User talk:Jazz77

I Jazz. I hope your accidented start will not discourage you. I check the last versions of some of your articles, and It appear to me that they are not copyrighted. The first version apparently were, but I think you already learned that lesson. The tone is still a bit too enthusiastic (not NPOV),probably the cause of Ross's "product placement" epythet. Anyway, welcome to wikipedia.--AN

Hi, Jazz, I'm the guy who says that facts are not copyrightable in objection to Ross deleting all of your contributions because of copyright problems in some of them. Not the best way of fixing something like that by a long shot. Steve

---

Gotcha. I can leave out comments like "critics loved this album" or whatever. That's not necessary, I just thought it gave more of a feel for who the band was. When I read articles in an encyclopedia, there are usually descriptive comments made... if you look up "The Beatles", it will probably say that the band was extremely popular, and had enormous hits, etc. The artists I'm putting up never reached that sort of success, but it still seems like pointing out hit singles or whatever makes sense.

My mistake originally was using some promotional material for some of these artists. I do not believe those bios are copyrighted (promotional print material from record companies usually isn't because the record companies want people to print it - anywhere, anytime), but perhaps that wasn't the best thing to do. Apparently some of those bios are even on other websites, which I was not aware of. That was not intentional on my part. However, some of what I had posted originally was original, and everything I posted today was original.

One other problem I had... As soon as I was aware of the problem with my posts, I was already banned. These pages said I could discuss the problem with site administrators - but that was impossible because I couldn't post anything to the site, and no email addresses were listed. It may be a good idea not to ban people so quickly in the future. (I'm using someone else's computer right now, because I am still banned on my machine).

---

OK, you are unbanned.AN

---

Thanks!

Jazz77, please please PLEASE review Wikipedia:Copyrights. And if you do use outside material that you believe is legally usable, CITE IT EXPLICITLY in the edit "summary" field and the Talk: page. Link the source, say exactly what, from where, and when you copied it, say why you believe it's usable, and don't be surprised if other contributors are extremely dubious if the source isn't explicitly marked either public domain or GNU Free Documentation License. Original text is always safe, and more likely to fit our encyclopedic project goals such as the neutral point of view. --Brion 10:18 Sep 26, 2002 (UTC)

Also note that it's quite easy to get your text back by going to the history link for a page, bringing up the old text, asking to edit it then saving it. -- Derek Ross

---

Note, using three, or four ~ you get your name and a link to your user page, or that plus the date. In my case (user name AstroNomer, and nick AN) the results are:

~~~ = AN
~~~~ = AN 10:28 Sep 26, 2002 (UTC)

---

People are probably going to complain about your #### in music pages. I agree with the idea and would like to see the same thing for military history. Vera Cruz

---

I dislike the "<- xxxx in music | ( yyyy ) | zzzz in music ->". It looks awful. Would this be better as "See also: xxxx in music, yyyy in general, zzz in music."? -- SGBailey 17:44 Dec 23, 2002 (UTC)

Is there an arrow character? That would be the ticket. But yeah, the <- is hardly aesthetically pleasing.
- Tubby

Whatever everyone wants to do.. I didn't create the format for these pages. I Just started expanding on it and adding content. By the way, what does everone think about creating xxxx in movies, or xxxx in film? As it is, we only have the decade lists... Jazz77

---

Hi - I think it was you that added Fountains of Wayne to the Christian Alternative music page (whoever it was, they weren't logged in at the time, so I may be mistaken - apologies if so). Are you really sure they are alt.Christian? I'll admit that I've never listened to their stuff that closely, but I've heard both their albums, and never noticed any Christian element in there, nor have I ever seen them described as a Christian band. I've taken them out of that page for now, so if you're really sure about it, you may want to put them back in. Cheers--Camembert 02:03 Jan 4, 2003 (UTC)

Definitely wasn't me. Never even heard of Fountains of Wayne. Jazz77

Apologies then - I must have got confused (I easily confuse :) --Camembert

---

Hey, Jazz, the correct name of the game show is Wheel of Fortune, not The Wheel of Fortune. I really didn't want to go through all of those year in television articles to correct it. Would you do it? -- Zoe

Heh. Sure, I'll do it as I'm working on other things. I think I copied the title from another page.. I guess I should try to find that as well. -Jazz77

---

What is the source of "Top Grossing Films of the Year"? Is this a worldwide figure or just US? Please remember that Wikipedia is read outside of the States, and articles shouldn't be americo-centric. Mintguy

---

It's U.S., BUT every worldwide list I've been able to find follows these lists exactly. If you can find a non-US film that made as much money as these films, go ahead and add it. (There are actually quite a few non-US films listed as top grossing films on the pages already.) -Jazz77

Check out http://www.worldwideboxoffice.com Mintguy

I'll check it and see if theres anything different.. the last few years look the same.. (Harry Potter, Spider Man, LoTR, etc) -Jazz77

Please see Talk:1946 in film. The creator of the article was an anon IP, was it you?

Possibly. I created a lot of those pages. My computer logs me out in the middle of editing pages half the time.. it seems to do it less now than before, but I still have that problem occasionally. -Jazz77

Hmm.. I'm becomming disappointed at the above site actually, a lot of the films even as recently as 1990 do no have international box office data . If this information is simply unavaiable, then perhaps it should be made clear on the XXXX in film pages that we are talking about US box receipts, and leave it at that. Mintguy

I'd really hate to have to do that... then we'll have people adding Top Grossing Swedish Films, and Top Grossing Mexican films, and Top Grossing Canadian films, etc, etc, etc... I'd rather just list worldwide lists - if anything. I'll keep looking for a good source.-Jazz77

I don't see anything wrong in putting top grossing films in countries outside the US if the data is available. As stated earlier Wikipedia shouldn't be Americo-centric it should be encylopaedic. There are or were thriving Swedish (no mention of The Seventh Seal on the 1957 page as of yet) and French film industries not to mention other anglophonic nations (British and Australian) which shouldn't be ignored. Mintguy 05:39 Jan 26, 2003 (UTC)

I wasn't suggesting that we should ignore the other countries, in fact I've been trying to include other countries as much as possible as I'm adding content. I'd just hate to see each country get its own list, simply because it would make the pages so much larger than they really need to be. I think trying to focus on the worldwide top 10 or so is the best way to go. Additional films can be listed at the bottom of course. -Jazz77

Fair enough, but if the list is of top 10 US films then it should say so, otherwise it is dishonest. Mintguy

I'd agree with that, but before we change all the pages.. I'm hoping we can just find a good source for worldwide numbers. There has to be one out there somewhere. My guess would be that the worldwide numbers are not that far off from the US numbers. I doubt some Swedish film outsold "Star Wars", "E.T.", "Lord of the Rings" or "Harry Potter". -Jazz77

According to WorldwideBoxOffice In 1997 The Full Monty did 4 times as much business in the rest of the world as it did in the US, whilst Air Force One made less money outside of the US than in it. Most spectacularly Mononoke Hime is listed at the most 10th popular film excluding US takings. In th US it look less than 2 million dollars. In 1998 The Waterboy(number 5 on the list as it stands) was a complete flop in the rest of the world and made only 15% of it's money outside of the US. Similarly in 2000 you have How the Grinch Stole Christmas as the number one film, but not including the US it rates at number 26!. Don't assume that American culture is universal. Mintguy There are many popular European films than don't make the top 10 US box office but do much better in the rest of the world, a recent example is Le Fabuleux destin d'Amélie Poulain.

I was not implying that US films will be number 1 in every country, all over the world. That's not what these lists are about. These lists are total worldwide sales (including the US). What I'm saying is that I'd bet (on average) that most US films make more money - total, worldwide - than most non-US films. Not 100% of the time of course, but I would guess that it's safe to assume this most of the time. Since I created these lists as the top grossing films in total worldwide sales, it doesn't really matter if How the Grinch Stole Christmas made less money outside of the US than inside the US, if it made more money than any other US or non-US film worldwide.

Well it does matter, because intead of being at number 1 it's poor international sales drop it down to 6. That's my point. The films on the list will generally be the same, but the order will very often be different, with several films missing copared to the other list. Maybe you should put US Box office figures and explicity state that that is what they are, and have a list underneath called Internationally successful films for films that were popular worldwide that didn't neccesarily make the US top ten. Only porblem with this is that it is a somewhat subjective list. Mintguy

The subjective list is exactly what I'm trying to avoid. I'd rather keep it simple and stick with worldwide sales. I realize that the lists don't exactly reflect that at the moment, but I used the best data I could find at the time. I'll fix it once I find something better. When I started these pages, I didn't realize it was going to be so hard to find a good source, but once we do, I don't mind going through and rearranging titles to fit those lists. A few minutes of headache is better than the never ending arguments the other option would generate. -jazz77

Did Le Fabuleux destin d'Amélie Poulain make more money - worldwide - than whatever US films were out at the time? -Jazz77

---

There are several pages at IMDB (http://www.imdb.com) that can help with box office information. http://us.imdb.com/Charts/worldtopmovies gives the top selling movies of all time worldwide. http://us.imdb.com/Charts/usboxarchive gives the US's box office take by week since 1998. http://us.imdb.com/Charts/ukboxarchive gives the same info for the UK. http://us.imdb.com/Charts/intltopmovies gives the all time international box office, meaning outside of the US. -- Zoe

Hi. Zoe, thanks for your input. We know of these sources. In fact http://www.worldwideboxoffice.com also uses these sources. Unfortunately, they are not as comprehensive for the international box office in past years as they might seem at first glance. Mintguy

---

Hi, love your articles. Just one problem. The series [{year} in TV/film] are all exclusively focused on the US. That is understandable as (I presume) you are based there, but they are inaccurately named when they don't cover all that happened in TV/film etc everywhere. Rather than go through a big re-write or start chasing people to add in other countries, why not simply name them [1997 in American Television] etc. If others then do similar pages on France, UK, Germany, wherever they could be merged by someone else (or you if you feel like it!) later. Apart from that, keep up the good work. The pages are interesting to read. JTD 02:43 Feb 12, 2003 (UTC)

Actually, there is a lot of non-US information on these pages already.. especially in the early years. I've been adding everything that I come across, but since I am in the US - I know very little about non-US films or television shows. Non-US contributors need to help add that. I really, (really really) don't want these articles to be focused on US television only. I suppose if it gets big enough - we may have to split them later on, but at this point I don't see the need. I'm having a hard enough time finding interesting facts to add as it is, if we split them into a dozen different articles I think it'd get even harder. -Jazz77

I'd love to add in stuff, but the trouble is that I would only know about Ireland, and America and Ireland on their own wouldn't be the world. It could be a slow slow build. It think the best way (with TV at least that is country based rather than international) is to start it off on a country by country basis. Once you have a groundswell of info from 10, 15 countries then you can merge them into one larger article. But waiting to do it in one large article mightn't work; for example many people would presume that it has no not American stuff because the article isn't meant to cover non-American stuff and so add in nothing, maybe because they'd feel a bit out of place with an article listing American TV and . . . Luxembourg TV or Belgian TV. You get my point? Unless you have a critical mass, the article woudn't work, so I'd say for now, do it country by country and see how it develops. An exclusively US article, named as such, might inspire someone in the UK to do their own page [1997 in British Television], an Irish person, a Belgian, an Aussie, etc etc to do their own too. Then you'd have something to work on in pulling it all together. JTD 02:57 Feb 12, 2003 (UTC)

PS - don't think I'm complaining, because I'm not. I like the idea and love looking at your lists. I'm just trying to think of a way of developing it that would encourage others to participate. Unless you had four, five counties already in there, others mightn't join in.

I don't mind the debate or discussions. But, I have tried very hard to include other countries.. if you look at the early years, I have a lot about Germany, the BBC, etc. Not to mention the fact that I've included a lot of international television personalities in the birthdays and deaths. At this point, it seems like it would be a pain to have to go through and pull all of that stuff out. Another problem I see is that in the early years especially - television was being developed in several countries at once, and the accomplishments of each country played a major role in turning it into what it became. I'd hate to have to go through and separate all of that stuff. The other option would be to include it on all of the pages (xxx in American Television, xxxx in British Television, xxxx in Spanish television, etc) which seems a little silly. Before we split them up, let me see if I can find a good source for more international information to add. I'm not real sure what to look for, but I'd rather do that than pick the articles apart. -Jazz77

---

As someone who has previously contributed to music-related articles, consider this a cordial, engraved invitation to participate in the discussion at List of songwriters/temp. I think this page can actually be useful instead of a random list of songwriters, but more input is needed. Tokerboy 03:15 Feb 12, 2003 (UTC)

---

Great work on the events you're adding to the year in music pages, but you seem to be creating an extra blank line after each one. Is this on purpose? Tokerboy

I was separating events with dates and events without dates.. it just seemed easier on me trying to find where to insert an event. I can stop if it shouldn't be done. -Jazz77

Separating them is a good idea, but the extra line is not intuitive and I'm sure people (like me) will delete them. Better just to separate them I think, and people will probably get the hint to add dated events with other dated events. Tokerboy

Invite

Hi

I'm posting this to invite you to participate in WP:LCOTW , a project you may be interested in. Please consider nominating and/or voting for a suitable article there. Filiocht 12:31, Nov 8, 2004 (UTC)

Article Licensing

Hi, I've started a drive to get users to multi-license all of their contributions that they've made to either (1) all U.S. state, county, and city articles or (2) all articles, using the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike (CC-by-sa) v1.0 and v2.0 Licenses or into the public domain if they prefer. The CC-by-sa license is a true free documentation license that is similar to Wikipedia's license, the GFDL, but it allows other projects, such as WikiTravel, to use our articles. Since you are among the top 1000 Wikipedians by edits, I was wondering if you would be willing to multi-license all of your contributions or at minimum those on the geographic articles. Over 90% of people asked have agreed. For More Information:

• Multi-Licensing FAQ - Lots of questions answered
• Multi-Licensing Guide
• Free the Rambot Articles Project

To allow us to track those users who muli-license their contributions, many users copy and paste the "{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}" template into their user page, but there are other options at Template messages/User namespace. The following examples could also copied and pasted into your user page:

Option 1

I agree to [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|multi-license]] all my contributions, with the exception of my user pages, as described below:

{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}

OR

Option 2

I agree to [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|multi-license]] all my contributions to any [[U.S. state]], county, or city article as described below:

{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}

Or if you wanted to place your work into the public domain, you could replace "{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}" with "{{MultiLicensePD}}". If you only prefer using the GFDL, I would like to know that too. Please let me know what you think at my talk page. It's important to know either way so no one keeps asking. -- Ram-Man (comment (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=User_talk:Ram-Man&action=edit&section=new)| talk) 19:11, Dec 8, 2004 (UTC)