User talk:Tuzapicabit/Archive 4

Straw poll on reliable sources for Eurovision articles
The second RfC on sourcing for Eurovision articles has now being running for several weeks, you can view it at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Eurovision. In order to help gauge the spread of opinion and draw conclusions from this discussion a straw poll has been started at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Eurovision. All project members are encouraged to read the RfC thoroughly and then cast their votes as they see fit. Rationales are still encouraged in the main discussion area above the poll, and participants can add appropriate new sources or options to the poll as they wish. Camaron · Christopher · talk 19:12, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject Eurovision Newsletter - July 2009
Note: the Newsletter is "collapsed" for convenience. To see the full letter, click on the "show" button at the right end of the gray bar. If you are no longer interested in WikiProject Eurovision then please remove your name from this list. This Newsletter was delivered by Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 23:15, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

List of celebrity and notable guest appearances in Doctor Who
There's a new AfD nomination for an article you've previously discussed. Please stop by to voice your opinions again.  Czech Out  ☎ | ✍  11:47, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

One hit wonders
I notice Chad Jackson is included in the article's listing. His single reached number 3 (not number one) in the UK Singles Chart. See his own article for referenced verification - care to re-visit this one, or have you had enough of the whole piece ?!

Derek R Bullamore (talk) 18:39, 14 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for spotting that. It's gone now. I see the page has been reformatted, which is fine, I'm quite happy to let it go now.--Tuzapicabit (talk) 00:13, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image (File:Jay Aston in 1983.jpg)
 Thanks for uploading File:Jay Aston in 1983.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) 18:15, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Good Job!
Re List of guest appearances in Doctor Who, I just wanted to say well done on cutting through the c**p and pushing the 'be bold' button. It remains to be seen how things will turn out long term, but I think with several of us working together to improve the article things are moving in the right direction.--ThePaintedOne (talk) 07:45, 26 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you. I started it slowly as I suspected that it may have been immediately reverted, but it's good to see other people continuing with it. It'll never be my favourite aticle, but at least something could be done. It's good to discuss, but eventually the work has to start sometime. Cheers and well done too on your edits.--Tuzapicabit (talk) 12:13, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject Eurovision Newsletter - August 2009
Note: the Newsletter is "collapsed" for convenience. To see the full letter, click on the "show" button at the right end of the gray bar. If you are no longer interested in WikiProject Eurovision then please remove your name from this list. This Newsletter was delivered by Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 16:55, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Shirley Bassey
I seem to have resolved the question about the 1971 Big Spender album (though sellers refer to it as 1967, the picture on the album is Shirley from around 1971, so 1967 must refer to the copyright date of the original album 'And We Were Lovers.') Anyway, I hope that from time to time you continue check in on the Shirley Bassey Discography, if just a quick check for any glaring errors.--Nyctc7 (talk) 19:49, 18 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Could you please keep an eye on this article. You will see from recent editing that, not for the first time, we have a user trying to force their version of the 'facts' on the whole world. Unless I am completely wrong, it is in violation of Verifiability. Thank you,


 * Derek R Bullamore (talk) 00:08, 30 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes will do, thanks.--Tuzapicabit (talk) 17:01, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

I saw you have re-added the Singles Album to the Chrono box, I agree that the album is an important album in her career but where does one draw the line on Compiltions? The reason it was removed was to keep the album chrono correct...makes it clearer and easier to follow her recording career nad not just re-release and compilations? Would like to hear your views on this. Dutchdean (talk) 20:35, 8 November 2009 (UTC)


 * It should be kept chronological. The singles album was an important album and most other artists include all official compilations (ie. the ones released by the then current record company) as part of the chronology. Re-releases obviously shouldn't be counted - indeed, they shouldn't have their own articles anyway and of course any budget, non-official compilations shouldn't be included (or given articles).--Tuzapicabit (talk) 10:47, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

We agree it should be kept chronological, but chronological this is the odd one out...it includes not new material. it is important I feel that a discography should be kept free of clutter. The album is worthy of an article but does not have anything to do with her recording career in this period of time. Re-release should be added within album articles if worthy of a mention...agreed to. Items that include notable material may be included eg. Box sets etc. Thanks for you response. Dutchdean (talk) 20:47, 13 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Sorry, but "kept free of clutter" isn't really what we're about - ignoring things because they make it difficult. Her two biggest selling albums in the UK can hardly be described as "clutter". Check other major artists chronolgies such as The Beatles or ABBA and you will see that compilations are very definitely included. This album also was important to her recording career at the time as its high sales kept the record company interested and buying public interested enough in her next album to give it a #13 placing (such placings which fell away without the compilations). To sum up - this album was released by United Artists (her record label) and advertised accordingly, there is no reason it shouldn't be included unless you specify the label: "Shirley Bassey studio album chronology".--Tuzapicabit (talk) 21:14, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject Eurovision Newsletter - September and October 2009
Note: the Newsletter is "collapsed" for convenience. To see the full letter, click on the "show" button at the right end of the gray bar. If you are no longer interested in WikiProject Eurovision then please remove your name from this list. This Newsletter was delivered by Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 19:33, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Disputed non-free use rationale for File:Bucks Fizz coach crash.jpg
Thank you for uploading File:Bucks Fizz coach crash.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this file on Wikipedia may not meet the criteria required by Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the file description page and adding or clarifying the reason why the file qualifies under this policy. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your file is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a non-free use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for files used under the non-free content policy require both a copyright tag and a non-free use rationale.

If it is determined that the file does not qualify under the non-free content policy, it might be deleted by an administrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. dave pape (talk) 18:53, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

The Nolans
Hi, I checked the sources (one of which is a dead link and one - Denise Nolans website - has now moved) in the 2009 reunion section before I added the fact tags. However, I couldn't find anything (though I could very easily have missed it) to verify this part: "The others have said that the decision was made by Universal, who are sponsoring the tour, due to this being the line-up that enjoyed the most success back in the early 1980s." Which source is that in please, as it can then be added to verify it? Thank you, have fun.-- ♦Tangerines♦ · Talk 17:12, 28 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi. It's mentioned in the MailOnline piece. I could have sworn there was an article by Coleen as well, which has either disappeared or I just read it elsewhere - but she has stated it on a number of occasions. I've changed the article to past tense now that it's over and fixed the dead link - it was just wrongly formatted (although not much of a ref anyway). Cheers.--Tuzapicabit (talk) 17:39, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:I Capricorn Shirley Bassey.jpg
 Thanks for uploading File:I Capricorn Shirley Bassey.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. Skier Dude ( talk ) 05:56, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Shirlmusic.jpg
 Thanks for uploading File:Shirlmusic.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. Skier Dude ( talk ) 06:14, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject Eurovision Newsletter - November and December 2009
Note: the Newsletter is "collapsed" for convenience. To see the full letter, click on the "show" button at the right end of the gray bar. If you are no longer interested in WikiProject Eurovision then please remove your name from this list. This Newsletter was delivered by  xenobot  14:45, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

WikiProject Eurovision Newsletter - January and February 2010
Note: the Newsletter is "collapsed" for convenience. To see the full letter, click on the "show" button at the right end of the gray bar. If you are no longer interested in WikiProject Eurovision then please remove your name from this list. This Newsletter was delivered by  xenobot  14:10, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Personal issue?
I am not totally fed up with your negative editing. You make statements that are not correct. B-sides may be added to a discography - is also usual on other artists. I will be reporting this constant editing of my work please refrain from just removing items. If I make a mistake you can also use a postive manner and contact me with tips. You are just deleting for no reason. Dutchdean (talk) 14:34, 17 March 2010 (UTC) The rules on B-sides are ONLY proposed. Deleting another editor's valuable contribution on the basis of following proposed guidelines that are still under discussion is not correct! Dutchdean (talk) 19:39, 17 March 2010 (UTC)


 * OK, since I don't know you, this is hardly a personal issue. It is about making the article in question as good as it can be. Listing B-sides confuses the issue into what we're reading. The section lists her singles - a single is released under it's A-side title (as an album is released under an umbrella title). Unless you are going to list every song to convey an album, then the same should be true for singles. Let's look at it this way, what is a single? It's (usually) a two-sided record with one song on each side. The A-side is the one that counts (ie - the song that's played on the radio, the one that's promoted, the one that everyone knows etc), the B-side is added on just to make up space and in many cases is considered a "throwaway", insignificant track. These should not be listed with equal importance to a A-side as you have done. There are few examples of B-sides being listed (The Beatles being one - but that is a special case as almost all of their B-sides have articles of their own and are considered worthy of mention). Let's look however at some other notable artists: ABBA discography, Madonna singles discography, Michael Jackson singles discography, The Rolling Stones discography - no, they don't list B-sides. Some others however will list B-sides in a separate boxed-off section for songs that do not appear on albums (or previously released A-sides), that, I would be fine with, listing the appropriate single that it appeared on, but it's not what GA-listed articles are made of.

I won't revert your edit as of now, but consider one more point - what is a single's article listed as? Burn My Candle (At Both Ends) - or A: Burn My Candle (At Both Ends), B: Stormy Weather? Your edits make each equally look important.--Tuzapicabit (talk) 01:16, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:United We Stand - Brotherhood Of Man.jpg
 Thanks for uploading File:United We Stand - Brotherhood Of Man.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) 00:31, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

File:When We Were Young video.jpg listed for deletion
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:When We Were Young video.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. — ξ xplicit  22:16, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I've withdrawn the nomination. I didn't see those sentences at all. Sorry for the bother. — ξ xplicit  22:26, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
 * No problem. Thanks.--Tuzapicabit (talk) 22:26, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

File copyright problem with File:Bucks Fizz on stage.jpg
Thank you for uploading File:Bucks Fizz on stage.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the file. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have created in [ your upload log].

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 12:54, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Here we go again
Please note that removing tags from a page once placed cannot be removed until the issue is addressed or fixed. Please also do not confuse my considering an article to be in poor shape with personal comment. As I see it, the article is badly formatted, unencyclopedic and poorly written. Thank you for your time.--Tuzapicabit (talk) 01:03, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Exactly what I mean "Here we go again" (no need for this - this is a personal comment as is 'please' and 'Shocker'?) I am only trying to understand your--Tuzapicabit (talk) 01:37, 25 May 2010 (UTC) comments. I am still learning here on Wiki and hope to continue that. The article was written in November and I agree it needs improving. The information I added at a later date is purley factual NO opinion etc. My understanding is that you should firstly try to improve or help with advice BEFORE placing a TAG? Please correct me if I am wrong. I am open to any help or advice PLEASE do that any time you can. Maybe you could indicate exactly what the problem is with what he has placed in the article that you feel is not correct? That would be very helpful. Thank you for your response. (talk) 09:25, 24 May 2010 (UTC)


 * How are the comments "shocker" and "please" personal comments? Why have you got this misunderstood idea that I'm being personal to anyone? I tagged the article because it reads like a review. I'm not familiar with the album in question so I didn't really want to mess with it and hopefully someone more in the know can improve it. I'll take another look and see if I can do something once I get time, but my tag was a pointer in that any hint of bias needs to be removed and the overall tone of the piece was review-like. Thankyou.--Tuzapicabit (talk) 09:49, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Sorry if read them as personal if that is not your intention. I have been glad of you help in the past and again I am always happy to receive help or tips, I have been here on Wiki a while but am still learning. I am familiar with this album, I agree that the article is not perfect. There are issues within it that are not clear, it does need some re-write and I will also make an attempt to improve it. I will also read some of you articles, which would you recommend? (talk) Dutchdean (talk) 10:33, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Hi guys, as the author of the article (at least most of it) let me chime in. A "reads like a review" tag is not the same as being nominated for deletion. I've seen articles with tags go untouched for months (or years). So in my view it is more constructive criticism than a warning. But I don't understand the comment Tuzapicabit wrote when he added the tag (see edit history on the article): "sorry, but this is a real shocker. Please". I don't know what this means. I mean that literally: I don't know what that means. And when you don't know what something means, it can lead to misinterpretation.--Nyctc7 (talk) 15:04, 24 May 2010 (UTC)


 * OK, let's start again. Before we do, I'll just interpret my message, "Sorry, this is a real shocker . Please" . How I'm looking at Wikipedia is that it is an encyclopedia - something that deals in facts and important information only, so to see an entry put in that just doesn't look like a factual entry to me is a bit disheartening ( so maybe "shocker" (as in shocked) was a bit over the top, but still I stand by the tag). To temper that, I did insert the word "sorry" to show that I think the work you're doing is excellent and I'm certainly interested to see these new album articles, so I was a little sad to tag it after your efforts, but then I felt tagging it would be helpful in the long run rather than just quickly looking at it and then leaving it. Dutchdean, an example I would give you to my articles could be Are You Ready (Bucks Fizz album), or indeed the few Shirley Bassey album articles I did such as Something (album). None of these are perfect either by my own admission, and I'm always grateful for help.
 * So anyway, like I say, let's start again. In a day or two I'll get chance to look again at the article (busy at work at the moment), and see what I can do with formatting or any information I can find. In the meantime, be happy and hope all is well.--Tuzapicabit (talk) 01:37, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
 * No worries, I have no problem with the tag, I trust your judgment, I just didn't understand the comment, which you have clarified.--Nyctc7 (talk) 16:02, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Top of the Pops albums
Thanks I guess I was hasty. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 16:57, 29 May 2010 (UTC)


 * OK, not probs.--Tuzapicabit (talk) 23:33, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

You are now a Reviewer
Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Courcelles (talk) 01:29, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

IMPORTANT MESSAGE from The Scott Sherrin Foundation
Please refrain from making uninformed and prohibited edits to the Scott Sherrin article. As you have no connection to Scott Sherrin, or anyone or thing of relevance, you do not have permission to change what has been said. The article contains the information which Scott Sherrin's family has wished to share, other information from outside sources are not valid and contain incorrect information. Therefore there is no logical basis for your changes and you do not have the correct knowledge or personal relevance to do so. As we can see you have more than enough article to change as you have been doing so for some time, therefore you may entertain yourself doing this and leave personal articles to those who know what they are talking about. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ScottSherrinFoundation (talk • contribs) 22:29, 8 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Missed this message actually, but I see that you've been blocked from editing now anyway. Have a good day!--Tuzapicabit (talk) 09:23, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Featured list candidates/List of number-one singles from the 1980s (UK)/archive1
Would you care to revisit your comments at this FLC as I believe I have responded as best I can to both. Thanks in advance, Rambo's Revenge (talk)  08:27, 29 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I still think that the opening paragraph is very non-specific and doesn't once mention number one singles, which is what the article is about, so my opinion is already there. Rest of the article is fine. Nothing new to add really. Thanks. --Tuzapicabit (talk) 09:19, 29 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Okay, respectfully, I disagree. I am loosely following the format of the 2000s list promoted in 2009. I think one must explain what the UK Singles Chart is before talking about the number-ones it had. I also think it is important to show readers, who may know the UK Singles Chart of today, that things were different back then. However, if you still feel the same then leave the comment and if consensus from others gathers around it I'll reconsider. Otherwise, would you please review (and strike or whatever) your second comment about cassette singles if you no longer have any objection there. Thanks, Rambo's Revenge (talk)  10:50, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

WikiProject Eurovision Newsletter - March through July 2010
Note: the Newsletter is "collapsed" for convenience. To see the full letter, click on the "show" button at the right end of the gray bar. If you are no longer interested in WikiProject Eurovision then please remove your name from this list.

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of CT Cooper at 19:39, 2 August 2010 (UTC).

Michele Gallagher
Compare Discussion Site to the article to the famous five series. If you need more informations to the problems to the informations in the internet to this case. I read the German and English discussions in the Internet to Michelle Gallagher. There are some things strange. You can write on my German site or better e-mail me. If my E-mail-account is full make a statement on my German site. with friendly Greetings, Sönke Rahn --Soenke Rahn (talk) 16:59, 10 September 2010 (UTC) By the way in the moment I have holidays, so that I will not be each day on the computer. --Soenke Rahn (talk) 17:02, 10 September 2010 (UTC)