User talk:Aspects/Archive 5

Removal of images
Hi, I noticed that you removed the images from Calcutta (band). How can I add them back? I have permission from the band members to add them to wikipedia. -- vi5in [talk] 00:37, 3 December 2009 (UTC)


 * The album covers were used in the discography section specifically against Non-free content. Taking a further look at the article, I see nothing in it that shows the band has notability to pass WP:MUSIC. Aspects (talk) 17:13, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Adam Lambert's Take One
On the American Idol alumni album sales article, there's some disagreement over Take One's inclusion and I posted something on the discussion page. 68.149.239.203 (talk) 05:18, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Non-free use
At File:Black Angels logo.png, I've fleshed out the non-free use rationale to address the issue you raised. If you agree that your issue has been successfully addressed, please remove the deletion tag. If not, please let's discuss the matter on the talk page of that logo (and, in that case, please ping my on my user talk page to let me know you still disagree: I'm afraid I don't really have a usable watchlist on en-wiki any more, because I have thousands of articles on my watchlist but am no longer terribly active). - Jmabel | Talk 01:20, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Go ahead and remove
the Memphis Jug Band album covers for once and it not for all, at least until I feel like writing up rational for them. Einar aka Carptrash (talk) 21:03, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Opera Babes
First someone removed the image from the article; then you tagged the image as orphaned. I have put the image back in the article and removed the tag. Is there anything else I should do to make sure this doesn't happen in the future? -- Ssilvers (talk) 23:33, 10 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I have clarified the fair use description. As stated in the fair use guidelines, this is an acceptable use of an album cover" "Cover art: Cover art... for identification only in the context of critical commentary of that item (not for identification without critical commentary)."

There is critical commentary on this album in the article, and the album has no article of its own, so this is the only place where the album is described and critiqued. As stated in the tag, I have addressed the concern that you raised and deleted the tag.

The critical commentary on the album includes the following from the second paragraph of the main section of the article, as follows:

The Opera Babes released their first album, Opera Babes: Beyond Imagination in 2002 (ranking No. 1 on the UK classical charts for 11 weeks, and No. 4 on the U.S. billboard charts), contained classical and "crossover" numbers. Knight explained the group's strategy to BBC News as follows: "[W]e have tried to maintain the classical integrity while making these things more appealing to a wider audience."[2] They soon had a falling out with their producer, SonyBMG, which asked them to concentrate on studio work, rather than performing live. "We were originally discovered busking... so I would have thought it was obvious that we loved performing live, yet Sony weren't interested," said Karen England.....[3] All the best, -- Ssilvers (talk) 00:22, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Fair use of album covers in band articles
Hi. I opened a discussion on this at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Music, noting your removal of many of these images. Feel free to join in and give your perspective. Perhaps a discussion of the matter will bring a consensus on when it is OK to use these images. Best regards, -- Ssilvers (talk) 00:44, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Rydel
Hi,

Heads up: You posted an orphaned non-free image yadda-yadda on User talk:Rydel. Unfortunately, Rydel died on May 26, 2007 and his talk page says so. I don't have a clever solution to this problem, but please be a bit more careful next time. At this case, for example, you would be informed about it if you wouldn't go straight to the talk page. --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 23:52, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

User contributions tool
Hey, splendid use of the User Contribution tool in your tireless negative-contributions (removal of media) to wikipedia helping to ensure its freedom. However, having received three delete messages from you in a matter of minutes all regarding entirely unrelated articles I do feel harassed. - Steve3849 talk 04:11, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
 * My apologies regarding the tone of the above post. We recently contributed to a deleted image review (link) where you explained I did not allow you, or the initial administrator to discuss the image prior to submitting it for review. My apologies for this as well. However, contrary to my claim, you stated that I made no discussion entry to the talk page of the image. My understanding is that when a page has been deleted that edits to that page are then only visible to administrators. The edits will no longer be shown to commoners such as us on User contribution lists. It will appear to non-administrators as if the edits did not happen. - Steve3849 talk 23:57, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

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

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Aspects (talk) 23:11, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Fair use of images
Recently, you first removed an image from the article in which it was used, then. (This is at least the second recent time you did this with an image I uploaded; the other was with an image used in The Black Angels (band).)

I heartily endorse discussing whether non-free use of a particular image in a particular article is valid, but I think it makes fruitful discussion much more difficult when you precede the discussion by removing the image from articles, so that it is not even clear where it was used. If I didn't happen to know where the image had been used, once removed from the article it would be very difficult to determine by starting from the image page. The way you started the discussion severely handicaps anyone who might wish to defend the previous use of the image or add relevant commentary about the image to the article if that was lacking. (In particular, if a non-free image had become orphaned in the normal course of events - e.g., replaced by a free image - then of course the non-free image should be deleted, but we should not create the illusion that has occurred when it has not.)

I'd like to open discussion (probably at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content review, unless you have a different suggestion) as to whether we can establish a procedure for such nominations for deletion that is less likely to blindside people, but I figured I'd come here first so I don't blindside you. Any objection to my bringing the discussion to that page? - Jmabel | Talk 23:57, 16 December 2009 (UTC)


 * In this case, this earlier edit had effectively removed the commentary that made the image appropriate, which I will now restore. - Jmabel | Talk 00:02, 17 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I make BOLD edits to removed images that fail Non-free content. I then mark them as orphaned and start the deletion process.  Over 95% of these edits result in the image being deleted with no objection.  The rest either get the critical commentary they need to remain in the article or the process gets moved to the disputed fair use and/or file for deletion.  I do not see the point in discussing each of these images (before removing them from the article) when for the vast majority of the images no objection is made.


 * It should not be difficult to figure out what article the image was removed from since each image should contain a fair use rationale for the article and if it does not that is the fault of the uploader. Also an editor could go through my contributions and find the edit that removed the image right before the orphaned fair use template was put on the image.  If after this response, you still feel the need to start a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content review, feel free to and I will explain there as well. Aspects (talk) 22:25, 17 December 2009 (UTC)


 * The two images of mine with which this has happened were both updated before we had a template for non-free use rationale, and before we had the same consensus we now have about critical commentary. It is not my "fault" that I didn't anticipate changes in Wikipedia policy. What if I were no longer an active participant?


 * Your approach seems to assume we will usually be better off losing the images than getting the critical commentary. I happen to disagree.


 * I will start the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content review. - Jmabel | Talk 23:59, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

File:EnidBandPic.jpg
Rather than examining the adequacy of this image's Fair-Use Rationale, and then questioning that, you appear to have removed it as non-fair use without considering the FUR, and only then tagged it as orphaned. That's the wrong way round. In this case, that is the only known image of that lineup of this band, and is therefore irreplaceable by a free image. Are you sure you know what you're doing with these images? And BTW, WP:DTTR, especially not Admins; it's so irritating. Thanks. Rodhull andemu  22:59, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Per this comment: "I do not see the point in discussing each of these images when for the vast majority of the images no objection is made.", I cannot imagine a worse example of getting it wrong. In most cases, only the original uploader will be notified by your templating, and may be long gone. Unhelpful. Rodhull  andemu  23:02, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I placed a disputed fair use template on the file page so you can see my objections to the image there. I also added a comment to the earlier discussion to clear up exactly what I was responding to.  As for templating the regulars, that is an essay regarding mostly warnings while I am notifying uploaders of the possible file deletion.  Per your advice, I left a shorter, non-template message on your talk page after I placed the disputed fair use template on the file page.  Aspects (talk) 23:22, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Obviously, I disagree, but I will explain why your way of doing things isn't helpful: Admins have a lot to do, and those who clean up speedy tags are most likely to look at the image page, see "Orphaned" and that there is no linked article at the bottom, and take your word for it. Thus the image gets deleted, but for the wrong reason, and uploaders get annoyed by the apparent artifice. However, I have asked Father Christmas for a TARDIS this year, and if I get one, I will go back to that concert and take my own photograph. Some reality has to prevail when it comes to assessing FURs, and deletion by the back door seems to be sidestepping the issue. Rodhull  andemu  23:29, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

I uploaded this file
File:NashvilleTeens1.jpg many years ago when I foolishly believed that it was okay. Well we were all young and stupid once, but no more. Go ahead and delete it. Einar aka Carptrash (talk) 23:56, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

File:Ca raisins.jpg and File:Veg meat.jpg
Why did you remove File:Ca raisins.jpg from The California Raisins and File:Veg meat.jpg from Vegetarian Meat? It's not very helpful to leave a boilerplate talk message that says "please go to the article and see why [the image] was removed" when you yourself did the removal, and left an utterly non-descriptive edit summary. » Swpbτ • ¢ 02:08, 22 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Per 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)." Both of these images lack the critical commentary necessary to be included in the articles.  In fact, the California Raisins album is not even mentioned anywhere in the article.  Both images could also fail WP:NFCC. Aspects (talk) 02:51, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Capital letters
As far as I am aware, there is only a rule against using ALL CAPITAL LETTERS as page titles when it comes to articles on subjects whose names are parsed as such in the English alphabet. angela, m-flo, (why else do we have lowercase?) and especially Pay money To my Pain (where there are capital letters, but not the ones normally capitalized in English) should all be left that way.— Ryūlóng ( 竜龙 ) 04:56, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Administrators noticeboard
Soviet Russian Kamrad (talk) 12:30, 28 December 2009 (UTC)Thank you.

Image rationale
With respect to this, I have already substantially updated the fair use rationale per your earlier suggestion. -- Scjessey (talk) 00:54, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Please comment
Please comment further at if you care. —  AjaxSmack   05:15, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Logo for Boston Symphony Orchestra
Hi, I noticed you removed the logo of the Boston Symphony Orchestra from the Template:Infobox musical artist. I do not understand the rationale for your change. The template documentation states that logos should be avoided in the "name" field but does not recommend against their use in the "img" field. "Logos should be regarded as portraits for a given entity" (see WP:LOGO), so are appropriate to the "img" field, in particular for large groups where a small image of the group itself does provide enough detail to be useful. There was a problem with this infobox in that the image was not accompanied by "Img_alt" and/or "Img_capt", which is a violation of WP:ACCESS, but this problem is easily remedied by the addition of either one, or both, of these fields. --Robert.Allen (talk) 10:40, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I added a revised version of this comment to the discussion page for the infobox. Is that a better place for it? --Robert.Allen (talk) 19:34, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Jorge Núñez (singer)
An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Jorge Núñez (singer). We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Articles for deletion/Jorge Núñez (singer). Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes ( ~ ).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:05, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

English or typo
r.e. -Please do not deleted plot templates -

Is there a given length to a plot, I know of no guidelines. I have read many plots much longer. Why did you add the template in the first place? The template, if I remember correctly, had been added several years ago. Also I have seen templates at the bottom

Please advise. Given a logical reason, ...compliance is possible. Allenwala (talk) 06:20, 15 February 2010 (UTC)日月

"Uglies" Photo
I'm sorry; I'm having trouble understanding your concern about this photo. In the first place, you have mis-identified it as an "album cover"; it was, instead, a promo photo which was used in several different aspects: print media, posters and flybills, and in this particular usage, on the sleeve of an early 45rpm single. It appears to comply with the Wikipedia fair use policy, and in fact, I utilized the same fair-use rationale as was used for the photo which illustrates the "Monkees" article, with the added reason that, in this case, a contemporary photo simply would not properly illustrate the article, as some of the original members are deceased. For those who are interested in the Original Unbelievable Uglies, this is the image they remember and are looking for. JazzCarnival (talk) 06:37, 17 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Whether I put "album" or "single" cover, the same rules of Non-free content apply to either. The source listed in the fair use rationale is single cover, so that is what it is treated as.  Album/single covers can only be used to illustrate themselves with critical commentary and should not be used to illustrate artists/bands per Non-free content. The image used in The Monkees articles is only a promotional image and is treated as such, so the comparison between the two does not work.


 * Also your edit to add the image back to the article,, was neither a minor edit nor was it vandalism and I do not appreciate being called a vandal while removing an image that does not follow Non-free content and was summarized as doing so. Aspects (talk) 16:29, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

OK, to be fair, I could have more properly identified the photo in question as a "promotional photograph" - an oversight which has been corrected. However, as to your allegation that there is no parallel between this photo and the one for The Monkees article, if my memory serves me corectly, the Monkees photo was actually included as album art on one of their records - I think it may have been "The Birds, The Bees & The Monkees", but I'm not sure. JazzCarnival (talk) 19:38, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Why is Mike Huckabee not reliable?
I don't like to go to most web sites at home. There's a 99 percent chance I would have had no problems, but I figured the information for American idol was reliable and it would have taken less than five minutes for someone to find a reliable source rather than reverting. I'm at a library now where I have no concerns about problems being caused. It is done. Vchimpanzee ·  talk  ·  contributions  · 14:38, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
 * No show or even network was mentioned in the source, so there is no way to check if he actually even said the statement, so it cannot be verified by another editor as being correct. Aspects (talk) 05:56, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
 * The audio of the show is available, though I didn't have the URL handy at the time. I try to avoid going to most web sites at home. Someone does transcripts but they're way behind and who knows if there will ever be one. Anyway, I think I found a suitable source. Sorry I didn't see your message until now. Vchimpanzee ·  talk  ·  contributions  · 22:07, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Transcripts are here. Audio is here. I would have to identify which show each day. However, transcripts would have a specific URL I could copy. Vchimpanzee ·  talk  ·  contributions  · 14:15, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Musical theatre names
I think we have a clear consensus for moving the names back. Would you kindly initiate the change? All the best! -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:27, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I am not an admin, so I cannot move back the musicals myself. I would suggest either finding an admin or waiting for the requested move discussion to end one week after it was started. Aspects (talk) 18:02, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh, sure. Sorry, I didn't realize there was a one-week waiting period.  No rush.  Best regards, -- Ssilvers (talk) 00:25, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Colour in Template:Infobox television
I note you've made several edits such as this citing Template:Infobox television as the reason for reversion. However, I can't find anything that says "bgcolour" should not be used. The most recent mention I could find was from 14 December 2008, asking why there was such a field, which is still obviously valid. Could you please point me to a discussion where there is consensus that "bgcolour" should not be used? --AussieLegend (talk) 02:08, 2 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I removed it because "bgcolour" is not listed in either the Usage or Attributes section of Template:Infobox television and the editor used "more appropriate for the show" as the edit summaries when this would fall into personal opinion ebcause another editor might think another color is the more appropriate for the show. Aspects (talk) 02:18, 4 March 2010 (UTC)


 * That it's not listed doesn't mean it's not a valid field to use. It should probably be documented. As for the colour being personal opinion, and another editor "might" think another colour is more appropriate, that's really the case with most edits. One editor always has a personal opinion that this or that might be more appropriate while another editor might think that something else is. It doesn't matter what the content of the edit is. We don't enerally revert someone's edits becuase somebody might think it's not appropriate. --AussieLegend (talk) 03:18, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Disputed non-free use rationale for File:Ganges-1.jpg


Feel free to get rid of it. I couldn't care less. --Cdman882 (talk) 14:30, 2 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Removed the image from the page. Delete away.  It's not worth my time to spend debating it. --Cdman882 (talk) 14:35, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

American Idol
Please discuss any changes before you make them. Thanks. –Turian  ( talk )  15:57, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Dreamgirls
Care to comment here? —  AjaxSmack   20:00, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Musicals disambiguation vs. primary topic
OK, it's been a week, and as far as I can see there is no substantial opposition to restoring (most of?) the musicals as the primary topics, except for the guy that moved them. Would you be so kind as to do the moves? You seem to be experienced with this sort of thing. All the best, -- Ssilvers (talk) 16:32, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Like I said before I am not an admin, so I do not have the ability to make these changes, so you either need to wait for an admin to see the requested moves and make the changes or you need to find one who is willing to make the changes. Aspects (talk) 20:54, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

My Best Days
You might want to talk to User:CloversMallRat, who seems to disagree with your citation of WP:LYRICS. Endale Complex seems fine with it, but Clovers refuses. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 01:28, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Kara DioGuardi
I am the web master of karadioguardi.com and have complete permission to make the edit o her image. i have been in contact with people for the last 8 months figuring out which licenses to use and proper procedure when uploading. i assure you i have obtained all necessary rights. WHO are you? is there a way i can contact you directly?Sytable (talk) 09:06, 14 March 2010 (UTC)


 * If you read through the template I placed on the image, you would see the options you have to keep the image on Wikipedia. I am an ordinary editor and my talk page is the best way to contact me.  Aspects (talk) 19:55, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Lyrics
It also says in there that we can't write articles consisting only of lyrics and that the amount of lyrics included within an article is open to interpretation and falls under fair use. CloversMallRat (talk) 17:02, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Hey and thanks for totally ignoring my response and never saying anything. CloversMallRat (talk) 16:18, 15 March 2010 (UTC)


 * And how might I go about "discussing" it... something is flawed here, since the only "discussing" you seem to do is notifying me that I was walking the boundary lines on reverting. CloversMallRat (talk) 07:02, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

AFD
Thanks for the heads up there. I've added evidence to an SP/I here as the new user has editing habits that are strikingly similar to a banned user. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 02:16, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Removal of PROD from Josh Paul (Musician)
Hello Aspects, this is an automated message from SDPatrolBot to inform you the PROD template you added to Josh Paul (Musician) has been removed. It was removed by 99.253.226.247 with the following edit summary ' (+infobox) '. Please consider discussing your concerns with 99.253.226.247 before pursuing deletion further yourself. If you still think the article should be deleted after communicating with the 'dePRODer,' you may want to send the article to AfD for community discussion. Thank you, SDPatrolBot (talk) (Learn how to opt out of these messages) 14:14, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

contestant articles section on AI9 talk page
I did not post that, Banananana88 did. MarkMc1990 (talk) 02:44, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Why did you remove my table from the American Idol page?
You called the table unnecessary in your removal, but I think the table was very necessary. It was a simple convenient way of organizing the basic season information that one would otherwise have to read all over the very long article and individual articles for. You also mentioned the article being too long already -- just because it makes it longer, does not mean it does not improve the article. Most other reality shows with multiple seasons have similar tables on their main pages, see America's Next Top Model, So You Think You Can Dance, Dancing With the Stars, Survivor, Big Brother, The Bachelor, etc., to name a few. MarkMc1990 (talk) 03:13, 21 March 2010 (UTC)


 * The table is unnecessary because the vast majority of the information in the table is already located in other tables in the article. The American Idol article has paragraph descriptions for each of the seasons where this information can be found.  The other articles use these tables as navigational tools because instead of describing each season.  I could also point that I know Top Chef, Project Runway and Shear Genius used to have tables that were changed to season descriptions.  If you feel this table is necessary, start a discussion on the talk page and see if a consensus could be found. Aspects (talk) 19:04, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Billboard Charts
I just wanted to say thank you for opening discussion on billboard component charts. if you could take a look at the discussion at WP:record charts talk page there has been a few developments. We're close to reaching a good conclusion and i think we've made progress in establishing the notability of wikipedia's billboard charts.Lil-unique1 (talk) 16:01, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Hail, Crusader!
I don't know you are aware of it, but there is a discussion over an edit you made some time ago, at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Albums. I defended your edit, which someone reverted, and frankly I think it should be reinstated. I'm waiting to see if the other editor involved comes back to defend himself. Before you look, prepare to be offended! - but really I don't think the other editor has a leg to stand on. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 13:40, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Please stop
Reverting it to an old table because the gradient is being discussed is ridiculous and I am telling you to stop until it is decided to be changed. You can't say consensus was not reached a week after it was put forward in the article. Stop being disruptive, and focus on the talk page for now. –Turian  ( talk )  02:29, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

TV infoboxes
Your edit summary makes no sense. You flooded my watchlist. If you can not explain your reasoning further than citing a page that has no specific support for your edits then i am going to restore the colour. delirious &amp;  lost  ☯ ~hugs~ 05:18, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I saw that you have been editing a bit since i left the above message and you have declined to respond. Xeworlebi reverted some of them and when i noticed i looked here, saw no response, and reverted the rest of the ones in my watchlist. I do find it odd that all but 4 of them are articles on which i edited to, among other things, add the colour (i have edited Nip/Tuck but the colour was already there). Considering i work with (recent) short-lived / quickly-cancelled shows it is a wonder that you hit on 18 of them given their alphabetical randomness. delirious  &amp;  lost  ☯ ~hugs~ 21:47, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Images on After The Anthems page
I believe all criteria have now been met for images uploaded on the After the Anthems page. I added notes to each of your notes on that article's talk page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Philj1986 (talk • contribs) 04:52, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Sorry - I added notes to my talk page located here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Philj1986

I'm still fairly new at all this:) Thanks! --Philj1986 (talk) 04:55, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Question
Could you tell me why 3 pages of the Emi Tawata article are removed? I though i put down the right refrences and they are important to the acticle. Megami no Hikari —Preceding undated comment added 17:00, 23 April 2010 (UTC).


 * I explained these redirects in the edit summary. The three songs fail WP:NSONGS, that they are not notable enough songs to have their own article and are redirected to either the corresponding album or the artist. Aspects (talk) 02:28, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Well excuse me, but they're singles and although they might've not charted on the Oricon charts, the singles ARE a big part of the artist! All three of them are maxi-singles and they're listed on the official website of the artist. They're neither demos, mixtapes, bootlegs, promo-only, and unreleased.. [[User:Megami no Hikari|Megami no Hikari]

April 2010
Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your comments, which you added in discussion at American Idol (season 9). Please note that on Wikipedia, consensus is determined by discussion, not voting, and it is the quality of arguments that counts, not the number of people supporting a position. Consider reading about the deletion policy for a brief overview for the deletion process, and how we decide what to keep and what to delete. We hope you decide to stay and contribute even more. Thank you! –Turian  ( talk )  23:44, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Reinserting warnings on talk page not ok
You should be aware that reinserting warnings on someone's talk page after they remove them is not OK - per WP:TALKPAGE users are allowed to remove warnings and comments from their talk page. It's considered to be an acknowledgement of having read them, so they're responsible for having seen it, but you have no right to reinsert the warning after they remove it. Doing that is considered a form of harrassment.

I saw you do that on Turian's talk page - I note that he seems to just have been blocked for some stuff, but even so, your repeated reinsertion of comments was not great. Please don't do that again. Even people who are about to get blocked for something deserve being treated fairly and have protection under the harrassment policy.

Thanks. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 03:46, 27 April 2010 (UTC)


 * While I may have used the exact same wording, I was warning Turian about two different sets of 3rr violations on American Idol (season 9), one on the 15th and one on the 26th. I now see I should have used different warning, but it was a combination of me thinking it was a good message and knowing that Turian would delete them quickly from his talk page.  It was not harassment, it was warning him of a new violation and then informing him of the discussion so he could partake in it. As for his last edit summary,, he has never asked me to not use his talk page until this edit, but I will abide by his wishes. Aspects (talk) 04:14, 27 April 2010 (UTC)