This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the
current talk page.
Disputed non-free use rationale for File:Low - Flo Rida.ogg
Hi,
In response to your proposed deletion of
File:Low - Flo Rida.ogg
It looks like some edits to the page caused the Non-free usage rationale to be removed from the page, but it appears now. To reiterate the rationale for inclusion, the file is a music sample and as such it provides an audible sample of the style much better and clearer than words can describe - for example the reader can *hear* the singer's accent and the background music and effects applied. Many other music samples of similar length and quality already exist on Wikipedia, and I believe that it definitely improves readers' understanding of those who have not heard the song before.
The problem still is the fact that the musical style of the song is not mentioned anywhere in the article. As
point eight of our
WP:NFCC policy states, Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding. The reason you stated is so that "the reader can *hear* the singer's accent and the background music and effects applied". If this file has true contextual significance, why is the musical style—singer's accent, background music, effects, etc.—not discussed in the article? —
ξxplicit21:28, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
Add RB chart to Alicia Keys Discography
Hello explicit:
Please add a RB colum to the Alicia Keys Discography page. AK has had many #1 on the RBcharts. AK is more of a RB artist. Beyonce has the RB column on her discography page so I think RB colums are allowed. AK's positions on the RB charts easily verifiable from BB. I dont know how to do charts that is why I havent done it. I dont wanna ruin the page. Thanks
64.26.99.120 (
talk)
21:31, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
What in the world????????? Why on earth are you against it??? It's a respectable category, and it's more accurate than some of the other biracial categories.(
LonerXL (
talk)
06:16, 15 October 2009 (UTC))
I am not "against" anything. Please take a look at the
category for discussion page for my rationale. There has been a longstanding consensus to delete mixed-ethnicity categories as
overcategorization. If you believe that the category should remain, please make a keep argument there. Also, as far as I know, all other mixed ethnicity categories have been deleted. We have a
People by ethnic or national origin category, but that's based on origin. —
ξxplicit06:22, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
These alternate covers get a bit tricky. Because the covers are different from the original, some users would argue that they are need for identification of a different packaging (though others, including myself, disagree). There has been a long unsettled debate about this, where a large discussion took place
here. I'm not sure if my intervention here would be welcomed by some, so I think it's best to bring it up on the talk page of the article. I'll gladly participate, because more than one cover without critical commentary seems in violation of
WP:NFCC#3 as excessive non-free content is being used, at least in my opinion. One thing's for sure: at least one of the two additional images should to be removed. —
ξxplicit05:19, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
I'll open up a talk page comment at
Talk:The Fame#Alternate monster covers. I have a feelign the one with the blond wig should go as its not difficult to visualize Gaga with a blond bod cut nowadays. The other one with black hair can stay as it is starkingly opposite from what she is portrayed.
--Legolas(talk2me)05:57, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
Hi, can I get your input for why think the image should be deleted, since it adds significance and illustration to the article. It also seems as standard procedure that if there is a acceptable image capture of a music video, to add it to the section of the article. Thanks!!
Candyo32 (
talk)
15:51, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
Hi there, I tagged this file for deletion because it seems that it fails
point eight of our
non-free content criteria policy, which states: Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding. In other words, this image doesn't do anything words alone can't describe. —
ξxplicit18:35, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
Well I was just wondering if that were the case, then would many captures of music videos on Wikipedia be on their respective articles then?
Candyo32 (
talk)
02:36, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
Many screenshots of music videos don't meet our
WP:NFCC policy, but because there are so many screenshots out there, it's understandable that there will be several that don't meet the criteria. In response to your question, probably not, but that has to be handled on a case-by-case basis. —
ξxplicit18:25, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
SoWhy would like to nominate you to become an administrator. Please visit
Wikipedia:Requests for adminship to see what this process entails, and then
contact SoWhy to accept or decline the nomination. A page has been created for your nomination at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Explicit . If you accept the nomination, you must state and sign your acceptance. You may also choose to make a statement and/or answer the optional questions to supplement the information your nominator has given. Once you are satisfied with the page, you may post your nomination for discussion, or request that your nominator do so.
Take your time to answer the questions and don't forget to fix the timestamp after transcluding. If one of your
talk page stalkers agrees with my proposal to nominate you, they now have the time to offer a co-nomination
Regards SoWhy11:04, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
Explicit ,Thank you for participating in
my RfA, which passed nearly unanimously with 174 in support, 2 in opposition and 1 neutral votes. Special thanks goes to
RegentsPark,
Samir and
John Carter for their kind nomination and support. I am truly honored by the trust and confidence that the community has placed in me. I thank you for your kind inputs and I will be sincerely looking at the reasons that people opposed me so I can improve in those areas ( including my english ;) ). If you ever need anything please feel free to ask me and I would be happy to help you :). Have a great day ! --
TinuCherian -
06:02, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
Arbitration Request
You are involved in a recently-filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at
Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Rcool35 and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—
Congratulations. That was easier than you expected, wasn't it?
Have fun with your new mop and if you have any problems, feel free to ask me. Regards SoWhy16:33, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
Wow, I didn't think I'd get unanimous support. Didn't know what I was worried about. Thanks again for the nomination, SoWhy. I probably would've still been going back and forth about the whole RfA thing, ha. —
ξxplicit21:42, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
To be honest, that surprised me as well. I expected at least 1-2 people opposing over something or other, it happened with all people I nominated so far (except for Maedin but with her it might have been the girl-factor ;-)). That said, I never had any doubt that you would pass with flying colors and I am happy to be proven right.
Regards SoWhy22:05, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
Haha, now Lil Lez is your own problem:) No seriously, congrats and let me know if you need help with anything.
DMacks (
talk)
23:13, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
Hi, just want to know how I've broken 3RR by reverting vandalism by the user? He blanked two separate sections and continued to revert when I unblanked them. Does section blanking no longer qualify as vandalism?
Frmatt (
talk)
06:32, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
(What I wrote before the other account appeared) You haven't breached 3RR as you've made only three reverts; it takes four to violate 3RR. This is definitely a content dispute, as the other user,
S8m2s (
talk·contribs), may not feel that those sections belong in the article. If you haven't, please try to communicate to the user before adding more warnings. (Addendum due to sockpuppetry) Well, the situation has changed. The user created sockpuppets to violate 3RR. I'll shortly start a case at
WP:SPI as this in violation of both 3RR and
WP:SOCK. I'll revert the edit shortly as well. —
ξxplicit06:41, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for blocking this charming individual. I was in the midst of leaving him a warning for vandalism when I lost my internet connection. By the time I got back on, you had already taken care of him. Speedy and much appreciated. ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive'05:58, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
No worries. Considering Oldschoolrebel's edits consisted of falsifying vandalism and personal attacks, it seemed like the most appropriate choice. Regards. —
ξxplicit06:01, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
Please explain why you deleted this image. There was no advance of deletion on the file page, its Talk page, the relevant article's Talk page, or my Talk page - I'd have picked up any of these on my watchlist. If the image upload form does not provide the relevant facilities or information, then the process should improve. I did provide a FUR, and far as can see there was nothing wrong worth that. Of course I can't check that, now you've remove the evidence. The image procedure becomes like the worst type of tax system by the day. --
Philcha (
talk)
07:37, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
Hi there Philcha, the file
File:James White 01.png did have a fair use rationale, but it lacked a
license tag. Prior to its deletion, it contained both {{Somewebsite}} and {{No license needing editor assistance}} tags that remained there for at least seven days. These tags were automatically added when you uploaded the file, so that's probably why you didn't receive a notice. If you'd like, I can restore the file if you could specify which license tag should be added. Thank you. —
ξxplicit07:46, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
Please restore. Re "These tags were automatically added when you uploaded the file, so that's probably why you didn't receive a notice", if that's the case then it's a good case of "... the process should improve" - if you've overlooked something, that's when you need a notification! Is there a suggestion box I could pop that in without completing a form in triplicate? --
Philcha (
talk)
08:28, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
I've restored the file and added an appropriate license. A suggestion box might be a good thing to get things going, haha.
—
ξxplicit16:59, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
You mean the first problem is where to suggest a suggestion box?
Hmmm.
Thanks for the changing licensing.
Of course that prompts another of items for the hypothetical suggestion box:
I noticed the template {{No license needing editor assistance|month=October|day=28|year=2009}} when the image was created, but where was the editor assistance? The next I saw was the deletion.
{{Non-free fair use in|James White (author)}}is a template I've never heard of before, and is not in the UI. How do typically editor find this sort of stuff?.
I appreciate the help you've provided in this case. But the current process seems to have too many
gotchas (think "
Catch 22"), and needs to be simplified or at least streamlined to reduce the number of steps in the commonly cases and provide improved facilities and info in as much of the rest as possible - otherwise both editors and the admins who deal with image issues while wil be overloaded. --
Philcha (
talk)
19:00, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
Please review
this. The request is to change from full to indefinite semi- for the reasons given. Please read carefully. There's no sign that Hound:173.*.*.* will change.
74.242.255.53 (
talk)
06:10, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
It may be
wikihounding by the individual(s) behind those IPs, but the article was fully protected because there was a full out
edit war occurring including several editors aside from the IPs. The article should remain fully protected to its expiry or until a
consensus is formed on the talk page for the preferred content and wording. Should the IPs continue their behavior against consensus (assuming one is formed), the article can be semi-protected for a longer period thereafter. —
ξxplicit06:47, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
My point is that there is already a consensus. Squicks seems to have formally retired from WP. Hauskalainen and I (MBHiii) are in near total agreement. 173.*.*.* contributed nothing on the
Talk page but simply reverts me on anything possibly political. -
74.162.150.182 (
talk)
15:16, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
Mmm. Yes I see
User:The Squicks has indeed retired from WP. I see no reason why this article needs to be even semi-protected. The main protagonist (apart from me) seems to have given up the ghost. I expect we will meet again in a new incarnation just as I suspect we have crossed swords before in his/her other guises. I have made a proposition today at the talk page to reinstate the original edit that
User:The Squicks objected to, which, despite Squicks claims to the contrary, was properly referenced and fairly reflected the source. The article is about a current new item and the situation changes regularly. I am easy about whether the article should be protected or not.
Hey there. If you are confident that the account you listed there is a disruptive sockpuppet, please feel free go ahead and block yourself. You do have the sysop tools now; don't forget that :) I'll be happy to do the clerk work for you if you wish to avoid that. Regards,
NW(
Talk)00:29, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
I wasn't too sure if it would be appropriate to block the sock, so I took the safe side and added to case. Will keep it in mind in the future.
If I were to block a future sock, would I leave an edit summary linking to the case, or just something along the lines of "Suspected sockpuppet of
User:Pretzky"? —
ξxplicit18:38, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
If you filed a case, you could just leave a link to it, but filing a case isn't really necessary. It is appropriate to just do the latter edit summary and tag the userpage with {{
blockedsockpuppet|Pretzky}}.
NW(
Talk)23:59, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
You placed a protection on this article. I have made a proposal to end the dispute and nobody has objected to this. The proposal is to reinstate the fully referenced, edit which
User:The Squicks objected to.
User:The Squicks has indicated at the users home page that the user is no longer an editor at Wikipedia.
Hi
I'm trying to get my user page going... and uploaded my photo.
I have the permission to use the photo and there is nothing wrong with it... but you deleted it.
Please can you tell me why.
A file with this name was previously uploaded, but has been deleted.
You should consider whether it is appropriate to upload this file. The deletion log for this file name is provided below:
21:23, 8 November 2009 Explicit (talk | contribs) deleted "File:Albertpote.jpg" (F3: Media file with improper license)
Hi there, the reason the file you uploaded was deleted was because it had an improper
license tag. It contained the tags {{Non-commercial from license selector}} and {{db-i3}} (you may want to give the tags a look) as you indicated the file could not to be used for commercial purposes. If this is the case, the file may not be licensed under free licenses, such as {{cc-by}} or {{cc-by-sa}}. If you have permission of the copyright hold of this image to use it, feel free to re-uploaded the file and forward the evidence of permission to
Open-source Ticket Request System (OTRS) to verify. Thank you. —
ξxplicit20:01, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
Hi
What if I don't have any proof..? the guy e-mailed me the photo a year ago and I don't the e-mail any more.
Albert 20:14, 8 November 2009 (UTC) —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Albert pote (
talk •
contribs)
Hmm, would you be happen to be in contact with the individual today? If so, it might be worth emailing him again. —
ξxplicit20:18, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
You know what, it's not worth the hassle!
What about the next image I loaded up...
It is from the mailinglist of the Cape Town International Airport. They just opened a majour section of the work they are doing and emailed out the map.
Do I need a letter from them as well?
File:CapeTownInternationalAirport.jpg
Albert 20:24, 8 November 2009 (UTC) —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Albert pote (
talk •
contribs)
Sorry... I'm adding the "Albert
20:27, 8 November 2009 (UTC)" but it doesn't sign?
Albert 20:27, 8 November 2009 (UTC) —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Albert pote (
talk •
contribs)
I just noticed on my watchlist that you protected
Adam Lambert's page, so would you please do the same for
Kris Allen's? The very amusing, but obviously highly unconstructive, imperialistic attack launched on these two pages is clearly a well-organized vandalism effort (on behalf of ONTD_AI, a LiveJournal community...I know, based on the in-jokes they've made). All of the edits are Kradam-related (lol). I thank you in advance--if you haven't already begun to do so!--
Cinemaniac86Dane_Cook_Hater_Extraordinaire02:22, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
Would you mind checking the vandalism going on in this article. Overzealous fans are continuously creating new article for the re-release and removing content from teh original. A salt and full protection is needed for
The Fame Monster releated ids.
--Legolas(talk2me)04:48, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
The page is being created repeatedly because it is no longer a re-release. The consensus in the AfD was that since it was a re-release, it should not have a page. It is now (announced today) being released as a standalone separate album, therefore deserving its own page. Attempts to make this clear have been repeatedly ignored and not responded to even tho MTV
[2] and Interscope
[3] have been cited as the sources.
Grk1011/Stephen (
talk)
04:41, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
I'm trying not to laugh at his argument but can't. :) The article clearly states that the stand-alone CD is being released for those who has the original album and won't be interested in buying the old songs again and hence a separate standalone Cd is being released. Also, {{Lady Gaga}} needs full-protection for sometime for the same reason as the re-release is being added.
--Legolas(talk2me)04:44, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
I'm sorry, I seem to be laughing a little too. Are you trying to tell me that this album is only for those who already have The Fame? The decision was made with them in mind, but you can't argue that it is not available as a separate new album. In fact it is being referred to as the standard edition as well.
Grk1011/Stephen (
talk)
04:46, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
I'm not sure about anyone else, but this is getting beyond complicated by each passing day. Grk1011, I can't override the consensus of the AfD, even in light of the new material (which is ambiguous, at best, because there's no indication that The Fame Monster is a studio album).
MTV News referred to Monster as "'standard edition' album". Because "standard edition" is in quotes, I think this indicates it's not a studio album. It might be worth contacting the closing administrator of the AfD,
Tone(
talk·contribs·blocks·protections·deletions·page moves·rights·RfA), of the new information and possibly initiate a
request for comment regarding Monster and whether or not allowing the recreation of the article is suitable. —
ξxplicit04:59, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
The way I see it, it is not overriding the consensus of the AfD because that is for a different page in theory. The deletion debate was for the re-release (The Fame + new songs) and votes were all based on the fact that it was a re-release, while the page I sought to create was for the new album (whether it be studio, EP, or whatever). If the two had different names we would not have this problem.
Grk1011/Stephen (
talk)
05:03, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
That is exact the same reason why Billboard had decided to include Monster as the re-release. One of the criteria for being included as a re-release is that Billboard takes into consideration that the name of the album issued is not significantly different from the original parent album. Since they consider The Fame Monster as not being significantly different from the parent album, hence it is considered as a re-release. The standalone CD will be considered as part of the re-release. Not only that all singles and sales will be credited to The Fame.
Chart 'Monster'Ask Billboard: Going Gaga For Album Re-Releases. I don't think we need any more clear proof than that is present here. As I said before first person source doesnot matter at all.
--Legolas(talk2me)05:24, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
Your links are outdated as I've been saying. New information has come to light and I don't see why you are so against updating the pages to reflect it. Now that it is announced as a separate album, how can you be so sure that they won't now track sales in that way. The thing is you don't. It's a form of original research to take one source and apply it to something else to prove a case. I think the best thing is to just wait it out. Since the information is so new, it will take time for it to spread. With that being said, I urge you to calm down and realize that we are all trying to improve wikipedia, not destroy it.
Grk1011/Stephen (
talk)
05:34, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
On
November 11, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Rated Next, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (
here's how) and add it to
DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the
Did you know? talk page.
I think a full-protection of The Fame is needed for the time-being untill the heavy discussion at the talk-page is resolved because overenthusiastic editors will and does continue to remove the information about The Fame Monster from the article continuously.
--Legolas(talk2me)03:55, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
Fully protected. It might be worth having one centralized discussion instead of multiple sections on the talk page. —
ξxplicit04:12, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
It was clarified two days ago when Interscope said "smash single “Bad Romance” from Lady Gaga’s new album The Fame Monster available 11.23.09!".
[4]. Why are people being so ignorant?
Grk1011/Stephen (
talk)
14:53, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
The Fame
I'm not a Lady Gaga fan and thus have no interest whatsoever in what pages say, etc. in the very end, but during my research of some other Lady Gaga material I came upon the discussion and edit warring on
The Fame and the ensuing discussions, which also spilled onto my own talk page. I believe you protected the page that's been continually recreated and deleted, so I'm directing you to this to help alleviate confusion. There is debate as to whether The Fame Monster is its own standalone album or simply yet another re-release of
The Fame.
Per my latest comment on the talk page of the now-protected article, I referenced this source:
An Article on Earthtimes.org It so happens that the page quotes Lady Gaga as saying "In the midst of my creative journey composing The Fame Monster, there came an exciting revelation that this was in fact my sophomore album. I would not add, nor take away any songs from this EP; it is a complete conceptual and musical body of work that can stand on its own two feet. It doesn't need The Fame."
Per this paragraph, it's clear that Lady Gaga herself is referring to "The Fame Monster" as specifically the 8-track EP (the current discussion is suggesting EP) and that the Deluxe Edition of the album contains the entirety of the 2009 edition of
The Fame as a bonus (per Gaga's site). Thus, we ought to treat the album exactly how Lady Gaga herself treats it; this is either a sophomore album, or an EP. Since Gaga quotes it as a sophomore album, I'm leaning towards that. Thus, we need to recreate this page immediately. Just my two cents - or more like 1.7 cents Canadian.
CycloneGU (
talk)
13:56, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
I forgot to include a page from Gagas' official site, managed by the label.
Album info. It's been decided by the label that the album is a standalone 8-track disc. The standard edition is that disc; the Deluxe Edition includes
The Fame as a BONUS. There is also a Super Deluxe Edition that includes all kinds of different stuff and sells retail about $90-95 or so (on Amazon for about $75). Since the standard edition is the very content that people are speculating is the bonus on a re-release, I think it's clear now that the album is a standalone.
CycloneGU (
talk)
14:44, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
I and the facts support this as well. Imo the only problem is the AfD. If the new album was called Monster instead, then the AfD would be completely irrelevant since it would be a whole new page. The new album having the same name as the re-release is clouding people's judgement. Not to mention the fans are going crazy trying to prevent this new album article from being created despite widespread sources now being available.
Grk1011/Stephen (
talk)
14:51, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
I found the AfD in question. Clearly the delete comments are from mid-October. They are not relavant to the current sources and thus the AfD is old and expired. Citing the AfD as a reason to prevent creation of the page with CURRENT SOURCES is harmful to Wikipedia; in the face of legitimate information, old information is being used to prevent its being shared. This is why we have an edit war right now; on one side, those citing an old AfD, while the other side has the editors citing current information doing their best to help improve Wikipedia with the new information. That is the war. We need to end it.
CycloneGU (
talk)
16:12, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
Explicit. I urge you to read over the AfD and see that it is not related to the new album and then unlock the pages accordingly. Since there is still a disagreement, the pages should be relocked once the new album page has been created. Enough people are citing an absent consensus to redirect the page that they should be prevented from doing so until one is established. Yes, there is no consensus to redirect the album page, only the re-release page. Please make the distinction.
Grk1011/Stephen (
talk)
16:22, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
As an update, I've made contact with
Tone, who directed me to the person who nominated The Fame Monster to be merged with the article via AfD. Per Tone's suggestion, I've contacted
User talk:Dalejenkins to suggest having the AfD recycled and no longer used. Pending what happens there,
The Fame Monster may be available for creating the page later today; if so, I recommend we create the new page and put all information there, then simply have a small section on
The Fame saying that the album is included as a bonus to The Fame Monster as that is what the artist's official site says. This should satisfy all sides.
CycloneGU (
talk)
17:00, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
CycloneGU and Grk1011, I think we can all agree that this issue was difficult since day one. I've done a lot of searching and trying to look over the arguments on both here and the article talk page. I think I can say I've found the solution. After quick look over at
MTV News,
Gaga herself calls it an EP. I'll leave a notice on The Fame's talk page and unprotect The Fame Monster (as this seems fit now). I'll be off to school after that and hope one of you (or another editor) can recreate it with this or a similar proper source. —
ξxplicit17:07, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for your attention to it, I've done what I can to both pages as any good editor would. If Grk or any other editors have additional content, that's up to them now. I've reverted
The Fame Monster to the previous revision and saved that first, then I started making slight changes. I've simplified the section in
The Fame as well to refer to it only as bonus content to
The Fame Monster. I'm keeping an eye on both pages. =)
CycloneGU (
talk)
20:11, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
Thanks very much for semi-protecting
physician. I really cannot see why it should be particularly controversial, but the subject seems to irritate some people.
--DavidB 03:46, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
...for your help in unprotecting the Lady Gaga albums so that we could get them updated. Editing on
The Fame appears to have finished four-five hours ago as I type, and after a little more edit warring today in
The Fame Monster (which I let fizzle itself out after I stepped in twice to correct things), I've taken the time to finalize an update of the article and put the issue of updating the article to bed. Feel free to take a look and see what you think.
Me, personally? I'm not a Lady Gaga fan, I just stumbled upon this and wanted to help get this done. I've already seen my references messed up in the article today and had to repair them. I've seen my prose deleted and restored by other editors. It's been an interesting day on that article. *LOL* My rewrite now should summarize everything. I'm exhausted and I'm going to bed just after 11 p.m. on November 12. I'll be watching AllMusic for the addition of this album; when it shows up, I'll relabel the album myself if needed if no one else already has. =)
CycloneGU (
talk)
04:11, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
I'm not a Gaga fan myself, but when duty calls... She's become pretty big, so one can imagine the edits will come in pretty heavily to related articles. Thanks for keeping the articles in shape and for the patience with dealing with the articles.
—
ξxplicit17:23, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
Would you mind keeping an eye on
User:Grk1011's edits. Has a tendency to include unsourced informations in the Gaga articles while making it look as if he's trying to revert vandalism or some other comments.
--Legolas(talk2me)16:00, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
Having a look at the same edit, I'm not seeing the problem. The information being complained of was added by other editors and Grk appears to have made a go of fixing it. Legolas's edit appears to have removed some important information - even such silly things as a link to Teddy Riley.
Orderinchaos16:07, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
I think the main problem here is that users are reverting a certain version and then trying to copy-edit that version. Plainly, this causes the problems, as reverting to certain versions will undoubtedly brings the issues that version had. Instead of doing that, one should go through the article manually and correct the issues as its a lot less prone to content disputes such as this. —
ξxplicit19:02, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
James Birren image
Greetings,
I disagree with the deletion of this image:
04:03, 17 November 2009 Explicit (talk | contribs) deleted "File:James Birren Father of Gerontology.jpg"
{{Information
|Description = James Birren, Ph.D., is widely considered to be the father of gerontology.
|Source = I A.G.B. created this work entirely by myself.
|Date = Nov. 4, 2009
|Author = A.G.B.
|other_versions =
}}
Although the uploader may have created it, the file lacked a
license tag (for example, {{cc-by}}, {{cc-by-sa}} or {{PD-self}}). I wasn't able to determine if the user had uploaded the file with any of these compatible licenses (sometimes images are uploaded with licenses incompatible with Wikipedia, like CC-BY-ND or CC-BY-NC). The lack of licensing led to the deletion of the image. —
ξxplicit05:14, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
That is strange. How can Rolling Stoneand Allmusic get that wrong? It doesn't make sense to me. Oh well, for what its worth, it's really their fault, not Wikipedia's. —
ξxplicit20:55, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. I looked them up now. I was confused cause I ran into one yesterday, and another editor said it was meat, not sock, I was dealing with; I see now they were wrong. Anyway, thanks for setting me and the duck straight.
Drmies (
talk)
23:11, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
The message you posted stated that if I felt that it should be kept then I should leave a reason, yet the page is deleted two seconds later. How is that fair to say the editor can give a reason, but delete it right after saying that? --
Shadow (
talk)
06:01, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
Mainly because there is no time limit as whether an administrator can delete a speedied article. The article you created (which I believe is the same version in your sandbox) did not address the issues brought up at the
AfD. The recreated article was nearly identical to the one deleted via the AfD. Additionally, the use of online retail stores like
Amazon.com is not significant coverage from secondary
reliable sources. Neither was the primary source like Gaga's official website nor
Rhapsody, which was just used to verify the track listing. The article clearly met the
speedy deletion criteria, which lead to its deletion. —
ξxplicit06:09, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
Hi there, I deleted the file based on our
non-free content criteria policy. The first point of the policy states: Non-free content is used only where no free equivalent is available, or could be created, that would serve the same encyclopedic purpose.. As the perfume is still in production, a free image can still be created, which means the non-free image doesn't meet our policy. —
ξxplicit01:55, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
Can we semi-protect
The Fame Monster indefinitely? Ever since the protection expired, all sorts of knowledgeable IP editors have been creating rumours and false information in the article. Just now I had to clean up five incorrect edits to the article since three hours ago; some others have already been cleaned up by well-established editors other than myself. This even considers my comment at the top of the damn SOURCE saying don't use GagaDaily as a source; four or five people still went ahead and did that AFTER I added the comment where they should SEE the damn thing. I already left three separate notes for IP editors, two of them
here and
here.
I'm not entirely convinced semi-protection is best. As it was recently released, there's bound to be active disruption around this time. I've semi-protected the article for two months instead. —
ξxplicit22:05, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
2010 stub template
Hi.
First of all, thanks for the support, now i wanted to create the template myself, and i kind of did it, but the whole template documentation got me confused and, well, i could n`t. I don`t know how to make it work just with the {{}}, i gotta say even when i been working here for a while sometimes the english get the better of me and there are a lot of things i can`t do. So please could you do the template? and, if you will, let me know how so i can make the genre ones. Thanks.
Zidane tribal (
talk)
22:15, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
Alrighty, I believe I've got it down. The main problem was just that you forgot the "s" after 2010 (it should have read 2010s, not 2010). After moving the template with the correct pluralization, I believe it's ready to go. —
ξxplicit08:23, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
This is an odd username given the new album. Is there any way we can find out if there's a conflict of interest here? Edits have already been made by this user.
CycloneGU (
talk)
23:45, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
I don't think a conflict of interest is a problem with this user. The first thing that did stand out was
this edit to The Fame Monster, a direct copyright violation of
Digital Spy. I'll leave a note on the user's talk page of copying copyrighted text shortly. —
ξxplicit00:04, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
I know that
Amazon.com has been deemed an unreliable source; not so sure of Barns and Nobel and HMV (might consider bringing those to
WP:RSN). For what it's worth, neither Keys' official website or J Records' website have released the track listing, so it brings into concern where these questionable sources received their information. —
ξxplicit04:55, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
Hmm, it was just redirected once (by you), doesn't seem to warrant full protection at the moment. Should it be recreated again, it might be worth taking it to
WP:AfD. —
ξxplicit05:27, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
Martyn Woolford image
Hi, could you explain why
this image was deleted? The rationale of "no metadata, no source, uploader has history of questionable uploads" doesn't make any sense to me; the picture was taken by
User:Dashwortley so it need not state a source and I don't believe he has a history of questionable uploads! Cheers,
Mattythewhite (
talk)
09:46, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
Hi there, that file was deleted based on the
WP:PUF description, which states that it is not specifically a vote to keep or delete but a forum for the exploration of the copyright status/source of an image and contributions should not be added solely in those terms. [...] If no objection to the image's deletion is raised, or no proof that the image is indeed free is provided, the image may be deleted without further notice after the 14-day period. No user objected to the file's deletion—including the uploader, who has edited since being notified of the problem—and thus, it was deleted. A look at Dashwortley's talk page shows problem issues with files in the past, so the concern given by Skier Dude seems legitimate. —
ξxplicit17:07, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
As the protecting admin would you mind unprotecting to make way for a move from
here, the vineyard easily meets our threshold for inclusion. Full disclosure, I had worked on it in July (prior to first deletion I think), so
I requestedAnthony.bradbury (
talk·contribs) to userfy it so I could see the history (I don't recall it being that bad when I had worked on it, but I have been known to be wrong in the past). My request was
rejected. --
kelapstick (
talk)
16:50, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
Hey there, nice work on the subject! The version in your userspace does seem meet notability guidelines, so I'll move it into article space shortly. —
ξxplicit17:07, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
Would you please consider taking a look at this article's history? Fans are continuously removing reviews which address the album negatively and removing information regarding the development of the album. Please I need your administrative help.
--Legolas(talk2me)04:03, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
Hey there, to expand on my
closure: I felt consensus was in favor the disambiguation as
Category:Seven albums would be too ambiguous, even on its own. As
Postdlf (
talk·contribs) pointed out, it might cause confusion as the category may imply the quantity of albums. Obviously, those well aware of how category structure works would be less likely to think as such, but to believe that all readers would understand that (especially when the recording artist's stage name is stylized as "Se7en") seems less than likely. —
ξxplicit06:33, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
Since I never had the opportunity to rebut Postdlf's point, there's not much more to say. It's hard sometimes to understand a close which comes in the middle of a conversation and which places so much weight on one point while ignoring the wider point that given context it is unclear how it might cause confusion as the category may imply the quantity of albums, so perhaps you could explain why that argument swayed the close.
HidingT12:26, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
I didn't place more weight on one argument over the other, consensus favored the addition of the disambiguation. Both sides have reasonable concerns, and to claim that one point had more strength or is more valuable than the other—especially with the long-practiced speedy rename criteria number six and the recent argument to deprecate that criteria—would be unreasonable. To reiterate, my decision was based on the consensus of the discussion favoring the further disambiguation, not my personal view on the issue. —
ξxplicit21:15, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
I didn't say I didn't weigh the arguments, I said I weighed them equally. Consensus chose one over the other, which lead to result. —
ξxplicit22:25, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
I still can't quite see it based on the shape the debate took. I can't tell if you are stating that Debresser and Good Ol'factory are agreeing with Postdlf, which doesn't compute since they posted before him, or I'm missing something. Can we agree that the only person to put forwards a reason for any ambiguity was Postdlf, and can we also agree that the long-practiced speedy rename criteria number six is currently under dispute?
HidingT23:06, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
Yes, Postdlf did specify why the category would remain ambiguous, and yes, the speedy renaming is under dispute. Still, consensus was in favor of it. —
ξxplicit21:12, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
I can't see how you can then say there was a consensus, if we agree on those two points. But no real harm done. I'd advise that you may want to post better summaries when you close such debates so that they are better understood, but I think we're better off agreeing to disagree. Thanks for your time, it's been appreciated.
HidingT22:37, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
Unfortunately I can't tell whether you noticed this or not, because there was nothing in your edit-summary to indicate you had reviewed the case for keeping it, nor any kind of message or acknowledgement to me that you had seen the hold-on tag.
Regardless of whether your delete was justified here (and it may have been), I fear there is a more general systematic issue here, so I have opened
a thread at
WT:CSD to consider the whole question of what etiquette is most appropriate in connection with CSD:F7 when a dfu tag is itself disputed.
Jheald (
talk)
13:24, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
I do review the files before I delete them; this specific file did not have {{hangon}} tag as
Fastily (
talk·contribs) had removed it. Even so, the hangon tag was incorrectly used, as the file was tagged with {{di-fails NFCC}}, not
speedy deletion. Posting your dispute on the talk page should have been the course to be taken, as I always give those a look when reviewing files up for deletion (assuming the talk page is blue-linked, of course). —
ξxplicit21:12, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
Could you
Please full-protect The Monster Ball Tour for the time being as huge (I mean HUGE) amount of unsourced data, including set lists , opening acts, ysnopsis, concert dates are being added in random by newly registered users continuously. In the meantime lemme find some sources and I'll get back to you for dropping to semi.
--Legolas(talk2me)03:59, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
Hey there Legolas, sorry for the late reply, buying and setting up a new PC takes forever.
Anywho, I don't feel full protection is merited in this case—especially when semi-protection hasn't been attempted. I'll semi-protect the article for a week and see how it goes from there. —
ξxplicit00:44, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
I don't see the contradiction. The {{otheruses}} template is placed atop the
primary topic article (assuming it isn't a disambiguation page to begin with) for other uses of the term. Could you expand a bit? —
ξxplicit21:18, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
Wow, I've never come across anyone that disagrees with that. Well, let me ask you this...why do you think there isn't a contradiction? (Keep in mind that I'm talking about the family of {{otheruses}} templates, not merely the specific template I linked to.) THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL07:38, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
As
WP:NAMB points out, hatnotes generally shouldn't be used when the article is already disambiguated, as
B5 (band) is. The typical reader wouldn't arrive there without first landing onto the disambiguation page,
B5. If the reader was looking for another topic with the name "B5", they wouldn't end up at
B5 (band) to begin with. The template should be used when there is a primary topic, like
pink. As other uses of the term exist, the use of {{otheruses4}} in this context makes sense. —
ξxplicit01:12, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
I've noticed this too. I'm curious, if you can tell me, how do you know if a particular IP is a proxy? I had assumed that they were distinct users clicking an offsite link containing a diff with the vandalism included and ready to go. -- SoapTalk/Contributions05:47, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
If permitted, would you like to do all the submitting so that I can watch the process from A to Z? Or refer the matter to another user who you think will do it (and tell me what that user's name is)
Suomi Finland 2009 (
talk)
18:28, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
You declined my speedy deletion of
20px. Your explanation (sixteen hours after I had tagged it with db-f7 ) was that it was not properly tagged for seven days. Please explain. Also point me in the direction of a description of a speedy deletion process you are happier with, if possible.
Hi Explicit, hope you don't mind but I'll just clean up those Rihanna images right away, they are all quite clear cut copyright and fair use violations. Cheers,
Amalthea02:20, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
No problem at all. I usually take files to
WP:PUF when I can't find an exact source for an image, sort of like a force of habit. Thanks for lending a hand. —
ξxplicit02:24, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
Also look at the vandalism he just did while a go to
Rakim discography.
I reverted the IP's edits that hadn't been reverted yet and gave them a warning—a block wasn't justified quite yet and IPs aren't blocked permanently. In the future, it would be a good idea to warn the user by adding
warning templates on their talk page. If they vandalize after their final warning, they can be reported to the
administrator intervention against vandalism venue, where an admin will likely block the offender shortly thereafter. Regards. —
ξxplicit17:01, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
He refuses to listen so I suggest you block him now, because he still vandalizing the article even after you warned him, look at the history.
Hometown Kid (
talk) 15:34, 8 December 2009.
Associated acts
I know I've discussed this with other editors in the past, but you're the only one that comes to mind right now. So I'm notifying you of a discussion I've raised recently:
Template_talk:Infobox_musical_artist#Please_do_away_with_Associated_Acts -- I can see that its getting derailed, maybe that's my fault. I think the field should either be removed or we seriously need to ratchet down the criteria to define what "Associated" means if its going to populate the infobox. Otherwise we will constantly be battling polluted infoboxes, as we currently do.
JBsupreme (
talk)
09:35, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
request undeletion of images
These images were self-made from files of own original work.
* 1.12 File:Beowulf Cartoon bookwork.jpg
* 1.13 File:Space Opera book 2000.jpg
* 1.16 File:Vis assc cat. cover.jpg
These images were self-made from files permitted by, or on behalf of close non-living associates, living associates and affiliated organizations.
* 1.4 File:A Pocket History of the Soul (chapbook cover).jpg
* 1.7 File:SGR recruitment leaflet 09 001.jpg
* 1.8 File:Furst fruts uvl 977.jpg
* 1.9 File:Axe Hero cd insert cover.jpg
* 1.10 File:Dust jacket The Joy of Letting Women Down.jpg
* 1.11 File:WF workshop & book launch flyer 2002.jpg
* 1.14 File:Ssf6+Processural.jpg
* 1.15 File:Positive future.jpg
* 1.17 File:Chainsaw -2 cover.jpg (file 72 DPI).jpg
All image files were uploaded in good faith on understanding they complied with copyright & licensing requirements. Can you please assist with undeletion and help restoration to original articles.
Hi there, although you may have taken a picture of the works, they are copyrighted works, in which the original creator of the images still hold the copyright to. There was nothing that indicated that you were the copyright holder of these images or that you received permission to upload these images under a free licensing, which is why they were sent to
WP:PUF and then deleted. —
ξxplicit04:11, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
Dp you feel that the above article's musical structure is fancruft. As far as I know, such addition of the composition of the song is essential for an article to be GA or FA. however, the
reviewer of the article believes that the section is
WP:IN-U and is not accepting the fact that it is essential for the article. Could you help me out on this?
--Legolas(talk2me)10:51, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
File:Sailor Mercury.jpg
You did not give a reason for your decision to delete this file. Given that there was controversy over it, could you please explain your reasons for deleting it? Thank you. --
Tryptofish (
talk)
18:10, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
Hi there Tryptofish, sorry for my lack of explanation (I was over at
WP:PUF for quite a significant time just handling one day's log, so it skipped through my mind). The main issue that I saw with those in favor of keeping the file was that they failed to address why the image should be used. I was aware that the use of the image was under dispute, but no one (at least, not from what I saw) explained how this image is significant portrayal that a free image or text alone can't describe (
WP:NFCC#8). Although some of those who were in favor of deletion didn't have arguments any better, there were those who addressed the point that a non-free isn't needed to depict crucifixion in anime in the article. —
ξxplicit23:22, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for explaining that. I guess there was so much drama going on at the page, with discussions going on in parallel at both places, that those of us favoring "keep" did not do as good a job as we might have of addressing the point you raise here. If you don't mind my doing so, I'll take a stab at that now, in hopes that you and I can discuss it without having to go to deletion review. If I break the issue down into its constituent parts, there is (1) the significance of the image to the page, (2) the availability of a free image, and (3) whether text alone would suffice. Number 2 is the simplest: there are no such free images at Commons or found by editors looking for them. As for number 1, while the deletion discussion was in progress, I researched and added to the article a reliable secondary source (which I did mention in the deletion discussion) discussing this particular image as part of a notable controversy about censorship of crucifixion images in anime by Western publishers. Thus, the image relates directly to a significant part of the text of the page, and is sourced to support that significance. (Ironically, the image has been controversial at Wikipedia for the same reasons that it has been censored outside of Wikpedia; the article content dispute was triggered when an external site stirred up a large number of IPs who came to the page and made disruptive edits.) Number 3 is the most subjective issue. On one level, one can make a case that all of the images at
Crucifixion in art could be dispensed with and just described in the text, resulting in a page with no images at all. But it is, after all, a page about something "in art". I suppose it can be argued that "everyone" knows what anime looks like, although I do not really think it is any more valid than saying that everyone knows what Salvador Dali's paintings look like. If one looks down the page, it shows how depictions of the subject matter have changed over time, and that is entirely appropriate to the subject matter, and the image in question showed a notable aspect of crucifixion imagery that is not shown elsewhere on the page. It's certainly not identical to any of the other images, but, rather, it provides an informative comparison with them. In my opinion, at least, the images at
Fullmetal Alchemist (also fair use) do not parallel the other images at
Crucifixion in art as well as the deleted one does. I hope you'll consider these points, and accept my apologies for not doing a better job of explaining them sooner. Thanks. --
Tryptofish (
talk)
23:54, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
The difference between the deleted image and the ones in the article (with the exception for
File:Crucifixio.jpg, which happens to be missing a
fair use rationale) is that they are released under the public domain, which means
WP:NFCC doesn't apply to those, because the images are free.
The use of non-free files in other articles isn't an issue in this article. Taking a look at the article's talk page, it seems there's still significant opposition of the use of the image, let alone the references to anime. Unfortunately, I do not see consensus to keep the image, nor have it included in the article. If consensus changes on the article's talk page, or if you invited the others who took part of the FfD discussion to my talk page to express their views so I can get a better perspective of the reasoning behind keeping the image, I would gladly restore the image myself. Until then, I'm afraid I don't see enough support to restore the file. —
ξxplicit05:35, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
For editors like me who are concerned about censorship of the image, the catch-22 comes with asking that consensus coalesce around keeping the image, while pre-empting that consensus by removing the image before any real consensus exists. But I do appreciate the fact that you make it clear that you are open to restoring the image when and if there is consensus to do so. I think that's very fair and balanced, and I thank you again for taking the time to discuss this matter with me. --
Tryptofish (
talk)
17:03, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the
current talk page.