User talk:ProhibitOnions/Archive10

Handover at Deletion Review
Hello ProhibitOnions. See Deletion review/Log/2010 May 3, where your A5 speedy deletion of the previous Handover article has been mentioned. The deleted article appears to have been unsourced, so I don't know what is best to do. Calling this a 'Transwiki' situation might not be 100% accurate, since the old Wikipedia revisions did not get moved to Wiktionary. Holding an AfD might be one option. This does get confusing. EdJohnston (talk) 12:26, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

New titles for British governmental ministries.
Hi. You altered the style of the titles of most recent British ministries from Brown Ministry to Cabinet of Gordon Brown. The Cabinet (i.e. the collection of ministers) isn't quite the same thing as a Ministry (i.e. the term of office of a Prime Minister). In particular, I must oppose the title Cabinet of Harold Wilson's second prime ministership - this is appallingly convoluted. Surely, if the term Cabinet is to be used, the title should be Second Cabinet of Harold Wilson. Even if you use the current style, the term is Premiership, not Prime Ministership. BartBassist (talk) 14:55, 13 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Sure, we can change it, if there's consensus on a better title. However, besides its extra-syllable unwieldiness there is nothing wrong with the term "prime ministership"; for one, it is less ambiguous than "premiership". We already have articles about the various PMs' terms of office (Premiership of Tony Blair, etc.) so an article listing cabinet members needs a title that is clearly differentiated from these. As the cabinet can change completely during the term in office, I thought it best to avoid the "second cabinet" construction, as it can be nitpicked about how many cabinets there are during a premiership. (And of course, it's technically the Queen's cabinet, not Gordon Brown's.) Regards, Pro hib it O ni o ns  (T) 20:23, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Picture Ikarus 280 from Berlin
can you upload this in commons too, that we can use it in german wikipedia?Sandmann4u (talk) 10:55, 17 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Sorry it took so long. Done. Pro hib it O ni o ns  (T) 12:27, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Alright, there are more important things. The pic is now included as first picture in the german article. You are free to delete this section - problem is solved. Sandmann4u (talk) 02:54, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

History Of Hard Disk Drives - 1950s to 1990s
According to WP:ELYES "Links to be considered

...

3. Sites that contain neutral and accurate material that is relevant to an encyclopedic understanding of the subject and cannot be integrated into the Wikipedia article due to copyright issues, amount of detail ..."

The link you removed meets these criteria. I fail to understand why you remove it without providing a replacement and I suspect any replacement would be less compressive than the link. Tom94022 (talk) 00:47, 2 June 2010 (UTC)


 * You seem to be under a misunderstanding of what a link is there for. The very first sentence in WP:EYLES is "Wikipedia articles may include links to web pages outside Wikipedia, but they should not normally be used in the body of an article." You can't substitute a link to an outside source (and possibly not a reliable source, see WP:SOURCE) for actual content. Write a section that includes this information and provide reliable sources to back it up: "If the website or page to which you want to link includes information that is not yet a part of the article, consider using it as a source for the article, and citing it." Pro hib it O ni o ns  (T) 08:40, 2 June 2010 (UTC)


 * The sentence you quote is at the very beginning of the Wikipedia:External links article and says "Wikipedia articles may include links..." (emphasis added) which then at ELYES, cited above, clearly states that this sort of material should be linked.  You seem to be deliberately ignoring the clear language of this content guideline.  The linked material is neutral, accurate encyclopedic and cannot be integrated into the article because of detail and copyright.  Any subset would be less informative. Tom94022 (talk) 15:22, 2 June 2010 (UTC)


 * The place for this discussion is External links/Noticeboard and it is now posted here. At most you should place the Template:External_links template on the section not delete it. It really does no one any good to delete the link to comprehensive material without replacing it or justifying the deletion Tom94022 (talk) 16:22, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for File:DaggorathScreenshot.jpg
Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:DaggorathScreenshot.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the file description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. 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 media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 10:59, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for File:DaggorathWizard.png
Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:DaggorathWizard.png. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the file description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. 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 media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 11:01, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Taqiyya
FYI, I removed the copyrighted material from the article but retained your trimmed headers. Thanks! Stile4aly (talk) 17:34, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Great, I didn't have time to do it myself. Cheers, Pro hib it O ni o ns  (T) 19:28, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Nomination of Duck Head for deletion
A discussion has begun about whether the article Duck Head, which you created or to which you contributed, should be deleted. While contributions are welcome, an article may be deleted if it is inconsistent with Wikipedia policies and guidelines for inclusion, explained in the deletion policy.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Duck Head until a consensus is reached, and you are welcome to contribute to the discussion.

You may edit the article during the discussion, including to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Fæ (talk) 07:05, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Proposed merge of List of magical negro archetypes in fiction into Magical negro
Hi,

As you have recently edited one of the two articles mentioned, I am notifying you of the proposed merger. Please comment at Talk:Magical negro. Thank you, Bigger digger (talk) 17:02, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for File:EdselShowTitles.jpg
Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:EdselShowTitles.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the file description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. 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 media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 14:21, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

slider
I don't wish to start an edit war, so I am going to talk to you about the changes you have made to the article here. The term is not just used by White Castle but other chains such as Applebees and Unos have been using the terms for several years now. The term "slyders" was what WC used because they found sliders had been generasized when they went to trademark it in 93.

Could you please revert your changes as they are factually incorrect? --06:22, 2 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I don't see any real disagreement here. I didn't say the term is only used by WC - some of the web sites I've been looking at (but nothing that is really good source material - yet) suggest the term originated with the US Navy in the 1940s, though it has long been closely associated with White Castle (their in-house newsletter was called "The Slider Chronicle" or something). And I also noted that the silly but trademarkable spelling "slyder", which they invented in 1993, was used by WC because "slider" is a generic term; however, they've reverted to using "slider" - just look at their website. And read my edit summaries. Pro hib it O ni o ns  (T) 23:40, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Orange Order
Would you like to finish that move and bring the talkpage and history along, please? Thanks. (Also, there's an WP:AN discussion regarding this at the moment.)--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:41, 31 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Sure thing, though the move I did appeared to be correct. It seems someone might have done a cut-and-paste move since then as has happened to the article in the past. I'll take a look. Pro hib it O ni o ns  (T) 20:06, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

File:Fredbarrie.jpg listed for deletion
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Fredbarrie.jpg, has been listed at Files for deletion. Please see the to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Damiens .rf 17:12, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Request for comment
This message is being sent to you because you have previously edited the Naming conventions (use English) page. There is currently a discussion that may result in a significant change to Wikipedia policy. Specifically, a consensus is being sought on if the policies of WP:UCN and WP:EN continues to be working policies for naming biographical articles, or if such policies have been replaced by a new status quo. This discussion is on-going at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (use English), and your comments would be appreciated. Dolovis (talk) 17:08, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

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

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude2 (talk) 05:14, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

FM3
What would have sufficed to show the significance of this music group? I feel like a quick googling of "fm3" and "china" would probably present a wealth of evidence? Thanks, --Makuro (talk) 07:52, 20 June 2011 (UTC)


 * I know the group myself, so I am aware of the sources available, and searched for better sources myself. However, I didn't see it achieving notability. After three years, the article itself said little about the duo (despite evidently being largely self-written), and read primarily as an ad for a product of theirs, the Buddha Machine; the single link from a major news outlet also indicated that the group was not particularly significant. There are lots and lots of similar DJing/sampling acts out there, but as cool as they may be, they can't all have vanity articles on WP. Pro hib it O ni o ns  (T) 13:51, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

I found two or three articles about them at the New York Times just now. Sorry I missed the nomination for deletion, I would have tried to add these citations to the article if they weren't there already. Hewinsj (talk) 13:18, 22 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Are they about them as a band or about the Buddha Machine? Pro hib it O ni o ns  (T) 13:19, 22 June 2011 (UTC)


 * One was written about the Buddha Machine but included biographical information of the band and commentary on their repetitive composition style. This one was probably the strongest article as far as information about the band goes.  Another article mentioned them as part of the growing experimental music scene in China, but they were not the main focus of the article.  A third article was just a paragraph that specifically reviewed the Buddha machine and probably won't be much help.  After reviewing them, these may not be substantial enough to achieve notability but it's everything I've been able to find So far if you would like to take a look.  Hewinsj (talk) 14:40, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

i find no real basis for the deletion of the buddha machine and FM3 page. there are many other pages out there for "products" and as a band, we consider and have always considered the buddha machine a "release" no different than a vinyl, cd or cassette... this has been stated repeatedly in interviews online and in print. is not all music released on a physical format a "product"? if you have a problem with the buddha machine page, you should edit it, not make a wholesale deletion... or perhaps change it to a "band" page and detail FM3, which has been featured in NYT, wall st. journal, Wire, New Yorker, SF chronicle and i can go on and on with major media references (in english, deutsche, spanish, italian, chinese, etc)... if these fail to show the siginificance of the group, then perhaps the significance of most bands on wikipedia needs to be reevaluated? i suggest re-establishment of the page, and then i can add the dozens of media articles (many behind paywalls, however) to link on it giving it the proper "significance" you require... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mandopop (talk • contribs) 10:43, 9 July 2011 (UTC)


 * The basis for deletion was A7, "An article that does not indicate why its subject is important or significant." The article had one sentence about the band, and then only that they are "best known for the Buddha Machine," which it then went on to describe in glowing terms. No history, no description of their music, no information about the members, nothing. The article also failed all the criteria in WP:BAND, including #1, as the press coverage must be "non-trivial", such as a discussion of the music; the sole NYT article said nothing about this, only about the Buddha Machine, and indicated that FM3 had sold only 1,000 copies of an album; other sources, such as those provided by User:Hewinsj above, have yet to answer this definitively. Furthermore, the article read like an advertisment and appeared to have been written by band members, or those close to them, which is a bit of a no-no (see WP:AB and "Close relationships" under WP:COI); if FM3 is notable, this should not be necessary, as third parties will generally write the article. However, after a month without one, no new article on FM3 has appeared. Rather than trying to "get the page back up", you might want to think about what an encyclopedia article would say about the band, for that is what Wikipedia is. (You might also wish to read up on what it is not.) For example, have a look at Joy Division, which is a featured article, one of the best on WP. Or Butthole Surfers, a good article.


 * But from your perspective, a speedy deletion is far preferable to an AfD discussion, after which it would be a lot more difficult to create an article about the subject because there would then be a consensus to overcome.


 * I'm not saying that FM3 or the Buddha Machine isn't worthy for inclusion in WP (it is also possible that only one or the other is). Lots of bands try to add pages about themselves to WP, and most get deleted, so to avoid this an article has to satisfy Wikipedia criteria: it must be encyclopedic, verifiable, written from a neutral point of view, not contain original research, and preferably not be self-written. The subject must be notable - again, there are specific guidelines for band notability; and references to the subject in the required third-party sources must be non-trivial (and preferably in English). But even if these are met, the question must be asked if a separate article is required. For instance, the Buddha Machine is already mentioned in the music loop article; perhaps this could be expanded, as the much more numerous Buddhist loop players upon which the Buddha Machine is based are mentioned only in passing and surely deserve a section here. If you would like to request someone else write the article to avoid crashing into WP:YOURSELF, this can be done, too. Now, if we can fix these things, I'd be glad to help. Pro hib it O ni o ns  (T) 13:01, 9 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I've decided to restore the page, as you say you have sources that can establish notability. Even if this is so, the article needs to be improved to meet the abovementioned criteria. Pro hib it O ni o ns  (T) 23:48, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Non-free rationale for File:NBCUNICEFpromo.jpg
 Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:NBCUNICEFpromo.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under non-free content criteria, but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia is acceptable. Please go to the file description page, and edit it to include a non-free rationale.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified the non-free rationale on those pages too. 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 media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 12:54, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Tag removal
Hello. You removed an unbalanced tag on Gaza flotilla raid. Please note that discussion is taking place on the talk page over these concerns. With respect, unless you've read through the article and looked thoroughly at the sources given, please add the tag back.  Night w   06:56, 6 September 2011 (UTC)


 * There's no current discussion about unbalance on the talk page, with many edits having been made since the tag was added two months ago that seem to have cleared up most of the issues. The article now broadly addresses both sides of the issue, to the extent that the tag is no longer helpful, or would be better replaced with a controversial tag if necessary. However, if you're seeing something I'm not, feel free to re-add the tag. Pro hib it O ni o ns  (T) 18:04, 6 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Can't. With it being under ARBPIA, I can't add it back more than once. I found the decision to remove it the first time to be an attempt to shotgun the article's nomination at WP:ITN/C, hence my revert. Most of the major concerns have been addressed in the last few hours, though, and since the article has now also been linked on the main page, the tag should probably be left off anyway. Discussion has been taking place at the bottom of the talk page, in case you want to pitch in...  Night w   21:00, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

For disclosure.
I mentioned your edit here. I previously removed the tag, once from the article, then reverted another editor before self-reverting an hour later. I claimed you removed the tag again under my same reasoning. In any case, let me know if I mis-represented your actions and I will strike out the statements. Wikifan Be nice 00:00, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:PrincePolo.jpg)
Thanks for uploading File:PrincePolo.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 media 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 all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Calliopejen1 (talk) 15:53, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Good work
At Oneworld lead. Leaky Caldron  10:51, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Categories for discussion nomination of Category:Early videotape recordings
Category:Early videotape recordings, which you created, has been nominated for discussion. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:33, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Please revert your spam move.
There was a requested move in the not too distant past of the move you just unilaterally made, Talk:Spam_(disambiguation). It failed 3-1, and I'd have voted fail as well had I thought it necessary. Please move the pages back and file a WP:RM for your change if you still want to do it before bots start rearranging links uselessly. (While I'm not normally one to stand on procedure for uncontroversial moves, you didn't even drop a note on the talk page. And this clearly is controversial seeing as it was tried and failed before.) SnowFire (talk) 20:48, 28 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Seeing no response, I've moved the page back myself. If you think the pages would be better swapped in positions, please use the procedure at WP:RM and initiate a discussion. SnowFire (talk) 06:37, 1 February 2012 (UTC)


 * The RM in 2010 produced no consensus due to an unclear move proposal and only one substantive comment. I moved the articles around per WP:BOLD, so that the primary term (the meat) is at Spam, as per the subsequent discussion. As you suggest, you can use the WP:RM procedure if you disagree with this. Pro hib it O ni o ns  (T) 07:10, 1 February 2012 (UTC)


 * No, that is seriously not how it works. If you want to invoke WP:BRD, fine, you were being bold, you got reverted, and now you're supposed to *discuss*, not simply use your administrator stick and do the same move over again and put the onus on others.  It's similar to how after an AFD has resulted in 'keep', you absolutely cannot speedy delete a page; you have to put it up for AFD again.  If a requested move has failed, it must be discussed again.  Let me just quote from WP:RM:

If any of the following situations applies to the requested move, it should be treated as controversial:


 * There is an existing article at the target title
 * There has been any past debate about the best title for the page
 * Someone could reasonably disagree with the move


 * All three apply! It's a controversial move, so it gets a discussion.


 * I'd be happy to discuss this with you but you are literally providing nothing. "Only one substantive comment?"  Your argument seems to end at "it's obvious it should be the way I want."  What is this "subsequent discussion?"  There is no subsequent discussion on Talk:Spam (food) nor on [[Talk:Spam_(disambiguation).  I don't see why you think process is something others should follow, not yourself.  Please revert your revert and file a requested move and *explain yourself*.  As you have not, I have nothing to argue against aside from "revert undiscussed move because ProhibitOnions thinks Spam the food should be at Spam because he apparently likes it better that way." SnowFire (talk) 07:44, 1 February 2012 (UTC)