User talk:Tigerghost/Archive 1

Notable Asexuals
I feel a little silly in doing this, but you might consider reading the following blogs: http://asexystuff.blogspot.com/2009/02/wikipedia-update.html and http://asexystuff.blogspot.com/2009/01/asexual-wikipedia-fight-reproduces-by.html --Freunlaven47 23:24, 15 April 2009

Wow, i was a little delayed in checking it...
So now that the 2000's page is gone, is there any way i can salvage an archived copy or some of the info from it? I want to at least save a copy for myself, just in case anyone ever wants to start it up again...Thanks, --Technofreak90 01:05, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks so much!
i sorta freaked out after I saw that the page was deleted, i guess ill just keep these as nostalgia, so in 2015 i can look back on all the obscure stuff that was popular in the 00's. Also, if u have any fads u see or find out, you can notify me, im still collecting them as a word doc. --Technofreak90 20:42, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

2008

 * Microsoft Surface

WikiProject Illinois 2007 Census
IvoShandor 11:23, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Illinois Post Census Report
IvoShandor 06:19, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

TfD nomination of Template:EUFads
Template:EUFads has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 15:31, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

AfD nomination of List of Musicals performed by QHS (Quincy, IL)
I have nominated List of Musicals performed by QHS (Quincy, IL), an article you created, for deletion. I do not feel that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Articles for deletion/List of Musicals performed by QHS (Quincy, IL). Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.  Web H amster  00:33, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Unspecified source for Image:QniHQ.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:QniHQ.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, then you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, then their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the GFDL-self tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Fair use, use a tag such as or one of the other tags listed at Image copyright tags. See Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following [ this link]. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 22:43, 4 January 2008 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Calliopejen1 (talk) 22:43, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:WEWBquincy.JPG
Thanks for uploading Image:WEWBquincy.JPG. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 06:42, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:KHQAlogo.JPG)
Thanks for uploading Image:KHQAlogo.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 'image' 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 "Image" 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. BJBot (talk) 12:08, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Recent edits
Please do not make substantial edits as you did to the 1990's article, without proper discussion. Your edits appear to be vandalism, and has been reverted.Buddha24 (talk) 02:06, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Edits
Belated reply to your query on my talk page. Cheers! Unschool (talk) 05:57, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Redirect of 1990s in science and technology
Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on 1990s in science and technology, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because 1990s in science and technology is a redirect to a non-existent page (CSD R1). To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting 1990s in science and technology, please affix the template to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that '''this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. To see the user who deleted the page, click here''' CSDWarnBot (talk) 19:40, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Joshandsam.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Joshandsam.jpg. You've indicated that the image is being used under a claim of fair use, but you have not provided an adequate explanation for why it meets Wikipedia's requirements for such images. In particular, for each page the image is used on, the image must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Can you please check


 * That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for each article the image is used in.
 * That every article it is used on is linked to from its description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. --FairuseBot (talk) 02:25, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Wgcalogo.JPG
Thanks for uploading Image:Wgcalogo.JPG. You've indicated that the image is being used under a claim of fair use, but you have not provided an adequate explanation for why it meets Wikipedia's requirements for such images. In particular, for each page the image is used on, the image must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Can you please check


 * That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for each article the image is used in.
 * That every article it is used on is linked to from its description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. --FairuseBot (talk) 03:44, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of "Tough Guys Wear Pink"
A tag has been placed on "Tough Guys Wear Pink" requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding  to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you. Paste (talk) 17:19, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with File:Cgem.JPG
Thanks for uploading File:Cgem.JPG. You've indicated that the image is being used under a claim of fair use, but you have not provided an adequate explanation for why it meets Wikipedia's requirements for such images. In particular, for each page the image is used on, the image must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Can you please check


 * That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for each article the image is used in.
 * That every article it is used on is linked to from its description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. --FairuseBot (talk) 13:56, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Request
Hello, User:Tigerghost. I have noticed from your user page that you are a fan of or have an interest in The Smurfs series. There is currently a discussion concerning the merging of all individual articles on Smurf video games into one bigger article. I do not believe that any of the editors involved in the discussion (myself included) know much about the games and I was hoping you could provide us with the benefit of your opinion as an editor knowledgeable about the subject. If you are not interested in helping or if you believe yourself incapable at this time then please disregard this message. The discussion is currently under way here. Thanks for your time. -Thibbs (talk) 21:45, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:2000s fads
A tag has been placed on Category:2000s fads, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G4 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a deletion debate, such as at articles for deletion. Under the specified criteria, where an article has substantially identical content to that of an article deleted after debate, and any changes in the content do not address the reasons for which the material was previously deleted, it may be deleted at any time.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding  to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. Oli Filth(talk&#124;contribs) 04:06, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

CfD nomination of Category:2000s fads
I have nominated 2000s fads for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. Jamie  S93  00:43, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
 * It's a procedural nomination, since I decided to decline the speedy. It was last CfD'd in 2007, and since part of the issue was the decade having 2 years to go, we need new consensus. The last CfD made a good point about the OR potential with labeling items as "fads", but that would probably apply to the other decades, too, like you said. Best, Jamie  S93  00:48, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Near future in television
An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Near future in television. 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 "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/Near future in television. 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) 01:09, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

US state infobox
Hi - just a note that I moved your topic to the bottom of the page, in case you were wondering where it went. Alexius Horatius  06:51, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Regarding same box- I fixed it and posted a message on the talk page. Please try to edit the state pages you were interested in updating and let me know if my fix needs more fixing. Happy editing :)  MJKazin (talk) 17:15, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi again. You were actually very close to getting the infobox working- there was just a minor mistake in the way you named the parameter. If you are ever interested in learning more about infoboxes, there's some really good help to get you started. A good idea I found while learning to fix that box was mentioned here; it explains how you can play around in your "userspace" without having to worry about breaking things. Since there's consensus about removing the electoral vote from the box, I'll be reverting those relevant changes we've made. Thanks again for contributing and don't get discouraged. MJKazin (talk) 16:37, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

December 2009
Welcome to Wikipedia. The recent edit you made to Norm Macdonald (comedian) has been reverted, as it introduced negative or controversial biographical material without providing a reliable source for this information. Wikipedia requires that all such material be sourced to address the issue of libel. Thank you. NellieBly (talk) 07:38, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Tackling the Pope
...is a news story, hardly one of the most notable events of 2009 or any year. If you want it included start a discussion at Talk:2009. (Talk Contribs) 00:10, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Articles for deletion nomination of 2011 in music
I have nominated 2011 in music, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Articles for deletion/2011 in music&. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. —Largo Plazo (talk) 06:58, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

2010 in music debate
helpme

I am not looking for you to personally involve yourself with a peculiar incident being raised now at the 2010 in music page, but I seek some advice. A little while ago, I regionalized the 2010 in music article. I created 2010 in American music, 2010 in European music, 2010 in Canadian music, ect.. with the primary 2010 in music page being a set indice and the pages are much easier to read now. The previous year articles were unbelievably long, there were many POV statements, and they were undoubtably very US-centric, even though Wikipedia is supposed to be global. There is a debate on whether or not to revert my edits to clump all of that material back into one page, and I'm confused on what to actually do. Should I give in and allow another year in music article to be disorganized? Should I fight this? What concensus can be made? I think I'm in way over my head with this one and I can't dictate on the future of an article - even if I know my edits progress it. I need help. (Tigerghost (talk) 03:03, 31 December 2009 (UTC))
 * Hello Tigerghost, we can not assist you with dispute resolution. Attempt to discuss the article on its talk page. Assert your view, and collaborate with others for a solution. If that doesn't work, follow the steps listed in the prior link. Thanks, –blurpeace (talk) 03:28, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

It's fairly clear that people dislike the change. As you were the editor who disrupted the article, I feel it is your responsibility to reintegrate the page... 74.241.88.66 (talk) 10:09, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I will not involve myself in the chaotic nature of that article's debate anymore. If people wish to continue the US-centric and poor structure of that article than by all means change it. However, the fine editors of the British, European, Irish, and Canadian music pages for 2010 in music may have further conflicts with you. I have been criticized by American editors while foreign editors prefer the change. I do not make the rules on Wikipedia's standards, but I will enforce them when nessasary, especially on pages that are extremely long, long to load, and heavily debated. If it is changed back, I will include a "split" suggestion and a "too long" notice to Administrators again. (Tigerghost (talk) 20:04, 13 January 2010 (UTC))
 * Just because people have been editing the individual pages does not mean that they "like" the change - if anything they are making sure that the information is there for when the pages are reintegrated to the way they were before, which is clearly what the community wants. There is not a SINGLE supportive comment of this change - by foreign editors or otherwise - on the Talk page for 2010 in Music or the individual nation-oriented pages. As others have pointed out on the 2010 in Music Talk page, there may indeed have been issues with the yearly music entry in the past, but the solution was NOT to completely reorganize the entry in a fashion that actually makes it LESS useful. In the future, please, do not make such a radical change to an article when the community has not fully endorsed such a change. It is clear that no one likes what you have done here. 70.156.75.218 (talk) 20:29, 13 January 2010 (UTC)


 * 2003 in Irish music
 * 2004 in Irish music
 * 2005 in Irish music
 * 2006 in Irish music
 * 2007 in Irish music
 * 2008 in Irish music
 * 2009 in Irish music
 * 2010 in Irish music
 * 1999 in British music
 * 2000 in British music
 * 2001 in British music
 * 2002 in British music
 * 2003 in British music
 * 2004 in British music
 * 2005 in British music
 * 2006 in British music
 * 2007 in British music
 * 2008 in British music
 * 2009 in British music
 * 2010 in British music; I rest my case. There is a need for regionalized pages. (Tigerghost (talk) 20:34, 13 January 2010 (UTC))
 * No one is saying that the regionalized pages should not exist at all - but pretty much everyone except you agrees that there needs to be a unified entry as well, which there was until you changed it. 70.156.75.218 (talk) 20:42, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Who? There is a silent majority here that is completely fine with the given changes. There have already been over 50+ edits to the American page alone, meaning that 1. Most of the edits show an American bias on global music, and 2. That the most critical opinions are American editors. Besides, why have a global page and regional pages? It is redundant and a waste of Wikipedia server space. A set indice splits articles that share similar names, or content. If you want a global perspective on music, then edit more on the specific genre articles. They are not limited to regions. (Tigerghost (talk) 20:49, 13 January 2010 (UTC))
 * As others have pointed out on the Music in 2010 Talk page, if there were people who strongly supported this change, they would have vocalized it. It has been over two weeks since the entry was eviscerated and no one has spoken up in support of the new format. You're conflating your own personal view of how something should be organized with what the community has clearly asserted to be the most useful. 70.156.75.218 (talk) 21:06, 13 January 2010 (UTC)


 * My suggestion for (recent?) Year in Music articles would be to establish a guideline similar to that at recent years. The 2009 in music is clearly far too large and contains far too much material which is either insufficiently notable for an international article or would be more appropriately placed in a country/region or genre music article. The albums list is far too large to be included when it has an article of its own, I'd suggest either a top 10 by sales or albums which won major awards (whatever they are determined to be). It also seems that popular music, while to be expected as the dominant genre seems to be excessiviley dominant in the 2009 article and the same might be said for the dominance of US music. (Talk Contribs) 08:36, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

RE: Greetings
I mostly just police 20XX in heavy metal music articles. There is a highly disruptive puppeteer continuing to edit these articles. So disruptive that several administrators urged me to create a separate page just to outline his behavior (here). About 85% of the rest of the edits are performed by another editor that really hates policies and guidelines, so I just watch over him to make sure things are in order. And sure, I will occasionally contribute here and there. Personally, I do not feel these articles should be divided among genre either. It just becomes a breeding ground for heavy POV edits and petty arguments over what defines a metal band/album. There is kind of grey area between hard rock, heavy metal, and alternative metal. What if the band once played metal but went in a more punk direction with more recent albums? What if it's a fusion of metal and punk? What if they were rock and now play metal? What about side projects of metal bands? Metal "purists" also reject nu metal as a real genre. It's all very annoying. I don't know how familiar you are with editing band/album articles, but genres are always the cause of disruptive editing. Essays at User:Realist2/Genre Warrior and User:Scarian/Genre trolls outline the music community's feelings toward genre related edits.

Having just one page for all music like 2009 in music had no arguments, it was just about albums and news with no regard for nationality or genre. Plain and simple. But sure, even that's flawed. It's massive and clumsy. But, dividing this article won't alter the systemic bias of Wikipedia. Just because we now have a separate article for British music, doesn't change the fact that most Wikipedia editors are American. I was actually using 2010 in music for was a one-stop visit for all things music, and given the response, so did a lot of other people. Personally, I don't care where bands originate from, I kind of see music just as music. I used the page to find new bands as well, regardless of genre or nationality. My opinions aside, nothing further should be done from this point until more editors weigh in. Not just the IPs. Though, I did like the suggestion of having separate articles for albums, disbandment, events and whatnot.

I intended to start a conversation about the changes you were going to make when I left this: So you will just be more or less moving stuff around to new pages and not altering the content? I was out of town at the time, and when I found time to return to a computer, the changes had already taken place. A massive change like this should have had a Split-apart notice, and opened a discussion for several weeks. Most of the edits to the original article were from IPs that do not regularly check discussion pages without being directed from a template. Fezmar9 (talk) 07:58, 14 January 2010 (UTC)