User talk:Aspects/Archive 7

Paula Abdul
And your reason for reverting the edit I sourced? 63.131.4.149 (talk) 11:25, 5 January 2011 (UTC)


 * You might want to take a look again at my revert,, with the edit summary of "Undid revision 406009535 by 68.194.99.131 (talk) rvv." I used an edit summary of "rvv", which means ReVert Vandalism, to describe an edit where User:68.194.99.131, not you, changed the word born in the opening sentence to hi.  Reversions made to an article are not always of the edit immediately proceeding it. Aspects (talk) 14:07, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Tour articles
Dude, I do this tour articles to make it look good and all... like all articles on the site which look this way, for example the 21st Century Breakdown World Tour, etc. But I keep all my hard work reverted, it sucks. Like all tours on this site, I do it with the flags and big headers and all, but it all gets ruined, that sucks I don't understand why you need to do this...Tons of tour pages here are like that, and that's why I did these like that too. I put a lot of time and effort into the pages, to make them accurate as well as comfortable to find dates and see them and also pretty to the eye, and it's all gets fucked up. JackShestak (talk) 01:39, 15 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Well they are pretty on the eye and all, that's true but that's not the main reason. Most tour articles use these, so why not revert there also? I mean, it looks a lot neater and clearer to understand dates and countries and all with the flagicons. It's like that in 21st Century Breakdown World Tour, in Faith No More's The Second Coming Tour, Blink-182 Summer Tour, Deserve the Future Tour, World Magnetic Tour, Black Ice World Tour, Stiff Upper Lip World Tour, Ballbreaker World Tour, The Final Frontier World Tour, Chinese Democracy Tour, Asylum Tour (Disturbed), Scream World Tour, New Moon Rising World Tour, Mayhem Festival 2010, Get Your Sting and Blackout World Tour, Epitaph World Tour, and those are some pretty big and notable tours by some big bands and all, so I just followed the pattern of these tour articles and I got all my hard work reverted, all the lines and tables being smaller and a lot less neater, and taking off the flags which just added to page, with no real reason especially when such big and notable articles are written that way and I just followed these and they're pattern. JackShestak (talk) 15:07, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Bucky Covington: Proposal for inclusion in template of American Idol as "Other Alumni"
As per your comment on reverting my edit regarding adding of Bucky Covington, I have now taken your advice and put an official proposal for including of this artist as "alumni" in American Idol template Template:American_Idol. Your and other colleagues' comments are appreciated on the page: Template talk:American Idol as this is a very credible artist that deserves the classification He is active even as we speak with many appearances after these many yearswerldwayd (talk) 01:55, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Re:
May I ask why the other guy wasn't warned? He begun the reverting. ℥nding · start 22:54, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

What Goes Around... Reassessment
Hey. I'd just like to know what your thoughts are about What Goes Around.../...Comes Around being a GA. I was going to attempt to fix it up to keep it at GA level, but it just lacks a lot of things, and I don't feel like it was correctly reviewed in the first place. Please, if you can, leave your comments here. Thanks so much! ℥nding · start 23:07, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Naming Conventions
Thank you so much for your assistance with the Eric Lee (musician) page. I understand that per the InfoBox Template rules, the color of the info box identifies Eric Lee as a solo singer. Cool. While he does sing, most of the contributions that make him notable have actually been as a studio musician, instrumentalist, and producer. So, do we really need to go with moving the page to Eric Lee (singer)? Or could we keep it at Eric Lee (musician) until I hear back on my request to change the redirect on the current Eric Lee, which is not about a person at all. Thank you again for your help with this. Meaono (talk) 07:02, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Naming Conventions
Hi! Thank you for fixing capitalization here but please note that "In titles of songs or albums in a language other than English, the project standard is to use the capitalization utilized by that language, not the English capitalization." (See WikiProject_Albums). Also, Wikipedia:Naming conventions only concerns article titles, so the groups's name is still °C-ute. Moscowconnection (talk) 02:54, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Template:Kelly Clarkson
Could you please weigh in on the discussion on my talk page? This IP is not understanding things about navigational templates. It would be much appreciated. Thank you. Yves (talk) 01:54, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Mihai Timofti
You've been reverted again, as I was a couple of months ago. What can we do to get a valid Background set permanently on the article? Rjwilmsi 23:16, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

With respects inre Alli Live
The AFD tag has been removed twice from the article... and it is now being discussed at AFD. Since the AFD is open, I am adding a hangon and returning the AFD notice. I have no other opinion on the subject.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 02:15, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

"Unneeded template"
I just reverted your removal of the use mdy dates template on American Idol. The presence of this maintenance template allows for date formats to remain aligned going forwards. I would refer you to the template documentation. Regards, -- Ohconfucius ¡digame! 16:25, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Having arrived at this page due to the below matter, I saw this ... and would agree with Oh here. It raises a similar issue to the one immediately below; to wit -- the issue is not what is "needed", but what is appropriate.--Epeefleche (talk) 03:30, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Hi
Hello fellow senior wikipedia. You just deleted a see also list that I had added. Your explanation was that it was "unnecessary". That is not the test. We do not include only what is "necessary". We include what is appropriate. Which the sa indubitably is. This is precisely the purpose for including sa's of such lists, which abound throughout the project. If you would like to discuss further, I will watch this page so you can do so here.--Epeefleche (talk) 03:29, 10 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Per WP:SEEALSO, this is not a related or relevant link that is needed for the article. You have not explained how it is either of those.  I asked in my edit summary for you to discuss this on the article's talk page per WP:BRD, but instead you decided to make a third revert in a 24-hour period. Aspects (talk) 03:39, 10 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Struck my comments out since I was incorrect about the number of reversions. Aspects (talk) 03:41, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Of course it is a "related article". That's preposterous on your part to suggest otherwise. Are you joking? It's immediately obvious as well why it is related -- she is on the list, and even mentioned in the lede. The project is full of articles that have see also lists reflected with precisely that level of relevance. You seem to be inserting your "IDONTIKEIT" approach -- as in the above string -- and asserting that you don't like (what you call "not needed" or "not necessary" is the standard. But that's not the standard. The standard is whether it is relevant. (which I note was not the "rationale" you claimed in your repeated edit warring here -- you instead used the fanciful "if it is not needed it should be deleted" approach). It unquestionably is relevant. And let me add -- I don't very much appreciate an editor reverting me ... always as many reverts or more than I make ... and doing so for reasons that are baseless (as though "necessary" is the standard, which it clearly isn't), and then trotting down the hostile path of "look how many reverts you made".--Epeefleche (talk) 03:47, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
 * The 'see also' link in Jennifer Hudson isn't something I would get worked up over. Having said that, I don't see that the link is out of place, as it's typically the sort of link to a peripheral article that many editors might find 'useful'. I would be inclined to leave it, seeing as it's there. -- Ohconfucius ¡digame! 08:54, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Season 8 Favorite Performances (Adam Lambert album)
Can you explain this revert to me? ℥nding · start 06:04, 27 March 2011 (UTC)


 * From the prod, "You may remove this message if you improve the article or otherwise object to deletion for any reason. However please explain why you object to the deletion, either in your edit summary or on the talk page. If this template is removed, it should not be replaced." The prod was removed with a reason and it should not have been replaced even if there was not a reason given. Aspects (talk) 06:08, 27 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Ah, alright. I'm just gonna go ahead and nominate it for deletion. That's what I meant to do in the first place anyway. ℥nding · start 06:10, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Thank You!
For removing that bit of POV vandalism from my User page :o) And I wonder who that was, editing anonymously ....... shame they weren't brave enough to put their name and face to it!  If they really wanted to have a slap, they could have done it nicely and found something humorous to say over at Editor for Deletion :o)  Pesky  ( talk ) 06:06, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Rolling Stones tour names
For what it's worth, I think you're wrong in renaming a lot of the Rolling Stones tour articles. These tours had names at the time, most visibly as shown on the official tour posters. There was a period in which "The Rolling Stones ..." was used for the tour name, and there was a period in which "Rolling Stones ..." was used for the tour name (when "The" was out of fashion). It's those names that were looked at when the tour articles were first created; whether or not they match the name of the group main article is not material, as I see it. Wasted Time R (talk) 20:11, 10 April 2011 (UTC)


 * There were only five tours that did not start with "The" and of the five, two did not have a tour poster. All five started off the article with "The", so based on the evidence I feel I made the moves to the correct location, but if I am incorrect, then feel free to change them back. Aspects (talk) 21:28, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Note on contestants' pages about lack of bottom 3 during Top 6 week
I do feel the note is necessary. Someone looking at Haley's page for example could look at her performance table and incorrectly assume that "safe" means she was not in the bottom three/two during Top 6 week, when in fact she might very well have been. Normally they stop revealing a bottom group when it gets down to Top 3 or 4, at which point a note wouldn't really be necessary, but this time it happened during the Top 6 and they even went back to revealing a bottom two the following week, making the situation even more peculiar. MarkMc1990 (talk) 05:19, 7 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Safe means they were not part of the bottom 2/3 and since no bottom 2/3 was mentioned, there was no bottom 2/3 and all of the contestants that were not eliminated would be listed as Safe. A note is not needed for safe contestants. Aspects (talk) 01:47, 8 May 2011 (UTC)


 * "Safe means they were not part of the bottom 2/3" -- That's exactly why the note is needed -- To inform the reader that "Safe" in that particular week merely means the contestant survived elimination, rather than meaning they were above the bottom three like it does the rest of the time. MarkMc1990 (talk) 02:08, 8 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Safe always means they were above the bottom grouping, we do not have notes for the past seasons when only the eliminated person is announced as being in the bottom grouping and it is not needed this season. The note is trying to explain something that does not need explanation. Aspects (talk) 02:58, 8 May 2011 (UTC)


 * This is the first time that the show did not reveal a bottom group this early in the competition and then went back to revealing a bottom group the following week. Usually they reveal a bottom group every week up until the top 3 or 4 (top 5 in season 7) and the note is not necessary then. The only other exceptions are double elimination weeks (Season 6 Top 6, Season 8 Top 13, and Season 9 Top 9) but those technically had a bottom two so it was not necessary then either. I firmly believe it is necessary in this case. MarkMc1990 (talk) 05:14, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Idol 10 and 190.98.48.73
He's doing it again, removing Lauren's "bottom 2" placing (diff). I just reverted him but maybe we need to file something at AN/I ? Robman94 (talk) 18:38, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
 * He's back from his block and editing again. New AN/3RR discussion here  Robman94 (talk) 19:15, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Tiffany Giardina Discography
Hi. I Noticed that you moved Tiffany Giardina's Discography to a different page. Please bring it back because it took me about 3 hours to make, and it was fine where it was. Thanks. . . --Shanerusso (talk) 12:08, 22 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Discography articles use to be part of an artist's/band's article and was split off because the artist/band article was too big. Tiffany Giardina's article currently sits at about 6k, which is definitely not big enough for a discography section to be split off into its own article.  Please see WP:LENGTH for further explanation. Aspects (talk) 06:21, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Don't Delete the Tiffany Giardina Artist Box
The box may not have links, but she is an artist, and most artists have them. I plan on making making more articles in the future. Thank you, and please don't delete. --Shanerusso (talk) 12:16, 22 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Most artist have navigational boxes because there are enough articles to justify having the navigational box. The artist article and one album is not enough, see WP:NENAN, since they already link to each other in the article prose, making the navigational box redundant.  The article you plan on making in the future, her Christmas album, her EP and her songs, will most definitely be deleted because they do not pass WP:NALBUMS. Also, you should bring up your opinion at the Template for Discussion section and not on my talk page. Aspects (talk) 06:25, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Mandisa
Hello, first of all, you said that "no explanation" was given. Well, you didn't give an explanation why you reverted the first time. The reason why it is incorrect to use ordinal numbers in this situation is grammatical. Basically, in order to have a second (for example), there needs to be a first (mentioned earlier in the paragraph). "Ordinal" means to put in order (a sequence). And so, that's why the vast majority of times any article talks about a TV season, it says "season __."

Now on a deeper issue, editors of wiki sites are supposed to work together in cooperation—sort of give and take (lest there be edit warring). When you changed "No." to number, even though that was wrong (or at least totally unnecessary—it is the preferred way when speaking of a music chart position), I let that go. And I would expect the same from you (or any other editor). (Please see: Revert only when necessary) Thanks for understanding. --Musdan77 (talk) 18:36, 15 June 2011 (UTC)


 * The way it was listed before was in order from the lowest place, the medium season and the highest show. I have worked on numerous television show articles and I do not believe I have placements listed as being in "season ___" and as I stated all of the American Idol uses the form "__st/nd/th season." Also I believe this is the grammatically correct way of listing the information.  In regards to "No." I have never seen this used before as a substitute for number.  As for the current discussion has been started per WP:BRD, you should not have reverted especially when there was no reply in my part. AS there is no consensus on the change, I am going to reestablish the stable version that has been used for years. Aspects (talk) 23:30, 16 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Discussion has been moved to the article's talk page—where it should have started, but I didn't think it was necessary. --Musdan77 (talk) 04:29, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

American idol judges/presenters
Why were the judges/presenters for American Idol reverted back to list form? that way does not provide a very clear timeline of at what points which judges were on the show. also, it doesn't make it very clear what seasons each judge was on for. the chart provides all this info in a clear fashion, no? such as  here  or even here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cberman101 (talk • contribs) 14:31, 30 June 2011 (UTC)


 * The changes you made do not provide a very clear timeline and has been made in the past without any reasons mentioned. Also your chart for where the judges sat is needless trivia.  Per WP:BRD, take to the discussion page and try and get a consensus for the change. Aspects (talk) 22:19, 30 June 2011 (UTC)


 * perhaps but shouldn't there be some indication as to what seasons various judges were on the show for? Why is a list specifically better than a chart with columns for years and seasons? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cberman101 (talk • contribs) 23:25, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

genre changes
So, if I'll add source to my changes, for example for "My Life Would Suck Without You", it will be fine? or that anyway you rather it to be just "Pop rock"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.230.86.121 (talk) 12:53, 1 July 2011 (UTC)


 * It would have to be a Reliable source, so I would hold judgment until the source is provided. Aspects (talk) 21:56, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

non-free image
These two images you put back usually get deleted. I uploaded them long ago, and I guess I could vote them for deletion, but the picture of dudayev has a custom made background too. Fair use doesnt apply to deceased people as we could instead ask a photo to be released in public domain. In fact someone on ru.wiki is already trying to do that. So I suggest we remove them until then. Machinarium (talk) 17:56, 1 July 2011 (UTC)


 * You did not upload the two images unless you have different names here. Even you state that fair use does not apply to deceased people and both images state that there are no free images available in their replaceable fields. If you still feel they need to be deleted, you will have to take them to Files for deletion. Aspects (talk) 22:03, 1 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I'll do that then. And yes that was my old account. Machinarium (talk) 23:51, 1 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Hello aspects you placed back this picture again. There's a free image available on wiki commons, but I can't replace it because it has the exact same title.  Mash   Talk  13:46, 12 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Based on your edit summary, I thought there was a free image located on English Wikipedia, which I looked for and could not find since it is on Wiki Commons, I added it back. I will remove it so that it can be deleted and the Commons file can be added. Aspects (talk) 01:17, 13 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks. Mash   Talk  01:43, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Prof. Farnsworth.jpg
 Thanks for uploading File:Prof. Farnsworth.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).

PLEASE NOTE:


 * I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions.
 * I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
 * If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
 * To opt out of these bot messages, add  to your talk page.
 * If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 05:37, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Image question
First thanks for re-adding some of those removed images Black Kite removed. I thought he was being too strict with his removals. I did want your opinion on when it's okay to have more than two images on a page. When a page details several fictional character who look completely different, wouldn't it be okay to have a picture of each, since that would illustrate how different they are? For instance the article on Transformers characters named Demolishor... the different incarnations of that character look COMPLETELY different. The original was a robot tank, but the one from the 2009 Transformers was a giant wheel with shovels for arms. That seems like the sort of thing images are made for, to illustrate major differences. Mathewignash (talk) 02:10, 9 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I think it is something that would need to be discussed on the article talk page on a case by case situation, but if the characters look different enough, I would not be opposed to having more than two free images in an article. Aspects (talk) 02:23, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
 * So if I proposed a third picture in a talk page, and there was either majority support, or no objection for a long while, would it be okay to add a third picture IF the picture illustrated a vastly different version of a character? Mathewignash (talk) 02:32, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I would think so since a consensus would have been achieved about the use of the image. Aspects (talk) 02:33, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I added a proposal to the Demolishor talk page that a third image should be added. I'll wait a week and see if I get a response before I try adding anything. Mathewignash (talk) 02:36, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

images on Doubledealer
I was wondering if you could help. I had placed the single image of three TV frames (which demonstreate his three forms) on the Doubledealer page a while back, then user:Black Kite removed them under the reasoning that the page doesn't justify "3 non-free images", despite being one picture from a commercial that had three fames, he insists it's three seperate images. I then complained on a dispute resolution page, and the only other editor opinion was in my favor. You restored the image, and Black Kite removed it again. Is it possible get get some official call on this image? I think think it's justified, but Black Kite seems to think he owns non-free images despite 3 other editors coming in in favor of keeping it. Mathewignash (talk) 12:11, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of James R. Wigginton


The article James R. Wigginton has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * Notability never established.

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

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

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. I dream of horses If you reply here, please leave me a message on my talk page. @ 19:23, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Characters of Parks and Recreation
For the sake of keeping the conversation in one place, please see Talk:Characters of Parks and Recreation. —  Hun ter   Ka  hn  04:03, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

CBS News
I thought it would be more efficient to have an SVG file of CBS News' icon, instead of a low-quality JPEG... Why nominate File:CBS_News.svg for deletion? Aside from the CBS Eye, the file itself is public-domain as it is just Times New Roman serif text. RingtailedFox • Talk • Contribs 00:01, 11 July 2011 (UTC)


 * My two problems were that you did not explain why you made the change and that you but two logos in the infobox, which would be against WP:NFCC. Now that I know why you made the change, I think the article looks good. Aspects (talk) 02:34, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Riblja Corba album covers
I uploaded previous versions of album covers, and since it isn't possible to stretch the album cover across infobox anymore, I decided to upload new versions of album covers. So, why is that a problem? So what if those covers would have to be edited down? They can be decreased, and the smaller versions can't be enlarged. Ostalocutanje (talk) 12:19, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I have decided that I was going about this the wrong way and I will revert back to the larger images and then add a reduced template to the file pages. I am sorry for being stubborn on this issue instead of working towards a compromise. Aspects (talk) 00:52, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Ostalocutanje (talk) 11:44, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Please do not merge Rolling Stone tour articles without consensus
It has been brought to my attention that you have been redirecting the various articles on individual Rolling Stones tours, to affect merges. The AfD referred by you, Articles for deletion/Rolling Stones American Tour 1981, resulted in a decision of keep - which would have been as individual articles. It was noted by the closing admin that conducting merges was a possibility, but would be an editorial decision. As you are aware, editorial decisions are decided by consensus and as your BOLD attempt at establishing same have been Reverted you should now seek a Discussion to determine same. I would suggest that the appropriate talkpage for such a discussion is the Rolling Stones concerts article. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:43, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

File:Mohsen Yeganeh Rage Khab album cover.jpg
Hello, see the source of this album art, it says all right reserved on right of page but it also says all content under creative commons license which links to http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/ can i tag it with a creative commons license? Mjbmr Talk 06:59, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Posters
The posters for Grand Slam tournaments are entirely useless, in that they in no way help someone's understanding of the topic. They're marketing spin, and barely used marketing spin at that, and in the grand system, meaningless to the reader's comprehension. That is the very essence of non-free content criteria number 8. Courcelles 03:06, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

File:AmericanGangster-Soundtrack.jpg
I have again removed the image from the article. Yes, the album has its own section, but that's not really here nor there. It is generally assumed that a single cover image in an article about the album meets NFCC#8, but this does not extend to any other article that discusses the album, whether or not the album has its own article (usage or otherwise elsewhere doesn't really come in to it). This is particularly true when the cover itself is not even mentioned in the article, and when the cover image is practically identical to another image already used in the article. This is almost a textbook case of an unwarranted non-free image. J Milburn (talk) 16:16, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Coach trip flags
why did you take away the flags and north Africa

Post it on my talk page. Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Grieve29 (talk • contribs) 09:02, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks
The Indonesian TV pages get that like a regular cold... appreciate your vigilance - cheers SatuSuro 03:15, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Template:Kamen Rider
There's nothing on WP:MOS-JA or any manual of style that says that piped links in templates cannot be written in all caps. So please do not change them back, as they are intended to mimic the Japanese titles of the entries which is minimal and it's also a template FFS.— Ryūlóng ( 竜龙 ) 01:44, 16 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Under the section, Capitalization of words in Roman script, it states "However, these names and name elements are not excluded from the guidance provided by the main manuals of style for English-language Wikipedia, listed above. Words should not be written in all caps in the English Wikipedia." Templates are part of Wikipedia and should also follow the guidance. Also in my experience piped links should not use a different style than the title of the article being linked to. Aspects (talk) 23:28, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2011_August_17#Cheeks_.28Actor.29
See your previous comments regarding the deletion of Cheeks (Multimedia Artist). The article was recently recreated under Cheeks_(Actor) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gustovratto (talk • contribs) 20:15, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Nancy Sinatra image
On what basis did you add back that Nancy Sinatra image?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 23:34, 17 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Because the image passes all of the points at WP:NFCC. Aspects (talk) 23:41, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Are you an WP:NFCC content reviewer?
 * Have you seen the discussion in support of its removal at the recent FAC?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 23:57, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I am not a NFCC content reviewer. I went through the category of orphaned fair use images and added it back since it passes WP:NFCC and another editor, Status, felt the same way.  Having now seen the discussion of its FAC, I would disagree since it is not "superfluous", if the Sinatra version was the original it would have its own article and therefore should have the image to help readers understand the article. Aspects (talk) 00:43, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
 * You are the third person to readd this image. How come no one felt the same way about the Ray Charles image for the third version, what is the difference?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 01:59, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
 * P.S. is a WP:NFCC reviewer.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 02:01, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Shyamchi Aai image
Hi. I was your edits on the article Shyamchi Aai of reverting image. Older image satisfies all the criteria and the current one has rendering problem on couple of browsers like IE. Can you please let me know why the image is reverted? Thanks. -  Vivvt Talk 16:22, 28 August 2011 (UTC)


 * In a film's infobox, a theatrical poster should be used over the DVD cover image. There was no information about a rendering problem.  That is something you should bring up on the article's talk page in greater detail. Aspects (talk) 22:12, 28 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Please check comments on the article talk page. Thanks. -  Vivvt Talk 12:10, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Talkback
—  Jeff G. ツ  02:13, 3 September 2011 (UTC)