for me. --PhillieLWillie(Talk) 22:14, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Garpax

[edit]

Is there anyway I can see what was posted that Steelbeard1 edited? Garpax is an important and interesting topic. I'd like to know what was thrown out. I wonder if there may have been a baby in the bath water? Teenking (talk) 00:14, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The edit was to the Garpax Records article and what was deleted was material not related whatsoever to the record label called Garpax which was founded by Gary S. Paxton. The Garpax name was derived from his name. Steelbeard1 (talk) 10:36, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Love Me Do

[edit]

Since there were two separate versions of "Love Me Do," I thought it was important to note which single it was, and that the single included on 1 was the same as the album, as opposed to the non-album version. Why is this unnecessary? 98.221.129.63 (talk) 05:54, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Because we are talking about single releases, not album releases. It is common knowledge that the "Andy White" version is the more prevalent version of "Love Me Do" from the album releases. The version with Ringo on drums was the first version released as a single in the UK that peaked at #17 in 1963. The song's article is the place to note the differences between the two songs. So to note that the version that was #1 in the US in 1964 is the one with Andy White on drums and Ringo Starr on tambourine is sufficient detail for the "1" article. The song's article is more appropriate to note the additional details. Steelbeard1 (talk) 12:50, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_The_Beatles#The_The_Beatles

[edit]

I think your comments here are a little heavy handed. You are free to have an opinion but I would refrain from characterizing other editors as such. Can we keep this discussion free of personal attacks and just let it run its course? thanks! riffic (talk) 13:35, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think Steelbeard1 is doing exactly what is needed to clarify the situation. His evidence about trademarks has been ignored for far too long.--andreasegde (talk) 21:43, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
comparing fellow editors to a 'Taliban' is not very civil. riffic (talk) 00:32, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your noun vs adjective comment, Steelbeard1; very valid point. I would say that raises the score on your side. It's funny how this topic is more interesting than it sounds like it would be! —Prhartcom (talk) 19:08, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for File:Happywanderer.jpg

[edit]

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Happywanderer.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 tagged, 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) 12:21, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Ua liberty logo.jpg

[edit]
⚠
⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Ua liberty 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) 05:44, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Proprietariness of Nielsen rankings

[edit]

The removal of the Neilsen rankings were due to a request filed by Neilsen in 2008, in which all information considered proprietary to Neilsen must be removed, including rankings. This eventually led to the wholesale deletion of TV market templates, all because it contains the ranking number. Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television Stations/Archive 8 has more information on this matter. -- azumanga (talk) 06:39, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Johnfogertymillenium.jpg

[edit]
⚠
⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Johnfogertymillenium.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).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. 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 images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Courcelles 05:24, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Blood libel

[edit]

Thanks for the restoration. I wondered why, as no one has ever deleted a comment by me from a Talk page. And altho we have our differences, I didn't think you were that kind of guy. Cheers.Bellagio99 (talk) 19:42, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Disputed non-free use rationale for File:Epicrecords90s.png, File:Epicrecords70s.png and File:First epic logo.png

[edit]

Hi there. I have concerns about the validity of the rationale for File:Epicrecords90s.png, File:Epicrecords70s.png and File:First epic logo.png. Since only File:Epicrecords-logo.png and File:Epicrecords.jpg are currently used, I don't believe the rest fall under the fair use rationale "to identify the organization Epic Records". I'm sure you know the drill. Best regards. Muhandes (talk) 12:14, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Autopatrolled

[edit]

Hello, this is just to let you know that I have granted you the "autopatrolled" permission. This won't affect your editing, it just automatically marks any page you create as patrolled, benefiting new page patrollers. Please remember:

  • This permission does not give you any special status or authority
  • Submission of inappropriate material may lead to its removal
  • You may wish to display the {{Autopatrolled}} top icon and/or the {{User wikipedia/autopatrolled}} userbox on your user page
  • If, for any reason, you decide you do not want the permission, let me know and I can remove it
If you have any questions about the permission, don't hesitate to ask. Otherwise, happy editing!HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 04:32, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Whirlpoolcorp2010logo.jpg

[edit]
⚠
⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Whirlpoolcorp2010logo.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).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. 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 images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Courcelles 04:18, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

M-21 (Michigan highway)

[edit]

There have been 4 designs of highway marker in Michigan. The first was created in 1919. The second (called by the "M-old" type in the infobox) was created around 1926 or 1927. The third around 1948, and the current design in the early 1970s. M-56 would have been decommissioned in 1984 with the modern design, which is why its infobox in the M-21 article uses the current style, not the older cutouts like M-21A or M-210. Imzadi 1979 → 03:24, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Producedbygeorgemartinhighlights.jpg

[edit]
⚠
⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Producedbygeorgemartinhighlights.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).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. 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 images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. ww2censor (talk) 03:57, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Nipponcolumbialogo.gif

[edit]
⚠
⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Nipponcolumbialogo.gif. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. 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 images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude2 (talk) 04:37, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Nipponcolumbialogo.gif

[edit]
⚠
⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Nipponcolumbialogo.gif. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. 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 images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude2 (talk) 04:39, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:7uplogousa.png

[edit]
⚠
⚠

Thanks for uploading File:7uplogousa.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).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. 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 images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude2 (talk) 06:01, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The

[edit]

Nice revert. I reverted the talk page as well.--andreasegde (talk) 16:40, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

)) "First solo recording". I thought I was wrong about that, so thanks for putting it right!--andreasegde (talk) 15:15, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Request

[edit]

You are involved in a recently-filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Disruption at The Beatles article and talkpage and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—

Thanks, LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:29, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Arbcom case regarding The Beatles

[edit]

Hi Steelbeard1, this is just a friendly notification to inform you that the Arbitration Commitee has declined to hear the case regarding The Beatles to which you were a party. Cheers. Salvio Let's talk about it! 12:12, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Long and Winding Road

[edit]

Thanks, as always. :)--andreasegde (talk) 21:12, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Past Masters

[edit]

It might be a good idea to lower the tone a bit: "I would not call tracks such as..." being a case in point. It's al the about the article. :) --andreasegde (talk) 21:48, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I was influenced by the collection's compiler Mark Lewisohn when he stated in the original 1988 liner notes' conclusion: "...Don't fall under the illusion that these songs are mere 'fillers'. 'She Loves You', 'I Want To Hold Your Hand', 'I Feel Fine', 'We Can Work It Out', 'Hey Jude' and many others like them didn't exactly wallow in the lower reaches of the chart." when I deleted the word 'rarities' as a description of the compilation. Steelbeard1 (talk) 22:20, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Vernors...

[edit]

...is already on my watch list. Thanks for the heads-up. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 13:28, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

re: Vernors article

[edit]

Thanks for the note. I haven't defended the Halo Burger info since I'm undecided whether it is sufficiently notable for inclusion. Also, I'm not sure that photos on Flickr constitute reliable sources. Please don't count on me for its defense. Thanks, Kevin Forsyth (talk) 22:03, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of Automated Replies

[edit]

Hey Steelbeard1,

This is a friendly notification to inform you that automated notices are submitted to reported users on the WP:AN/EW noticeboard by User:NekoBot periodically during reviews of the page content to save editors from having to post their own notices and directly link to the report in question. Please see Wikipedia:Bots/Requests_for_approval/NekoBot and User:NekoBot for more information. + Crashdoom Talk // NekoBot OP 18:20, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(message from Rc Cola Girl forwarded to Administrators' Noticeboard.) Steelbeard1 (talk) 16:22, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Non-Free rationale for File:Jimmymacdonalddvd.jpg

[edit]

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Jimmymacdonalddvd.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under Non-Free content criteria but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia is acceptable. Please go to the file description page and edit it to include a Non-Free rationale.

If you have uploaded other Non-Free media, consider checking that you have specified the Non-Free 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 tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 11:21, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

License tagging for File:Atlanticrecordslogo.jpg

[edit]

Thanks for uploading File:Atlanticrecordslogo.jpg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information.

To add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia. For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 16:11, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Whirlpoolcorp2010logo.jpg

[edit]
⚠
⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Whirlpoolcorp2010logo.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 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).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude (talk) 05:14, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Whirlpoolcorp2010logo.jpg

[edit]
⚠
⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Whirlpoolcorp2010logo.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. If you have a question, place a {{helpme}} template, along with your question, beneath this message.
  • 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) 05:32, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cavern performances

[edit]

I was wondering about exactly how many times the Fabs played at The Cavern Club. It says 292 appearances, but if you look here, I only count 14 times. They played from 1961 to 1963, which is only two-and-a-half years. Any ideas?--andreasegde (talk) 09:31, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No idea. We need to find a reliable source to settle on a number. Steelbeard1 (talk) 11:56, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Possible fair-use rationale issue for File:Emicolumbiamagicnotes.jpg

[edit]

I'm not formally flagging it as a fair-use violation because my research indicates it was an IP-address editor who added your File:Emicolumbiamagicnotes.jpg image to the Columbia Records (US/current Sony Music label) article quite some time back. However, the image *only* has a fair-use rationale for the Columbia Graphophone Company (UK/former EMI label) article, *not* Columbia Records.

It would be easy enough to copy your Columbia Graphophone fair-use rationale for Columbia Records--especially since it's a rather unique version of the "magic notes" logo (the only one I've seen to have "Columbia Records" written ON the notes themselves) *and* much of the technical details are the same since Sony bought out EMI's rights--but all that's listed about the source of your image is "scanned album cover", presumably from a Columbia Graphophone release *but* of unknown age.

If it's from the pre-1931 period (Columbia US spun off Columbia UK in 1922, but Columbia UK turned around and bought Columbia US in 1925 before being forced to divest it in the 1931 EMI merger), it's probably appropriate for the Columbia US article and the fair-use rationale should be copied with relevant modifications (i.e., title change and rewording the ownership statement for US relevance). However, if it really *IS* from an EMI-era Columbia UK (1931-73) release, it's irrelevant to the Columbia US article and should be removed from there. (It shouldn't be deleted as it IS appropriate for the Columbia UK article.) --RBBrittain (talk) 08:51, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Haloburger.jpg

[edit]
⚠
⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Haloburger.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. If you have a question, place a {{helpme}} template, along with your question, beneath this message.
  • 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) 05:56, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Official vs. common name

[edit]

Hello - I was wondering if you had a chance to read WP:OFFICIAL and its interpretation of WP:NAMING, and what your thoughts were about it. Thanks. Dohn joe (talk) 17:59, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My opinion is unchanged. Steelbeard1 (talk) 18:13, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That's fine, but do you at least agree that your opinion is at odds with Wikipedia policy? Dohn joe (talk) 18:19, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Look at the record label at [4]. Once again, my opinion is unchanged. Steelbeard1 (talk) 18:27, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Listen, I agree with you that "The Beatles" is the official name of the album, and "The White Album" is a nickname. What I'm saying is that we don't always use the official name of something for the title. Please read WP:COMMONNAME to see what Wikipedia policy is. For example, the official name of Rhode Island is State of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations. But we put the article at Rhode Island because that's what people call it. Same here - everyone agrees that "The Beatles" is the official name. But because everyone calls it The White Album, that's where the title should be. Does that make any sense? Dohn joe (talk) 18:48, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No it does not. The short name of Rhode Island is indeed the common name with the full name used mainly on the state seal. OTOH, there is no record label for this album anywhere in the world that says "The White Album." Steelbeard1 (talk) 21:18, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I understand. But my question to that would be, what makes record labels the only place we should look when we decide how to title an article? Dohn joe (talk) 21:29, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Because the record label is is the OFFICIAL LAST WORD on how to describe the contents of an album. Album covers may contain erroneous material as in the case of the original Beatles for Sale LP which lists the "Kansas City/Hey Hey Hey Hey" medley simply as "Kansas City." When the error was noted, it was corrected on the record label, but not the sleeve, although the correction was made on the packaging of future configurations of the Beatles for Sale album. Steelbeard1 (talk) 21:36, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
But my question is, why should we listen to the official last word for Beatles albums, when we regularly ignore other official last words - like state seals, birth certificates, official titles of laws, etc. - when they aren't the common name? What makes this case different? Dohn joe (talk) 21:58, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It still does not say "The White Album" on the sleeve and record label. Didn't you read my previous comment? Or do you prefer to ignore all the links I gave? Steelbeard1 (talk) 01:14, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Steelbeard - I wanted to say, first of all, that I very much appreciate all the research and links that you have provided on a number of occasions that show that the official name of the album is, and always has been, "The Beatles". As I've told you before, I agree with you. To me, there is absolutely, positively no doubt whatsoever that the official name is "The Beatles". "The White Album" is a popular name for the album, and has never been the official name of the album. I agree with you on that 100%.

So, why do I keep arguing to change the article name to "The White Album"? Because Wikipedia does not always use the official name for article titles. It is Wikipedia's policy to give preference to common names. Not my policy - Wikipedia's. Sometimes there are good reasons to use an official name. But "because it's official" is not one of those good reasons. Does that make any sense at all? I'd suggest looking at Sarek's arguments in opposition and LtPower's arguments in favor to get a sense of what Wikipedia policy says. And finally, once more - thanks for your diligence in compiling the links and official references. Dohn joe (talk) 21:32, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The common name is not the official name. The redirect from the common name to the official name is sufficient and need not be changed. Also, for the sake of brevity, the official name is shorter than the popular name. But that does not preclude making the shorter popular name the name of the article. CCR goes to a disambig page and directs the reader to go to the Creedence Clearwater Revival article, for example. Steelbeard1 (talk) 21:38, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, but let me ask you this, and forget music and the Beatles for now: do you agree that there are times when Wikipedia chooses the common name instead of the official name? Dohn joe (talk) 21:42, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Actually it is NOT Wikipedia which decides, it's a consensus of editors of the article in question. An anal retentive member of the MOS police tried to rename the ABN AMRO article into "ABN Amro" to the chagrin of ABN AMRO followers such as myself as I was a customer of an ABN AMRO bank before that bank was sold. The official name is ABN AMRO in all-capital letters. The Talk:ABN AMRO page is still longer than the actual article because of the edit warring. Steelbeard1 (talk) 21:47, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, now we're getting somewhere. So, would it be fair to say that there are no policies or guidelines that you would ever find binding on an editor of Wikipedia? Or is that going too far? If so, what do you have to say about Wikipedia's policies and guidelines? Dohn joe (talk) 21:57, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, there is a good Wikipedia guideline, in which "policy" loses to prevailing consensus: WP:IAR. Steelbeard1 (talk) 22:00, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
So if it turns out that whoever closes the discussion at Talk:The Beatles (album) decides that consensus wants it at The White Album, you'd be okay with that? Dohn joe (talk) 22:05, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If there is no consensus, and that this stage there is no consensus, the article stays as it is with the title The Beatles (album). Steelbeard1 (talk) 22:07, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. But I asked you a what if. Dohn joe (talk) 22:09, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Again, no consensus means article stays the same. ¿Comprende? Steelbeard1 (talk) 22:13, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

RE:August 2011

[edit]

Thank you, captain obvious, I did not notice from my watchlist, till u told me. :P --Yeepsi (Talk to me!) 14:23, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As I own a copy of 20 Greatest Hits (Parlophone version, to be exact), mine didn't come with an EP. Am I missing the EP? --Yeepsi (Talk to me!) 14:47, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I believe it was a limited edition EP when it was originally released. Steelbeard1 (talk) 15:17, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I believe you got ripped off because all eBay listings of this album include the EP. Steelbeard1 (talk) 15:29, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I'm rather annoyed now. --Yeepsi (Talk to me!) 15:36, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have a later repackaging? The citation shows a 20-track LP and the 3-track EP complete with front and back cover photos. Steelbeard1 (talk) 16:10, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'll pull my copy off the shelf and get back to u, in a few mins. --Yeepsi (Talk to me!) 17:27, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have a first pressing, all first pressings apparently don't come with the EP (I've been cross referencing with Discogs). --Yeepsi (Talk to me!) 17:37, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As u may have noticed the links are now less likely to rot. --Yeepsi (Talk to me!) 18:27, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, yes me again. To quote wat I added to the talk of The Number Ones. "Should we add the tracklist for the cassette version as well? It's different." --Yeepsi (Talk to me!) 15:06, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, along with mention in the text that the cassette version contains all 23 tracks because cassettes do not have the length limitations which LPs have. Steelbeard1 (talk) 16:42, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Should we include an image of the EP cover? --Yeepsi (Talk to me!) 15:32, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Looking the EP sleeve, is it similar to the gatefold design inside the LP sleeve? If so, yes. Steelbeard1 (talk) 16:39, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, I've added the image, tell me wat u think. --Yeepsi (Talk to me!) 21:50, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It should have a caption such as "Bonus EP sleeve." Steelbeard1 (talk) 02:46, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yea, um.. I don't know how to add captions. --Yeepsi (Talk to me!) 14:10, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Caption has been added. Steelbeard1 (talk) 15:30, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Michigan 2012 Senate race

[edit]

Thank you for contacting me. I see what you mean. It appears that the two editors that are adding that info are the same, there usernames are very similar. I am going to go ahead and give "final warnings" to both, let them know I suspect they are the same person, and the next time, I will take it up to WP:AIV. Thank you again for contacting me. I have your back here. America69 (talk) 02:42, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lennon/McCartney or Lennon–McCartney

[edit]

There is a discussion here where we could use your input. Thanks. CuriousEric 23:41, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Beatles/Years Active

[edit]

There is a discussion occuring here involving debate about whether or not the Beatles were "active" during 1994-1996. Your input would be appreciated. — GabeMc (talk) 22:47, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WJRT-TV

[edit]

Please do not add or change content without verifying it by citing reliable sources, as you did to WJRT-TV. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. TomCat4680 (talk) 17:22, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Free as a Bird" proposed lede change

[edit]

FYI, there is a vote taking place here, and your input would be appreciated. — GabeMc (talk) 03:18, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hi. When you recently edited Pendleton Woolen Mills, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Glacier National Park (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:06, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

December 2011

[edit]

Please do not add or change content without verifying it by citing reliable sources, as you did to Citizen Kane. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. -- Doniago (talk) 17:00, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reverted your removal and added citations. Read your talk page. Steelbeard1 (talk) 17:09, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Replied. Thank you for providing sources. Doniago (talk) 17:28, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hi Steelbeard1. Could you tell us what the logo represents? Maybe that could be added to the article? Many thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:32, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is the current logo, dating back to the 1960s, used by the current owner of the Chess catalogue and trademark, Universal Music Group, at the official Chess web site at http://www.chessrecords.co.uk/ Steelbeard1 (talk) 22:47, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, thanks, all good stuff. But I meant figuratively, what does it depict. Or what was it's inspiration. It looks a little like an amonite, or perhaps even a seahorse, but (of course?) not much like any chess piece. Maybe no-one knows. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:17, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's a stylized knight chess piece. Steelbeard1 (talk) 01:30, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oh I see. Any reason for the Knight? Is there a source which says this? - it wasn't completely obvious to me! Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 08:43, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If you look at the old blue and white Chess label from the official Chess Records web site, the three chess pieces shown on the label include a knight. Steelbeard1 (talk) 12:05, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that's quite clear. But the "current" version, which appears in the article info box is, as you say, quite stylized. If there is no citable source which describes the logo and/or its origins, would it be WP:OR to add a summary of what you have just explained above? Or maybe it's just not notable. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:21, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
According to [5] the logo design dates back to 1965. Steelbeard1 (talk) 18:29, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That's a great source and I think could be used in the article, if it isn't already. The horse is much clearer in the early versions. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:33, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free rationale for File:Post logo new.png

[edit]

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Post logo new.png. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under non-free content criteria, but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia is acceptable. Please go to the file description page, and edit it to include a non-free rationale.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified the non-free 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 tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 22:47, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hatnote on Blood libel

[edit]

Personally, I can't see that the hatnote is offensive. But if you or others think so, I have said that I have no objections to alter the language. And as I can't the offensiveness, I really unsure on how to alter the wording to everyones liking. So if you then could rephrase it, it would be very helpful. Steinberger (talk) 11:45, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It was written in the present tense. Steelbeard1 (talk) 11:49, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Aha. There is contemporary examples of both blood libels against Jews and similar accusations towards others groups, so I figured it was okey. Any suggestions on a better way of putting it? Steinberger (talk) 11:53, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Go to the Blood libel talk page. Steelbeard1 (talk) 11:55, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Vanguardrecords.jpg

[edit]
⚠
⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Vanguardrecords.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 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).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude (talk) 05:03, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Article restructuring at the Beatles

[edit]

There is a discussion taking place here, and your input would be appreciated. — GabeMc (talk) 04:10, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is a straw poll taking place here, your input would be appreciated. — GabeMc (talk) 02:31, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Woap.jpg

[edit]
⚠
⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Woap.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 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).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude (talk) 05:21, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

AIV

[edit]

Please only report users to WP:AIV if they are currently active. The user you reported today had not edited for around 15 hours prior to your report, so does not require administrator intervention. Thanks, waggers (talk) 12:24, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

[edit]
Hello, Steelbeard1. You have new messages at Waggers's talk page.
Message added 12:44, 22 March 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

waggers (talk) 12:44, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

a.a.p.

[edit]

Yes, Turner/Time Warner owns the Associated Artists Productions library, but the a.a.p. name is part of MGM because a.a.p. became United Artists Associated and then United Artists Television Distribution. King Shadeed 00:51, March 30, 2012 (UTC)

But when a company is acquired and absorbed into a subsidiary of the acquiring company, the absorbed company becomes defunct. Comprende??? Steelbeard1 (talk) 10:35, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
True. Here's another. If a company sells its library to another company, then the library doesn't count as a company subsidiary. Either way, defunct companies that has been acquired by another and has been folded still counts. While on topic, I think you'd better look at the Filmways and American International articles because they too are defunct but still has the MGM subsidiary category. King Shadeed 11:27, March 30, 2012 (UTC)
By the way, sorry to bring up the topic like that. King Shadeed 11:42, March 30, 2012 (UTC)

AIP and Filmways are also defunct so they are NOT MGM subsidiaries. The absorbing company, Orion Pictures is still technically an MGM subsidiary. I deleted the "MGM subsidiaries" links because that is not the case with AIP and Filmways. Steelbeard1 (talk) 16:06, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So what do you suggest in the meantime? Use a Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer category? King Shadeed 13:21, March 30, 2012 (UTC)
Only if the unit is still active on paper. Orion Pictures, yes. AIP, Filmways, a.a.p., no. Those three units stopped existing before MGM acquired the libraries. Steelbeard1 (talk) 18:26, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Then I think we'd better do the same thing to The Cannon Group. I was about to suggest using Category:Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer on them. King Shadeed 17:33, March 30, 2012 (UTC)

Halo Burger

[edit]

Hi, just got your message. I think it would be best to contact an administrator if you suspect persistent 'bad-editing'. Sorry I can't be of more help, but I'm just a regular anti-vandalism patroller. I was reverting obvious vandalism by an IP editor on the above article, and, in fact, before this I had never heard of 'Halo Burger'!! Regards Denisarona (talk) 13:11, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi friend. You might want to step back from Halo Burger for a few days. No sense edit-warring over trivia. Give it a few days to let it breathe... Carrite (talk) 03:18, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I talked to the other party just now. But I see that you've reverted him again. Stop reverting edits in article space and start talking out your issues on the talk page. Seriously. Carrite (talk) 16:53, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I already did and the other parties are agreeing with me if you read the article's talk page.. Steelbeard1 (talk) 17:18, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just got your latest message. If you still have problems, go to the Edit war/3RR noticeboard, make a report with back-up arguements and an administrator will look at the complaint. Regards Denisarona (talk) 06:44, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Walt disney records logo.jpg

[edit]
⚠
⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Walt disney records 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 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).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude (talk) 06:16, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Beatles "Current Members"

[edit]

No, you're right there was never a "Fab Six", but there have been six past members of a now dissolved group called the Beatles. How can two of the current members be dead? How can a person be a member of a band after they are no longer living? — GabeMc (talk) 22:28, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

But why are two dead people considered "members" versus "past members"? Can a dead person be a member of a band? — GabeMc (talk) 22:35, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Steelbeard1, with all due respect, consensus can change, so the previous discussions on the topic matter little today. — GabeMc (talk) 22:49, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is a straw poll taking place here, and your input would be appreciated. — GabeMc (talk) 23:56, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is a discussion taking place here, and your input would be appreciated. — GabeMc (talk) 03:47, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please explain to me how the current proposal is misleading or inaccurate, in any way shape or form. — GabeMc (talk) 00:09, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is a Straw Poll taking place here, and your input would be appreciated. — GabeMc (talk) 00:40, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is a third straw poll taking place here, and your input would be appreciated. — GabeMc (talk) 02:25, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Beatles infobox

[edit]

I have decided that listing them all under "members" is the best representation of consensus, but I would love your support before moving forward, are there any other outstanding issues we need to work out IYO? — GabeMc (talk) 05:02, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is a Straw Poll taking place here, and your input would be appreciated. — GabeMc (talk) 05:02, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free media (File:GoldenRecordsLogo.png)

[edit]

Thanks for uploading File:GoldenRecordsLogo.png. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. 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 all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 04:14, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

As you know I start Topic Halo Burger. I already meet you in person at Miller Road that where you work there in 2008. Anyway, I notice that new logo Halo Burger on top right. There is any possible for you to add "former Halo Burger logo" inside the text? Thanks CFBancroft (talk) 12:42, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sgt. Pepper straw poll

[edit]

Unfortunately, there is a straw poll taking place here, and your input would be appreciated.--andreasegde (talk) 11:36, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Formal mediation has been requested

[edit]
The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "The Beatles". As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. Mediation is a voluntary process which resolves a dispute over article content by facilitation, consensus-building, and compromise among the involved editors. After reviewing the request page, the formal mediation policy, and the guide to formal mediation, please indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Because requests must be responded to by the Mediation Committee within seven days, please respond to the request by 20 July 2012.

Discussion relating to the mediation request is welcome at the case talk page. Thank you.
Message delivered by MediationBot (talk) on behalf of the Mediation Committee. 14:38, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

AN/I report notice

[edit]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 11:37, 15 July 2012 (UTC) For clarity, since there are two open reports now, look here. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 11:40, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Request for mediation accepted

[edit]
The request for formal mediation of the dispute concerning The Beatles, in which you were listed as a party, has been accepted by the Mediation Committee. The case will be assigned to an active mediator within two weeks, and mediation proceedings should begin shortly thereafter. Proceedings will begin at the case information page, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/The Beatles, so please add this to your watchlist. Formal mediation is governed by the Mediation Committee and its Policy. The Policy, and especially the first two sections of the "Mediation" section, should be read if you have never participated in formal mediation. For a short guide to accepted cases, see the "Accepted requests" section of the Guide to formal mediation. You may also want to familiarise yourself with the internal Procedures of the Committee.

As mediation proceedings begin, be aware that formal mediation can only be successful if every participant approaches discussion in a professional and civil way, and is completely prepared to compromise. Please contact the Committee if anything is unclear.

For the Mediation Committee, User:WGFinley (talk) 15:36, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(Delivered by MediationBot, on behalf of the Mediation Committee.)

FYI

[edit]

My views on this are quite simple. An admin telling a user to "grow the fuck up" is absolutely unacceptable under any circumstances and is ground for immediate desysopping. If we care about having a serious, thoughtful, kind, adult and mature community (which I assume was the sentiment behind that unseemly outburst) then we have to model that behavior ourselves as admins. There's a bit of sad irony in behaving in a juvenile and bullying fashion in an attempt to get others to behave better. Bwilkins, I recommend that you turn in your bit and take a break from being an admin for 6 months and then return if you feel you can handle the job in a more responsible fashion.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 13:49, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 04:24, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Times Style and Usage Guide

[edit]

Thanks for the tip, I have a copy now, and on page 24 it says: Beatles, the: "No need to cap the unless at the start of a sentence." ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 00:57, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Last lap

[edit]

You're turning the last bend, and it's the last lap. The mediators have asked for your comments in the "Your response" section, at the bottom.--andreasegde (talk) 16:16, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The mediators have come up with a new idea, which seems good. It's under "Episode IV: A New Poll", and "Your thoughts".--andreasegde (talk) 10:08, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Could you look at this proposal and make a comment? I know it doesn't allow for arguments for/against, but it is as "simple as possible". Ta, --andreasegde (talk) 17:04, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Out

[edit]

I have been "asked" to leave the mediation, which is what I expected at some point; even a blind man would agree. Apparently, the last straw was that one is not allowed to complain about WP:Wikihounding. Ho-hum... :)--andreasegde (talk) 11:27, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Madison Records (Grey G

[edit]

Surely something must have gone wrong in the moving/redirecting of the above article? /FredrikT (talk) 08:19, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tes it did. The title should be Madison Records (Grey Gull). Steelbeard1 (talk) 10:30, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

CBS Records

[edit]

I moved the Presidents section to CBS records and reworded the opening. The title "President of CBS Records" and "President of CBS Records International" appear to be in use before 2006. I will make a separate section for CBS Records International. I hope this is ok with you. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 17:11, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My reply is in your talk page. Steelbeard1 (talk) 18:17, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

  1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
  2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing.

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

[edit]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you.

It's not there. Steelbeard1 (talk) 23:01, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Flint–Worcester tornado outbreak sequence

[edit]

When I removed the tag, I hadn't realised that the proposed new article actually existed. Therefore, may I suggest that you move the portions that you think ought to be moved. That would be better than leaving the tag for a long time. Op47 (talk) 12:41, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Created Flint Beecher Tornado article. Steelbeard1 (talk) 13:02, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Question about mass edits

[edit]

I am wondering why your changing the names of the record companies - when the refs clearly indicated the former name was the one used at the time? Is there an ongoing talk or consensus to change all the companies to there current name over the ones used at the time that would be historically correct? Moxy (talk) 17:30, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Great reason... but it would be best to keep the right name of the time and just redirect the link to the right page...now we have many article listing companies that were not even formed at the time. How many have been done in this manner...is there alot to go back to and fix?Moxy (talk) 17:40, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
OMG have you changed all those links with the new company names? Do we have 1000 of edits that need to be fixed back to the proper name with the right link?Moxy (talk) 17:48, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
O i see ..some do have CBS left in place with a new link ..I see....Odd we dont have redirects for the 2 different companies with the same name. Well actually its now 3 that use this name but O well.Moxy (talk) 17:55, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

CBS Records

[edit]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

  1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
  2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing.

nowiki tags

[edit]

Please be careful when using nowiki tags. Because you didn't close it correctly, your signature didn't work and the next thread got gobbled up by your misstep. I've corrected the problem on your behalf. Hasteur (talk) 16:55, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tone it down.

[edit]

This sort of behaviour is unacceptable. Please do not repeat it. Remember that dispute resolution works best when you focus on the issues at hand, rather than calling other users names. Thank you. Steven Zhang Help resolve disputes! 07:25, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

Page moves

[edit]

Hello, Steelbeard1. I spent some time this morning cleaning up the mess of the history of CBS Records. Because you have been editing here frequently for the past six years, I assumed that you knew the correct way to rename a page, which is by using the Move function at (usually) the top of the page display. Perhaps I shouldn't make such assumptions, so please let me explain -- when you copy text out of one page (like the old CBS Records (disambiguation) and paste it into another page, you break the continuity of the page history. This is needed for attribution and copyright purposes, and splitting it is undesirable. This has nothing to do with whether the title of the page is correct or not, but rather with the method of changing the title. There is a right way and a wrong way to change the title of a page, and you used the wrong way three straight times, even after being told it was wrong. Please don't ever do that again. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 15:07, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I usually use the move section, but I found that the title I want to move to was locked forcing me to do the copy and paste type of move which we know is wrong. Steelbeard1 (talk) 15:12, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Dispute resolution discussion

[edit]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute in which you may have been involved. Content disputes can hold up article development, therefore we request your participation in the discussion to help find a resolution. The thread is "CBS Records". Thank you! EarwigBot operator / talk 16:34, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've restarted the DRN case. The previous DRN case was derailed too many times by Norton bringing up that whole conduct dispute hubbub over prior consensus. Hopefully the new DRN case will focus on the actual conduct dispute. :)--SGCM (talk) 16:48, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Take the high ground

[edit]

Could we get you to stop taking about Norton's TROUT. Pls stop adding salt to his wound - Would like to remind you that your copy and pasting has caused alot more problems thus far in the topic. So all involved need to look at there past actions and to learn form them....no need to bring theses things up every post. So pls move on...as was indicated to all on the other page - WP:INDCRIT.Moxy (talk) 19:42, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Instead of blaming each-other over an over for the mess we are in. Simply talk about how to fix it. Did he force you to do what you did or the other way around? Is one of you holding a gun to the others head? I think not ... so lets move on and not point out each-others mistakes over and over. Time to man up!Moxy (talk) 19:52, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

[edit]
Hello, Steelbeard1. You have new messages at Czarkoff's talk page.
Message added 01:35, 5 September 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Formal mediation has been requested

[edit]
The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "CBS Records". As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. Mediation is a voluntary process which resolves a dispute over article content by facilitation, consensus-building, and compromise among the involved editors. After reviewing the request page, the formal mediation policy, and the guide to formal mediation, please indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Because requests must be responded to by the Mediation Committee within seven days, please respond to the request by 12 September 2012.

Discussion relating to the mediation request is welcome at the case talk page. Thank you.
Message delivered by MediationBot (talk) on behalf of the Mediation Committee. 13:37, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

CBS News

[edit]

I think I figured out why Norton began editing the article on the unrelated 2006 CBS Records, instead of creating an article on the pre-Sony CBS Records and requesting a move to the CBS Records page (which is what he should have done and what other editors advised him to do). Apparently, he was indefinitely topic banned from creating new articles. This may explain why he began inappropriately editing the page on the 2006 company, starting this whole mess. I hope you haven't been too exhausted by this dispute, but this might be a hint at why it began in the first place.--SGCM (talk) 23:35, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for sharing the info. Should that be a factor in the discussion we are having right now? Steelbeard1 (talk) 00:50, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've already mentioned it in the MedCom discussion, as part of the history of the dispute. I think it's the reason why he started editing the 2006 CBS article (although I can't be certain). He wasn't allowed to create a new article on the pre-Sony CBS Records, so instead he started changing the 2006 one.--SGCM (talk) 00:58, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

[edit]
Hello, Steelbeard1. You have new messages at Czarkoff's talk page.
Message added 17:24, 6 September 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

We were talking ... about trademarks

[edit]

I thought you might find this interesting:

LAUREN LEE GAUCK, v. HOOMAN KARAMIAN et al, p. 10 (“... The TPRPA “does not prohibit all unauthorized uses of another's name or likeness.” Apple Corps., 843 F. Supp. at 347.(emphasis in original). Rather, the statute is “narrowly drawn,” id., “proscribing only the unauthorized use of another’s name or likeness in advertising.” Id. at 347 n.2. The limited Case scope of uses prohibited by the statute was explained in Apple Corps. In a Beatles look-alike performance case, the court granted the plaintiff’s motion for partial summary judgment, finding that, while the defendants’ advertisements for their performances did violate the TPRPA, the performances themselves did not. Id. at 347-49. Even though the defendants engaged in the performances as a commercial endeavor, the court reasoned that defendants’ use of the Beatles’ personas during the performances and the Beatles logo on the group’s bass drum did not violate the TPRPA because the statute only forbids use of name or likeness for the purpose of “advertising” or “soliciting” purchases of goods or services. Id. ...”). ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 02:56, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Mi-Sex, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Columbia (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:31, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.Moxy (talk) 18:14, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Re: CBS Records

[edit]

No, I don't believe so. Editors are not required to participate in mediation. Have you considered attempting an RfC?--SGCM (talk) 01:57, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You'll need to summarise the dispute in the RfC. The RfC also needs its own heading.--SGCM (talk) 02:01, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Beatles poll

[edit]

Hello Steelbeard1; this message is to inform you that there is currently a public poll to determine whether to capitalize the definite article ("the") when mentioning the band "THE BEATLES" mid-sentence. As you've previously participated either here, here, or here, your input would be appreciated. Thank you for your time. Jburlinson (talk) 20:52, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

[edit]
Hello, Steelbeard1. You have new messages at Feezo's talk page.
Message added 09:05, 20 September 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

— Mr. Stradivarius (have a chat) 09:05, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Request for mediation rejected

[edit]
The request for formal mediation concerning CBS Records, to which you were listed as a party, has been declined. To read an explanation by the Mediation Committee for the rejection of this request, see the mediation request page, which will be deleted by an administrator after a reasonable time. Please direct questions relating to this request to the Chairman of the Committee, or to the mailing list. For more information on forms of dispute resolution, other than formal mediation, that are available, see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution.

For the Mediation Committee, AGK [•] 11:34, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(Delivered by MediationBot, on behalf of the Mediation Committee.)

Flint–Worcester tornado outbreak sequence

[edit]

You added a split tag to this article 3 months ago. Do you intend to do anything about it? Op47 (talk) 22:36, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Already done with the creation of the 1953 Flint – Beecher tornado article. ````
Thankyou for clearing up the problem, may I remind you to remove tags when you clear up a problem. regards Op47 (talk) 22:12, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free media (File:Ralcorplogo.jpg)

[edit]

Thanks for uploading File:Ralcorplogo.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. 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 all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 04:34, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion about Newyorkbrad's closure of Beatles RfC

[edit]

Hello. This is to let you know that there is currently a discussion at User talk:Mr. Stradivarius#RfC closure questions about Newyorkbrad's closure of the RfC about whether to use upper-case "The" or lowercase "the" in mid-sentence in articles about (t/T)he Beatles. You are receiving this message because you were involved in the mediation case that led up to the RfC. Some editors have expressed dissatisfaction with the caveat in Newyorkbrad's close that "[t]he suggestion that editors should try to structure sentences to avoid unnecessary mid-sentence use of "the Beatles" remains a valid one", and the discussion is focused on how that caveat is affecting the editing decisions in Beatles-related articles. There is also the opportunity to discuss other aspects of the close should the need arise. Please see the points at the top of the discussion thread and leave a comment if you think it is appropriate. Best regards — Mr. Stradivarius (have a chat) 13:40, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Violating Beatles RfC

[edit]

Please note that this type of edit is simply not allowed--it's somewhere between edit warring and disruptive editing. The RfC was clearly closed to state that the "t" in "the Beatles" must be lowercase. I see that you do not agree with that; however, the closure is final until such point as consensus changes; you cannot unilaterally override that consensus. If you continue in that behavior, you will be blocked from editing. You have to live with the fact that consensus does not always go your way on Wikipedia--that's the nature of a collaborative project. Qwyrxian (talk) 12:23, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Beatlescoll2.jpg listed for deletion

[edit]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Beatlescoll2.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files 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. MASEM (t) 17:11, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Don't be silly

[edit]

(deleted posting by a person I do not want to have contact with) Steelbeard1 (talk) 15:36, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your comment at my talk

[edit]

Hi Steelbeard - about your question here, the thread at my talk isn't supposed to be about user conduct, so I think Feezo was right to remove the comment. It's not that we can't have that discussion elsewhere, but both Feezo and I want to keep the thread on-topic. If you're concerned about it, perhaps you could ask him on his talk page? Best — Mr. Stradivarius (have a chat) 12:41, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just to let you know that I removed the latest comment of yours at my talk page thread, for the same reasons as above. It's not that we can't talk about user conduct, but I'd like to keep that thread focused on Brad's close. If you want to talk about the removal, then we can do it here or at Feezo's talk page if you like. — Mr. Stradivarius (have a chat) 08:23, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, friend

[edit]

I have written a proposed remedy to the Richard Arthur Norton affair, to be taken to AN/I in the event that ArbCom defers the case. Since the original thread is hatted, the proposal has been made on his talk page (User_talk:Richard_Arthur_Norton_(1958-_)). As you were a participant in the original thread, I would very much appreciate your comments as to whether the proposed remedy satisfies your concerns. Thanks, —Tim /// Carrite (talk) 23:27, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) arbitration case opened

[edit]

An arbitration case in which you commented has been opened, and is located at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ). Evidence that you wish the Arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence sub-page, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Richard Arthur Norton (1958- )/Evidence. Please add your evidence by February 23, 2013, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can contribute to the case workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Richard Arthur Norton (1958- )/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, — ΛΧΣ21 03:16, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) case evidence phase closing

[edit]

This is a reminder to all parties as well as to those who have submitted evidence, that the evidence phase of this case closes at 00:00 UTC on 23 February 2013, which is in just over seven hours from now. For the Arbitration Committee --Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 16:48, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Funai, strange link/reference

[edit]

On 31 January 2013 (17:13), you added a statement to the Funai page about Funai acquiring "the rest of Philips consumer electronics operations" in 2013. The supporting reference/link seems quite unrelated to this, though - perhaps you copied the wrong link? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.226.32.203 (talk) 22:31, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed link. Steelbeard1 (talk) 22:58, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free media (File:WOAP logo 2012.jpg)

[edit]

Thanks for uploading File:WOAP logo 2012.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. 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 all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 05:01, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

[edit]
Hello, Steelbeard1. You have new messages at Christian75's talk page.
Message added 22:45, 14 March 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Christian75 (talk) 22:45, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

re: MGM Music

[edit]

re: "Your edit to the MGM Music article was reverted because it contains false info. A citation was added from [3] to back up the current edit."

My edit reverted an edit which was adding unsourced information. That's a poor reason to leave a message on my talk page about adding "false info". ChakaKongtalk 15:33, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The edit inserted info which was clearly incorrect which is why it was reverted with citation added. Steelbeard1 (talk) 17:27, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It was NOT information I added to the article. As I said, I was merely following guidelines by reverting an unsourced addition. If it was "clearly incorrect" it should have been corrected with a proper citation to back it up. It wasn't and that has nothing to do with me. ChakaKongtalk 17:33, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
User talk:Superastig made the error and he has been warned about making false edits time and time again. The proper thing to do is to insert a [citation needed] tag. Steelbeard1 (talk) 17:38, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's absolutely ridiculous that you left a warning on my talk page for following the guidelines. Don't you see that? I am under no obligation to add a [citation needed] tag; that is merely a suggestion and not "the proper thing to do". ChakaKongtalk 17:48, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It is YOUR responsibility to make sure the edit you make is correct and that you DO NOT revert to a false edit. Steelbeard1 (talk) 17:51, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am watching ChakaKong's edits and I will call out any faulty edits that editor makes, despite the dumb disclaimer he put on the top of his talk page. Steelbeard1 (talk) 20:33, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Wikistalking / threats

[edit]

You have now officially crossed the line in your harassment and have openly threatened to commit Wikihounding against me: [6]. I'll now take the necessary action and have an admin look into your behaviour today. Sorry it had to come to this but you left me no choice. ChakaKongtalk 20:43, 26 April 2013 (UTC) ChakaKong has been reported. I did NOT make threats or harrassed him, what he did was self-inflicted due to his erroneous editing which I called out and he refused to acknowledge or apologize for. Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Steelbeard1 (talk) 22:01, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I sincerely hope this is the final communication I have with you and that you come to your senses and cease your harassment. The Incident Report which you inexplicably filed against me ("totally silly complaint" I believe was the terminology they used) was immediately closed as "a waste of time". I urge you to not follow through on your threats to wikistalk me. You don't seem to have a history of unusual behaviour here, so it would be a shame for you to get yourself blocked. Take care. ChakaKongtalk 14:54, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Steelbeard1, your behavior is indeed considered wikihounding. This is disruptive, and you need to stop. If you don't, further consequences may be considered. —GFOLEY FOUR!— 16:38, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What would you do if you come across an edit which is glaringly incorrect???? Steelbeard1 (talk) 10:45, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free media (File:New Vikings Stadium.jpg)

[edit]

Thanks for uploading File:New Vikings Stadium.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. 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 all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 04:16, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You have been reported for Wikihounding

[edit]

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ChakaKong (talk • contribs) 13:21, 21 May 2013‎ (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

[edit]
Hello, Steelbeard1. You have new messages at TheSyndromeOfaDown's talk page.
Message added 19:51, 24 May 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

WorldTraveller101(Trouble?/My Work) 19:51, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies

[edit]

Sorry, I see I linked to the article page before, not the talk page. The discussion is at Talk:Blood libel#Blood libel is a "false" accusation. I contacted you because you've commented on this issue in the past. Jayjg (talk) 19:23, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free media (File:7uplogopepsi.png)

[edit]

Thanks for uploading File:7uplogopepsi.png. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. 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 all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 04:41, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Google book tool

[edit]

References

  1. ^ Nielsen Business Media, Inc. (10 June 1957). Billboard. Nielsen Business Media, Inc. p. 18. ISSN 0006-2510. Retrieved 5 June 2013. {{cite book}}: |author= has generic name (help)


Warner Classics and EMI Classics

[edit]

Thanks for your message. WEA's classical division is called Warner Classics but its labels are Erato Records and Teldec Records. Nothing has ever been released in that fashion. WEA has been so ignorant over this division during the last decade that the wording here over the absorption over EMI Classics is ambiguous. I worked in the industry for many years in the retail sector, so I have first-hand experience with this. You should also note that ReJoyce, the first release under the new regime, features the Erato logo in EMI red. Thanks very much. Peace. —MuzikJunky (talk) 01:17, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sent reply to MuzikJunky proving he is wrong. Joyce DiDonato was a Virgin Classics artist before the Warner Music takeover to give one example and gave too many examples from the EMI Classics web site of upcoming releases bearing the blue Warner Classics logo. Steelbeard1 (talk) 03:10, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Trailerparkboysmoviesoundtrack.jpg listed for deletion

[edit]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Trailerparkboysmoviesoundtrack.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 20:48, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I-94 in Mi

[edit]

I'm glad you're enthusiastic about editing this article, however I placed the {{inuse}} template at the top of it so that I could complete my revisions without edit conflicts. The more you edit while I'm attempting to expand, update and re-cite the history of this freeway, the longer it takes me to complete my work because of conflicts. Sometimes the multiple searches with newspaperarchive.com and news.google.com take lots of computer resources, so I may have to save in the middle of longer edits of the history to avoid losing my work. I will remove the template from the top of the article when I complete my revisions. Imzadi 1979 → 17:43, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free media (File:Citizensrepublic.jpg)

[edit]

Thanks for uploading File:Citizensrepublic.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. 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 all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Werieth (talk) 07:33, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Carl Levin

[edit]

Levin is in Category:Detroit City Council members. This is a sub-cat of Category:People from Detroit, Michigan. In general people are only supposed to be in the most specific category in a tree that applies to them, not in both a category and its parent.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:50, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

M.I.R.S. Citations (subscription firewall discussion)

[edit]

Sir, please allow me to first open with how much I appreciate your vigilance and diligence. I'm a bit new at this, and am grateful for the seasoned veterans who provide oversight and keep content accurate. That said, regarding our discussion on the United States Senate election in Michigan, 2014, specifically the use of media citations requiring a subscription, I've read the discussion on the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard. If I read the discussion correctly, there is "nothing wrong with using a subscription source" as a reference (apparently, Wikipedia has a policy on this), and this isn't a violation in and of itself. Would you please be so kind as to go to the elections discussion page in question and restore what you've undone? Kevinrexheine (talk) 03:39, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sony/ATV Music Publishing

[edit]

Sorry about mis-reverting your recent edit--my coffee hadn't quite kicked in, and I thought your fix was an edit-war by 66.26.78.8. I should've just cleaned up the India/US thing. Have a great day! Pstoller (talk) 19:55, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Guy edit warring on Survivor

[edit]

Hi, there. I wouldn't necessarily call him a "non-wikipedian" just because he edits as an IP. But yeah, it does seem that he doesn't understand the policy about edit warring. Survivorfan1995 (talk) 18:45, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

slow mo edit war.

[edit]

Have you sought resolution on the article talk page? reverting each other's edits will get you nowhere. Dlohcierekim 01:21, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I started a discussion. When I tried to talk to the other editor, he blanked his talk page.
And tagged it as an attack page. Not sure what 3rd opinion options y'all have sought. I'd stay away from their talkpage though. Good luck Dlohcierekim 01:31, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I am sending messages to other editors of the article. Steelbeard1 (talk) 01:34, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
He reverted again. Can you revert back? Steelbeard1 (talk) 01:44, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

December 2013

[edit]
Stop icon

Your recent editing history at Michigan gubernatorial election, 2014 shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. --2602:304:B0FD:19C0:90AA:941F:B0AF:76CF (talk) 02:02, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The editor who wrote the above has been reported. Steelbeard1 (talk) 02:18, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Oh, I see! My apologies, then. Atomicbeachball (talk) 23:11, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Earliest I-69 alignment in Michigan

[edit]

I have to challenge your reverting of my edit which shows, with the citation at [7] that the earliest portion of the future I-69 freeway opened in 1959 in Genesee County, Michigan. Steelbeard1 (talk) 21:53, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A few points:
  1. Michigan Highways cannot be used as a source in articles. The site is self-published by Chris Bessert, who is a cartographer by trade not a historian. Because of that, no noticeboard has said that any of the exceptions at WP:SPS apply. Relying on it is ground to have the article delisted as a Good Article and jeopardizes the A-Class status for which it is currently being reviewed. If you look through all of the Featured Articles and the rest of the Good Articles on Michigan highways you will see that none of them use the website for more than an external link, period.
  2. When adding sources to an article, it is generally a good idea to make them match the established citation style already present. This goes especially for articles that are GAs or FAs. No matter what though, you never want to add bare URLs as citations per WP:Linkrot. Even if the website is stable (and Michigan Highways is slowly being overhauled to split every highway to a separate page which is slowly breaking the links), our readers should at a minimum get author, date, and title information so they can evaluate the reliability of the cited sources.
  3. An article lead does not need citations if the information present is cited below in the body of the article. This rule does not apply to things like direct quotations which always have to be cited.
  4. The information you added does not match the information in the body of the article. You're relying on Bessert to say that the freeway near Lennon opened in the 1950s when the cited information in the body of the article says "by the middle of 1960".
In short, your addition can't stand as it was made. Imzadi 1979 → 21:57, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Also, you may want to set up archiving on your talk page given the length which means it hard for others to load your page on mobile or other devices. Imzadi 1979 → 22:24, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

February 2014

[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Comcast may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • television]], [[broadband internet]], [[Comcast Digital Voice|digital voice]]), [[home networking]])</sub><br />'''[[Comcast Business]]''' <br />[[NBCUniversal]]<br />[[Comcast-Spectacor]]<br />[[

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 18:33, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Schick Razors

[edit]

The Schick Dry Shaver, Inc company, and the poster promoting the Schick Dry Razor has no connection to the Magazine Repeating Razor Co or it's subsequent incarnation as the Schick Safety Razor Co., Division of Eversharp. You want to mention a completely separate company, create an article on the Schick Dry Shaver, Inc company or add the detail on Jacob Schick page, do not pollute an article on a totally different company and product. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.159.234.53 (talk) 01:14, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

81.159.234.53 (talk) 01:19, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Soliciting comment...

[edit]

Hi! Would you care to review or comment at my FA nomination for the article Marquee Moon, an article about a rock music album? Information on reviewing an FA nomination's criteria is available at WP:FACR. If not, feel free to ignore this message. Cheers! Dan56 (talk) 07:40, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Kapp records logo 1960s.jpg

[edit]
⚠
⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Kapp records logo 1960s.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 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).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 22:16, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Survivor Cagayan Braun Brains Beauty logo.jpg

[edit]
⚠
⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Survivor Cagayan Braun Brains Beauty 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 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).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 23:10, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File source problem with File:Bluenoterecords.jpg

[edit]

Thank you for uploading File:Bluenoterecords.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 page from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of the website's terms of use of its content. If the original copyright holder is a party unaffiliated with the website, that author should also be credited. Please add this information by editing the image description page.

If the necessary information is not added within the next days, the image will be deleted. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.

Please refer to the image use policy to learn what images you can or cannot upload on Wikipedia. Please also check any other files you have uploaded to make sure they are correctly tagged. Here is a list of your uploads. 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) 00:17, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

engaging in disruptive editing, edit warring, playing supervisor, acting without good faith and POV edits on America: Imagine the World Without Her film article

[edit]

Information icon This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Yabbadabbadootucker (talk) 08:36, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently he doesn't see his own militant editing -- or the sketchy use of CinemaScore to imply more than what CinemaScore really means -- as biased. I admit my initial edit was a bit clumsy, but I think I've come up with something more neutral. Krychek (talk) 15:08, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Paul Anka, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page ABC. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:34, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Bluenoterecords.jpg

[edit]
⚠
⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Bluenoterecords.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 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).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 13:46, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Demoscene compo

[edit]

The article Demoscene compo has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

A completely unreferenced article since 2009.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Λeternus (talk) 09:22, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:DorothyShayOnJackBennyShow.jpg

[edit]
⚠
⚠

Thanks for uploading File:DorothyShayOnJackBennyShow.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 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).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 10:16, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Elektrabox.jpg

[edit]
⚠
⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Elektrabox.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 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).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 17:45, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Atlanticrecordslogo.jpg listed for deletion

[edit]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Atlanticrecordslogo.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Cloudbound (talk) 19:45, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Purinamillslogo.jpg

[edit]
⚠
⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Purinamillslogo.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 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).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Cloudbound (talk) 20:17, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ambassador Bridge

[edit]

In this edit to Ambassador Bridge you claim "a twin span adjacent to the Ambassador Bridge, by itself, does not address Canadian concerns about traffic on Huron Church Road in Windsor, although a majority of the stop lights commonly cited will be removed by the planned expansion of the 401." to be a "misleading sentence" and add "...which would connect to the downriver NITC bridge."

I'm no Matty Moroun fan, but completion of the Windsor-Essex Parkway in 2015 would reduce the number of stoplights even if one exits the 401 to the old bridge on Ontario Highway 3 because the trucks must currently get off the 401 at what will be exit 11 and take Huron Church Road. Once the WEP (under whatever name) opens, they'll get off at exit 3, the last exit before the E.C. Row Expressway (Ontario Highway 2) concurrency. That saves a few lights, even if it's a poor substitute for a bridge to Delray which would make all the lights go away. What's in the article is therefore technically true - and the crossing will likely operate in exactly that configuration between the 2015 WEP completion and the 2020 NITC bridge opening at the rate things are going. K7L (talk) 18:33, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly unfree File:Outfront Billboards Flint MI.jpg

[edit]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Outfront Billboards Flint MI.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you object to the listing for any reason. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 17:00, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:MercuryRecordsLogo.gif

[edit]
⚠
⚠

Thanks for uploading File:MercuryRecordsLogo.gif. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently 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).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 00:20, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:New Dot Records logo introduced in 2014.jpg

[edit]
⚠
⚠

Thanks for uploading File:New Dot Records logo introduced in 2014.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 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).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 23:06, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A request for Arbitration has been made for America: Imagine a World Without her

[edit]

The request can be found here: http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case Casprings (talk) 17:26, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Steelbeard1, this is just a courtesy note to let you know that this case has been declined. On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Lankiveil (speak to me) 06:55, 7 February 2015 (UTC).[reply]

Buddah Records

[edit]

First of all, "other stuff exists" means that just because an article has or does something a certain way, that another article should also follow that convention. I also looked at the Dot Records article, which clearly indicates it was a revival (with the original label owner, no less), and it additionally has the same name as the old label. So there is no basis for comparison here.

The Buddah article does not indicate that Sony revived the label. It states, in point of fact, that a producer with Sony decided to form his own imprint under Sony called Flying Buddha. It has a similar name to a defunct label Sony used to have, but you are the only person making that connection. There are no articles about the label that say anything about the two being related, not even in direct quotes from Salaam Remi (the founder and producer) himself. Do you have a verified source that specifically states that Flying Buddha is a revival of Buddah?

The burden of proof is on the person who wishes to add information (see the very first part of WP:V), and that is what the issue is here. Another editor has also reverted your edit for basically the same reason. MSJapan (talk) 21:33, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Evolution Records

[edit]

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Evolution Records requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about an organization or company, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. The Dissident Aggressor 22:14, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination has been contested in Talk:Evolution Records. Steelbeard1 (talk) 01:33, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:OutfrontMediaLogo.jpg

[edit]
⚠
⚠

Thanks for uploading File:OutfrontMediaLogo.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 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).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Cloudbound (talk) 22:06, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

[edit]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:37, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:WFDF logo as of 2015.png

[edit]
⚠
⚠

Thanks for uploading File:WFDF logo as of 2015.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 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).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 03:55, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Rccolainternationallogo.jpg

[edit]
⚠
⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Rccolainternationallogo.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 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).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:49, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Fantasyrec.jpg

[edit]
⚠
⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Fantasyrec.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 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).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:23, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited The Judy Garland Show, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page George Jessel. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 15:24, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ShortSummary entries on Schitt's Creek

[edit]

According to the instructions on template:episode list:

Episode summaries must not be copied from other sources, as this violates WP:COPYRIGHT.

Not only can we not copy the zap descriptions, but these descriptions from zap are verbatim what I am reading on my TV guide, so zap copied them from the producers without permission as well.

I kept what you typed in a quote= entry for the template:cite web entries (the references were useful for the RTitle= fields) for comparison purposes. Although we cannot directly duplicate these summaries, it is useful to cite them in the references to assure that replacement summaries are not duplicates of them.

Did up some replacement summaries I came up with to fill the void, feel free to add. We need to describe the episodes in our own words not duplicate existing summaries. 184.145.18.50 (talk) 04:52, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hudson Bay Blanket Capote

[edit]

Would it be possible to get the pattern or some help on making a capote like the one you made? I found some general guides, but the love the design you made. Haven't seen one like that with the shoulder flaps. Cuelco (talk) 16:33, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

My capote was made by Northwest Traders and is of the Nor'Wester style. The link is at [8]. Steelbeard1 (talk) 17:13, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:Okehlogo.jpg listed for discussion

[edit]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Okehlogo.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. George Ho (talk) 06:24, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Grprecords.jpg

[edit]
⚠
⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Grprecords.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 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).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:38, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:Vervelogo.jpg listed for discussion

[edit]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Vervelogo.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 08:26, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

License tagging for File:Masterworks Broadway logo.jpg

[edit]

Thanks for uploading File:Masterworks Broadway logo.jpg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information.

To add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia. For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 19:05, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:HaloBurgerLogo2011.jpg

[edit]
⚠
⚠

Thanks for uploading File:HaloBurgerLogo2011.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 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).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 02:41, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:1960sBellRecordsLogo.jpg

[edit]
⚠
⚠

Thanks for uploading File:1960sBellRecordsLogo.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 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).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. George Ho (talk) 18:47, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

[edit]

Hello, Steelbeard1. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Beatles in 1966

[edit]

Hi Steelbeard1. I'm not sure if you're still watching this article, which you created in 2009, and whether you saw my recent message on the talk page. Just wanted to let you know that a couple of us are proposing that it be deleted in favour of a new article dedicated to the first leg of the Beatles' 1966 world tour. Please feel free to join in the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject The Beatles#1966 World? Tour. Cheers, JG66 (talk) 01:16, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I posted my comment in the talk page. I stopped working on articles related to The Beatles several years ago. So feel free to do what is needed. Steelbeard1 (talk) 01:29, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hi again, Steelbeard1. I've never had a hand in deleting an article before, but WP:PROD advocates leaving the notification template on the creator's talk page (which makes sense of course). Anyway, forgive the intrusion below. Cheers, JG66 (talk) 03:12, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of The Beatles in 1966

[edit]

The article The Beatles in 1966 has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Overlap of content with several Beatles album, tour and topical articles, and inconsistency with regard to a single year in the Beatles' history being afforded a separate article. (Proposal follows related discussion at the Beatles project talk page.)

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. JG66 (talk) 03:09, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Bfs lp corr.JPG

[edit]
⚠
⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Bfs lp corr.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 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).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:09, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Numbered lists

[edit]

Please format track listings or any other numbered list beginning with a pound sign, or number sign (#). I fixed it all on The Authorized Bang Collection. Also the use of the br tag is not needed when you make a numbered list this way. Thanks. This is per the album style guide: WP:MOSALBUM. --Jennica✿ / talk 10:20, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Emicolumbiamagicnotes.jpg

[edit]
⚠
⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Emicolumbiamagicnotes.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 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).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:21, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Hbclabel2002.JPG

[edit]
⚠
⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Hbclabel2002.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 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).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:35, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:WOAP logo 2015.jpg

[edit]
⚠
⚠

Thanks for uploading File:WOAP logo 2015.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 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).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:49, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:MonumentRecordsLogo.jpg

[edit]
⚠
⚠

Thanks for uploading File:MonumentRecordsLogo.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 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).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:21, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kid Rock

[edit]

Hi I live in MI and YES Kid Rock told everyone at his concert the other night he is running for US Senate!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.36.68.29 (talk) 18:20, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unless he officially files, he had teased us before, he is NOT a candidate. Steelbeard1 (talk) 20:03, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Concordmusicgroup.jpg

[edit]
⚠
⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Concordmusicgroup.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 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).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:28, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Schitt's Creek

[edit]

I'm certainly not going to start an edit war over it. Indeed plot descriptions should be kept brief, and that, in itself, could be a valid argument to have reverted my edit in the Schitt's Creek article. However, the fact that Johnny Rose's business had been in bad financial shape for years was a significant plot point, and the embezzling by his business manager was simply the last nail in the coffin. Indeed, it was stated clearly that the business manager ran off with the last of the cash, with the company in extreme debt, to save his own financial ass, at the cost of Johnny's. This is why all their possessions were seized - to repay many years of deep debt. You may need to re-watch the episode.

There was a thread that ran through the entire episode that all the Rose's tended to live in a perpetual state of denial of all their problems. Johnny lived in a state of denial that his business was failing. Moira lived in a state of denial that her career was washed up, etc. This was all part of introducing the audience to the flawed personalities of the Rose's. Fish Man (talk) 14:54, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

[edit]

Hello, Steelbeard1. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Post logo new.png

[edit]
⚠
⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Post logo new.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 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).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:29, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Cleveland Indians cap insignia.gif

[edit]
⚠
⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Cleveland Indians cap insignia.gif. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently 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).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:27, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Michigan's 13th

[edit]

Sherry Gay-Dagnogo declared but never turned in her petitions. She announced on her Facebook page, I believe, that she was running for re-election to her state house seat. Not sure where you'd put her. Perhaps as "did not quality" since she never bothered turning in her petitions. In any case, she's not listed on the SoS list of candidates for that race (http://miboecfr.nictusa.com/election/candlist/2018PRI_CANDLIST.html). --Criticalthinker (talk) 10:16, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Updated list accordingly. I missed that. Steelbeard1 (talk) 10:30, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Final20thcenturyfoxlogo.jpg

[edit]
⚠
⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Final20thcenturyfoxlogo.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 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).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 02:27, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Woolrich logo.gif

[edit]
⚠
⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Woolrich logo.gif. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently 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).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 04:27, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

[edit]

Hello, Steelbeard1. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of File:Ua liberty logo.jpg

[edit]
Notice

The file File:Ua liberty logo.jpg has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Unused logo with no article used, it's also can't move to commons because of an unused logo will be deleted as of out of project scope.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated files}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Willy1018 (talk) 14:00, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of File:WOAP logo introduced in 2013.jpg

[edit]
Notice

The file File:WOAP logo introduced in 2013.jpg has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Unused logo with no article used, it's also can't move to commons because of an unused logo will be deleted as of out of project scope.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated files}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Willy1018 (talk) 14:09, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Help lobby to save separate articles for Beatle parents

[edit]

Hello,

There is an all-out assault to remove individual Wikipedia articles devoted to the parents of Paul McCartney and John Lennon. Paul McCartney's parents — at least there's a discussion in progress about possibly keeping it — have an article that's targeted for expunction, via a redirect to a merging into their son's article, while the Alfred Lennon article has already been merged to the John Lennon article. I attempted to save the Alfred Lennon article, but there are only so many reverts I can do before I get reprimanded by the Wikipedia authorities. The Alfred Lennon article was merged, supposedly, based on poor sourcing, although that article and the Jim and Mary McCartney article are both rated as "GA" or good Wikipedia articles. Since, you're a Beatles fan (as am I), it would be great to have you join in on the discussion by clicking on the http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Talk:Jim_and_Mary_McCartney#Merge_discussion link. You can see that I'm being triple-teamed by other editors on the talk page. I can't assume your position on the matter, but if you could articulate your stance, it would be neat. Engines On (talk) 07:44, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Mrmikesmondovideo.jpg

[edit]
⚠
⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Mrmikesmondovideo.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 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).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 02:31, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Leaving on a jet plane 45.jpg

[edit]
⚠
⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Leaving on a jet plane 45.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 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).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 02:34, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed non-free use rationale for File:The classic Raleigh Cycle Company emblem.jpg

[edit]

Thank you for uploading File:The classic Raleigh Cycle Company emblem.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this file on Wikipedia may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the file description page and adding or clarifying the reason why the file qualifies under this policy. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your file is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a non-free use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for files used under the non-free content policy require both a copyright tag and a non-free use rationale.

If it is determined that the file does not qualify under the non-free content policy, it might be deleted by an administrator seven days after the file was tagged in accordance with section F7 of the criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.

This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 01:00, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Community Insights Survey

[edit]

Share your experience in this survey

Hi Steelbeard1,

The Wikimedia Foundation is asking for your feedback in a survey about your experience with Wikipedia and Wikimedia. The purpose of this survey is to learn how well the Foundation is supporting your work on wiki and how we can change or improve things in the future. The opinions you share will directly affect the current and future work of the Wikimedia Foundation.

Please take 15 to 25 minutes to give your feedback through this survey. It is available in various languages.

This survey is hosted by a third-party and governed by this privacy statement (in English).

Find more information about this project. Email us if you have any questions, or if you don't want to receive future messages about taking this survey.

Sincerely,

RMaung (WMF) 16:29, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Reminder: Community Insights Survey

[edit]

Share your experience in this survey

Hi Steelbeard1,

A couple of weeks ago, we invited you to take the Community Insights Survey. It is the Wikimedia Foundation’s annual survey of our global communities. We want to learn how well we support your work on wiki. We are 10% towards our goal for participation. If you have not already taken the survey, you can help us reach our goal! Your voice matters to us.

Please take 15 to 25 minutes to give your feedback through this survey. It is available in various languages.

This survey is hosted by a third-party and governed by this privacy statement (in English).

Find more information about this project. Email us if you have any questions, or if you don't want to receive future messages about taking this survey.

Sincerely,

RMaung (WMF) 15:37, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Popeye needs you

[edit]

Help Popeye the Sailor: The 1940s, Volume 3 for the existency on Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 36.77.94.100 (talk) 03:28, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Waiting to receive the DVD first. Steelbeard1 (talk) 11:56, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Got it and updated article. Steelbeard1 (talk) 20:44, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Somebody deleted the image on the infobox of Popeye the Sailor: The 1940s, Volume 3 while the article was a draft. Please ask the eraser of this image to undo the deletion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.165.192.51 (talk) 16:11, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Reminder: Community Insights Survey

[edit]

Share your experience in this survey

Hi Steelbeard1,

There are only a few weeks left to take the Community Insights Survey! We are 30% towards our goal for participation. If you have not already taken the survey, you can help us reach our goal! With this poll, the Wikimedia Foundation gathers feedback on how well we support your work on wiki. It only takes 15-25 minutes to complete, and it has a direct impact on the support we provide.

Please take 15 to 25 minutes to give your feedback through this survey. It is available in various languages.

This survey is hosted by a third-party and governed by this privacy statement (in English).

Find more information about this project. Email us if you have any questions, or if you don't want to receive future messages about taking this survey.

Sincerely,

RMaung (WMF) 20:38, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

[edit]
Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:05, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Finalmgmrecordslogo.jpg

[edit]
⚠
⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Finalmgmrecordslogo.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 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).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:30, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Logo for Decca Gold Records.jpg

[edit]
⚠
⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Logo for Decca Gold Records.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 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).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 19:03, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Personal attacks

[edit]

Information icon Hello, I'm Smith0124. I noticed that you made a comment on the page 2020 United States Senate election in Michigan that didn't seem very civil, so it has been removed. Wikipedia is built on collaboration, so it's one of our core principles to interact with one another in a polite and respectful manner. If you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you.

It was not a personal attack. You neglected to read the article before making a false edit. Steelbeard1 (talk) 18:47, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Let's not be angry and defensive. Before when I looked at it the date was April 21st because it wasn't extended until recently. So I waited until April 22nd to make the edit. People make mistakes. Doesn't warrant you chasing after me and accusing me like you are. Smith0124 (talk) 18:49, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I posted on the talk page of the 2020 U.S. Senate election article asking other editors to take a look at your actions. Steelbeard1 (talk) 18:52, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes and I took it down because you aren't being productive by just accusing me of trying to spread false information, which you are when you call it a false edit. And seeing how you try and take charge of the page in the talk page by essentially posting rules, I assume this isn't the first time. Instead of posting a thing on the talk page about how you're going to take down all false edits, why not just explain that the deadline was extended? It's not always easy to remember that stuff and it was a recent edit. You seem to just assume the worst of people. Smith0124 (talk) 18:55, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Other editors' talk pages

[edit]

Per WP:OWNTALK, an editor is free to remove comments from their own talk page. As explained in the guideline, Although archiving is preferred, users may freely remove comments from their own talk pages. Users may also remove some content in archiving. The removal of a warning is taken as evidence that the warning has been read by the user. You should not revert edits that other editors make to their talk pages. Schazjmd (talk) 19:01, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:VeryBestoftheDoors2007.jpg

[edit]
⚠
⚠

Thanks for uploading File:VeryBestoftheDoors2007.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 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).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:57, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

[edit]
Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:21, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited DTV America, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Laff. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 06:10, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited That Means a Lot, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Ron Richards.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:29, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:PopeyeVol1DVD.jpg

[edit]
⚠
⚠

Thanks for uploading File:PopeyeVol1DVD.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 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).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:58, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:PopeyeVol2DVD.jpg

[edit]
⚠
⚠

Thanks for uploading File:PopeyeVol2DVD.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 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).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:59, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Original Standard Oil of Indiana "torch & oval" logo used 1947–1961.jpg

[edit]
⚠
⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Original Standard Oil of Indiana "torch & oval" logo used 1947–1961.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 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).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 12:57, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Imperial records 2006.jpg

[edit]
⚠
⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Imperial records 2006.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 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).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:52, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:Original Standard Oil of Indiana "torch & oval" logo used 1947–1961.jpg listed for discussion

[edit]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Original Standard Oil of Indiana "torch & oval" logo used 1947–1961.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 20:18, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Golliwogs precreedence.jpg

[edit]
⚠
⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Golliwogs precreedence.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 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).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:01, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Warner Classics logo.jpg

[edit]
⚠
⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Warner Classics 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 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).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:06, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Asylum Records logo 2017.jpg

[edit]
⚠
⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Asylum Records logo 2017.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 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).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:08, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Delta College Public Media PBS logo.jpeg

[edit]
⚠
⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Delta College Public Media PBS logo.jpeg. 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 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).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:50, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Delta College Public Radio NPR logo.jpg

[edit]
⚠
⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Delta College Public Radio NPR 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 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).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:27, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

[edit]
Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:05, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:1970sBellRecordsLogo.jpg listed for discussion

[edit]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:1970sBellRecordsLogo.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you.

This bot DID NOT nominate any of your contributions for deletion; please refer to the history of each individual page for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 10:00, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of File:Survivor Ghost Island logo.jpeg

[edit]
Notice

The file File:Survivor Ghost Island logo.jpeg has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

replaced by File:Survivor ghost island season thirty-six region 1 dvd.png as lead image of Survivor: Ghost Island...

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated files}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.

This bot DID NOT nominate any of your contributions for deletion; please refer to the history of each individual page for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 10:00, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Survivor Ghost Island logo.jpeg

[edit]
⚠
⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Survivor Ghost Island logo.jpeg. 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 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).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 03:01, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Rccolauslogo.jpg

[edit]
⚠
⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Rccolauslogo.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 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).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:34, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Masterworks Records logo.png

[edit]
⚠
⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Masterworks Records logo.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 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).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:18, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

[edit]

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:23, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Final20thcenturyfoxlogo.jpg

[edit]
⚠
⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Final20thcenturyfoxlogo.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 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).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 03:12, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited WWCK (AM), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Mexican.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:04, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

File:1970kapplogo.jpg listed for discussion

[edit]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:1970kapplogo.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you.

This bot DID NOT nominate any of your contributions for deletion; please refer to the history of each individual page for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 09:00, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: The Nest (American TV network) (November 2)

[edit]
Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Justiyaya was:
This draft's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article. In summary, the draft needs multiple published sources that are:
Make sure you add references that meet all four of these criteria before resubmitting. Learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue. If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.
 The comment the reviewer left was:
no mentions in 2, press release ref 4
Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.
Justiyaya 02:31, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Teahouse logo
Hello, Steelbeard1! Having an article draft declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! Justiyaya 02:31, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: The Nest (American TV network) (November 2)

[edit]
Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Vanderwaalforces was:
This draft's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article. In summary, the draft needs multiple published sources that are:
Make sure you add references that meet all four of these criteria before resubmitting. Learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue. If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.
 The comment the reviewer left was:
Resubmitting without fixing the concerns of previous reviewer is not a good practice.
Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.
Vanderwaalforces (talk) 08:25, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: The Nest (American TV network) (November 3)

[edit]
Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Tails Wx was:
This draft's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article. In summary, the draft needs multiple published sources that are:
Make sure you add references that meet all four of these criteria before resubmitting. Learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue. If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.
Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.
Tails Wx 16:49, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: The Nest (American TV network) (November 3)

[edit]
Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reasons left by Voorts were:
This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources. Reliable sources are required so that information can be verified. If you need help with referencing, please see Referencing for beginners and Citing sources.
This draft's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article. In summary, the draft needs multiple published sources that are:
Make sure you add references that meet all four of these criteria before resubmitting. Learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue. If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.
 The comment the reviewer left was:
For a Wikipedia article to be published, it must be notable; that is, it must have significant coverage in several independent, reliable sources. Pretty much all of the sources are press releases, and are therefore not independent of the subject of the article.
Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.
voorts (talk/contributions) 21:20, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: The Nest (American TV network) (November 6)

[edit]
Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Vanderwaalforces was:
This draft's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article. In summary, the draft needs multiple published sources that are:
Make sure you add references that meet all four of these criteria before resubmitting. Learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue. If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.
Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.
Vanderwaalforces (talk) 22:56, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

[edit]

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:24, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

File permission problem with File:Logo for WMRP-LP Retro 1047.jpg

[edit]

Thanks for uploading File:Logo for WMRP-LP Retro 1047.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file has agreed to release it under the given license.

If you are the copyright holder for this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

  • make a note permitting reuse under the CC BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
  • Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add {{permission pending}} to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:File copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. Here is a list of your uploads. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described in section F11 of the criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 05:03, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I sent a message to one of the operators of WMRP-LP on his private Facebook page regarding the station's logo. Steelbeard1 (talk) 14:11, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of W35DQ-D for deletion

[edit]
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article W35DQ-D is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/W35DQ-D until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

Mvcg66b3r (talk) 00:56, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Concern regarding Draft:The Nest (American TV network)

[edit]

Information icon Hello, Steelbeard1. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:The Nest (American TV network), a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 18:13, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Albums/Album_article_style_advice#"Release history" tables

[edit]

Hi @Steelbeard1: hope you're doing well. If you have time, your comments would be appreciated at WikiProject talk page. Regards. 2001:D08:2950:1741:17D7:4F53:82D:D55A (talk) 11:06, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Wrestlepoodlesandwin.jpg

[edit]
⚠
⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Wrestlepoodlesandwin.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 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).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 03:30, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Invitation to participate in a research

[edit]

Hello,

The Wikimedia Foundation is conducting a survey of Wikipedians to better understand what draws administrators to contribute to Wikipedia, and what affects administrator retention. We will use this research to improve experiences for Wikipedians, and address common problems and needs. We have identified you as a good candidate for this research, and would greatly appreciate your participation in this anonymous survey.

You do not have to be an Administrator to participate.

The survey should take around 10-15 minutes to complete. You may read more about the study on its Meta page and view its privacy statement .

Please find our contact on the project Meta page if you have any questions or concerns.

Kind Regards,

WMF Research Team

BGerdemann (WMF) (talk) 19:28, 23 October 2024 (UTC) [reply]

ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message

[edit]

Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2024 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:08, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Steelbeard1&oldid=1258261198"