The controversy section was included because the Dr. Horrible spiel didn't fit into the video section, which needs to be COMPLETELY revamped. And as much as I'd like the article to be in as positive light as possible, there's one problem with that. Wikipedia articles must adhere to Neutrality as much as possbile. That includes differing points of view so long as they are not libelous and demeaning. So I believe the controversy section should stay, but it, like the video section, needs a lot of work. I'm trying to improve the quality of the article. I know you have your hands full with the Abney Park article, so I have a few people aiding me with editing the article, since I seem to also be coming down with something quite nasty. Viraneth (talk) 13:55, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

What do I do if someone keeps messing with the article for this album?IzzyReal (talk) 22:09, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

I just noticed that. I have the main article in my watch list but none of the albums.

If it's constant and malicious, you can petition to have a temporary lock put on the page. --Jonnybgoode44 (talk) 22:20, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the help. :) IzzyReal (talk) 22:42, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

I am glad we beat this one. I think some people should stick to what they know about you know?Xx IzzyReal xX (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 04:56, 12 March 2010 (UTC).

Thanks for uploading File:LeagueofSTEAM.jpg. I noticed the description page specifies that the media is being used under a claim of fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first non-free content criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this media is not replaceable, please:

1. Go to the media description page and edit it to add {{di-replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original replaceable fair use template.
2. On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per our non-free content policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. ww2censor (talk) 03:39, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

That's for the citation. It clearly states: "More important, Verne scholars have also argued long and hard that Jules Verne should not be labeled a futurist at all." Duggy 1138 (talk) 22:57, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

The reviewer from you article now determnines what Verne scholars think? Fair enough. There should be a citable Verne scholar to back you up, not the assumptions of someone else. Duggy 1138 (talk) 23:33, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Arthur B. Evans is not just "a reviewer." He is a Verne scholar and a French Professor at DePauw University, and author of the book, Jules Verne Rediscovered. --Jonnybgoode44 (talk) 23:48, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Did he re-edit The Fabulous World of Jules Verne to include Paris in the Twentieth Century? Duggy 1138 (talk) 23:53, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

When you claim that all of Verne's works are futurist because Paris C20 is, do you include: A Floating City; Journey to the Centre of the Earth; The Fur Country; The Survivors of the Chancellor; Michael Strogoff; The Child of the Cavern; Dick Sand, A Captain at Fifteen; Tribulations of a Chinaman in China; Eight Hundred Leagues on the Amazon; Godfrey Morgan: A Californian Mystery; The Green Ray and many others that include no SF? Duggy 1138 (talk) 00:18, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

I didn't claim that all were futuristic. But clearly a lot of his works were. Using technology of the period, yes, but extrapolating a "what if" next step that was beyond the capability of those times, but possibly capable in the future. --Jonnybgoode44 (talk) 10:55, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Your source is only refering to one 'Paris' which wasn't in the film being refered to. Even your source seemed to believe he wasn't futuristic until the release of 'Paris'. Duggy 1138 (talk) 12:41, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm a bit confused about which license the image is supposed to have. You uploaded it as a fair use image, and now it's a CC3.0 image. How can that be? If you have written permission to license it under CC, why didn't you do so back then? Either way, please make sure to use Wikipedia:Contact us/Permit so our OTRS team can verify said permission. If it's a free image, I don't have any problems with it being in the article. --Conti|✉ 18:18, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Yea, when it was uploaded here originally, it was uploaded wrong (noob mistake... it's confusing even to long-timers). Dr. Steel gave written permission for all the images on this article to be used. However he didn't use the magic words "CC-BY-SA 3.0" except for the first image; he said he would be resending written permission shortly to rectify the misunderstanding. Sorry for the confusion. --Jonnybgoode44 (talk) 18:31, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, technically speaking, we can't use those images until said written permission arrives. We need a very clear, explicit permission that a certain image (or a certain set of images) can be used with a certain license. --Conti|✉ 18:46, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

I have just sent him a message letting him know that this matter requires some urgency; hopefully he will take care of it shortly. Thanks. --Jonnybgoode44 (talk) 19:38, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

I've started a discussion about how to fix the paragraph and if it's even worth it. I think you'd be an important contributor to that. Duggy 1138 (talk) 09:42, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up; I'll have a look when I get some free time.

(And feel free to weigh in on the Dieselpunk article AfD if you like; I could use the support too...) --Jonnybgoode44 (talk) 10:26, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:John_Soares.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use. Suggestions on how to do so can be found here.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. 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 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. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? feydey (talk) 09:40, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I contacted John Soares, and he said he emailed permission today to WP to use that image under a creative commons license, so they should be getting to fixing the permissions for that themselves shortly. (Personally all of that legalese is just too confusing for me...) --Jonnybgoode44 (talk) 10:35, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading File:AvalonTrain.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

PLEASE NOTE:

• I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions.
• I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
• If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click to file an un-delete request.
• To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to your talk page.
• If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 05:15, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Please do not add or change content without citing verifiable and reliable sources, as you did to Redshirt (character). Before making any potentially controversial edits, it is recommended that you discuss them first on the article's talk page. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. -- Doniago (talk) 07:40, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading File:Veronique Chevalier.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

PLEASE NOTE:

• I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions.
• I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
• If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click to file an un-delete request.
• To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to your talk page.
• If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 05:37, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for uploading File:John Soares.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the file. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. Stifle (talk) 09:16, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

I just noted that John Soares.jpg was posted as "OTRS received"... but it was also tagged for deletion. In what way was the permission not sufficient? I asked John to follow the directions on the WP permissions page precisely, that is, to cut and paste the form letter. This is frustrating because to my knowledge he has sent in permission letters three times, the most recent over a month ago I believe. Thank you. --Jonnybgoode44 (talk) 16:32, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

All emails to OTRS are private, so unfortunately I cannot provide information on why the permission we received was not sufficient. A reply was sent to the email explaining what needs to be done to proceed. Stifle (talk) 20:36, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Would you mind adding your opinion here please? ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 17:53, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 19:54, 12 October 2010 (UTC)