User talk:HJensen/Archives/2008/January

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Does Humor Belong in Music DVD.JPG

Thanks for uploading Image:Does Humor Belong in Music DVD.JPG. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. 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 it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 05:16, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Still impressed

I just noticed that you removed my comment from the talkpage. Perhaps it was an accident, or perhaps you took it as an sarcastic remark, or perhaps you're just modest. Anyway, it was meant as a genuine compliment, slightly dressed up with a pinch of irony :-) - Keep up the good work and Cheers! DVdm (talk) 16:59, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi! It was completely accidental. I had copied the code into an editor and then inserted my new comments. Then I pasted things back into Wiki a few hours later. In that process I overlooked your nice comments. Sorry about that - I have restored the comments. Thanks a lot for the kind words!HJensen, talk 20:11, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Good article nomination

Hello,

I have tried to understand some updates you recently made in the Frank Zappa article.

It seems some of these actions were motivated by 'guidelines' from Wikipedia:Good articles and Wikipedia:Embedded_list#How_many_links_in_each_article.3F saying that only 1 or 2 links are needed at the end of an article.

External links that were removed pointed to websites that could be used as sources as they do contain information that cannot be found anywhere else.

I am not saying that these links should stay where they were, however I think that in some cases organising information may be better than erasing information.

Thanks for your understanding.

Maroual (talk) 19:47, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree completely. I try to organize information as is best possible. I have for now, however, edited in conformity with the GA nomination revision comments. If the links (as also suggested by the reviewer) can be used as sources (e.g., as inline citations), this will be great. But they should not just be there in order to be there. I have, just to make that clear, nothing against any of the sites that were listed per se. --HJensen, talk 22:23, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Nice work by the way! — Dihydrogen Monoxide 21:40, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

FZ

Hey there, this is the first time I really took the time to look at it but Frank Zappa is a really great article. I don't think it would take a lot of effort to get it to FA status. Have you thought about putting together a worklist? Are there things missing that you know of? --Spike Wilbury ♫ talk 22:57, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

A bit more details on his last years (political involvement, illness, Synclavier compositions). I plan to put some in soon (cf. the talk page). I have then thought about tyring to push it for FA status. Cheers. --HJensen, talk 14:31, 19 January 2008 (UTC)