User talk:Loveable Daveo

List of number-one albums from the 2000s (UK)

Hi there. I understand your desire to illustrate this page, however it is not possible to do so using album covers as they violate a policy on using copyrighted images. However, you can do what has been done on List of number-one singles from the 2000s (UK), using pictures of the artists, as long as they are released under a free licence. You can easily find images by going to the article of a particular singer or group and seeing if there are free images there - usually found in the infobox at the top of the page. Hope this helps. AnemoneProjectors (talk) 21:55, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for explaining :] I'm a bit confused though, I read the link you provided on non-free images, but what I don't understand is why an album cover can be used on the album's page, but not on the number one albums list? Surely if it can be used on one page it can be used on another? Is there any way to get around it? Because I really think the page looks better with the album covers rather than the artist's picture, and it also enhances the article. Loveable Daveo (talk) 21:58, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Album covers can be used in the article about the album, and each image requires a separate fair-use rationale for every article it's used in. In theory this would be possible, but you would find other editors objecting to it, especially if you tried to get the article to featured list status. Having several album cover images in one article would be classified as fair use overuse, as there should be as little non-free content in an article as possible, and the images wouldn't necessarily significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic. Using free images is perfectly acceptable, so decorating the article with pictures of the singers would be a good idea. The image of Robbie Williams is free - if you click on it you'll see it says "This is a file from the Wikimedia Commons". Any image that says that should be fine to use. AnemoneProjectors (talk) 22:11, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Using YouTube as a source

Hello, Loveable Daveo. If you do not already know, YouTube is typically considered unreliable by Wikipedia. As such, your YouTube addition to the Beyoncé Knowles article not too long ago was removed by an editor. Here is a discussion about using YouTube on Wikipedia: Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 36#Youtube as a source. There have been plenty of debates/discussions about its use here at Wikipedia. It is sometimes permitted, but is more often prohibited. Flyer22 (talk) 21:17, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of List of current top 40 albums (UK)

The article List of current top 40 albums (UK) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Unencyclopedic, will require constant maintenance.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{dated prod}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 15:03, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of List of current top 40 albums (UK)

An article that you have been involved in editing, List of current top 40 albums (UK), has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of current top 40 albums (UK). Thank you.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 15:31, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

David Scott

Hello. While I appreciate your Bold! changes to David Scott (astronaut) and David Scott, WP:COMMONNAME and WP:PRECISION tell us that preemptive disambiguation like this is not necessary. As such, I have undone your good-faith changes. Please let me know if you have any questions or issues. Thanks, — Kralizec! (talk) 13:52, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:12, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]