User talk:Legolas2186/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

durga puja

great! i added a link to the suruchi sangha on this shamman.

The APSS page however looks a bit too commercial with all the logos etc. - why not put up some images of some 2007 winners on that page, at least suruchi sangha.

mukerjee (talk) 10:12, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

True Blue

You didn't just change the size of the image though did you? You also added the text "Madonna has a very teenage girlish charm in the video" (diff) Which fails Wikipedia's policy on neutral points of view. --JD554 (talk) 12:19, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Septimus Heap

If they aren't notable enough to have their own articles, they still won't warrant an article grouped together. In my opinion it would probably be best if they were added to the main article. --JD554 (talk) 06:42, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

All new articles must comply with Wikipedia's notability guidelines at WP:N and any claimed notability must be verifiable as per WP:V using reliable sources (see WP:RS). If you can ensure that a new article complies with those guidelines you shouldn't have a problem. --JD554 (talk) 06:50, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Durga puja 2008

Added some images. there appears to be some sort of a bug due to which some thumbs are not being generated perhaps. mukerjee (talk) 08:53, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Why don't you create some pages for which you can include some web images with a suitable copyrighted image use justification? Since these events are over, there is no possibility of getting new images, so it may be ok to use some degraded images from the web. (See for instance, the image I added in Arun Kolatkar. mukerjee (talk) 03:58, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

It may be good also to create a DP 2009 article, with the timings of the puja. After the event is over, the timings become less relevant, and can be relegated to lower down the article. mukerjee (talk) 04:19, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Repost of Septimus Heap (character)

A tag has been placed on Septimus Heap (character) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia, because it appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a deletion discussion. If you can indicate how it is different from the previously posted material, place the template {{hangon}} underneath the other template on the article and put a note on the page's discussion page saying why this article should stay. Administrators will look at your reasoning before deciding what to do with the page. If you believe the original discussion was unjustified, please use deletion review instead of continuing to recreate the page. Thank you. Huon (talk) 14:01, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

there is no point in keeping on trying this. As you know, I think such articles defensible, and regret thee attitude of deleting them. But it is not worthwhile to keep trying without making sufficient improvements to make a good case--this sort of repeated recreation & inevitable deletion just makes things worse. What you need to do is find actual references to the character himself in published 3rd party discussions or criticisms of the story, and then recreate it in user space. In the past, people looking for these have in fact found them. Ask for help from a librarian in finding every substantial review of the books, and see what you can find, and check wether there might not be published discussions elsewhere, but not on blogs. sometimes it works, and every time it work it adds to the strength of the argument for keeping such character articles. As administrator checking CSDs, I saw the article, and figured I might as well delete it myself-- the key improvement needed is the addition of sources. Two will do it. DGG (talk) 16:11, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Rihanna discography

I've reverted some of the edits you've recently made to the Rihanna discography. One of your edits consisted of altering the RIAA certifications awarded to the artist for some of the singles she's released during her career. The certs have been taken from the database at RIAA.com. They're reliable, up-to-date and reliably sourced. Please don't alter them unless the RIAA legitimately changes any of them.Odin's Beard (talk) 13:24, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I have to disagree. http://www.riaa.com/goldandplatinumdata.php?table=SEARCH_RESULTS&artist=Rihanna%20&format=SINGLE&go=Search&perPage=50 That link shows every certification she's has for singles according to the RIAA. By your edit, she has certifications for "Shut Up and Drive", "Don't Stop the Music", "Take a Bow" and "Disburbia". There are no certifications listed for any of those singles. Some of the singles are mistakenly listed twice, as they only award certifications once. To my knowledge, the RIAA doesn't award gold twice for one single. If it sells 500,000 copies then it's gold and if it sells another 500,000, then it goes platinum.Odin's Beard (talk) 22:24, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Once again, please stop adding inaccurate sales information to the article. The link to the RIAA database I provided in the post above clearly shows that she has no certifications for "Don't Stop the Music", "Take a Bow" and "Disturbia". If you have information that contradicts what the RIAA says, then please provide it and discuss it. Otherwise, please stop vandalizing the article.Odin's Beard (talk) 00:14, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

This is your last warning. You have vandalized the Rihanna discography yet again by placing false sales information into the singles section of the article. Once again, if you have access to information contradicting what's shown in the RIAA database, then provide it and discuss it. Otherwise, you will be reported to Wikipedia administration.Odin's Beard (talk) 14:46, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

November 2008

Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but you removed a speedy deletion tag from Image:Borderlinem.jpg, a page you have created yourself. If you do not believe the page should be deleted, you can place a {{hangon}} tag on the page, under the existing speedy deletion tag (please do not remove the speedy deletion tag), and make your case on the page's [[Talk::Image:Borderlinem.jpg|talk page]]. Administrators will look at your reasoning before deciding what to do with the page. Thank you. JD554 (talk) 08:24, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

The Fame (Lady GaGa song)

Hi. I just want to inform you that your speedy tagging of the article is not covered within the criteria. Please be specific. Thank you. --Efe (talk) 12:05, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Septimusheapboxset.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Septimusheapboxset.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:44, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

HI

Hey. I have given the official website of Raaz - TMC as a reference. The site is http://www.raazthefilm.com/

Since this is a flash site, even when i go to another page on this site, the link on my browser doesnt change. Kindly click on "Mystery" and then "Songs" to see that the names i have given are accurate. Kindly dont change the details as they are taken from the official site. Have a nice day. :)

Regards,

Abhi —Preceding unsigned comment added by Abhinav sharma75 (talk • contribs) 10:00, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

mugdha

Hi, considering that you have created a duplicate version of the image, I was wondering if you could delete the original image. Thanks. --PhyrnxWarrior (talk) 20:04, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Replaceable fair use Image:Mugdha_Bollywodd.jpg

Replaceable fair use

Thanks for uploading Image:Mugdha_Bollywodd.jpg. I noticed the description page specifies that the media is being used under a claim of fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first non-free content criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this media is not replaceable, please:

1. Go to the media description page and edit it to add {{di-replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original replaceable fair use template.
2. On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per our non-free content policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Kelly ^hi! 04:11, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

GA status of Jenna Heap and Marcia Overstrand

Hi Legolas,

I noticed that you edited Talk:Jenna Heap and Talk:Marcia Overstrand so that they were listed as being good articles. I don't know if you know what "good article" means, but you can find details at Wikipedia:Good articles. As you will see, there are certain requirements that must be met before an article can be listed as being a "good article". I'm sure this was an honest mistake, and I've already corrected it, but I'm just letting you know so you're aware for future reference.

If you have any questions, feel free to contact me on my talk page. Mr. Absurd (talk) 06:48, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

There are basically two types of assessment for articles: quality and importance. The quality of an article changes over time, as the article improves. I would look at the good article criteria for a sense of what is still needed on the page in terms of quality. Importance, however, rarely changes—the importance of an article is determined by how essential the topic of the article is for the understanding of a certain subject. These two character articles are not at all essential topics within the context of WikiProject Children's Literature or WikiProject Novels, which is why they are ranked so low in terms of importance. (You can read more about article importance at Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Release Version Criteria#Importance of topic).

You should focus on the quality of these articles, rather than their importance. Mr. Absurd (talk) 14:36, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Disputed non-free use rationale for Image:Luckystarmusicvideo.jpg

Thank you for uploading Image:Luckystarmusicvideo.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this image on Wikipedia may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the image description page and add or clarify the reason why the image qualifies under this policy. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a non-free use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for images used under the non-free content policy require both a copyright tag and a non-free use rationale.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under the non-free content policy, it might be deleted by an administrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. Stifle (talk) 11:13, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

File:Luckystarmusicvideo.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, File:Luckystarmusicvideo.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Stifle (talk) 11:22, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Disputed non-free use rationale for Image:Septimusheapboxset.jpg

Thank you for uploading Image:Septimusheapboxset.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this image on Wikipedia may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the image description page and add or clarify the reason why the image qualifies under this policy. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a non-free use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for images used under the non-free content policy require both a copyright tag and a non-free use rationale.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under the non-free content policy, it might be deleted by an administrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. Stifle (talk) 11:32, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

January 2009

This is the only warning you will receive for your disruptive edits.
If you vandalize Wikipedia again, as you did to The Fame (album), you will be blocked from editing. Stop adding unsourced information to article, you have continually blanked your talk page warnings. I will now file a report at WP:ANI — Realist² 04:16, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks will lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. — Realist² 04:23, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Hey there. I realize you're in a bit of a heated argument right now, but could I ask you to avoid sarcastic comments like this? Realist does have a point, and while I don't approve of the means through which he was trying to make it, you may want to try talking with him to figure things out. Telling people to "OPEN YOUR EYES" isn't the most constructive way to deal with things. If you have any questions, feel free to let me know. Thanks for your time, and happy editing. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 05:04, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Woah, slow down there. Assume a little good faith for a moment; saying someone didn't even check for a source also isn't helping matters. He may not have, true, but you also need to keep in mind that there was a large indicator to show you hadn't added a source the second time around: your edit summary said "Undid revision 262100879 by Realist2 (talk)", which indicates no new information was added; you simply reverted what Realist had done, which was to remove what you'd added in the first place. Since he'd already looked at your edit, and found that you had neither included a source nor a reason for reverting him, there was little need for him to spend additional time reviewing it again.

Now, in looking over your edits again, I don't see where you added any sort of reference; could you help point me out? I know a lot of information in that article (and others) is not referenced. Sadly, that's one of the problems we have to deal with regularly, and it can often seem arbitrary where it is and isn't "enforced". The truth is, it's enforced everywhere, but since we're all volunteers we often only have time to focus on the more controversial statements. In this case, you were adding information to indicate that this record had reached #1 on one of Billboard's charts, despite a reference just above that which showed that the album only reached #17 on another of Billboard's lists. I'm not saying you're wrong (and frankly don't care), but for something that appears as contradictory as this, we do need a source, especially when the other peak ratings do all have sources.

Again, I don't fully agree with how Realist handled this; explaining things like this in the first place probably would have helped a lot; however, please don't take this too badly. I'm sure Realist did not intend to upset you, and as you said yourself, it's not really that big an issue. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 05:38, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Ah - my apologies, for some reason I missed the source you added in your most recent edit (which I should note has not been reverted, hmm?). However, even if a source has been given previously in the same article, it is strongly recommended to note the source again, so that it's clear to both editors and readers that that source is in fact the one you are using. Otherwise, they have no way of knowing that the statement is in fact sourced; it's like driving down the highway and seeing a sign with only a list of exit numbers, and then a mile later seeing a sign with only a list of cities. You might assume that the cities correspond to the exit numbers, but you have no way of knowing which exit is for which city. We try to avoid that confusion for our readers, and so ask that controversial statements are immediately followed by their sources. Actually, you'll notice that reference #9 is used three separate times throughout that article. Those usages are all immediately next to each other, but you still have a little blue number next to each one, which is what we want. Does that help some? Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 06:02, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

You're quite welcome, I'm glad I could be of some help. If you ever have any other trouble, feel free to let me know. I'll go take a look at those deletion requests now; happy editing! Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 06:12, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) Closed as requested, and both images have been deleted. Stifle & crew are correct; while the image can be used to illustrate that point, the album covers can also serve this purpose and are there for a different reason already. I left a more detailed explanation at the discussion, but that's more or less it. Anyway, I'm off for the night. See you around. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 06:44, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Raaz

Hi, I saw your edits appearing to protect Raaz - The Mystery Continues which I found confusing, as there has hardly been any real vandalism – only external link spamming by indiafm for which I've been keeping an eye out for and which has appeared to have stopped. Only admins can protect a page, and you do not appear to be one (apologies if I am wrong), and the article isn't currently under protection, as I was able to log out and remove the protection template myself. If you want to get a page protected you need to go to WP:RFPP, but it needs to have experienced heavy vandalism/edit warring: Raaz is not a candidate for protection at the moment. THEN WHO WAS PHONE? (talk) 20:05, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Oops. No, I seem to have forgotten to do so. Ideally, you should request at WP:RFPP, but there's not much point in sending you there now. I'm afraid I have to decline, though - there's nowhere near enough vandalism there to be causing a significant problem, and since it seems you and other editors are working actively on the article, any vandalism should be quickly removed anyway. Protection is only applied in cases of persistent vandalism where blocks have proven to be ineffective. Usually, I look for several vandal edits per day over a course of several days before I'll consider protecting something. Best of luck on the article, all the same. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 17:30, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Hot Dance Airplay

It's a component of the Hot 100. It really is as simple as that. You need to stop adding it to songs that already have the Hot 100 listed.—Kww(talk) 12:57, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image (File:Vivalavida1.jpg)

You've uploaded File:Vivalavida1.jpg, and indicated that it's used under Wikipedia's rules for non-free images. However, it's not presently used in any articles. Wikipedia policy requires that non-free images be either used or deleted, so if this image isn't used in an article in the next week, it will be deleted.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 00:57, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:Dontstopthemusicvideo.jpg)

Thanks for uploading File:Dontstopthemusicvideo.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:15, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:Vivalavida2.jpg)

Thanks for uploading File:Vivalavida2.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 06:09, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Rihanna

Hi
Could you come to Talk:Rihanna#"Tied with Beyonce for 5 Number one singles" and discuss your change?
Cheers, Amalthea 00:30, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5