User talk:Aspects/Archive 4

Opinion/WP:3o
Hello please could you briefly add your opinion to: Talk:Flirt (album). Thank you (Lil-unique1 (talk) 12:34, 9 August 2009 (UTC))

Articles for deletion/Brandon Rogers (singer) (3rd_nomination)
"Last AFD came to no consensus with a reccomendation for renomination". Read the opening argument before arguing back. DJ 20:21, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Could you please watch my talk page?
PS: I think we should call another admin in to look at this issue. -- Scythre Talk Contribs 20:01, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

American Idol
Stop changing the elimination chart! You are saying that by being eliminated on American Idol, you are in the bottom 3 or 2. If that is true than that means people like Clay Aiken, Melinda Doolittle, and Danny Gokey have been in the bottom 3 or 2 before when they haven't. Please, we need to discuss this before making a final decision. Make sure you right back to me. talk 15:08, August 21, 2009 (UTC)


 * If they were eliminated from American Idol, then they were in the bottom. You used no edit summaries in any of the edits you made to American Idol, both your original edits and your reversions.  Your last edit was a reversion with no edit summary, when you clicked "Undo" it said:"If you are undoing an edit that is not vandalism, explain the reason in the edit summary. Do not use the default message only."  By not using an edit summary, you are labeling my edit as vandalism, which it is not, and could be seen as not assuming good faith.  You need to bring this discussion to Talk:American Idol per the BOLD, revert, discuss cycle. Aspects (talk) 19:48, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm glad I have someone else who agrees with me on that point. :) Been saying that forever. You can't be "not in the bottom 3" if you are eliminated. Makes 0 sense.

AI8
Time to semi-protect? These anons keep trying to readd those tables and I don't think they are going to stop. --User:Woohookitty Diamming fool! 02:09, 24 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I feel it is a little premature to semi-protect, but it would be helpful if these anon editors would actually either use edit summaries or discuss their edits on the talk page. Aspects (talk) 22:21, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Yep. I just had to revert another one. --User:Woohookitty Diamming fool! 00:33, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Non-free content: Jovovich
Greetings. You recently removed the non-free images from Milla Jovovich. Why do you think that those images don't meet the criteria? If I consider all the circumstances, then I think that they do meet the criteria. The article also passed its GA nomination with 2 non-free images.--  LYKANTROP    ✉  07:38, 22 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I think the images fail WP:NFCC, that the images do not significantly added to the article and without them the article does not suffer. One of the images used while it passed GA nomination is no longer in the article, which in my opinion underscores that these particular images do not significantly add to the reader's understanding of the article. Aspects (talk) 22:20, 24 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Hallo. Well, I think that it does significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic if they see how Jovovich looks like in an action movie, for which she became known. One of those images was no longer in the article because the picture was not well chosen. Therefore I replaced it with the new one, which represents the most typical scene from the same film. In addition to that, the costume in the Resident Evil snapshot was designed by Jovovich's own clothing line - another huge reference/contribution to the article. The costumes for the fifth element were designed by Jean-Paul Gaultier, a famous fashion designer. If you insist on the removal, then I'd remove the the fifth element, but keep the other one. I think it definitely is a significant contribution in several ways.  LYKANTROP    ✉  07:19, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

WHAT NERVE YOU  HAVE,  USER 'ASPECTS'
I am sick and tired of Wikipedia stupidity. That's why I quit as an editor, promising not to edit articles any longer. Now that doesn't prevent me to reply to your destructive edits:

1) YOU DELETED REFERENCES IN THER RESPECTIVE ARTICLES TO PICTURES I HAD UPLOADED WHICH WERE FULLY COMPLIANT OF THE RULES IN FORCE AT THE MOMENT, NAMELY:
 * File:Inva Mula as Gilda.jpg,
 * File:Oscar Castro-Neves(retouched).jpg,
 * File:Eliane Elias in Concert.jpg, and
 * Bolling.jpg

2) YOU TAGGED THE ABOVE PICTURE FILES WITH THE di-orphaned fair use (date=21 August 2009) TAG, AS IF YOU WERE AN INNOCENT ZEALOUS EDITOR, UNAWARE OF THE FACT THAT YOU YOURSELF, AND NO OTHER, CAUSED THE "ORPHAN" STATUS; and

3) YOU THEN HAD THE NERVE TO WRITE IN MY TALK PAGE TO WARN ME THAT SUCH IMAGES WILL BE DELETED BECAUSE THEY ARE ORPHANED. WHAT HYPOCRISY! To think someone gave you a Barnstar (that is a star from the barn's flock?) for doing such dirty work!

Mr. "Aspects", you go ahead and delete what you please, destroy what you please. clobber what you please. I just couldn't care less. And last, GO TO HELL. Just don't give me the usual WP:Civility sermon, it won't do any difference (block me, reprimand me, I just won't mind, either): just go to hell. --AVM (talk) 18:34, 24 August 2009 (UTC)


 * You should be given the WP:Civility sermon, since you clearly know what it is, yet you still made these comments. I think you need to step back for a bit and cool off before making statements like this.


 * As for the images, File:Inva Mula as Gilda.jpg is a screenshot that was used in an infobox without the critical commentary necessary and the article barely mentions the opera, File:Oscar Castro-Neves(retouched).jpg is a album cover that was used without the critical commentary necessary and the album is only listed in the discography, File:Eliane Elias in Concert.jpg is a screenshot that was used without the critical commentary necessary and the festival is not even mentioned in the article and File:Bolling.jpg is an album cover that was used without the critical commentary necessary.


 * Since I removed the images that failed WP:NFCC, I also tagged them with the orphaned fair use tag because they no longer need to be on the Wikipedia servers. I then informed you so you would know about the upcoming deletion of the images and if it is possible to correct their problems, that you would be able to do so. Aspects (talk) 22:39, 24 August 2009 (UTC)


 * "Failed"? Those images fully comply with all of the 10 criteria in WP:NFCC, which you seem not to understand too well; your hypocritical arguments about "the critical commentary necessary" are moot, as is your foul reasoning attempting to link the location or scene in the pictures with the respective articles. By now several editors must probably be wondering about your pathological mental processes through which you obviously derive pleasure from the vile act of deleting (ie., destroying) other people's graphic contributions. You are but a nuisance, worse, a vandal, a destroyer! Why don't you get a job in Real life as a pest exterminator, for instance? Your zest for destroying & annihilating would find some meaning, some useful cause, instead of damaging this encyclopedia's contents. What clearly no longer needs to be on Wikipedia is you, "the tireless destroyer"!! --AVM (talk) 03:26, 26 August 2009 (UTC)


 * What I posted above were if the images were used to add to the critical commentary about the film (screenshot) or album (album cover) to "illustrate" or "identify" as the licensing tags on the files say. You might want to read farther down the page to see examples of acceptable uses and unacceptable uses of fair-uses images.


 * If the images are not illustrating or identify the film or album, then they are illustrating or identifying the person, which would fail the first criteria "No free equivalent." Since these are all living people, free images could reasonably be found that provides the same information.


 * As to your behavior on my page, I have twice now politely explained my reasoning behind removing the images from the articles like you asked. If you want to continue discussing this on my talk page, I please ask that you no longer use any personal attacks and act civil.  If you cannot do that, then I ask that you no longer use my talk page. Aspects (talk) 06:48, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Replaceable fair use Image:Toto.jpg
I note that you are trying to delete this image. Well that really doesn't bother me, but you might have asked (or noticed) why I had posted it. It is my own image. The only reason it is posted as fair use is that I intend to keep copyright of the image, and while I am happy for it to be used on Wikipedia, I do not want it used for other commercial purposes. This is not least because I do not have a model release for the image. You may or may not be aware that in the United Kingdom there is no concept of applying for copyright, as there is in the USA; copyright is automatically with the creator unless signed over to someone else. If you can find a copyright-free image of Toto La Momposina, then by all means replace my photo. SMeeds (talk) 23:47, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

21st Century Breakdown
Regarding this edit, I'm not sure why you did it or what part of WP:ALBUMS you thought said it should be there. WP:ALBUMS merely says "Only the earliest known date that the album was released should be specified; later release dates (incl. re-issues) can be mentioned in a Release history section", while WP:ALBUMS merely says "Note that the infobox should only include the first release date and label." Nowhere does WP:ALBUMS say "include a link to the 'release history' section in the infobox". In fact, we generally avoid linking to subsections of the article from the infobox. We have a release section in the article, and in the infobox we mention the earliest release date. That's all we need. No other album article I've ever seen has a subsection link from within the infobox. I've removed it. --IllaZilla (talk) 22:00, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

I notice you've been doing this to a lot of articles. Could you please hold off on this and bring it up at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Albums? I think we need to clear it up. I don't think it needs to be done, and I'm pretty sure the project would agree. If it is something that needs doing, then we can implement it into the template coding and make it automatic. --IllaZilla (talk) 22:11, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

I've initiated a discussion on the subject at WT:ALBUMS. Please join in there. I want to make sure that you're not misinterpreting something from the project page, and see if these links are actually necessary. --IllaZilla (talk) 23:23, 4 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I have responded at the discussion you started at WT:ALBUMS. Aspects (talk) 23:58, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Album covers
I guess anyone who's nutso over something as vacuous as "American Idol" can't really be all there, but Looking over some of your edits (well, most of them) it's clear you are simply a complete fukking DICK. These idiotic edits of yours, niggling over album covers and such, are completely useless, contribute nothing whatsoever, and simply continue to make you look like the puckered anus you are.

Screw your cultish jargon too (i.e., civility, "cool off," et al), as this is just another of your tactics to wiggle out from under the fact that you are a massive caulk-sukker, and a waste of space on Wikipedia.

Why not go dress-up as Frodo and sit on a corn cob. Perhaps it might do you some good.

And OH MY GOD, you own a bird! Only the strangest, weirdest people own birds. Didn't you know that?

Creep. /// Album art not war (talk) 00:46, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

User talk:88.91.14.52
Can you look at User talk:88.91.14.52 and tell me whether I'm being unreasonable? I'm pretty confident that I'm not, but maybe I'm missing something. I just can't see recommending an unblock for someone that wants to edit music articles if he cannot answer that question.&mdash;Kww(talk) 17:25, 11 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I think you are being very patient and working hard to get this editor to fix their problems instead of just writing them off. From their writing, I would guess English is not their first language and that might be a contributing problem to the mis-communication that you want answers and he/she does not understand what you are asking.  I would advise staying patient and trying a few different ways of explaining what you are looking for, but if in a few days they do not understand, to get another admin to help you out instead of just giving up on the editor. Aspects (talk) 17:35, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

RE: Articles_for_deletion/Zero_Gravity_(song)
Would you consider redirecting this article to David Archuleta right now? The article is obvious not notable in its current form, so this material can be removed right now, with only a redirect remaining. I could redirect the page right now for you and close the Afd. The AFD has been listed for 6 days, with no comments, and has now been relisted. At this point, one "keep" will probably mean a non-consensus, default to keep. Whereas this redirect with remove the material right now.

Please let me know as soon as possible, because as soon as someone else comments on the AfD, they must agree also before I can redirect the article and close the AFD.Ikip (talk) 01:44, 12 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I would only feel comfortable removing my AfD nomination if I felt the article could now pass WP:NSONGS. Since I do not feel comfortable doing that, I will let the AfD run its course. Aspects (talk) 19:02, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

DTTR
I consider sprouting off policy to be very much like templating the regulars and it's this kind of unnecessary, irritating behaviour from editors like you that makes committed albeit casual editors like me think twice about contributing. Sure I was wrong in deleting talk page comments rather than archiving them but none of them were your comments sfaict (note that the actual authors didn't take exception despite quite probably watching the page), the reasons *were* noted in the edit summaries ("unexplained" my ass), the comments were upto 18 months old and, most importantly, they identified obvious issues in the article which had obviously been resolved. Now had you have asked rather than accused I'd have explained this to you before but as you didn't you are hereby kindly requested to refrain from such behaviour in future. NNTR. -- samj in out 08:31, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Kristen McNamara
An article that you have been involved in editing, Kristen McNamara, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Articles for deletion/. Thank you.Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. User:Woohookitty Diamming fool! 23:48, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Could you express your opinion in the above AfD? Of the ones I informed, I think you are the only one who hasn't said anything. :) --User:Woohookitty Diamming fool! 22:07, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

"Fixing" redirects
Hi Aspects, I noticed you were recently doing edits like this to remove redirect links. Have you seen Do not fix redirects that are not broken? Basically, if a link is a redirect but it works fine, there's usually no need to change it...changing it doesn't really hurt anything, but it's just something that takes up a lot of time and isn't really necessary. r ʨ anaɢ talk/contribs 20:54, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

=[
Meanie Face. Not trying to be rude but, don't you have anything better to do than to report and delete stuff off wikipedia mr. "tireless destroyer"? It kind of saddens me that you don't. :\ I hope you at least get payed for what you do.

--Homezfoo (talk) 01:18, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Deletion review for Kady Malloy
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Kady Malloy. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Facha93 (talk) 17:53, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Deletion review for Kristen McNamara
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Kristen McNamara. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Facha93 (talk) 20:13, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Sockpuppet
Was just wondering why you never replied to some of my later comments in the s/d? -- Scythre Talk Contribs 17:19, 27 September 2009 (UTC)


 * After I left my last comment on your talk page and made some more edits that day, by time I got back to editing Wikipedia, the next day, you had already moved the discussion to an archived page. If I had any concern that I thought was not addressed I would have left a message on your talk page.  Aspects (talk) 17:37, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

infobox musician logos
thanks for the heads-up for the image, however, you are mis-applying the rule for images in infobox musician. the specific rule prohibits the use of graphics in the "name" field which was brought about by those using graphics instead of text in that field. see here and here for more background. there are no prohibitions of using non-free logos in the image field. --emerson7 19:59, 1 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Actually Template:Infobox musical artist says "An image of the act, sufficiently clear for display at 220 pixels' width." A logo is not an image of the act, so therefore it does not belong in the Img field.  If you would read through both of the threads you posted, you would notice that while the topic started with a discussion of images in the Name field, the consensus found that they were not appropriate anywhere in the infobox.  If you looked at Logos you would see there are prohibitions of using non-free logos in the image field because theses images are not appropriate anywhere in the article unless they are discussed in the article. Aspects (talk) 20:24, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Edit warring on image rationales
You appear to be at 3RR. Please discuss instead of edit warring. Thanks. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:11, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Your edit at Barbershop Harmony Society
You didn't say why you think the image is not fair use of the logo. Please discuss before deleting.LeadSongDog come howl

I don't know what you're referring to; I don't have a problem with the picture you reverted to. I just liked the other one - they're both just fine.

thanks.

Brooke White - top photo
I don't know what you're referring to; I don't have a problem with the picture you reverted to. I just liked the other one - they're both just fine.

thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.19.180.90 (talk) 07:43, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Talkback
68.149.239.203 (talk) 01:13, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Big Ten Cities
Template:Big Ten Cities has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. Orlady (talk) 02:54, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

DeathBoy
Why is the File:Deathboy-musictocrashcarstocommercialcdcover.png cover image not fair-use? It seems to meet policy, and to be appropriately annotated. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:17, 19 October 2009 (UTC)


 * From Non-free content: "Cover art: Cover art from various items, for identification only in the context of critical commentary of that item (not for identification without critical commentary)." The article is missing the critical commentary necessary for the album cover to be in it. Since the album has its own article, if someone wants to know what the album cover looks like they simply have to go to the album article. Aspects (talk) 22:23, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Fair enough - but the risk now is that the image will be deleted for an invalid FUR. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:14, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Re: Orphaned non-free image (File:Allmanbros71.jpg)
If you find any of these in the future coming from me or anyone else for that matter, I'd suggest checking the edit summaries. I wasn't the original uploader of that file. I was simply going through and resizing images that were in the Non-free reduce category. There's a few of us who are just going through that category with a streamlining tool, if the edit summary mentions RSoC's Image Tool or RIRT, it's probably not worth leaving a message on our talk pages. It's always nice to see people dealing with images, they seem to get fairly ignored most of the time - awesome! RandomStringOfCharacters (talk) 05:00, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

BMX racer images fair use
I've already lost three images at least due to this draconian action because I was gone for almost three days. It seems that if the subject is merely alive then any image under any circumstances cannot be used unless it is a "free" image. I will just repost an answer I gave to Carnildo two months ago:

"Well, if that be the case then simplify the licensing to simply reflect that if the subject is alive then only free license images made of the subject by you, the subject him/herself, or a third party. No more of the confusing "legalese" of fair use if instance of the application of fair use of a living person's image is in all practical purposes is nil (in this case the guy isn't famous outside of BMX circles). It will only serve to piss people off otherwise, especially if no explanation is given forehand as to why it is removed. 09:02, 19 August 2009 (UTC)" 

Virtually no image will qualify as long if the subject is alive since in this case and, I suspect, in most others don't know the subject personally. At any rate, these images depict the subjects as they used to look, not present appearance so it is unlikely to have a freely available image because of the time period I wanted to reflect and the fact as I point out the subjects are unknown outside of the sport, reducing greatly the likely hood of a free image. What would be a "fair use" image? Put it simply: Does the subject have to be dead? These damn bots are a sledge hammer to a "problem" Hunter2005 (talk) 01:09, 26 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Well I have never been called a bot before, but I guess there is a first time for everything. Per WP:NFCC: "Non-free content is used only where no free equivalent is available, or could be created, that would serve the same encyclopedic purpose."  Unless there is a valid reason why a free equivalent is not available or could not be created, fair use images should not be used to illustrate a living person. Aspects (talk) 17:08, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
 * And I believe I provided adequate rationales, that is the point the vast majority of the shots of notable BMX participants taken up to 35 years ago depicting the time period when they were at the height of their careers, not today as they are now, so it is not placeable.
 * Has a new more stringent policy been enacted? Because many of those images had been up for up to three years, leading me to believe I met the criteria in the fair use questionnaire summary(s) of the time and using the available licensing tags and I put in the appropriate tag and they went through the seven day vetting period and survived?
 * As it is I think the images from what I see meet the two main criteria required:
 * 1) To illustrate the subject in question:
 * It shows what the people look like at the time and a close in head shot not say, from several feet away and in a full face helmet.
 * 2) Where no free equivalent is available or could be created that would adequately give the same information
 * It shows people up to 30 years or more younger than they are now at the time during their careers, and in uniform. Many of these people are now in their forties, fifties, and even sixties (at least one subject depicted is dead). Hardly the kids, teenagers, twenty and thirty somethings they were at the time back in the 1970s, '80s '90s and early 2000's depending. No free equivalent can be created under those circumstances.
 * What changed? That is what got me confused and upset. I am sure multiple editors examined the images legitimacy before now and they didn't find it lacking before this time? Hunter2005 (talk) 21:39, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, all my images are gone and I guess I am not going to get a guideline example from you or others of what would be a legit use of a fair use image while the subject is still alive. A say again, might as well say no use of a person's image while they are alive unless there is permission of the creator, as I see it I don't see how any image can be called "fair use" under the present guidelines, especially if I am not given an example, a model of what is legal to use without author's permission. Hunter2005 (talk) 20:11, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I did not respond to your questions because I felt my last response covered why a copyrighted image of a living person should not be unless there is a valid reason why a free image could not be found or created. If you want a more in-depth explanation try talking to either of the two administrators, User:PhilKnight and User:Skier Dude, who deleted the images or join an ongoing discussion at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content criteria. Aspects (talk) 00:30, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Your multiple "Replaceable fair use Image:" messages
Hello. In each of the cases that you left a message for on my talk page, I searched for a free alternative but could not find one. I don't see how any of these fail criterion 1 of the non-free content guidelines. Some of the subjects have not been active for decades, and I see little or no possibility that free images could be found. Please consider leaving a human message next time rather than multiple redundant automated ones. If I read one of them it's hardly likely that I'm going to need to read the same thing another nine times, is it?--Michig (talk) 20:14, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

templates
Your comments at WT:Record charts are welcome. A show of solidarity at WP:BOTREQ might be helpful as well. I'd love to get out of the vandalism reversion game. I'm going to look into modifying the template so it blows up if it's passed 1 as well.&mdash;Kww(talk) 18:21, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Kris Allen (album)
No I do not. I don't understand how one day there are no sources and the next there are little 40. :) The page does not need to be deleted, but it is against the rules of the site to remove the deletion discussion, otherwise I would. ---Shadow (talk) 01:17, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Please_read_templates_before_you_remove_them
In reply to your suggestion I read the template, I suggest you read the license. It was already stated in the upload that the image was non-replaceable. It's an album photo of the band with the latest members, as opposed to a few previous members. Please remove the speedy tag. Ebonyskye (talk) 10:49, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

IP 74.68.26.91
This IP addres just vandalized yet again, after you gave them their last warning. -- Mike Allen talk · contribs 03:38, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

WP:BRD
If you want to cite the essay WP:BRD, you might want to try reading before doing so. You were WP:BOLD. I WP:REVERTed. Now you discuss. You don't revert again. Alfred Music Publishing owns the Musicnotes.com website. You can read about the site at http://www.musicnotes.com/aboutus.asp. It most certainly meets WP:RS. Further, most all the WP:FAs and WP:GAs use Musicnotes to explain the key, chord progression, etc etc of a song. Why do you think it's unreliable? Matthewedwards : Chat  05:26, 3 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I have read WP:BRD, your addition of information/image to the article was the BOLD edit and then I reverted it, which should have lead to a discussion. I find it sad to remind an admin that this edit summary,, is uncivil.  As for the reliable source, since you started a discussion on the article talk page I will comment there instead of here. Aspects (talk) 16:45, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image (File:Midnight Syndicate logo.jpg)
Hi! I must admit I find all these image rules very confusing. I will try to get it right, but I'm hoping you can point me in the right direction. First of all, is it more appropriate to have a band photo in the infobox instead of a logo? I know we originally had a photo there, but someone else told us it should be a logo, so we changed it. Please let me know what is preferred. Thanks! - Skinny McGee (talk) 17:27, 4 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Through discussion at Template:Infobox musical artist, a logo should not be used in the infobox to either represent the typeface of the band or to represent the band. The image field should have a free picture of the current band.  A non-fair picture should not be used of either the current band because a free picture could be found or of the past band line-up because the band is still together.  For the logo to be used in the article, there needs to be critical commentary about the logo itself. Aspects (talk) 17:37, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Just a note
I have changed the license on File:Lola Barbershop Logo.png to. Remember, when tagging, that mere text logos are uncopyrightable, and there's no real harm in having them in articles if they aid identification/etc. (though not in the musical artist infobox I agree). • Anakin (talk) 18:03, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

For Your Amusement.
Haha, you're welcome =). It's what I aim to do.

I have a question, by the way. Now that Adam Lambert has a template, I want to give Kris Allen a template, too. Should I wait until we know exactly which single is going to be released along with his album this month? I figure that might be the best course of action, considering if there's any argument, I can argue that Adam's has the exact same amount of notability as Kris's. And also, it's probably wiser to wait, since apparently the Kris Allen template has been created and deleted several times, probably because it didn't have enough singles to qualify or an album article to link to at the time. Let me know, thanks!--Cinemaniac86Dane_Cook_Hater_Extraordinaire 17:42, 5 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I was one of the people who last objected to Kris Allen's template because there was just the album. Since the album is coming out in two weeks and his single has been released, I am no longer opposed to the template.  The Adam Lambert one came back quicker with the upcoming album, released single plus it had Time for Miracles that was getting many mentions in reliable sources. Aspects (talk) 18:04, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Wires On Fire
What were you thinking with this move? "Wires On Fire" is a proper noun. Sincerely, Skomorokh,  barbarian  20:02, 7 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I am simply de-capitalizing prepositions in bands names along the lines of Comets on Fire, Queens of the Stone Age and The Forces of Evil. If you believe it should be changed back, bring it up at Requested moves. Aspects (talk) 00:14, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Capitalization and punctuation in Japanese text
When modifying articles that have Japanese text in them, you do not change the original Japanese text when making articles in line with WP:MOSCAPS or WP:MOS-JA. For example, at Morning Musume All Singles Complete: 10th Anniversary, you should not have changed "モーニング娘. ALL SINGLES COMPLETE ～10th ANNIVERSARY～" to "モーニング娘. All Singles Complete: 10th Anniversary". Your change of "Morning Musume ALL SINGLES COMPLETE ~10th ANNIVERSARY~" to "Morning Musume All Singles Complete: 10th Anniversary" however was correct.— Ryūlóng ( 竜龙 ) 10:30, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Disco Inferno (band)
I've reinstated the promotional band photo you deleted from the Disco Inferno page because Non-free content notes the following as unacceptable for use: "Pictures of people still alive, groups still active, and buildings still standing; provided that taking a new free picture as a replacement (which is almost always considered possible) would serve the same encyclopedic purpose as the non-free image. This includes non-free promotional images. However, for some retired or disbanded groups...a new picture may not serve the same purpose as an image taken during their career, in which case the use would be acceptable.  The group has been disbanded for over a decade and no new pictures are possible.  Unless I'm misreading/misinterpreting the policy, this indicates to me that use of this old promotional photo is acceptable in this case.  Please correct me if I'm wrong.  Thanks.Hal Raglan (talk) 00:40, 24 November 2009 (UTC)


 * From Non-free content, under acceptable uses: "Cover art from various items, for identification only in the context of critical commentary of that item (not for identification without critical commentary)." The image has an album cover licensing agreement and is being used in the infobox to represent the band without critical commentary and not about the album itself.Aspects (talk) 00:58, 24 November 2009 (UTC)


 * The problem appears to be with the noted non free use rationale rather than the image itself. The image is not an album cover but a promotional photograph of the band included in the inner sleeve of one of the band's releases, The Mixing It Session.  I've edited the rationale on the image page accordingly.-Hal Raglan (talk) 16:52, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Re: The Johnny Cash Show (TV series) request
I appreciate your message. Honestly, I do not see anything controversial about this request. The tv show is much more well known, and the article about the album states that it is not well known. Indeed, the album would not have even been recorded had the tv show not existed first. Regardless, I will defer to your decision and we will see how the discussion proceeds. Cheers. ---  RepublicanJacobite  The'FortyFive' 14:20, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

thanks for catching
my orphaned upload,. It is my intention to write an article about that record as part of the wikipedia album group, (or something) that I recently joined. I would use this scan at that time. However I am not sure what my timeframe here is, I find writing record articles to be a slow business, so if you are more comfortable deleting this now I can always scan it again when my article is ready to go. Happy Thanksgiving, and if you are not in America I will dedicate my first slice of turkey to you. Einar aka Carptrash (talk) 16:35, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Terminology
Hey Aspects. I moved a bunch of articles you requested at RM—all good requests and thanks for finding them. In all these move requests you say that the move is "over own redirect". Since you did not create any of these redirects as far as I can tell, I thought maybe you did not know that that expression refers to a move over a redirect the person using the expression created themselves (their "own" redirect). Cheers.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 03:43, 28 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I had copied what someone else had used and in my mind I was saying "Over (article's) own redirect." In the future, I will be more accurate in what I mean. Aspects (talk) 21:28, 28 November 2009 (UTC)