User talk:Aspects/Archive 12

Busted Life image
I think it's allowed if we use film poster of the movie star article, I know it's non free work, but it's allowed to use and this happened in many articles. thank you --Ahmed Mohi El din (talk) 12:17, 4 May 2014 (UTC)


 * When I removed the image I stated "Removed non-fair use of poster per Non-free content." Further reading through WP:NFCI states "Cover art from various items, for visual identification only in the context of critical commentary of that item (not for identification without critical commentary)."  Film posters are not allowed in actor articles. Aspects (talk) 01:43, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

May 2014
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=607938708 your edit] to San Diego Surf (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 [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/BBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/BBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=BracketBot%20–%20&section=new my operator's talk page].
 * List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 17:53, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
 * | released      =

BAP (band)

 * Please discuss this at Talk:BAP (German band). Anthony Appleyard (talk) 05:02, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

You were reverted
In Slammiversary, you restored a deleted infobox. Unfortunately, it seems that the person who originally deleted it deleted it a second time. It might be a good idea to keep a look at the article once in a while. --Stefan2 (talk) 18:01, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
 * It seems that the user has continued removing infoboxes, so I have taken this to ANI: WP:ANI. You might wish to comment since you have been involved. --Stefan2 (talk) 15:15, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Frames edits
Hi. Thanks for your recent edits to Frames (Lee DeWyze album). I had two questions. The lead said that the music video for "Fight" was scheduled to come out in March. Instead of updating this information, you just removed it altogether. However, the lead still mentions the lyric video for "Silver Lining" and the various live in-studio videos. Do you think that the information about the "Fight" music video should be re-added (and updated) or should the information about the other videos be removed from the lead?

My other question is why the quote from Matt Giraud had to be removed from the Critical reception section. He may not be a professional critic, but he is a professional singer, and it seems to me that his opinion would relevant. Is it not? --Jpcase (talk) 01:17, 2 July 2014 (UTC)


 * I assumed wrongly that the video was not released since it said it was schedule to be released four months ago, but that could have been changed at any point in the past four months. I have readded and updated the part about the music video.  Critical reception sections should have professional critics' reviews. This "review" is a just a twitter message. The other provided source, a paragraph at Entertainment Weekly and a four minute interview do not talk about DeWyze or Frames, so I am not even sure why it is included. Aspects (talk) 01:57, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Duaghtry/Goo Goo Dolls
I don't understand why you insist on providing incorrect info on the Daughtry/Goo Goo Dolls summer tour page. This is by no means a co-headlining tour. It is, at each and every venue, headlined by the Goo Goo Dolls with Daughtry as one of two opening acts. Please stop posting false info and correct the page as soon as possible. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.185.218.253 (talk) 00:40, 8 July 2014 (UTC)


 * You are WP:Edit warring and you need to start a discussion on the talk page, to try and gain consensus for your changes. You have provided no edit summaries or talk page discussions to explain your edits and instead you keep reverting back to your preferred version. Aspects (talk) 00:45, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

July 2014
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=616022764 your edit] to Kimberley Locke discography 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 [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/BBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/BBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=BracketBot%20–%20&section=new my operator's talk page].
 * List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 01:00, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
 * "HOME RUN FOR ‘HOUSETOP'" ''Billboard ', Retrieved February 12, 2014. The next two singles from the album, "Jingle Bells" and "[

User:Michael_josh
Are they still doing that under the user name. I don't want to go back because it seems more punitive than preventative. Also I'm on a semi-holiday so may be slow in replying. CBWeather, Talk, Seal meat for supper? 06:11, 15 July 2014 (UTC)


 * They have not removed the infoboxes probably because only one of the four deletions was reverted before today. Aspects (talk) 06:15, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

UFC IMAGES
I removed them images because there is no need for them and non-free images should only be used when needed, if you want to discuss the matter with me then great, most of the Ultimate Fighter pages don't have images there and the few that do are the older ones. Lukejordan02 (talk) 07:57, 15 July 2014 (UTC)


 * From what I can tell you are arguing that the images fail WP:NFCC. If that is true, it is the only subjective criteria and once your bold edits were reverted, you should have started either discussions at Files for deletion or Fair use review.  Until such time that either of these are started and shown that the images should either be deleted or do not pass fair use, they should remain in the articles. Aspects (talk) 05:56, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Numbers
Please note that it is perfectly reasonable not to spell out words for numbers higher than nine per WP:NUMERAL. It reads badly when you write "No. forty" (it's either No. 40 or number forty). Please leave things as they are for numbers higher than 9. Hzh (talk) 13:54, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

August 2014
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=619522065 your edit] to Hail to the King Tour may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "[]"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 [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/BBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/BBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=BracketBot%20–%20&section=new my operator's talk page].
 * List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 07:31, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
 * | Isleta Amphitheater

Mi corazón es tuyo
Okay you win, now leave me alone!. I already got what you wanted.-- Damián  (talk)  17:58, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Michael Johns
Given that you occasionally keep an eye on Idol pages, you might be interested to have take a look on the Michael Johns page, especially the action of one particular user ‎TerriblyTerrible who is deleting valid sourced content (at one point nearly the entire discography was deleted ), and finding excuses to remove as much as he or she can, and doing so for many years. The user appears to sign on mainly to target the Michael Johns page. Hzh (talk) 02:12, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

AI revert
Why do you keep doing things that go against WP standards (and should know better)? "put in by consensus"?? 1) It goes against MOS (as I said), 2) It doesn't matter if "they have always been in the article" 3) It is possible for consensus to go against MOS, but that's when discussion would be needed -- to find consensus. (Not to mention WP:ROWN) Also, you keep changing from the accurate "season #" to the not-as-accurate and unnecessary ordinals, for no good reason. But, you're so stubburn and set in your ways that I'm sure I'm just wasting my time here. --Musdan77 (talk) 16:07, 6 August 2014 (UTC)


 * A lot of the format on the American Idol seasons have gone through discussions to form the current consensus. Any WP:BOLD edit, like the one you made, that is likely to start edit wars, should be reverted and discussed on the article page.  Present your case and try to form a new consensus.  As to the boldfaced, simply linking to the MoS and not explaining further, I read through it and did not see how it goes against that, but that is what the discussion should be about.  The ordinal season is just as accurate as the "season #" and would be necessary to have something either way.  It is grammatically better and fits with the way the rest of the article uses the terms. Aspects (talk) 06:52, 7 August 2014 (UTC)


 * I stand by everything I said, and your reply is BS. There has been no discussion on the season talk pages about the use of bold - or anything else like it (or on the main article talk page for that matter). Who do you think you're talking to? I'm not some newbie here. Bold type was first added (to season 1) in 2006 by an IP (who has a total of 4 edits), and no one who knows (or cares) about the correct usage reverted it, and it continued on from one season to the next. I wasn't around back then, and even if I was, when I started, I didn't know about the right (or wrong) way to use bold on WP articles. If you went to WP:BOLD, of course you wouldn't find anything there. It's WP:MOSBOLD. Reverting a correct (or even non-incorrect) edit because you think it might cause edit warring is ridiculous and not the way to act on WP. If it did start, that would be when a discussion could be done. But, I realize it would do no good for me to start one at this point. As for the ordinals, they are no more grammatically correct, and you haven't explained why you think they are. --Musdan77 (talk) 18:06, 7 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Consensus for the formatting of the American Idol seasons will not be found in the talk pages of each season, but spread throughout the season as editors came together to discuss them. All you need to do is start a discussion, further explaining how it fails WP:MOSBOLD and not just pointing to it as you did before, because as I mentioned I looked through it and could not see what you were talking about.  I am not totally opposed to the idea, but having a discussion that would lead to a possible new consensus would be helpful to point to, should someone come along later and question it.  As for the numbers, cardinal numbers tell how many, while ordinal numbers tell the order.  The first sentence states "The thirteenth season of American Idol..." so it is better stay consistent throughout the article.  If someone was asked what season Ruben Studdard won, the answer would be "The second season" not "season two." Aspects (talk) 16:45, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Notification of Bye Bye Birdie (musical) move discussion per WP:CANVASS
Greetings! A proposal has been made at Talk:Bye Bye Birdie (musical) to change the title of the article, Bye Bye Birdie (musical) to Bye Bye Birdie. This notification is provided to you per Canvassing, because you have previously participated in a discussion on this subject. Cheers! bd2412 T 18:57, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Mariah Carey's singles pages
Can you keep an eye on every pages if any users or IPs adding "adult contemporary" in the infobox? Adult contemporary is a radio format. 183.171.166.180 (talk) 15:08, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Conversation with me
Seems like you forgot conversation with me. Υμβρελλα (talk) 08:11, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Your fight against vandalism
Hello, if you want to revert vandalism by IPs, by all means, go ahead and revert the heck out them. But if you do that, then please be so kind, and as a basic courtesy, don't revert good faith edits of other contributors. There is a thing called "View history" which let's you access the history of a article – I would suggest you use it. In case you see other people editing an article, you are invited to first check their edits before reverting them. If you are unsure what to do, you can always check the help articles. Tony Mach (talk) 06:39, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Minor edits
Please do not make such minor edits that all you do is change the capitalization of a template or adjust the amount of whitespace in the infobox. It's flooding my watchlist. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 08:04, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

October 2014
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=628751538 your edit] to The Whole Wide World 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 [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/BBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/BBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=BracketBot%20–%20&section=new my operator's talk page].
 * List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 06:02, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
 * 01| |Sundance|1996|09|08|Toronto }}

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=630119487 your edit] to Joanne Borgella may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "{}"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 [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/BBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/BBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=BracketBot%20–%20&section=new my operator's talk page].
 * List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 16:09, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
 * //dailyvenusdiva.com/2014/10/18/american-idol-contestant-plus-size-model-joanne-borgella-dies-32/

November 2014
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=632365107 your edit] to Good Charlotte (album) may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "{}"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 [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/BBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/BBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=BracketBot%20–%20&section=new my operator's talk page].
 * List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 02:28, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
 * }}

Pacific Liner
What was wrong with the new image that was placed in the article? Just very curious why it was challenged. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 15:43, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
 * The previous screenshot was deleted for WP:NFCC, which this image also fails. I have started a discussion at Talk:Pacific Liner. Please continue any further discussion there. Aspects (talk) 06:44, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Merry Merry
To you and yours FWiW  Bzuk (talk) 22:31, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Happy New Year!
 Dear, HAPPY NEW YEAR Hoping 2015 will be a great year for you! Thank you for your contributions! From a fellow editor, --FWiW Bzuk (talk)

This message promotes WikiLove. Originally created by Nahnah4 (see "invisible note").

Removal of stills from film articles
Per this and similar edits you have been removing stills (they're not "screenshots"; that's what you call images from video games and software) from film articles on the grounds that they don't meet the fair-use criteria. You aren't specific, as I would imagine you'd need to be if removing fair-use images that otherwise have rationales and have been in the articles in question for a long time, and this apparently did not follow any discussion as to whether they should be removed or not, which again such a move usually should.

I wondered if perhaps (as so often happens) the criteria had been amended to make them narrower without the sort of projectwide discussion one would hope to have. It does not seem that they have been.

You appear to have based this move not on the numbered criteria but on, instead, WP:NFC, again without being more specific as to what aspect justifies the stills' immediate removal. I would direct your attention to WP:NFCI, informally known as the fair-use whitelist, which includes:"Video screenshots: For critical commentary and discussion of the work in question (i.e., films, television programs, and music videos)."

Unlike other entries in the whitelist there is no specific requirement that the stills be accompanied by sourced commentary discussing them. This has long been interpreted to allow the use of up to four such images in any article about a movie or TV show, primarily to depict the main cast members as they appear in the film (I suppose eventually video clips will supplant them, but that's not the subject of this discussion). That's how those images were used in The Reader. I am requesting that, with this understanding beneath your wing, you at least restore all the images you removed. If you want, we can discuss whether this is something we should still informally allow, formalize, or whatever the community thinks best in the appropriate forum before taking this to such a wide range of articles. Daniel Case (talk) 05:27, 27 January 2015 (UTC)


 * From Film stills: "A film still (sometimes called a publicity still or a production still) is a photograph taken on or off the set of a movie or television program during production." None of the images I removed were film stills, they were screenshots taken from the movie itself, most of them are correctly tagged with Template:Non-free film screenshot and you quote the video screenshot sentence from WP:NFCI.


 * A screenshot located in the film's plot section goes against WP:FILMNFI in that "Since a film article's "Plot" section contains descriptive claims about the information found in the primary source (the film) and not information found in reliable sources regarding the film, the section is not considered critical commentary or discussion of film." Most of the images fail WP:NFCC since they can be replaced with words only. Almost all of the images fail WP:NFCC in that the images do not increase the reader's understanding of the film and their exclusion is not detrimental to the understanding of the film.  Some of the images I have removed, secondary posters and lobby cards, fail WP:NFCC in that a movie poster is already showing how the film was advertised.


 * In regard to the three images from The Reader, the first is in the plot section against WP:FILMNFI, is easily replaced using words alone against WP:NFCC and its removal is not detrimental to the understanding of the film against WP:NFCC. The second image is used in the cast section to show what one of the characters looks like without any critical commentary and its removal is not detrimental to the understanding of the film against WP:NFCC.  The third image is used to show the makeup process and has a quote from Entertainment Weekly about the length of time, replaced by words against WP:NFCC, but the image is not needed to show that she was older and has no critical commentary about the makeup itself and its removal is not detrimental to the understanding of the film against WP:NFCC.


 * There is nothing written or nothing in practice that I have seen from editing thousands of film articles that they are allowed the use of up to four such images. Most film articles contain one fair use image, a movie poster/lobby card/promotional image used in the infobox.  Most screenshots used in film articles are in the public domain.  The rest of the screenshots need to have critical commentary about the image itself and tends to be about the production of the film and not used in the plot section, cast section or to show what the cast looks like.


 * I am not going to restore the images because it was a WP:BOLD move and in my opinion, the images fail WP:NFCC. If another editor adds back the image, hopefully with an edit summary to explain why, I either agree with their addition or I disagree and I might eventually take the image to WP:FFD.  Only a small percentage of the images I have removed have been added back.  The only time I have reverted the additions was a couple of IP addresses that kept adding the film poster for Wrongfully Accused to The Fugitive (1993 film) when a link to the former is provided in the latter's article, which cannot be brought to FfD, but would definitely never be able to pass WP:NFR. Aspects (talk) 18:59, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Navigation box
Hello, I was trying to add the navigation box to the Category:Tamil film directors and found you have already removed sometime back, so I undid my addition. Any reason why the navigation box is not required?. The navigation box was easy to navigate between the directors, writers, producers, etc, within the same film industry. Sriram V. (talk) 14:27, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

About your (non)participation in the January 2012 SOPA vote
Hi Aspects. I am Piotr Konieczny (User:Piotrus), you may know me as an active content creator (see my userpage), but I am also a professional researcher of Wikipedia. Recently I published a paper (downloadable here) on reasons editors participated in Wikipedia's biggest vote to date (January 2012 WP:SOPA). I am now developing a supplementary paper, which analyzes why many editors did not take part in that vote. Which is where you come in :) You are a highly active Wikipedian (104th), and you were active back during the January 2012 discussion/voting for the SOPA, yet you did not chose to participate in said vote. I'd appreciate it if you could tell me why was that so? For your convenience, I prepared a short survey at meta, which should not take more than a minute of your time. I would dearly appreciate you taking this minute; not only as a Wikipedia researcher but as a fellow content creator and concerned member of the community (I believe your answers may help us eventually improve our policies and thus, the project's governance). PS. If you chose to reply here (on your userpage), please WP:ECHO me. Thank you! --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 13:53, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Merger discussion for Joan the Maiden, Part 1: The Battles
An article that you have been involved in editing, Joan the Maiden, Part 1: The Battles, has been proposed for merging with another article. If you are interested, please participate in the merger discussion. Thank you. Deoliveirafan (talk) 07:48, 14 February 2015 (UTC) --Deoliveirafan (talk) 07:48, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Bull in the Heather
Hi Aspects, I've seen that you restored the Bull in the Heather article and I think you misunderstood the concept of WP:NSONGS. The fact that a song charted on two national charts does not necessarily mean that the song deserves a separate article. The song is not notable because there is not enough coverage in reliable and independent sources from which to write an article. I know this because I am improving the Experimental Jet Set, Trash and No Star article and I haven't found any source which discusses the song directly and out of the context of the album. According to WP:NSONGS: "If the only coverage of a song occurs in the context of reviews of the album on which it appears, that material should be contained in the album article and an independent article about the song should not be created." For that reason, I think there is not enough coverage to write a reasonably detailed article. Please let me know what you think. Thanks. --Niwi3 (talk) 17:42, 8 March 2015 (UTC)


 * I am wondering this too with regards to the Avenged Sevenfold songs you reverted. And an AfD would not really apply as the article was rediected and the content copyedited and integrated. Karst (talk) 00:00, 9 March 2015 (UTC)


 * In my edit summaries I stated that the articles "can be seen as passing WP:NSONGS," which then falls to the "enough material to warrant a reasonably detailed article" from WP:NSONGS, which should be a consensus among editors and not one editor's judgment call. The redirects were like a prod that was contested and as I stated the next step in the process is an AfD, not to revert back to a redirect, this is WP:BRD where the discussion is an AfD. Aspects (talk) 23:13, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

File:Mills cat.jpg
Your request for deletion of this file has been declined as I am not convinced it is obviously replaceable by a free image. Please list at WP:FFD if you would still like the file deleted. Stifle (talk) 14:11, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

John Paul McQueen and Craig Dean
Hi, Aspect, I just see your revision about the page of John Paul McQueen and Craig Dean. I'm in charge of the copyright of the images of Guy Burnet and this one is copyrighted by Channel 4. Thank you in advance to reload my version. Do not hesitate if you need further information. Best regards, Emeric.


 * The screenshot has been on Wikipedia for over six years now and has a valid fair use rationale. If you think it should not be used in the article in that it does not pass WP:NFCC, then you should open up a WP:FFD for it. Aspects (talk) 23:16, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Illinois River problem
Please triple-check to make your the move you undid exactly matches what you thought it was. I didn't move Illinois River (Oklahoma) to Illinois River (Arkansas); I moved it to Illinois River (Arkansas River). Did you pay close attention?? Georgia guy (talk) 14:35, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I used the word "similar" in my edit summary, which goes to I did pay close attention and that you sir, did not. Aspects (talk) 06:20, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
 * And "Arkansas River" is simply the name of the river the Illinois River empties into. Georgia guy (talk) 13:50, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

James Morris (bass-baritone)
You removed a fair-use image from this article with little explanation. I left a comment at Talk:James Morris (bass-baritone), since I do not understand why you removed it. Would you please give a more detailed explanation for your edit on the Talk page. Thanks. --Robert.Allen (talk) 20:38, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I finally found an answer to my question in the footnote. Thanks for pointing it out to me. --Robert.Allen (talk) 16:56, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

American Idol (season 13) revert
Why would you revert the cn tags? None of these episode titles is sourced and they need to be. --Musdan77 (talk) 20:41, 24 April 2015 (UTC)


 * As I stated in my edit summary either the themes were already sourced or they could be sourced to the show itself. Aspects (talk) 17:29, 3 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Yeah, that's exactly what you said, but it doesn't help me to just repeat what you wrote in the edit summary. Elaborate! "already sourced"? I wouldn't say that they should be sourced if they are. They have sources for the ratings, but those sources don't mention any such title. This is the first season article that has these episode titles. "could be sourced to the show itself"? What does that supposed to mean? And don't you have email notification of new messages? --Musdan77 (talk) 02:08, 4 May 2015 (UTC)


 * The episode titles in the performance section are sourced or could be sourced to the show itself when they announce the theme of the episode. The pre-finals episodes in the ratings table should have the titles sourced since they are different than the previous years, so I will add back those citation needed tags.  Another possibility is to go with the generic episode names used in the DVR ratings section that seem similar to past seasons' articles. Aspects (talk) 00:49, 5 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Thank you (finally). It's also helpful to "ping" or "talk back to" the editor that you reply to on your talk page - so I don't have to keep checking here for a response. --Musdan77 (talk) 18:48, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Removal of tags from images tagged with template:orfud
Hi Aspects, as an FYI, I have a bot at Bots/Requests for approval/B-bot 2 that is now checking the dated orphaned fair use images for deletion categories the night before they are to be processed and removing the tag from any that are in use. I noticed that you removed the tags from a lot of images in Category:Orphaned non-free use Wikipedia files as of 2 May 2015. Though obviously, there is usefulness in looking at images that might have been removed only due to vandalism and reverting that vandalism, it is no longer necessary to review them just to remove the tag from no-longer orphaned ones as the bot will do that now. (The bot is actually the one doing most of the tagging in the first place and it is able to be more intelligent than the human process in doing so. When a human was running a report to get a list of orphaned fair use images, that report was getting frequent false positives from images that were momentarily orphaned due to vandalism, which was rolled back with admin rollback.  Now, before tagging anything as orphaned, the bot is purging all of the pages for which there is a fair use rationale on the image description page and so if it tags something, it actually is orphaned at that moment, not just showing up as orphaned due to out-of-date database information.) --B (talk) 14:28, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Sidónio Pais
This picture is fine, since it's also available in the Portuguese, Spanish and other wikipedias. The previous one, since it's not available in the Portuguese wikipedia, and since Sidónio Pais was a Portuguese politician, I (as a Portuguese) can't morally accept that it would be available on the English Wikipedia but not in the Portuguese wikipedia. Thanks for replacing the image. Viet-hoian1 (talk) 05:46, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Edit warring on concert tour articles
Hey, I just got your message. I usually don't check my messages. But anyways, I just wanted to start off by saying that if anybody started this whole edit warring, it was you. The way I had the Blizzard of Ozz, Diary of a Madman, & Van Halen 1978 World Tours were fine. Even though I did not create the Blizzard of Ozz Tour, it needed to be fix because there was a lot of false information that could've very well misled people easily to learning the wrong stuff. I did however create the Diary of a Madman, Speak of the Devil, & Van Halen 1978 World Tours, and let me tell you this, I have not once ever said that I own these Setlists, but I will say that I have just as much of a right to edit the Setlist, especially considering I created 3/4 of them, as anybody else, you definitely damn well can't tell me any different. And another thing is that you wouldn't have any of this info if it wasn't for me, so if anything, I should be thanked for having created these articles as well as making the corrections, and even though I didn't ask for that to begin with because I didn't necessarily care for that as well as not being one who asks for much along with not whining/complaining, considering that's the person I am, I especially don't appreciate having this backlash come at me after having done nothing but good things and what not. That's not cool. But anyways, the way I had these articles were fine until you came in ruined it, and I'm not just talking about the format, I'm talking about some of the info on the venues since I know you took out stuff that's supposed to be there since some of those places are convention centers, multi-purpose facilities, complexes, properties, etc., not venues, which is why I was very specific about the venues like for Nakano Sun Plaza Hall, that's a venue, whereas Nakano Sun Plaza is a hotel. Brighton Dome is just a convention center with multiple venues, and the Pavilion Theatre is a venue. Tulsa Assembly Center is a complex, not a venue, whereas the "Tulsa Assembly Center" Arena is a venue, and the reason why I have "Tulsa Assembly Center" in quotations is because that's the name of the complex while the arena is just the arena with no given specific name, that's why I had it like that. And that's just to name a few of what you fucked up. Another thing that I noticed was that you said something about how I put quotation marks for the name of the venues like for "Tulsa Assembly Center" Arena and how that's incorrect because of how it's not called that & that it would change how people how call that venue. Again, I have it like that because Tulsa Assembly Center is a complex and that the arena is just the arena so it I just put in quotes is because Tulsa Assembly Center is a complex and that the arena is not actually part of the name so that's why I have it as "Tulsa Assembly Center" Arena. The same goes for "San Antonio Convention Center" Arena, "Dallas Convention Center" Arena, "Von Braun Civic Center" Arena,. Another thing is that I really don't think it would affect how people would call the venue, I mean if you have Tulsa Assembly Center Arena & "Tulsa Assembly Center" Arena written on a piece of paper and some people would read them aloud, I really don't think it would affect how people call it as well as how it's called. To be honest, I really don't even know where you were even going with that. If anything, i think you were just creating another excuse to point something wrong, stupid, as since, etc. that I did, I of course, I really don't appreciate that. And that's not all because there's a whole lot more of which I have to say about each everything you said to me. My bold headings were fine because they were specific & I liked how they looked. I really don't see what the problem was there. The whole thing about how only the first word in a heading should be capitalized is such bullshit, I mean I really don't see what the problem is there & that I think it looks better when it says "Tour Dates" & not "Tour dates." Plus it sounds like something you made up because you want it to go your way & it seems you'll even do that with the little things, but anyways, seriously, how does that look better than the way I had it, and again, I don't see what the issue there is. Also, the reason why I had it formatted as Date, Venue, City/Suburb, State/Province/County, & Country is because it's gives the reader a more useful specific the knowledge where exactly the venue is, and if you want my opinion, I think the info is very useful, necessary, & helpful considering there a multiple cities through certain countries let alone the world with the same names so it gives the reader exactly where the venue is at & again I think it's very useful, necessary, & helpful; not only that but I guarantee the readers of these articles aren't even going to click on the cities or the suburbs or the states/provinces or counties anyway because they don't necessarily care for what info is on the pages of those certain places, I guarantee they at least just want to know where the venue is & that's why all of that was on there, and it's for the specifics; another thing about that is that I have cities & states for the US, I have cities & provinces for Canada, I have cities &/or suburbs, counties &/or cities for places like in Europe or Asia. That's why I have that like that, and again, I think it's all very useful, necessary, & helpful, and I just don't see what the problem is having that certain specific info on there. As for the previous message about using Wikipedia edit summaries, again, I didn't ignore, I just didn't see it because I usually don't check that as hardly ever get any messages, and that's not bullshit, so don't even think about patronizing me. Also, if anybody is being personally attacked, it me. How dare you accuse me of making accusations of vandalism as well as accuse me of making personal attacks. That is totally not cool. I really don't appreciate that at all. I also don't appreciate how I've been made out to be a stupid asshole who starts an editing war as well as fucks up everything. I really didn't fuck up anything. Again, it was all fine the way I had it. It looked great. I think every tour date listing should look the way I had it was fine, and again, I had it look that way & be formatted & laid out like that for many reasons. So yeah, they were fine the way them. Again, if anybody fucked them up, it was you. Now I have to go back and fix what was fucked up like the links, the venue names, etc. Another thing I noticed that you fucked up was on the Blizzard of Ozz Tour where I happened to notice that there's nothing in the venue section for the August 11, 1981 Pittsburgh show, which actually was at the Stanley Theater, and the same goes for the September 5, 1981 Fayetteville show, which actually was at the Cumberland County Memorial Arena, and I just don't understand why those were missing to begin with, because those are the venues, and those shows did happen, so I don't understand what the problem was there. Overall, I'm not happy with what I was made out to be, and I'm definitely not happy with how the tour dates came out to look. Again, it was fine the way I had. I like how it looked because it looked great. When I looked at it the way I had it, I look at the good job I did making, and seeing it changed, edited, &/or ruined takes that good feeling away from me & the it becomes a problem for me. Also, I really shouldn't have to explain myself whenever I edit something, and I'm not saying this out of blissful ignorance, stubbornness, cockiness, arrogance, etc., I say it because it's the truth, if I ever have something down the way I have it, or if I edit something, it's like that because it's correct & the way I have it is just alright, and that there really shouldn't be a problem with the way I have it. Another thing of what I don't like is how when I read your message, not only did I feel antagonized, but that cons ending it all sounded to me as if I'm supposed to kiss your ass like I'm below you or your superior to me like I'm you sit on a throne or a high horse where I'm supposed to bow down to or kneel before you or something like that, and that I most definitely appreciate as I'm am not nor ever have been ass kisser as ass kissing is one of my biggest pet peeves. I've come across the same type of people at Setlist.fm, which is why I gave up on trying to fix incorrect dates, Setlists, etc. Another thing I don't appreciate as it is another one of my biggest pet peeves is hypocrisy. Hypocrites along with snobby pretentious assholes are some of the worst people I can't stand to be around personally & socially. It's funny how I've been made out to be an asshole, a dumbass, a control freak, etc. yet it seems like if anybody is trying to take complete control of all of this is you as It seems that nobody even had a problem with the way I had it & that the only one who seems to have a problem with it is you, which leads me to think that you just want yo have this whole go your way as if your way is the right & that if it doesn't go your way, it's the highway. Finally, It seems you've managed turn this whole thing around me like it's me who's the asshole that's in the wrong, and I most certainly don't appreciate being put in the wrong when I shouldn't even be there as well as be antagonized & talked down upon in general. I definitely don't condone any such nonsense, and I seriously hope that I shouldn't have to go through with this again.

Bots
You are receiving this message because a technical change may affect a bot, gadget, or user script you have been using. The breaking change involves API calls. This change has been planned for two years. The WMF will start making this change on 30 June 2015. A partial list of affected bots can be seen here: https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikitech-l/2015-June/081931.html  This includes all bots that are using pywikibot compat. Some of these bots have already been fixed. However, if you write user scripts or operate a bot that uses the API, then you should check your code, to make sure that it will not break.

What, exactly, is breaking? The "default continuation mode" for action=query requests to api.php will be changing to be easier for new coders to use correctly. To find out whether your script or bot may be affected, then search the source code (including any frameworks or libraries) for the string "query-continue". If that is not present, then the script or bot is not affected. In a few cases, the code will be present but not used. In that case, the script or bot will continue working.

This change will be part of 1.26wmf12. It will be deployed to test wikis (including mediawiki.org) on 30 June, to non-Wikipedias (such as Wiktionary) on 1 July, and to all Wikipedias on 2 July 2015.

If your bot or script is receiving the warning about this upcoming change (as seen at https://www.mediawiki.org/w/api.php?action=query&list=allpages ), it's time to fix your code!


 * The simple solution is to simply include the "rawcontinue" parameter with your request to continue receiving the raw continuation data (example ). No other code changes should be necessary.
 * Or you could update your code to use the simplified continuation documented at https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/API:Query#Continuing_queries (example ), which is much easier for clients to implement correctly.

Either of the above solutions may be tested immediately, you'll know it works because you stop seeing the warning.

Do you need help with your own bot or script? Ask questions in e-mail on the mediawiki-api or wikitech-l mailing lists. Volunteers at m:Tech or w:en:WP:Village pump (technical) or w:en:Wikipedia:Bot owners' noticeboard may also be able to help you.

Are you using someone else's gadgets or user scripts? Most scripts are not affected. To find out if a script you use needs to be updated, then post a note at the discussion page for the gadget or the talk page of the user who originally made the script. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 19:03, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Some troubles on your watchlist, maybe
Hi, Re your interest in our coverage of the movies, so to speak, you may be interested to check the Contributions by user 2600:1006:B107:50A:B54A:54DC:4A42:DE45 --which covers a single 200-minute session 2015-05-10 quite destructive in some cases. Among the small changes reported in green at the top, I visited only the second, Married to It, and reverted what seemed to me bad work.

(I wonder whether you receive notice that I linked you moments ago in the edit summary there. I also named you on the talk page, but without a wikilink, so that contribution Talk:Married to It should not generate a notice. I hope to learn whether the edit summary is an effective "ping!".)

The big changes reported in red primarily concern plot summaries. At The High King near the top of the red listings, this user simply deleted 10 of 18 paragraphs with the edit summary "... made it more concise" (under a false section heading). I don't recognize many of the pagenames, but The High King is a novel I know and I reverted its change last hour. --P64 (talk) 23:09, 25 June 2015 (UTC)


 * I only received an alert that you left a message on my talk page, not one for the edit summary. I will leave a message about the release date on the article's talk page.  As for the plot shortening, I have noticed it before and it was discussed at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film/Archive 56, so discussing the issue with the editors that took place in that discussion would probably be more helpful than talking to me. Aspects (talk) 00:02, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

In regard to this edit
How come this photo be non-free? Jonas Vinther • (Click here to collect your price!) 11:04, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
 * You uploaded the poster as a non-free image. If you wanted to change the license, you would need to find a reliable source to back up the new license. Aspects (talk) 22:41, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Love Takes Time cassette cover art
How about this edition? I downloaded it from eBay and then uploaded it to Discogs. --George Ho (talk) 04:35, 30 June 2015 (UTC)


 * That is a much better quality image, so thank you for improving Wikipedia and Discogs. Aspects (talk) 22:54, 1 July 2015 (UTC)