User talk:TheProject/Archive 0

Welcome

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia! Here are some tips to help you get started:

• Try the Tutorial, and feel free to experiment in the test area.
• If you need help, post a question at the Help Desk
• Eventually, you might want to read the Manual of Style and Policies and Guidelines.
• Remember Wikipedia:Neutral point of view
• Explore, be bold in editing pages, and, most importantly, have fun!

Good luck! [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] P.S. One last helpful hint. To sign your posts like I did above (on talk pages, for example) use the '~' symbol. To insert just your name, type ~~~ (3 tildes), or, to insert your name and timestamp, use ~~~~ (4 tildes).

ISPs

Hi. Since some ISPs assign IP addresses "randomly", you received a message that was intended for another of your ISP's customers. If you don't think it was intended for you, you can safely ignore it. — David Remahl 04:01, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

What he said. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (talk)]] 04:02, Sep 21, 2004 (UTC)

Wow, you guys are fast. Thanks for putting me at rest -- I hope to become a fairly active member of the Wikipedia community. TheProject 04:09, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Key

I responded to your concern about the key of the Imperial March at Talk:The Imperial March.

Barnstar

The Original Barnstar For a cool head in an edit dispute and some amazing contribs, congrats Tawker 04:56, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Mushroom vandalism

It's funny, given how common homophobic vandalism is--that's the first time I've noticed racist vandalism on WP. Nareek 21:16, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, not that I would know -- today was my first time ever on RC patrol. Tiring but fun. I think I'll go again. TheProject 00:58, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for reverting vandalism to my user page! _-M o P-_ 02:45, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

No problem. Glad I could be of help. TheProject 03:19, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Speedy nominations

Thanks for the speedy nominations on the three articles I AfD'd earlier today. I wasn't sure if they qualified, as one at least claimed notability and the criterion at WP:SPEEDY seemed to say that any assertion of notability, even a disputed one, requires an article to go through AfD instead of speedy. I looked deeper and saw that WP:DVAIN clarifies that such claims of notability must be "remotely plausible", which that band's claim certainly did not fulfill.

So thanks for helping me to get those articles deleted (though now I wish I'd saved "Declined" for WP:BJAODN, haha!), and also for helping me to gain a better understanding of when it's okay to use a speedy nomination. I guess I'm still a bit hesitent to use them because of a few times an admin changed my speedys into prods, but now I think I've got the hang of it :-) Long live the RC and NP patrols! --Icarus 04:14, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Glad I could be of help. But it was my very first day participating with any volume on AfD, so don't take me as any expert on the process. The fact that the articles seemed to be complete hoaxes were good reason to place them for speedy deletion per G1 and A7, though. TheProject 02:21, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Transwikied dicdef

Hi, if you tag an article for a speedy because it is a transwikied dicdef, please make sure first that it actually has been transwikied (such as Combi deck, which I had to create before speedying it). Regards, Elf-friend 08:54, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm not exactly sure what you mean. I just went through what I did during the transwiki, and it appears that I copied over the article text where I should have copied over the edit history -- is that what you meant? (I've since fixed that.) Because otherwise, I did transwiki the article[1], log it in Wiktionary[2], and log it in Wikipedia[3] before tagging it for speedy deletion. What did you have to create before speedying the article? Thanks. TheProject 16:31, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

P.S. On a very related note, I just noticed you took off the speedy tag on Coup de main (cajun) for the same reason, but I did copy it over to Wiktionary [4], copy over the edit history to Wiktionary[5], log it on Wiktionary[6], and log it on Wikipedia[7], so I'm not sure what the problem is there, either.

P.P.S. I went through your edit history for Starter pack to figure out what the confusion was, and I think you were looking for the transwikied article in Wiktionary's main namespace, whereas I transwikied (as transwikis are supposed to be done, according to meta) to the Transwiki: pseudo-namespace in Wiktionary. If that's the source of the confusion, I hope that clears things up.

Yes, you are right, I was expecting to find it in the main namespace of Wiktionary, I am not all that familiar with transwikification, sorry for jumping the gun. :-/ That being said, there seems to be some question whether transwikification is a valid reason to speedily delete anyway? Regards, Elf-friend 05:55, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm justifying most of my speedy deletion tags by WP:SNOW. So far, I haven't had anybody complain about my discretion (although I will admit that once -- now twice, with Coup de main (cajun) -- have my speedy candidates not been speedied, but instead redirected), which means that either my judgement is either pretty good, or most administrators don't care. I'm not sure which one it is, but if I'm asked to stop, I will gladly do so. TheProject 01:14, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

IIRC/GDFL?

Hi. You mentioned on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/GAMES Magazine bankruptcy that my copy-paste act might be considered a violation of GDFL, and something about IIRC? I don't know what these terms mean. Could you enlighten me? - Rainwarrior 05:02, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi Rainwarrior, glad you asked. First off, the easier stuff: IIRC is a common Internet acronym for "if I recall correctly", and if you ever come across other acronyms you don't find, a good start might be to head over to AcronymFinder. As for GFDL -- I apologize for accidentally mistyping that as "GDFL" earlier -- that stands for the GNU Free Documentation License, under which Wikipedia is licensed (and if you're wondering what GNU stands for, have a look at its article).

Part of the GFDL basically states that a document's content must carry attribution to everybody who has worked on a document (to make it more Wikipedia-specific, basically, articles in Wikipedia must properly credit all editors of previous revisions of the article). This is usually done trivially in an article's edit history. However, this requirement makes merging somewhat tricky: if an article A has content that is to be merged into article B, then article B -- since it contains content originally from article A -- must also correctly attribute previous editors to article A as well as its own. Hence one cannot do a merge by simply copying and pasting: the editor doing the pasting would be the only editor to show up on article B's edit history, which would violate the GFDL. If only it were that easy! Hope that helps. TheProject 05:20, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

P.S. Nice to see a fellow musician and pianist on Wikipedia.

Thanks. That makes things perfectly clear. - Rainwarrior 05:26, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Glad to be of help. TheProject 05:37, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

RfC

You may endorse as many views as you please. In fact, there is even no rule (as far as I am aware) that prevents one from endorsing completely conflicting views on an RfC. Endorsing multiple views on an RfC is standard practice. JoshuaZ 05:14, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Good to hear -- this is my first participation in an RfC. Thanks for the guidance. TheProject 05:20, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I may have given you bad advice. Looking over the standard wording it looks like it may be disallowed, but as a matter of practice everyone does it. I've brought the matter up at the main RfC talk page for clarification. In the meantime, I recommend to ignore the possible rule and keep your endorsement. JoshuaZ 05:21, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

FYI

You may be interested in this RfC, concerning a recent AfD in which you participated to some degree. TheProject 07:13, 8 May 2006 (UTC) copied from user's talk page

Thanks for the tip. I have provided what I saw here. I wish people could accept they are wrong without having to go to such lengths. -- ReyBrujo 08:01, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Sourcing "that" song

As someone who falls between the two extremes regarding "El kondor pada," may I ask you a quick question: since I'm sure you'll agree that Princess Diana's death is much more likely to be "common knowledge" than this song, what sort of sourcing would suffice to demonstrate the song's existence and notability? I think that both are true -- it exists (duh) and it could pass Wikipedia's notability threshold. But how to demonstrate it? Anything that could be found easily would undoubtedly be in Serbian. My guess is that nobody who wants this article sourced (or deleted) reads Serbian. Then of course there's the part about it being a song, and not a widget of some sort. How do you source a song's notability, short of getting lucky and having some (Serbian) journalist write about it? This strikes me as a dilemma. For the record, I (1) speak Serbian, (2) know that most of the Serbs involved here are basically trolls, but (3) still think the entry has merit. Not enough merit to get overly worked up about, though. Profnjm 16:18, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't think the language barrier should be a reason for discarding an entry, as that would probably constitute blatant systemic bias. You'll notice none of the links on the AfD were actually rejected because they were in Serbian. Of the four links provided, one was a 404, two were rejected because they were free Geocities-type sites, and another was rejected because it was a forum. These would be considered unreliable sources no matter what language they were in. It is my opinion that were there reliable sources, but in Serbian (which I don't question the existence of, just that they weren't provided in the AfD), that those should still be accepted. TheProject 16:31, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

It's also worth noting that Balcer has already pointed out that Serbian-language songs do receive coverage in Western press, so if it's notable enough, it wouldn't be too much to expect an English language source. However, as I said previously, I wouldn't discount a reputable Serbian language source. Others might not, though. TheProject 17:15, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

With all due respect to Balcer, I can't think of any Serbian language songs that have ever received coverage in the Western press. Profnjm 17:36, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, I can't speak for him, so you may want to see the relevant discussion at Sam's talk page, or contact him yourself. TheProject 17:39, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Indeed. I think I'll pass on talking with him, because his cites were done in bad faith. All he did was go out and find Serbian websites that were in English translation, mostly advertisements, and proclaim them "western press coverage of Serbian music," which they obviously were not. My only response would be that if those count as evidence of "notability," then Dzoni ought to just put up a page about them. That would, of course, be a travesty. No, I don't think I'll discuss this with Balcer, who was merely yanking crazy Dzoni's chain. Profnjm 18:27, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Two of the websites Balcer has brought up might fit under mere English translation, as you have suggested. However, Balcer has also brought up three links to The Guardian's website, which is a widely read and respected British newspaper, and that would suggest to me that there is at least some coverage of Serbian language music in the Western press. TheProject 20:37, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

4 sites I named

Project,what is wrong with those two sites that were Geocites?Or with the one that was forum?

You are just repeting what you heard.Why dont you tell me whats wrong with it?Dzoni 16:37, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

I do believe the AfD, the RfC, and I have made it very clear already. Websites where anybody can just sign up and get free web hosting are not considered reliable sources, nor are forums to which anybody can contribute. Now, if you would mind moving this discussion back to the RfC which it came from, instead of harrassing everybody on their talk page, I would be greatly indebted. TheProject 16:52, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

As I expected,no valid response...Ok,I wont ruin your talk page any more,so be in debtDzoni 16:55, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Prod removals

Ardric47, your recent removal of my prods on call gate and bleah for the reason of not having been transwikied (I assume this was the reason for the latter, although this was not specifically stated) seem to suggest that you might have been looking for the transwikied dictionary definitions in Wiktionary's main namespace, instead of the Transwiki: pseudo-namespace, where meta dictates they should be copied. If you look closely, I think you'll find that both articles have already been transwikied, to wikt:Transwiki:Call gate and wikt:Transwiki:Bleah, their edit histories copied to their respective talk pages, and the transfers logged on transwiki logs for both Wiktionary and Wikipedia. I hope that clears up the confusion. TheProject, 9 May 2006 (UTC) copied from user's talk page

I began thinking about that not too long after making the changes, and I'm currently trying to seek clarification at Wikipedia talk:Transwiki log. In the meantime, I have no objections to the reinstatement of the tags. I guess having the content moved to the transwiki pseudo-namespace of another project counts as having "been transwikied"? Ardric47

After something has been moved to Transwiki namespace in Wiktionary, it is Wiktionary's responsibility to decide what to do with it. Wiktionary may even delete it, in fact, so waiting for the transwikied content to show up on Wiktionary's mainspace may in fact be futile. TheProject 01:09, 10 May 2006 (UTC) copied from user's talk page

Advice on red links (and removals)

Hi theProject,

I just saw your advice at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Shay, with which I agree by the way.

More of these kinds of pages can be found by following links on Maryland General Assembly Election, 2006. Every non-notable person wandering around in Maryland seems to be redlinked on those pages, and sometimes their names coincide with those of notable people.

I just wanted to ask for your advice in this case? Do we change all the blue links to wrong persons? But thereby we might create a page for a non-notable person? Or do we remove all the links on that page Maryland General Assembly Election, 2006, because very few of them will become notable in the end?

Thanks for your time, Jadriaen 01:26, 10 May 2006 (UTC).

The redlinks should be removed. Precedent on AfD is to delete biographies of people whose sole claim to notability is as a failed electoral candidate, so there's no point in inviting the creation of pages which will be deleted at AfD anyways. Hope that helps. TheProject 01:38, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice. I'm not looking forward to removing all those links, but I might already start. There probably is a template for that too, right? ("Too many red links" or something.) Thanks again, and cheers. Jadriaen 01:42, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm not aware of any template for lists of redlinks. You may want to try copying and pasting the wikicode into notepad and then running a find and replace on [[ and ]] -- it may make the process faster. TheProject 02:00, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi, I just found a template for redlinks and added it to the page. I'll go through the page later on (some links have their value, so a pure find and replace might not suffice). Cheers, Jadriaen 02:02, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Not an automatic find and replace, that's for sure. But a manual find and replace (where by "manual" I mean still using the find and replace feature, but not using "Replace All") would still speed up the process, I think. By the way, thanks for pointing out the template. TheProject 02:04, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

That pesky IPvandal in the 84 range

How often is WP:AIV checked, anyway? That guy is still active. --M1ss1ontomars2k4 00:20, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

The IP was blocked five minutes after your addendum to my alert. TheProject 00:28, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Tradable

I decided to rewrite tradable instead of letting it get deleted after a few days. I was working on another article and wanted to link to "tradable goods" or something similar, but all I could find was this page (with no useful information). I typed up a new article; it's brief, but I think worth keeping now. --CRGreathouse 18:48, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Nice work -- it's very much appreciated. TheProject 19:51, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for reverting my userpage so quickly. It's been a long time since I've seen someone explode with so many userpage vandalisms in a minute because of a simple test4. Wow. --→Buchanan-Hermit™..Talk to Big Brother 03:27, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Glad I could help. I'm guessing the vandal would have gone after my userpage too, but it's semi-protected for some reason. TheProject 03:29, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Brunoise

Hello,

You recently removed the {{move to wiktionary}} tags from the Brunoise and Tester stubs. If they have been transwikied like you said in the edit summary, why did you just remove the tags without taking the actions necessary for deleting the entries? Folajimi 18:46, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

If an article has been transwikied (which has been done at wikt:Transwiki:Brunoise), it can go through one of three processes: an editor may propose that it be deleted or list it on articles for deletion, it can be redirected to a more appropriate article, or, if it has encyclopedic potential, it can be left as a stub for expansion. Which process the article goes through is at the discretion of the transwiking editor. In the case of Tester, the definition does not add anything to that already at wikt:tester, so I removed the transwiki tag. I chose to leave both as stubs; obviously, if you feel that either article should not be on Wikipedia, feel free to {{prod}} either one. I have nothing against either being deleted; I just happen to be a bit more cautious than usual with {{prod}} today. TheProject 18:58, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

That's understandable. By the way, thanks for the transwiki effort on the Brunoise entry. FWIW, the entries are not being wasted — just relocated to a sister project ;) Besides, the author of the second entry has been banned by none other than Jimbo Wales; usually, I give authors a heads up before nominating such entries for deletion.

Thanks again. TTFN. Folajimi 19:33, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Addition of Prod marked as minor

I don't think that adding Template:Prod should be marked as a minor edit... Ardric47 04:32, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

My general rule of thumb is that if I'm not adding anything of substance to the article itself (i.e. changing its meaning), I mark it as minor. Also, most of the time my prods are in the same edit as my removal of a Transwiki tag, which I usually mark as minor. However, I do see your point (I guess the rule about AfD tags being marked non-minor should be specified as applying to proposed deletions as well) and I will start marking prods as non-minor. Thanks. TheProject 06:22, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

TY

For RC patrol. - Xiong Chiamiov 16:43, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! It's good to know I'm appreciated some days. TheProject 18:37, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

What did I do

What did I due I got a message from you that I put a nonsense edit in the Legislative building what was it and can you provide a link I am having trouble getting to that article.

Just as a follow-up: your IP was previously recorded carrying out these two edits, hence the warning. TheProject 17:17, 23 May 2006 (UTC) copied from user's talk page

I um dont understand and could you provide a link to the article.

The article in question is at Saskatchewan Legislative Building. (Just click the title.) TheProject 17:22, 23 May 2006 (UTC) copied from user's talk page

COuld you tell me what I did that was bad.

Your IP added nonsense to the article, which is considered vandalism at Wikipedia. TheProject 17:31, 23 May 2006 (UTC) copied from user's talk page

What was it like a mistake or dfgngjd something like that I am sorry I dont know I am not the only one who uses the computer you know.

Your IP added "Kelsey Teneycke is the coolest person on earth!" to the article. If you weren't the one who added that, you can safely ignore the warning. TheProject 17:41, 23 May 2006 (UTC) copied from user's talk page

Thats my point other people use the computers too I will just use my account thing and sign in to avoid this from happening again.

By the way this is a school computer so I am not sure what should be done hundreds of students use them so what should be done?

We'll take the appropriate steps. Signing up for an account definitely would be a good idea. The basic principle is, if you don't vandalize, you can safely ignore the warnings. Thanks. TheProject 18:26, 23 May 2006 (UTC) copied from user's talk page

Barnstar

The Minor Barnstar For finally figuring out what the watchlist does :) Tawker 05:12, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Uh, thanks. But is that really worth a barnstar? :-) TheProject 21:05, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

MacArthur Article

You have to admit though, Arthur MacArthur is a pretty funny name to name your kid. 209.51.250.35 03:14, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Game articles

Please stop transwikiing game articles to wikibooks. Wikiboooks has stopped hosting game guides, supposedly by order of Jimbo Wales. -- WikidSmaht (talk) 09:31, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, I wasn't aware of this, and I'm done clearing out the backlog anyways now. Anyways, I'll do that. You wouldn't be able to tell me where it says video game guides are not to be sent to Wikibooks, would you? It would clear up a lot of confusion for people who are marking them as such, as I didn't tag them, but just saw them and sent them over. So are video game guides just supposed to be listed for deletion, then? TheProject 16:07, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Most of them are being absorbed by StrategyWiki, I think. And if I knew where that was stated, I wouldn’t have said “apparently”. -- WikidSmaht (talk) 08:13, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Manu militari

Paolo, your recent removal of my prod on manu militari for the reason of not having been transwikied seems to suggest that you might have been looking for the transwikied dictionary definition in Wiktionary's main namespace, instead of the Transwiki: pseudo-namespace, where meta dictates they should be copied. If you look closely, I think you'll find that the article has already been transwikied to wikt:Transwiki:Manu militari, its edit history copied to wikt:Talk:Transwiki:Manu militari, and the transfer logged on transwiki logs for both Wiktionary and Wikipedia. I hope that clears up the confusion. TheProject 16:18, 30 May 2006 (UTC) copied from user's talk page

This is correct: after looking for the exact term on wiktionary, I performed a search, but did not notice that search defaults to the main namespace (this would mean there is no way for searching in the transwiki: pseudo-namespace, as far as I can see). I have now deleted the article. Thanks for pointing this out. - Liberatore(T) 17:03, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

School question

(By the way, if I may ask -- which school are you currently at?) TheProject 21:55, 30 May 2006 (UTC) copied from user's subpage

I'm currently at the University of British Columbia. :) -→Buchanan-Hermit™/!? 23:20, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Tiki Bar TV recipes

I saw the proposed deletion tag you had on Tiki Bar TV recipes and replaced it with a tag requesting that it be moved to Wikibooks (with the other recipes). It appears that this was not transwikied from elsewhere and has not yet been transwikied to Wikibooks. Crypticfirefly 03:30, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

P.S. Same goes for Tamate ka Kut Hope this is useful. Crypticfirefly 03:33, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

P.P.S. Okay, never mind. I'm easily confused and couldn't find those recipes in the Wikibooks cookbook because I didn't know about the transwiki page. I added some text to the pages so others won't be confused in the same way that I was. Crypticfirefly 03:51, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Seeing as how you're the fifth person to be thrown off by this, I'm going to start adding the transwikied destination to my transwikied prods now. TheProject 04:01, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

WP: Figure Skating

Thanks for joining! :) --Fang Aili ^talk 15:08, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Glad to participate. TheProject 17:10, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Please vote

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Israeli apartheid (phrase)—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Zeq (talk • contribs) 04:16, 1 Jun 2006 (UTC).

I've gone and added my voice to the discussion, but please note that 1) AfD is not a vote, and 2) alerting users to AfD discussions (especially ones that aren't particularly relevant to them) via talk pages is very much frowned upon. TheProject 07:17, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

I actually think your input on the Afd is much appriciated and a good solution. Zeq 08:55, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Just wanted to say

... I'm sometimes rather pushy (maybe "sometimes") is an understatement, so I apologize in advance and please don't take it personally if you feel that way. Now, if I could ask you ... did you have a look at my sandbox and/or my question about style? Any comment?

Have a great trip. TheProject 20:42, 2 June 2006 (UTC) copied from user's talk page

Thanks for writing. No problem; actually, I value directness. Same goes for me--if I say something that irks you, let me know.

I have looked at your work and comments and I'll respond when I get back into town. I'll be getting off the computer within the next hour or so. Cheers. --Fang Aili ^talk 20:45, 2 June 2006 (UTC) I've responded to a few things.

I'm hoping Pelladon comments about the hyphenation thing. He seems to be up on all those details. --Fang Aili ^talk 20:51, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

I can't really comment on the template stuff. When I look at the template code all I see is gibberish. I get by with templates by experimenting with the fields, when I need to. Sorry I can't be of more help. --Fang Aili ^talk 20:59, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Basically all I'm trying to say with the template is that, as the first and second infoboxes are virtually the same (except for trivial differences), template expansion will not break any pages currently using the infobox. The third infobox is just saying that the expanded infobox would have additional capabilities. TheProject 02:11, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, additional capabilities=good. :) --Fang Aili ^talk 00:05, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Deleted one of your prods

You were right, I didn't have to type a thing. Cheers! :o) EWS23 (Leave me a message!) 06:13, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Image:007ThunderballLife.jpg

I'm not exactly sure why you think Image:007ThunderballLife.jpg does not qualify as fair use. If you could provide some reasoning I would love it. xxpor ( Talk | Contribs ) 13:11, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Whoops. Clearly I wasn't paying attention when I looked in the article for mention of the magazine issue. Mention of the magazine issue has to add non-trivially to the text of the article, and it does that. I have taken off the tag now. Please accept my apologies. TheProject 16:37, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

It's no problem :) xxpor ( Talk | Contribs ) 17:18, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Image:Alessandra Mussolini Playboy IT Cover.jpg

A similar plea for fair use consideration for the Playboy cover in the article on Alessandra Mussolini. I unindented the fair use rationale on the image, that was there, but possibly hard to read.

You're right that the article didn't mention the magazine issue very much, but it should have. I've added some text, and am looking for more. Here's the point - Mussolini is a fairly notorious politician, first due to being the granddaughter of Benito Mussolini, and second due to her apparent iconic status as a neo-fascist (she's one of, if not the most prominent European politician considered a neo-fascist), and her past as a fairly notable sexploitation actress and model is a notable contrast to that. If she weren't a politician, being on two Playboy covers could have made her a notable model just for that. Also, as best as I can tell with help from automatic translators, the it:Alessandra Mussolini article, seems to say that though she was in several sexploitation films, it was her Playboy appearances that caused a scandal that ended her actress/model career. ("Partecipò effettivamente in alcune sexi commedie, ma lo scandalo suscitato da un servizio fotografico apparso su Playboy, di cui era protagonista, non giovò alla sua carriera da attrice.")

AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 13:28, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I believe magazine cover appearances have to be notable as more than just cover appearances. If the part about said appearances causing a scandal is verifiable and added to the article, I have no problems with the image as a proper fair use. However, at the moment, it does not. TheProject 22:31, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Removal of Chrysler LeBaron images

Why did you remove the images I added to the Chrysler LeBaron article? They were properly taged. I'd like if you would explain this to me. Bavaria 21:49, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

The images were only orphaned because you deleted them from the article. I would like a better explanation if you do not mind. Bavaria 22:12, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

The problem is not that the images are orphaned, but that the images are fair use violations. I guess I'll go through each one individually:

• Image:1989LeBaron.jpg: was improperly tagged and in contravention of Wikipedia's fair use guidelines because the tag states "... where no free equivalent is available or could be created that would adequately give the same information". No other fair use rationale given, as the image was used with a generic fair use tag.
• Image:1979LeBaron.jpg: has no fair use rationale, and was improperly tagged due to the "no free equivalent" restriction.
• Image:1984LeBaron.jpg: claims to be a promotional image, but there is no evidence that the image is released as part of a press kit or otherwise promotional media, nor any evidence that copyright is held by the automobile's manufacturer. Also fails the "no free equivalent" restriction.
• Image:1993-Chrysler-LeBaron-GTC.jpg: claims to be a promotional image, but no evidence of this, and I would think the latter, as it comes from domain name consumerguide.com, and consumer guides are not considered as promotional media. Again, no evidence that the copyright is held by the automobile's manufacturer, and also fails the "no free equivalent" restriction.
• Image:1993Chrysler-LeBaron.jpg: see above.

As all of the above were fair use violations, I removed them from the article, and have re-removed them again. If proper fair uses (i.e. not in violation of Wikipedia's fair use guidelines) are not found, they will be deleted as orphans. TheProject 22:24, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Why do you need proof for the latter two when it's pretty damn obvious that they ARE promo images? I don't understand Wikipedia's image policies sometimes...--ApolloBoy 01:05, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

No, it's not obvious that it's a promotional image. In particular, promotional images are copyrighted by the product's manufacturer, and as the images come from a consumer review site, it's not clear as to whether the images are copyrighted by the reviewer or the manufacturer. If the image comes from a manufacturer's press kit, please make this source clear. TheProject 02:24, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't mean source-wise. If you look at the images, you can see that they depict a new-looking car without license plates in front of scenery. That's why I said that it's obvious that they're promo images. --ApolloBoy 02:58, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

If it is a promotional image, I'm sure finding a source will be easy. TheProject 03:11, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

And they do have sources. --ApolloBoy 03:46, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Sources that illustrate the use as a promotional image? I thought I already established that. Furthermore, the last source URL is broken. TheProject 04:00, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

The images are obviousley promotional images! As ApolloBoy already said they show a new car without liscense plates in fornt of some sort of scenery. If they aren't promotional images then explain why I found one of them in an old National Geographic magazine! THEY HAVE THE PROPER SOURCE! AND SEEING AS THEY ARE CHRYSLER LeBaron IMAGES THEY ARE OBVIOUSLY OF THE Chrysler Corporation. WHAT ELSE DO YOU WANT? Bavaria 11:28, 6 June 2006 (UTC)