User talk:Undream

The three basic license types on Wikipedia are open content, public domain, and fair use. Find the appropriate template in Wikipedia:Image copyright tags and place it on the image page like this: {{TemplateName}}.

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

Copyright issue with Stephen Kasner WORKS: 1993 - 2006

Hello. Concerning your contribution, Stephen Kasner WORKS: 1993 - 2006, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from either web sites or printed material. This article appears to be a direct copy from http://www.stephenkasner.com/book/. As a copyright violation, Stephen Kasner WORKS: 1993 - 2006 appears to qualify for speedy deletion under the speedy deletion criteria. Stephen Kasner WORKS: 1993 - 2006 has been tagged for deletion, and may have been deleted by the time you see this message. If the source is a credible one, please consider rewriting the content and citing the source.

If you believe that the article is not a copyright violation or if you have permission from the copyright holder to release the content freely under the GFDL, you can comment to that effect on Talk:Stephen Kasner WORKS: 1993 - 2006. If the article has already been deleted, but you have a proper release, you can reenter the content at Stephen Kasner WORKS: 1993 - 2006, after describing the release on the talk page. However, you may want to consider rewriting the content in your own words. Thank you, and please feel free to continue contributing to Wikipedia. Ohconfucius 08:20, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Steven Leyba

You wrote on my talk page:

Jerzy

While you clearly have more experience as a wikipedia user than I, I feel it is unfair of you to propose to delete my work based on an assumption on your part that happens to be incorrect. Steven Leyba is a legitimate painter, performance artist, published author, and musician. He is well known in many circles, and for you to say that creating an article about him and his work is akin to "self promotion" is completely unfair and also completely untrue, as I am not him. Perhaps Leyba doesn't interest you on a personal level, but surely you must know that others have differing opinions and tastes than you. Now, on the other hand, if my formatting is incorrect (i.e. not citing sources accurately, etc) then that is another matter. I admit that I am still learning and fine tuning my wikipedia skills, and I am more than willing to rectify any technical mistakes. But to write him off entirely as unworthy of an article, etc, seems unjustified. Furthermore, your harsh manner is confusing and seems wholly unnecessary, in my opinion.
--rebecca 07:37, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

_ _ Hi, Rebecca/Undream, and please don't let me leave you as discouraged as you sound, as that was not my intention. For starters, please note that removing the ProD tag i place is something you can do unilaterally. (I think that is usually more effective after adding evidence of notability than before, so that someone doesn't send it to WP:AfD as soon as they see that the ProD has failed without improving the basis of the ProD nomination. But on the other hand, pay attention to the ProD clock, so that it doesn't go past the waiting period by accident.)
_ _ I'd also like you to know that sometimes i nominate bios under WP:CSD, and even if i don't delete them unilaterally as i'm permitted to if i'm convinced they qualify, they may disappear in minutes or overnight. Sometimes all i see as needed to be sure they are deletion-worthy is the concurring opinion of one other admin; in this case, i thot instead that it was important to have several days for, hopefully, several or many editors to consider its merits and make improvements in the evidence for notability. ProD may sound like me wanting imminent deletion and being likely to achieve it, but in fact it is unlike either of those, because so much here works through our collaborative editing process: it was my way of recruiting colleagues (including you, i'm pleased to see) to participate in making a decision that i not only am not prepared to make alone, but didn't have a strong opinion on when i tagged it with ProD, and don't expect to look at carefully enough to end up reaching a strong opinion. (It's simply outside my areas of competence and of strong interest, and my stumbling on it, in the course of helping keep the LoPbN index of bios orderly and useful was for me simply occasion to figuratively shout "Hey, could somebody who knows about performance art and in-your-face painting take a look at this?"
_ _ I hope you found the comments i left in the article text, next to sentences whose display i suppressed, without pitching them out, in the hope that someone would reword them or offer evidence for their content, and put better information in their place. To the degree that my manner really was harsh, the intent was not to discourage or insult, but to avoid pussyfooting and risking ambiguity about how important it is to establish verifiability of notability of the subject, and how far from those i saw the text that i found as being. And as i said elsewhere on WP, in the last week, regarding a bio whose subject i can't recall, all too often what i call "bombthrowing" by artistic people is evidence of lack of notability that has led them to try jumpstarting their visibility with works or situations that produce more attention via conflict than via artistic quality. That burden is not always fair; Mapplethorpes and Serranos have to suffer thru being mistaken for the guys exhibiting toilet bowls that have the words "No Shit" written inside, and i can't tell which Leyba is. You may be the editor best equipped to tackle the burden of correcting my bad guess, and if you or someone else succeeds, i'll applaud (tho it'll then imply my being wrong.
_ _ Do check out at least our editing tutorial and WP:V, and look for relevant Wikiprojects and various resources at Portal:Arts. These are likely to be more helpful in the long run than just my suggestions left in commented-out portion of pages. And tho there are surely others more than i likely to answer efficiently, i'll try to answer further questions you pose for me.
--Jerzy•t 09:08, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Archiving your talk page

Deleting past talk, without using an archiving scheme and providing lks to the archives, is frowned upon. In your case, deletion of the talk about deletion of your autobio (and perhaps other matters) makes a particularly bad appearance, in light of your seeking treatment as a non-WP-savvy user after two years and a couple of hundred edits, and the number of AfDs you are currently involved in.
--Jerzy•t 19:41 & 19:43, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Krasner article

You should know by now the importance of adding references quickly in an AfD debate.DGG 07:12, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Steven Leyba facts

Write your articles with REFERENCED FACTS and they might not get deleted. I found this lot in half an hour:

The article needs a list of shows, e.g. at the Museum of Porn in Art, Zurich[1] and the LA show Vaudeville Flesh,(click artists) his books and the video documentary on him,[2], (the latter shown at the 4th Independent San Francisco Film Festival)[3] performances such as the Spoken Word Festival in Stockholm,[4], published texts by him [5] and where he is mentioned such as New York Foundation for the Arts' Arts Wire Current.[6]

Don't cite the cached version of links. That's just to make it easy to find the name for the time being. See also useful pages.

Tyrenius 22:35, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned fair use image (Image:Stevenleyba.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Stevenleyba.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. 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 fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. This is an automated message from BJBot 23:29, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Luciferrising.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Luciferrising.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) 20:31, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with Image:Amelie.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Amelie.jpg. You've indicated that the image is being used under a claim of fair use, but you have not provided an adequate explanation for why it meets Wikipedia's requirements for such images. In particular, for each page the image is used on, the image must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Can you please check

That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's escription page for each article the image is used in.
That every article it is used on is linked to from its description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --10:23, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

License tagging for Image:Chaos-is-my-name.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Chaos-is-my-name.jpg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information; to add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia.

For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 02:07, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Chaos-is-my-name.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Chaos-is-my-name.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. 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 all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Melesse (talk) 23:57, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Draconis Blackthorne

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Draconis Blackthorne, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process because of the following concern:

Insufficient notability for an encyclopedia article.

All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because, even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Sticky Parkin 02:58, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

File source problem with File:Lakeview.jpg

File Copyright problem

Thanks for uploading File:Lakeview.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, 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, their copyright should also be acknowledged.

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 10:00, 16 March 2009 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 10:00, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Blood Fountains

A tag has been placed on Blood Fountains requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a band or musician, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for musical topics.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. Pseudomonas_(talk) 09:16, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free rationale for File:Satanicbible.gif

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Satanicbible.gif. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under non-free content criteria, but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia is acceptable. Please go to the file description page, and edit it to include a non-free rationale.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified the non-free 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 tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 23:21, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Lucifer Rising (book) for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Lucifer Rising (book) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lucifer Rising (book) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

PARAKANYAA (talk) 03:06, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]