User talk:Oscar O Oscar

Welcome!

Hello, Oscar O Oscar, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the Wikipedia Boot Camp, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} on your user talk page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions.

Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! Dr Debug (Talk) 04:12, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ostinato

I reverted the edits because they lost a citation as well as the Further reading section, the interlanguage links, and the categories. Hyacinth 18:24, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Notebook for Anna Magdalena Bach

Thank you again! :) I also went for it and created Klavierbüchlein für Wilhelm Friedemann Bach, but its not as detailed. I thought since you worked on the Anna Magdalena notebooks, maybe you have some information on this too? I don't know what the "Baß-Skizze", for instance, and I could find no images of the title page. Jashiin 13:10, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alas, I have nothing on it myself. I had information on AMB's notebooks primarily through liner notes (of all things!!). I would be interested in the article once you're finished, though. Oscar 20:40, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Softbill

hey oscar. Thanks for bring the article to my attention. It seems that new text was a copy-and-paste. But I'd be wary about reverting cited changes because of an new editor's tone. Most everyone thinks they're "all that" when they first get here. Some of them even actually are! A quick look through the web seems to indicate there is no one defenition of softbill that I can find, btw. Sabine's Sunbird talk

Question about photograph of Babe Ruth's headstone

I'm the person who uploaded the photograph of Babe Ruth's headstone to his article on Wikipedia. I just noticed that the photograph no longer exists on his page, and it disappeared with your edit. Your edit summary states "Added link to photo," but I couldn't fine the link when I looked for it. This is a good photograph which deserves to be in Babe Ruth's article. I see absolutely no reason for the picture to be removed from his page. What's up?. I have noticed a lot of editing to Ruth's page, and the article is much shorter now than it was a couple of months ago. Why is so much deleting taking place on Babe Ruth's page?

Anthony 22 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Anthony22 (talk • contribs) 01:06, 4 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Babe Ruth's headstone again

You say that the photograph does nothing for the article. It is a good photograph of Babe Ruth's headstone, and I uploaded it to Wikipedia many months ago. Why did it take so long for the photograph to be deleted? I'm beginning to think that there are too many editors on Wikipedia. There's an old adage that too many chefs can spoil the soup.Anthony22 00:53, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An article which you started, or significantly expanded, William Henry Holbert, was selected for DYK!

On January 7, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article William Henry Holbert, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

Thanks for your contributions! Nishkid 64 14:52, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rhead Family

Thank you for your work on Frederick H Rhead, and yes I will try to use the preview button more. It would be good if someone could add some images to the Charlotte Rhead article. --Alan 08:37, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I like the images you found and will e-mail Chris Bertram. --Alan 07:34, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

am interested in illustrating the Wikipedia article on Charlotte Rhead and wondered if one of your photos might be appropriate. (The article on her brother Frederick Hurten Rhead looks much better with a pot or two). As your work is tagged "non-commercial", I understand that you would have to change the designation for it to be used on Wikipedia.

This is an extract from my e-mail and I have now rec`d a positive response as follows:

Dear Alan

Yes, certainly. I'm pretty sure that a "Creative Commons" licence (which my photos have) permits use on the Wikipedia, which counts as non-commercial. Let me know if I need to change to "public domain" or whatever.

Best wishes

Chris Bertram --Alan 05:44, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have put Chris Bertram´s latest e-mail on the Charlotte Rhead talk page. I am not sure how to handle the photos, Oscar, and need your help. --Alan 12:57, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think they make a great improvement to the article, Oscar. OK, someone may find better photos in the future, but I don´t think there is any urgency. As regards Karl L. H. Müller, I am afraid I am much better acquainted with the English pottery scene than the American one (although I find the American one very interesting). --Alan 04:07, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Robert Goffin, Benny Carter, Louis Armstrong, Leonard Feather 1942.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Robert Goffin, Benny Carter, Louis Armstrong, Leonard Feather 1942.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image 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 image 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 'image' 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 "Image" 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. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI 02:51, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, gimme a break. I was adding the fair use rationale when you wrote this. Give a guy at least 10 minutes, willya?? Oscar 02:58, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Mix

Duh, I didn't see it was a redlink. Thanks for saying so in the summary the 2nd time and for tryin again! Gwen Gale 04:41, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DYK

On 19 December, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Robert Goffin, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Royalbroil 14:31, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unspecified source for Image:Jimmy_Dorsey_1.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Jimmy_Dorsey_1.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, then you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, then their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Fair use, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 20:07, 1 February 2008 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Rettetast (talk) 20:07, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Commons FP comment

Hi, you made a comment on a FP here saying that there must be better pictures of the composer. In fact, I believe there aren't, which is why I nominated that. I'm not contesting your vote stance, but your statement is wrong. You can take a look at http://senar.ru/photos/ to see many photos (I would think all) of this composer. I can only see one (him at the concert piano) that might rival the photo in question in "wow" or "value," but it is out of the scope of Commons by date. Also, I understand that even if it was a fact that it was the best quality photo available it might still not make FP, but I just want to let you know there was consideration on my part of that element. ALTON .ıl 21:18, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, I fully accept your assessment. Thanks for understanding. ALTON .ıl 23:25, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well done OOO

On 14 April, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Bailey House Museum, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

-- thanks Victuallers (talk) 18:35, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed non-free use rationale for File:Gabby Hayes & Roy Rogers.jpg

Thank you for uploading File:Gabby Hayes & Roy Rogers.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this file on Wikipedia may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the file description page and adding or clarifying the reason why the file qualifies under this policy. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your file is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a non-free use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for files used under the non-free content policy require both a copyright tag and a non-free use rationale.

If it is determined that the file does not qualify under the non-free content policy, it might be deleted by an administrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:07, 8 September 2013 (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) 13:42, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]