User talk:R.h.c.afounder1

Image copyright problem with Image:Jesse_Crawford.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Jesse_Crawford.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:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 08:50, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome

Hello, R.h.c.afounder1, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} and your question on your user talk page, and someone will show up shortly to answer. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

We hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, you can sign your name on talk and vote pages using four tildes, like this: ~~~~. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! GreenJoe 17:48, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An Automated Message from HagermanBot

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! HagermanBot 20:42, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Superb work

Finally someone has clarified this (biggest selling single) debate. Previously i had only removed newspaper sources (ie.editors opinions) with RIAA and Guinness sources taking precedence... as thats the only authentic material we had to go on. Its never going to be conclusive as verified sales have Elton John as the biggest, estimations have Crosby as the biggest...but your input and various sources has gone a long way to clarifying matters. One gray area that remains relates to specific recordings... ie.how many versions of White Christmas are included in sales... whereas with Elton we know its specifically the 1997 single (his original Candle in the Wind sales are not included)... does single specifically mean a single recording? or later variations of it? Anyway, your research was excellent and helped give a much more broadened explanation to this.KiwiJeff 11:25, 28 July 2010

Ah thanks for that, so it is the 1942 song specifically. The thing is (as the opening paragraph to the article states) the biggest selling single can't be listed officially due to estimations, as certified is essential to get a concrete definitive answer. The previously removed Grein blog is opinion based and heavily biased (he mentions greater number of White Christmas cover versions - overlooking the fact Elton's 1997 song was specifically written for a funeral service), but the Guinness sources you provided were excellent, and helped finally clarify matters.KiwiJeff 12:16, 28 July 2010

Guiness World Record PDFs

The fact that you have scanned it does not mean that the rights belong to you. The image copyrights belongs to the same person/organisation to whom the book itself belongs. I have reverted your edits. J Milburn (talk) 19:39, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You can cite books as references; there is absolutely no requirement to upload scanned versions of the references you are citing. If you're having trouble with specific users/articles, that is upsetting, but there are processes to go through if that is the case. I'm sorry, but we can only host non-free content on Wikipedia if it meets our very strict non-free content criteria- these PDFs do not. Additionally, these were not tagged by bots in this case, they were tagged by me. J Milburn (talk) 21:37, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for File:Come on-a My House.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Come on-a My House.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file 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 file 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 '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 you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 23:11, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:IMG 0935.jpg listed for deletion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:IMG 0935.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files 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. Calliopejen1 (talk) 15:12, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Doris Day

"but [Day] stated unequivocally that she would be celebrating her 88th birthday on April 3, 2012" - seriously??

Just because she says she will be celebrating her 88th birthday doesn't mean she was not born in 1923, it means she is sticking to the altered year of birth she has been using for eons. Why did the census taker give her age as 7 in 1930? Why does her biographer (Kaufman) insist she was born in 1922?? Your reasoning is facile and naive, I am sorry to say. Quis separabit? 19:28, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"As you mention yourself, Day's biographer lists 1922 as her birthdate, yet census records allegedly place her birthdate as 1923. There is no way to account for this discrepancy, and obviously only one of these dates (or neither) must be the correct one ... Therefore, based on what little evidence exists to confirm any one date as Day's definitive date of birth, I think it only makes sense to take Day at her word when she says she was born in 1924. To suggest that she is so elderly that she can no longer remember her own birthdate, a date which she has no doubt had to write down countless times over the years on legal and medical documents, or to suggest that she is simply lying, is to me far more absurd than simply taking her at her word."

What I am trying to say is that it is not for you to decide which is the correct year if there is sufficient discrepancy from valid sources (biographer, census, Day herself), all of which are considered reliable but do not guarantee the correct answer.

The fact remains that the year of her birth (whether it is 1922, 1923, or 1924) will never be resolved until her birth certificate is unearthed or other info comes to light in the sad event of her death, although I hope she reaches centenarian status for that matter. Thus, given the unresolvable (for now) dispute, all three years (1922, 1923, 1924) must be included as possible years of birth in the lede and infobox!

"Therefore, based on what little evidence exists to confirm any one date as Day's definitive date of birth, I think it only makes sense to take Day at her word when she says she was born in 1924." -- no actually this makes no sense at all.

"To suggest that she is so elderly that she can no longer remember her own birthdate.." -- I did not suggest this at all; I clearly stated that she had altered her year of birth long ago (I used the term "eons ago", but that was facetious) and she is sticking with it, as many, many female actors have done over the years.

Yours, Quis separabit? 18:18, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]