User talk:Aspects/Archive 6

ARCHIVE (May 2010 - December 2010)
Please note that: This is an archived thread of discussions. Please do not add any more discussions to this page. Instead engage in discussion on My Current Discussion page.

Recent edits by 92.27.134.133 on American Idol alumni album sales

This user had recently made several edits citing a Billboard article. The problem I have with this is that the article does not list individual numbers for alumni with more than one album and there is some rather unreliable rounding for alumni who have sales that exceed one million units. I believe that because of this, only Jennifer Hudson and Kris Allen's (There is mention of his debut selling 296,000) numbers should be updated accordingly. Here is the link: http://www.billboard.com/features/top-24-american-idols-of-all-time-1004088662.story#/features/top-24-american-idols-of-all-time-1004088662.story Do you agree? 68.149.239.203 (talk) 23:26, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

I liked how it was before, and I can see edit wars starting by changing some of the number to add up to the new total, but I find it hard to say that Billboard is not a reliable source, even if they are not telling us how they got the numbers. A discussion should be brought up on the article talk page and probably messages sent out to the regular contributors and the Idol wikiproject or even a Request for Comment to get some more input. Aspects (talk) 23:41, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

I apologize for forgetting about this. Who else could be considered a regular contributor to the article? After looking at the revision history statistics, I don't notice any other regular contributor besides yourself. Should the Idol wikiproject be notified since the article doesn't (at least not right now) fall under it? I will request comments if this isn't resolved.68.149.239.203 (talk) 01:17, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Categorization

Mostly me I have mostly taken it upon myself to take categories that have up to 6,000 articles and diffuse them myself. The scheme is in part based on Category:Albums by year, Category:Video albums by year, and Category:EPs by year as well as pre-existing artist categories such as Category:AC/DC live albums. It's more or less an extension of that. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 14:20, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Reverts

How did I make three reverts? I wish to warn you because you are close to violating 3RR. –Turian (talk) 19:15, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Turian

Hello Aspects, I would like to know why Turian has been blocked. Will this block me permanent or is this just a temporary suspension? Turian, while being a tad of the aggressive side, is one of the best editors on the season 9 Idol page. He has made some useful contributions and has been involved, like myself, in some crucial projects culminating in a more aesthetically pleasing article e.g. the new elimination table. Assuming that you have blocked him due to block threats made earlier in the week, all I have to say is how bloody dare you! Please end his suspension or rehabilitate his account. Qdiazissipom (talk) 16:42, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

You might want to do a little research before you accuse someone of doing something. I am not an admin, so I have no power to block anyone. I did not give him a block threat, I gave him a warning that he had made three reverts in a 24-hour period and if he made another one in that period, he could be blocked for breaking the WP:3RR rule. According to Turian's user page and talk page, the editor decided to retire from editing Wikipedia. Aspects (talk) 17:13, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

pbskids

Hello Aspects, thank you for your contributions on articles related to PBS Kids. I'd like to invite you to become a part of Wikipedia:WikiProject PBSKids, a WikiProject aimed at improving the quality of PBS Kids articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page for more information. Thanks!

Article move

Regarding your move of Up to the Mountain (MLK Song) to Up to the Mountain with the summary "No need for this level of disambiguation", please note that the "(MLK Song)" portion isn't a Wikipedia disambiguation phrase, it's part of the song's title. Thus, it's a no different case than (I Can't Get No) Satisfaction or I Want You (She's So Heavy) or Ain't No Woman (Like the One I've Got) or I Can't Help Myself (Sugar Pie Honey Bunch) or Shake Me, Wake Me (When It's Over) or many other song articles where part of the title is in parentheses. It just happens to look like a disambiguation phrase ... I've moved it back. Wasted Time R (talk) 10:49, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

FMTTM

I just wanted to point out that while I agree with your revert of Fly Me To The Moon, as that is its actual title, it is referred to with the parenthetical (In Other Words) in a few places (for example, the Utada Hikaru release, as listed on the singles Wait & See: Risk and Beautiful World/Kiss & Cry, but strangely enough not Remix: Fly Me To The Moon). Confusing Manifestation(Say hi!) 23:26, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Flag icons

Hi. After getting a note from John, I posted this message to Trocksuk4415's page, and I'm following that up here. I see that you've been reverted repeatedly without discussion by this user, which I know is frustrating. You've been attempting to start a discussion over the dispute, and thanks for that. :)

I'm wondering, would it be useful to post messages to the talk page of WP:MOSICON, or somewhere like that, and get some input from someone else familiar with the guidelines? It would be helpful, I think, if some third party were to remove those icons, so it's not just the two of you going back and forth. I'd do it myself, but I honestly have no knowledge or opinion about the guideline in question.

If someone else reverts Trocksuk4415, and he reverts back without discussion, then I'd feel comfortable issuing a short block to try and get some communication going. Does that seem reasonable? -GTBacchus^(talk) 12:14, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

I will start a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (icons), but from the editor's last two edit summaries, I doubt they would abide by a third opinion if that editor is not a fan of the University of Kentucky. Aspects (talk) 04:19, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't matter what they'd abide by. It's not about convincing them of anything; you generally can't do that. It's about setting up the conditions for doing something stronger about it. If it's just you and he reverting each other, that's too even. You need it to be the consensus of multiple editors versus him. Then I can step in as an admin and help. Does that make sense? -GTBacchus^(talk) 05:46, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi. You can go ahead and redo your edit. I've blocked Trocksuk4415 for 72 hours, with a note explaining that I'll unblock as soon as he participates in discussion. Hopefully this will work. -GTBacchus^(talk) 22:56, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Comment

I would like for you to explain yourself when you said "I think a better example of hypocrisy is reverting any attempts to make the season articles consistent without an explanation and then using the inconsistency as an argument to change this article.". Otherwise, your arguement is obsolete. --76.107.17.32 (talk) 05:13, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

I think the comment was straight forward. You reverted edits that would have made the season articles consistent and then made the argument that season 9 should be changed because the seasons were inconsistent, that is hypocrisy. Aspects (talk) 01:20, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

How do you know? What did I do? And most importantly, why do things have to go your way? We were doing just fine doing it for the past two seasons, and now you want to take us back to the "good-ole' days"? Stop living in 2007. Everybody hates the bottom 3 vagueness, and you are not helping matters. --76.107.17.32 (talk) 07:05, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

I can tell what you did by looking at your contributions at Special:Contributions/76.107.17.32, that on May 24th you reverted AT40Reviewer's changes to make the seasons consistent without edit summaries or talk page discussion, and then three days later made the talk page statement about hypocrisy. It is not just me making decisions, but a consensus of editors at the talk page. Aspects (talk) 23:45, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Why is it that there have been about FIVE DIFFERENT EDITORS change the elimination chart, but the same person always changes it back. Does that sound like a consensus? --76.107.17.32 (talk) 03:48, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Oh, look, it looks like edit revert number six. Way to tell everyone it's your way or the highway. --76.107.17.32 (talk) 19:10, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Since you switched what you were talking about editors, I am asking you to bring up this discussion at the article talk page. There was a consensus formed there and you need to convince everyone there to form a new consensus instead of just me here.

Also, I think you can hardly count User:DaNewKidzOnDaBlock as a different editor with this edit summary "You think you can just block me and remove every edit I make? Think again.", [1], that reverted someone who reverted your talk page statement, shows that this new editor is actually you going around, at the time, a block that could have extended your block further. If this is your user name, please start just using that and stop all future personal attacks even if they are in Japanese, which I am about to delete and warn DaNewKidzOnDaBlock. Aspects (talk) 19:47, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Siobhan Magnus‎

Reverting malformed attempts to link to outside copyright and or non-existant images is not 3RR. Active Banana (talk) 20:15, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

• [2] is the removal of the trivial section

while

• [3] and
• [4]

reinsertion of fancruft tags which had been removed without the issue being addressed. Active Banana (talk) 20:28, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Looks like you are right. I thought 3RR was returning to the same version; not making attempts at consensus by flagging content as fancruft/trivia rather than just removing it as such. Active Banana (talk) 20:51, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

You are now a Reviewer

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

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

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

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Courcelles (talk) 04:54, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

BLP Others template

I responded to your comment on my talk page. Sehome Bay (Leave a message) 19:52, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

flagicon removal as per WP:MOSFILM

I see that you have removed flagicon by these edits. [5], [6]. I am unable to find the section that describes this action in Wikipedia:Manual of Style (film). Can you please help me locate it? --Sreejith K (talk) 14:50, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

I have been using that edit summary for a while and now that I look at the style guide, I see that they moved that information out of the article as being redundant and to just have a link to Template:Infobox film. Thank you for pointing out my mistake to me and in the future I will use an edit summary of "Removed per Template:Infobox film" where flagicons are mentioned in the country field instructions. Aspects (talk) 18:13, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

PRESS PLAY ON TAPE capitalization

Please, if you do not know why PRESS PLAY ON TAPE and other Commodore 64 keywords/sentences should be capitalized, please don't change them to something per some style rule. There are exceptions, ie "Circle line". Writing them in another case variation is not the right way, and just because there is some style rule doesn't make your changes right. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TheoEngell (talk • contribs) 11:55, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

The article has always been at Press Play on Tape and the band's name throughout the article should mirror that. There is no explanation for why you reverted this edit without an edit summary basically calling it vandalism, [7], where I fixed music genre capitalizations per Template:Infobox musical artist, removed unnecessary formatting, removed overlinking and added a link to the album article as I explained in my edit summary. Since this is being discussed on the talk page of the article, all further article discussion should be discussed there. Aspects (talk) 21:57, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Hronia Polla

I see that you have made no attempt at beginning a discussion in merging the song to the album page. Needing expansion and being not notable are two different things. Please discuss next time, especially on articles of music of other territories where release formats are different than your own country. GreekStar12 (talk) 18:07, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

I have reverted your edit for now. I agree that the article needs expansion, but that doesn't make it not notable, it just got lost in the pile of other greek music articles receiving expansion, as a lot of them have been made just in recent times. In Greece, singles are not released physically and chart based on aiplay in an established nielsen system (except on rare occasions of maxi-single/ep releases) however a lot of these airplay articles have been made into notable articles and acheived substantial length. This song should be EVEN MORE notable as it has a physical single release. GreekStar12 (talk) 18:20, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

First off, I made a BOLD edit and no edit has to be discussed before it is made per the BRD cycle. Song articles like Hronia Polla that make no mention of why the song is notable should be redirected back to the album or the artist. Hronia Polla, per WP:NSONGS has not 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." Being released as a physical single does not make a song notable. Aspects (talk) 19:09, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Albums & EPs

I have an idea of merging the album section and the EP section into one. Reasons are:

1. Albums and EPs are both collection of tracks
2. EPs appear in all Billboard album charts.
3. If bonus tracks are included in an EP, is it still an EP? (e.g. 1 or 2 bonus tracks added to a 8-track EP; see The Fame Monster.)

It is a new idea and it hasn't been use anywhere yet. Please do not included this as a reason. An example can be seen here. Please add responses here. Thank you. Langdon (talk) 20:23, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

RE:Judges changes

Hi User:Aspects,
Fox News discusses TMZ.com, and it never said it was not true. To be most accurate, we should put on the American Idol template: Kara DioGuardi (2009-TBD); or: Kara DioGuardi (2009-TBA.)
ATC ^{. Talk} 17:49, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

FoxNews is not the same as the Fox Broadcasting Company. The article does not say the reports are true, they are just stating what someone else says. The FoxNews article is not a reliable source because it does no reporting of its own and just repeats what TMZ, a non-reliable source, says and gets no confirmations from any of the people or companies involved. The template should stay the way it is until there is some official confirmation. Aspects (talk) 19:38, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Aspects made the right call here. There's no rush to put the material on the article until there's a proper source. Even I made the mistake of fixing up a ref from the LA Times that simply repeated what TMZ had said. Dawnseeker2000 23:04, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

references and singlechart

Indeed, this was for a different editor.—Kww(talk) 14:05, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Aspects. You have new messages at SchuminWeb's talk page.
Message added 20:05, 11 August 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

SchuminWeb (Talk) 20:05, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Hello, Aspects. You have new messages at AyAn4m1's talk page.
Message added 13:35, 15 January 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

AyAn4m1 (talk) 18:51, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

WP article dedicated to Jim Kerr

Hello Aspects,

I created a specific WP article about Jim Kerr's solo tours but it was deleted. I content myself with a paragraph about Jim Kerr's solo tours within the Jim Kerr WP article which lasted a couple of months... till some WP censors (Ohconfucius, Escape Orbit & yourself Aspects) recently decided to destroy my work (I spent dozens of hours working on this article, particularly creating links to YouTube pages)

I can't stand looking at my work being destroyed just like that !

Many WP articles dedicated to artists or bands have a WP article about concert tours (check out WP articles about Led Zeppelin, The Rolling Stones, The Beatles, Iron Maiden, Lady Gaga, Owl City...). These informations about concert dates & locations are very useful ! Besides, these concerts make history ! Thus, a WP article dedicated to Jim Kerr's solo tours is worth existing and very useful for anyone interesting in Jim Kerr's solo & video footages of (actually) rare live performances.

I'm tired of having to fight against wikipedia's discrimination.

I don't think it's good for WP to discourage WP updaters. I'd appreciate you (or anyone at WP's) stopping to delete again my work.

Sincerely,

Lurulu (talk) 19:36, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi Aspects, I deleted the Personal Life section from Siobhan Magnus page because its not describing her personal life at all. Its whole paragraph dedicated to her tattoos, which is trivia information. It should be deleted. Personal life should be about her marital status, relationships, children....etc etc. Since im new here, how do we go about this? Alot of Siobhan Magnus fans believe this section about her tattoo should be deleted too. Please advice.

telementeh Telementeh (talk) 05:10, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Flags

Hi, I notice you've been editing some of the pages that I also keep an eye on recently and I wanted to discuss flag icons. I agree I went a bit overboard with flags, they certainly didn't add anything to the tables I did for singles! However, I think when it comes to showing album positions they are of positive benefit. For example, the Throwing Copper article. They don't adversely affect the sort function in the table and I think they help the reader to find the info they are looking for. Finally (and admittedly this is rather un-encyclopaedic), they just look nice!

I've agreed with all your edits up to now, but I've read through the wiki guidelines you quoted and I don't think these flags are a problem so I've reverted your last edit to Throwing Copper. If you're unhappy with this maybe we could throw it open for wider discussion. Anyway, thanks for the assistance with the articles. Please let me know what you think. Regards, Ian. Iangurteen (talk) 08:35, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply, I've read through all the info in the links you provided. Whilst I don't think there is 100% concensus, it's clear that most people think the flag icons are unneccessary. I don't feel strongly enough about it to start a big debate, so I won't add any new flags to chart tables. (I can't quite bring myself to remove the flags in the ones I've already done though.) Iangurteen (talk) 07:29, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

I feel very strong about the flags being there. The way the tables were represented before make the tours clearer and more legible. It also shows a wider variety of where the bands are playing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Franticflare14 (talk • contribs) 03:16, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

I do not see anything to back up the assertion that the flagicons make the tours clearer, more legible and show a wider variety of where the bands played. I think the flagicons do not show a wider variety than the country links do. Aspects (talk) 22:46, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Do not fucking remove the flag icons from my tour pages! You are making them look ugly and you are ruining the fucking pages. Do it again and I'll have you reported and deleted for vandalism.

- Hazza5600

You do not WP:OWN these pages. These flagicons are nothing more than decoration and you agree with that when you stated on Hellbilly Delux 2 World Tour, "it makes the page look good instead of having to look at plain text." as your only argument. Before you accuse someone of vandalism, you might want to look through WP:VANDALISM. Aspects (talk) 22:46, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of How much for freedom?

A tag has been placed on How much for freedom? requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the article consists of a dictionary definition or other article that has been transwikied to another project and the author information recorded.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag - if no such tag exists then the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate and adding a hangon tag is unnecessary), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. Milosppf (talk) 15:22, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

FYI

Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style_(icons)#Use_of_flag_icons_in_concert_tours_or_festivals Gnevin (talk) 15:26, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Max Romeo

Whilst I warmly applaud you for merging Romeo's concert listing into his main article, I can not help but feel this is fancruft minutiae that does not belong in this encyclopedia. Any thoughts ? Best wishes,

Derek R Bullamore (talk) 22:59, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

I do not necessarily think it belongs in the article but I thought it was a better solution than the information having its own article. If a discussion were started, I would make my opinion known there. Aspects (talk) 23:01, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

OK - I agree. Then I will start a discussion on his talk page. I suspect that only you and I will answer, as dear old Romeo is hardly hot news. I have seen your name around and I do not wish to, in any way, denegrate your efforts. Quite the opposite. Cheers,

Derek R Bullamore (talk) 23:13, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Your edits to Total Drama World Tour Cycle 1

Your edits to the unconstructive nonsense that is Total Drama World Tour Cycle 1 appear to be a hoax. I ask that you delete the page. (RealityShowsRock (talk) 01:17, 28 August 2010 (UTC))

Sorry

Thought u were one of the ppl who started Total Drama World Tour Cycle 1. Srry. (RealityShowsRock (talk) 19:27, 28 August 2010 (UTC))

American Idol

You ever plan on doing anything with User:Aspects/sandbox/Grand Finale (American Idol 6), User:Aspects/sandbox/Grand Finale (American Idol 7) or User:Aspects/sandbox/Grand_Finale_(American_Idol_8)? They've been in your userspace since late 2009 and you never touched them. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 02:36, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

I meant to get around to them before and it seemed to have slipped my mind. When I get time I will integrate them into their respective American Idol season articles. Aspects (talk) 22:46, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Wow!

I bet that took you more than 5 minutes!! Well done. Pdfpdf (talk) 12:25, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Flagicons in company templates

Aspects, point taken. Will go back and try to remove the offending flagicons. Thanks! Fsmatovu (talk) 20:20, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Borders

Hi! I noticed taht you were reverting my edits about adding the border. It exist and is for a reason, delimit white covers, covers with white borders or cover with some white border fragments. I would like you to stop undoing it without a good reason or a better summary than "unneeded border". Is needed for the reader, and you work for they, not for yourself. Tbhotch^{Talk C.} 06:19, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Your Article Editing & Flagging

You heavily edited the Alex Lambert article which subsequently made it sound ungrammatical and incomplete and therefore someone nominated it for deletion like an hour later. Fortunately, after discussion and speaking with an administrator, the article is now marked for rescue and we are correcting your edits and adding back sources, trying to get it back to the way it was and even better. Also, our rationale for the pictures does check out and if you read the article there is plenty of commentary for why the pictures were included. If you would like to continue the dispute about the article or pictures I will be more than happy to hear your reasoning. Gollymolly1010 (talk) 04:40, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Flags in University articles

I noticed that the flag icon was removed from the University of Tampa‎ article "per WP:MOSICON". I know that flags are often overused but I find nothing in the text of the WP:MOSICON guideline that says anything about flags in university articles. Would you please educate me so that I can improve my editing skills and take the correct action when I see one. Thanks. Truthanado (talk) 15:26, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

A link to the country's name is better than the flagicon as suggested by the Manual of Style, a wikilink to the country's name should be provided per Template:Infobox university and a singular flagicon in an infobox field creates WP:UNDUE weight to that field. Aspects (talk) 15:47, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. I am still somewhat confused. The {{USA}} template (viz: United States) that was in the infobox includes a wikilink to the country's name; it's not a singular flag icon. That seems to fulfill the requirements of the guideline. I'm not sure we should be doing a massive removal of the USA template (or other country templates) from infoboxes without further discussion. The combination of the flag and the country name makes it easy for our readers to see what country the university is located in, and our goal is to provide easy-to-use useful information to our readers, isn't it? Truthanado (talk) 17:36, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Re:Sales

Of course I'll find the discussion for you... give me a few minutes... my internet is playing up so its taking ages. -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 | talk2me 17:41, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Ok the whole thing about sales etc. started here and then concluded here -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 | talk2me 17:57, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the links, I was not aware of this, but I rarely add new information like this to articles, I tend to change the numbers wherever they are located in the articles when there is a reliable source to back up the change. Aspects (talk) 18:19, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Cris Bonacci

I noticed that you corrected twice the infobox color for the Cris Bonacci article, reverting it to the solo singer background. To my knowledge, Bonacci has never been a solo singer and she just used to sing some backing vocals in Girlschool and later with Marc Almond. On the contrary, she is a well known lead guitarist and an appreciated producer. I think that the musician background is more appropriate for the infobox, but maybe you know something that I don't. Please, explain it to me. Lewismaster (talk) 07:55, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Per Template:Infobox musical artist#Background, solo_singer should be used for any singers, "Singular vocal performers (including lead and background singers, singer-songwriters, and singer-instrumentalists). This categorization is for any article about a singer, whether they perform solo, with a group or band, or both." Aspects (talk) 21:25, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

I see, thank you. Lewismaster (talk) 05:47, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Play On Tour statistics

Every link there was reliable for the gross and attendance. Nobody was ever forewarned about what was going to happen if we had to change the references or not, so the least you all could've done is warned us so we could've gotten a different link. Those boxscores from each show were provided reliably by Billboard Boxscores officials. I'm incredibly livid due to the fact that all the work I've put into that page is completely gone, and I wasn't even warned beforehand to change the sources pages. How was I supposed to know that the links provided weren't reliable or allowed if I'm not told? I appreciate the lack of respect (note the incredible amount of sarcasm in my tone there). undrwood9098 (talk) 02:33, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, but if you have been editing here for a while you should know that a fan message board would not be accepted as a reliable source. A BOLD edit does not need a warning especially when items are sourced to non-reliable sources. Aspects (talk) 05:58, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Got any refs for "Lass uns laufen"?

Hi. I reverted your edit to Lass uns laufen because I think two dates in the infobox is better than a fictitious table in a new section. I assume you just pasted in a Release history table from somewhere, but didn't remember to change the contents. Or are those really for "Lass uns laufen"? It's hard to tell, as the existing dates are referenced by rotted links. It'd be great if you've dug up some new ones (and could add them t the page). Regards, — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 12:49, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

I am sorry, I used the wrong dates from a copy and paste I use to make sure I format the table correctly. I will correct them and add back the release history section and I will make sure in the future that I double check the dates so this will not happen again. Aspects (talk) 00:15, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

What's the problem?

Aspect, you placed three form "Disputed non-free use rationale" notices on my talk page. All three are album covers placed on an article for the artist wherein said illustrated content is discussed and the album itself does not have (nor merit) a separate article. I am sure this conforms with US Copyright law, but am unsure what exact language is needed. I appreciate any guidance you may have. Cheers.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 00:10, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Per Wikipedia:Non-free content that I referenced in the disputed fair use templates, "Cover art from various items, for identification only in the context of critical commentary of that item (not for identification without critical commentary)." Cover art cannot be used to identify the band as each of the covers are currently being used to do. Aspects (talk) 00:21, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

No, no, no. The cover art is being used in an article which discusses the release AND the artist. Are you trying to enforce US copyright law beyond its actual application? Where do I dispute your erroneous position?--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 03:48, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Oh, I guess I can live with that (your fixes). Sorry if I was testy before.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 22:18, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Image removal

Hi, I saw that an image I uploaded was removed for copyright and I want to know why this is. I have seen many album covers uploaded to Wikipedia with no apparent problems, so why can I not upload this one? What can I do to it to assure it does not get deleted, because every time I try and add a new photo to this article it gets deleted, and I would really appreciate it if you could tell me how to avoid this from happening again. --Hatman1960 (talk) 19:50, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

An album cover cannot be used in an infobox to illustrate how an artist or a band looks per Wikipedia:Non-free content. Under the acceptable use of images section it states, "Cover art from various items, for identification only in the context of critical commentary of that item (not for identification without critical commentary)." In this case, it is used in the band's infobox to illustrate the band and not the album itself and there is no critical commentary that can be placed in an infobox to justify its inclusion in the infobox. Aspects (talk) 19:55, 4 December 2010 (UTC)