User talk:Harout72

Modern Talking

Hi, I was interested in your edit here. Can you explain what you mean in the edit summary please? Thanks in advance, --John (talk) 08:20, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Why would anyone think of flag icons as reluctant? Such an interpretation could drive a person to assume that one has a difficult time glancing at a foreign country-flag other than his/her own. Or perhaps it is simply: Why does a car need to be covered with red or green paint when it simply could say on the hood of the car the name of the colour the owner prefers. :)--Harout72 (talk) 03:42, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Redundant, not reluctant. Please see WP:MOSFLAG. We don't use flags like this. See also WP:AGF. --John (talk) 16:21, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the link WP:MOSFLAG, the wiki policy says flag icons could be distracting the reader when it's within the body of the article: (Not for use in general article prose)[1] or it could lead the reader to assume incorrect citizenship: [2]. As for the flag which stood within the info box of the band Modern Talking, the flag was simply there to represent the country the band's from, which would be similar to the case of sportsmen [3] example [4].--Harout72 (talk) 05:27, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for replying. This is not a good use of flags though. They are useful as space savers in a long list but not in an infobox for a band. "Flag images should be useful to the reader, not merely decorative." Tell me what Germany has that is better than just Germany please. --John (talk) 06:14, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I guess we could live with without having a flag icon plastered next to the name of a country. The wiki policy is in a way right and so are you honestly, it does stand as sort of a decoration. That's fine.--Harout72 (talk) 04:11, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Scooter (band)

I noticed you wrote in an edit summary: "Why was the image of Celebrate the Nun removed?" I would make two comments about your edit. First, per Help:reverting, reversion is used against vandalism or vandal-like edits. Using it when (as your edit summary indicates) you don't understand the policy involved is a bad idea. Secondly, the image was removed on copyright grounds. Here is a good starting point to understand why using nonfree images this way is also a bad idea. Let me know if I can help you with anything else. --John (talk) 16:27, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

That image is from 1991 and they are no longer active as Celebrate the Nun. I believe the colour purple within the description that says Fair Use in Scooter Band [5] indicates that the image has already been approved as a non-free rationale by an admin, there are no free images available for Celebrate the Nun. They have not been active since 1991. --Harout72 (talk) 05:42, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I never heard that about the colour before and doubt if it is true. The image is too large for use as a fair use image; 250 or 300 px would be better. If you can edit it down to that size I would have no problem about using it. --John (talk) 06:11, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I'll try to downsize it. Thanks and appreciate your kindness.--Harout72 (talk) 04:11, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

• • C'mon, friend, do the greatest article of ENglish-Wiki! As I've done in RU :)))))--Oleg Abarnikov (talk) 09:16, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

List of best-selling music artists

You said, "User:Garik 11 reverted 7 version back instead of only 2, please observe the edits and differ vandals from non-vandals". But I do not see how my edit could result in that. I only re-added one sourced entry which had been removed. Please take note. Garik 11 (talk) 21:09, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

You are right, I took a closer look at the the edits done by user:84.198.70.215 as they look clear vandalism, I first thought you had simply reverted when I read your "rv repeated vandalism by user Koshi Inaba". I apologize for confusion.--Harout72 (talk) 22:12, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Re: Metallica

It's a mirror of Wikipedia's Metallica article - read the section underneath the biography. Funeral 18:45, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Read this version of Wikipedia's Metallica article from 2006. And compare it to the wording found in your weblink here. See anything similar?

It happens all the time. Lots of low-end websites steal content from Wikipedia all the time. Many will note that the content comes from Wiki. Some, like your activemusician.com link, tend will hide the source of the text. It's pretty simple. Read WP:V. Content must be verifiable. And Wikipedia can never be used as a source for itself. And right along with that... by common sense... websites that steal content from Wikipedia can't be used as a ref because that's just using a third party pipe to try and use Wikipedia as a source for itself. Hope that helps. Websites, in general, suck as far as reliable sources go. Notable books and notable pro publications are the best place to look for refs. My opinion is biased since I am a librarian. But I will go to printed paper for citations long before I resort to the internet. In this day and age where websites are concerned... if they don't list where there information os from or who the author is(and it must be a pro writer and not a blog)... assume it's been copied from Wiki... because it usually is. BTW. one of the other refs you added for Metallica is directly from metallica.com... a "self ref"... which is also frowned upon for being a good reliable source. A better one should be found to replace it ASAP. Hope that helps. 156.34.221.33 (talk) 00:25, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, It's understandable that there are lot of junk web sites out there, but let me ask you this, what makes you so sure that who ever wrote whatever is here Read this version of Wikipedia's Metallica article from 2006 isn't copied from here here. If we are going to be as skeptical as your approach is especially when it comes to artists' official web sites then what you're basically suggesting is that 50% of wiki articles should be considered for deletion. I am, by the way, no fan of Metallica nor Mariah Carey, I am simply trying to help that page be as sourced as we possibly can keep it. Before we go after obviously popular acts like those we should look at this for example Michiya Mihashi with a source which is in Japanese [6].--Harout72 (talk) 00:45, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Trust me, in my opinion, Wikipedia could only be improved by deleting half the articles that are here. Not only am I a staunch IP editor... I am an even stricter "deletionist". 2 million articles on English Wikipedia and 75% of them are pure junk. Why do I not think that the article is a reverse copy? I am a veteran Wikipedia editor (formally logged in but have chosen the "purity" of anonymous editing for over a year and a half) with an edit count of close to 50000(thats combined user account/IP) edits. I can remember the ongoing history of the Metallica article quite well since I have a huge number of vandal rv's just on that one article. (it's a magnet for vandals) If you review the edit history of the Metallica article throughout 2006 you will see that the "then" lead-in was composed and fleshed out by certain key editors like User:Master of Puppets(a former admin nominee and one of the most "liked" editors on Wikipedia), User:M3tal H3ad(a user with several Featured Articles under his belt and likely a future admin himself), Wiki admin User:Anger22 (a vandal/copyvio hunter with a mean streak) and User:LuciferMorgan (another editor with several Featured Articles on his Wiki-resume)... along with a few other "vets". Are you saying that these editors copied content from an external source... or that they were blind not to spot that copyvio content was being added in to that article? I highly doubt it. It's just another mirror site. 156.34.221.33 (talk) 01:09, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Best selling musicians article

Hey, didn't really mean to call your edit vandalism with RVV. 220.253.8.185 (talk) 09:19, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

No offence taken, I actually must've accidentally pasted those web-addresses into the wrong version after I copied them from another browser I had open. --Harout72 (talk) 18:16, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Media Control headquarters in Baden-Baden, Germany.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Media Control headquarters in Baden-Baden, Germany.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. Retropunk (talk) 06:39, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

You have not addressed the misuse of the template:wikipedia-screenshot. It's reserved for screenshots of wikipedia and not images found on another wikipedia site. You'll need to attach the appropriate template for it. Retropunk (talk) 05:08, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

You still need to tag it properly. You currently have it tagged as a wikipedia screenshot, which it's not. If it's a creative commons image, you need to tag it as such. Retropunk (talk) 05:20, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

I noticed you have two very similar images - with an upper case H and and the other with a lower case h. I'm not sure if you meant to do this or not. Retropunk (talk) 05:52, 26 January 2008 (UTC)