User talk:Aspects/Archive 1

ARCHIVE (August 2007 - May 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.

Hi, welcome to Wikipedia!

I was wondering if you cared to participate in the discussion at Talk:Champaign, Illinois about the Art Theatre? Unfortunately, the other point of view was only expressed by an anonymous IP, so it will be hard to get a well-rounded view of the matter, but maybe you know the answer to some of the questions that your edit raised in my mind.--Bhuck 06:22, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Popups

Hi,

I noticed on Tigra you disambiguated the Avengers (comics) link - if you install popups, you can get one-click disambiguation to all instances of that particular wikilink on the page in addition to the other features it has. Thought you might be interested. WLU 11:06, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello and welcome. Thankyou for your contribution to India film. See Template:Infobox Film which we use for films. ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^"Talk"? 15:51, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Body Work

Thank you for repairing the body work link in Samir Arora. The main remaining red link to Glam Media will soon disappear because I am preparing an article.--Peter Eisenburger 07:27, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:RLR

Thanks. Can't I simply make redirects (for some of them) or is that wrong? jj137 (Talk) 15:35, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That was a bit confusing at first, but now it makes sense. I'll get to work. jj137 (Talk) 16:10, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

CeCe Winans and BeBe Winans

Could I trouble you to explain why you "(Removed flagicon)"? Thanks in anticipation of your reply, Pdfpdf (talk) 11:29, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see you've de-flagged BeBe too. Pdfpdf (talk) 11:35, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Flagicons

Was there a decision made some where that flagicons would be removed from all articles? --Renrenren (talk) 12:37, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Confused

Why did you remove the flag icon from the article titled Richard Marx? I've seen that you have been removing a great deal of flag icons from other pages as well. Was there are a decision to delete them from articles? --Candy156sweet (talk) 22:43, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of flagicons

To address past and future inquiries on my removal of flagicons from people/groups infoboxes: Per WP:FLAG flagicons "...should not be used to indicate birth or death places, as this may imply an incorrect citizenship or nationality" and most of them are "misused as decoration. Adding a country's flag next to its name does not provide additional encyclopedic information, and is often simply distracting."

As to why I did a large number all at once, I was going through the American Idol pages of songs sung and checked their singer/writer/bands biographies. The vast majority of these biographies do not have the flagicons. The ones that did, I corrected to fit the manual of style.

In future instances I will write "Removed flagicon per WP:FLAG." Aspects (talk) 00:02, 28 November 2007 (UTC) (Signing my comment a little late, work got busy.)[reply]

I appreciate that you took the time to clarify the issue. --Candy156sweet (talk) 23:48, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As do I. Thank you. Pdfpdf (talk) 10:23, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In future instances I will write "Removed flagicon per WP:FLAG." - Yes, that would be good. Pdfpdf (talk) 10:23, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You removed lotsa flags from lotsa articles without a reason beyond the Removed flagicons per WP:MOSFLAG comment in the edit summary. In the cases you removed them that I noticed, they were used in lists of countries in which a business, such as Burger King or KFC, had locations. According to this section in WP:MOSFLAG:

Appropriate use
Flag icons may be helpful in certain situations:

They can aid navigation in long lists or tables of countries as many readers can more quickly scan a series of flag icons due to the visual differences between flags. However, since not all readers can do this, the flags should be accompanied with country names (see #Accompany flags with country names). Such usage is particularly common at articles on sporting topics, and reflects very widespread offline usage.

They were being used exactly as they are supposed to be used, so could you please explain what part of WP:MOSFLAG you were referring to as this section seems to contradict your reasoning.

- Jeremy (Jerem43 (talk) 09:57, 5 December 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Please see the talk page on MOSFLAG; we had a huge debate over this, and there is no consensus for the removal of flag icons from band infoboxes. It is inappropriate, and against guidelines, to have the flags for birth and death locations for individuals, but not for bands. Please stop removing them. Regards, --Managerpants (talk) 14:06, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In response to your message, I only just now messaged you b/c I just realized it was the same user making the changes. Sorry! --Managerpants (talk) 19:51, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Garrigues

I am currently proposing that the Garrigues page should be replaced by the content now found on the Garrigues (disambiguation) page and the the material presently on the Garrigues page should be moved to a new page to be titled Les Garrigues, Catalonia If you have the time I would appreciate your comments on the Discussion page at Garrigues. I hope you will agree. Sincerely, GeorgeLouis (talk) 20:04, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Question

I read your link that you posted as your reason for removing the flagicons from various different articles. I can understand if the subject of the article is not a citizen or resident of the country in which the flag represents and it is supposed to describe that information. I also noticed that the flags that were removed from articles such as Chad Kroeger and Richard Marx showed the places that they were indeed living and are citizens of, not just the flag that symbolized their birthplace. Why are you removing those flags, when they are accurately used within the context of the article? I want to reiterate that these flags did not signify the birthplace or death places of these subjects; they signify the countries in which they are citizens of and currently reside. That link that you posted only backed up half of your claims for removal of those icons. --Candy156sweet (talk) 03:01, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the flagicons because they did signify the birthplace because they were being used in the Born or Origin field, therefore violating the WP:MOSFLAG#Not for use in locations of birth and death. In addition Chad Kroeger's page uses the Alberta flagicon without being directly relevant to the article, which would go against WP:MOSFLAG#Do not use subnational flags without direct relevance. Also both pages use the flagicons as decoration since they follow the links of the places they represent against WP:MOSFLAG#Help the reader rather than decorate. These are the reasons I removed the flagicons from Chad Kroeger and Richard Marx. Aspects (talk) 22:54, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Citing sources

Okay, some peace. It's just that I would understand if I had written something wrong or had no further contributions, but after the sudden inablity to connect my computer to be later given something like the "five steps on how to edit wikipedia" and then reading you reverted your deletion with the source I tried to add but couldn't made me a little angry. Whatever, wish you some nice pre-Christmas days. Hekerui (talk) 20:28, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for supporting my candidateship

Hi. I would like to thank you for supporting my Requests for adminship/Magioladitis. -- Magioladitis (talk) 23:42, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Removing the Flag and more...

Hi, I saw your note re: Martie Maguire's page that I've been working on. (I found it in scraps, poorly written, n more than some comments plagarized from a couple of fansites. and have endeavored to change that-- however it's the first REAL work I've put into a page being new to wikipedia). I recall some decision about removing the flags, but in this case, I wonder if Maguire's case isn't different. She has endured constant attack by the more conservative elements in the USA because of the Dixie Chicks opposition to the war in Iraq. The Shut Up And Sing documentary shows crowds with signs saying, "Move to France, Dixie Chicks!!", and worse! I think it's important to know that the Chicks didn't crawl into some cozy Western cave someplace rather than face conservative Texans, which is where each have their primary residence when not touring. Additionally, Maguire's husband is Irish and doesn't plan to apply for US citizenship.

By the way, I'd love it if I can contact SOMEBODY (YOU? Please, please?) while I try to put Maguire and Robison's pages as best as I can together. Those occasional questions pop up, and I don't want to flood the newbie help desk! Thanks. Leah (leahtwosaints) --leahtwosaints (talk) 22:05, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Supremacy

Article states that members of the group have been in three other notable bands and provides a reliable source; this seems to indicate that the group would meet WP:MUSIC bullet 6. For some reason Rockdetector isn't loading for me; as soon as I can access the site I plan to look into updating/expanding the page. Chubbles (talk) 21:35, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Flag removal

If WP:MOSFLAG#Not for use in locations of birth and death wishes to continue the removal flags, I think it would be best to get a real consensus. Obtaining the consensus of a small, special interest group of editors is not consensus. Halt your actions until you bring this issue to a wider audience. (Mind meal (talk) 22:53, 26 January 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Re: {{flagicon}}

Thanks for the warning; I'd not realised that was now against policy. I'll go read through MOS:FLAG in more detail again. — OwenBlacker (Talk) 23:23, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Archival

Would you like me to archive your talk page?--TrU Co ⁹31¹ 04:02, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oops.....

Thank you for your reminding. I overlooked the bottom part of the article, but I still think it should break into 2 articles. Although the song "A Moment like This" has 2 versions, but the singles "A Moment like This" of Kelly Clarkson and Leona Lewis are totally different. These 2 singles contain different songs.　s19991002~-~Message 07:35, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Flags in business infoboxes

I noticed your removal of the flag icon for Chicago Tribune. I disagree with your opinion that flags in addresses for businesses (including newspapers) constitute decoration "not helpful to the reader" (which is what your citation of WP:MOSFLAG would seem to indicate). National flags are useful to tell the home country of, for example, a publication at a moment's glance. Further, on my admittedly cursory glance I don't see the consensus at the MOSFLAG talk page for what you're doing. I'd be interested in hearing what makes flags in newspaper infoboxes a big enough issue for you to spend time deleting them. _``` _W i k i _W i s t a h _``` 04:37, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Idol edit

Wow, I've had a severe slip of memory! I'm sorry about that, and thank you very much for correcting my error. I was browsing around articles and saw the mention of Cowell's "dour expression", and must have gotten the two incidents confused. Thanks again :) *Vendetta* _{(whois talk edits)} 05:38, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Syesha....

Okay if you go back and read the article that you told me to read about notibility... it says

"Important note: Failing to satisfy the notability guidelines is not a criterion for speedy deletion. However, an article that fails to assert that the subject of the article is important or significant can be speedily deleted under criterion A7. A mere claim of significance, even if contested, may avoid speedy deletion under A7, requiring a full proposed deletion or Article for Deletion process to determine if the article should be included in Wikipedia."

So please don't delete Syesha's page.

She has already won awards such as "Florida's Super Singer" (an Emmy award winning show) As well she was on ABC's The ONE.

What more do you want?

flagicon guidleine

Is this a new thing? All of a sudden I'm seeing a slew of flag icons removed from biographical pages.--Dr who1975 (talk) 21:24, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you look back through user contributions I have been removing unencyclopedic flagicons from biographical infoboxes per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (flags)#Not for use in locations of birth and death since November 2007. As for why I personally am removing a bunch today is that Comcast is not letting my home computer upload anything, so I am unable to make any edits from home. Currently I am on a computer at my public library with three minutes left so if you leave a message I probably will not be able to respond until I get to work tomorrow morning. Aspects (talk) 21:41, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Last name for Chikezie

I have added it back, and done for him what is done for every other person on Wikipedia who goes by a singular name (Madonna, Cher, Ronaldo, and even past Idol contestants such as Mandisa), and added that he is known more commonly as "Chikezie." He may not USE his last name, but it is a notable factoid. Batman2005 (talk) 03:43, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh

Oh, that's alright. Thanks for being honest! Tcatron565 (talk) 23:28, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Flagicon removal

TINY MARK 02:14, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Idol link edit

Hi - Am very disappointed you chose to remove the link to the WNTS database from the AI Idol. A group of us worked for months to compile six years' worth of information and put the database together. It's a not-for-profit site targeted towards journalists and analysts, contains timely and on-topic information, is encyclopedic (opinions and editorials on the site are clearly marked as such), contains far more thorough and complete information than the WP pages, and is far, far better organized and cross-referenced, allowing drill-down and text searches on aspects impossible for WP to cover. It's unrealistic to create thousands of WP pages like (for example) "Songs By Aretha Franklin Performed On American Idol", yet there is a need for that information that the database satisfies. Why do you believe it violates WP:External Links? The link had been in the article for ages, and no one until now has objected to it.

All that said, I agree that the Links section of the AI article needs a cleanup. I've been removing links (anon) to forums, blogs, and obvious nonencyclopedic commercial sites for over a year. The TVGuide, CNN, Yahoo, Fox Radio, and TVWeek links are nonencyclopedic, way out of date, and clear violations of policy; I suspect no one removes them because they are "big name" sites. iTunes is at least current and useful to the show's viewers, but if I'm being honest, it's nonencyclopedic too. Admittedly I'm not the most objective source, but I'd leave the official AI site first, the WNTS database second, and maybe iTunes. I believe all the rest can go. Eipiphi (talk) 15:35, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion should be at Talk:American Idol. Per Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle you should not revert a revert, instead you should take it to the article's talk page to discuss it in hopes of coming up with a compromise and/or consensus. Aspects (talk) 03:21, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the link had been on the article for a couple of months, so I'd assume that I was reverting your recent edit and not vice versa. But that's hair-splitting. I respectfully ask that we first discuss it privately. The AI article is heavily visited and it's edited by numerous authors on an hourly basis, but yours is the only objection to the link thus far. If you'll help me understand your objections and there is something simple I can do to make the EL acceptable, or if I can help you understand why the database is an essential resource to people looking for encyclopedic information on AI far beyond what WP offers, terrific. If not, then we can move it to the public forum. Eipiphi (talk) 15:45, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The link I removed had been there less than two weeks. If what you are saying is true that it was added a time before that, it must have been removed at some point before two weeks ago. That makes the case even stronger that this discussion should be taking place on American Idol because it is involving more than two people. Aspects (talk) 14:33, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've moved this to the AI talk page. I'm disappointed in why you wouldn't engage with me directly to state your objections. But if you choose not to do so, that's your prerogative as a WP author, and I can do nothing more than accept your demand to move the discussion. 71.125.152.43 (talk) 19:51, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Idol Bottom 2/3

We're actually having a good discussion about it at Talk:American Idol (season 7). Would love to hear your thoughts. --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 07:15, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation revert

RE:Disambiguation revert message on my talk page re: Demolition Man (comics) and Avengers (comics). There is some dispute about Demolition Man's status as an Avengers. There is a user continual editing Demolition Man (comics) and List of Avengers members‎ and I have managed to get a block on List of Avengers members‎ but not Demolition Man (comics). Discussion is taking place at Talk:List of Avengers members‎. Spshu (talk) 20:36, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image deletion

Generally what I do is that I add {{subst:db|reason}} to the image page. And then for the reason, I say basically what you said, i.e. that the GFDL claim is false and that the picture is a copyright violation. It really helps if you can find the picture on the web and link to it. I generally just search under the contestant's name at images.google.com Generally, people who upload pictures such as this don't hide it very well. --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 22:45, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Btw, I found the picture. It is here. Like I said, they don't hide it well. :) And it looks like it's all over the net. --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 22:47, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

With Idol, I just go by whether it's out there or not. What makes my head spin is the copyright policies outside of pictures. --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 04:19, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your edit to ZOEgirl

Your edit to ZOEgirl removed important discography information. The discography had to be rewritten. If ever this happens again, please replace graphics by text. Don't remove discography. Alex Perrier (talk) 11:41, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Jean Carne

My apologies... There has so much vandalism on Jean Carne and even reverts from the vandals to help cover their vandalism as well that I couldn't tell what was what. So I went back to the last version of the page that I could confirm was untainted. Souldier77 (talk) 00:24, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Flags

I still disagree with your sashaying through Wikipedia like the Angel of Death but I changed the MOS entry from "strongly deprecated" to "forbidden" if that will help. Paul Melville Austin (talk) 01:33, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

album pics

when did that happen? i still see this format all over Wikipedia, and don't recall it being a problem before. Bouncehoper (talk) 19:48, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Milan Cover

As far as I can tell, I meet the non-free criteria for the cover I used as a photograph of Milan (aka The Leather Boy), but I could certainly be enlightened. I thought that using album covers (or single covers in this case) was okay as photographs of recording artists. If you think I have too many non-free images, I can drop the one that shows up later, but this is the one that gives the best picture.

There seems to be a trend of there being no photographs of musicians for a large percentage of the pages that I visit (or else it is a barely discernible photo from a concert somewhere), and I also detect that, generally, the use of album and single covers is getting to be frowned upon a little more than necessary. I can go on the web and find hundreds of copies of some album covers, and while I respect copyright notices as much as the next guy, it seems to me that copyrighted photographs is the kind of material that should be getting this kind of scrutiny. Shocking Blue (talk) 23:30, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As Template:Non-free album cover on the image page states "This image is of a cover of an audio recording, and the copyright for it is most likely owned by either the publisher of the album or the artist(s) which produced the recording or cover artwork in question. It is believed that the use of low-resolution images of such covers * solely to illustrate the audio recording in question, * on the English-language Wikipedia, hosted on servers in the United States by the non-profit Wikimedia Foundation, qualifies as fair use under United States copyright law. Any other uses of this image, on Wikipedia or elsewhere, may be copyright infringement." Also as Wikipedia:Non-free content states "Some copyrighted images may be used on Wikipedia, providing they meet both the legal criteria for fair use, and Wikipedia's own guidelines for non-free content. Copyrighted images that reasonably can be replaced by free/libre images are not suitable for Wikipedia. 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)."

Unless there is critical commentary about the album/single, cover art can only be used on the album/single page as a means of showing the album/single. Using cover art to show a musician/band in their article infobox or using cover art in a discography section is not fair use of the non-free image because there is no corresponding critical commentary in either the infobox or the discography. Aspects (talk) 14:21, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I had been mulling over exactly the way that I would express how pointlessly rigid this kind of policy is, but I haven't the heart for another long discussion about Wikipedia guidelines since I just went through one on the number of albums requirement for WP:MUSIC. And then this morning I realized that I do have critical commentary on this single – to wit (under the Reissues section): This particular compilation album starts off with both sides of a 1967 single by The Leather Boy, "I'm a Leather Boy" and "Shadows", while "You Gotta Have Soul" closes the album. The former cut is an exuberant garage rock track that features actual sounds of motorcycles in the background that even Steppenwolf eschewed, while the latter is a passionate romp that has a similar gritty feel. "Shadows" is a marvelous psychedelic rock masterwork that appears on the Pebbles box sets called Pebbles Box and Trash Box but is not otherwise available in the Pebbles series on CD. I have put it back as the Infobox picture; surely I don't have to put it somewhere else in the article, or do I? I mean, if that is the way Wikipedia wants it, I guess that I can put up with it; but back in the 1960's, bands were not nearly so photographed and promoted as they are now, and 40-year-old publicity photos are going to be nearly impossible to find nowadays. That goes double for artists like Milan, who were trying to be anonymous. Shocking Blue (talk) 18:53, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A life

Get one. Or a girlfriend. Fast. MiracleMat (talk) 15:22, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kany Garcia Cover

I only added 1 CD cover and that was like last year when the album came out! So i dont know where this comes from@! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.83.53.146 (talk) 13:26, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Help please

Hi, the David Archuleta article is protected so I'm hoping you'd be willing to correct something, these changes aren't covered in the source and may not be true. David's dad might not be the greatest guy but I think we should at least be accurate in these things and not presume why he got in trouble or how much changing a lyric may have cost. 71.139.14.94 (talk) 17:19, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Edelbrock

That's ok Gnevin (talk) 22:10, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AI template

Sorry. I think I must have misread the discussion page, because I really did think there had been consensus on ordering it by album sales ranking. But you are right, it's not there. I have no issue with them being ordered by season and place. Maher-shalal-hashbaz (talk) 13:24, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]