User talk:Lumdeloo/Archive 1

Glen Campbell
The use of the label and catalog # in the singles section, as well as the use of the Inspo charts. Inspo charts are not a major Billboard chart and are not verifiable as far as I can tell. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Many otters • One hammer • HELP) 15:47, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Best of The Glen Campbell Music Show


The article Best of The Glen Campbell Music Show and several others have been proposed for deletion by another editor &#32; because of the following concern:
 * no indication that this video meets any general or project-specific notability guideline

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.

To see other articles proposed for deletion, you can visit Category:Proposed deletion as of 29 July 2009.

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. Fg2 (talk) 12:49, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Re:Glen Campbell videos
In answer to your questions-
 * 1) The non-free content criteria (criteria 3 and 8 specifically) and the non-free content guidelines. There were also extensive discussions about the use of album covers in discographies- this is basically the same issue. The cover is not worthy of discussion, and the releases are not even worthy of their own articles. How you feel you can justify the use of the images is beyond me.
 * 2) We use non-free images when they meet the NFCC. We don't have "a single image" in every article or anything like that. The article has a single subject- "videos by Glen Campbell". Does an article on a band have multiple subjects because there are multiple members?
 * Yes, there is. It is generally accepted that, for instance, album covers are welcome in headers of articles about the album, logos in articles about companies, and so on. As such, these single "identifying" images can be used in their own articles, but should not be splayed around elsewhere. Think about it- if we can't even justify giving the subject an article, why, when what the cover looks like is of no particular importance, is it so important that a free content encyclopedia bends its rules to show the image, or, even worse, several images?
 * 1) I think non-free images are deleted five days after they are tagged as orphans. If they are deleted, they can easily be restored by any administrator if they are required at a later date. Restoring a non-free image to an article so that it is not deleted really does miss the point. J Milburn (talk) 20:57, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Glen Campbell videos
This is not a part of our "discussion", this is a warning from me, an administrator, to you, a user ignoring our policies and guidelines. Stop adding the images back to the article. If it is determined that any or all of them are needed, they can be added back, but at the moment, you have failed to even remotely demonstrate that these images are required. Continue to add these images back, we have an issue, and you will face blocks. J Milburn (talk) 17:18, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
 * If someone believes that calling someone else "a fucking nigger whore" (or whatever) is not a personal attack, does that mean that they have a right to restore it, "as long as there is an unresolved difference of opinion"? No. These images are in violation of policy at the moment, and you're going to have to demonstrate otherwise if you want them to stay. It's ok that you believe otherwise, but continually adding them back in the meantime is not acceptable. To give a real world example, I see no harm in prostitution (which is illegal where I am) per se, but that doesn't mean it's ok for me to go out and pick up young girls and pay them for sex as I see fit. Whether you like it or not, these guidelines are in place, and you're going to need to give specific reasons why these images are required in this article before we can even discuss adding them back. J Milburn (talk) 22:13, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Non-free content/Archive 44
Regarding your latest comment here, it's fairly clear that at least one of the following things are true:
 * 1) You lack even a basic understanding of the non-free content criteria, their purpose or their relationship with our non-free content guidelines
 * 2) You are incapable of reading or incapable of understanding what has been written
 * 3) You are a troll

Judging from our previous interactions, of which I have no memory, the first is true, and the third is plausible. Whatever the case may be, I advise you to take a back seat on further non-free content issues. If you're genuinely having difficulty in understanding why I am leaving you this message, I am willing to explain the problems. If you want to troll me, I am willing to block you. J Milburn (talk) 23:58, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Autopatrolled
Hello, this is just to let you know that I have granted you the "autopatrolled" permission. This won't affect your editing, it just automatically marks any page you create as patrolled, benefiting new page patrollers. Please remember:
 * This permission does not give you any special status or authority
 * Submission of inappropriate material may lead to its removal
 * You may wish to display the Autopatrolled top icon and/or the User wikipedia/autopatrolled userbox on your user page
 * If, for any reason, you decide you do not want the permission, let me know and I can remove it
 * If you have any questions about the permission, don't hesitate to ask. Otherwise, happy editing! Acalamari 21:17, 24 January 2011 (UTC)