User talk:Aspects/Archive 2

ARCHIVE (June 2008 - November 2008)
Please note that: This is an archived thread of discussions. Please do not add any more discussions to this page. Instead engage in discussion on My Current Discussion page.

Flags in Television Infoboxes

Heads-up - I've replied to your post over at the television infobox talk page :). _Talk Islander 16:07, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sissel

hello!

thanks for putting that album cover of Sissel back into the article. :-)

but beware, it will likely be removed again by that wacko Norwegian mod. I don't understand his reasoning, and he is on a wikibreak, not answering anything. he just took off every single image on that page, citing "significance" as the lacking factor. I don't understand that at all.

Significance is such a personal thing; what one person deems as significant doesn't necessarily have to be significant to another person. I say that as long as the image has fair use and a good license, there shouldn't be any grounds to remove it.

cheers! OettingerCroat (talk) 01:23, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gackt image

Hello!

I don't know if you've actually read the summary for the image you removed on that article, but as per the rules of wikipedia regarding the use of album covers, the image fully complies with the guidelines.

Just letting you know!

Thanks!

(Tsukiakari (talk) 06:26, 4 June 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Image tagging

Hi, I noticed you recetly tagged Image:Pain For Pleasure.png as orphaned, when it was only orphaned when you removed it from the article first. It would be fairer to the uploader to state your real reason for disputing the fair use rationale on the image page. Cheers Kevin (talk) 02:26, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Melinda's Backups

Why do you keep removing the link to Melinda's Backups from the Melinda_Doolittle page? We are a pretty significant section of her fans as this page (http://www.melindasbackups.com/static/marathon.htm) demonstrates . —Preceding unsigned comment added by Akc42 (talk • contribs) 21:35, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

License tags

I was using "add" as a quick short hand that the tags were compliant. You stated they should not be used because "The logo is being used in the band's article without any critical commentary like the licensing tag states" however, if you review Wikipedia:Logos and the tag, you'll see that "identification", which is the case for these logos, is a permitted use. MBisanz ^talk 04:55, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

...Baby One More Time release dates

Hello Aspects. Nice to meet you and thanks for dropping by. I actually knew about the release date entry in the infobox, that it should only the earliest known release date be added. Since the article only states two release date, which is January for US and Canada and March for UK, I decided to put them all in the infobox. Anyway, it will not crowd much. But for the guideline's sake, I will agree with your suggestion to remove it in the infobox. But since its only two dates, I will incorporate it in the prose, in the preceding section which is very much related. --Efe (talk) 06:58, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Adminship

Hi there, I noticed you on the list of prolific Wikipedians. Would you be interested in becoming a sysop (a/k/a administrator)? It takes a bit of training and a nomination. Bearian (talk) 14:13, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Flagicons in discographies

Hello, you removed the flags from the discographies from Ace of Base, Cardigans and Roxette. I can't really understand what's the problem with using a flag. Other discographies from popular artists like Cher, Katie Melua, Nickelback and so on uses flags as well. If you remove it from this sites than erase it from other sites as well. Otherwise it would be unfair. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Andreas81 (talk • contribs) 08:04, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Attention Please: Allegedly Orphaned Images

Hello -

You have removed four images (apparently more - the whole illustrative album section was voided, in addition to the four posted on my user page) I uploaded to the Kingston Trio discography article. These images were uploaded initially a year ago for the article about Trio member Bob Shane, then by me to the article on the Trio itself. Some enterprising editor recently split off the discography from the main articles.

The notice you posted was that these are orphaned non-free images scheduled for deletion. Now, they are orphaned because you removed them from the articles under the rubric of no non-free fair use rationale provided (an oversight on my part on SOME of these) - seems to me that THAT would have been the appropriate tag to put on my user page rather than orphaned non-free.

In any event - first, for several of the covers you removed, the rationale HAS been posted in correct form for each article using the image - for example:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Image:Kingstontriosnap.jpg&curid=12317409&diff=222580927&oldid=169793274

for Image:Kingstontriosnap.jpg.

Every one of these covers was in use in at least two articles, and listed as such, which is why your use of the orphaned non-free template is confusing.

Clearly several - but not all of those you removed - of the album covers need simply the insertion of the appropriate template, essentially the same one in use for others from the same source.

So before I begin what can be the tedious work of going through the file histories, templates and rationales for each of the pictures removed, I need to know why you removed pictures that had fair use templates in place, especially for example:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Image:Closeupb.jpg&action=history

For Image:Closeupb.jpg - note that Fair use bot removed the non-compliance tag.

or wherein this is deficient:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Turning_like_forever1.jpg

Again, please note appropriate template, permissions, and lack of a non-free alternative.

Please be explicit in your reasons for a) removing all of these images, and b) choosing the orphaned non-free template over the more common (and cordial) simple call for a fair use template. Thank you. Sensei48 (talk) 06:15, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again Aspects

..and thank you for your prompt and clear explanation of the problem, plus my apologies if necessary in misunderstanding your intent.

I have to say that I am surprised by the quoted content of the policy, because a) it must have been one hyperlink past where I read, and b) it was a Wiki sysops who provided me with the Fair Use Rationale Template for the first album cover I uploaded for the Bob Shane article.

That notwithstanding - the section you quoted is:

"The use of non-free media in galleries, discographies, and navigational and user-interface elements generally fails the test for significance (criterion #8). Given below are further examples of images that, if non-free, may fail to satisfy the policy:

  1. An album cover as part of a discography, as per the above."

Fair enough, and clear enough. Note, however, the "may fail," which does not automatically demand the removal of the images in question. In context - criterion #8 - "Images with iconic status or historical importance: As subjects of commentary.' these images do not merit inclusion.

However - criterion #1 deals expressly with this situation - "Cover art: Cover art from various items, for identification only in the context of critical commentary of that item (not for identification without critical commentary)."

It could be argued that what is missing from the article is a critical commentary for the albums in question, and that were such commentary included, fair use would apply, even by higher Wiki standards, discography or not.

I'll be happy to remove these images (and appreciate that you didn't - I needed to revert to an earlier version of the article for other reasons as well) if no acceptable fair use can be established through the editing of the article. Sensei48 (talk) 15:01, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vonzell Solomon

I don't see why you found it necessary to remove her duet with Billy Preston from the list of Vonzell Solomon's performances on American Idol. It was, as I said, her most memorable performance. Are you an Anthony Federov fan or something? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.254.36.130 (talk) 00:35, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I grasp the concept of referring to a person by only his/her surname in an article, however, given that Vonzell Solomon is fairly well know as simply "Vonzell" (in fact, typing "Vonzell" into a Wikipedia search will redirect you to Vonzell Solomon), I consider her one of the exceptions to this rule. Likewise, season three winner Fantasia Barrino should simply be referred to as "Fantasia", Seattle Mariner Ichiro Suzuki should simply be referred to as "Ichiro," and Cher and Charo should simply be referred to as Cher and Charo instead of whatever their last names are. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnny Spasm (talk • contribs) 19:29, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've already explained to you why I keep reverting it back. You seem intent on being wrong, so I don't bother with you.--Johnny Spasm (talk) 22:47, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey!

You've been followng me around like a bad smell for months now. I can only assume it's just me you're targeting - because if not, then I can only assume you spend your whole life editing and deleting other people's stuff. Ever heard of that - a life? Perhaps you should consider getting one!--Tuzapicabit (talk) 00:26, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template: Teen Pop

Hi! While I certainly agree with removing the template Teen Pop from articles (I think the template is pretty much useless, and collects spam links), could you leave a reason for the mass deletion on the template's talk page so that people know what's going on and don't go around putting the template back in? Brilliant Pebble (talk) 21:35, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:JeannePruettHit.jpg

You must have mischecked the uploader of [1]. While I receive an unusual amount of similar messages, this one was not uploaded by me. I am removing it from my talk page. Regards. Cretanforever (talk) 14:43, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again spects. I moved Image:Mancoloji.jpg to Image talk:Mancoloji.jpg I had started on 15 July. Please do not refrain from sharing your opinions on the status of the image there. The issue is sensitive because, he was a big star for the Turks (*). I am surprised that I am only one who is paying some attention to his page here, at least trying to enrich it with an image, but then most of my countrymen come out only when a battle is won. :) Cretanforever (talk) 15:35, 19 July 2008 (UTC) (*) Barış Manço was the equivalent of...say...Mick Jagger for the British.[reply]

Fantasia_-_When_I_See_U.jpg

An image, which was the When I See U single cover, that I posted on the article about Fantasia Barrino should be able to be displayed under Wikipedia standards. The cover is shown on another Wikipedia page about Fantasia's single When I See U. If an image is already being shown on a different Wikipedia page and there was not any problems with it there, doesn't that mean it follows Wikipedia: Non-free Content rule???? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fromagebus (talk • contribs) 21:09, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:Tasc0

Seriously, how long are we going to have to put up with this? I have neither the time nor the inclination nor the moral high ground to start official proceedings against him, but I know you're as tired of him as I am. Chubbles (talk) 02:29, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Disocgraphies

Hi Aspects...

I've noticed you've been altering discographies to remove items in boldface. As I understand it, the policy against boldfacing chart positions in discographies is very narrow -- it exists ONLY to avoid NPOV in entries where (usually) only #1 hits are in bold. If, as a design feature, all entries are in bold, then NPOV isn't violated...and boldface does not need to be removed.

More importantly, the changes you're making are ruining the formatting of various discographies. Entries that were centred are suddenly no longer centered, because you've removed both boldface AND centering. The result looks...well, crappy.

So, for the above reasons I'm respectfully asking that you don't make these changes. While I appreciate the time and effort you are putting in to this, I think you've misread the policy you're trying to enforce...

Cheers! 172.163.33.127 (talk) 00:17, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect of Carmen EP

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Carmen EP, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Carmen EP is a redirect to a non-existent page (CSD R1).

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Carmen EP, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. To see the user who deleted the page, click here CSDWarnBot (talk) 07:20, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cobra Skulls Image

I've changed the rights to the Image:Cobra skulls logo.png image. Please verify and reply to me if this is OK. | Ateo (talk) 16:34, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Flag Icons

I just read over WP:MOSFLAG and I am not sure I understand your rationale for taking out flag icons out of all of these infoboxes. Please explain before making further edits on this as I have a feeling this is excessive |► ϋrbanяenewaℓ • TALK ◄| 13:22, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I read your response and WP:MOSFLAG and it is completely excessive to go through every infobox and take out the flag icons. This is a perfectly legitimate usage and is one of the key reasons for the flag icons. I would agree that excessive use is unwarranted but to list the flag next to the location of a company is appropriate. I stand by my undo's and would rather have some other input before going back and forth on this.

Also as for undoing if you had done this more slowly it would have been easier to leave detailed comments but I think in most edit histories it is pretty obvious what is being undone.

Finally, merely for decoration in my mind would be something other than what you are talking about in infoboxes. It is longstanding practice to include flags in the infoboxes for companies and people. It needs to be done carefully and in accordance with the MOS but is appropriate.|► ϋrbanяenewaℓ • TALK ◄| 13:59, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Third Party Comment - I have also been looking into this action with concern, since it at least initially appeared to be disruptive, perhaps to a wp:point (not accusing ... just wondering). I found some points that may have triggered the opinion that flag icons should be removed from infoboxes. Some excerpts...

If the use of flags in a list, table or infobox makes it unclear, ambiguous or controversial, it is better to remove the flags even if that makes the list, table or infobox inconsistent with others of the same type where no problems have arisen. see - MOS:Flag - Not in prose
Flags are visually striking, and placing a national flag next to something can make its nationality or location seem to be of greater significance than other things. Emphasizing the importance of ... nationality above ... other qualities risks violating WP:NPOV. see MOS:Flag - Good reason
When a flag icon is used for the first time in a list or table, it needs to appear adjacent to its respective country (or province, etc.) name, as not all readers are familiar with all flags. Use of flag templates without country names is also an accessibility issue, as it can render information difficult for color blind readers to understand. In addition, flags can be hard to distinguish when reduced to icon size. see MOS:FLAG - Include country names.

Note that the last point does not justify outright removal of a flag icon from an infobox. In any case, would like to see justification and reasoning for bulk removals. Thanks! --T-dot ( ^Talk/contribs ) 14:07, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum - I would also counsel that having a short discussion with one or two other editors at the Talk page is not necessarily sufficient justification for a unilateral action to eliminate all flag icons in corporate or other infoboxes, since they are not specifically banned (yet) on the Project page. You need to think about getting buy-in from the community, and changing the MOS itself, so you have a policy or guideline (as it were) to point to, rather than just a short discussion amongst editors. Thanks again! --T-dot ( ^Talk/contribs ) 14:18, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree your crusade again flagicons is unwarranted. In IPA (disambiguation) flagicons make a long list of organisations from many countries much easier to navigate, without making a separate section for each country (which would spread the links unnecessarily thin). The link you gave to explain your choice says don't use icons just to decorate, not "remove all icons without thinking about it". I urge you to stop. Thanks. Quietbritishjim (talk) 13:05, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rock music WikiProject

I'd like to invite you to join the newly-formed Rock music WikiProject. There's alot of Rock-related articles on Wikipedia that could use a little attention, and I hope this project can help organize an effort to improve them. So please, take a look and if you like what you see, help us get this project off the ground and a few Rock music pages into the front ranks of Wikipedia articles. Thanks! --Be Black Hole Sun (talk) 09:28, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sneakernight cover

Re: this edit. There is no article for Sneakernight, because it was redirected as a result of its AFD. When the single material is merged into the parent album, there is no policy barrier to using the single's cover inside the album article. If there ever becomes a Sneakernight article, the image will have to be removed from Identified, but not before then. I've been going after a lot of the non-notable singles that people have created articles about in violation of WP:MUSIC, and each time I merge, I pull the single cover in. Before you delete an image as violating fair use policies, a bit more research is in order.Kww (talk) 02:38, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

re User talk:Mamasaidnakuout

I replied to your kind note at my talkpage there, but I would advise you I have just checked the above page and note it has been blanked (other than the welcome message) by the editor. I regret that this may mean that they are not going to take this with due regard, and that a sock situation may be more likely. The underlying ip is blocked for 24 hours, but you may find ip's and familiar looking accounts start editing both the concerned articles and your user pages. If so, let me know and if I don't respond quickly take it to WP:AIV with a link to this message for fast action. In the event that this doesn't stop any potential abuse I can semi-protect the articles for a short while and your pages for as long as is required. Please note, my comments are precautionary and these things may not transpire. Regards. LessHeard vanU (talk) 00:37, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to have gone quiet since those last two edits. Hit and run vandal socks are irritating, but manageable; if there is a whole bunch or a persistent one, then we can look to blocks or protection. LessHeard vanU (talk) 08:53, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Corey Franks

Just to let you know, I added myself because I noticed that I was in there. DUH!! If you were a fan of the show you would have known this. I was removed from the show beacusae I was married. You were not allowed to be married in the first season!! I lied on the contract and got so far to top 30, then had to leave cuz my ex-wife was going into labor with my first second child. Do not delete me. Corey Franks (UTC)

Corey Franks

I know they do not list me, that because I left the show and was not voted off. Therefore I was also a liability for the show and was told not to talk to the media...I have the tapes to prove it. Thx for being a fan of the show though!! Corey Franks (talk)(UTC)

Flag icons in birth and death boxes

Why are rules that apply for Wikipedia in english different to those that apply to Wikipedia in spanish and other languages? Flag icons for birth and death boxes are accepted and used in other languages.

McQuicker —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mcquicker (talk • contribs) 11:04, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do tell

Do tell which part of "read the rationales" you don't understand [2] 86.44.29.35 (talk) 08:19, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your detailed reply, I appreciate you taking the time. But you rather miss the point. I'm suggesting that you're robotically applying a "discography" rule when the germane point here is nfcc 8. The rationales read, in part, "Similarities and differences to a later, controversial cover by this band illustrate the nature of that controversy, the understanding of which being essential to an understanding of the article" and "Illustrates the source and exact nature of a controversy, the understanding of which being essential to an understanding of the article." Never mind, I intend expanding and re-formatting this article, it needs it anyway, and the merits or lack thereof of these rationales should then be clearer. 86.44.22.206 (talk) 04:47, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

someone make an article about spill.com please please please please!!!!!

do it —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mark669 (talk • contribs) 02:55, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thanks for reverting the vandalism to my user page... I didn't even notice till today. I've put it on my watchlist now! Quietbritishjim (talk) 13:07, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

C/S (TV channel)

Hi Aspects, Can you remove the flags of C/S (TV channel) article. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.96.109.66 (talk) 12:31, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Flag icons in Puerto Rican military articles

Could you slow the pace a bit? All those edits are flooding my watchlist. - Caribbean~H.Q. 03:35, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright/Cook article

I'm not clear how listing the name of a song (in David Cook (singer) ) is a copyright violation. I'm not trying to be argumentative; I just don't see it. I read through the WP:Copyright section and am not sure what area would apply to this. --MartinezMD (talk) 14:49, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am looking at the Wikipedia:Copyright#Linking to copyrighted works that YouTube is carrying a work in violation of the creator's copyright. That is why I removed the reference from the article. Aspects (talk) 15:26, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I thought that could be the case for the link, but not the song title. Unless there is a reason not too, I am relisting the song without the YouTube reference.--MartinezMD (talk) 18:32, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Edit Summaries

Thanks a lot for reminding me, I almost forgot, I will do that later. Hometown Kid (talk) 1:03, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Paper Trail

Do you have any idea, how much the album sold in Canada? Hometown Kid (talk) 7:11, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Edit war

What edit war? You mean me reverting your edits about TBA which is an alright thing to link or that I'm reverting unannounced matches without a source. Either one I haven't reverted more than one time. Which one is it?--WillC 23:29, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I know what an edit war is but they have to be about a certain topic within it to be a three revert. Adding matches without a source is discouraged in WP:PW. TBA is a term not know by everyone. Most articles have that link. It shows what the letters mean: "to be announced". Nothing more, nothing less. Within that angle there is no reason for me to have been given this warning. Since I was causing no harm and following the rules. I reverted your edits but once. I reverted unsourced material multiple times, since I'm supposed too. Where has it been that I should get a warning?--WillC 23:42, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Adding unsourced matches can be considered vandalism. A reliable source is needed, plus I'm the only experienced editor that actually works on that page. I take care of most of the TNA articles. Also most of the times I take it to the talk page. I've been blocked before, for moving an article back to its original page since there was no consensus or discussion for the move. I would rather not be blocked again. I have my reasons and you have your's. Lets leave it that because there is really no problem here. I'm just following rules. The matches can't be in there unless there is a reliable source. Guidelines.--WillC 23:56, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm following the rules by going by reliable source. Lets say I do three edits on one page, then another ip comes in and places something not true. Like someone died. It is 4 am. Am I just supposed to let it sit there? No. I'm following WP:SOURCE and WP:Ignore all rules.--WillC 00:08, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Another revision of a nonsourced match. That falls under certain exceptions. Plus captainlizing matches and referees in a normal thing done in the project. Remember I'm the one who works on the matches and expands the ppvs. Find if you want to get me blocked for doing my job then go right ahead. If that makes you feel better. I gave you my reasons. That is all I can do. You're doing your job, I did mine.--WillC 03:06, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Notice

Hi there Aspects!
	Please accept this invite to join the Good Article Collaboration Center, a project aimed at improving articles to GA status while working with other users. We hope to see you there!

Orphaned non-free images

Hello Aspects. I was wondering why you removed the following three non-free images from the articles they were used in: Image:Harlan-Exec.jpg, Image:Goomba Diet cover.jpg, Image:Matthew J. Perry Book.jpeg. The first image represents the book written by the author about whom the article is written. And the last two bear photographic images of their authors for whom we don't have free images yet. All of the above mentioned images are used with free use rationales. You can answer here. Thanks --Kimse (talk) 05:01, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Per Wikipedia:Non-free content: "Cover art from various items, for identification only in the context of critical commentary of that item (not for identification without critical commentary)." From the licensing template on each of the images' pages: "to illustrate an article discussing the book in question". The licensing template illustration only works for an article about the book because the entire article is a discussion about the book. For an article not about the book there needs to be critical commentary for the book cover to be considered fair use. Harlan Cleveland's article just says it "The Knowledge Executive" is among his best-known works. Image:Goomba Diet cover.jpg was used in a biographical infobox where there is never critical commentary and Steve Schirripa's article just says he wrote a series of books and then lists them. Matthew J. Perry's article does not even mention the book that was shown. Aspects (talk) 16:50, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm also wondering bout Image:Shingomama-cdcover.jpg since the Shingo Katori article clearly discusses "shingo mama" what the CD is about. Before I add it back to the article, I was wondering if you could explain yourself a bit. Looking forward to hearing from you. Cheers, Nesnad (talk) 04:25, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article lacks the critical commentary necessary for a claim of using a fair use single cover in the artist article. Aspects (talk) 03:05, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. What needs to be added? Thanks! And by the way it seems sort of like you are running a cover-art vendetta? lol Nesnad (talk) 12:12, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

More information is needed. "...he even released a top-selling CD single "Shingo Mama no Oha Rock" (慎吾ママのおはロック), done in character" is not enough information to be considered critical commentary. As to "running a cover-art vendetta" I check for a few things on every article I come across and making sure fair-use images are being used correctly is one of them. Aspects (talk) 03:25, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough! :) Although isn't "in character" not well understood unless that character is depicted? Nesnad (talk) 13:40, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

David Archuleta album tracks

Just wanted to let you know that all those tracks you deleted have indeed been confirmed. They were all leaked by Jive Records. The track list leaked yesterday. --GBVrallyCI (talk) 22:21, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Great, then provide a reliable source showing that the tracklist has been confirmed and add the information to the article. Aspects (talk) 03:22, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Using Flag Icons

Greetings,

I disagree with the below edit:

Current revision as of 03:42, 21 October 2008 (edit) (undo)Aspects (Talk | contribs) (Removed flagicon per WP:MOSFLAG#Help the reader rather than decorate) Line 11: Line 11:

| resting_place =   | resting_place =  
| resting_place_coordinates =   | resting_place_coordinates =

- | residence = Corujo, Tomar, Portugal + | residence = Corujo, Tomar, Portugal

| known_for = Second-oldest verified person in the world since August 13, 2007  | known_for = Second-oldest verified person in the world since August 13, 2007 
}}  }}

This is not a roster of the Houston Astros, the woman is noted as Portugal's oldest person, so nationality has meaning in this context.Ryoung122 03:09, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The flagicon in the infobox is not being used not show nationality so your point is mute. If nationality is your only argument, then explain why you added back the state flagicon to Walter Breuning. Aspects (talk) 03:36, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tolis Voskopoulos

Hello. Can you please explain removing the image from the article and then calling it an orphan? Dr.K. (talk) 23:22, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Vicky Leandros.jpg

Hello again. Ditto for this image. Dr.K. (talk) 23:28, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Per Wikipedia:Non-free content: "Cover art from various items, for identification only in the context of critical commentary of that item (not for identification without critical commentary)." From the licensing template on each of the images' pages: "solely to illustrate the audio recording in question". The licensing template illustration only works for an article about the album because the entire article is a discussion about the album. For an article not about the book there needs to be critical commentary for the book cover to be considered fair use. There is no critical commentary for any of the images to be used in the articles. Aspects (talk) 23:31, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reply. You say There is no critical commentary for any of the images to be used in the articles. Does that mean that no critical commentary is possible for use in these articles? In other words from now on all albums are to be confined in articles about albums only? Dr.K. (talk) 23:37, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Because for Vicky Leandros I did have critical commentary for both albums.--Dr.K. (talk) 23:44, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Saying an album is an example of their earlier works or to show their considerable presence in the German market is not critical commentary of the albums themselves. Aspects (talk) 04:43, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Vicky Leandros Sommernacht am meer.jpg

Is this some kind of game? Dr.K. (talk) 23:29, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Removing images from articles and tagging them as Orphaned

Per above, I will now begin reverting these edits. I suggest others do as well. You neither sought nor established any consensus, and these images clearly fall under the fair use guideline. I'm not sure how you can decide unilaterally that, say, every African musician's article suddenly is not allowed fair use album covers in articles which discuss said albums. T L Miles (talk) 04:13, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please remember to assume good faith and be careful what you call vandalism, [3]. Aspects (talk) 04:46, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Stop your orhpaning

I think you are not reading ANY fairuse rationales at all. Stop your orphaning. When an artist is dead or when the fairuse rationale fits because there is NO alternative, it is acceptable for wiki. Benjwong (talk) 04:43, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The fair use rationales do not matter if the image violates Wikipedia:Non-free content. Album cover images without critical commentary are specifically listed as an unacceptable use of fair-use images. Aspects (talk) 04:48, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply

Hi Aspects, thank you for your message. I've responded on my talk page, where you will see the thread of discussion that followed. If you find it appropriate, please reconsider the notice. Many thanks, JNW (talk) 14:30, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My Talk Page

Yes I do, it's just that i got 3 other messages today, and they were by someone else, i didn't see yours until now. Hometown Kid (talk) 11:16, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Because I thought I could get away with it. Hometown Kid (talk) 1:07, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Weeks at number 1 notation

The Wikipedia:Record charts format guidelines allow exceptions to the guidelines as follows:

“Editors should follow it, except where common sense and the occasional exception will improve an article.”

It should also be noted that Wikipedia:Record charts format guidelines are guidelines and not policies. Guidelines are advisory in nature where Policies are mandatory:

“Policies are considered a standard that all editors should follow, whereas guidelines are more advisory in nature. Both need to be approached with common sense: adhere to the spirit rather than the letter of the rules, and be prepared to ignore the rules on the rare occasions when they conflict with the goal of improving the encyclopedia.”

“Unlike policies, guidelines are usually more flexible and more likely to have exceptions and could be changed and improved more easily.” (MHS1976 (talk) 23:56, 3 November 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Billboard

Ohhhhhhhhhhhh shoot! I did not know I was linking stuff to that, sorry my bad. Thanks for telling me. Hometown Kid (talk) 01:23, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

November 2008

Please do not vandalize Wikipedia pages. I removed that line in Stretch (rapper) because it wasn't showing up visibly. DO NOT undo good faith edits without explaining so. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 00:25, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That was a mistake of me accidentally hitting the enter button when I was trying to make an edit summary. Although it is ironic that you would tell me about using good faith when adding an infobox color is not vandalism. Aspects (talk) 00:28, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was referring to your unexplained revert. Still, I don't see what you're trying to make visible. Where exactly is that line? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 00:51, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wait, never mind. It was the colour you changed. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 00:54, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alice Martineau

I have re-instated the album cover within this article which you removed under a fair use criteria. There are many album covers on Wikipedia so unless you can specifically state why this one is different from the rest I would be grateful if you would leave it. It would seem you have made a habit of removing album covers. MalcolmGould (talk) 20:16, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]