User talk:HerrDalton
Already on the list under USA
Fair use rationale for File:Jaak lipso.jpg[edit]
Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Jaak lipso.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the file description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.
If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. ww2censor (talk) 04:52, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
File copyright problem with File:Jaak lipso.jpg[edit]
Thank you for uploading File:Jaak lipso.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the file. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.
If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link.
If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. ww2censor (talk) 04:52, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
File copyright problem with File:Sten Pentus.jpg[edit]
Thank you for uploading File:Sten Pentus.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the file. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.
If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link.
If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. ww2censor (talk) 04:53, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
File copyright problem with File:Sergio Gabriel Martínez in 2010.jpg[edit]
Thank you for uploading File:Sergio Gabriel Martínez in 2010.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the file. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.
If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link.
If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. ww2censor (talk) 04:55, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
November 2010[edit]
Please do not add or change content without citing verifiable and reliable sources, as you did to MTX (automobile). Before making any potentially controversial edits, it is recommended that you discuss them first on the article's talk page. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. Yves (talk) 05:11, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
- You need a reliable source to back up your claim that it is the vehicle. To not do is is considered original research, which is not allowed on Wikipedia. It doesn't matter about the publicity; many people may not even know the name of the car; I did not until I saw the video and looked it up. Furthermore, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Think of how many music videos have been made and with which cars. If we included all information, articles on cars would be tens to hundreds of pages long! The type of car may be relevant to the article on the music video, but certainly not on that of the car itself, unless you can find a reliable source to support its notability. Yves (talk) 05:29, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
- Let's see: the first one is a blog, as is the fourth one, the second one is not really reliable. MTV and VH1 are reliable, and it does confirm the car in the video, but let me direct you to something. If you take a look at Wikipedia's conventions for automobile-related articles, you will see at the very bottom that film, television, and other appearances are not notable and do not belong in these pages. The only exception is if its inclusion had a significant impact on sales, operation, or design, which this does not (as far as I'm aware). I understand why you would want to include it, but if fifty other movies or videos had this car in it, the article would grow extremely lengthy, hence the limitation. Yves (talk) 05:57, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
- I'm not disputing the presence of the automobile in the film. What is needed is proof that its presence significantly affected the vehicle's sales, operation or design. If this cannot be found in a reliable source, it cannot be added. Public exposure isn't a valid reason for its inclusion. Yves (talk) 17:49, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
- The Czech Wikipedia is not the English Wikipedia. Different Wikipediae have different standards and guidelines. Yves (talk) 21:04, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
- I will stick with the Czech version then - seems more complete to me HerrDalton (talk) 23:24, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
- The Czech Wikipedia is not the English Wikipedia. Different Wikipediae have different standards and guidelines. Yves (talk) 21:04, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
- I'm not disputing the presence of the automobile in the film. What is needed is proof that its presence significantly affected the vehicle's sales, operation or design. If this cannot be found in a reliable source, it cannot be added. Public exposure isn't a valid reason for its inclusion. Yves (talk) 17:49, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
- Let's see: the first one is a blog, as is the fourth one, the second one is not really reliable. MTV and VH1 are reliable, and it does confirm the car in the video, but let me direct you to something. If you take a look at Wikipedia's conventions for automobile-related articles, you will see at the very bottom that film, television, and other appearances are not notable and do not belong in these pages. The only exception is if its inclusion had a significant impact on sales, operation, or design, which this does not (as far as I'm aware). I understand why you would want to include it, but if fifty other movies or videos had this car in it, the article would grow extremely lengthy, hence the limitation. Yves (talk) 05:57, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
- You need a reliable source to back up your claim that it is the vehicle. To not do is is considered original research, which is not allowed on Wikipedia. It doesn't matter about the publicity; many people may not even know the name of the car; I did not until I saw the video and looked it up. Furthermore, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Think of how many music videos have been made and with which cars. If we included all information, articles on cars would be tens to hundreds of pages long! The type of car may be relevant to the article on the music video, but certainly not on that of the car itself, unless you can find a reliable source to support its notability. Yves (talk) 05:29, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
Your recent edits[edit]
Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you must sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button 
located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 07:33, 2 November 2010 (UTC)