Talk:Natasha Hamilton

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

The 'sketch'[edit]

Far be it from me to criticise anyone's artistic ability, I wonder if we should use the actual photograph of Natasha in the infobox rather than the sketch? Budgiekiller 14:53, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing available which is free (except for of a course non-commercial picture. I tell you disallowing non-commercial pictures makes it impossible to find copyleft pictures) and there is no single cover either, because nothing has been released. And some are starting to get paranoid about screen captures as well, so I prefer to move to appropriate place before people start to delete that stuff again. KittenKlub 18:15, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, it is difficult. Perhaps we need a keen Kitten fan with a photo from a gig to help out?! Budgiekiller 19:06, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you also remove fansites then that chance isclose to zero. Try working with people and not against them.KittenKlub 19:37, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. Okay, the two links I deleted were linked to poor, low quality francruft which didn't really fit with WP:EL. I'm crusading against rubbish external links, particularly those with unwanted pop-ups (aren't all pop-ups hideous?) so I think leaving the two "offiical" links is fine, but the rest is just awful and doesn't enhance the article. I'll continue to delete these forever as they contravene this - fansites are generally avoided. Budgiekiller 20:23, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bullshit. At least one fan site is allowed and especially calling rubbish is what is wrong with your behavior! KittenKlub 20:27, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have nothing better to do than labelling everything people do rubbish? I think you have a serious additude problem! KittenKlub 20:29, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And read the fucking rules before you start your crusades!! KittenKlub 20:31, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

May I just suggest that you familiarise yourself with WP:CIV before you verbally assault me twice! I'm pretty laid back but most of the time the external links, particularly those that launch dozens of useless pop-ups, are contrary to WP:EL. Can I assume that by your vitriolic attack that the 'official' site you're referring to is one of your own? It doesn't matter really, all I'm concerned with is that Wikipedia should link to sites that enhance the article (once again, as WP:EL) and not fancruft. Hope you can understand what I'm trying to do! Cheers! Budgiekiller 20:37, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You started it by insulting people left and right. And the fan site offers a lot more than an official site and it is not my site. And the site is allowed and stays. KittenKlub 20:38, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that observing the policy of not linking to fancruft (endorsed by WP) is correct, and your use of language such as "Bullshit", "...read the fucking rules..." and "...I think you have a serious additude (sic) problem!" shows that you are not observing WP:CIV. Please familiarise yourself with the normal manners of conversing here before insulting me for attempting to observe this. Budgiekiller 20:42, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

First you insult my sketch and then you insult sites with people made with love and then YOU talk about civility? KittenKlub 20:44, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And fansites are not fancruft. They serve a legitimate purpose as an additional information source. Dozens of them should be avoided, but a couple are no problem whatsoever and help to compliment the article. In fact most people first visit a fansite before the official site, because they contain more and better information. KittenKlub 20:47, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, I said that perhaps it would be better to use an actual photograph instead of a sketch. Simple. And observing WP:CIV is not optional, it's obligatory, unless you wish to be blocked. I'm sorry if you took my comments personally, I've never seen a sketch used as an image of a person in the WP, and I believe it's entirely inappropriate, sets a dangerous precedent, and will not be surprised to see it removed soon. Where would this stop? Whose sketch is better than the others? I could upload a better sketch right now but wouldn't consider it useful to the article, it needs to be a photo or nothing.

As for fancruft, you're right, but a website that claims to contain the answer to "What does the name Tash mean?!" really is questionable. But I'm happy to leave it because it doesn't generate pop-ups, it's not pure advertising and despite its content, it's probably the closest to an unofficial fansite as is likely to exist Budgiekiller 20:51, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You said ""not to criticise, but..." is the typical way to critize somebody. I decide to donate it because at least it was free, and you even call it a dangerous precedent. Look at Spice Girls. The biggest girl group has no picture despite google and amazon stretching the definition of fair use to extremely wide nowadays. And there is more to that site than "What does the name Tash mean?!" and sites are supposed to be fun as well, so let them add that. And if you get yourself a real browser you'd never see pop-ups again. KittenKlub 21:00, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, I was harsh with my original comment, no offence meant as I tried to explain (I can't draw for toffee). I just hadn't seen a page with a sketch as its primary image reference and I do believe that it does set a dangerous precedent - it will encourage anyone to upload anything and add it as their 'version' of the appearance of someone. As for the pop-ups, Wikipedia should be universal and using the 'endorsed' External links should most definitely not promote pop-ups, regardless of browser. I'm using Safari and the pop-ups are contained, but they're still a good sign that a particular external link is a bad one. Budgiekiller 21:08, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't a precedent BTW. Madonna had a painting for months for the exactly same reason, because it was the only copyleft image. And uploading their version is what this site will become if they keep on restricting the rules, because so many new users have lots of messages about their images nowdays, because it is completely and totally unclear and nobody is helping them; it's just incomprehensible bot messages. So if you don't agree, find a copyleft image to replace it, because that's the deal. KittenKlub 21:16, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I understand the difficulties in comprehending the complex rules of image uploads. Fair enough if Madonna had a sketch on her page too. I just hadn't encountered it before on any other page, e.g. there are thousands of pages of footballers without images - I could sketch something close and upload it.

There's no "...that's the deal..." for me here, I'm just trying to make WP a better place. Once again I wholeheartedly apologise for any upset I may have caused you with regard to your sketch (and I might remind you that originally I did qualify it with the fact that I can't draw to save my life!). I will continue to check external links in accordance with WP:EL and hope that despite my disgressions, you can observe WP:CIV in the future! Deal?! Budgiekiller 21:46, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's cool again. Well soccer players have the same problem, and the only images you can find of them without royalties, are screen captures. Images remain a problem, because the infoboxes which are now standard, invite people to upload pictures. Be gentle on fansites, because they are the people most likely to update wikipedia. Delete all lyrics site, because those aren't real sites, since it is just a scam on the online advertisers, but fansites are the target audience for updating WP as far as the music sections go. And for sub top artists, it will just be a couple of sites, and it'll never become a link farm. KittenKlub 22:06, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Natasha Hamilton. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 19:45, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Natasha Hamilton. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:48, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Natasha_Hamilton&oldid=1195379304"