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

To be clear, when I first tried to add Twitch to the list of networks using the infobox that was provided, it did not work. I would highly suggest adding in the infobox for that now.

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 ~8 weeks 1,840 pending submissions Purge to update 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]

	The Original Barnstar
	Thanks for saving my initially created article Erick Cañosa. Marknamz8931 (talk) 05:28, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Category:The Inbetweeners episodes requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. UnitedStatesian (talk) 22:58, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

FWiW Bzuk (talk) 13:09, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Category:The Outer Limits (1995 TV series season 3) episodes requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. UnitedStatesian (talk) 05:58, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Category:The Outer Limits (1995 TV series season 4) episodes requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:36, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Category:The Outer Limits (1995 TV series season 5) episodes requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:37, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Category:The Outer Limits (1995 TV series season 1) episodes requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:23, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Category:The Outer Limits (1995 TV series season 2) episodes requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:24, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Category:The Outer Limits (1995 TV series season 6) episodes requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:25, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Category:The Outer Limits (1995 TV series season 7) episodes requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:25, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thanks for your edit, although I have yet to find any examples on the internet with it having the 2 black rings around it when it's on a white background - other than from sources which have copies the Wikipedia version. If you can find a source that shows it with the two black circles when it's on a white background, then I think you'd have a good argument to revert, but I think for now, there are a lot of badly copied logos out there on the Internet! Rebroad (talk) 04:15, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have reverted the file change as a contested file change that would need to have consensus formed at the talk page or you could take it to WP:FFD. All of the logos found in a Google image search shows the double lines. Aspects (talk) 04:18, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I understand if you want to tidy things up - Richard's tour pages were messy and short of satisfactory. However, I don't understand why you bothered filling this section Cliff Richard#Tours, you clearly have limited knowledge/resources for it - entering incorrect information, not including any references and omitting relevant info outside of the years you chose to include. So I have tagged the section. Richard has been touring for 60 plus years and has too many concert series and tours to enter on his main page. Previous editors had much more knowledge/resources, but you deleted their pages, mentioning they didn't have enough references, although references can be found for them, even if not online. I realise there was too much minor info on them that wasn't noteable enough to be included, but it could have been cleaned up. Anyway, I will leave your edit up for a short while for you to rectify or it will have to be removed. AusChartMan (talk) 17:09, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Interpretive Dance (TV series). Since you had some involvement with the Interpretive Dance (TV series) redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. ⓋᎯ☧ǿᖇǥ@ℤε💬 12:01, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/hr/d/da/%C4%8Cudnovate_zgode_%C5%A1egrta_Hlapi%C4%87a_DVD.jpg Upload this but dont revert wrong - vandalism — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.143.92.236 (talk) 01:55, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

https://hr.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C4%8Cudnovate_zgode_%C5%A1egrta_Hlapi%C4%87a_(crtani_film)#

THIS IS ONLY CRO COVER ☝️ UPLOAD OR STOP REVERTING LIES AT LEAST

https://m.imdb.com/title/tt0133930/mediaviewer/rm917543936

Or upload international cover

Sorry to bother you but someone vandalised the page NS (Sons of Anarchy) back in November. This hasn't been undone. The Optimistic One (talk) 19:51, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that you restored the 2010 and 2011 logos to their respective ceremonies. For the sake of completion though, I think we should also look at uploading the logos for the 2013 and 2014 ceremonies as well. I've tried requesting copyright permission, but haven't heard anything back from the ICC about this matter. Considering we already have images for the previous four ceremonies, would it be possible to make an exception by personally uploading the 2013 and 2014 logos nevertheless? I presume that we've previously secured the approval of the ICC regarding their use here. — 29cwcst (talk) 00:10, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The use of the logos falls under fair use and we do not need permission to use them in their respective year articles. The missing files should be uploaded, but I have never done that before, so I would be the wrong person to ask for help. Aspects (talk) 00:36, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, I'll take care of that myself and let you know how it goes. — 29cwcst (talk) 03:40, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 Done. I finally got around to uploading those files today, but I still have one of the old logo that I think could feature on either the LG Electronics or LG Corporation page. Please let me know what your thoughts are regarding this image. — 29cwcst (talk) 06:20, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, the reason the logo from the infobox was removed (and I removed it again) was because the radio station changed names and formats, so that's no longer the current logo. Raymie (t • c) 03:05, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please let this stay. It satisfies WP:NFCC since it is shorter in pixels and Megapixel than File:Nanban film.jpg (the former is 220 × 315 pixels with 0.07 Megapixel, the later is 264 × 377 pixels with 0.10 Megapixel). --Kailash29792 (talk) 17:56, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for restoring that file link, I added the whole infobox to the article and missed bring over that part! Mrbuskin (talk) 04:29, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Aspects, I remember that you contributed a lot to this article, Bethel Music en Español, can you review this article Joth Hunt, and help me edit it they placed the notability tag. Help me, what was wrong, What problem was there to put the label, I do not understand? I really value your work on wikipedia. Greetings I hope you can contribute. I hope you are well. GJFBR (talk) 16:48, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I only made one edit to the album's article, where I fixed the navigational template, and since I have no knowledge of the singer nor the album, I am not going to edit the singer's article. Since another user placed a notability template on the article, you need to go through WP:SINGER to prove that he has notability to have a Wikipedia article. Good luck with your editing, Aspects (talk) 23:42, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Just wondered what the image is supposed to represent, it does not appear to be correct...GrahamHardy (talk) 13:08, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The file is representing a cover of the short story that is currently used on Amazon. Aspects (talk) 22:41, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I had noticed you reverted the edit I made on Do It (Nelly Furtado song). I removed it saying Missy Elliot was a feature on the song, no where does it state the remix version was released as a single, even the solo version charted and had a music video with no feature. Even the reviews on the song don’t even state any information regarding Missy as well. Only the solo version was released as a single. Hence the reason why I removed her name. I also left a note, you seemingly said I didn’t explain why it was removed but I did right below it because I corrected several other information on that page. Pillowdelight (talk) 22:57, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. 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 2020 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) 01:41, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This poster portrays all the main characters as opposed to the previous one which portrays only Bilbo Baggins. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Γιάννης Ευαγγελίου (talk • contribs) 11:15, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:BRD, your BOLD edit has been reverted by two editors, yet you keep making the same edit over and over with no consensus. The next step is to gain consensus for the file change on either the article's talk page or by taking the previous file to WP:FFD. If you keep making the same edit, you could be blocked for WP:Edit warring. Aspects (talk) 18:54, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Just wanted to make sure before I re-reverted you, but I think you intended to revert edits by the user Musicprofan on Spotlight (Jennifer Hudson song) as opposed to my own. I didn't change any dates, only removed a depreciated parameter and some general citation fixes. --Lightlowemon (talk) 06:30, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Aspects. Thanks for replying on EdJohnston's talk, especially with such an in-depth analysis of when all the accounts have all edited, potentially in conjunction with each other. I asked Ed and/or Primefac to run a CU, but it looks like neither will grant it or they're currently offline/doing other things. Can you file an SPI? Maybe just copy over what you wrote on Ed's page with a bit of alteration, as it was a pretty convincing analysis. I'll contribute at the talk page, and maybe you can ping Ed or Primefac when you do it so they may feel more compelled to do something when it's lodged formally. Ss112 07:23, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hey. First and foremost, I would just like to apologize for my part in our, well, perhaps unpleasant introduction to one another as editors. I would implore to you to consider that your single interaction with me is certainly not representative of my behavior as an editor overall. I assure you, I'm not engaging in any sock puppetry, but as I said on the admin talk page, I fully support and encourage you opening a formal complaint about it, as I doubt you're going to take my word for it and I imagine hearing it from someone in an official capacity will put your mind at ease. All that being said, I have opened up a RfC on the inclusion of this Lana Del Rey section in the Season of the Witch article, and your thoughts are of course welcome and appreciated. Again, I'm sorry we had such a butting of heads moment, and of course hope if we cross paths in the future, it's more pleasant. Best. ThereWillBeTime (talk) 22:30, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Rklahn (talk) 02:19, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I’m sorry for putting the incorrect date. I deleted it if that’s what you wanted. I am not trying to cause any trouble at wiki because as an adult, I know better than that so I reverted the other users date change and I am just gonna move on and not edit that one article anymore. Even though I still believe that the single was recorded in 2007. RB&Soulfan (talk) 00:44, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don’t even know why my name was brought into that conversation you had with that fellow user. All I know is that I have nothing to do with that user. I have contacted them already to thank them because they agreed that the song was recorded in 2007. While I was reading I remember that the user mentioned something about hearing the song in 2007. Whereas I or myself have never heard the song in 2007 because it wasn’t even released yet or at least I don’t think it was. I hope that I am contacting the right user this time. The reason why I know the single was recorded in 2007 is because it’s album itself had been started to be recorded in 2007 with most of its songs one of them being Spotlight since there is no way a song can be recorded and then released not even a month later. Trust me, it takes time to record a song and then release it. I know this because I myself am studying to be a singer and I know how hard it is to record a song. (I am not done with my song yet btw). But anyway me and that fellow user contacted each other and both know each other know by Wikipedia. I am curious to find out who they are because they really are my hero. No I am not that very same person because I don’t even know who they are in person or where they are from but I wish I did so I can thank him/her. Again I have never been supported like that in my life.

Here is the link for the article I am talking about : https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jennifer_Hudson_(album) R&BFandoms93 (talk) 01:18, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You need to provide a WP:RS for any contested changes made to Wikipedia. One Wikipedia article cannot be used to reference another Wikipedia article and the album does not state that the song was recorded in 2007. If you continue to WP:Edit war without providing reliable sources, you will end up getting blocked from editing Wikipedia. Aspects (talk) 00:52, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, why was the image of the official poster for NIGHT OF THE KINGS removed because of so called copyright infringement? Why is the temporary poster, created by Wassakara productions for Ivory Coast before we had an official poster, been put back? There is copyright on that Ivory Coast temp poster, and the copyright holder asked me to remove it because they don't know how to do this. And I, the Canadian producer of the film, Yanick Létourneau from Peripheria want to use our official poster instead. Maybe I'm doing things wrong because I'm new to Wikipedia. Could you help me replace it with the right poster file? Thank you PS: Here's the right source: https://www.imdb.com/title/tt8132778/mediaviewer/rm167302145/ I uploaded it myself and removed the older image that should have never been used. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yanickletourneau (talk • contribs) 00:19, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The file was removed from WikiCommons because fair use files cannot be stores there. Linking to an external site, like you did to imdb.com, is also not acceptable, so I am going to revert back to the previous poster. Aspects (talk) 04:52, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm the canadian producer of the film. And the poster you put back up IS NOT the poster of the film and should NOT be used to represent this film. The image you put back is our property (along with Wassakara in Ivory Coast) and should NOT be used. That is copyright infringement right there and I will notify our all the coproducers of the film. The actor figuring on the temp poster you put back it is Anzian Marcel aka Lame de rasoir in the film. The protagonist of the film is Bakary Koné aka Roman. He's the one on the only official poster that can be found on IMDB and most other places. I've made a case about it through Wikipedia and I really hope people like you will stop putting back an image that we own and that we don't want to be used. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yanickletourneau (talk • contribs) 14:32, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Despite having a WP:COI, you could always upload the film poster here instead of at WikiCommons, where it would be a acceptable fair use image, and something I would not change. Aspects (talk) 22:18, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You could have added sources instead of wiping the whole page. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_an_Island_Tour Dvdmovies123 (talk) 12:01, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:BEFORE, I did a search and found there were not enough reliable sources to justify the tour having an article. The article has been tagged as being unreferenced since shortly after it was created six years ago. If you think the tour passes WP:GNG and WP:CONCERT TOUR, then you should find and add reliable sources to the article. Aspects (talk) 13:25, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Aspects! I noticed that there’s been some dilema on the song “Spotlight”. It seems that editor will never give up. I actually wonder when the song was originally debuted. I don’t know if it was debuted in 2007 or not. They keep changing it tho. Know they put 2008 so I removed their edit for that given reason. Cesardaboss (talk) 15:57, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

		The Wikilink Barnstar
		Thanks for all the hard work removing unnecessary links from band navboxes! DLManiac (talk) 04:00, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Aspects!

Here is the following source for the song “Spotlight” and how it was recorded in 2007 by Ne-Yo.

Scroll down to the “Ne-Yo - Spotlight” and it says 2007. R&BFandoms93 (talk) 00:16, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

https://www.whosampled.com/cover/96882/Jennifer-Hudson-Spotlight-Ne-Yo-Spotlight/ R&BFandoms93 (talk) 00:17, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nice to see someone else cleaning up Infobox film errors. I was about to cleanup the latest errors from Category:Pages using infobox film with unknown parameters, and had an edit conflict with you, a surprising but pleasant coincidence.

If you are looking at Infoboxes already you might also consider cleaning other problems like MOS:SMALLFONT "Avoid using smaller font sizes within page elements that already use a smaller font size, such as infoboxes". (I try to also cleanup WP:LINEBREAKs to use strict formatting, and if I'm feeling really diligent I improve the list formatting MOS:PLIST.)

I'd been noticing the number of errors going down significantly recently Category:Pages_using_infobox_film_with_unknown_empty_parameters. Is that your work too? I've been chipping away at it for a few weeks, partly to kill time, partly to stumble on random film articles. (It is strange that editors deprecated Infobox features apparently without any plan to cleanup after.) Amazing to see the numbers below 20,000 errors already though. Nice work. -- 109.78.211.122 (talk) 03:40, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. You reverted a deletion proposal on Dan Fraga, that was a subject of a talk page discussion. Your reasoning in the edit summary doesn't address the concerns raised, and you did not make a comment on the talk page. I'm going to assume this is a misunderstanding and ask you to discuss it on the talk page. Especially since the other editors were in favor of deleting the article. I also wouldn't mind if you undid the revert. 46.97.170.112 (talk) 09:17, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the proposed deletion because I felt its reasoning of being sourced by non-reliable sources was not correct as I stated in my edit summary. Even if I felt my removal was wrong, once a proposed deletion has been removed from an article, it cannot be added back and the next step would be to take the article to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. Aspects (talk) 17:07, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your "feeling" that the reasoning was not correct is contradicted by the consensus of other users on the talk page. The reliable sources barely even mention the subject and aren't directly about him. All information concerning the subject himself comes from his own social media posts, his own website and one known false rumour mill. Those are not reliable sources. You didn't read any of the reasoning, you didn't consult with either of the other users on the talk page, you one-sidedly removed the proposed deletion on your own, and now that it's done, you can't restore it because site rules? 46.97.170.112 (talk) 08:18, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I explained to you the steps of proposed deletion and articles for deletion, if you still feel it should be deleted, you should start a discussion at WP:AFD. Aspects (talk) 02:18, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Can I update some Telemundo affiliates logos? ItsJustdancefan (talk) 00:01, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes you can. Just because I reverted one of your logo changes does not mean logos cannot be updated. Aspects (talk) 20:39, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I understand your reasoning behind not affixing netflix to the edit on AL's animated projects. Thx for clarifying. I included it because i thought, as a descriptor, it added something with respect to the signifiance of these projects i.e., they had widespread distribution on a major platform. If you disagree, i'd appreciate if you would explain your reasoning. Similarly, with the inclusion of andrew lloyd weber on the cinderella musical (you removed it). As a theater brand, he's at the pinnacle. Why is including his name not appropriate? Is it just because it's found in the wiki link? Thanks Aspects Jordan200 (talk) 22:14, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Adam Lambert's article is already long and adding unnecessary descriptors just makes it longer. Most readers care about the series he was in and not where or how it was broadcast. If a reader wanted to know how it was broadcast, they could find that information on the linked articles. Likewise most readers care about the films or musicals he has been in and not the producers or the directors of those shows. It does not help that Andrew Lloyd Webber's name was linked in the title of the musical instead of in its own link, when the show is called Cinderella. I could see the argument of including Andrew Lloyd Webber's name if Lambert was actually in the musical production, but when he was just on the concept album, it seems unneeded. Aspects (talk) 21:42, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Back again..thanks for responding. - I realize it's long, i see many ways to trim it beyond these desciptors - i see entire sections that perhaps should be one sentence - like tattoos. I'm reluctant to delete other editors' contributions on my own, though sometimes I will - and i'll try to do so more.I think your explanation is clear but still based on a fair amount of opinion/judgment i.e. what's important to the edit - as I still think Netflix is relevant. I'm sure you're very much aware that many many media outlets just lift sections of wikipedia at will when they write articles or use for promo purposes. They don't go to linked articles leaving it incumbent on the wiki article to be as accurate (vs. complete) in its representation as possible. My opinion i realize.- As for ALW, it just received a grammy nomination and I'm fairly sure it is for the entire album. I'll try to find out at some point (in which case it might make even more sense to add it back in?),. Also whether or not his song is in the production, it's attributed to him and ALW (both as writers) and sits on the album nevertheless. I think it should be obvious in the read that this particular Cinderella (among so many others) is ALW's work. thx for your time, i appreciate your comments/explanations. (talk)Jordan200 (talk) 22:21, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. 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 2021 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) 00:23, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, great work with fixing those infobox issues. If you see an infobox that uses a "#" character, just leave it there as I need to update the code to recognize {{correct title}} usages like I did for the episode infobox. Gonnym (talk) 17:35, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Why would you delete the official poster of Nahuel and the Magic Book? That poster was released 2 weeks ago and I was the one who gave an update to the poster of the film would you bring it back? The poster that you reverted was the teaser poster, the poster I posted was the official one.

Sorry about editing your page, but I'm asking you a question to bring it back. NahuelFanboy2004 (talk) 1:56 AM, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

I removed the poster file because copyrighted material cannot be on WikiCommons as I stated in my edit summary. Now that the file is located here on English Wikipedia, it is an acceptable fair use image and can stay in the infobox. Aspects (talk) 23:44, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please can you take a look at Talk:Dark Side of the Moon Tour#Web accessibility; it concerns one of your edits you made some years back, and people are hoping to gain understanding from it. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:53, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Template:X-Men (TV series) has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 01:50, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have added a new section to Talk:Bordertown (1989 TV series), seeking comments on what readers think should be the best illustration for the Bordertown article. Since you have reverted the illustration I just put up I felt I should let you know of my post. I do not plan on starting an edit war over this, but since the illustration is of great interest to me I want to get additional input into this matter. Karenthewriter (talk) 02:39, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

	The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
	Thank you for clearing out Category:Pages using infobox television with image-related values without an image and making the television articles a bit more cleaner! That was really impressive! Gonnym (talk) 09:15, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest look up reference to Abbey Tavern on Historic England enrich the list site, particularly early image of Furness Abbey station booking hall. See also the YouTube film on the Hotel and the Abbey Tavern. Bob Pointing 92.25.189.108 (talk) 17:59, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I'm not sure the semi-automated task you're now running is entirely a good idea. The language field in the infobox of a TV series is set apart from the rest of the infobox and the text of the article, so if it's linked it won't really be competing for reader attention with the other links in the article. That's why removing those links has much smaller benefits than doing so from article prose. On the other hand, the language entry is highly relevant in that context, and barring English and a few universally known languages, it can be of use to readers. I don't think unlinking Welsh [6], Bengali [7] or Egyptian Arabic [8]. – Uanfala (talk) 01:30, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am not using any semi-automated tasks, I am manually editing every article. As stated in my second edit summary, Template:Infobox television states "The original language or languages of the show. Do not link to a language article, e.g., English, per WP:OVERLINK." Since languages should not be used in the infobox, there is a tracking category at Category:Pages using infobox television with incorrectly formatted values that I and others have been going through, so eventually the language link will be removed by someone. If the language link is important it should be listed in the article, which the infobox is supposed to summarize. Instead of reverting the language link removal, your time would be better spent adding references to the article since it has been tagged as being unreferenced for twelve years. Aspects (talk) 01:42, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the explanation. If the template flags up useful links as errors then that, I believe, indicates a problem with the template. I've started a thread at Template talk:Infobox television#Linking language. – Uanfala (talk) 01:51, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Aspects!

There's been a bit of a mix-up on the Sadako Yamamura page that I want to keep you updated on.

The current image there (following my edit) is an image of Sadako Yamamura, the antagonist from Ring (1998) in her original appearance. The file you reverted to is not an image of Sadako Yamamura, but Samara Morgan from the American remake. These two characters have different histories and are not directly interchangable; the latter is also based upon the former instead of the reverse. Similarly, Sadako's face is never shown, which is crucial to the Japanese films—the same is not true for the American ones. The file prior to your revert is Sadako from the video game Dead by Daylight—which another user uploaded at first as a replacement for Sadako Yamamura in Ringu.png, then as a new file (with the wrong non-free rationale; they left it as a film).

For a while now, users have been requesting on the talk page that a still of Sadako in her original film appearance be used—there were two others before my comment. I'm primarily writing here to let you know why I changed it, and that Sadako Yamamura in Dead by Daylight.png, while acceptable for the page, does not have the correct non-free rationale (and thus is actually unacceptable, I guess)!

Edit: the user has added their image back, in case that causes confusion.

Thanks! Delukiel (talk) 09:01, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm Ry10. Why did you get rid of the picture I added to Kole Weathers from DC Comics? The original photo is so small that you can barely see it. I added my photo to have a better look of the character. 2603:8000:2440:A98A:8893:512F:37B:3A53 (talk) 06:06, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This has been explained to you on WikiCommons, fair use files cannot be uploaded there, they would have to be uploaded here. I explained why I reverted back to the previous file in my edit summary. Aspects (talk) 21:36, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm just curious to which part of WP:MOSICON you were referring when removing the flag icons from Disney+. I really liked them as they gave a very useful visualization for a quick overview, but if anything in the MoS says something against it, I will accept it of course. Best Regards, CanePlayz (Jacob) (talk) 16:25, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In this case, flagicons used in the table add no additional information beyond what the name of the country is falling, the countries are not being represented officially and the different countries is to pertinent to the table's purpose, thereby failing WP:ICONDECORATION. All other streaming service tables use just the country names, showing there is a consensus for them not to be used. If you feel this is not correct, you are free to start a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Icons to gain a consensus for their use in the article. Aspects (talk) 02:49, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I see. However, what made me question that is that the MoS also says they should be used if they "serve as visual cues that aid the reader's comprehension" which does apply here in my opinion. Or does it not? CanePlayz (Jacob) (talk) 10:29, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

By adding no further information and not being pertinent to the table's purpose, they are decorative and do not aid in the reader's comprehension of the table. As there is already a discussion, I am going to revert your edit, especially since I told you the next step would be to go the the Icons talk page or at least you could have started a discussion at Talk:Disney+. Aspects (talk) 19:27, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, sorry, but where is that ongoing discussion you've been referring to happening? CanePlayz (Jacob) (talk) 22:14, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Right here and I gave you a suggestion of another place to try gain a consensus for the flagicons you wish to include. Aspects (talk) 21:45, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Is this legal that we added flags to an article? I put [[file:|frameless]] instead , then I added border to them!

There is nothing legal or illegal about it on Wikipedia. But it does go against policy, as has been explained to you many times in edit summaries and on your talk page. Adding the file still makes it a flagicon, which should not be used per WP:INFOBOXFLAG. Aspects (talk) 22:15, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Love_Finds_Andy_Hardy#Long_Plot_Tag

Word count of the plot summary as of 2022, May, is 808 words.

WP:Manual of Style/Film § Plot (MOS:PLOT) suggests that plot summaries for feature films be between 400 and 700 words. There were 808 words to the plot summary. This appears to be slightly more than 700 words, certainly not excessive, but definitely more than the suggested maximum of 700 words.

When attempt was made to remove tag without any action or explanation the tag was immediately restored. A good suggestion would be to trim at least 108 words from the current summary. 69.112.129.186 (talk) 15:02, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The article that replaced a redirect will need expanding and improving.Cwater1 (talk) 03:42, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Aspects, You removed the younger photo I posted in the infobox of Laura Wheeler Waring's page. Please return the photo of the artist at her easel. File:Photo of Laura Wheeler Waring.jpg It is my opinion that the younger photo is more flattering, and also, for "fair use", it is suggested that we use the youngest image, that was taken longer ago and fall out of copyright sooner. Thanks for considering this. Best, WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 22:44, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I will not revert my own edit, because as I explained in my edit summary, you replaced the image without an edit summary and I feel the previous image is a superior image giving a preferred frontal view of the individual as opposed to the newer image that is a side profile. I have seen numerous discussions about different images of an individual usually ending keeping a frontal view as opposed to a side profile and I have never seen an argument that WP:NFCC says to use a younger image of the individual versus an older image of the individual. If you still feel the newer image is preferred, you can start a discussion at the article's talk page to try and gain a consensus or you could take the older image to WP:FFD. Aspects (talk) 00:36, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have read Wikipedia:FLAGBIO and i am not seeing anything here that gives the impression that we can't have flags in tables at all. It was useful to show the new zealand content on the list's of number ones and i don't deem it as Inappropriate use or anything so stop waving a policy when it does not fit,maybe it's just a misunderstanding on your part. DanTheMusicMan2 (talk) 14:04, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Despite what your edit summaries stated, WP:FLAGBIO and the entire WP:MOSICON does not apply to infoboxes, but to everyting on Wikipedia. There was a recent discussion last year about the use of flagicons to represnt nationalites in record charts that can be found at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Icons/Archive 17#Flagicons in Triple J Hottest 100 lists. The consensus was that flagicons should not be used in these tables/lists/articles but that another symbol/color could be used to show the same thing. Since both List of number-one singles from the 2010s (New Zealand) and List of number-one singles from the 2020s (New Zealand) use colors to show New Zealand acts, I will make edits to make the other three decades list similar to these two. Aspects (talk) 00:53, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Aspects, it would be better if you changed the guideline you're citing to just MOS:FLAG, which says "Flag icons may be relevant in some subject areas, where the subject actually represents that country or nationality", as the argument you're making is that the instances you're removing are not instances of the flag denoting representation of that country. MOS:FLAGBIO clearly states it is for "biographical use" and specifically refers to infoboxes. Most, if not all of the articles you're removing these flags from are not BLPs so "FLAGBIO" does not apply. Ss112 11:45, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please follow WP:NOTBROKEN as well as MOS:NOPIPE, especially when a song/artist is credited differently from what you change it to. Song titles/artist(s) should be as credited. There is no need to 'fix' a link that is not broken. Thank you. Magitroopa (talk) 03:40, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Thanks for the message on my talk page. I didn't know about it... Will make corrections. But i have a question. Does it mean that all my edit on the infobox have been reverted or just the one with flagicons? Best regards

Ebubechukwu1 (talk) 19:58, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I only reverted the flagicons in those articles. The only other edits I made to any of the articles was moving an image into the infobox if it was not already in there. Aspects (talk) 23:06, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The poster have been replaced by free content Trade (talk) 15:40, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, why was this Change reverted? Ramanvesh (talk) 05:10, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In my edit summary, "rv infobox change per Template:Infobox film," the music parameter states, "Insert the name(s) of the composer(s) of the original music score. They are usually credited with "Music by". Composers credited for "additional music" and songwriters should not be included." As such I reverted your addition of the songs' composer while leaving the music score's composer in the field. Aspects (talk) 19:59, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

   Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

— Moops ^⋠T⋡ 20:31, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dear pl see the film you will get ans.about music of film..or go to yashraj site...or go to all music site Music done by anu malik and Narendra chandra DIbaker Banerjee..

Back ground by Dibaker Banerjee.. 103.203.254.217 (talk) 01:01, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

From Template:Infobox film (as stated in my edit summary) for the music field: "Insert the name(s) of the composer(s) of the original music score. They are usually credited with "Music by". Composers credited for "additional music" and songwriters should not be included." As you stated Dibakar Banerjee did the background score, i.e. the original music score, they should be the one mentioned in the infobox. Aspects (talk) 23:10, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No you are wrong. Background score and Music are different. Songs music given by Anu Malik and Narendra Chandra. Don't make changes now. You can ask Dibakar Banerjee himself who did the music for his movie. You can watch the credits of the movie. Stop harrasing. Lovelysandhu (talk) 03:41, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Music of Sandeep Aur Pinky Faraar is by Anu Malik and Narendra Chandra. Why do u keep changing it to Dibakar Banerjee. Dibakar obly did background score of the movie. Lovelysandhu (talk) 19:45, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

From Template:Infobox film (as stated in my edit summary) for the music field: "Insert the name(s) of the composer(s) of the original music score. They are usually credited with "Music by". Composers credited for "additional music" and songwriters should not be included." As you stated Dibakar Banerjee did the background score, i.e. the original music score, they should be the one mentioned in the infobox. Aspects (talk) 23:10, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Music of movie Sandeep Aur Pinky Faraar is by Anu Malik and Narendra Chandra. Check and then edit page. Stop editing page without knowledge. Lovelysandhu (talk) 03:37, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Aspects, learn about indian movies and then edit their page. Indian movies have songs and the music composer of those songs is given credit of giving music for the movie. Here in movie Sandeep Aur Pinky Faraar the credit of Music is of Anu Malik and Narendra Chandra. Do u even know who is Anu Malik. He is a legend. Just beacuse u get a chance to edit do something productive out of it. Do u spend ur whole day just deleting a true credit of two persons. If u r a sensible person edit pages where u have some knowledge. 103.72.8.111 (talk) 08:07, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Aspects. Regarding the deletion of the cover image file on Play (UK magazine) - Wikipedia, I made this change as the image is currently of the previous Imagine Publishing version of the magazine instead of the modern iteration by Future Publishing. Would it be possible to update the file to a more recent cover to reflect the change of design/publisher? CheeseDouble22 (talk) 23:52, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It is possible to upload a more recent cover to replace the current cover, but it should be uploaded first instead of removing the current cover to being deleted by being an orphaned file. If you did upload a new cover and replaced the current cover, I would not object and revert the file change. Aspects (talk) 23:51, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I see you uploaded an incorrect version of the Charlotte Checkers logo. Would you mind changing it to the correct version here: https://1000logos.net/wp-content/uploads/2022/11/Charlotte-Checkers-Logo-1536x864.png

Thank you! Zacharvey (talk) 17:04, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I did not upload any logo, I reverted back to the preferred svg file format over the png file format. The new files are the same besides the file format. It is weird that you ask be to change to what you considered the correct version, when you had already changed it, so there was no point in asking me to do so. So I will be reverting back to the preferred file format. If you still think this is incorrect, the next step would be to take the svg file to WP:FFD to try and reach a consensus. Aspects (talk) 23:55, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Aspects, I saw that you removed the link to Old Latin in the page Romulus (TV series) as per Template:Infobox television. I understand that there are no objective criteria (e.g. number of speakers) or complete lists to decide which languages are "major" and which are not. But I do believe that, using any criteria that one can come up with, something like Old Latin could never be considered major.

To make a comparison, MOS:OVERLINK mentions "English, Arabic, Korean, Spanish" as major languages. A dead language like (classical) Latin can very hardly be considered a major language in the modern world, but even if it was (due to the huge influence it had until very recently) the same argument can't surely hold for its ancestor, which was spoken only in a few regions, has left very few written documents, etc.

Please let me know if you agree, so that we can restore the link. Francesco Cattafi (talk) 23:22, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A month after the article was started an editor added a link to Latin in the infobox, which I then removed. When I saw it had a language link again and noticed I had removed one in the past I thought it was the same. While I think it is possibly unnecessary, I understand your point and if added back, I would not remove it in the future. Aspects (talk) 23:59, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Category:The Goodies (series 1) episodes indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:48, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Category:The Goodies (series 2) episodes indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:36, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me, sir. Star Trek: Section 31 been changed from tv series into a movie! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.162.30.25 (talk) 16:08, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! 142.162.30.25 (talk) 16:29, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bgsu98 (Talk) 00:00, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This seems like a strange thing to get into a passive-aggressive revert thingy over, but I personally feel that a cover featuring art from the comic's art team rather than a collage from the cartoon works better as it is more representative of the series. I'm not sure why the other cover being on Wikipedia for 15 years is a factor, any more than the article being a confusing stub for 15 years means it should be reverted to that. Happy to have a chat about it, just a little miffed with you twice doing this without any attempt to use talk pages to find reasoning. BoomboxTestarossa (talk) 08:35, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I proposed this file for deletion: File:Shannon Johnson DE.jpg. The source got it wrong in my honest opinion. I found two other photos of him and they look different to the person in that file, I provided this evidence on my PROD at the file page. Even if it is him, I think there is still too much doubt, and because the file is only fair use, in my opinion the safest option is for the file to just be deleted and the article just have no photo. Just my 2 cents. Thanks. Inexpiable (talk) 14:38, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think I have found a solution to the craziness that those duets & trios caused to the performance orders. Please check out some of the tables I finished tonight from American Idol (season 11). I will finish the rest of them tomorrow after work. The order notation that you reinserted has grown on me; I think it works fine. Bgsu98 (Talk) 03:50, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I did not watch this season, so I have a question. Did they do away with the "judges' save," or was it available but just not used? Bgsu98 (Talk) 17:00, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I had to look through the history of the season and then google some stuff because some of the later seasons run together. Here is what the article looked like when the show ended in 2016, [9], and the elimination chart stated that the judges' save started with the 3/3 show and ended with the 3/17 show. The first two weeks, the bottom three group was announced and the judges chose who to save, and in the third week, the bottom two group was announced and the judges chose who to save. The first week can be seen in video here, [10]. Aspects (talk) 23:42, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Share your thoughts regarding the album if you wish to. 2001:D08:2910:882C:E525:6B7:19C9:2DB2 (talk) 15:38, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Beyond the display of dates (which I don't understand, many main theatrical posters used here in Wikipedia use vague dates to indicate their when they released), what exactly makes you choose the Miles poster over what is generally considered to be the main poster? I'd like to know before writing both of our cases. Madyoshi01 (talk) 21:52, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Woman to Woman (Keyshia Cole album) shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war; read about how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.
You and Fullmoon211 have been going back and forth over this since 2021. It's time to discuss the matter on the talk page or face the consequences of your actions. ✗plicit 00:02, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Explicit:I have always used edit summaries in the article, while User:Fullmoon211 never made any for the file changes they made there. In those edit summaries I asked them per WP:BRD to either start a discussion on the talk page or to take the file to WP:FFD and they chose to do neither. I even started a discussion on their talk page back in November 2022, [11], that they never responded to and right after you left this warning here, I was posting another message to that discussion, [12]. They removed the fair use rationale twice and added a prod stating there was no content for the image when they had removed the fair use rationale and they also changed the date of the orphaned fair use template, [13], to try and get the file deleted today with less than one day being orphaned instead of the seven required. Since they were the one wanting the file change, I feel it should have been their duty to start discussion per WP:BRD, but even then I did start one on their talk page. The original cover version should stay in the article unless a consensus is found to use the deluxe version and if that consensus is found, then I will abide by it. Aspects (talk) 00:17, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Aspects.

I'm just here to talk about the reversal you did on Danny Gokey discography without claiming anything. All I wanted to do was improve the section at once for a possible separate list, which could be called List of Danny Gokey music videos or Danny Gokey videography; you will think that it is unnecessary due to the size of the table, but the list is not complete, some videos are unreferenced and I don't know how to reference them well, since I also plan this project (which I will obviously carry out with my user account) to be a FL. I also plan to create List of Danny Gokey live performances and List of songs recorded by Danny Gokey under the same goal. The image is unnecessary, but will be needed for the listing separately. I don't know if you could help me when I ask you, because I'm busy and I can't take so much time in the encyclopedia. Also, I will try to edit more with my user account to become more professional.

Thank you for reading. 190.25.161.45 (talk) 20:03, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I see you reverted the infobox image to the 1st edition. I realize that 1st edition is "preferred" but I don't see the logic in it. The fair use rationale for book covers is supposed to be to "identify the book", but since 2006 that has been the 2nd edition which looks completely different than the 1st edition that came out in 1975. Any chance you would be ok with my switching it back? Fracton (talk) 19:37, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Based on what is stated at Template:Infobox book, I would not be okay with you reverting back to the second edition cover. What you could do is either start a discussion on the book's talk page to gain a consensus or better yet, start a WP:FFD to try convince other users that the second edition cover should be used instead of the first. Aspects (talk) 02:55, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Stop adding an artist's cover of the song on this article. This is insignificant trivia and solely promotional, which is against WP's policies and guidelines. Lapadite (talk) 04:32, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

First, it is hard to "Stop adding" something when I have only made one edit the article. Second, since some edit warring, the section has been in the article since July 2014, [14] per WP:SONGCOVER. Third, the song is a notable cover version of the article that if it were the original it would pass both WP:NSONG and WP:GNG, so it is not trivia and promotional as you claim. Fourth, per WP:BRD, now that a discussion has been started the article should go back to the stable version that has had the section for over nine years and I will revert back to this version. If you still feel that the section should be removed, you are free to start a discussion at the article's talk page to see if you can gain a consensus for your deletion. Aspects (talk) 23:05, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, fyi the Kep1er's Fly series isn't an actual song nor does it falls under album/EP category, there isn't a song release by them that starts with "Fly..." either. The Fly series is an maxi single marketed/named as such, containing 3–5 songs, in which single albums doesn't applies in Japan market nor is there an equivalent of such. Previous Japanese releases from other Korean/Japanese artists (regardless of group/solo) are referred to as maxi single here, I have gone through various articles from Korean/Japanese artists such as BoA, Twice, AKB48, Iz*One etc for references. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 04:16, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing.

• If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
• If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Bring Me to Life, you may be blocked from editing. Lapadite (talk) 10:20, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I wanted to say good job on all the recent date fixes! It's really helping us in having cleaner infoboxes. I noticed your edit at Doctor Who which removed the article from the tracking category but left the broken usage issue. Try not to leave articles like that as then we can't easily find them and fix them. Gonnym (talk) 22:26, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the message. With Doctor Who having unbulleted lists in the network and date fields that I had not encountered before, the show being popular and articles edited by a lot of people, I figured whatever edit I made would be reverted. Thank you for making the fields look better. Aspects (talk) 00:47, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi I made the article for bros in control but I can't find the page when I put the name of the program in google. Do you know why?

Thanks Andrew Adavid299 (talk) 17:05, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I have recently added a new image to the article The Kapil Sharma Show. But you have replaced it with the logo file, instead of the official show poster added by me. Can you tell me the reason for doing so? Thanks! Doraemon Lover 12 (talk) 18:35, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As I stated in my edit summary, "rv file change back to preferred logo per Template:Infobox television", while you did not explain why you changed the file in the first place or why you reverted my edit. The show's logo is the preferred file for the infobox and you gave no reason to change the file. Per WP:BRD, if you still think the file should be changed, you either need to gain a consensus on the article's talk page or take the original file to WP:FFD. Aspects (talk) 17:42, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you remove Christmas music from Underneath the Tree? 50.168.195.246 (talk) 20:37, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Category:M*A*S*H (season 8) episodes indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and removing the speedy deletion tag. ✗plicit 12:45, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your edit to Fran Christina that was evidently meant to improve the infobox introduced AFC stuff that had been removed when the article was accepted, and made it look as though it was bypassing AFC review, when in fact it was accepted through AFC. I have reverted your edits. If you want to improve the infobox, please check to be sure that you are not accidentally doing anything that messes up the article. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:30, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much for restoring the infobox on the George Grant (philosopher) entry. It appears from the history that I deleted it, but I'm sure it wasn't there when I began editing the lead section on December 26. I used the visual editor and it haunts me to think I may have slipped up --- yet I'm sure there was no infobox there when I opened the entry. In any case, the infobox is essential and I'm so glad you noticed its absence and restored it. Thanks again. Bwark (talk) 19:18, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello there! I see that you removed the PROD tag on this page. It was indeed nominated for AfD by myself many months ago, and I withdrew that nomination, because no one voted or commented there after several days (I was somewhat impatient then), and I thought I could try to further work on the article. Do I really have to nominate it once again due to some bureaucratic reason? Aintabli (talk) 02:53, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I go through Category:Proposed deletion daily to see if the rationale is valid and/or if it fits the criteria for WP:PROD (usually this is if it has even been proposed for deletion, has a current WP:AFD ongoing or it it had a past WP:AFD that was not closed as Delete. In the case of Afshar Beylik it was previously at an WP:AFD and even though you had withdrawn its nomination, it was previously at an WP:AFD and would have been rejected at the end of the seven day nominating period by an admin. I realized this and removed the prod with the edit summary telling you to take the article to WP:AFD. You would have waited until yesterday for it to have been denied and would have had at best started the process then. If you had started an WP:AFD on the day I removed the prod, the process would have almost been over by now if others agreed with your argument. Aspects (talk) 15:56, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wait with fixing these. I've noticed that the infobox should have handled this automatically but for some reason it didn't. But then, we have pages that also place additional other values like years which shouldn't be in italics. I need to re-think how we handle this. Gonnym (talk) 18:43, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:20, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Aspects: That is not Rachel Dübendorfer in that image. Its been discussed before hand. scope_creep^Talk 09:32, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I noticed you reverted my edit on the adventures of power page and I was wondering if there was anyway you can undo this? I personally work for Ari Gold (director and creator of film) and he requested I change the poster to the original poster. No worries if not but just letting you know! Imokayimalright (talk) 21:02, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Since the Commons file was deleted, I reverted back to the previous poster since it is better to have an acceptable image than have nothing in the infobox and so that the poster was not deleted for being orphaned for seven days. Aspects (talk) 20:42, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks for your response! I am currently trying to change it however since the file was deleted it won't let me reupload Imokayimalright (talk) 04:44, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Aspects. The recent discussion about about production company/distributor. Your comments would be appreciated. Regards. Talk:Mission: Impossible – Fallout#Production company/Distributor

Latest comment: 1 month ago Hey @Mike. 2001:D08:2910:6981:17C3:AC68:5A64:93C9 (talk) 18:24, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There's a thing on Wikipedia:Offensive material that specifically highlights how while Wikipedia isn't censored, having an image of explicit pornography doesn't constitute fair use. That wasn't the only issue I brought up. I also brought up the article being too short to justify needing multiple images and the size being too large for the use. In addition to that, the original file image doesn't have a properly explained or justified fair use rationale. That's four reasons not to add the image. I really wish you hadn't started reverting back when I originally removed it since the first issue I brought up should have been sufficient without further elaboration. There isn't a fair use justification. Everything else I've done was an attempt to compromise with you. I'm taking the file to the images to discussion because you seem unwilling to accept any compromise on this despite multiple compromises being offered to you. ObsequeyTheDeathOfArt (talk) 00:07, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Insane Clown Posse - Tunnel Of Love-XXX-cover.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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ObsequeyTheDeathOfArt (talk • contribs) 00:15, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I noticed you are removing the "(co-producer)" and "(co-executive)" part but leaving the person. "Co-producer" in this context isn't "also produced" but a lower-level producer credit. Per the infobox instructions this credit should not be in the infobox so the person should be completely removed. If you checked and the credit was actually a producer credit and that is why you left it in then that's another thing. Gonnym (talk) 20:00, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello there. I noticed you reverted my removal of the copyrighted poster from the aforementioned article, only to reinstate it, while saying "rv back to preferred poster per Template:Infobox film". First of all, there is a Wikipedia policy regarding the topic, which is WP:NFC. Please refer in particular to WP:NFC#UUI. There is a free alternative to the poster, which is the title card, in the public domain, and there could be no possible fair use rationale when the poster can easily be replaced with it. You refer to the instructions at Template:Infobox film, but it is not a policy itself, it is only recommendation, and it is not taxative anyway: "Insert a relevant image for the film. Ideally this should be a film poster, but a DVD or VHS cover, screenshot, or other film-related image may also be used". So please, do not start an edit war because of this. Bedivere (talk) 01:45, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you keep removing the network parameter? Template:Infobox television says to include it. Bowling is life (talk) 00:29, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am cleaning up a maintenance category, Category:Pages using infobox television with incorrectly formatted values, stating that either the infobox field Channel or Network sine they can be used interchangeably. In my first edit to Helluva Boss], I removed the network field and since you reverted, I then removed the channel field. The visual representation of the infobox looked the same before and after my edits, but removed unnecessary infobox fields. Aspects (talk) 00:35, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Aspects: My bad, I just realized what you were doing. I was not paying close enough attention. I'll self-revert all my edits. Sorry, my brain is fried from work. Bowling is life (talk) 00:37, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have reverted all my edits. Sorry about that again. I thought you were removing the parameter from the infobox for no reason. Bowling is life (talk) 00:41, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, good job on all the various fixes! If you come across an issue that I've yet to track, please let me know so I can code it in the module. Gonnym (talk) 15:58, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm thinking of commenting out the |languge= check as we currently can't really finish off the 150 or so pages with it. Any thoughts? Gonnym (talk) 09:49, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That would probably be for the best. Maybe we could add it back every once and a while and clean it up and then take it back out of the category. Aspects (talk) 23:56, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello there. I notice that you reverted my redirect of Cedric Diggory here, with the reason that there should be a discussion. I posted a deletion proposal on the talk page, and after nobody replied I went ahead with the redirect. Should I have done something more in terms of getting a discussion going? The page has very little activity (zero posts on the talk page since the article was launched 4 years ago), so I wasn't confident that a discussion was going to happen. Please let me know. Wafflewombat (talk) 17:31, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I just wanted to let you know that I posted another Cedric merge proposal here. I would be grateful if you could offer your thoughts. Wafflewombat (talk) 16:31, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You added a notability tag to Cedric Diggory and start a talk page discussion on August 10 and then six days later without anyone else responding, you merged the article. There was no consensus for this merge and with the number of sources, it seems like it passes WP:GNG. You added a notability tag to Minerva McGonagall that was then reverted as an "Unnecessary tag", [15], five days later, and then nine days after that merged the article without discussion despite the notability tag being removed, which means it did not have consensus. You also merged Order of the Phoenix (fictional organisation) without any discussion after tagging the article with a notability tag after nine days and merged Fred and George Weasley without and discussion after tagging the article with a notability tag after fourteen days. All of these articles have reliable third party sources that would indicate they pass WP:GNG. At Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Novels/Harry Potter task force#Deletion of Beauxbatons, you quoted, "If the need for a merge is obvious, editors can be bold and simply do it." from WP:MERGEINIT, but three sentences later the guide states, " Articles that have been separate for a long time should usually be discussed first, especially those on controversial topics." The sentence after your quote states, "Bold merges may be reverted, even though they are labor-intensive to complete, but this edit process and civil discussion produces better articles." Per WP:BRD, I reverted Cedric Diggory and will shortly do the other three because of the sources and how old the articles are, it is better to have a discussion to merge these types of articles that are controversial merges. As a side note, I am going to move the merge discussion templates you added from the talk pages to the articles themselves where they should be and will be seen by more editors/readers and will hopefully lead to more discussion. Aspects (talk) 20:05, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for approaching this in a calm and respectful way. Wafflewombat (talk) 20:49, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

When you have a moment, could you please explain how you arrived at the conclusion that Cedric Diggory has enough reliable sources to pass WP:GNG? This is not a sarcastic or accusatory question, but a completely genuine one. The article has no sources discussing the creation of the character, and the Reception section is very short. There is also no Cultural Impact section. I've done some searches (Google, Google Scholar, Google Books, JSTOR, WPL, WorldCat) and I haven't found much about Cedric. Some, but not a ton, and most of it focuses on how his death is a plot device (instead of focusing on his character). It is absolutely possible I'm not looking in the right places for sources, or have misinterpreted the importance or usefulness of the sources I did find, but as of now I'm struggling to see how there is enough content out there to create a fully fleshed-out article about a fictional character. Wafflewombat (talk) 01:12, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You reverted my addition of images to the Ingo tetralogy page. Is this necessary? I provided fair use rationale for each image on its page bearing in mind the licensing instruction: "It is believed that the use of low-resolution images of book covers to illustrate an article discussing the book in question... qualifies as fair use under the copyright law of the United States". All the books are discussed in the article. -- Robina Fox (talk) 22:19, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I should add perhaps that this was done partly in anticipation of the other individual book articles being redirected to the series pages as The Deep (Dunmore novel) has been. -- Robina Fox (talk) 08:18, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Per Wikipedia:Non-free content, a book cover has an acceptable fair use when it is being used to identify the book in its own article. Per WP:NFCI, for it to after an acceptable fair use elsewhere, there needs to be reliably sourced critical commentary about the covers themselves and not about the books. The tetralogy is a list of the books and per WP:NFLISTS and WP:NFC#UUI#2, there is notreliably sourced critical commentary about the book covers to justify their inclusion in the article. Aspects (talk) 20:05, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You were the one who labelled the plot section as excessive. Probably true. I have been writing the plot synopsis for some movies that don't have them on imdb and these excessive details are very helpful. What I would write for imdb wouldn't be all that helpful without details I might have missed. A synopsis on imdb can be extremely detailed and mine probably don't have enough.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 17:52, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:FILMPLOT, the plot summary should be between 400 to 700 words and the film's plot was and still is currently sitting at around 690 words. So while it could be still be reduced, I am not sure why I tagged it in the first place and will remove the tag. Aspects (talk) 20:05, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I noticed that you removed some of the promotional posters for the sitcom Nonstop (South Korean TV series) according to the template used but the series went on for several seasons with different sets of casts (multiple posters). I know it might not be ideal for most articles on here since seasons are mostly done with the same cast. The article comprises of all the seasons and hence I do think as long as the size of the infobox isn’t affected, it can be used. Regards, Mikikooo (talk) 23:35, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox television is not equipped to handling more than one file and when that happens it populates in a maintenance category to be fixed. A better solution could be to have the logo in the three circles instead of having any pictures of the cast, since the title card or logo is the preferred file to use. Aspects (talk) 03:54, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm marisoft69 and I want to know about the RV of the Velma series, meaning the series is over and I wouldn't like you to talk to me about the RV of the situation, thanks. User:Marisoft69 (talk) 10:59, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As I stated in my edit summary, "rv unsourced end date", and your own edit summary stating there was no source that the series was cancelled or renewed. Until there is a reliable source stating the series has been cancelled the end date should stay present. Aspects (talk) 03:01, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A little over two weeks ago, you left a warning on this user's talk page warning them about potentially being blocked from editing if they continue to vandalize Wikipedia. Since then, this user has made around 60 more edits on various RuPaul's Drag Race pages, practically all of which have since been reverted by other users for being inaccurate and unsupported changes. Could you please revisit this warning and determine if a block is needed? Thank you! Yompi20 (talk) 19:50, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

The Wikimedia Foundation is conducting a survey of Wikipedians to better understand what draws administrators to contribute to Wikipedia, and what affects administrator retention. We will use this research to improve experiences for Wikipedians, and address common problems and needs. We have identified you as a good candidate for this research, and would greatly appreciate your participation in this anonymous survey.

You do not have to be an Administrator to participate.

The survey should take around 10-15 minutes to complete. You may read more about the study on its Meta page and view its privacy statement .

Please find our contact on the project Meta page if you have any questions or concerns.

Kind Regards,

WMF Research Team

BGerdemann (WMF) (talk) 19:27, 23 October 2024 (UTC) [reply]

Hello,

I recently invited you to take a survey about administration on Wikipedia. If you haven’t yet had a chance, there is still time to participate– we’d truly appreciate your feedback. The survey is anonymous and should take about 10-15 minutes to complete. You may read more about the study on its Meta page and view its privacy statement.

Take the survey here.

Kind Regards,

WMF Research Team

BGerdemann (WMF) (talk) 00:41, 13 November 2024 (UTC) [reply]

Hey there, I just wanted to let you know that I've undone your removal of the Orfud template for File:GreenDayDilemma.png, as the file struck me as being very suspicious. When I wrote the article for The American Dream Is Killing Me, I made the same mistake when it came to using this image as the lead because it was on Discogs; however it was proven that the image was actually fanart first posted on Reddit. Thus, given that the fake posting is extremely similar to this one which you used to source the single cover, and as Discogs is not considered a reliable source due to it being primarily user-generated, I've decided to err on the side of caution and not include the image. Thanks for understanding. Leafy46 (talk) 20:47, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am curious why the article for this was changed to a redirect to the main article of the Ultraman franchise? As the main article has no information on this show other than the name, and removing the main article seems ridiculous. It is still a main entry in the Ultraman series, and has as much prominence as something that does have an article such as Ultraman Towards The Future, so I do not see why this article was a candidate for multiple changes to a redirect? Breadbunbun (talk) 07:20, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The article was redirects five times by four different editors, because if you would have read any of their edit summaries, was because the article lacked WP:Notability. Two different editors reverted the redirects, but did nothing to address the notability concerns, so their edits were themselves reverted. Aspects (talk) 15:18, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The redirect ROOT! has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 December 6 § ROOT! until a consensus is reached. cogsan _{(nag me) (stalk me)} 20:09, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]