User talk:ZincOrbie

Badfinger

Hi ZO, and thanks for your note. I am happy to take another look to try and be more specific, but initially you may find WP:When to cite helpful. regards, Johnfos 21:01, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I enjoyed reading through the article and there is certainly plenty of detailed info there. I wouldn't add anymore detail. Initially try to add a reference at the end, or near the end of each para, and see how that goes. If you would like to see what a well-referenced band article looks like, see The Beatles. Happy to discuss this further as things progress. Johnfos 10:27, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Badfinger

Hi Zinc, album covers are generally only allowed on album pages. Everytime you use a nonfree image (like album covers), they have to meet each of the 10 criteria in Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria. Album covers aren't allowed outside album pages because it fails criteria #8 (significance). See also Wikipedia:FU#Unacceptable images. The amount of copyrighted material has to be kept to a minimum. I know it doesn't do any harm, but it does go against the fair use policy. Spellcast (talk) 22:17, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like we were writing at the same time. Good answer, although I'd dispute the claim that "Album covers aren't allowed outside album pages because it fails criteria #8". They are, but the fair use rationale has to be solid and written specifically for that usage. --kingboyk (talk) 22:24, 27 December 2007 (UTC) OK, I see you wrote on my talk page "generally aren't", which is more accurate :) --kingboyk (talk) 22:25, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Thank you for the explanation. I could tell you were working from some kind of formula but I just didn't know what it was. I copied the idea of using album covers in the discography from the Pink Floyd page because I thought that was a great way to remember old albums when the titles were no longer coming to mind. It isn't critical and if they must go, then so be it. ZincOrbie (talk) 22:33, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Badfinger images

It's been a long time. I'm sure you'll get a reply from the editor in question (and he'd already left a message on my talk page which you can read) but the basic point is about fair use of images. The rules have tightened up (way, way too far in the case of album covers in my humble opinion). You can only use non-free album covers if they have a fair use rationale attached and if they're being used in a non-trivial way to illustrate the album in question. So, you might be able to get away with one or two, provided they have rationales and are used in what the community considers to be a "fair" way. I thought Badfinger was fine but evidently somebody disagrees so if you want to keep some of the images you'll have to read the guidelines and implement their requirements.

If you want to see some real damage, look at what KLF Communications has become :( I find it ridiculous, but I'm in the minority (or in the silent majority, not sure which :)) --kingboyk (talk) 22:22, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Stephen. I remember your name because of your Badfinger involvement, and because the "ph" spelling of your name isn't very common on this side of the Atlantic. Well, I did like the album covers in the discography but I won't lose any sleep over their loss. In fact, I have completely stopped uploading images to Wiki because they are almost always deleted. It appears that unless something is public domain it probably won't survive (and public domain pictures don't factor into the articles I edit). Oh well. ZincOrbie (talk) 22:37, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I notice you got some messages from Betacommandbot today and have edited the images in question. Don't worry about it, thousands of those messages are going out at the moment. However, you've not quite fixed them to his liking. You have to specifically state the name of article the image is intended for (wiki link to it)... If you do that and they have a fair use rationale they ought to be safe. (And do remember, I'm an admin, so if anything gets deleted which wasn't fair game let me know and I'll see what I can do. Album covers in album articles with a proper fair use rationale are not fair game for deletion, for example). I'd fix this up for you myself but I've been drinking and am off to bed soon :) --kingboyk (talk) 00:07, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ha!! I hope you don't get a hangover. I will make the edits you suggest. Thanks for the heads' up! ZincOrbie (talk) 00:40, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Badfinger

I'm working on it. Are you still around? --andreasegde (talk) 15:43, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I'm still around but I haven't tinkered with the Badfinger page in ages. I felt it was a losing battle against some editors who were determined to insert POV throughout the article. ZincOrbie (talk) 23:01, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Anything you want to change/add/delete is fine with me. You're a great example of an editor that actually likes to talk about the article, which is very refreshing. You don't have to ask first, just do it.--andreasegde (talk) 16:51, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but you are going to have reference this: "after previous involvement with bands, Indian Summer and Ross." The GA reviewer will pick up on it straight away. If you want me to to do it, just send me the web page, or book (with page number) that it came from. :)--andreasegde (talk) 23:23, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The information is in the Matovina book. But to give the reference section a break from it, it can also be found here: http://www.starclustermusic.de/artists/badfinger/jackson/bio/jackson1.htm --ZincOrbie (talk) 19:21, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ref now in. --andreasegde (talk) 21:31, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of automated file description generation

Your upload of File:Bob Jackson musician.jpg or contribution to its description is noted, and thanks (even if belatedly) for your contribution. In order to help make better use of the media, an attempt has been made by an automated process to identify and add certain information to the media's description page.

This notification is placed on your talk page because a bot has identified you either as the uploader of the file, or as a contributor to its metadata. It would be appreciated if you could carefully review the information the bot added. To opt out of these notifications, please follow the instructions here. Thanks! Message delivered by Theo's Little Bot (opt-out) 13:48, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

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) 13:41, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, ZincOrbie. 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]

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, ZincOrbie. 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]