User talk:Armando12

   

   

Navigation Bar

User page

Talk!

Edit Count

Userboxes

Graphs•Imgs

Contribs

Sandbox

Welcome to my talk page.

Please post your new topic at the bottom of this page. Please sign and date your entry by inserting "~~~~" at the end. Please use a new ==Descriptive heading== for new topics. Please indent your posts with ":" if replying to an existing topic (or "::" if replying to a reply). I will generally respond here to comments that are posted here, rather replying via your Talk page (or the article Talk page, if you are writing to me here about an article), so you may want to Watch this page until you are responded to. ⇒ Start a new Talk topic.

Archives

---

1. July 2006 – December 2006

2. December 2006 - February 2007

3. February 2007

[edit] Image copyright problem with Image:Foxxy_love.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Foxxy_love.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

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

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 08:10, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Happy Tree Friends

A tag has been placed on List of Happy Tree Friends deaths, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the article is a repost of material that was previously deleted following a deletion debate, such as articles for deletion. If you can indicate how List of Happy Tree Friends deaths is different from the previously posted material, or if you can indicate why this article should not be deleted, I advise you to place the template {{hangon}} underneath the other template on the article, and also put a note on Talk:List of Happy Tree Friends deaths saying why this article should stay. An admin should check for such edits before deleting the article. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Please read our criteria for speedy deletion, particularly item 4 under General criteria. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself. We welcome your help in trying to improve Wikipedia, and we ask you to follow these instructions. Mhking 16:33, 25 February 2007 (UTC) This was deleted earlier; is there any reason to recreate it? --Mhking 16:33, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Evanescent wave

OK, what does Evanescent wave have to do with the rock band? — RevRagnarok ^{Talk Contrib} 00:53, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Hahaha..ok just delete it. Armando.O^{talk • Ev} 00:54, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re:

Check this, Good Article review of Fallen. LuciferMorgan 22:03, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Done per your request. LuciferMorgan 22:08, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Furthermore, if they disagree with my reasons for failing the article, it will become GA. It's nothing personal by the way Armando, but merely my interpretation of the GA criteria. LuciferMorgan 22:10, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Your very welcome to disagree - feel free to voice that at GAR (Good Article Review) and your reasoning as to why you disagree with my reasons for failing. Independent reviewers will then assess the situation, and if they see your viewpoint they'll promote the article. LuciferMorgan 22:16, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Care to comment about video game templates?

I've noticed you've had issues with how video game templates are set up. I've created a discussion here about it: Template talk:CVG Navigation. Feel free to comment, if you have the time. RobJ1981 06:15, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Edit summaries

Hi,

I had noticed that my autofill summaries aren't working, it seems to be something common to others using popups. I have no idea why, and it never seemed worth spending time on as I usually only use popups to fix vandalism. Any idea? WLU 21:39, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Nope. I tried to use the automatic summaries but I didn't work :S Armando.O^{talk • Ev} 21:55, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I left a message here, I'll let you know if anything comes up. WLU 23:08, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

K! Armando.O^{talk • Ev} 23:13, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] commons:User:Eacz12

I assert to be the same user as commons:User:Eacz12. Armando.O^{talk • Ev} 21:51, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationales

All fair use images require a fair use rationale. Please do not remove the no rationale template without adding a rationale. Jay32183 01:48, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I've recently uploaded a lot of images. Wich are you refering to? Armando.O^{talk • Ev} 03:14, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

It was Image:Wiki nils2.jpg, but I see you have since taken care of it. Jay32183 03:38, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I checked you contribution list and I found the image. Armando.O^{talk • Ev} 03:40, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] .OGG files

I use a program called Audacity[1]. You can view, play and edit .wav, .mp3 and .ogg files and export them in any of those formats. It's a powerful tool for audio editing; simple, yet really effective.... and free! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Gyakusetsu (talk • contribs) 03:48, 1 March 2007 (UTC).

Thnx!!!!!!!!!!!! Armando.O^{talk • Ev} 03:50, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Hey, that's cool. Can it play OGG videos? — Tuvok[^T@lk/_{Improve me}] 21:53, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sig glitch

Armando, your signature's superscript isn't closing properly. Note the formatting of the timestamp after it above. Any text after that in the same line will also be <sup>ed, so this might be a small problem. If you use the following code, it won't be a problem:

[[User:Armando12|<font color="#276394">Armando.O</font>]]^{[[User talk:Armando12|<font color="#2C518F">talk</font>]] • [[WP:EV|<font color="#2C518F">Ev</font>]]}

It displays like: Armando.O^{talk • Ev} (same as current) but it's valid code and won't break the text following it. — Tuvok[^T@lk/_{Improve me}] 21:53, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm using the exactly the same code...(edit this section to see the code) Armando.O^{talk • Ev} 21:16, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Not quite. Your code omits the quotes and hash symbols for the color values. Comparison:

Your code: [[User:Armando12|<font color=276394>Armando.O]]^{[[User talk:Armando12|<font color=2C518F>talk]] • [[WP:EV|<font color=2C518F>Ev]]}

Fixed code: [[User:Armando12|<font color="#276394">Armando.O</font>]]^{[[User talk:Armando12|<font color="#2C518F">talk</font>]] • [[WP:EV|<font color="#2C518F">Ev</font>]]}

Display tests:

Your code: Armando.O^{talk • Ev} test for superscript closure (stays up)

Fixed code: Armando.O^{talk • Ev} test for superscript closure (goes back to normal)

See the difference? — Tuvok[^T@lk/_{Improve me}] 23:57, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Subscript FTW, WOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOT!!!! Ashnard _talk 07:33, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Centralized video game navbox discussion

You previously expressed a strongly-stated opinion about a video game navbox or all video game navboxes in general, or perhaps I clicked on your talk page by mistake. Whichever it is, you are invited to offer your opinion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games#Navboxes III: Son of Navboxes. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 07:33, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:JohnLeCompt.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:JohnLeCompt.jpg. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:

1. Go to the image description page and edit it to add {{Replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.
2. On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace the fair use image by finding a freely licensed image of its subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or a similar) image under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that fair use images which could be replaced by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted 48 hours after this notification, per our Fair Use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Abu badali ^(talk) 16:14, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

More

The same for these images:

• Image:RockyGray.jpg
• Image:TerryBalsamo.jpg

Abu badali ^(talk) 16:14, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Unfree images on templates

Hi, Armando12. The problem with unfree images on templates is not only about they being displayed in the Template: namespace. Do you plan, for instance, to add a fair use rationale for each article where Image:Evanescence.svg is used due to it being in a template? I have raised this problem on Wikipedia talk:Fair use , and you may want to expose your thoughs there (but only if you feel so). Best regards, --Abu badali ^(talk) 18:13, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Hey Armando. Sorry about this fuss with the template. I've been trying to discuss a point about WP:FU#9 for a while, but been unable to get past a "never in templates" response. Had to actually do it to explore the waters, and am a little surprised how quickly it got noticed. Discussion is good. Anyway, it might be worth considering if in the long run, just the name as a text link is good enough for the navigation template? Could the EV symbol from the wikiproject be used in the nav template? Gimmetrow 22:25, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh!!!..of course...it's a free image created by me!..so It could be used there...but i that may not be enough.. Armando.O^{talk • Ev} 22:35, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

It looks like you weren't informed. You might want to comment on this IfD discussion. Gimmetrow 19:08, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Again so sorry about this fuss. The irony is that end result (content wise) is what would have happened anyway (since images linked to articles are not really a good idea), but it didn't have to be quite so bumpy. Gimmetrow 03:54, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

And to answer your question on the IFD, it was apparently proposed for deletion because someone thought it was infringing on the copyright of the real band logo. Again I apologize for the fuss. Gimmetrow 04:19, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Don't worry, its ok. Armando.O^{talk • Ev} 23:38, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Evanescence main article

Good revert of those recent edits, I was just about to do the same. I don't understand why that one fellow seems to be bent on deleting all fair use imagry, when it has clearly been determined to be acceptable use in articles. It's getting a little...tiresome. -- Huntster ^{T • @ • C} 21:21, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm really sick of it too. Also, the nomination for the Ev-In.svg image is too stupid. I don't know but I looks like ed g2s (or whatever his nick is) has a problem with Evanescence. Armando.O^{talk • Ev} 21:27, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I actually couldn't care less about Evanescence. Please remember to assume good faith and remain civil. Acting, as I am, in good faith, I can't vandalise by definition. That we have an album-cover tag for images does not give you carte-blanche to use album covers wherever you see fit. The relevance of the images to the band is not mentioned in the article. Remember we use fair use as a last resort for critical commentary. As I stated in my edit summary, at no point is the evolution of the logo discussed, nor are the differences in the two versions noteworthy. ed g2s • talk 22:29, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

What? That we have an album-cover tag for images does not give you carte-blanche to use album covers wherever you see fit. ??? So I must beg your permission and authorization to use images? If your "philosphy" were used in all the articles on Wikipedia, there'd be hundreds and hundreds of articles without images. I really don't know why you want to delete the album cover images, of Evanescence, when articles like Nirvana, Nightwish, Genesis (band), AC/DC (all of this featured articles) and hundreds of more articles use album covers on it. I'm NOT telling that the we use the images because other articles does, but we do it because it don't infringe anything (guidelines, copyright...).Armando.O^{talk • Ev} 22:42, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

"there'd be hundreds and hundreds of articles without images" - there are thousands of articles without images, and they wouldn't be better with images they didn't need, especially if those images were unfree. I am not deleting the cover images - they are used acceptably on the articles about the albums, they just have no reason to be on the article about the band because they are not discussed. If you read WP:FUC you'll find they do violate our policy. ed g2s • talk 23:35, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Specify the "violated" criterion. Armando.O^{talk • Ev} 23:43, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

And, that policy is about the criteria of the image itself, not the place where it should or shouldn't be used. Armando.O^{talk • Ev} 23:44, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

This is where you are mistaken. I can only assume you didn't read pass #7. Fair Use law, and our unfree image policy (WP:FUC) are both about context. This is why we need to have rationales for each use of an images. FUC#9 explicitly lists a load of plances where Fair Use "shouldn't be used", and FUC#8 makes it quite clear that the approriateness of use is dependent on context. ed g2s • talk 00:59, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

What??? Well, you have listed this, criterion 7 and 9. 7: The material must be used in at least one article. The images were in the Evanescence article until you deleted those.

9: Fair use images may be used only in the article namespace. It was (until you deleted the images).

All other uses, even if legal under the fair use clauses of copyright law, should be avoided to keep the use of unfree images to a minimum. SHOULD, not MUST. This is a different case. The reasons are in the fair use rationable of the image.

Now, this. Exceptions can be made on a case-by-case basis if there is a broad consensus that doing so is necessary to the goal of creating a free encyclopedia (like the templates used as part of the Main Page). There is! Check this archive. Armando.O^{talk • Ev} 01:21, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Every image that we do not have a license to republish is potentially infringing. They are permitted to be republished here under our Wikipedia:Fair use guidelines. If there is significant disagreement over an unfree image, the urgent thing is to address any concerns, not to make sure that it is replaced into the article as quickly as possible. If this isn't clear, then we need to spell it out more obviously. Jkelly 01:46, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

 ??? I don't understand. Armando.O^{talk • Ev} 01:48, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I was responding to this note, which seemed to be a question about images we are not licensed to republish and edit wars. Jkelly 02:03, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Lol, I know, but it was not a question is was an affirmation. What I didn't understand was your whole comment. Armando.O^{talk • Ev} 02:05, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Okay. Forgive me if this is telling you things that you already know! Images that have fair use tags on them are, unless something has gone wrong, under copyright. The copyright holder has the right to allow or disallow other people to publish their work. For the most part, although (confusingly) this is not true in every case, we do not have a license to republish the work. We do this by exploiting a doctrine in United States copyright law called fair use that allows limited republication under certain criteria. You can, of course, read more about this doctrine in our article. Wikipedia then imposes further criteria upon these criteria, largely because of its free content mission. en: (the English Wikipedia) is, speaking generally, not great at working out how to deal with this kind of content. Regardless of how one feels about this situation, we do have to keep in mind both the actual legal situation (which, ideally, should be not a problem if we closely follow our own rules, but things are not alway ideal), and the guidelines and policies about republishing such media here. If there is any real disagreement about whether the use (not the existence of the file, but how it is being used in an article) meets our criteria or not, this needs to be worked out through informed discussion, and this should take priority over making sure the article is illustrated. I hope this explains what I was talking about. Jkelly 02:27, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but I already knew that. Armando.O^{talk • Ev} 02:29, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Then what do you not understand? Jkelly 02:34, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Every image that we do not have a license to republish is potentially infringing. They are permitted to be republished here under our Wikipedia:Fair use guidelines. If there is significant disagreement over an unfree image, the urgent thing is to address any concerns, not to make sure that it is replaced into the article as quickly as possible. If this isn't clear, then we need to spell it out more obviously. Jkelly 01:46, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

So, every image that we do not have a license to republish is potentially infringing, but they are permitted to be republished here under our Wikipedia:Fair use guidelines. ?????????????????????????????????????? Armando.O^{talk • Ev} 02:35, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Did you bold the words you didn't understand, or are you repeating the sentence because you think it is contradictory? A copyright holder can grant a license to publish or republish their work. When you write an article, for instance, that article is copyrighted by you. By publishing it here, you agree to license it under the GFDL. The GFDL is a very permissive license; it allows everyone to republish your work, if they follow some conditions. If someone didn't want to follow that license, but they wanted to quote a small part of what you wrote in order to comment on it, in the United States they could invoke "fair use" and publish the part that they wanted to comment on. That's what we do with images like album covers and screenshots. I hope that this clears things up. Jkelly 02:59, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Because it was contradictory...well now...about your last comment...that's why the fair-use exists...for example...the cover of an OVA, has the creator allows to republish his/her art? Never ever! Armando.O^{talk • Ev} 03:08, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Orphaned fair use image (Image:Lacuna Coil.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Lacuna Coil.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. ReyBrujo 06:11, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] License tagging for Image:S2lo.svg

Thanks for uploading Image:S2lo.svg. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

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

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 20:10, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Extra Tracklisting

I just noticed you reverted that page again and then re-reverted to the change I made. I suppose I wasn't very clear on what I was doing. I'm not a part of WP:SINGLES, but was asked by User:Reaper X to make this change. I'm no expert of Wikilanguage, but if I've seen something done somewhere, I can usually emulate the code, so that's what I did there. As to the colours, in WP:ALBUMS, you can only select colours by selecting the album type in question, which in my mind works perfectly to keep things consistent, and what Reaper X asked me was to have those same colours carried over to Template:Extra tracklisting (talk, links, edit), as it indicates what track the song or single is on the album. Now, as I mentioned, I'm not usually involved in Singles, but where it related to albums, I step in and it seemed completely logical to apply these same colour rules to the syntax here to allow these to be colourised the same as the destination album (should the person click the link and go to the album). I expect you know this or recognise this, since you've re-reverted it, but I thought I should elaborate on why i did what I did.
peace
--linca^linca 12:34, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I know it was my bad. I understood that a few seconds after I reverted...sry! Armando.O^{talk • Ev} 23:26, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Lady Oscar trivia

I was trying to do some copyediting on the Lady Oscar (film) entry, and I'm finding sentence structure of the trivia entry confusing: "Due to one of the sponsors of this film was Shiseido, one of the most important cosmetic companies of Japan, Catriona MacColl was contracted for the promotion of its cosmetic campaign "Spring-79", where its new product would appear: the shining red labial." Do you mean Ms. MacColl was hired as a spokesmodel for the Spring 79 campaign? And what is "shining red labial"? Do you mean "Label"? (labial is word that describes a certain part of the female anatomy). I sense that English is not your first language, and I'd like to help you improve this article.Konczewski 01:35, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

xD....hahaha what's labial? I dunno..i'm a FCE student..so i'm not perfect..well actually...mm..i'll try to explain...one of the sponsor was shiseido...and shiseido is on the most important cosmetic companies of Japan...so...Catriona MacColl was hired to promote (spokesmodel i suppose) their cosmetic campaign...in that campagin a new product would appear...and that's the red shining...i think it's that think that woman use ot piant their lip...omg...xD it's lipstick..:PArmando.O^{talk • Ev} 04:12, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I think I get it. Check out my edit; I think it's correct.Konczewski 13:11, 5 April 2007 (UTC)