User talk:Yoshiman6464/Archive 3

Wayne Dupree
Article was nominated for deletion. Since you have contributed to this article and the RSBN article it links too, wanted to make you aware for the opportunity to weigh in on on the discussion. Cllgbksr (talk) 15:43, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 13
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Ray Lynch, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Recorder. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:55, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

MfD nomination of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sand
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sand, a page which you created or substantially contributed to (or which is in your userspace), has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sand and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes ( ~ ). You are free to edit the content of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sand during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. KATMAKROFAN (talk) 01:31, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

CisWhiteMaelstrom listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect CisWhiteMaelstrom. Since you had some involvement with the CisWhiteMaelstrom redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 21:38, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 3
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Ray Lynch, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Austin High School. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:01, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 10
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Deep Breakfast, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Classical. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:43, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 22
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of viral videos, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Bill O'Reilly. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:58, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Virtual Rick Logo.jpg
 Thanks for uploading File:Virtual Rick Logo.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) 17:50, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 29
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Champagne (advertisement), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Nike. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:15, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:CD Review.jpg
 Thanks for uploading File:CD Review.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) 17:09, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Mobile strike
Future possible players should be informed of how this game actually works before they invest so much time and money into a game that has this main problem. If you advance your base, commander, or research too far without completeing older research before newer (sometimes easier and faster) you will more than likely be at a limbo point and not able to get the needed items to complete an older research. This is due to the fast pace of updates and Mobile Strike removing needed items from the packs you will see if this happens. Their support team will send you basically paste and cut responses about how they understand the frustration trying to keep up in the game. Even if that's not the problem. There are many players that spent a lot of time and money on a game just to quit due to multiple problems in this game, this is just one of them. CptCaveman73 (talk) 02:26, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I understand your concern, but this isn't needed in the article. I already added a controversial based section using citations.  Yoshiman6464   ♫🥚 02:28, 16 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Not needed? Then add something to the page regarding all the negative feedback this game is getting in multiple forums ( App Store,Facebook page ,etc...) This company's practices are pretty unfair to its players. Especially if any problem arises and you have to contact their support team. CptCaveman73 (talk) 02:32, 16 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Like I said, I already added a reliably sourced version of your concerns:
 * "The game's advertising is often misleading, showing footage of textures from the game, but with mechanics unachievable in the game."
 * The source I used was Macworld, which says, "I find it troubling that the game advertised in the App Store screenshots and on TV isn’t the game you actually play; as far as I can tell, that experience either isn’t there or has been greatly misrepresented for promotional purposes. And if there is some semblance of that deep within, following dozens or hundreds of hours of attention, then it’s surely not worth the hassle or payment needed to get to that point." By reading both sentences, it can be concluded by the reader that the game is not really worth anybody's time.  Yoshiman6464   ♫🥚 02:36, 16 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Ok sorry didn't notice that. Mobile Strike is a true misrepresentation in all manners, just too bad nothing can truly be done about them CptCaveman73 (talk) 03:37, 16 June 2017 (UTC)


 * You're good. Just try not to add any long statements without citations again.  Yoshiman6464   ♫🥚 03:38, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Likewise,, I realised you did know your subject, and that you wanted to get your message/concerns across. And I am sorry I had to revert your edits a couple of times last night, but, whilst you are to be most welcomed for contributing to Wikipedia as a new editor, I think it will help you in future if you could remember that the style of writing needed here is that of an encyclopaedia, rather than a blog or magazine. So we need a neutral tone in articles, not one where we appear to be talking directly to you, the reader, with advice or opinions. And, of course, every statement or quotation used needs to be supported by references to reliable sources. Of course, feel free to raise legitimate concerns on any Talk Page where you can safely discuss the best way to represent those concerns in a legitimate manner on the page itself, or get someone to help you. (oh, and be careful about reverting other editors' reverts of your contributions. Do it 3 times in any 24hr period and you can end up getting a temporary block on editing. See WP:3RR It's one of those things that new editors don't appreciate, and it can be terribly demotivating if it happens, and you don't know why. We really do want to encourage editors like you to take part, so welcome to the wonderful world of creating this planet's greatest encyclopaedia! Nick Moyes (talk) 10:24, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

File:OttoWarmbier.jpg
I typically don't get riled up about this sort of thing, but looking at the rationale and where you got it, I'm not sure if you're allowed to have that picture... D ARTH B OTTO talk•cont 00:42, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I labeled the image as a Non-free "blog pic" to signfiy that the image is not free. The image in question has also been used in several news sources including CNN and NBC News.  Yoshiman6464   ♫🥚 01:29, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Draft:Daddyofive
I notice Draft:Daddyofive was deleted by on the grounds of " (G10: Attack page or negative unsourced BLP: serious BLP problems)" - Now we have a new article by a different user, Daddyofive, that is in the AFD process. If this article survives, what content from the deleted draft is acceptable and what content isn't? Also, Drmies, have you posted a detailed explanation on why that particular draft failed G10? I looked on Yoshiman6464's talk page and on the deleted talk page and didn't find any. It's good to clarify these matters so the userbase can better understand how to write articles on controversies like this without falling afoul of WP:BLP. WhisperToMe (talk) 19:26, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
 * WhisperToMe, there is no "controversy", and if you had admin glasses you would see that the entire thing is completely unacceptable. Not only did I delete the content, but actually suppressed it--that's how bad it is. I'm sure you understand if I don't go into more detail. I don't know if there would have been much of a point in explaining this to, whose only contribution was to create that draft, and I suppose I did not look very carefully at the history, but I do agree that Yoshiman should have been warned that this kind of material falls foul of the BLP. No, we're not going to salvage anything from that deleted version. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 20:53, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Controversy by the Wikipedia article's own definition is "Controversy is a state of prolonged public dispute or debate, usually concerning a matter of conflicting opinion or point of view." - Media coverage in this case occurred for around a month and was covered very publicly. I believe this would qualify.
 * As an admin I believe you can't just delete it, especially when an ordinary man or woman would see the various newspaper articles published covering the subject publicly, without further comment to the article author. Deletion of sensitive material that violates BLP of course needs to come first. However you need to explain, to the public, how and why this violated policy or they won't understand why you did this (while also being careful not to violate the subject's BLP), and therefore won't learn from it. If, as an article author, you had worked on an article for say a few days or a week and it's deleted without further comment, you would be mystified and rather upset. It's best to give an explanation especially because it's BLP, because you don't want the author to do this again, and because you want the public to understand why this happened and to learn from it.
 * However as an admin I am also aware that it would be very easy to cross the line with this kind of subject. A longtime editor may be able to understand this and take an afternoon to review WP:BLP before writing it, but a novice may not realize how much of a minefield this is and how easy it is to screw up. Among the possible issues with a case like this ( I haven't examined the draft to see exactly whether/which issues are involved the revisions are deleted so I can't say exactly which lines were crossed):
 * It is extremely sensitive to discuss minors (in this case it may be necessary to not give specifics, but instead tell people to not name minors, focus on minors, etc. - make it a very generalized explanation/critique so no shaming/BLP violations occur)
 * WP:BLP requires that one must not use court documents directly as a source
 * Citing YouTube videos not made by professional media sources and/or directly citing the subject's YouTube videos themselves would be a no-no
 * WP:BLP states that for one cannot post an accusation that a relatively "unknown" person committed a crime - I'm not sure to what degree a YouTuber would become no longer relatively "unknown" person. The subject was never charged in a court of law, further complicating this issue.
 * I'm sure there are far more, but these are just alone the issues I can see with an article like this
 * If you feel it's impossible to cover the subject without falling afoul then it's also very important a statement is publicly made explaining how/why this is the case, because ordinary people may not know/realize/understand that. The average person is going to see a chain of newspaper/magazine articles about, say, a controversy involving a popular YouTuber and believe Wikipedia needs an article on that. He/she would be surprised to see "WP:BLP" at all (people are often not very informed), let alone a deletion without explanation. I would hand an explanation on a silver platter and tell the world why these kinds of articles can't be written without violating BLP.
 * BTW I went in to look at the revisions and found they're deleted, so I don't know exactly which mistakes were made with the article, whether it's bad sources/lack of sources, poor wording, discussion of minors, or any other issue. I believe people need to learn how and why this happened.
 * WhisperToMe (talk) 23:45, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I didn't create the original draft article, I added sources / information that could be found from reliable sources (eg. Washington Post). However not even these sources could help the article become a part of Wikipedia, due to the subject matter involved.  Yoshiman6464   ♫🥚 23:59, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Ahh... sorry. Realized the author was . Anyway let me look at his/her user talk page. There's no message about this at User_talk:User4268. I feel it's especially important that this user is personally notified about how/why this is a problem even if he/she doesn't come back to Wikipedia. WhisperToMe (talk) 00:01, 23 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Being careful not to violate BLP, I'll tell you that this was a serious violation of BLP, serious enough to require oversighting. Yoshiman, if you don't see how that was the case, I suggest you think about it more carefully--and I hope you understand at least this much, that I cannot discuss any of those details with you on-wiki., perhaps you have more patience than I do. Drmies (talk) 01:05, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
 * WhisperToMe, you are an administrator. I don't understand why I have to explain this to you. Drmies (talk) 01:07, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * +1. Thanks for your work on several Trump book articles. It'd be nice to see articles for most of the works listed at Bibliography of Donald Trump. Keep up the great work! --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 18:17, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
 * You're welcome. Just today, I created a page for Newt Gingrich's Understanding Trump because his work topped The New York Times' Hardcover Non-Fiction Best Sellers list on July 2.  Yoshiman6464   ♫🥚 18:25, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

CNN controversies
The section you added is duplicative — the article already discusses the issue in another section. I don't have a preference which section remains, but they do need to be merged so that we're not writing the same thing twice. Do you have a preference? If so, feel free to do the merger yourself. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 15:54, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I merged the sections to the specific journalist, Andrew Kaczynski.  Yoshiman6464   ♫🥚 15:58, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

List of best-selling singles of the 19xxs in the United Kingdom
Forgive me, but I'm a bit puzzled by your labelling of the Music Week Anniversary Special as a "dubious source". Music Week is the official trade paper of the UK music industry, and the only publication to carry the official UK charts. The 2009 Anniversary Special was a special edition to mark Music Week's 50th anniversary, and contained the top ten for each decade as calculated by the Official Charts Company. So I'm not sure how much more official and verifiable a source you can get for these charts. Richard3120 (talk) 18:51, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I am not calling "Music Week" dubious; I am calling it's 50th anniversary issue a dubious source. I couldn't find a copy of the 50th anniversary issue anywhere on the internet. In fact, when I type in the exact phrase, "1959-2009: Anniversary Special", on Google, I only get links to the Wikipedia. I also couldn't find the issue on the archives of the Music Week website (around 18 September 2009) as seen here. Unless I could find the exact copy of the issue (with its ISBN number), I would have to label it as dubious.  Yoshiman6464   ♫🥚 18:59, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Um... well, I can tell you it certainly exists, because I've seen it in the flesh (as it were) and used it for the charts – there's a copy in the British Library in London. But as I'm not in the UK at the moment, I will have to wait until I get there to check its ISBN number. It certainly won't be on the internet in digital form, because it was a special issue, not part of Music Week's normal issues. Richard3120 (talk) 19:10, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I also found that you have begun adding the source around October 2015 (for example, for Bohemian Rhapsody). I was just skeptical since the book itself isn't easy to find.  Yoshiman6464   ♫🥚 19:12, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
 * http://www.musicweek.com/news/read/music-week-celebrates-landmark-birthday-with-50-years-of-coverage/040699 Richard3120 (talk) 19:22, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I removed the dubious label because of this URL. Again, thank you very much.  Yoshiman6464   ♫🥚 00:24, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Actually I must thank you: that URL suggests that the anniversay special was a pull-out supplement included in the 19 September 2009 issue, and not a stand-alone special issue – if it's the former that would explain why you couldn't find any reference to it online. I need to check this the next time I go to the British Library (probably in October) – the anniversary special is certainly by itself away from the main collection of Music Week issues, but maybe that's because the staff had pulled the supplement out. The easiest way to check if it was a stand-alone issue or not will be if it has a price on the front cover, and if the 19 September issue mentions a pull-out supplement inside.
 * Trying to get accurate official decade-end charts in the UK, particularly for the 1970s and the 1990s, has been a difficult task, so I'm keen to get them 100% verifiable! Thanks again. Richard3120 (talk) 14:25, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

I've now been to the British Library and checked, and you are correct: it wasn't a special issue, it was a pull-out supplement included in the 19 September 2009 issue of Music Week. I've updated the articles with the corrected wording. Thanks for noticing this – no hard feelings whatsoever for the original tagging, very happy for anybody to point out errors so we can get these lists absolutely 100% correct and verifiable. Richard3120 (talk) 15:42, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
 * You are very welcome. I would also like to thank you for verifying at the Library itself. I knew that the sources might be valid at the time, but labeled them dubious because I couldn't find the issue under the exact title listed originally.  Yoshiman6464   ♫🥚 16:20, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Electronic music
You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Electronic music as a participant of WP:WikiProject Electronic music. - The   Magnificentist  13:46, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

List of Most Viewed Videos
The section you want removed is updated according to the YouTube site view counts and the top 100 list. It does not constitute Original Research. Actual administrators have had no problem with this section. Please stop attempting to remove it. Dramaticmusic (talk) 02:41, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Also, you state that directly linking to YouTube videos is violation of WP:OR, but if this was the case, the entire article- including the top 100 and historical most viewed videos- is a violation and should be nominated for deletion. Since you haven't taken this step, your edits appear subjective, favouring particular parts of the article. Dramaticmusic (talk) 02:48, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Did you talk to any administrators? Also, the entire article does NOT violate WP:OR since various news sources commentate the most viewed videos of all time. However, since news-wide "Top 10" lists are not well-updated, it is alright to cite other videos with similar rankings, but not anything else.  Yoshiman6464   ♫🥚 02:49, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
 * To ask them whether they had issues with that part of the article? No, I relied on the fact that administrators have edited the article and pulled up people who vandalise it, and even though they've seen it, you're the first to raise a problem with it. And it's okay to use an out-of-date and therefore invalid source if you also (according to your comment) violate Original Research rules at the same time? That doesn't make any sense. Dramaticmusic (talk) 02:53, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
 * The issue is that the only source for the list of annual YouTube videos is from the "MyTop100Videos" channel, and this section detracts from the main focus of the article (which is the "Most Viewed Videos of All Time"). Also, the use of the "MyTop100Videos" source was seen as problematic when this article failed to be nominated as a featured article, as seen Here. Also, in that failed nomination, the article needs to focus more on the videos on the list itself instead of adding more charts that detract from the main purpose of the chart. Therefore, I have undid the edits again.  Yoshiman6464   ♫🥚 03:53, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
 * There are several more sources than that; each video has a link to its YouTube page, which displays its view count, which is used along with other sources for the top 100 chart, and the 'most viewed by year of release' chart is based on the top 100 listed above it. Also, the article's name doesn't specifically mean 'all time', so having a second chart for most viewed by year of release doesn't at all detract from the article. Dramaticmusic (talk) 05:58, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I get that are several more sources, but all of these sources are just links to the original YouTube video, which again violates WP:OR Plus, unlike the "most viewed videos of all-time" list, there are no secondary sources that analyze the top videos per year. In addition, using your logic that the article's name isn't called "List of most viewed YouTuhe videos of all time", you could also add a similar list to some of the other YouTube-related lists.  Yoshiman6464   ♫🥚 13:50, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I also started a discussion on the Main wikipage.  Yoshiman6464   ♫🥚 14:41, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

Help me!
"Notability on List of most viewed YouTube videos"

I was requested by PSNFinozzi1696 to get some help from you. I was wondering about the level of WP:Notability used on the page, List of most viewed YouTube videos. I tried arguing that I wanted to remove one category, or "By year of release", since the entire section consists of WP:OR and doesn't really add anything to an overall "List of most viewed YouTube videos". I also was wondering the appropriate length of the article. In other words, the number of videos present on the list, as argued on the article's discussion page.  Yoshiman6464   ♫🥚 04:05, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

 Yoshiman6464   ♫🥚 04:05, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
 * This is really more of a discussion to have on the talk page, since it will be seen by a wider audience. If further input is required, you can always post a link to the discussion at relevant WikiProjects such as WP:WPLIST (the list is at the top of the talk page). Just remember the canvassing rules. If you want more help, change the help me-helped back into a help me, stop by the Teahouse, Wikipedia's live help channel, or the help desk to ask someone for assistance. Primefac (talk) 12:53, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:IOS Apple News.png
 Thanks for uploading File:IOS Apple News.png. 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) 17:38, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

Ways to improve Life and Death: Twilight Reimagined
Hi, I'm Atlantic306. Yoshiman6464, thanks for creating Life and Death: Twilight Reimagined!

I've just tagged the page, using our page curation tools, as having some issues to fix. Amazon is an unreliable source so can you replace it with reviews from newspapers, magazines, reliable websites, thanks

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, you can leave a comment on my talk page. Or, for more editing help, talk to the volunteers at the Teahouse.

Atlantic306 (talk) 23:48, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I didn't create the page; I only created the redirect to the first novel.  Yoshiman6464   ♫🥚 00:06, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Sorry about that Atlantic306 (talk) 00:10, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Nomination of Thicc for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Thicc is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Thicc until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Nick Moyes (talk) 00:43, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Corrupt Crimes.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Corrupt Crimes.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) 17:35, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Category:Wii U emulators has been nominated for discussion
Category:Wii U emulators, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. 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. Vaypertrail (talk) 01:53, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Plumbus listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Plumbus. Since you had some involvement with the Plumbus redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Steel1943 (talk) 22:05, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Squirrel and Hedgehog


The article Squirrel and Hedgehog has been proposed for deletion&#32;because of the following concern: "Fails GNG"

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. South Nashua (talk) 18:20, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

DO NOT CHANGE THE LIST OF MOST VIEWED VIDEOS IN THE FIRST 24 HOURS!!
stop it! or I will block you

SInce you say that "kworb" is not reliable, I will take Ready for it off the list.

Orphaned non-free image File:Rings Prank.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Rings Prank.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) 18:55, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Your signature
Please be aware that your signature uses deprecated  tags, which are causing Obsolete HTML tags lint errors.

You are encouraged to change
 * :  Yoshiman6464   ♫🥚

to
 * :  Yoshiman6464 ♫🥚

—Anomalocaris (talk) 16:19, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for updating your signature! —Anomalocaris (talk) 01:51, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 19
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Alien 3 (video game), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page EGM ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/Alien_3_%28video_game%29 check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/Alien_3_%28video_game%29?client=notify fix with Dab solver]). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:16, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Ray Lynch
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Ray Lynch you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Mike Christie -- Mike Christie (talk) 15:40, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Ray Lynch
The article Ray Lynch you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold. The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Ray Lynch for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Mike Christie -- Mike Christie (talk) 17:00, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:AmandaDavisATL.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:AmandaDavisATL.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) 18:04, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Ray Lynch
The article Ray Lynch you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Ray Lynch for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Mike Christie -- Mike Christie (talk) 00:41, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 26
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Cristofori's Dream, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Electric Bass ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/Cristofori%27s_Dream check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/Cristofori%27s_Dream?client=notify fix with Dab solver]).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 10:24, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Hello
My name is Ramesty (real name Riley) and I know you work on Nintendo related articles. I was wondering if you would give me some help and advice (or possibly even to write part of it) on the following draft I'm working on Draft:Paper Mario (series). Thank you! Ramesty (talk) 04:33, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I could help some. By the way, how did you find me?  Yoshiman6464 ♫🥚 04:34, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Well, there are two ways I found you (1) I decided to look up Donald Trump tonight and found you in the "edit history" section and (2) I remembered your name from a while back when I looked to see who created some Mario page (I can't remember which one (article) it was, it could have been the Mario page, Mariokart page, Paper mario page.) When I saw your name on Donald Trump's page tonight, I remembered you, and that's why I asked you. Ramesty (talk) 04:47, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
 * In my personal opinion, I thought the Paper Mario series deserved a better place than what it has currently. That's why I made it. Ramesty (talk) 04:51, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I think it needs more writing and more references. Do you agree? Ramesty (talk) 04:57, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree. I would also include a box that includes all the review scores for the game, similar to the Reception section in the Super Mario article. There are several articles that discuss the Paper Mario series as a whole, such as "A Decade in the Life of Paper Mario" and "What Sets Mario RPGS Apart". I would find more articles, but It's getting a bit late.  Yoshiman6464  ♫🥚 05:20, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Ramesty (talk) 06:02, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Nomination of Yanny or Laurel for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Yanny or Laurel is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Yanny or Laurel until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Lojbanist remove cattle from stage 03:35, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Provenance of YannyLaurel.ogg
Where did you get this file? It doesn't sound the same as the original at vocabulary.com. See my remark at Talk:Yanny or Laurel.CountMacula (talk) 03:15, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:JWEvolution.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:JWEvolution.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) 17:51, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Nomination of Electric Honey (Partland Brothers album) for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Electric Honey (Partland Brothers album) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Electric Honey (Partland Brothers album) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Bearcat (talk) 22:04, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Bowsette
Looks much better on the image crop, it's been forever since I worked on wikipedia. Wanted to try to include one of the professional renditions as well, especially since many of them refined the design a little namely with a tail not in ayyk92's, think the Goblin Slayer one should suffice?--Kung Fu Man (talk) 05:56, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I believe it does. Especially when it was reimagined by a notable Japanese manga artist.  Yoshiman6464 ♫🥚 15:35, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Electric Honey Partland.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Electric Honey Partland.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) 17:28, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

3dmoo listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect 3dmoo. Since you had some involvement with the 3dmoo redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. &mdash; Rhododendrites  talk \\ 01:31, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

Spicy meatball listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Spicy meatball. Since you had some involvement with the Spicy meatball redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Colgatepony234 (talk) 00:26, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

Nomination of List of most-viewed online trailers in the first 24 hours for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of most-viewed online trailers in the first 24 hours is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/List of most-viewed online trailers in the first 24 hours until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. — Berean Hunter   (talk)  15:34, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

File:YannyLaurel.ogg listed for discussion
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:YannyLaurel.ogg, has been listed at Files for discussion. Please see the to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. funplussmart (talk) 23:04, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

File:YannyLaurel.ogg listed for discussion
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:YannyLaurel.ogg, has been listed at Files for discussion. Please see the to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 23:55, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

New discussion
Hi, there is a new discussion on Talk:List of most-liked YouTube videos, if you're interested and you want to leave a comment you are welcome--Luke Stark 96 (talk) 09:10, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

"Tournado disambiguation" listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Tournado disambiguation. Since you had some involvement with the Tournado disambiguation redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. DannyS712 (talk) 01:21, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 15
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited (I'm Gonna) Love Me Again, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Rock ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/%28I%27m_Gonna%29_Love_Me_Again check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/%28I%27m_Gonna%29_Love_Me_Again?client=notify fix with Dab solver]). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:36, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

"/r/The Schulz" listed at Redirects for discussion
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect /r/The Schulz. The discussion will occur at Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 May 2 until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 22:29, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Aya and the Witch moved to draftspace
An article you recently created, Aya and the Witch, does not have enough sources and citations as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of " " before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. Antila ✉  17:28, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

"Fire Emblem Switch" listed at Redirects for discussion
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Fire Emblem Switch. The discussion will occur at Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 November 1 until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 01:28, 1 November 2020 (UTC)