User talk:FuriousFreddy

Mixtape notability

Hi FuriousFreddy, I noticed you successfully got these unofficial Snoop Dogg mixtapes deleted in this massive AFD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Welcome to tha chuuch mixtape vol.1. I thought I'd get your opinion on mixtape articles in general. I think there's so many pages in Category:Mixtape albums that don't warrant articles, even if the mixtapes are official. There could be some tapes that warrant a page such as Welcome to tha Chuuch - Da Album because it has critical reviews and info beyond a track list. But I think the majority of mixtapes can never expand beyond a mere track list and should thus be deleted. But you may have a differing opinion on this. Thanks for your time. Spellcast 00:49, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Dreamgirls question

As to the other articles you mention, the short answer is because I haven't gotten around to it yet and neither has anyone else. There's a lot of nonfree image cleanup to do, so not everything's going to get done in one day. Also, keep in mind that Star Wars is an iconic, historic film, as are many of the scenes out of it. It may be that the article on a Star Wars movie can support enough sourced critical commentary to justify more than one image. I haven't looked at it yet, so I can't say for sure. (Also, please note that simply illustrating a scene which is already described in text is also decorative, unacceptable use, unless the scene is a truly iconic one outside the series' fandom, so if the images are not being used to illustrate filming style they're even less acceptable.) It's alright to use one nonfree screenshot in a movie article just to illustrate the movie's unique filming style and the like, just as it's alright to use one audio sample in an article about a band to indicate their style, but any more than that is redundant unless the movie contains several scenes which are truly iconic and widely discussed by sources. But the Wikimedia Foundation did make a resolution on this issue, and they were clear—nonfree media must be used minimally; if one image will do, multiple ones may not be used, if text alone can provide adequate description, none may be used. In the case of a movie, text alone cannot identify the unique filming style of a movie, and an image can reasonably be said to be necessary. But in almost all cases, including this one, one image can, so multiple images are redundant, excessive, and well, not minimal. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 05:11, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Slyfam-famaffair-1971.ogg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Slyfam-famaffair-1971.ogg. 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. —Angr/talk 16:05, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Image:Pepe Le Pew.JPG listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Pepe Le Pew.JPG, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Ilse@ 23:54, 31 August 2007 (UTC) Ilse@ 23:54, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Smile

Mears man has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Thanks for reassessing the importance of the Hairspray (2007 film) article. I'm not too familiar with the method used to determine the importance of film articles, but I was bothered by the fact that there was no importance set, so I decided to give it my best shot and hope that it was either right or that someone who knew more about it would come along and correct it. Anyway, thanks again! —Mears man 12:28, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Hairspray (2007 film)

You removed the article Hairspray (2007 film) from the category Films set in the 1960s despite the fact that the film takes place entirely in the year 1962 and was produced after said decade. It's difficult enough to create a comprehensive list of all period films set in each decade of the 20th century without certain films being removed for no apparent reason. I demand an explanation! Hegria66 18:09, 3 September 2007 (UTC)