Talk:What Shall We Do Now?

message: :Image:FightingFlowers.jpg is being used on this article. 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 this Wikipedia article 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.
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 insure 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 there is  other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot (talk) 20:26, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:FightingFlowers.jpg

message: By the way in the film, the 'Screaming Head/Face' is incorporated into the music, you can hear a scream as you see it. The screaming face:
100px--Editor510 drop us a line, mate 09:58, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Faces screaming 

message: The image :Image:Is there anybody out there? 40273 big.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here.  In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page.  Please check
:* That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
:* That this article is linked to from the image description page.
This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --04:29, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Image copyright problem with Image:Is there anybody out there? 40273 big.jpg

message: I don't think the winged creature in the animated What Shall We Do Now? sequence is the same creature presented in the Goodbye Blue Sky animation.
The former was more along the lines of a pterodactyl as opposed to the latter's hawk-like form.
205.250.102.212 (talk) 03:15, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The flying creature that the female flower turns into at the end of the intro has a long neck, and is sleek and black, very unlike a hawk. --Ben Culture (talk) 12:20, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Flying creature

message: Please use this as an example of how not to write:
: "Latter day, it would seem that as far as the band themselves are concerned, the two tracks have become, for all intents and purposes, conflated into one."
I'm proud to say I replaced all that nonsense with "The two tracks are easily confused."
The awkward sentence is made of five segments, and one of those segments could have been segmented into two, with a fifth comma! How much of this sentence is unnecessary? (Almost all of it!)
The writer fills space with empty phrases ("it would seem"; the dreary "for all intents and purposes"; couldn't he have fit "more or less" in there, too?) and the purpose of these empty phrases is to build momentum so he can slide by with this "conflated into one" bullshit. Like I said, the two tracks are easily confused, and that's all there is to it. To say anything more specific would demand a source.
I don't expect anyone to volunteer ("I wrote it!") but please look at all that's wrong with it, and take it as an example. Even if you did write it. And please, never use homespun filler like "for all intents and purposes", "more or less", and go easy on "it would seem", because that's often used as cover for an unsourced claim that needs a citation. There's all sorts of ways of covering up bullshit, with empty phrases like "it is often considered", but all of them raise red flags with editors such as myself.
--Ben Culture (talk) 12:35, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Terrible sentence: How not to write