User talk:Aspects/Archive 3

ARCHIVE (December 2008 - July 2009)
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.

General point...

This is just a general point for consideration- regarding the comment you made in this discussion, I think the point we need to consider is not whether the album is discussed, but whether the album cover is discussed. If merely discussing the album was discussed, every time the album is discussed, the use of the cover would be justified- if that is the case, every time a company was discussed, the logo would be justified, every time a deceased celebrity was discussed, their portrait would be justified... And so on. Just some food for thought- feel free to reply on my talk page if you have any response. J Milburn (talk) 01:38, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Makes sense, I guessed it may have been something like that. See you around. J Milburn (talk) 02:05, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re:No Air certification

Hi, I am just responding to your message. I have been putting 2x for No Air because I have seen somewhere where they said it is just can't remember where. I am just confused how Before He Cheats is 2x and has sold 2,500,000, yet No Air has sold 2,600,000, over a 100,000 more and it is only platinum and not 2x? Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jrg10287 (talk • contribs) 07:30, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Goodspeed

I'm much obliged. - Biruitorul ^Talk 06:11, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Zubeen Garg's Strings Album Pic

Hi, I was wondering if you could explain why the picture of Zubeen's String's album was removed from the article about Zubeen Garg? ImtiazAA (talk) 05:37, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Per Wikipedia:Non-free content under acceptable uses: "Cover art from various items, for identification only in the context of critical commentary of that item (not for identification without critical commentary)." The album cover was being used in the artist's article without the critical commentary needed for it to be considered fair use. Aspects (talk) 06:56, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirects

I created them mainly to fill out the list at Category:American Idol participants to show that they have links, just not to their own articles (at this point, unless they do something to warrant it). Many other categories have redirects included. CrazyC83 (talk) 21:35, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The reasoning is the same as this:

Categorization of list entries – Some well-organized lists have redirects pointing at their subsections. In such cases, categorization of the redirects can be an alternative way of browsing entries in a long list. It can also provide an alphabetical listing for lists that are not organised alphabetically, for example, lists organised in a chronological order. Redirects to sections of minor character lists should generally only be categorized within that fictional setting, and not in the wider fictional categories. Examples:
- Category:EastEnders characters provides a single alphabetical listing of both minor and major characters in the BBC soap-opera EastEnders. However, the minor character redirects should not be categorised outside the EastEnders category structure, eg. not Category:Fictional characters by occupation.

I created the categories for the semi-finalists (and disappeared finalists) that were not protected, and created the redirects for the few that did not have them. CrazyC83 (talk) 21:49, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bernadette Peters

Thanks for elaborating on what your concern was. I have now added critical commentary at the Bernadette Peters article that is, I think, properly illustrated by the image. Please let us know on the article talk page if you have any remaining concerns. Best regards, -- Ssilvers (talk) 05:31, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ghost redirects

I went through the American Idol season articles and noticed a bunch of "ghost redirects" for some contestants that did not make the semi-finals and do not have any individual information on the season pages, from seasons 4, 5 and 6. In most cases, it is because an article was created before the top 24 was announced and they had to be slowed down any way possible. (There are none from season 7 due to extra care taken). I did not categorize them in Category:American Idol participants due to this discussion.

The ghost redirects are:

Season 1 - none

Season 2 - none

Season 3 - none (Taryn Southern was one at one point, but later warranted an article)

Season 4 - Briana Davis, Dezmond Meeks, Emily Neves, Gina McFadden, Leroy Wells (has an outbound link), Marlea Stroman, Matthew Falber, Rashida Johnson, Regina Brooks, Sharon Galvez (should redirect to Smokey Mountain (band), her old band with an article)

Season 5 - Crystal Parizanski, Crystal Stark (has an outbound link), David Hoover, Garet Layne Johnson, Josh Royse (and Joshua Royse), Rhonetta Johnson

Season 6 - Amanda Coluccio, Anna Kearns, Baylie Brown, Jory Steinberg, Margaret Fowler, Marisa Rhodes (has an outbound link), Martik Manoukian, Nichole Gatzman, Perla Meneses (has 2 outbound links), Sarah Burgess (singer) (dab needed, IMO warrants an article), Sarah Krueger, Sherman Pore

Season 7 - none

Note: S6's Shyamali Malakar, which redirects to her brother Sanjaya, is a unique case. It is not a ghost redirect as she gets some mention there.

The options are:

1) Leave them alone - since they were part of that season, it might be best to keep it as they are even though they don't have any text on the page 2) Delete - Recommended, few people bother looking for most of them. Only a couple are remotely close to warranting an article, so it is pointless to have them point to something that they are not really on. 3) Expand the season articles to include information on other contestants. That would reverse a decision made about 2 years ago to remove them.

Any thoughts? CrazyC83 (talk) 06:10, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Background information: When I watch American Idol, I never watch the auditions or Hollywood week, so all of these names sound new to me. All of the redirects that have outbound links just are list articles or just name the person and never talk about them.

I would delete all but a few of them. 1) Sharon Galvez should redirect to Smokey Mountain (band). 2) Sarah Burgess (singer) if you feel she warrants an article. 3) Rhonetta Johnson due to a deletion discussion, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rhonetta Johnson. 4) Marisa Rhodes due to a deletion discussion, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marisa Rhodes.

The only one I am a little hesitant about is Emily Neeves because the article went through two deletion discussions. The first one, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Emily Neves, was closed as Merge and Redirect, while the second one, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Emily Neves (2) was closed as Delete. Aspects (talk) 16:47, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're right about those. Generally speaking, they were because others rushed to the altar to create them (in those seasons, some eventual finalists also had articles created before the top 24 were even announced) and it had to be slowed down. In the case of Sarah Burgess, it was due to an already existing article for someone else that had been modified and needed something to stop it. I'm going to put them all up for deletion to get a broader perspective. CrazyC83 (talk) 19:35, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cover art

Could I ask you to read & respond at Talk:El Vez#Cover art? I assume a discussion there is the best way for us to reach agreement. Explaining our respective reasoning seems much better than me boldly reverting. - Jmabel | Talk 20:03, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, if you think my minimal use of greatly reduced images is a problem, have a look at Ezebuiro Obinna, which strikes me as downright egregious in relation to "fair" use. - Jmabel | Talk 21:20, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Karen Alexander (singer)

Hi, I returned the image of the album Voyager of Karen Alexander to the article. The fair use guideline states that it is allowed to use it in a critical review. It is not stated what exactly is a critique. Since the album is described in the article, I think it is allowed to use this image in this way. Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 08:49, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Album cover on Yazz article

Dear Apects, I did not understand your reasoning for removing this cover art. I used the same rationale as 1000s of other LP record covers on wikipedia. For, example check out Elvis here: [1] ...pls can you get back to me and let me now if I am missing something. Bletchley (talk) 08:17, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Per Wikipedia:Non-free content under acceptable uses: "Cover art from various items, for identification only in the context of critical commentary of that item (not for identification without critical commentary)." The album cover was being used in the artist's article without the critical commentary needed for it to be considered fair use and the album itself is only listed in the discography section of the article. Aspects (talk) 18:57, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Band logo

Hi 'Aspects'. What was wrong with the Sherbet logo? It was amidst text that discussed the logo.--Lester 01:27, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

First off, the logo would need to be discussed in the prose with such information as who made the logo. Secondly, the logo would need to be an official logo that was the only logo used for a long period of time. From the description under the logo before I removed it, this was not an official logo since it was used in three different variations over the years. From other album covers by the band, they used many different logos on their albums. For a band using a number of different logos over the years, having one or all of them in the article does not enhance the article. Aspects (talk) 19:36, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Aspects. You state that the logo must be "official", used "for a long period of time", without "variations". But I don't see any of those points in the rules at Wikipedia:Logos#Band_logos. Yes, this particular Sherbet logo evolved over time (eg, it was later underlined), however variations are irrelevant per Wikipedia rules. From the first incarnation to the final use was 13 years (though time duration is also irrelevant when applying Wikipedia rules). Inline means that it's on the article page, not the separate image page. You may want to bring up your own reasons for or against the logo, but it fits within the Wikipedia rules for band logos. Regards, Lester 20:33, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reply about American Idol Hot 100 singles

It doesn't look that much better, the article is still just fan material and trivial at best. It's much better suited for an American Idol fansite. RobJ1981 (talk) 20:31, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, 'Aspects.' Stop sending me messages and get a life! Ciao!

WP:IDOL and AFD

WP:IDOL is a WikiProject, not a guidline. It means absolutely nothing. Dalejenkins | 00:11, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OUT OF EDEN!!!!!

JESUS CHRIST OF NAZARETH!!!!! I AM TRYING MY GOD DAMN HARDEST TO MAKE THEIR PAGES LOOK AS NICE AS POSSIBLE AND YOU KEEP MEDDLING WITH IT ALL -_- Gotee Records are not going to sue wikipdedia!!! The picture I used in the header of their page was a scanned image that is featured in the booklet of the "Love, Peace & Happiness" album (which so happens to be a page I put A LOT of work into). Rather than removing everything I do, tell me how I can have my posts remain. I picked the option album cover because it was part of the album's booklet. Maybe I should have picked poster. What would you pick?

JonathanLGardner (talk) 20:58, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please try and stay civil when dealing with other editors. The above post is not very civil and is likely to cause an equally uncivil response that will cause an argument to go back and forth without coming to a resolution.

As to the content of your post, I am removing parts of what you do because they are not acceptable to Wikipedia's standards and probably never will be. An album cover cannot be used in an artist infobox because there is no critical commentary to satisfy Wikipedia:Non-free content. The booklet was probably tagged with the album cover option, but these images are unlikely to add in any meaningful way to Wikipedia, so they do not belong here. The album cover itself is used to identify the album in the album's article and using the booklet pictures are redundant since the album cover would already identify the album.

If you would read through the articles I cited in my edit summaries, you would see for example, Wikipedia:Album#Cover, that album covers at the most should be not more than 300px by 300px. Therefore to keep these images on Wikipedia, you should reduce them to at or below that level. If you read Wikipedia:Non-free content you would see that unless there is critical commentary in the article to justify having an album/song cover there, the only acceptable article for the cover to be in is the album/song article. Aspects (talk) 21:13, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Performance order on AI8 articles

Isn't it pretty standard to have a performance order column on the contestant charts? I could swear I've seen it somewhere on WP before. H₂O Shipper 20:56, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously, am I wrong about this? I don't see any problem with putting performance order on those pages. Why is it a problem? H₂O Shipper 22:46, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop vandalising

I'm not an administrator, but I wish to inform you that vandalism is unacceptable on Wikipedia. In particular, the recent edit you made to How Bizarre (song). You removed the "Weeks At #1" column of the table and per Wikipedia:Record charts you were right in doing so, but because you didn't replace the information in the text, it is good enough for vandalism. I will consider reporting you to an administrator to have your account banned for your excessive disruption. --Lionmadness (talk) 20:57, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You might want to take a look through WP:VANDAL before you label someone's edits as vandalism. Being BOLD and making a "good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia, even if misguided or ill-considered, is not vandalism." Aspects (talk) 17:53, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tagging for speedy deletion

Hi Aspects. Thank you for your work on patrolling pages and tagging for speedy deletion. I just wanted to inform you that I declined to delete Identity (album), a page that you tagged for speedy deletion under criterion A9 because of the following concern: A9 cannot be applied to albums released by notable artists such as Richard Wright. Please review the criteria for speedy deletion and especially what is considered Non-criteria. In future you should rather tag such pages for proposed deletion or start an appropriate deletion discussion. Regards So Why 23:04, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

David Osmond

I'm a bit lost as to what to do. User:Raymarcbadz keeps removing the tag. He's done it 5 or 6 times now. I've tried warning him but that hasn't done much good. I'm an admin but I also put the article up for deletion so it doesn't feel like I can protect the page or anything like that. --User:Woohookitty ^{Diamming fool!} 11:05, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure either, but I hope giving him a 3rr warning would work. Aspects (talk) 11:08, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Mcavanaugh.jpg

Thanks for the heads-up! Schedule constraints prevent me from locating a more suitable image (at least for now), but I appreciate your message. Best, twelsht (talk) 02:41, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

colors on main page charts

Want to discuss this here so an edit war doesn't ensue. For the gray colors in the bottom 3 charts on the main American Idol page, the light gray box isn't necessarily used to distunguish bottom "two", it is used when a contestant finds out they are safe as another contestant finds out they are eliminated. See Nikki McKibbin in round 1 of season 1, Anthony Federov and Scott Savol in the Top 7 of season 4, Elliott Yamin and Ace Young in the Top 8 of season 5, and Syesha Mercado and Carly Smithson in the Top 8 of Season 7. The white background is used when a bottom 3 contestant is sent back to the couch before they announce who is eliminated (like usual). The case with Allison this week is the same as Nikki's in the first week of season 1. MarkMc1990 (talk) 21:02, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I moved this discussion to the main talk page to try and gain wider consensus on the issue. Aspects (talk) 16:49, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding citations

My name is Harry Northup. There is a Wikipedia site on me. Everything on the site is authentic. Why are there flags at the top of the site?216.175.90.195 (talk) 21:57, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jordin Sparks

I'll add the article to my WL. The source they keep using for "Battlefield" is just too flimsy. It's as simple as that. I warned the one user for civility. --User:Woohookitty ^{Diamming fool!} 00:07, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you delete unsourced text? Can't you find a source with a fast on-line research or insert the template Fact? I don't think it's very constructive to delete without searching on-line... --Mojska (m) 19:21, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Matt Giraud

Hi Aspects, I added the comment "becoming the only Idol contestant to lose the public vote on three separate occasions." You removed it with comment "could also be said of Trenyce, Kimberly, George, Jennifer and Leah." They were wildcard picks and lost the public vote twice, once in the semifinals and again in the finals. Because he was both a wildcard pick and the judge's save, Matt is the only person to lose the public vote three times. Is this right or am I missing something? Cheers. Fritter (talk) 23:44, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Clay and Jon Peter were publicly voted as a Wild Card pick in their seasons. So the five I mentioned could be said to have lost the public vote in the semi-final, the wild card round and their final elimination. Aspects (talk) 23:45, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!

It's great when everyone can agree on something!

Thanks Again, I Seek To Help & Repair! (talk) 00:50, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I Do Not Hook Up

Well, the board has NEVER been wrong about single releases but I can understand your point. RichV (talk) 09:11, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Love IS

I saw you changed the Ruben Studdard album to "Love Is". If you look at the album cover on Amazon it's "Love IS" with the S capitalized. Maria202 (talk) 17:12, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There were two articles on the same album, so per WP:NAME#Use standard English for titles even if trademarks encourage otherwise), "Items in full or partial uppercase (such as Invader ZIM) should have standard capitalization (Invader Zim), except where non-standard capitalization is selected as one of the many possible methods of disambiguation." I merged the Love IS article to the first created Love Is (Ruben Studdard album). Aspects (talk) 01:22, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Date linking

Hi. I see you have been removing the date links from a number of articles recently, including Malpractice (album). If you read WP:MOSNUM, you will see that there is actually an injunction in place which states that: "all editors are instructed not to engage in any program of mass linking or delinking of dates in existing articles". It is therefore not a good idea to remove date links from articles en mass. Thanks. --DAJF (talk) 02:24, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I honestly feel that I am not breaking the temporary injunction. I am not using either automatic or semi-automatic programs to date delink. I am copy editing by hand several issues in one edit, one of which is delinking dates that are not appropriate as made by the last consensus on the issue. Most of the dates I delink are record or song release dates, which provide little or no relevance to the article's topic. As can be seen by my last five edits on May 23, I was copyediting a wide range of issues from center aligning record charts, removing boldfaced record charts, fixing Japanese to English capitalizations and fixing tables along with the date delinking. Five edits spread across a seventeen-minute period is not mass editing. Aspects (talk) 18:22, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

T.I. discography

We have an emergency situation on our hands, 84.109.254.154 has repeatedly vandalized the T.I. discography article by altering the chart position. Are you able to undo his bad edits? Look at these [2], [3], [4], [5]. This guy won't stop after his edits are undid, he needs to be blocked indefinetly. Hometown Kid (talk) 12:53, 29 May 2009 (ET)

Digital charts

Please do not add digital charts to singles tables, or tables in songs articles. They are not allowed. Also, on singles tables, every peak does not need to be sourced.EnDaLeCoMpLeX (talk) 16:50, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was under the impression that Hot Digital Tracks was a component chart of the Hot 100 Hot Digital Songs was not based on the articles saying Tracks is and there is no mention on the Songs article. I since have looked at component chart and realized my mistake. But I am going to add back the references for the chart positions because at this point they are likely to be questioned and anything likely to be questioned should be sourced. I was not sure all of the numbers were correct so I verified them with Billboard sources. Adam's article had some wrong positions and was missing that "Mad World" had charted on the Pop 100. If you have a problem with sources in the articles please take that discussion to the articles' talk pages.

On a side note, you should use an edit summary when you make reversions. In this case you appear to be calling my edits vandalism and since they are not, you are not assuming good faith and are not being civil. Aspects (talk) 17:23, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

White's page

Hi Aspects!

I'm just writing to explain an edit to Brooke White's page. Both pictures are fine but I prefer the one that has been on the page for months and months. I put that picture back. I'm not trying to mess w/ you or vandalize White's page. I think the previous picture is better and the acknowledgement of her new album seems very appropriate.

Thank you for participating on Wikipedia. You're clearly more experienced than me and obviously do a lot of good on here.

Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.188.48.202 (talk) 03:13, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See my response on Talk:Brooke White. Aspects (talk) 17:40, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No Boundaries

What is your problem? "No Boundaries" moved up to #26 on the Adult Contemporary charts this week. That source you provided is outdated. Maybe you should check the chart for yourself. I saw with my own eyes on R&R's website...I'm not retarded. EnDaLeCoMpLeX (talk) 01:22, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you have seen the source that says it is at #26, then you should provide it. Per Wikipedia:Verifiability, "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material." You should be the one providing the source since you say it is at #26, not me. Right now the article say it is at #26, but the reference provided says it is at #27. Until you can provide a source that says it is at #26 it needs to stay at #27. Aspects (talk) 02:55, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The R&R website shut down on Wednesday afternoon, and Billboard hasn't updated the charts last time I checked. EnDaLeCoMpLeX (talk) 14:42, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

my new elimination chart idea

I have posted a reasonable argument to your complain about my elimination chart idea.. please talk on the discussion page to reach a conclusion 92.6.243.244 (talk) 20:46, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

LGBT people from the United States

Hi, I've seen many other pages where people have multiple categories that indicate that they are first LGBT people from the United States (eg. Rosie O'Donnell, Ellen DeGeneres) and then more specific categories indicating their occupation, etc. I see the "LGBT people" category as a catch-all list of LGBT people, to possibly eventually be a complete list of those who are famous LGBT people from America. Why shouldn't an article have more than one LGBT category? Scharles (talk) 17:17, 25 June 2009 (UTC)scharles[reply]

Shane62.jpg Fair use

Hello Aspects -

I am at somewhat of a loss to understand your attempt to remove the image from the Bob Shane article. A fair use template has been provided, and the template was created by a Wiki administrator with more expertise at images than I at my request. The image as noted is used with permission of the copyright holder for general distribution and not limited to this article alone.

The image from further down the page that you used to replace the fair use image is a personal snapshot taken of the subject at 70 years of age. The notability of the subject and the topic of the article relates primarily to the era of the image used with his permission. No free alternative image from this period exists. Regards, Sensei48 (talk) 16:49, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please read through the first policy point, "No free equivalent" on Wikipedia:Non-free content: "Non-free content is used only where no free equivalent is available, or could be created, that would serve the same encyclopedic purpose." This non-free copyrighted image is being used when there is a free image already available in the article. The non-free copyrighted image should be deleted from Wikipedia. I am going to tag the image as a replaceable fair-use image since it can be replaced by the other image in the article. Aspects (talk) 20:02, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the prompt response. However, the other image in the article is not a replacement; it is a supplement.

Please note for comparison purposes:

Shirley Temple

Sidney Poitier

Olivia de Havilland

All three of these subjects are living people, as is Bob Shane. Illustrative InfoBox pictures in these articles, however, are copyrighted images included under Fair Use laws and Wiki Fair Use policy of the subjects at the times of their notability. A picture of Shirley Temple (Black) at age 81 does not serve to illustrate the WP:NOTE that justifies a Wikipedia article on her - nor would a free image of a 93 year old Olivia de Havilland, who is now a private citizen living in Paris but who was notable as a movie actress in the 1930s and following.

The personal snapshot of Bob Shane at age 70 in 2004 does not illustrate the WP:NOTE of Bob Shane member of the Kingston Trio.Sensei48 (talk) 22:50, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The difference between the Bob Shane image and the three you listed above, is that those three images are all free images in the public domain while the Bob Shane image is a copyrighted image. Aspects (talk)

Thank you

That deletion was indeed a mistake and I hadn't even realized I did it. Thank you for restoring it. -- Banjeboi 20:45, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Elena Risteska - Ninanajna

What's the problem with the image now????!?!?!?!?!?! 1111tomica (talk) 21:18, 30 June 2009 (UTC)1111tomica1111tomica (talk) 21:18, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The image is a magazine cover used in an infobox without critical commentary of the magazine to justify its use in the article. Aspects (talk) 18:58, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Joe Jackson

Many thanks for your work in upgrading Joe Jackson's discography charts.

Derek R Bullamore (talk) 18:09, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cui Jian

I undid this removal because the image does have an NFUR for use on that page. If you wish to contest the NFUR that's fine, and I don't mind removing the image if there is consensus that the NFUR is invalid, but I just didn't think the image should be removed outright without discussion of its rationale. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 19:07, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Don't Forget genre

Hi, you recently reverted my edit on Don't Forget (song) saying that "power ballad" should not be included in the list of genres. A reference that was listed elsewhere in the article claimed it was, so I have re-added it with the reference also listed next to the genre. And unlike our genre dispute on My Life Would Suck Without You, the source (Billboard) is extremely reliable. --Pokerdance ^{(talk/contribs)} 20:42, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks ...

... for your messages. You do exactly the thing I'm asking people not to do at the top of my talk page. Best wishes, <K F> 22:49, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Crispian St Peters TPP cover.jpg

Could you please explain to me your rationale for the deletion of this image. I seem to have used the proper FUR template and, if you have read the article, it relates to one of Crispian St. Peters's best know records and is also currently the only available picture of the artist. There is no article for that single record and it appears perfectly valid to use the image on the artist's page where it says: "The Pied Piper" had been recorded in 1965 by its writers, Steve Duboff and Artie Kornfeld, as The Changin' Times, but it was St. Peters' version in 1966 that made it into a hit, reaching #4 on the Billboard Hot 100, and #5 in the UK. No subsequent release would ever match the success of "The Pied Piper". Please note I have no other vested interest in this article beyond this image, which depicts the artist and the style of that era, which are missing here. Secondarywaltz (talk) 19:41, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikiquette alert regarding 76.175.161.106

A Wikiquette alert has been posted about 76.175.161.106's edits to Brooke White.—C45207 | Talk 11:16, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

GA reassessment of Kelly Clarkson

I have conducted a reassessment of the above article as part of the GA Sweeps process. I have found a large number of concerns with the article which you can see at Talk:Kelly Clarkson/GA1. I have delisted the article as it will need a lot of work to bring it to GA status. Thanks. Jezhotwells (talk) 20:26, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of David Hernandez and others

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated articles are David Hernandez, Amanda Overmyer, Chikezie, Ramiele Malubay, Syesha Mercado, Chris Sligh, Haley Scarnato, Chris Richardson, Lisa Tucker (singer), Anthony Fedorov, Vonzell Solomon, Camile Velasco, Kimberly Caldwell, Ryan Starr, Nikki McKibbin. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:57, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]