User talk:Aspects/Archive 11

ARCHIVE (August 2013 - April 2014)
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.

Templates

Please don't revert those changes without any good reason. They are too intrusive on stub articles. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 18:19, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I find it humorous that you say not to revert without any good reason, when I did supply a good reason in my edit summary every time I made the edit. You were the one who did not supply a reason when you reverted. Now that you supplied a reason, I am not sure how great it is, but at least I can see where you are coming from and I can understand your logic behind it, so I am no longer going to expand these templates in stub articles. In general, it would help out if you would start using edit summaries to explain to other editors why you made your edit. Aspects (talk) 18:33, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Final warning

You need to stop re-adding non-free files or I will request either a topic ban or block. Please see the two sections I linked to in the previous post. Werieth (talk) 21:15, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Image edit warring

I've told Werieth that I don't think his 3RR exemptions coverage is strong enough, but I do want to point out that your position here is *also* pretty questionable. Werieth had raised a WP:NFCC objection that at least merits discussion. Reinserting non-free content when a valid objection has been raised isn't a good practice.—Kww(talk) 22:26, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's also not the only incidence of Aspects edit-warring to include non-free content that is being discussed.[1][2] - Sudo Ghost 19:47, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tattoo (Titanium song)

Hi. You had reverted a merge at Tattoo (Titanium song) with an edit comment indicating that there was no reason given for the merge. In fact, the merge was due to the outcome of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tattoo (Titanium song) where consensus was to merge, and the merge itself was documented at Talk:Tattoo (Titanium song) with the AFD outcome recorded there. As such, I've reverted back to a redirect. If you believe the song is independently notable, additional sourcing would be needed. Regards. -- Whpq (talk) 00:30, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you had used an edit summary that said it was the outcome of an AfD with a link to the AfD, I would have checked out the AfD, confirmed the outcome and left the article alone. It looked like an undiscussed merge of a single that could be seen as being notable by charting. I am not going to try and find sources for the single to have its own article. Aspects (talk) 00:35, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As the information was documented in the talk page, I didn't think it necessary to make a long edit summary linking to the AFD. Regards. -- Whpq (talk) 00:42, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Need Help!

Hello user Aspects, I recently uploaded all past logo images of Indian television channel Sahara One. All images do contain fair-use rationale to meet Wikipedia standards and are available on Internet all over. The images were added under history section but unfortunately I added them in a gallery format. This user Werieth keeps reverting them, telling me that they do not meet WP:NFC, but these images are free and are available on several websites across Internet. There are quite a few channel's on Wikipedia where past logo images are being used in a gallery format. I posed the question to this person asking for help, but he seems likes threatening to block my user ID, instead of helping out. I've read so many discussions under his/her page and he/she has been doing this a lot and many of the users including several Wikipedia admins and yourself have told him to stop, but it seems like it's not working. What should I do? Please help... Thank you. Survir (talk) 04:37, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If there are other pages that use galleries of non-free files please let me know and Ill address those too. these images are free and are available on several websites across Internet is completely in-correct. Just because its on the internet doesn't mean we can ignore copyright. As I stated on your talk page the article in question cannot justify that many non-free images. Werieth (talk) 10:46, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Jedi Knights.png

this edit is inappropriate for multiple reasons. The discussion that took place concerning that image has not had a single comment since 4 August, and hasn't had a single relevant comment about the image itself since 3 August. The original image was restored and placed in the article and is now being discussed, but per WP:IUP the png image has zero purpose on Wikipedia, not least of all because there is another image that serves an identical purpose. There is zero purpose in edit warring to remove template:di-orphaned fair use from the file as it's not being discussed, it's not being used in an article, and it duplicates another image so it's going to be used in any article. Please do not remove that template from the image file again. - Sudo Ghost 17:24, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I was writing a message in the same time that you wrote one here. Please see my message there and let an admin close the discussion before trying to get the image deleted for being an orphaned image. Aspects (talk) 17:30, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Admins do not "close discussions" there, so expecting the image to stay until that happens is unreasonable (there are discussions at Wikipedia:Non-free content review that haven't had a single comment since February and are not "closed"). The image is orphaned, has no purpose, and is not being discussed, there is no reason to keep the image whatsoever. If you remove the template, it will be restored, because it is an orphaned image that is not being used in any capacity (even in discussion). Let an admin remove the template if it's not appropriate; as an admin already told you, it can easily be undeleted in necessary, but it serves no purpose on Wikipedia now. - Sudo Ghost 17:33, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Admins do close discussion there, see the section at Wikipedia:Non-free content review#How to close. The image is being discussed since the discussion is not closed. Why are you willing to have an admin remove the template, but unwillingly to let an admin close a discussion at WP:NFR. Also, I see that you ignored my note putting the incorrect date in the orphaned fair use template. Aspects (talk) 17:43, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The image is not being discussed, and discussions there quite clearly are not closed in the manner you're suggesting ("can be closed" does not mean "will" or even "should be closed") so it is unrealistic to expect an orphaned image to remain until a discussion is closed by an administrator, something which is clearly a rare occurrence on that page. Your definition of "being discussed" is also inaccurate; discussions are not ongoing until an admin comes along to close them. The discussion you're alluding is not ongoing since a jpg version is being discussed; the png image is no longer even under consideration per the image use policy and has no purpose at this point as it's not going to be used in the article; nobody, not even the image's creator, has contested that point since there is an identical image in another format that is being discussed. - Sudo Ghost 17:52, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your Opinion needed

Hi Aspects, I noticed you were one of the people who reverted User:Werieth's edit on I Think We're Alone Now article for the removal of a single art cover for a cover version. There's currently a discussion about keeping the image or not: Talk:I Think We're Alone Now. Your opinion would be appreciated. Thanks!--SuperHotWiki (talk) 01:55, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that the image was tagged as being orphaned and was going to add it back and start a discussion, but I see you had already done that. I just wish you would have stated your opinion in your own words, instead of taking what was the culmination of my thoughts and statements on the issue, so now it is possible we will be accused of sock/meatpuppety. I also am not sure what I will say that I would not have already stated. Aspects (talk) 03:17, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring

You have undid two of DVD covers added by me, Polladhavan and Pithamagan. May I know on what basis? I'm just trying to add images that can be viewed better. So, trying to replace landscaped images with portrait ones. -- Sriram Vikram (talk) 11:30, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I left the same edit summary for both reversions, "rv back to poster image that is preferred to DVD cover image", [3] and [4], that is more thoroughly discussed at Template:Infobox film#Image. You did not use an edit summary to explain why you made the image change and wanting to change the orientation of the image is not a valid enough reason. Also, your section title is incorrect in that making one reversion does not constitute an edit war, see Wikipedia:Edit warring. Aspects (talk) 16:52, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

But those images have nothing but the title. No credits whatsoever. -- Sriram Vikram (talk) 05:05, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Some posters just have the title and no credits. If the credits are that important to you, then find a film poster that has the credits. The DVD covers do not have the credits on it, so I am not sure what you are looking for in an image except that you do not like the current images. Aspects (talk) 01:57, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your reverts

Films are generally considered artistic works that are 'signed' by the director and or the author of the book upon which they based. And while you are correct that some were not by British directors or were somehow ambiguous – and I have not contested these deletions, I have reverted some others as being rather unambiguously "signed" by British artists, such as Richard Attenborough, Alfred Hitchcock and Ridley Scott. Regards, -- Ohc ^¡digame!_{¿que pasa?} 07:06, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with your assertion on my talk page which would imply that the record companies would 'own' nationality over works of the recordings of the musicians in their stable. Same goes for books and their authors vs publishers. That is certainly not the convention here on WP, where each book, album or single most definitely takes on the nationality of the artist(s) and not the notional "backers". -- Ohc ^¡digame!_{¿que pasa?} 07:11, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Revived interest in Infernal Affairs

Invitation to participate in the poll for Infernal Affairs.

From your edits for the film Infernal Affairs there is presently a poll taking place on The Departed film Talk page regarding whether you believe a separate subsection should be included for (a) Infernal Affairs as a source for the plot of The Departed film, and/or (b) a second subsection for the recently captured crime figure Whitey Bulger as the source for the character played by Jack Nicholson in the film.

The recent capture of Bulger has revived the question from two years ago of Infernal Affairs from when it did have a separate subsection on The Departed film page which was deleted by User:RepublicanJ, now known as User:OldJ. Invite to visit The Departed Talk page, to the Bulger section at the end of the Page, to participate in the Poll currently taking place. 208.120.96.227 (talk) 11:24, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your reversions are becoming equally disruptive

Not every NFCC violation needs to be discussed on talk pages. You may dislike Werieth's style, but, in the main, he has a good grasp of the NFCC. Reflexively reverting everyone of his removals with a boilerplate discussion page is just as disruptive. If an NFCC concern has been raised, then the images should stay removed until there's a consensus to remove it.—Kww(talk) 15:37, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If there is a dispute over whether an file passes WP:NFCC, then it should be discussed. All of the notable cover version single covers and sound files I started discussions on were tagged as being orphaned and were going to be deleted. The discussion on Werieth's talk page showed that these files should not be deleted as F5 and should be discussed if reverted. All of the notable cover versions were reverted and since Werieth decided not to take any of the images to Wikipedia:Files for deletion, I decided to start talk page discussions on them so that a consensus could be reached instead of edit warring. All of the sound files were removed from the articles while removing music video screenshots with an edit summary of "WP:NFC", while not saying how the sound files failed it, so I started discussions there because I did not want to be seen as reverting Werieth's edits just because I did not like some of his edits. Aspects (talk) 15:53, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Has there been any discussion in favor of them? All I ever see is empty discussion sections.—Kww(talk) 16:02, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

An invitation

Because you participated in an archived discussion in 2009, and this discussion Talk:Adam_Lambert/Archive_3#Genre was used as reason to remove glam rock as a genre in the Adam Lambert article I have opened a new discussion at Talk:Adam_Lambert#Genre in order to revisit this subject in an effort to decide whether to reinstate glam rock as a genre. You're participation as one originally commenting is welcome. Thank you. Omgoodnessme (talk) 03:08, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wild Gunman

"First release" does not override quality standards. The use of the North American cover art in conjunction with the screenshot is entirely redundant; it conveys very little information that the screenshot doesn't also convey. The European box, meanwhile, is a unique art asset and is significantly divergent from the game screenshot. The featured article Ico for example uses EU cover art due to quality problems with the North American cover art. - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 23:15, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is not a quality issue with the North American cover art. If you think the two images are similar, then the image that should be changed is the screenshot since there are many screenshots that can be used, but based on past consensus there is only one cover image that should be used. If you feel this needs a wider audience, you could also start a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games. Aspects (talk) 23:22, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The image will always be somewhat similar due to the exact-same art style used. As I've pointed out, the infobox rule is not the end-all be-all rule of image use; if your only argument is "the NA version was released first", then it's a very poor argument to mine. - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 23:25, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've opened a discussion here. Feel free to edit your argument as I posted it if there are any errors. - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 23:38, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Take care of O Heeriye

Hi, Aspects, can you take care of the page O Heeriye? If "ballad" or "love ballad" (which are not a genre) would appear in the infobox, revert it back. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 183.171.179.154 (talk) 02:21, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please take care of the page Travelling Without Moving?

Hi, can you please take care of the page Travelling Without Moving? If the term "ballad" (since it is not a genre) would appear in the infobox, remove the term. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 183.171.179.16 (talk) 01:18, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link fixing one-day contest

I have decided to put on a mini-contest within the November 2013 monthly disambiguation contest, on Saturday, November 23 (UTC). I will personally give a $20 Amazon.com gift card to the disambiguator who fixes the most links on that server-day (see the project page for details on scoring points). Since we are not geared up to do an automated count for that day, at 00:00, 23 November 2013 (UTC) (which is 7:00 PM on November 22, EST), I'll take a screenshot of the project page leaderboard. I will presume that anyone who is not already listed on the leaderboard has precisely nine edits. At 01:00, 24 November 2013 (UTC) (8:00 PM on November 23, EST), I'll take a screenshot of the leaderboard at that time (the extra hour is to give the board time to update), and I will determine from that who our winner is. I will credit links fixed by turning a WP:DABCONCEPT page into an article, but you'll have to let me know me that you did so. Here's to a fun contest. Note that according to the Daily Disambig, we currently have under 256,000 disambiguation links to be fixed. If everyone in the disambiguation link fixers category were to fix 500 links, we would have them all done - so aim high! Cheers! bd2412 T 01:50, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Jondollah Logo.png

Just a heads up this image does not have a rationale for the article where you added it. Werieth (talk) 19:03, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox

You can go revert the changes on Britney Spears, Christina Aguilera, Rihanna, etc. that have changed the infobox, too. Not just the ones I've changed. Unfair to just change two and not the others. The person infobox allows for other categories the music infobox does not. And it's not taking anything away that the music template tells us at all. It's worked on other pages. So you should remove it from there since you removed it from Kelly and Pink. livelikemusic ^{my talk page!} 17:08, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your participation is required as this discussion. Thank you for your attention and look forward to your participation! livelikemusic ^{my talk page!} 17:21, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Barbra Streisand

Per your edits, I've updated the navbox in line with WP:BIDIRECTIONAL. You may want to keep an eye on it. --Rob Sinden (talk) 09:51, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Removing red links

Please don't do that again. The links were red for a constructive purpose. By removing red links you're curbing the growth of wikipedia. Templates are allowed to have plenty of redlinks, especially if editors are actively working on them.♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:17, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Aspects, you may want to join the conversation at Wikipedia talk:Red link#No red link. --Rob Sinden (talk) 12:46, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

please explain what you are talking about?

[5] this makes no sense i used a reliable source on it why am i getting a warning i do not deserve? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.58.24.163 (talk) 02:30, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

DANNY GOKEY PAGE I don't even know if I'm doing this talk thing correctly. Anyway, the Danny Gokey fact that I added was from HIS mouth (fingers, to be more precise). He said on his Facebook account that he and his 2nd wife were married secretly, and then had a big wedding later. It was originally thought that the big wedding was their anniversary, but it was really when the small secret wedding happened. So if you could add my fact back to his page, that would be great. I don't know how any of this works. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.22.244.53 (talk) 05:39, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Good Tidings and all that ...

FWiW Bzuk (talk) 19:00, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bomberman Land Touch!

The problem is that the image has no fair use rationale that applies to itself; it asserts that it is for the main infobox which it is not. It is a reasonable assumption to make that once the article is developed, the lead image will be of the original game. According to the Video games WikiProject's image guidelines, we should not use secondary cover arts unless the cover in and of itself is the subject of critical discussion. - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 22:50, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

While I normally agree that we should not use secondary cover art unless it is subject of critical discussion, but in this case where there is primary cover art, a secondary cover art image in an infobox passes WP:NFCC. We should not delete one image because possibly in the future another image could be created to replace it, we should wait until the other image is created first and then remove the first image. Aspects (talk) 05:43, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It is not realistic that the article would not eventually have a proper lead image to replace this one with. In the end, if the image is going to be replaced eventually, it should be removed now. - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 13:57, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It should be removed as failing WP:NFCC once the primary cover art is uploaded, but until that time in my opinion it passes WP:NFCC. Aspects (talk) 18:30, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The image is inherently a placeholder. It can't pass NFCC because there's no denying that the article would eventually have the image replaced with a proper lead image. The image also fails NFCC because its fair use rationale is invalid. It simply states that it illustrates the game box, which is obviously not something that has anything to do with fair use. The article also isn't entitled to any fair use images - outside of the lead infobox image for identification purposes, any image must demonstrate exactly why the article cannot stand without it. The implication of Touch! 2 being a part of this article is that it has no shown notability and as such the image needs to explain why it in and of itself is noteworthy. - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 03:09, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Help with edit problem

Hi Aspects - I noticed with the last edit on Adam Lambert by Jordan200 on 2/24/14 that changes made to the Filmography section are now showing up under the External links section. In checking the coding I don't see that any changes made should have caused the entire section to now be under External links. May I impose on your expertise and ask you to please take a look at this and see why this is happening. When I checked the edit window for External links there are no Filmography entries so I'm at a loss how to fix this. Thank you for your help with this. Omgoodnessme (talk) 21:00, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed the table, the editor forgot to close the table with "|}", so I added that back in, most often I see this happen where the table runs into the navigational templates. In the future if you see this happen just do what I did and add "|}" and hit the preview to make sure this corrects the problem or come ask for my help again. Aspects (talk) 21:25, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mass changes to filmmaker navboxes

You are making mass changes to navboxs for filmmakers, seemingly out of your prejudices for how they should look. Are there any guidelines that support your edits? Changing templates affect a great many articles, as you know. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 05:00, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I must admit, most look fine with your changes. The only one I disagree with, so far, was the Donald Brittain navbox. It reads much more clearly, with the decadal rows, so I reverted that one. We'll see if other editors have any concerns, but other than that, I have no wider issues. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 05:06, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Most director navigational templates do not contain subgroups and I am removing some of the small percentage that contain them. When there are only a few in some of the subgroups and overall not a large number, the subgroups are unneeded and unnecessary. Also the split by decades are arbitrary and seemingly chosen simply because they are decades and nothing that has to do with the director's filmography. In these cases it looks like someone saw another template with the decade breakdown, regardless if those are the actual breaks in the director's filmography. In the case of Donald Brittain's navbox, there are nine entries in total and the teamplate does not need three subgroups for such a small number and the removal of the subgroups reduces the size of the template and I feel is easier to read. Aspects (talk) 05:13, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

For Brittain, it seems to me no smaller your way, and the layout is poor: with a solitary orphaned "3)" from the last film entry dangling alone at the bottom. That just looks weird -- would you have any way of fixing that, should we revert to your preferred model? Shawn in Montreal (talk) 05:19, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It must then be the differences between computers and their screen size because for me it is displayed with one full line ending after The Champions and then about two-thirds of a second line starting with Paperland and the "3)" is at the end of the second line. I guess nowrap templates could be added in, but I do not think I have those in any of the director navigational templates. Aspects (talk) 05:57, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for March 25

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Zenyatta Mondatta Tour, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Madison (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:50, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Unfair Changes

I'm one of the owners of the RubenStuddardRebirth.com website. We have been fans of Ruben since 2003 when he tried for American Idol and our site has been up since 2005. You deleted changes we made regarding his name. His name is Ruben Christopher Studdard, NOT Theodore. You said that we had no references. Well, were are the ones that state his name is Theodore? No, we do mentioned it a thousand times.

We also posted our site as the longest running Ruben fan site (the link included) and you deleted it too, why? He even g our ave us a shout out during his appearance at the Livestream Sessions video (new.livestream.com/livestreamsessions/rubenstuddard?query=ruben+studda&cat=event) I don't think its fair that each time we make the changes they are reverted with no more evidence noted than we have used. I gave up trying because it looked to us that someone was hell bent on not allowing real info to be posted by his own fans. I just wanted to let you know. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Annamar2 (talk • contribs) 02:19, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

These are not unfair changes, they are fair changes that occur across Wikipedia all of the time. You can always make an edit, but then once reverted, you needed to start a discussion per WP:BRD to gain a consensus. Instead you continually reverted my edits that were explained in my edit summaries and backed up by policy. I always explained that you needed a Wikipedia:Reliable source to back up your claim of the middle name and instead of ever finding one, you kept reverting. Theodore is no longer listed as his middle name in the body of the article and I will be removing it from the infobox because there is no reliable source. You twice changed his name to Christopher Ruben Studdard and twice changed it to Ruben Christopher Studdard, so apparently you do not know which is his middle name.

As for the external link, now knowing that you run the fan site, that actually makes it worse because it shows that you are trying to advertise yourself on the article instead of some random editor just trying to get a fan link. By running the fan site, it could also be seen that you have a Wikipedia:Conflict of interest in editing the article. Twice in your edit summaries you stated "Someone keeps deleting them for no good reason.", when in fact I always listed a link to WP:EXTERNAL in my edit summary, which you either did not notice or ignored. In summary, if you continually revert other editors without edit summaries or engaging in discussions, you will find that you are going to have a hard time editing on Wikipedia since we have to work with editors in discussions to gain consensus on issues. Aspects (talk) 18:40, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your response. I did made a mistake because his name IS Christopher Ruben Studdard. You also had the right to be sarcastic in your comment about me messing that one up. It is obvious that I have no clue as to the "technical aspects" (no pun intended) of posting and should have never bother to correct anything. I had enough of a hard time figuring out how to do "talk". When I was in college we were forbidden from utilizing Wikipedia as a source for our projects and now I see why. It's not 100% reliable. As far as a "conflict of interest", that's laughable that I would be using it for self-promotion. We've been around long enough to need "promoting". I just felt it was only fair to point out he had a fan site which in the past, he has promoted himself. No problem thou. I for sure, will not touch Wikipedia to add, deleted or anything else. Sorry for the inconvenience. You are obviously the expert and I'm not. Edit away... Anamar2 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Annamar2 (talk • contribs) 15:22, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

April 2014

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Bandwagon (film) may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

| released = {{Film date|1996|01| |[Sundance Film Festival]]|1997|09|12}}

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 04:56, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your reversion

Hi, can you explain your reversion and confusing edit-summary?

And aside from that, I'm most uneasy about articles on SE Asian TV channels that contain "future facts". This is not permitted by our policies. Tony (talk) 09:26, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about that I had some troubling edits bookmarked and did not see your edit when I made my own incorrect edit. I have reverted my own edit since it was clearly incorrect. Aspects (talk) 09:31, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for April 13

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of Jon Anderson concert tours, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Hamilton (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:53, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Shirley Temple navigational template

I must profess ignorance as a newbie to this whole Wikipedia thing. You undid the changes I made to the Shirley Temple template. While I get some of the changes where she was merely a role player amongst several other role players, there were a number of movies where she was either the primary star or the only star of note. Isn't there anything to distinguish this when determining the rules for templates? I just wasted probably and hour or two of my time lol. User talk:wabnoles1 — Preceding undated comment added 04:27, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

On your talk page I directed you to the links that show how actor navigational template should not be on Wikipedia. If you take the time to read them and then still have questions, I will be happy to help you out. Another piece of advice, since you are a new editor, if someone starts a discussion on your talk page, you can continue the conversation there, so that all of the discussion is at one place instead of going back and forth between talk pages. Aspects (talk) 04:39, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cancel that last comment I see that this is something generally not done period. I guess I was just confused by the incomplete filmography and thought to add to it User talk:wabnoles1 — Preceding undated comment added 04:27, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

:re 3rd warning on 14 On Fire

So what?!? What if the reverts are relevant?!?!? I see threathening is a common habit from WP administrators... HurluGumene (talk) 11:05, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

First off, this is not a threat, but a warning that you could be blocked had you made another warning in the 24 hour period. You are clearly edit warring at 14 on Fire, so you need to discuss your edits if you want to avoid being blocked. Secondly I am not an administrator and could not block you, but that does not prevent me from warning you about 3rr/edit warring or in the future from reporting you to WP:3RRNB should you continue to edit war and not discuss the issue to try and reach a consensus. Aspects (talk) 13:32, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I totally disagree: firstly, I don't need to discuss my edits more than the other contributors, specially those who revert them many times. Secondly, this is not an "edit war", just an attempt to protect my edits from silly changes. Thirdly, there's no point at all here to discuss such trivial changes. Fourthly, whoever you are (administrator or not), I get this "you-could-be-blocked" warning as a threat... HurluGumene (talk) 10:59, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Cyberchase" Article Edits

Why have you removed infobox attributes? It is appropriate/ the correct color for the series. I know it isn't absolutely necessary, but South Park has them, and it is a popular page. Ians18 (talk) 00:52, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As I explained in my edit summary, "rv deprecated infobox fields," I removed the newly added color fields because those infobox fields are deprecated. User:Geraldo Perez explained it better in his response than I can, so I will agree with his response. I am confused as to why you would thank Geraldo Perez for that response and then 18 minutes later open this section asking the same thing about a different article when chances are both Geraldo Perez and I were thinking the same thing. Aspects (talk) 03:08, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tangled

Did you misread MOS:FILM#Soundtrack at the WP:FFD discussion? It does not comply at all with these guidelines which are derived from WP:NFCI. There would need to be a Tangled (soundtrack) article at which the image could be used. Currently, if it is a secondary identifying image under one topic, then it is not adding any value. Non-free images need to be used rarely. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 03:57, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I listed the RfC, Wikipedia talk:Non-free content/Archive 57#RFC: Soundtrack covers in articles about other media (films, video games, etc.), that the MoS never seemed to address that the consensus found that if the soundtrack is notable and the cover art is significantly different from the film poster, then the album cover can be included, since WP:NFCI#1 and WP:NFCC#3a are both satisfied. By following the MoS, it would make more sense to create/spin-off an article for the soundtrack that to simply delete the image from Wikipedia. Since the image was previously taken to a FfD last year for the same image, it would be better to start a new FfD instead of having it speedily deleted through orphaning. The orphan speedy deletion is similar to a prod that would not be allowed for an article that was kept through an AfD. Aspects (talk) 04:07, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]