Jump to content

User talk:Sixstring1965

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Sixstring1965 (talk | contribs) at 21:17, 27 October 2007 (→‎Signature issue). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Image Licensing

Hi Sixstring, I hope you don't let the image thing get you discouraged. I saw from your account log that you're a fairly new user, and we need people with a passion for their subject. That said, sometimes things don't translate well when we're "talking" on the discussion pages, and I've seen tempers flair-up many times through misunderstandings. One of the important principles here to help deal with such a wide variety of different users from all over the world is assume good faith. I urge you to re-word (refactor) the above comment to Arcayne. I don't know if he also regularly edits Beatles' articles, but if he does, that would go a long way to facilitate working together. (Usually if you change a comment just put a <s> before the text and a </s> after the text to be "struck" out -see the Wiki markup section when you edit). Thanks, R. Baley 05:03, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia

Since no has done this yet. . .here's some info that someone posted to my talk page (when I first got here) that I found pretty helpful:

If you have any questions about anything, let me know, I'll do what I can. R. Baley 05:10, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your time. I understand completely and will try my best to do my best for Wikipedia and the commmunity. Sixstring1965 14:36, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that my edits, which seem to directly oppose yours can be frustrating to you, Six. Please understand that while some editors would flay you alive and send you weeping inconsolably into a corner through severely witty comments, I think its more helpful to keep trying to point out that my edits aren't meant to spite you directly or at all.
I want the articles to be the best they can be. In the biography of a living person (actually, any biography) requires a higher level of citation than say, a movie article or an album review. The reason for this is that biographies tend to affect the lives of living people, and theur reputations and fortunes can be ruined by information entered into Wikipedia. The reason that WP insists on more citation for BLPs and biographies is that if the person (or their estate) wants to sue for incorrect information appearingin Wikipedia, the higher-ups want to be able to say, 'hey, we didn't say that; the comment was cited from what some other person said,' and then be able to show that citation.
It isn't a matter of me trying to dick you out of the article. I think that everything you are adding is indeed accurate. However, you need to specifically cite where the statements you add come from, so that no one can say you made it up, and that Wikipedia condoned it. My edits - while the seem like a pain in the ass - are there to protect both you and Wikipedia. I hope you can understand that, and we can move forward to improve the article. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 18:09, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

References

You were correct there. I created a new section, 'Further Reading' and added the cite there. A lot of articles have them, especially if there is a lot of material and some isn't included int he article but bears on the subject. It was a good catch. :) - Arcayne (cast a spell) 06:38, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]


I saw the link there and remembered there was no reason for it. "Further Reading" is a good thing. Sixstring1965 15:46, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

David M. Spindel

You posted an article about David M. Spindel that seemed oddly hagiographic. I googled for it, and found that the identical text appeared in this page, at the foot of which we read: © 2006 - David M. Spindel (all rights reserved).

I therefore deleted the article as a likely copyright violation. (Or did Spindel violate the GFDL by reproducing your article on his website?) -- Hoary 09:34, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]


May Pang

Aside from Pang's book, I've never been able to find anything about her, reference or otherwise. I'm pretty impressed you were able to find anything else, actually. A for the Weiner book, I've requested it through inter-library loan, so when i get it I'll let you know if it has anything of value in it. On a side note, you might want to con sider adding something about Pang on ono's page. Currently, there is nothing about her at all. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 20:29, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]



Possibly unfree Image:Natpressphoto.jpg

An image that you uploaded or altered, Image:Natpressphoto.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images because its copyright status is disputed. If the image's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the image description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you.  But|seriously|folks  16:54, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Hi I have absolute permission to use the photo for Wikipedia. If there's a tag or such that I can put on it, Please let me know. Sixstring1965 17:13, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Sixstring, (just in case you didn't know) if you have permission to use any photo (e.g. one that you did not take, and the original copyright holder has given permission for it's "free" use) you will need to let the Wikimedia Communications committee know. The relevant info can be found at this link. R. Baley 17:44, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks R. Sixstring1965 17:52, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Who is the anon user, Six-String?

I would be curious to know who this person is. I hate socks. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 19:05, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am Lucy Lennon. I wrote to you Arcayne. I do not know how to sign up is all I am not anonoymus

Arc, My best advise as a friend is don't feed the animals. They call them trolls around the 'net these days. Sixstring1965 19:25, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Message received. Thanks for the heads-up. My day is busy enough. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 19:38, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Removing Discsussion page posts

Usually, that is very bad practice to do that, as Discussion allows for the free flow of ideas. If someone personally attacks you, find an admin and ask them to do something about it. I know that stuff drives you bonkers, but you have to extend the same courtesy that you want extended to you, right? - Arcayne (cast a spell) 04:41, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Yeah, you know, tidying up a bit. Sixstring1965 20:59, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Butcher Cover

It is an alternate cover in the WP:ALBUM sense. All front covers which are different from the main front cover are alternate covers. The upper caption should be "Alternate cover" per Template:Infobox Album#Template:Extra album cover 2. --PEJL 16:29, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, we're going top have to come to some kind of a solution on this one because it isn't an alternate cover, and you know this as well as I do. technically, the trunk cover is the alternate cover and the butcher being the original cover. Let me know your thoughts. Sixstring1965 16:54, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If that is the case, and if the album was actually released with that cover, then the covers should be swapped, per Template:Infobox Album#Cover. --PEJL 18:12, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Then the Y&T box should display both covers, before and after. It was released with the butcher which makes it legit, even though it was pulled from shelves just hours after. I'm going to see what I can do with the cover template. Sixstring1965 18:51, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The way multiple covers are displayed in album infoboxes is to have one at the top of the infobox and the other in an "Alternate cover" section towards the bottom of the infobox. This is how all other album articles with multiple covers do it, and how the guidelines say to do it. I don't understand why you don't accept that this is an alternate cover. --PEJL 19:22, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Okay you aren't understanding the arguement. If I have a butcher in my hand and I asked you to show me what the alternate cover was, you would hand me a trunk cover... right? If you are bent on displaying the word "alternate" then maybe it should be on the trunk cover. Sixstring1965 19:41, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think you are not understanding what is meant by "Alternate cover". Both covers are alternate covers. The cover that is not displayed at the top is listed at the bottom of the infobox and should be listed as "Alternate cover", because that is the convention (see Template:Infobox Album#Template:Extra album cover 2). If you disagree with this convention, you may argue that point at WT:ALBUM. --PEJL 19:51, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have addressed this issue in PEJL's User Talk page. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 19:55, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, you have addressed which issue, how? --PEJL 19:58, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The post I made on your User Talk page. Maybe take a gander there. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 21:28, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just for the record, I take issue with the wording "Alternate Cover." Perhaps "Banned Cover" Sixstring1965 20:11, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In general, or just in this case? What exactly is wrong with "Alternate cover"? --PEJL 20:22, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We're working on this case right now. It's not an alternate cover in this case. It was a banned cover, it was the original cover, I consider the trunk cover an alternate cover if any. Sixstring1965 21:04, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well like I said above, in that case the covers should be switched. --PEJL 21:23, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
{edit conflict} As would I, judging fromt he content of the article. However, I did note that this is a conversation that should be taking place in the Article Discussion page, as a new section. Please take the matter there, as you two (or us three) aren't the sole ones responsible for determining what does into the article. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 21:28, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Duplicate images uploaded

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

This is an automated message- you have not upset or annoyed anyone, and you do not need to respond. In the future, you may save yourself some confusion if you supply a meaningful file name and refer to 'my contributions' to remind yourself exactly which name you chose (file names are case sensitive, including the extension) so that you won't lose track of your uploads. For tips on good file naming, see Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions about this notice, or feel that the deletion is inappropriate, please contact User:Staecker, who operates the robot account. Staeckerbot 23:44, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

License tagging for Image:Lennon Spindel.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Lennon Spindel.jpg. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

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

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 01:06, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

You need to address that image usage thing right away, Six. As well, you may have noted that the image was removed by John. I really want you to understand that when you are reverted, your first instinct cannot be to simply revert back. You MUST discuss the matter; otherwise it turns into an edit war, and those simply suck. In the future, when you are considering adding a picture that would replace the placeholder image, consider bringing it to the discussion area first, so that folks can get a look at it, and you can address any issues before they come up. I've reverted your reversion, which means you should now initiate discussion about the image. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 03:43, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think getting a full-face pic would be an excellent idea. Remember when you had that issue with the Creative Commons pic? The pic you are getting fromt he photographer might very well fit that criteria - you should ask that admin to walk you through getting it properly licensed, so that this debate doesn't become moot when the image gets deleted. Its really the first thing you need to do.
As well, even if you get frustrated - remember our past friction? - you need to keep working with that person, unless they are just totally vandalizing the piece, which John isn't doing. Talk to him, and ask him what's really going on. Try to resolve the issues before you revert the edit. There is always common ground to be found, and if you have the image properly licensed, Creative Commons (done properly) is equal to a free image, as it is free to use. Make sure the photog understands this, too. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 14:53, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Arc, I just finished working with Spindel on this. We got it in the bag (no pun intended) check it out.Sixstring1965 15:28, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I did, It looks pretty solid. Maybe run it by an admin, just to make sure. It never hurts to ensure bullet-proofyness. Btw, good job, Six. I am rather pleased at how well you handled this. :) - Arcayne (cast a spell) 22:37, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent idea. I have just the guy to run it by too. Sixstring1965 22:45, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Replied at my talk page. Also, just in case anyone is under the wrong impression, I'm not an admin. The pic looks good btw, just get that permissions email out asap. R. Baley 05:36, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Fabs

You should add your name to the participants list, because you're Fab :)) Great work on the Lennon photo. --andreasegde 19:04, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm with you because you are doing great work and you're right. BTW, I notice that you have added "Tomorrow Never Knows" to your main page which makes me double-happy because I uploaded it a few days ago. Is there any special song you would like to be up-loaded? --andreasegde 20:07, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]


LOL, I love that song. I thought it was a cool thing to have it on your page so I figured I would try it. If they throw it off, I'm in good company! I'm working with Spindel right now. He wants the picture to print blurry so it can't be sold. Hope it works out! Sixstring1965 20:10, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Barnstar

The Photographer's Barnstar
I hereby give this glorious Barnstar to the first editor I have ever known on Wkipedia that has actually taken the trouble to contact the original photographer of a photo and gained his permission to use a photograph. Credit is due… --andreasegde 23:01, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Removed reference

I am presuming that you removed the reference fromthe May Pang article based om HotCop's question, right? Was Pang mentioned in any of the FBI files, according to the book? - Arcayne (cast a spell) 02:10, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

She wasn't in it at all. He was right. I would still like to have a further reading section, but it would have to include something about her.Sixstring1965 02:34, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]



Lady Mucca

You got it-oh yes we like that!!!! Cheers Pal, Vera, Chuck & Dave 17:44, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

D-cups, shmee-cups. Better download it, V - it's not gonna last too long....Tvoz |talk 18:02, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]


It should stay, there's no reason for removal. I will contest it if it is removed.Sixstring1965 18:05, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't mean that I agreed with it being removed - I see no reason to either, but the image-cops here have a very narrow interpretation of fair use. Tvoz |talk 18:21, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm working on that. Hopefully we got it straight. Sixstring1965 18:23, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad you like the fish, jus don't eat it! Funny, mine's gone straight too! Keep Lady Mucca's Bristols on Wiki! 22:08, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]



Your question

Hi SixString, just to let you know, I replied at my talk page. R. Baley 15:57, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lennon & Pang image

Are you sure that it is Creative Commons? If it is owned by a third party, we cannot describe it as such - as you may recall. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 19:12, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Let me check it out. I just might have been improperly tagged. Sixstring1965 19:23, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's under Wikimedia Commons. Sixstring1965 19:56, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Signature issue

Nothing better to do?Sixstring1965 21:14, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm being harassed and threatened by several users including an administrator. I will report you all if it doesn't stop.Sixstring1965 21:17, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Sixstring1965&oldid=167501321"