User talk:Flygongengar/Archive 1

Discussing with the blocking admin. Mangojuice^talk 14:57, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 05:47, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

You are wrong concerning the matter of Philosopher Zhuang Zhou even in the encyclopaedia Britannica he is refered to as Zhuang Zhou;Zi is an honorific suffix meaning master,which is the title of the book which bears his name.Richardlord50 (talk) 22:22, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Please accept my apologies if there was any misunderstanding Richardlord50 (talk) 12:48, 1 January 2011 (UTC).

No problem

I wrote a disambig page for Omega Sentinel. Is this acceptable? Mathewignash (talk) 00:07, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Makaimuramusiccollection.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Makaimuramusiccollection.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 16:43, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:UltimateArthur1.png

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:UltimateArthur1.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 orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

PLEASE NOTE:

• I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions. If you have a question, place a {{helpme}} template, along with your question, beneath this message.
• I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
• If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
• To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to your talk page.
• If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 05:54, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. When you recently edited Image magic, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Hermetic (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 10:27, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Return to Oz

If a song doesn't pass WP:NSONGS then it is redirected to the article on the album. The age of the article does not give it a by in keeping it from being removed. Besides, the original version of the article is so poorly formatted and was full of original research, and anything about the song is when it is included in a discussion of the debut album as a whole. Please do not revert me, again, or I will propose that the article be properly deleted instead of just being made a redirect.—Ryulong (竜龙) 02:25, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Actually, my main reason to revert your edit was because the article did appear to have at a list of 3rd party sources at the bottom which would establish notability and make it pass WP:NSONGS. The formatting or current state of an article has nothing to do with the notability of the subject if these 3rd party sources do exist, it simply means the article needs to be drastically improved. Since the main problem seemed to be a clean-up and an integration of the sources listed at the bottom, this would warrant putting a clean up tag and a discussion of deletion NOT speedy deletion.Flygongengar (talk) 02:31, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Turning the article into a redirect is not a speedy deletion. Please read the criteria of WP:NSONGS to see why there should not be an article on "Return to Oz":

Songs that have been ranked on national or significant music charts, that have won significant awards or honors or that have been independently released as a recording by several notable artists, bands or groups are probably notable. Notability aside, a separate article on a song is only appropriate when there is enough verifiable material to warrant a reasonably detailed article; articles unlikely ever to grow beyond stubs should be merged to articles about an artist or album.

"Return to Oz" does not meet any of these criteria. The song is never discussed by reliable third party sources on its own. It is always considered a part of Scissor Sisters.—Ryulong (竜龙) 02:38, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes, but you completely miss the point. 3rd party sources establish notability. The guidelines in WP:NSONGS do not state that only those type of songs are notable, they say "are probably notable". Why? Because those are the type of songs most likely to have 3rd party sources and thus establish notability. A song can be notable without ever having been a chart topper or won awards (and there are several controversial songs that do not fit the recommendations but have established notability). Additionally, your distinction between redirect and speedy deletion is a debate of semantics, as you didn't incorporate any of the material from the article after you made the redirect, nor does the album article discuss what potentially made the song notable. So you essentially did just speedy delete the article. And as for quoting wiki policy, fine, Wikipedia:Notability (music) "A mere claim of significance, even if contested, may avoid speedy deletion under A7, requiring a full Proposed deletion or Articles for Deletion process to determine if the article should be included in Wikipedia." So, actually, you were wrong for the speedy deletion, and once again you should have brought it up for discussion instead of just deleting all the content and covering it up with a redirect.Flygongengar (talk) 02:46, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

None of the third party sources focus on the song. They are all mentions in passing as a song on the album. The song is not notable on its own, only as a part of the album it was included on. And turning an article into a redirect is not considered deletion. This is not an issue of semantics, it is just a plain fact. I did not delete the article. I did not speedy delete the article. Stop suggesting that I did. And there is no requirement for me to take anything from Return to Oz (song) and insert it onto Scissor Sisters (album). I just made it into a redirect. I did not merge it.—Ryulong (竜龙) 02:50, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Removing all the information on a page is deletion. The article existed independently discussing a subject separate from what was discussed on the album article page. Entirely deleting all the information on an article's page and turning it into a redirect is still deleting the original article. You are arguing semantics, here. Furthermore, as I have said, there was a suggestion that the subject matter that you deleted was significant. Again "A mere claim of significance, even if contested, may avoid speedy deletion under A7, requiring a full Proposed deletion or Articles for Deletion process to determine if the article should be included in Wikipedia". I'm not arguing that the song is probably not notable, what I am arguing is that you should have brought up the deletion for discussing instead of just turning it into a redirect.Flygongengar (talk) 03:00, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Honestly, by your logic, if I went to the United States article and just turned it into a redirect to North America I wouldn't have deleted anything. I would have simply made it a redirect. That's absurd, as is trying to argue you didn't delete anything.Flygongengar (talk) 03:03, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Turning an article into a redirect is not governed by the speedy deletion policy. Deletion is a completely different process that completely removes the content from Wikipedia from the normal reader. In fact, turning an article into a redirect is a perfectly fine alternative, but I see that I was wrong in reverting you. Now, I'm going to restore the article, but send it to articles for deletion to have it properly taken care of.—Ryulong (竜龙) 03:19, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Also you could very easily turn United States into a redirect to North America, but you would likely see your time on this website cut short for violating WP:POINT and generally being a disruptive editor.—Ryulong (竜龙) 03:32, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

And finally, when I remove your comments from my user talk page two times in a row, that does not mean you should in any way make a third comment on my talk page when I have it clearly stated that I prefer to keep discussions on one page (in this situation your page).—Ryulong (竜龙) 03:36, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for Mar 2

Hi. When you recently edited Zenobia, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Ogre Battle (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 10:55, 2 March 2012 (UTC)