User talk:Tzf

(I've deleted the previous junk from the top here, and no, I didn't archive it, OK? ;^) -Tzf (talk) 15:26, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lyle Workman[edit]

Are you going to leave Lyle Workman that way or clean it up? --Jeanenawhitney 08:51, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have deleted some crap that Jeanenawhitney left here. "Are you going to leave it that way or clean it up" is disrespectful, since you, Jeanenawhitney, trashed it in the first place. See below. Tzf (talk) 06:33, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I used the references/ style of listing the references, and it looked OK to me, then YOU came along and changed the reference style, and on your third edit, put "insert reference title here" all over the place. If you're going to come along and make it MUCH LESS readable, I think it's YOUR responsibility to insert the reference titles! If you assume I have infinite amounts of time to devote to Wikipedia, you're wrong, my time is very limited, but I felt strongly that Lyle Workman is an increasingly important figure (and has been very influential on musicians around the world since his debut). Apparently the Wikipedia equation of $$$=notability got the previous Lyle Workman article deleted, but now that he's gotten a lot of press for a Hollywood hit movie, it's easy enough to argue that he's notable. I spent far too much time getting all the references, and all of the references, even the ones I did not include in the article, are posted on the talk page, ripe for the Wikipedia community to come along and Wikify to their heart's content. Please, help yourself.

Tzf (talk) 15:26, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Replaceable fair use Image:FaunFables-field-BridgetBell.jpg[edit]

(I've deleted more bot-drivel here. Tzf (talk) 06:33, 9 February 2011 (UTC))[reply]

This is another example of Wikipedia policy wonks misguidedly pushing Wikipedia towards a lower-quality resource, for all the wrong, allbiet policy-litically correct, reasons. And I object most strongly to the tone of these notices above, where I am adressed as some kind of low-level employee who has not yet "learned the ropes". I used to think I had good reason to contribute to wikipedia as an editor, but that impression has all but vanished.

Remember when IMDB first appeared? It was a wholly collaborative NON COMMERCIAL site, yes, NON COMMERICAL. Like many people, I was an early contributor to IMDB, and like many people, I was greatly offended when it went commercial without so much as a thank-you to the early contributors.

Obviously Wikipedia is not going in the commercial direction (...er ...yet?), but it's no less offensive to find one's sincere efforts at improving the resource deprecated over and over again by people who care NOTHING for the thing that makes Wikipedia valuable in the first place: articles written by editors who are knowledgeable and passionate about the subjects they write about.

Here's what I wrote on the image page referred to above, which I expect to be deleted despite my efforts... on Christmas Day!

This image is in illustration of conceptual art piece which takes the form of a "band". Do not confuse the band with the art. This image in particular elicits an emotional response consistent with the subject.

Though Wikipedia is factually based, it is in itself by necessity artful when describing art and many other things. Many examples of this exist on Wikipedia. Putting concepts into language is itself an art, and those familiar with computer programming will say that the very php code in which Wikipedia is written is, once again out of necessity, artful.

Thus the importance of using an image in the article which is not simply a mug shot, but rather conveys the artist in context.

I took great care to:

note the particular fair use doctrine when I posted the image (a promotional photo from Faun Fables' promotional web site)
note the copyright holder when I posted the image,
contact the copyright holder to obtain permission to use the image on Wikipedia,
note here on the image page that permission had been obtained,
use the appropriate template tag to show the granted permission graphically.

Since permission of the copyright holder was obtained, I would hope that the image will remain on Wikipedia and on the Faun Fables article until such a time as another editor would actually take the time to make actual improvements to the article by using another image which does as much for the quality of the article as this one does, rather than degrading the quality if the article by simply removing the image.

That being said, I expect this argument to fall on deaf ears, and this commentary to be relegated to an archive that will never be read. My opinions about Wikipedia are given in more detail on my user page and user discussion page (q. v.).

-Tzf (talk) 23:31, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lyle Workman's date of birth[edit]

Hi. I'm not sure if you read my answer at my user talk page in German Wikipedia, so here it is: I understand English so there is no need for automatic translations ;-) (maybe I should write that on my userpage). You can find Workmans date of birth at IMDb. I know this is not the most reliable of all sources but I couldn't find a better one. -- Discostu (talk) 11:50, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DIY Disco Stu! This is not intended to be uncivil, but a restatement of a Wikipedia practice! Tzf (talk) 06:33, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]