User talk:Xinger

Welcome!

Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~&#126;); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place  on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! D. J. Bracey (talk) 22:11, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

Tables
Great addition with the tables for artists! Just a heads up to let you know that there's actually a link to the UK Singles Chart that can be added to the tables. Cheers. --Madchester 02:03, August 25, 2005 (UTC)

Hi. Thanks, I think the tables make it a lot quicker and easier to view the singles and their chart performances. -Xinger 10:19, August 24, 2005 (MST)

Hey, there's no need to wikify each album in the tables. Simply wikifying the first mention of an album is sufficient. --Madchester 08:42, September 8, 2005 (UTC)


 * Don't you think it'd easier and more sensible to only list the highest rank that a single has achieved in your single charts? It just makes more sense, if you ask me.

Enfestid 00:17, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Exceptional newcomer
Hi, I hereby give you this Exceptional Newcomer's Award for continued efforts on Wikipedia:



Take care, D. J. Bracey (talk) 18:32, 30 August 2005 (UTC)


 * I hearby second the award, a lot of great edits to music-related articles, good stuff. :) Func( t, c, @,) 23:44, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Thanks! Xinger 23:56, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Erasure page - your changes
Hi Xinger: Please see the Talk:Erasure page regarding the changes you are doing to the singles/EP section. Thanks! -- eo 00:49, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

Fairground Attraction
Hello! Why did you remove "Perfect" from the list of singles? --Mel Etitis ( &Mu;&epsilon;&lambda; &Epsilon;&tau;&eta;&tau;&eta;&sigmaf; ) 08:40, 31 August 2005 (UTC)


 * I think that it should be in the list too &mdash; it's misleading otherwise. --Mel Etitis ( &Mu;&epsilon;&lambda; &Epsilon;&tau;&eta;&tau;&eta;&sigmaf; ) 09:41, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

Gorillaz
"Fixed poor edits. What's being shown here is airplay and digital sales, not physical sales, therefore it is not a subsection of Discography."

Hehe, sorry about that. The inclusion of digital sales and airplay statistics in a discography is iffy, admittedly. However, the main UK singles chart is based solely on sales of hard copies; there are separate digital charts and airplay charts here. How about adding a subsection in discography for the UK singles, with a note saying something like "see table in for chart placings"? A discography should surely include these major discs. Also, I think there should be some explicit distinction between those singles that have been commercially released and those that have only been "released" to radio stations - but this may be a misunderstanding on my part: I don't know whether these singles have been released as discs in the US. By the way, the reason I moved the UK singles chart column to the left was that I thought it made more sense (not to mention looked less ugly) to have the column with the most data first.

Oh, and "poor edits" was a bit harsh, I thought; hope I've explained myself a little more clearly now :-) --CapitalLetterBeginning 14:49, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

The White Stripes tables
Was there any particular reason why you reverted the tables back to its older state? What I had was more comprehensive and more accurate (the older table is missing at least 5 singles).--Weebot 01:41, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

Personal Attacks
Please refrain from using Personal Attacks; they are not tolerated in Wikipedia. I won't take it personally, but some other admins or users may be more sensitive, and you could have been blocked immediately for your actions. So please show more restraint while you're working within the confines of Wikipedia. Thank you. :-) --Madchester 14:12, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

Coldplay and other artist pages
Please don't make any more reverts, or you will be in violation of the 3 revert rule. Despite recommendations over the table format (such as giving UK charts precedence for UK bands) raised by various users, you've unilaterally changed them to cater to your own liking.

It's also a very POVslant to claim that artists are "unimportant" if they haven't broken onto the American charts. So if a Japanese artist like Utada or someone like Kylie Minogue has sold million of records outside of the United States, they're still deemed, in your eyes not to be "important"? --Madchester 17:18, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

Don't hide your POV; it's right in your edit summary: ''doesn't matter where a band is from -- if they haven't made it in the US, they haven't really made it. And UK charts are definitely not more important even to UK bands.''

You're basically stating that the US charts are superior to the UK charts, which is obviously a slanted POV opinion. And that's just the tip of the iceberg in your personally biased opinion.

And once again, there's no need to over-wikify every entry per Avoiding common mistakes. It's not whether "you like it that way" or not; you need to be consistent with the manual of style. There's no need to wikify every single entry, especially when it's the same item being repeated in the same table. --Madchester 06:06, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

I don't know if the US charts are anymore indicative of a band's popularity than the UK charts. Considering that Clear Channel owns 1200+ radio stations in the United States, it has the clout to determine whether a certain band makes it on the airwaves or not. Does this really really a better indicator of an artist's popularity?

Regardless, I believe that an artist's native charts are most important; most it not all artists have to "make it" at home before they can "conquer America". Consequently they should be listed first, it's no disrespect to your table, but that makes the most sense. It's just like how Wikipedia's MoS suggests that American articles use American spelling, Canadian articles follow Canadian spellings, etc. The native format should be taking precedence first and foremost. --Madchester 06:03, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

3RR block, September 19
You have been blocked for 24 hours for violating Wikipedia's 3 Revert Rule. Please listen to the constructive critcisim suggested by other users to prevent further edit/revert wars in the future. Thank you. --Madchester 18:10, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

That's a bunch of bullshit. I can't believe they let you be an administrator. Please learn about the rules before blocking someone. Xinger 02:30, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

No personal attacks, thank you. I think you may need a wiki-break to cool down. I've seen other users like you who have tried to challenge the system and by acting unilaterally, only to leave Wikipedia on a bitter note. --Madchester 04:26, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

The personal attack being you're a corrupt administrator? Do me a favor and tell me who I should contact to have your admin priviledges revoked. Xinger 04:28, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

Artist/Table changes
Once again, please don't:

1) Re-arrange the order for the charting information; before your tables system we always presented a band's native charts first, before any international chart positions. For example, the Oasis Singles Discography is an ideal layout for the band, since it shows the native UK charts, followed by any relevant international charts.  The original Coldplay singles discography shows a similar format of listing UK positions before any international ones.

This is for the sake of consistency and avoids a biased point of view. The American charts are not a universal litmus test for chart success. Most artists find the most success in their home country, so it's important to present those figures before any other international ones. For an artist like Kylie Minogue it's somewhat ridiculous to present her US chart success first, since she really didn't promote any albums in the United States for over a decade. For an artist like her, the AU or UK Singles Chart take precedence, followed by the, then any relevant US Dance or Billboard charts. To place the American charts first would be misleading and confusing, since it is Oz and the UK where she found initial success.

2) Wikify every album entry, it's a common mistake on Wikipedia. For example, look at the setlist for Live 8, whether it's for the London, Philly or Barrie shows, each artist is only wikified once, even if they multiple appearances on stage.  It's very tempting to provide links for every instance, but that's just excessive and goes against the manual of style.

3) Album ordinals should only be included when there's multiple entries within that category. To date, Coldplay only has 1 live album, so adding a "1." to the listing is simply excessive.

You're free to create all the tables you want; but you still have to work within Wikipedia's guidelines.

Cheers. --Madchester 15:07, 21 September 2005 (UTC)


 * As per Wikproject Songs: "The chart positions included should probably be for the artist's home chart, charts in English speaking countries and charts in which the single reached the Top 40." I'm sorry but the guidelines are there; the home charts take precedence over any other charts.  If you have an issue with that, instead of reverting all my edits and making personal attacks, I'd suggest that you state your concerns on the project's talk page. --Madchester 18:15, 21 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Home charts are listed first; i.e., they take precedence over all other charts. If you look at the singles infoboxes, home charts are almost always listed first, followed by any other relevant charts... i.e., "Fix You", "Take Me Out", "Wonderwall", "Boulevard of Broken Dreams". This is the consistent system being used across Wikipedia, as per Wikproject Songs. --Madchester 05:09, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

3RR warning Sept. 21
Any fourth reverts within 24 hours on an article will result in a three revert rule violation. As I suggested, if you have any qualms with the current system, please address them in the WikiProject Songs talk page. Thanks. --Madchester 19:15, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Xinger, you're out of line, and you're getting yourself in trouble for a dumb reason (formatting of a table, for bog's sake). Madchester has been very patient with you. It does look like you were starting to build a good reputation; please review Wikipedia guidelines and reconsider your actions. --Dhartung | Talk 21:43, 21 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Well at least you did some research on the 3RR and I get FOUR reverts this time! Xinger 03:51, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Moses
I've seen stations air a video for "One I Love" when Live 2003 was released, never anything for Moses. Can you show me a source indicating that "Moses" actually received any substantial radio airplay? Thanks. --Madchester 06:27, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Please cite sources
You have made a large number of edits to a wide range of articles today, but have not provided any source for your data. If you would, please WP:CITE source(s) for your changes in the future or they may be reverted. Best regards, Hall Monitor 16:11, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
 * I can't link to the charts because half of each chart is not visible to those who are not subscribed to billboard.com. Xinger 16:14, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
 * That is a problem. If you could atleast state the source in plain text and provide a date when the information was captured that would be very helpful.  These figures are frequently vandalised as-is, unfortunately.  Hall Monitor 16:20, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Singles Lists
This is referring to some articles you've been created about some artists. Would you please stop creating lists of singles of artists who you don't even explain who they are? If you bother to create an article about these artists, put some information about themselves.Leptictidium 15:03, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

Reverts
Xinger, was wondering why you reverted my edit of the Coldplay discography tables? While I do appreciate your extensive research on chart positions (I for one am interested in seeing artists' chart histories), perhaps you could rethink portions of the table template you are using? Some of what you designed looks good (such as the "chart positions" column being split into sub-columns), but overall sometimes the tables come out looking a bit sloppy because of the "#" symbol before each number and the over-linking of album titles. Would it be possible for you to slightly modify/compromise on your table design in the future to elimiate the unnessary "#" and/or perhaps format the columns so that the numbers are centered? Ultimately I think that would help to make the information cleaner and more easily readable. -- eo 18:52, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Yes, I saw the White Stripes table. In fact I recently removed all the "#"s from it.  "#" is an English/American abbreviation not recognized in all languages and it really just is not necessary.  The column says "chart positions" and everyone can see that, well, they are numbers.  Do we really need to put a "#" there?  If an artist has an extensive chart history, all those #'s take away from what the important data is: the chart positions. -- eo 19:02, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
 * OK, I see you've reverted three of my edits. I will not get into an edit war with you, but judging from the comments already on your page, you may want to get some sort of consenus and/or compromise on the table template you're using before going ahead with your "plan to format all tables to look like The White Stripes' table", or you may see a lot of the hard work you do altered anyway.  Reasons such as "I like that look" probably won't fly with too many people.  Just a thought. -- eo 19:38, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

My Chemical Romance
If you're certain that the song should be "The Ghost of You", why have you just piped the link instead of renaming the article? --Mel Etitis ( Μελ Ετητης ) 16:45, 25 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Up at the top of the page there's a "move" tab (to the left of the "watch/unwatch" tab); click on it and follow the instructions from there. You need to be absolutely sure that you're right about the correct name, though. --Mel Etitis  ( Μελ Ετητης ) 18:27, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

More on your tables
I've noticed in your quest to insert your discography table template into every musical artist article that you have actually been omitting and removing previously-listed singles from articles and replacing text with your limited information. The lastest one (out of many) I saw was for Fantasia... the table you put there lists only two of her singles, and even so, you've shown only R&B chart positions and left additonal columns blank, including the Hot 100. This is not the first time I've seen this with tables you've put onto articles. Why are you doing this to articles for which you do not have all of the information? Most of the time a simple Google search can bring up most or all of an artist's chartographies. You really need to do the research before putting this stuff into articles. This is supposed to be an encyclopaedia, remember? I found another article by a popular British pop band who have released (and charted) many singles in the UK, and your table listed only one of their songs, with a US Modern Rock Tracks chart peak, completely ignoring some of their big hits - yet the table had a column for UK chart peaks, which you left blank. Another British rock band had one of your tables in its article with only two of their many singles listed and again, had none of their UK peaks... and they have several UK top 40 hits. This is not cool and I doubt I am the only one who is noticing all of this. I've seen you also changed yet another chart table I made back to your awkward-looking template (# symbols, columns with varying widths, etc). The look of your table is bad enough... but please... if you're going to insist on putting chart histories in every article... make sure you have the full chart history! -- eo 02:51, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

STOP ADDING THE FOO FIGHTERS CHART
You haven't bothered to explain why this chart is necessary. Regardless, here's why it isn't:

1) The US Modern Rock chart is NOT AN IMPORTANT CHART. Your claim that most of their singles are top 20 hits is dubious as the Modern Rock chart is largely meaningless.  It's a niche chart.  Not even half of their singles made the top 20 on any other chart.

2) MORE THAN HALF OF YOUR CHART HAS DASHES IN IT. Use your fingers and count the entries if you have to.  It's clutter of the highest order.

But, furthermore, several people have made it clear that they feel the chart is unnecessary for a band of the Foo Fighters' level. They are popular, yes, but not by charts.

Making charts seems to be your primary contribution to Wiki, and I think it's extremely useful where it's welcome. But don't just ignore complaints and add the chart again and again because YOU feel it's a worthy addition. -- ChrisB 04:23, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Edits to Mariah Carey

 * 1) The rule of thumb on Wikipedia is that an edit of a page that consists of spelling corrections, formatting, and minor rearranging of text should be flagged as a "minor edit". Marking a real change (such as reverting to a previous version of a page for reasons other than vandalism) as a minor edit is considered bad behaviour. See Minor edit.
 * 2) Please do not reinsert the incomplete singles discography into the Mariah Carey article again. The article is large enough as it is already (62kb, which is roughly twice the recommended size). One of the subarticles that was created to reduce its size is Mariah Carey singles discography, so there isn't really much point duplicating the information presented there elsewhere.
 * 3) Please cite your sources so that others can verify your work. Thank you. Extraordinary Machine 15:55, 30 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Well, please make your edits to the singles discography article, and not the main Mariah Carey article. If we listed four singles in the main article, we'd end up having to list them all. Extraordinary Machine 16:12, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Bornscar
Is this a real band? I can't verify their existance. Friday (talk) 18:44, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Deletion of Guest Appearances
Please stop deleting the guest appearances from the Pop Singles Discography on the page for Akon. According to Billboard's policy for determining the success of artists in the music industry, when guest artists appear on a single, and have their names credited to it on the Hot 100, full credit is awarded to each artist. Sebastian Prospero 01:13, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

According to Billboard's policy (and I am quoting Joel Whitburn's Billboard Book of Top 40 hits verbatim), "when 2 or more artists collaborate on a hit single, the full point value is given to each artist." According to this logic, the chart rank of guest appearences should be listed as a sub-heading under Singles. Sebastian Prospero 00:12, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

Siouxsie & the Banshees
Xinger: Thank you for redoing the table on the Siouxsie page.... this looks much better than tables you've done up until now. If all your tables looked this neat I can compromise on the # symbol you use. Just make sure you don't omit singles, even if they were not Modern Rock hits. Any chance you can update the "pretty table" template to look more like the Siouxsie one (make it permanent)? -- eo 14:27, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
 * what I meant by "update the template": i see that the table you use is called "pretty table" or something like that? i thought perhaps this was a template that you have saved, so that every time you use it (no matter what artist you are working on), the table would always look the same (with variations on the charts, obviously).  my question to you was whether or not you would modify the template so that going foward, future tables you insert would look neat and tidy like the one you just did on Siouxsie's page. -- eo 14:54, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Garth Brooks singles
... belong in Garth Brooks discography, not Garth Brooks. Wasted Time R 16:24, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

Singles sectioning
If there's a Discography section at the "==" level, then Singles should be a subsection under that at the "===" level, not another section at the "==" level. Wasted Time R 11:00, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

> You'd be correct if Singles were actually discography. Just take a look at Rascal Flatts' extensive > collection of physical singles on AMG. Case closed. Xinger 11:22, 17 October 2005 (UTC)


 * The article Discography clearly states that it's a list of all sound recordings; it doesn't distinguish between album or single, physical or digital. As for AMG, it has a Discography tab which includes Albums and Singles/EPs as sub-tabs underneath it, which is exactly what I'm saying is proper for Wikipedia. Then they also have a separate Songs tab, which highlights notable songs. The Rascal Flatts example is odd because they seem to have omitted most of their singles.  See Shania Twain for a better AMG example.  Wasted Time R 12:16, 17 October 2005 (UTC)


 * No, it's not odd. Not every single is released on DISC, therefore singles don't belong under Discography. Xinger 12:49, 17 October 2005 (UTC)


 * While the term Discography does originate with grammophone discs, it is now extended to include all forms of recorded audio -- 8-track, cassette tapes, compact discs, "released to radio stations as a single", digital downloads, the works. It's the history of the music that's important, not the exact media it was heard through.  By your reasoning, all of the articles like The Rolling Stones discography and Celine Dion discography would have to get hacked apart, splitting their singles out into separate articles.  There are dozens of such articles ... what would be the point?    Wasted Time R 13:11, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Chart updates
Hey Xinger, any way you can add some sort of indicator to your singles table to show songs that are currently charting/moving up? The way that all (not just yours) discography tables are set up, the chart positions show where a song has peaked, which obviously is not the case for something currently climbing a chart. Maybe an asterisk or symbol or something with a brief "currently charting" notation? As they look now, the tables insinuate that a song has "peaked" at position X, when it isn't the case (example: Depeche Mode's "Precious" with a "99" in the Hot 100 column... the song just debuted this week and could very possibly move up on the next chart). An indicator would paint a more accurate (i.e. encyclopedic) picture of a song's performance. -- eo 19:16, 20 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Hi there. In reponse to the confusion mentioned by eo above, I created a notes section to explain oddities in the Depeche Mode singles chart (i.e. songs like "Dangerous" and "Halo" charting despite not being standard singles).  Anyway, when you last updated the singles chart, you erased the section, which I feel is useful to clear up confusions like the one mentioned above.  If you have a significant problem with the notes section, please take it up on the talk page first, before just erasing the entire thing.  Thank you.  John5008 20:24, 28 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Xinger's canned scripts do what he wants them to do, regardless of the context of the article. If the scripts don't do the right thing, you've got to put the article on your watchlist and fix up after Xinger once a week. Very amusing.   Wasted Time R 14:10, 3 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Okay, this has happened a second time now...if you disagree with the inclusion of a notes section in the Depeche Mode singles table, could you please discuss your problems first before eliminating the section. I would appreciate it if you discussed things first.  Thank you.  john 5008 15:23, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Edits to Rascal Flatts
Hey Xinger!!! The last time I checked (which was about thirty seconds ago) the single "Skin (Sarabeth)" IS on their newest CD, Feels Like Today. Rascal Flatts have released TWO versions of this CD. On the first one, it is the hidden track following track #11, Oklahoma-Texas Line. On the second version of this CD, it is track #12, instead. Please take note of this as I have changed this on their page. Thank you very much. Happyface162 21:56, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Your charts
Xinger, I've been noticing your chart. Great job! They truly do look good. Have you thought of doing Jay-Z yet? He does so many guest appearances and has so many singles that its hard to keep track which came from where. OmegaWikipedia 14:24, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Piped [19XX in music|19XX] links
Hi, I would first like to thank you for all the contributions you've made to music-related articles, it's great, especially since it seems that people willing to use tables and make them nice seems to be such a small subset of wikipedians.

However, could you please stop using those piped [19XX in music|19XX] links in your charts? It is against recommended style policy, both at WP:ALBUMS and WP:MOS. Thankyou --Qirex 16:04, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

Nine Inch Nails charts
The singles section of Nine Inch Nails has been moved to Nine Inch Nails discography. Actually, the table format was removed completely, along the lines of The Beatles discography and David Bowie discography. I think it'd look better to keep the whole discography in a constant format, but if your bot is going to add a table, could you put it on the discography page? Thanks. -- Rynne 18:04, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

singles table you added to article
I started to ask where to find the citation for othe info you added to the Throwing Muses article, but I found the answer online at billboard. Thanks for adding it! Emerman 15:02, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Chris Brown
A while back you edited Chris Brown (diff). Piping does not go on disambiguation pages. See Manual of Style (disambiguation pages) for further details. Also, you should use edit summaries, in consideration of other users.--Commander Keane 15:31, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Slick 23
A tag has been placed on Slick 23, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the article seems to be about a person, group of people, band, club, company, or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable, that is, why an article about that subject should be included in Wikipedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not assert notability may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, and if you can indicate why the subject of this article is notable, you may contest the tagging. To do this, add  on the top of the page (below the existing db tag) and leave a note on the article's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm its subject's notability under the guidelines.

For guidelines on specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for bands, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Saligron 08:28, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Big Trell
A tag has been placed on Big Trell, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the article seems to be about a person, group of people, band, club, company, or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable, that is, why an article about that subject should be included in Wikipedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not assert notability may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, and if you can indicate why the subject of this article is notable, you may contest the tagging. To do this, add  on the top of the page (below the existing db tag) and leave a note on the article's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm its subject's notability under the guidelines.

For guidelines on specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for bands, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. BJ Talk 04:31, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Rustic (hip hop artist)
I have added a "" template to the article Rustic (hip hop artist), suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but I don't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and I've explained why in the deletion notice (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may contest the proposed deletion by removing the  notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. ShadowHalo 02:47, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Brice Long
A "" template has been added to the article Brice Long, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but yours may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice explains why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may contest the proposed deletion by removing the  notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. 172.144.53.226 00:41, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Bruse Reelis
A "" template has been added to the article Bruse Reelis, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but yours may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice explains why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may contest the proposed deletion by removing the  notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. 172.162.222.66 16:56, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Non-free use disputed for Image:The New Breed.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:The New Breed.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. One more thing, 50 Cent sucks.  —♦♦ SʘʘTHING  (Я)  10:14, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Articles for deletion nomination of Born Scar
I have nominated Born Scar, 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/Born Scar. 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. OlEnglish (Talk) 17:29, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Full Scale
An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Full Scale. 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 Notability and "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/Full Scale. 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) 01:07, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:09, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:33, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:The New Breed.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:The New Breed.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 section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:42, 10 October 2021 (UTC)