User talk:Aspects

This user is one of the 200 most active English Wikipedians of all time.

Sorry for the unexplained image change I did. I have to explain that this is the official cover art posted from Atlantic Records' official website. That's not an unofficial picture found across the internet, but this one is. --Micrapow (talk) 09:44, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

...do you consider this to be a violation of fair use? Especially as it's been on that page for nearly 8 years and no one complained.[1] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:54, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Also, per WP:NFC#Reporting inappropriate use of non-free content, the proper procedure for contesting fair use/non-free use claims is to nominate the files to WP:FFD. Removing the images from their articles without an FFD nomination causes a bot to tag the image for speedy deletion after seven days under WP:F5, thus circumventing the normal Wikipedia discussion process. At the very least, I would ask the uploader if they are still active before removing the image from the article. Mz7 (talk) 23:27, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

History shows that the deletionists don't want to bother with that. It would require courtesy, which the Betacommand types here consider to be irrelevant. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:20, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(reply to everyone)Sorry for the late reply, but life got in my way of editing Wikipedia. First, very few Wikipedia articles and an even smaller amount of film articles have six fair use images. The images had a fair use rationales of "The screenshot is used to illustrate something described in the article(s)." and summaries of "Intended to support film's plot description." The fair use rationale is vague to the point of not being helpful and failing WP:NFCC#10 for not having a "specific non-free use rationale." Four of the images were in two image galleries are usually unacceptable per WP:NFG and one of those images was two separate images put together. Two images were in the cast section and three images were in the production section with no critical commentary of the images themselves, failing WP:NFCC#8 because they do nothing to increase the reader's understanding of the film and their exclusion is not detrimental to the understanding of the film.

Per WP:NFC#Reporting inappropriate use of non-free content: "Possibly inappropriate uses of non-free content can be reported and discussed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion." They "can be reported and discussed" there, it does not say that is the proper procedure. The images I remove are clear NFCC violations with an edit summary stating so. If someone fixes the problems, then the article is better off then before. If someone reverts me without an explanation or if I think the explanation is incorrect, the article gets bookmarked for a possible future FfD. Of the images I remove, a very small percent have been reverted. For the orphaned fair use procedure, I do understand it and if you went through my contributions, you would see I revert image deletions that are mistakes, vandalism or incorrect fair use thoughts to prevent fair use images from being deleted for being orphaned. Aspects (talk) 04:34, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, interesting. I suppose I can understand the practice as an extension, perhaps, of WP:BRD. On the other hand, this is an area where the WP:NFC guideline could use some updating. Mz7 (talk) 02:55, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, what makes the use of this DVD cover a violation of fair use? --Distelfinck (talk) 17:11, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

DVD covers would need to pass a high bar for use in biographical articles. The DVD covers fail WP:NFCC#8 because there is no commentary about the covers thereby doing nothing to increase the reader's understanding of the DVDs and its exclusion is not detrimental to the understanding of the DVDs. Aspects (talk) 00:32, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

what is going on behind my back, come face to face, kindly take your case back. There is nothing wrong in reverting constructive edits of an editor as per wikipedia policy, the concerned sock has messaged me to revert his edits, as they were constructive. Thandrapaparayudu (talk) 09:56, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thandrapaparayudu, nothing is happening behind your back. All is happening before your eyes. User:Aspects suspects that you may be the same person who operated the account User:Padmalakshmisx before because of various editing similarities. Kailash29792 (talk) 10:10, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Aspects. I am sure you are right, but I cannot see where it states that flag icons are not acceptable within discographies, something I have seen others do also? I see you have made many reverts of discographies I have updated and just wondered where this was against wiki policies? Thank you. (Wozza20 (talk) 00:13, 26 October 2016 (UTC))[reply]

Flagicons were used in discographies many years ago, but were removed for being decorative because the country links are located next to them and for not adding any encyclopedic value to the articles. If you feel that they their use in discographies is a good idea, then you should start a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Icons to see if a consensus can be reached to back it. Aspects (talk) 01:55, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you keep fiddling with Janelle Arthurs's page? I have undone you edits twice but you keep going back and making the same changes. What is wrong with that page the way I did it?

I have explained every one of my edits in their edit summaries and I think I have been quite clear about what I was doing. Most of your edits have had no explanation even when reverting, which it tells you not to do when you hit the Undo button. One of your edit summaries said your edit "Un-did a couple edits that destroyed the flow of the article." The flow was worse after your edit because the article was no longer in chronological order, which is naturally a better flow for a biographical article that is used all across Wikipedia. I did not holey revert your edits, but I improved upon them by fixing sentence structures and removing unnecessary information and I even added in a discography and filmography section to the article. Aspects (talk) 04:44, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Could you please explain what value this logo adds to this article? .... Text alone is sufficient and there's no need for a logo here...... –Davey2010^Talk 00:28, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The logo is used in the infobox, as logos are used throughout Wikipedia, to identify the government agency as explained in the fair use rationale and has been used in the article for at least eight years. If you still think the logo should not be used, then you should start a WP:FfD to see if your thinking is correct. Aspects (talk) 00:31, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

But text alone identifies the agency so there's no need for a smally crappy logo that serves no purpose, I'm not sure how it's survived that long but anywho I've gone there, Anyway thanks for replying. –Davey2010^Talk 00:35, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I'd like to ask you why you removed some categories of "The Adventure of the Cheerful Four". It's a puppetry written by Koki Mitani, programme for children, based on the canon of Sherlock Holmes and produced and broadcast by NHK. They're not incorrect.--Ishinoak (talk) 03:13, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The categories I removed are for television series and not for television episodes like the article is, which is why the one category I left was for episodes. Aspects (talk) 03:32, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I see. Thank you, Aspects.--Ishinoak (talk) 14:07, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

From the icy Canajian north; to you and yours! FWiW Bzuk (talk) 13:39, 24 December 2016 (UTC) [reply]

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Rock(music). Since you had some involvement with the Rock(music) redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Steel1943 (talk) 00:07, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I don't understand what's wrong with my edits on the Lauren Alaina page. I added one sentence talking about her movie. I feel as though if you're going to mention that she's going to be in a movie, why not include one sentence about what the movie's about? Shouldn't the people reading the article know the movie plot?

Also, I don't believe my quote about bulimia is too long. I only added an extra three sentences. If you're going to mention Alaina's struggle with bulimia, it should be mentioned how she got it. Isn't that the whole point of Wikipedia? To post extra information about a topic? Furthermore, the Lauren Alaina Wikipedia article isn't that long to begin with, so I don't believe that an extra three sentences of prominent information is a big deal.

This is the only article I edit, so I'd appreciate it if you'd leave it the way I left it. Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by BrittanyAnne (talk • contribs) 16:24, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Just because you edit one article, does not mean you WP:OWN it and no one else gets an opinion, that is not how Wikipedia works. Per WP:BRD, you made an edit, that was partially reverted and instead of discussing it as expressed by the template I left on your talk page, you continually revert to your preferred version without a discussion to show there is consensus for your edits. You need to start a talk page discussion on the article and wait for a consensus to be formed, and if the consensus is in your favor then the sentences can be added back. If you keep reverting without gaining a consensus, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Aspects (talk) 16:51, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that, but it just means that I particularly care about this article and really would like it a certain way. I'm new to having an account on Wikipedia. I've made edits before without an account, so I'm just learning how to use the talk page. Also, whenever I made those edits, I explained them in the edit summary because before that's all I thought I had to do. And today after you left a message on my talk page and I learned how to use a talk page, I just left one back explaining my edit. I still would like to know what's wrong with them. I shortened the quote even more so it was just two sentences extra and you still changed it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BrittanyAnne (talk • contribs) 17:07, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Just because you explained something in an edit summary does not mean it automatically gets to stay in. I also repeatedly linked to WP:BRD in my edit summaries, which you seemed to ignore because you have still not started a discussion on the article's talk page. Issues involving article content should preferably be made on the article's talk page so other editors can see and comment on them to form a consensus instead of user talk pages. You also need to start adding ~~~~ at the end of your comments instead of letting a bot auto sign them for you. You also need to indent to show you are responding to a particular editor or point by using : before your comment, each : indents added created one further ident than the one before. In a discussion, this helps editors know who is making which points. Aspects (talk) 17:16, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Aspects. Thanks for contributing to the talk page for the cover on the House disc. I've had similar discussions with people on some other film posters on Japanese films. Would you be able to help contribute? There is some discussion here [2] on several posters that has been going on since January. If you could contribute, it would help out a great amount. Andrzejbanas (talk) 17:40, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've read through the section and I'm just curious, as I checked other sports' team pages, and they all have nationality flags displayed for their players. CentreLeftRight ✉ 18:47, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

They violate the subsection part about sportspersons. The flags are currently being used to represent the nationality of the person in a non-sporting sense. These sportspersons do not officially represent their country, therefore flagicons should not be used in these cases. Most of the other sports' teams article do not use the flagicons and of the ones I have removed, none have been reverted. In the cases where there was a nationality column in a table, the words of their nationality could be added back. Aspects (talk) 00:28, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, editor of Team EnVyUs, recently came back and noticed you made some changes. You state the reason the flag icons were removed was because they were being used to "represent the nationality of the person in a non-sporting sense" + the players "do not officially represent their country". I don't know how much you know about eSports and each individual game, but at least for Team EnVyUs I believe that the players have represented those countries in a sporting sense. I hope you don't discredit them just because it's eSports.

• Call of Duty: Players have participated in the X Games and were acknowledged under their respective country.
• Counter-Strike: Players participate in World Electronic Sports Games and similar tournaments, which are national team based tournaments à la world cup.
• Gears of War: Players have their professed nationalities on their official Gears eSports profile.
• Halo: Players have participated in the X Games and were acknowledged under their respective country.
• League of Legends: Players need to declare their (playing) nationality in order for import rules and regulations to be adhered to. These players are then continuously represented by said nationality whenever they play.
• Overwatch: Players participate in Overwatch World Cup 2016/2017, again players representing their national team.
• StarCraft: Players participate in WESG, see Counter-Strike.

So I would argue in Team EnVyUs case, 6/7 rosters have represented their countries in a sporting sense as far as eSports go. With Gears of War and League of Legends only lacking based on the fact no national team tournaments have currently occurred, however in the eventual scenario players nationalities are already determined. So as long as you view it from an eSports perspective, as it hasn't grown as far as traditional sports with officially recognized national teams, I feel the use of flag icons is justifiable.

Also, on a side note, you removed flag icons for the non-sporting staff and some of the locations (which were being used for navigational purposes). I will revert these irrespective of the above as I feel it was done erroneously. Wiki nV (talk) 01:25, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I still do not feel that they are representing their countries in a sporting sense, but if you still do, you should start a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Icons to see if there is consensus for this issue. What is the reasoning behind having the flagicons for the staff? That could also be brought up at the talk page. The locations were not in error but should have been under the basic premise of violating WP:MOSICON. In the list they do not help with navigational purposes, but usually act as WP:ICONDECORATION. Because those lists are in collapsible tables, I did not see the other ones or I would have removed those also. Aspects (talk) 23:53, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, I'll look into starting a discussion were you linked. As for the locations, I guess I misunderstood the navigation aspect so I'll remove them. Wiki nV (talk) 01:25, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

1) I saw you once again removed the flags in a article I did: Dallas Fuel. I followed what you suggested last time and no one replied, so I was under the impression no one had any complaints using flags for nationalities of esport players when applicable (i.e., where justification exists, such as national tournaments occurring). Considering, Overwatch has an offical Blizzard-run nation based tournament every year (see:Overwatch World Cup 2016, 2017), on this specific instance I really don't see how you could remove them on the criteria they haven't represented their country in a sporting sense.

2) In regards the bolding removed in the infobox; I used other franchise based league teams as the template for the article e.g., NBA/NFL etc. So I was wondering what's the reason they're allowed to bold specific sections and in some cases the exact same info (see infobox/history for any NBA team), whilst I'm not?

Wiki nV (talk) 01:54, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have reverted my edits and while I believe they were correct, I am hopefully done dealing with these issues in regards to eSports. Aspects (talk) 02:05, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Aspects, I don't know if you noticed, but a new user (Khaire Nuh) is continously removing valid and sourced statements on Carrie Underwood's page, along with rewriting several paragraphs. This new user is doing it at their will, with no real reasons - all their edits were uncalled for. Who is this user to come out of nowhere to say something is "excessive" or their writing is better than other's? There has been a consensus on the singer's page throughout these years. I ask for your help because I know your are a recpected user here on Wikipedia and you've been protecting not only this singer's page, but several other pages for years, with important adds. Thank you in advance.

ChrisBS (talk) 03:18, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest starting a discussion on the talk page to see if a consensus could be formed that could represent numerous editors and not just the two of you. I would probably add my opinion if there are some well thought out responses. In this article, I tend to fix vandalism and obvious errors. I also think the article is too long, but my template was removed, so I tend to leave most of the editing to people more passionate about the subject than I am. Aspects (talk) 00:31, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I restored the non-free image on Joe Romig since taking a picture of the person now does not have the same encyclopedic value as the image of the person from when his playing days. MECU≈talk 15:21, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please excuse my erroneous edit, likely a mistaken rollback or revert caused by my fat fingers, hypnagogia, or one of my ridiculous cats. I have likely self reverted or noticed the mistake after you corrected it. Again, my apologies. Thank you. EvergreenFir (talk) 07:06, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Aspects. The Inspiration Country Award nominations he was nominated for was removed due to "unsourced, non-notable awards/nominations." I'm seeing these awards included on other artists Wiki pages such as Carrie Underwood, Justin Moore, Joey + Rory, etc. It seems to be a notable award. As long as I find sources, can I add these nominations back on the page? Thank you in advance. Ptebwwong (talk) 04:20, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! You never answered my question previously & this has come across again. I recently added an award on this Wiki page which was taken off for being a non-notable award. I would like to know what is considered a "notable award." The awards are industry awards & has been added on other artist's pages like I stated previously. Also, I'm seeing awards on other artist's pages that are considered "notable." For example, I'm seeing awards listed for artists for a website fan voted award (Ex. Kane Brown "Taste of Country"). How is that different than the awards I added which were industry events with numerous nominees & winners? Ptebwwong (talk) 02:34, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am using "notable" as the Wikipedian definition of the award being WP:NOTABLE enough to have its own article. None of the awards you added to McCreery's article, along with not having references, were notable enough to be included in my opinion. You could always start a talk page discussion or ask for a third opinion to get more opinions on the matter. Aspects (talk) 03:08, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for answering my question! I have credible sources for the industry awards I've listed. I can start a reference section for his awards if needed. But it sounds like you don't think these awards are notable. If that's the case, then I would like to argue that these industry awards should be included especially the songwriting award. However, I don't know how to do that. Am I supposed to start a talk page discussion here or on my talk page? Please help! Thanks in advance! Ptebwwong (talk) 07:58, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

For article issues, discussions should be placed on the article's talk page and if a consensus cannot be reached between two people, a WP:3O could be asked for. Aspects (talk) 05:29, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I can't seem to post about this discussion on his talk page. When I click on publish, it says there is an unknown error. Could there be a problem with his talk page or is this a problem on my end? Thanks for all your help! Ptebwwong (talk) 011:51, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for sorting out the plot on that article - much appreciated. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 07:43, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi!

You re-formatted Live Cargo's poster back to its old iteration. I posted needing help uploading the new and correct poster, which was released in an IndieWire article about the film back in February.

Can you help replace it? Or let me know the process to uploading a picture within a film info template?

Here is Live Cargo's wiki - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Live_Cargo Here is the new poster link - http://www.indiewire.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/lc_poster_gray_rgb.jpg?w=691 (from this article - http://www.indiewire.com/2017/02/live-cargo-trailer-poster-lakeith-stanfield-dree-hemingway-logan-sandler-1201785341/)

Thank you!!!

Julia — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jhannafin (talk • contribs) 23:27, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I still don't see that is "unclear, ambiguous or controversial" about including them. It says they can be included in lists and tables. I looked through the archives of MOS:ICON and the only thread about including flags in concert tour tables was approved at the time.  — Calvin999 08:50, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The consensus against using flagicons in tour articles is that no tour article uses them and the argument for using them most of the time is decoration, but in that case no further information is added that could not be expressed just with the country name. Even in your edit summaries and here, you have either stated that you added them or that they could be added, but not why they were or should be added in these cases. If you feel that flagicons should be used in tour articles, then I would advise starting a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Icons to see if a consensus could be formed for their inclusion. Aspects (talk)

Where is the consensus, because there's nothing on MOS:ICONS that you linked to earlier. As I said, the only thread I found in the archives approved it's usage. I didn't do anything wrong by including them.  — Calvin999 18:04, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That discussion shows there was no consensus to add flagicons to tour articles. The current consensus through article editing is to not have flagicons in tour articles because no tour articles currently use them. Since consensus can change, I again suggest you start a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Icons. Aspects (talk) 20:06, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

But I'm asking you to show me the thread or page saying that flags cannot be included in tables, even though MOS:ICONS says they can be.  — Calvin999 20:08, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Good morning!

I deleted the poster from The Death and Life of John F. Donovan because it is not the official poster.

It is a fan made poster (please see indiewire article)

Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.149.148.2 (talk) 12:51, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I read through the indiewire article listed in the reference section of the film's article. There is no mention of the poster, let only that it is a fan made poster. I am going to revert the image and you need to start a WP:FfD and show evidence of it being a fan made poster. Aspects (talk) 03:49, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there! I unfortunately do not know how to start a WP FfD conversation, but here is the link of the indiewire article mentioning the poster is a fake

http://www.indiewire.com/2016/07/the-death-and-life-of-john-f-donovan-poster-xavier-dolan-film-jessica-chastain-kit-harrington-1201706715/

Please read below poster: Update: Xavier Dolan let us know that this poster is a fan-made fake. We apologize for the error. With anticipation for Dolan’s films higher than ever before, we’re not surprised that fans are paying tribute to him with great art.

Thank you for agreeing to removing the picture. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.141.23.7 (talk) 16:40, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for finally linking to the article, because your last response talked about an IndieWire article and the only one used article's references did not talk about the poster. I am not going to add back the poster, now that their is proof that it is a fan made poster, but this could have been made a lot simpler by you providing the article link the first time you removed it.

I believe you are the User:JFDinc., who was warned about potential conflict of interest and the IP user, 109.149.148.2. You need to stick with one account because using numerous accounts can get you blocked. You need to put ~~~~ to sign your comments on talk pages and you need to use WP:Edit summaries to let others know why you made your edits. In the future, you should read links provided to you, like WP:FfD was above, because saying you do not know how to start the conversation when it has step by step instructions. Good luck with future editing. Aspects (talk) 19:50, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I've undone your edit at Rebel Heart. The reason why is here: the image has an invalid WP:FUR. Does something as blatant need a pointless RfD to establish consensus that an album cover needs a valid fair-use rationale? That's already there in WP:FUR, and it'd take some impressive somersaulting to get around arguably the most necessary Wikipolicy there is. Homeostasis07 (talk) 19:27, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I did read the edit summaries, but did you read the three edit summaries by the three different editors you have reverted? You need to take this to WP:FfD and at this point you are WP:Edit warring. I have added back the album cover and removed the orphaned fair use template because even if it could be added back in this case, the seven day period would restart after a period of it being in use. Please head the advice of the three other editors you have come into contact about this issue and start a WP:FfD. Aspects (talk) 19:40, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You've interacted with me three times over this, and already you've mentioned edit warring, topic blocking, ANI and FfD. You seem very argumentative and confrontational. Before we start, Please CALM DOWN. Here's the previous FfD about the image. It's now a year old. Can you explain how a confused, no-consensus, year-old FfD trumps WP:FUR? Because in all your bluster, you've neglected to do so. Please also explain your reasoning behind arguing - in effect - for the inclusion of a copyright violation. Homeostasis07 (talk) 20:03, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You reverted three editors who have explained the next step in the process and why it should be taken. Just like an article that went through a previous AfD and was kept/no consensus cannot be speedy deleted through speedy deletion/prod, similarly an image that went through a previous FfD and was kept/no consensus cannot be speedy deleted through orphanage. Because of differing viewpoints of the fair use rationale of the cover leading to no consensus, you would need to show that consensus has changed that there is no fair use rationale for the cover and doing so through FfD is the proper way of achieving it. Aspects (talk) 20:31, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted two editors—the uploader of the image, and the guy who nominated it at FfD in the first place. After discussion, the latter reverted himself, and the uploader of the image accepted that the FUR was invalid. Then you came along 5 days later and here we are. Now look at the FUR: "to serve as the primary means of visual identification at the top of the article dedicated to the work in question", which is not correct. The grey cover serves as primary identification, and it's also the only cover mentioned through prose in the article. WP:FfD long ago established that an additional cover can only be included in the infobox if there is adequate, properly sourced prose establishing that the additional cover was subject to critical commentary. (See this: "Consensus formed over many years is that images of different revisions of albums require specific sourced commentary on the image to meet NFCC#8 and without this they usually always fail NFCC#3a. Note that even with this commentary many alternate covers are found to fail the NFCC requirement.") By FfD's own standards, the image fails several key aspects of NFCC. So at what point is another discussion at FfD necessary to establish that the additional cover violates copyright? (Sorry it took so long to respond to this. My mouse is being a pill—automatically closed this tab [containing a half-written response] when I went to browse FfD for the Talk on Corners link). Homeostasis07 (talk) 21:03, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Silence...", even though you've been active and have made literally 100 edits since my last response here. Care to respond, or shall I just undo your edit? Homeostasis07 (talk) 23:53, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Homeostasis07: I explained to you before also that the last FFD resulted in no consensus. I agree that the image fails notability, but that does not mean that you will continue edit warring. Please go through FFD and get this over with, thanks. —IB ^{[ Poke ]} 03:48, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@IndianBio: Someone else who doesn't understand the difference between WP:Edit warring, and taking established, longstanding FfD consensus and being WP:BOLD with it. I expected more from you, considering you did exactly the same at Talk on Corners several months ago by removing the second artwork on at least 3 different occasions. Homeostasis07 (talk) 17:11, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Homeostasis07: It was explained to you many times that the next step in the process was to take the image to WP:FFD and why it was the next step. Instead of taking this step, you continued to argue and I could no longer see the point in responding because you were not listening. The only person that was stopping you from taking the image to WP:FFD was you. Aspects (talk) 04:44, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"I don't like what you're saying, so I'll just ignore you." Nice etiquette. Homeostasis07 (talk) 17:11, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Consensus formed over many years is that images of different revisions of albums require specific sourced commentary on the image to meet NFCC#8 and without this they usually always fail NFCC#3a. Note that even with this commentary many alternate covers are found to fail the NFCC requirement.") Bolded the key word for you. An FFD was held to see if this was an exception which resulted in 'no consensus', hence the status quo of the alternate cover remaining. If you want to discuss this again you need to go back to FFD. Chase (talk | contributions) 13:58, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You've just bolded a random word. Before "usually", the admin at FfD was pointing out that that additional album covers "require specific sourced commentary on the image to meet NFCC#8", and then says that, if this isn't done, they "usually" always fail NFCC#3a'—they were referring to two different sections of NFCC. Homeostasis07 (talk) 17:11, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Anyway, here's your damn FfD discussion. Homeostasis07 (talk) 17:11, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Aspects

I hope this message finds you well. I am the Assistant Editor at American Journal of Public Health (AJPH). We have been trying to upload a newer cover issue to the Wikipedia page. Can I ask why you made an edit to revert the the cover to a previous cover of AJPH? How can I upload a new cover to remain on the page? Any feedback you have will be greatly appreciated.

Thank you in advance. comment added by Patelsb4 (talk • contribs) 18:59, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. In regards to categories such as Category:Once Upon a Time (season 5) episodes, and related categories, might I ask as to what they provide that the episode lists of the season articles do not? Thanks. -- Alex^TW 06:50, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Most TV series that ran for many seasons and had many episodes already have season episodes categories. I found six (Adventure Time, Bob's Burgers, Grimm, Community, Glee and Once Upon a Time) that ran from six to eight seasons and had over 100 episodes. All of these episodes were in one giant episodes category and breaking them into season episodes categories would make the categories easier to navigate and keep them in line with similar TV series. The categories are not meant to replace the episodes lists, but a different way of grouping them together. Aspects (talk) 04:21, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, that makes sense! Thanks for the explanation. -- Alex^TW 04:24, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I give you thanks for thanking me. :) Feel free to give me millions of thanks in one message or two. Thank you! --George Ho (talk) 06:28, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I see that you restored this image to Raised fist because "the image now has a valid fair use rationale". I'm afraid the current rationale isn't valid.

According to the template used as the rationale, the reason the image is used in the article is "to serve as the primary means of visual identification at the top of the article dedicated to the entity in question." In other words, it belongs in the infobox as the only image of a raised fist on the page. Since there are free images of raised fists, including one at the top of the article, this image fails to meet its stated purpose.

You should read WP:NFCC, particularly requirement 8: "Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the article topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding." I don't believe that anybody can argue that the presence of the Wisconsin raised fist "significantly increase[s] readers' understanding" of what a raised fist is, or that the omission of the Wisconsin raised fist from a gallery of images of raised fists "would be detrimental to that understanding".

Please consider whether the image complies with the requirements of Wikipedia's non-free content policy. If you agree it does not, please remove it from Raised fist and nominate the file for speedy deletion by adding {{di-orphaned fair use}} to the top of the file's page. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 03:54, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have been reversing a number of bot edits that removed fair use images from articles on the basis of WP:NFCC#10c in that the article was not linked on the image page. In this case, the image was linked to Raised Fist instead of Raised fist. I fixed that part of the rationale, added it back to the article and removed the orphaned tag. If there is another part of WP:NFCC that is not satisfied, then remove the image with that in the edit summary. Aspects (talk) 19:12, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again. The image File:Salman Ramadan Abedi, suicide attacker in the Manchester Arena bombing.jpg is taken to FFD, where I invite you to comment. --George Ho (talk) 10:29, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Aspects, On the article Cougar Mountain Zoo, you reverted some COI edits by Misty, who is an employee of the zoo. She has been mentored on editing by Fuhghettaboutit who has been very kind and patient. I have since edited the article trying to add refs and improve it, but she contininues to directly edit the page, re-editing my edits and reverting them without using undo. IMO, her edits are not good and rely on the zoo's own website. Would you please review her recent edits (August 30)? I went ahead editing after these and did not see her edits until later, so it is difficult to revert them. You may just decide to delete all edits after 14:51, August 30, 2017‎, which would be OK with me. Please take a look at my comments to her on my talk page HERE. Best Regards--Eagledj (talk) 13:58, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your efforts there. Often I feel like I'm the only one who cares for those articles. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 22:44, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Aspects:, I see you have been revamping {{Babylon 5}}. Did you know that navigation templates should not contain redirects? Ping me if you want to reply. Charlotte Allison (Morriswa) (talk) 23:30, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I was cleaning up the links to the navigational template and when I got to the ship sections, I noticed a lot of redirects. I knew that they should not be there, but in past similar situations I thought I might be stepping on some toes, so I left them and added a few more. Since you pointed this out to me, I removed the ones I saw and if any other ones remain, please remove them. Aspects (talk) 23:52, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, I eventually plan to trim the nav template of most minor ships and characters, much like the 'locations' section only has three entries currently. I have no objection to the Nav template not containing currently redirected articles. Should I spin anything out in the future, I'm perfectly capable of putting entries back in the nav template. Jclemens (talk) 00:53, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

DISPLAYTITLE in templates should be inside noinclude tags like [3]. Otherwise pages using the template will get the DISPLAYTITLE code. It doesn't work when the page name is not equivalent but the page will be added to Category:Pages with disallowed DISPLAYTITLE modifications and display a warning on preview. PrimeHunter (talk) 03:00, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about that, I was wondering why the individual episode articles were in that category. I will make sure I include those tags in any future templates I create or edit. Aspects (talk) 03:28, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe we've interacted before (at least, I don't recall doing so). I thought I would take this opprtunity to day 'hi' try discussing a couple issues we now seem to be involved with. First, the cat templates you had removed; I have just posted an explanation for restoring them (at least for now) on that articles talk page. There is some history there I'm sure you weren't aware of. If you have any questions, pleas don't hesitate to ask. As for merging the diagnoses list into an episode article, I hope you'll rethink the proposal, if you consider the utility of the list and some of the future plans I have in store. I believe the list on it's own is a worthwile page to have and it would be shame to lose it. Anyway, that said, I'm not looking for any grief or hostility. Hopefully we can dicuss any questions or concerns you have to out mutual satisfaction. Cheers. - ^theWOLFchild 21:48, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure how much utilization the list had since it was not even included in the House template until I added it today, so I am not sure how many editors were even aware that it existed. Aspects (talk) 21:52, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Templates are new territory for me. (But thanks for adding that). Who's knows, with it now added, the list gets more awareness and more utilizatuon. So maybe if we could put this merger talk on hold for awhile, see how tbings go? - ^theWOLFchild 22:56, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge discussions usually last at least 30 days unless a consensus is formed earlier. Since there is no consensus, the discussion should stay open so other editors are aware of the article. Aspects (talk) 23:23, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Aspects. As one of Wikipedia's most experienced Wikipedia editors, Would you please consider becoming a New Page Reviewer? Reviewing/patrolling a page doesn't take much time but it requires a good understanding of Wikipedia policies and guidelines; currently Wikipedia needs experienced users at this task. (After gaining the flag, patrolling is not mandatory. One can do it at their convenience). But kindly read the tutorial before making your decision. Thanks. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 21:53, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The article Leslie Hunt has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

No indication this individual is notable beyond American Idol, which would be WP:BLP1E

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 {{proposed deletion/dated}} 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 {{proposed deletion/dated}} 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. John from Idegon (talk) 09:55, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

...to you and yours, from the Great White North! FWiW Bzuk (talk) 17:01, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Aspects. AfC submissions Random submission 2+ months 2,359 pending submissions Purge to update v t e I recently sent you an invitation to join NPP, but you also might be the right candidate for another related project, AfC, which is also extremely backlogged. Would you please consider becoming an Articles for Creation reviewer? Articles for Creation reviewers help new users learn the ropes of creating their first articles, and identify whether topics are suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia. Reviewing drafts doesn't take much time but it requires a good understanding of Wikipedia inclusion policies and guidelines; currently Wikipedia needs experienced users at this task. (After requesting to be added to the project, reviewing is not mandatory. One can do it at their convenience). But kindly read the reviewing instructions before making your decision. Thanks. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 02:57, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You undo the name of sth. Why not fix it also? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stefanos P (talk • contribs) 11:54, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry, but am I supposed to understand these sentences? Aspects (talk) 05:40, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, we've recently asked you if you would be interested in helping out with AfC and at WP:NPR. If you are, please let me know - I can accord you the rights. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:12, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The pages Hades (song) and Zelos (song) you moved aren't songs, they are the single album titles. You would see that the title song for Zelos is Dynamite and the title song for Hades is Fantasy.

FYI, you may want to weigh in at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard#Social Distortion tours. I noticed you had nominated some of the relevant articles for deletion in the past. Marquardtika (talk) 01:38, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I asked Melanie but if she doesn't see it in time, Could you lockdown Heather O'Rourke as at least two editors (maybe the same under a sockpuppet) keep uploading copyright violation photos of O'Rourke and putting them in the infobox. Paul Benjamin Austin (talk) 05:42, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have no objection to deleting File:Luzhin Defence 2.jpg (I was just trying to help). Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 03:37, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please take any substantive concerns about the edit to Talk:Zoe Graystone rather than reverting.- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 14:59, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

regarding "this diff"

• There's no source - the citation given is to a search engine result. All of the text is unverified
• There's several singers in China who have the name Ling Dong. It's unclear even by searching which of them is being refered to in the article
• The previous deletion nomination wasn't a PROD it was an A7 speedy delete, which was changed to a PROD per recommendation.
• Please leave the prod notice there until the BLP sourcing issue is fixed or it gets deleted.

Edaham (talk) 04:07, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the above comment and over and above that the link throws back no results and just reverts to the homepage. This is a valid PROD as "To be eligible for a BLPPROD tag, the entry must be a biography of a living person and contain no sources in any form (as references, external links, etc., reliable or otherwise) supporting any statements made about the person in the biography." and as this source defaults to a search page it cannot be used to support anything written in the article. Dom from Paris (talk) 15:11, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ah I have just checked the link and it does sometimes throw back some images of a casette tape and may conceivably be used to support the statement that she released a tape. Dom from Paris (talk) 15:17, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to have a lot of haters and I can understand why. I'm sorry that I'm getting joy from your suffering :(--◂ ‎épine Ⓥ 04:43, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Malcolm Glazer.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion 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. – PeeJay 10:06, 31 May 2018 (UTC) – PeeJay 10:06, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I'll describe why I'am removed information about Russia.

1.This articles are about the international versions of animated movies. In the old versions of the articles, there was a lot of information about distributing, marketing and anything else only in Russia. (Im particular, you removed the english covers of movies)

2.In addition, this company can not be called Russian, because the headquarters is in Los Angeles, and in Russia is a production office.

3. As you can see, many information has not been updated for a long time. For example - Box Office.

No corporation obliged to positiong itself as belonging to any country or culture - this informaton may harm to corporation.

Ormsnow (talk) 09:36, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I answered you on my talk page.

Hello. Check my talk page, please Ormsnow (talk) 14:55, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again. Check my talkpage

Ormsnow (talk) 16:33, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks for endorsing my PROD at Join with Us Tour. I notice you've tagged a number of these concert tours over time. I'm seeing a large number of these articles that I don't think pass WP:NTOUR, so many in fact that it's almost made me think I may be misinterpreting the guideline! I've PRODed and AFDed a few more, and I've put something up at Wikipedia talk:Notability (music)#Non-notable concert tours to try and get a bit of a discussion going - maybe these need to be policed a bit better. --woodensuperman 09:33, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

My first editing of concert tour articles was trying to make them consistent across Wikipedia including usings tables instead of lists, center aligning data in the tables and removing unnecessary flagicons. I then tried to delete non-notable tour articles or improve ones notable ones that were lacking in references. The former became difficult with fanboys or fly-by-night editors that would protest a deletion simply because they liked the artist and the later became time consuming to find reliable sources and figure out how to integrate them to the article. I have backed off of tour articles recently because I have been more focused on musical artists' navigational templates. If you look at my sandbox, User:Aspects/sandbox#Tours 2, you will see at one point I went through every single tour article and tagged articles that had no references, needed more references or used primary sources. The list is not all of my additions, but the earliest tags date back to January 2017.

My strategy: If there were three non-primary reliable sources I left the article alone. If they had one of the three problems I mentioned above, I would tag them. Sometimes these were new articles that would eventually have reliable sources added or another editor would prod/AfD them. If after a year, an article had not been improved by adding references, I would look for references to see if they could be found and add them, and if not, I would prod/AfD the article. I can try and help out in a small way, but if I do not have the energy or drive to go all in like I believe would be necessary. Feel free to ask for any advice you might need here. Aspects (talk) 22:19, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi fellow Wikipedian, I am trying to find a userbox or an award which can advertise the fact that I am a Wikipedia donor. Do you know of any? Anshuk (talk) 05:51, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

May I ask why the filmography was removed? Thyang1990 (talk) 02:21, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Per prior consensus that is summarized at Wikipedia:WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers/Consensus summaries#Filmography navbox templates, there should not be filmography navigational templates. This also applies that a filmography should not be listed in a singer's navigational template. Aspects (talk) 07:26, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I feel that pictures of Margaret and Seana should be added to Murders of Margaret and Seana Tapp. I doubt that any of the photos of them in news articles are copyrighted as they would have been released by either the family or Victoria Police. Paul Benjamin Austin (talk) 04:33, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! I reverted your revert of my removal of the supposed logo for Silveira house! The logo you restored is actually the logo of Jesuits Zimbabwe/Mozabique, as you may see on their site. Used generically as the logo for Silveira house it is inaccurate, as a) it isn't their logo (you may see the true one on their site), and b) it acts as promotion for the parent organization, the Jesuits of Zimbabwe/Mozambique. Per WP:LOGO, "Avoid using a logo in any way that creates an impression that the purpose of its inclusion is to promote something." Thanks. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 05:09, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

For what it is worth, this article was subsequently renominated for WP:AFD and Deleted. It is a pretty sad article the way it sits. I don't see any reason to keep it. Respect your view though! :-) --Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 16:42, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, can you clarify why you think this poor quality png logo is preferred over this higher quality gif logo? Same for File:TorontoShootingStarsLogo.png vs File:Toronto Shooting Stars logo.gif? TDL (talk) 03:03, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, just following up on this. Can you clarify? TDL (talk) 15:23, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

For logos, a png file format is preferred over a gif file format. The new images were larger, but not necessarily better quality. Aspects (talk) 22:49, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that in general a PNG is preferred over a GIF, but PNGs are not necessairly always better than GIFs. A high quality GIF is superior than a low quality PNG. It seemed pretty clear to me that in this case the GIFs were higher quality, for instance the lettering was much clearer. What specifically did you think was inferior about these two GIFs reltive to the PNGs?

Both of these PNGs were originally uploaded as GIFs, and a bot subsequently converted them to PNGs, which won't actually improve their quality relative to the original GIF. If you really belive these should be PNGs I can convert them, but don't prticularly see much benefit. TDL (talk) 00:22, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bigger does not always equal better quality, which I thought I explained the first time. You could either upload the logos in the png file format or you could upload them again in the gift file format and nominate the files at WP:FFD stating their is a replacement. Aspects (talk) 06:04, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Right, you did state that peviously, but just like the last time it's still a straw man argument. I didn't upload these images becuses they were bigger, but rather, as I explained, because they were of superior quality (ie clearer lettering). Given that you haven't been able to identify any rational for why you believe the PNGs were superior to the images you had deleted, I will follow your advice and take these to FFD. Feel free to explain there. TDL (talk) 02:36, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the invitation to comment on the inclusion of a photograph of BA in her article. After reading the comments both pro and con I would suggest it's time for you to move on. Nothing you or I could say about the subject is going to change the mind of somebody who calculates response times to three decimal places. Twofingered Typist (talk) 14:15, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed you deleted images of all album covers from this page's discography section with the blanket statement "Removed non-fair use of album covers in a discography section per Wikipedia:Non-free content". Indeed, the "fair use" categorization of some of the images is under question (such as this), and they are scheduled for deletion in a few days. However, most of the images (for example, this) were uploaded by the image owner and contained a statement from him authorizing their use. Why does that image need to be deleted? Alternatively, would you please provide guidance on what additional changes could be made to that image's page to allow it to be re-added to this article? Johnson487682 (talk) 14:11, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I corrected the licensing on the images to album cover templates. If the uploader has the ability to give permission, they need to send an email to WP:OTRS, that would be the only way I could see that the images would be able to be used in the band's article. Aspects (talk) 04:05, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I found your removal of the main image here quite heavy handed. I guess we'd now have to create a separate article just for the album. Even though the album cover shows all the original members of the band. And even though that album is probably the most notable thing about them. Because "rulez is rulez", yes? Martinevans123 (talk) 23:47, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Album covers should never be used to identify musical artists/bands. Per WP:NFCI, cover art can only be used to identify the album or in context of critically commentary. From the band's article, the album would not seem to pass WP:NALBUMS if it was made into its own article and unless there could be sourced, critical commentary about the image should as the album cover, it would not pass WP:NFCC in use in the band's article. Aspects (talk) 23:54, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose policy has been developed for a reason. To protect something or someone, I guess. In this case, it's hard to think of a better image (or indeed find any image at all) that represents the band. I expect this is a common complaint. Tom Coppola has his own article (but also with no image). It's possible that some copyright free images of Googie Coppola might exist somewhere. But it wouldn't be fair to represent the whole band with a picture of just her. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:22, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I removed the Westlife template. They did not write "Moon River", and it was not a significant release of theirs; it is not even mentioned in either their article or discography. All the best, -- Ssilvers (talk) 13:20, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Another editor moved Westlife's song/single template from Template:Westlife singles to Template:Westlife singles and songs that I then moved to Template:Westlife songs. I went through the template and fixed current links and added the template to song articles it was not listed in such as "Moon River." If someone feels this addition or any others were incorrect, they can be reverted and I would not object. Aspects (talk) 06:52, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

FWiW Bzuk (talk) 16:16, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've been paying attention at that article, with the IP range 2601:401:c400:357:0:0:0:0/64 deciding to keep separate tables for solos and duets, and I know you've reverted their edits on at least a couple of occasions. This is just about reaching edit-warring territory (IP's latest edit); the IP going more with a WP:ILIKEIT mentality on establishing their edits without trying to gain WP:CONSENSUS for the edits. No effort to discuss on the article's talk page, instead using edit summaries to push their position. MPFitz1968 (talk) 00:08, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I notice you've removed some redlinks from navigational templates. Is there a guideline suggesting that this be done? Or is this a personal preference? WhisperToMe (talk) 04:00, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:NAV, navigational templates should only link between existing articles. If an article was created, it could then be added back into the template. Aspects (talk) 04:35, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi!

I'm currently a senior student at Stanford University studying computer science. Recently I'm taking on a design project of rebuilding Wikipedia's edit abuse filter! I'm just wondering if I can pick your brain on some questions regarding the editing process and bounce some ideas with you! Can I ask you some questions and perhaps hop on an interview? My email is zliu19@stanford.edu Thank you so much! 2601:647:4E00:440:601F:F5E4:6519:5186 (talk) 02:56, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Aspects, I notice you removed my prod from Cornelius Gurlitt (art dealer) on the basis that the page is a redirect. Quick question: if I remove the redirect and make it a disambiguation page instead (basically it is a bad article title, it mixes up 2 concepts i.e. Cornelius Gurlitt (art collector) and his father Hildebrand Gurlitt -- who was an art dealer) - can it be proposed for deletion then? It would just make wikipedia cleaner to see it gone, IMO, although I shall not lose sleep if my suggestion is not a good one. Let me know... Cheers Tony Rees Tony 1212 (talk) 07:12, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If you read through WP:PROD, you will see that redirects are ineligible for proposed deletion and that is why I removed it. IF you feel that the redirect still needs to be deleted, you could start a discussion at WP:RFD. Aspects (talk) 04:33, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the response, so I *could* discussion at WP:RFD but not sure I have the energy - plenty of other things of higher priority - and do not care about it *that* strongly to make a fuss, So I'll let that one go through to the keeper :) Cheers Tony Tony 1212 (talk) 06:04, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Aspects, just wanted to drop a word about the covers on "Is She Really Going Out with Him?". I removed the infoboxes and separate sections for the covers since none of the covers are really too notable; the Sugar Ray cover was a theme song to an obscure TV show with very few sources, and the Kid Courageous version is even less notable (which makes its use of non-free imaging even more dubious!). I think the infoboxes and song listings are unnecessarily clunky and give too much space on the article to much less important renditions. Other GA and FA articles condense covers into a single paragraph like on this article ("The Long and Winding Road", "Strawberry Fields Forever", etc.).

Currently I have the article under review for GA-status so I can bring up the topic in the review if you want. For the time being though, I think the shorter version is a better form of organization. Beatleswhobeachboys (talk) 05:51, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

While I think the article is better with the sections, I can see how GA/FA articles do not tend these sections. As such, I will not revert their deletions again. Aspects (talk) 03:23, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the cooperation. I'll make sure to bring it up in the review. Beatleswhobeachboys (talk) 17:18, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding your edit here, being in place during a GA promotion does NOT by itself justify keeping audio samples that fail WP:NFCC#8. Sometimes reviewers initially overlook how audio doesn't really enhance article content, but that doesn't mean we can't just WP:Be bold and remove unworthy samples ourselves. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 04:28, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Same goes for any sample removed per WP:NFCC#8; people can just boldly remove them without needing FFD. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 04:18, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

An why was revert good for if I may ask. Thank you for your time. Lotje (talk) 05:17, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The most recent edits involved messing up the image link, which brought the article to my attention. Looking back through the edit history there has been a number of IP editors making large changes without edit summaries. The most recent edits also changed unnecessary things like the order of presenters that were not helpful, so I reverted back to the last good version. If some of the changes are edited again with an edit summary and improve the article, then I am all for it. Aspects (talk) 21:09, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's the first time I see redlinks removed from a navigation template. This is not even a random list, it was quite structured. I see template with redlinks all the time on many platforms. I am quite surprised enwiki is so rigid on this topic. So which is the guideline?--Alexmar983 (talk) 21:43, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:NAV, navigational templates should only link between existing articles. If articles are created, they could be added back into the template. Aspects (talk) 08:48, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's dysnfunctional and basically lacks depth. I will no longer create navboxes untill it is changed. This has no real effect on the overall quality and also on the reader experience (as a generic reader i want to see what is missing). I have no time to waste anymore, it took me hours to set up a correct list of reasonable articles to do and a platform should have laerned these concepts after so many years. It looks like some rules created by people who think template do not exist for content but just for some mechanical rules. --Alexmar983 (talk) 19:00, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NAV does not anything regarding to "navigational templates should only link between existing articles". Red links are just smaller portion of the template. My concern is, who's going to maintain this template when a new page is added. I believe red links encourages users to add new pages to WP.--Joseph (talk) 20:50, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please see this discussion: WT:Manual of Style/Infoboxes/Archive 12#RfC: Red links in infoboxes--Joseph (talk) 15:18, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you do this? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:30, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the template data because in all of the thousands of edits I have made to templates, I had never seen it before and it seemed unnecessary. After reading through the template documentation, I still do not understand what it is supposed to generally or what it does to this template specifically. I will not remove this data again from this template or from any other template I see it in the future. Aspects (talk) 04:40, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Can you stop removing the title cards I uploaded in the TV shows articles? Not only that I'm merely following MOS:TV by using an intertitle shot of the show (i.e., a screenshot capture of the show's title) or a promotional poster used to represent the show itself should be used. The file that I removed are neither the official intertitle or a promotional poster of those shows. Also, the files I uploaded are much smaller in size and the titles of the files are also written better. For example: comedybartitlecard versus "Comedy Bar title card".  The files you are retrieving aren'tthe intertitle card and a promotional poster would be similar to a movie poster. The file names are also dated and informal.TheHotwiki (talk) 00:11, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Some of the screenshots you changed were equal in quality image and I left those changes alone. The screenshots I reverted were all of lower quality where the images and/or the titles were blurry and in those cases it is better to have a better quality image than a smaller sized, worse quality image. The name of the older files can be changed if they are not sufficient and that is not a reason to replace them. In your edit summaries you said "Added title card", but did not explain why you made the change and your most recent edit summaries said "per MOS:TV For a show's main article, an intertitle shot of the show (i.e., a screenshot capture of the show's title" when the older files were intertitles and never explained the worse quality images. Per WP:BRD since you started a discussion, there needs to be a consensus for you to make your changes and as such I am going to revert back to the better quality images. If you want to try and reach more editors, you could take the older images to WP:FFD to see if a consensus can be reached. If you continue to revert without consensus, you could be blocked for WP:Edit warring. Aspects (talk) 04:47, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You are making your own rules. Do you have evidence that the title cards you are keeping are the actual intertitle of those shows? For example, Comedy Bar doesn't have big blank spaces in the sides of its title card. Doesn't matter if they are blurry or low quality, if it fits the criteria of MOS:TV's infobox. Also, its the best quality I could find. I can provide the links to the files that I've uploaded, that will prove that they are the intertitle card of the show. Can you do that as well? No you are the one edit warring, as I remember you did this before but you couldn't show a link about the actual title for a show you've edited and the file you wanted (higher quality) was deleted. TheHotwiki (talk) 05:40, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Like I said, per WP:BRD, you need consensus for these changes and you should take your concerns to WP:FFD. As for your links, they all state "www.gmanetwork.com", which means someone else would have to search through the website to find them and are not specific links. Instead your are reveting against WP:BRD and are clearly edit warring instead of trying to reach a consensus. Aspects (talk) 05:47, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What consensus? Files are replaced all the time. I didn'tyou know you have to get a consensus to replace a file. I've replaced them with the actual title card per MoS:TV, while the others have a proper file name now that isnt "SP2Palau", per Wikipedia's rules. Again, unless you provide an ACTUAL evidence/link that those are the title cards for the show, then okay. But until you haven't done that. I'm keeping the files, taken from the actual broadcast of the shows. Thank you.TheHotwiki (talk) 05:52, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Also feel free to check these files [4] [5], I've already included the link where I got the screenshots and they are the actual title card of those shows. I will be doing the rest later. Now, how about you provide the source of the files you want to keep it as well? Because the source given doesn't show those images you want to keep over the actual intertitle cards.TheHotwiki (talk) 06:17, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If a template has no parent article, as {{Alex Bleeker and the Freaks }}, you can speedy-delete it via {{db-subpage}}. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 23:59, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I saw you removed the prod tag I had placed on Danny Brom because it did not include a reason. I put it back with a reason for removing the article. Rockphed (talk) 11:55, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Cops matched (Vincent’s hair) with (Rapist’s DNA) in End of Episode, but Vincent’s an Ex-Convict, so I thought (Dumb Cops compared Dam Rapist’s DNA against Criminal Records In Begining?(103.232.128.12 (talk) 10:41, 12 August 2019 (UTC)).[reply]

The Fate/Extra Last Encore in all honestly doesn't need its own page since the actual content is puny despite having much reliable sources. So in keeping with some MOS:TV shenanigans, some of the info will be moved back to Fate/Extra, it doesn't really deserve its own article unless you want to put out an episode listing of it. Not everything needs its own article, this goes to Anime as well.BlackGaia02 (talkpage if you dare) (talk) 14:11, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:09, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

Google Code-In, Google-organized contest in which the Wikimedia Foundation participates, starts in a few weeks. This contest is about taking high school students into the world of opensource. I'm sending you this message because you recently edited a documentation page at the English Wikipedia.

I would like to ask you to take part in Google Code-In as a mentor. That would mean to prepare at least one task (it can be documentation related, or something else - the other categories are Code, Design, Quality Assurance and Outreach) for the participants, and help the student to complete it. Please sign up at the contest page and send us your Google account address to google-code-in-admins@lists.wikimedia.org, so we can invite you in!

From my own experience, Google Code-In can be fun, you can make several new friends, attract new people to your wiki and make them part of your community.

If you have any questions, please let us know at google-code-in-admins@lists.wikimedia.org.

Thank you!

--User:Martin Urbanec (talk) 21:58, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

× × €4.95 / month Favourites List Audio Listining Color Mode Monthly New Updates Fullname * Email * Credit or debit card Subscribe A PHP Error was encountered Severity: Notice Message: Undefined variable: userid Filename: user/popup_modal.php Line Number: 68 Backtrace: File: /home/ah0ejbmyowku/public_html/application/views/user/popup_modal.php Line: 68 Function: _error_handler File: /home/ah0ejbmyowku/public_html/application/views/page/index.php Line: 478 Function: view File: /home/ah0ejbmyowku/public_html/application/controllers/Main.php Line: 107 Function: view File: /home/ah0ejbmyowku/public_html/index.php Line: 315 Function: require_once "> Subscribe Now Premium Membership × €4.95 € 9.90 / month Create a Premium Account quick and easy Save your Favourite Pages Listen to any page in Audio Colour Night Mode Create your Account Modal title × Close Save changes Cancel Subscription × User_talk:Aspects" id="cancelSubscription" name="cancelSubscription" class="mb-0"> Are you sure you want to cancel your membership with us? A PHP Error was encountered Severity: Notice Message: Undefined variable: user_membership Filename: user/popup_modal.php Line Number: 192 Backtrace: File: /home/ah0ejbmyowku/public_html/application/views/user/popup_modal.php Line: 192 Function: _error_handler File: /home/ah0ejbmyowku/public_html/application/views/page/index.php Line: 478 Function: view File: /home/ah0ejbmyowku/public_html/application/controllers/Main.php Line: 107 Function: view File: /home/ah0ejbmyowku/public_html/index.php Line: 315 Function: require_once A PHP Error was encountered Severity: Warning Message: Invalid argument supplied for foreach() Filename: user/popup_modal.php Line Number: 192 Backtrace: File: /home/ah0ejbmyowku/public_html/application/views/user/popup_modal.php Line: 192 Function: _error_handler File: /home/ah0ejbmyowku/public_html/application/views/page/index.php Line: 478 Function: view File: /home/ah0ejbmyowku/public_html/application/controllers/Main.php Line: 107 Function: view File: /home/ah0ejbmyowku/public_html/index.php Line: 315 Function: require_once A PHP Error was encountered Severity: Notice Message: Undefined variable: userid Filename: user/popup_modal.php Line Number: 208 Backtrace: File: /home/ah0ejbmyowku/public_html/application/views/user/popup_modal.php Line: 208 Function: _error_handler File: /home/ah0ejbmyowku/public_html/application/views/page/index.php Line: 478 Function: view File: /home/ah0ejbmyowku/public_html/application/controllers/Main.php Line: 107 Function: view File: /home/ah0ejbmyowku/public_html/index.php Line: 315 Function: require_once "> Yes Cancel Continue Subscription Harry Potter Books × A PHP Error was encountered Severity: Notice Message: Undefined variable: products Filename: user/popup_harry_book.php Line Number: 24 Backtrace: File: /home/ah0ejbmyowku/public_html/application/views/user/popup_harry_book.php Line: 24 Function: _error_handler File: /home/ah0ejbmyowku/public_html/application/views/page/index.php Line: 479 Function: view File: /home/ah0ejbmyowku/public_html/application/controllers/Main.php Line: 107 Function: view File: /home/ah0ejbmyowku/public_html/index.php Line: 315 Function: require_once A PHP Error was encountered Severity: Warning Message: Invalid argument supplied for foreach() Filename: user/popup_harry_book.php Line Number: 24 Backtrace: File: /home/ah0ejbmyowku/public_html/application/views/user/popup_harry_book.php Line: 24 Function: _error_handler File: /home/ah0ejbmyowku/public_html/application/views/page/index.php Line: 479 Function: view File: /home/ah0ejbmyowku/public_html/application/controllers/Main.php Line: 107 Function: view File: /home/ah0ejbmyowku/public_html/index.php Line: 315 Function: require_once