User talk:Cooldra01
July 2011[edit]
Sources and capitalization for YUI[edit]
Please do not add or change content without verifying it by citing reliable sources, as you did to Yui (singer). Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. --DAJF (talk) 06:19, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
- May I ask what content did I add without citing sources? If you're talking about Hello (Paradise Kiss), I believe all content was cited. Additionally, WP:MOSCAPS, although not my decision to capitalize all the Yui's, does not cover capitalization of foreign (or english for that matter) stage names. Nor is YUI is a trademark. Cooldra01 (talk) 10:41, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
- Hi. As indicated in the message above, I was referring to your edits to the Yui (singer) article, particularly here, in which you re-added unsourced and dubious statements about "a fierce scramble among record labels" and the poetic "...he claimed that YUI's voice touched him so much..."
- If you read through the guidelines at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons, you will see that contentious and unsourced statements such as these must be removed immediately. Simply tagging them with "Citation needed" is not an acceptable alternative, I'm afraid.
- As for the issue of writing "Yui" in all-caps, WP:MOSCAPS applies to everything on English Wikipedia, whether they are stage names or foreign. Basically, we don't use all-caps for stylistic purposes. That's why the very first line of the article indicates that her name is normally stylized as "YUI" in publicity, but uses the standard English "Yui" throughout the article text. I hope this clears up any confusion. --DAJF (talk) 12:08, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
- I'm sorry for re-adding statements such as the ones you've listed. It was an oversight, and I'll be shortly adding edited versions of those statements with sources listed. Next time I see statements such as those, even with a [citation needed] tag, I'll be sure to remove those or contact the original author to clear it up. In regard to WP:MOSCAPS, it would be appreciated if the article itself was made more clear. I was a little on the fence on this issue, hence me adding the stylization statement which you mentioned but not changing the capitalized YUI's. Cooldra01 (talk) 17:08, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
Better source request for File:YUI Hong Kong.jpg[edit]
Thanks for uploading File:YUI Hong Kong.jpg. You provided a source, but it is difficult for other users to examine the copyright status of the image because the source is incomplete. Please consider clarifying the exact source so that the copyright status may be checked more easily. It is best to specify the exact Web page where you found the image, rather than only giving the source domain or the URL of the image file itself. Please update the image description with a URL that will be more helpful to other users in determining the copyright status.
If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source in a complete manner. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page or me at my talk page. Thank you. --DAJF (talk) 12:19, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
- The photo was from a camera taken by the given user. There is no URL or webpage of the image itself, however you may obtain the image once again from the user's e-mail - which is also stated in the given source. I do know the process for declaration, but really, it seems a pain to go through the process when the user has already given consent. I will do so if it's absolutely required. Cooldra01 (talk) 17:15, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
September 2011[edit]
Help with sources for Chinese visual kei band article (Silver Ash)?[edit]
Hello, I've noticed that you seem to have an interest in articles relating to Japanese music and also that it says on your user page that you speak Chinese. Is there any chance you'd be interested in helping find sources for the Silver Ash article? They're a Chinese visual kei band and I suspect it would be much easier to find reliable Chinese sources than English ones. Article is a contested prod with only two sources; I contested it as I believe the band meets notability requirements, but I don't speak Chinese and as such am not able to do as much for the article as I'd like. Cheers. Ibanez100 (talk) 23:50, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
- I've looked through several Chinese sources, and I'll add to the article when I'm free (looks to be around next Saturday). Cooldra01 (talk) 10:37, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
- Did what I could, but recent information concerning the band was impossible for me to find. Seems like the band has disappeared off the face of the earth circa 2005. What I mainly did was diversified the sources, and added what I could without relying too much on fansite information. Cooldra01 (talk) 14:29, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
- That's interesting, I'm a little surprised that information was so hard to find. Thanks for doing what you did, certainly more than I could've done. Based on what you managed to find, do you think the band is in fact notable? I was fairly convinced that it is, but knowing that sources are hard to dig up (even in Chinese) makes me wonder. Ibanez100 (talk) 23:19, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
- If notability is being the first Chinese band into the visual kei genre, then yes. Frankly however, I couldn't find any mention of any sales whatsoever, and I believe I read somewhere that they had only released two music videos, which is a tiny amount considering how long the band has been in existence. I would guess they developed a cult following for their style of music, but aren't actually notable for anything else then being the first. Just my two cents, but I'm nowhere near the authority on Silver Ash. Cooldra01 (talk) 04:04, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
The article How Crazy Your Love has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
- Unsourced future release
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 {{proposed deletion/dated}} 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 {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Eeekster (talk) 01:04, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
- Yea, I was in a hurry and decided to cobble together an article. Thanks for the warning, and sources added. Cooldra01 (talk) 04:13, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
Succession boxes[edit]
The removal of the succession box from Green a.Live was not solely based on no consensus but for the reasons stated in the discussion why they shouldn't be in articles - mainly lack of reliable sources on each song and the dates, that the pertinent info is presented elsewhere in the article as there is no relationship between two #1 songs, that succession are intened for honors and awards that truly succeed one another. A song is not succeeded by another song. A weekly chart is an indepedent ranking of the top selling and/or most played songs with no relationship to the previous weeks rankings. Because succession boxes are used for navigation tools between articles, it is unhelpful when the navigation is on one article and not the preceding or succeeding ones; it should flow from one article to the next. Also, note their horrible use and look on an article like The Fame, putting undue weight on its chart performance (the chart list should suffice), instead we see a bunch of different albums listed that have no real connection to the one in the article. Meanwhile the article for 21 (Adele album) reads nicely without that additional clutter. If you want it on this one article, then you will need to reach consensus on its talk page. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 17:31, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
- I don't want to get into an edit war over such a small point as this, but the entire paragraph you've written above doesn't alter the fact that there's both sides to the argument, and I could easily state the reasons in the discussion to counter your reasons for reverting my edit on succession boxes. Wikipedia policy specifically states to not change articles if there's no consensus, after all, what would be the use of a consensus if you get to do whatever you want even if there's no decision? I'll be reverting the edit back until a consensus IS reached on relevant discussion pages. In fact, last time I checked there were more editors in favor of keeping the succession boxes than not. Cooldra01 (talk) 11:46, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
- You can't just add something onto a page and say you can do it just because there is no consensus. I've removed it because of this lack of consensus and because I have dispute the addition, which I have a right to do. Per WP:CONSENSUS, "Any edit that is not disputed or reverted by another editor can be assumed to have consensus". I've reverted your edit, therefore you do not have consensus. Since we both want to avoid an edit war, you must receive consensus to add the succession box on the article's talk page. Note that reaching consensus is not a vote. The Request for Comment failed to result in a final resolution but took place because it has been something that had been debated for years. I've attempted to reach consensus on this matter more than anyone on wikipedia with the argument being split down the middle. If you want it, you try to gain the consensus this time. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 19:57, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
- That's of course the way it works here. However, unless I'm blind, your reasons for removing my edit at Green a.Live is no concensus, which quite balantly stated in WP:Don't revert due solely to "no consensus", isn't a viable reason for doing so. It doesn't matter your reasons for reverting my edit, or whether or not you dispute it or not, because no concensus is the ultimate reason for your revert. You can continue to cite WP:CONSENSUS to counter this of course, but then we're stuck in a veritable catch-22 and you're not making any sense. Cooldra01 (talk) 04:10, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
- Actually, my reason of no consensus was tied to a specific course of action and discussion that took place in which no final resolution took place, so citing "Don't revert soley due to no consensus" is invalid. If I just removed it and stated "no consensus" and no other discussion took place, you'd be right. I said no consensus was able to be reached following a discussion in a formalized "request for comment" procedure and provided a link to that discussion; therefore, the reason is not soley due to "no consensus" but "no consensus after multiple attempts to reach consensus were made". The conclusion reached among other editors and myself after that was that there is no consensus to either add or remove succession boxes, meaning they should no longer be added to articles that don't have them nor should they be removed from articles that had them before that discussion took place. If you really want it on this article, I suggest you move the discussion to the article's talk page or to a formalized procedure as I did to start a more general discussion all over again. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 14:33, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
- Yea, you could have stated that instead of supporting your prior arguament and going through all this BS. Personally, I don't really care about succession boxes but it has become so widespread you rarely see an article without one. But first, one thing. Mind give me the exact quote on appropriate MOS pages for that decision? I just did a brief search and could not find one. Thanks. Cooldra01 (talk) 10:22, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
- I linked to the discussion in my edit summaries and mentioned it in my very first response to you at the top of this chain showing that my reasons were more than "solely" no consensus. There is no MOS or else I would have pointed this out to you and we never would have had this discussion. The compromise came between other editors and myself because there was no better way to handle the lack of consensus reached in the RFC (no consensus for or against). Many pages have them still because of this, but you'll notice that no other 2011 Oricon number-one song from Toilet no Kamisama on has one because these reached number one after the RFC took place. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 15:00, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
- I didn't mean MOS pages, I meant exact quotes from appropriate talk pages for this compromise. I'll need those for reference in case I decide to also support the no succession box protest. But then again, I'll also look over the prior discussion page at WP:CHARTS before I decide to take this issue up or not. Cooldra01 (talk) 05:37, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
- I found these: User talk:Dan56 and User talk:Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars, both from February of this year. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 17:39, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
- It is my understanding that the discussion involving succession boxes has ended? And other then 28bytes, are there any more editors who agreed with not adding succession boxes after the discussion took place? Cooldra01 (talk) 03:07, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
- Dan56's response of "good point" I take as agreement as well. Otherwise, it has been per WP:CONSENSUS where it says "any edit that is not disputed or reverted by another editor can be assumed to have consensus". When I've removed them from articles after the RFC discussion, I have always linked to the discussion either in the edit summary or on an individual's talk page. You've been the first to continue the argument this far since. If there is no consensus for them or against them, and multiple attempts have been made to reach consensus, even as far as taking it to RFC, then they shouldn't be added to articles that have never had them or removed from articles that had them prior to the discussion until a consensus, one way or another, can be reached. I ask that you take the same steps I took to try to obtain a consensus before adding succession boxes to any more articles for songs or albums that reached #1 on a chart. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 20:13, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
- The bureaucracy is shit around here, and I suspect you know this as well. I tried to push for a all-caps motion a month ago, and we were discussing the same things for weeks. I'm not looking forward to doing so with a subject I'm not particularly for or against. However, I still believe your argument doesn't make sense. WP:CONSENSUS states "any edit that is not disputed or reverted by another editor can be assumed to have consensus" as you so kindly provided. What it does note state is your extrapolation of that statement, that if an editor disputes it, then it can be reverted. That is not the way it works around here. If you want a reversion, you go to the discussion page on that article, not bitching about how long a past discussion took, how there was no consensus, and that's why you (myself), as the original author of the edit need to either discuss it on the article's discussion page or push for a consensus. I don't know if it seems that way to you, but that's mind-boggling to me. To discuss before revert is one of the fundamentals which makes any wiki click, and you are doing quite the opposite. Cooldra01 (talk) 15:14, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
- Actually, I have no problem with the way things work in terms of editors reverting edits. That's why we have WP:BOLD and WP:3RR. If someone doesn't like an addition or a particular edit, that person can be bold and revert it. If its never added back it, then it is implied consensus that it shouldn't be there. However, if the first editor or really any other editor feels the article is better as it was, it can be reverted back. At this time, the editor who reverted it in the first place can either concede and accept it or take it to the article's talk page to avoid an edit war. Now, I just linked to the discussion that took place in January thinking that would be enough, but obviously the attempt and discussion among 30+ editors on this very topic means nothing to you. So, I ask you again, as I did in my first three comments to you above that if you want the succession box on the Green a.Live article, that you should take this discussion to its talk page to achieve a consensus. Thanks. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 20:36, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
- Sorry for the very late response. Last week was very busy for me, and haven't got a time to type up a reply until now. Please, using WP:BOLD as an excuse is even worse than your WP:CONSENSUS statement. And your link and discussion that took place in January means nothing to not just me, but anyone because the final result was no consensus. Anyways, I'm tired of this discussion, and will actually start the discussion on Green a.Live. Keep in mind that your future edits should be discussed on the discussion pages first, that WP:BOLD is not a rule to be taken advantaged, MOS text should not be twisted to fit your own reasoning, and no consensus is not an excuse for a revert. I don't want any further discussion about this, and further comments will not be replied to - unless they are of a different topic. Thanks. Cooldra01 (talk) 08:20, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
- Actually, I have no problem with the way things work in terms of editors reverting edits. That's why we have WP:BOLD and WP:3RR. If someone doesn't like an addition or a particular edit, that person can be bold and revert it. If its never added back it, then it is implied consensus that it shouldn't be there. However, if the first editor or really any other editor feels the article is better as it was, it can be reverted back. At this time, the editor who reverted it in the first place can either concede and accept it or take it to the article's talk page to avoid an edit war. Now, I just linked to the discussion that took place in January thinking that would be enough, but obviously the attempt and discussion among 30+ editors on this very topic means nothing to you. So, I ask you again, as I did in my first three comments to you above that if you want the succession box on the Green a.Live article, that you should take this discussion to its talk page to achieve a consensus. Thanks. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 20:36, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
- The bureaucracy is shit around here, and I suspect you know this as well. I tried to push for a all-caps motion a month ago, and we were discussing the same things for weeks. I'm not looking forward to doing so with a subject I'm not particularly for or against. However, I still believe your argument doesn't make sense. WP:CONSENSUS states "any edit that is not disputed or reverted by another editor can be assumed to have consensus" as you so kindly provided. What it does note state is your extrapolation of that statement, that if an editor disputes it, then it can be reverted. That is not the way it works around here. If you want a reversion, you go to the discussion page on that article, not bitching about how long a past discussion took, how there was no consensus, and that's why you (myself), as the original author of the edit need to either discuss it on the article's discussion page or push for a consensus. I don't know if it seems that way to you, but that's mind-boggling to me. To discuss before revert is one of the fundamentals which makes any wiki click, and you are doing quite the opposite. Cooldra01 (talk) 15:14, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
- Dan56's response of "good point" I take as agreement as well. Otherwise, it has been per WP:CONSENSUS where it says "any edit that is not disputed or reverted by another editor can be assumed to have consensus". When I've removed them from articles after the RFC discussion, I have always linked to the discussion either in the edit summary or on an individual's talk page. You've been the first to continue the argument this far since. If there is no consensus for them or against them, and multiple attempts have been made to reach consensus, even as far as taking it to RFC, then they shouldn't be added to articles that have never had them or removed from articles that had them prior to the discussion until a consensus, one way or another, can be reached. I ask that you take the same steps I took to try to obtain a consensus before adding succession boxes to any more articles for songs or albums that reached #1 on a chart. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 20:13, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
- It is my understanding that the discussion involving succession boxes has ended? And other then 28bytes, are there any more editors who agreed with not adding succession boxes after the discussion took place? Cooldra01 (talk) 03:07, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
- I found these: User talk:Dan56 and User talk:Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars, both from February of this year. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 17:39, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
- I didn't mean MOS pages, I meant exact quotes from appropriate talk pages for this compromise. I'll need those for reference in case I decide to also support the no succession box protest. But then again, I'll also look over the prior discussion page at WP:CHARTS before I decide to take this issue up or not. Cooldra01 (talk) 05:37, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
- I linked to the discussion in my edit summaries and mentioned it in my very first response to you at the top of this chain showing that my reasons were more than "solely" no consensus. There is no MOS or else I would have pointed this out to you and we never would have had this discussion. The compromise came between other editors and myself because there was no better way to handle the lack of consensus reached in the RFC (no consensus for or against). Many pages have them still because of this, but you'll notice that no other 2011 Oricon number-one song from Toilet no Kamisama on has one because these reached number one after the RFC took place. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 15:00, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
- Yea, you could have stated that instead of supporting your prior arguament and going through all this BS. Personally, I don't really care about succession boxes but it has become so widespread you rarely see an article without one. But first, one thing. Mind give me the exact quote on appropriate MOS pages for that decision? I just did a brief search and could not find one. Thanks. Cooldra01 (talk) 10:22, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
- Actually, my reason of no consensus was tied to a specific course of action and discussion that took place in which no final resolution took place, so citing "Don't revert soley due to no consensus" is invalid. If I just removed it and stated "no consensus" and no other discussion took place, you'd be right. I said no consensus was able to be reached following a discussion in a formalized "request for comment" procedure and provided a link to that discussion; therefore, the reason is not soley due to "no consensus" but "no consensus after multiple attempts to reach consensus were made". The conclusion reached among other editors and myself after that was that there is no consensus to either add or remove succession boxes, meaning they should no longer be added to articles that don't have them nor should they be removed from articles that had them before that discussion took place. If you really want it on this article, I suggest you move the discussion to the article's talk page or to a formalized procedure as I did to start a more general discussion all over again. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 14:33, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
- That's of course the way it works here. However, unless I'm blind, your reasons for removing my edit at Green a.Live is no concensus, which quite balantly stated in WP:Don't revert due solely to "no consensus", isn't a viable reason for doing so. It doesn't matter your reasons for reverting my edit, or whether or not you dispute it or not, because no concensus is the ultimate reason for your revert. You can continue to cite WP:CONSENSUS to counter this of course, but then we're stuck in a veritable catch-22 and you're not making any sense. Cooldra01 (talk) 04:10, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
- You can't just add something onto a page and say you can do it just because there is no consensus. I've removed it because of this lack of consensus and because I have dispute the addition, which I have a right to do. Per WP:CONSENSUS, "Any edit that is not disputed or reverted by another editor can be assumed to have consensus". I've reverted your edit, therefore you do not have consensus. Since we both want to avoid an edit war, you must receive consensus to add the succession box on the article's talk page. Note that reaching consensus is not a vote. The Request for Comment failed to result in a final resolution but took place because it has been something that had been debated for years. I've attempted to reach consensus on this matter more than anyone on wikipedia with the argument being split down the middle. If you want it, you try to gain the consensus this time. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 19:57, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
Speedy deletion nomination of File:YUI HK.jpg[edit]
A tag has been placed on File:YUI HK.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F9 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the image appears to be a blatant copyright infringement. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted images or text borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.
If you think that the page was nominated in error, contest the nomination by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion" in the speedy deletion tag. Doing so will take you to the talk page where you can explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but do not hesitate to add information that is consistent with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. —Ryulong (竜龙) 07:54, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
Come on now. This is not your photograph and the photograph has not been made free. You should know better.—Ryulong (竜龙) 07:55, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
- Hi Ryulong, my apologies for the late reply, I've been busy recently and haven't found the time to reply until now. The Picasa page is operated by the YUI-Lover fansite, and they gave me permission to place the pictures under my name in this thread by both moderator and admin to clear up any copy-right issues: http://forum.yui-lover.com/topic/6703666/1/. Hopefully this clear things up. Cooldra01 (talk) 17:07, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
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) 16:51, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
Disputed non-free use rationale for File:Hello Paradise Kiss Limited.jpg[edit]
Thank you for uploading File:Hello Paradise Kiss Limited.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this file on Wikipedia may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the file description page and adding or clarifying the reason why the file 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 file 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 files used under the non-free content policy require both a copyright tag and a non-free use rationale.
If it is determined that the file does not qualify under the non-free content policy, it might be deleted by an administrator seven days after the file was tagged in accordance with section F7 of the criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. Also affected:
