| ARCHIVE (July 2012 - January 2013)
|
| Please note that: This is an archived thread of discussions. Please do not add any more discussions to this page. Instead engage in discussion on My Current Discussion page.
|
Hi. When you recently edited Hot Fuss Tour, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Pars (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 13:24, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think what the IP address did on there was a lot better and makes more sense especially as Bice's version is a cover anyway and the lead makes no sense. It makes a lot of sense to mention both version at the top then separating the information into a different section for Bice's version. Please assume good faith and keep personal opinions off Wikipedia. Editors need to respect each other the IP address was doing no harm and I think the page looks better the way they did it. Thanks for listening. BringOurLovedOnesHome (talk) 02:16, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Besides it also looks as if Bice's version doesn't have enough information to maintain a section of his own as there is only three sentences in his section, one chart, and one award and his version was nominated to the same category as Underwood's (why separate that???) so merging the two makes a lot more sense then treating them as two separate version especially with them being so closely released together the only other song I know that has ever done that is "How Do I Live" by LeAnn Rimes and Trisha Yearwood and from what I saw on the page the IP address pointed out the page for "How Do I Live", the two are not separated but together as Yearwood's version like Bice's is not really 100% notable by itself as Rimes' version did better then hers on the charts, regardless of Yearwood's version winning the award both versions were nominated for. Lot of similarities there between two different songs of "How Do I Live" and "Inside Your Heaven" with the exception of the "scandal" of "How Do I Live" and I applaud the IP address for making the connection to the two. BringOurLovedOnesHome (talk) 02:29, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Sometimes, exceptions do need to be made, think about it. BringOurLovedOnesHome (talk) 02:32, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- First off the IP addresses all geolocate to the same Washington, D.C. area, which makes me believe that they are all the same person using a dynamic IP address. Except for one edit summary, they made no mention as to why they changed the way the article looked for the past nine months. That edit summary of "Restored and compressed separated version not necessary. Looks better and reads better together." And I think it does the complete opposite plus in my experience looking at song articles they always list the separate versions in separate sections. Until you showed me "How Do I Live", that is the first song I have seen without the separate sections.
- Second, this discussion would have been better served to have been at Talk:Inside Your Heaven, so a consensus could be formed there, especially since there were IP address(es) with opinions on the matter.
- Third, Bice's version is not a cover, seeing how they were performed and recorded at roughly the same time. Bice's version would be notable for the fact it charted and was nominated for an award.
- Fourth, I would really like to know what you mean by this: "Please assume good faith and keep personal opinions off Wikipedia. Editors need to respect each other the IP address was doing no harm and I think the page looks better the way they did it. Thanks for listening." Just because something gets reverted, especially with an edit summary, does not mean something was not considered to be good faith edits. My personal opinion of it looking better was in response to a personal opinion of the IP address, and that was to point out that personal opinions can vary and should not be used as the sole reason for changing something.
- Lastly, I am not going to try and change back the article. If there is further discussion at the talk page, I might join in with my opinion. Aspects (talk) 02:51, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. SplashScreen (talk) 09:35, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I just noticed that the file File:Walk-away-video.jpg was deleted after a file for deletion discussion in which you were the only editor to voice an opinion. Is there some reason you did not add an image caption to the file at Walk Away (Kelly Clarkson song) or add a notification at Talk:Walk Away (Kelly Clarkson song) as Wikipedia:Files for deletion suggest you do? Had there been some sort of notification, I would have added to the discussion and possibly some other editors may have too. As much discussion as possible between editors cannot hurt the situation. Looking at your more recent files for discussion, it you also did not notify for them either. I am going to tag the files that are currently in use about the discussion so other editors know about them. Aspects (talk) 03:05, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi Aspects. I nominated a newly created image that had only just been added to the article. The uploader (FanofPopMusic) was notified and though they edited subsequently, they didn't participate in the discussion. I do not normally notify anyone except the uploader of the discussion (partly as I use twinkle), and am not sure in this case why there would have been any benefit to do so. The closing as delete of file discussion with only the nominator participating is normal and common.- Peripitus (Talk) 10:15, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I do not understand how you could respond with "...am not sure in this case why there would have been any benefit to do so." I specifically stated that I would have joined the discussion had there been some notification and other editors may have joined in too. I would advise you to either tag the image or post a notification on the talk page if an image you bring to FfD are still in use, because editors are far more likely to be watching articles and their respective talk pages than they are to be watching individual images that are being used in the articles. Aspects (talk) 23:51, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- By benefit, I mean benefit to the encyclopedia. This was a random screenshot with the generic and poor rationale for use "To showcase a specific point in the video.", the caption 'Clarkson singing in the music video of "Walk Away."' - together they give no hint of the encyclopedic use of this image beyond decoration - and no supporting referenced text in the article discussing this image specifically (the references and text simply confirm the plain fact that she made a video). I have seen, quite literally, thousands of such images uploaded by those who do not fully understand the non-free content criteria and they continually stream into Wikipedia and out through deletion discussions. Why do you think that this image passes the non-free content criteria and significantly adds to reader's undertanding ? - Peripitus (Talk) 09:56, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Aspects - you are invited to offer your opinion at User_talk:NewzealanderA/Misha_B#User_Consensus_Request regarding X Factor contestant Misha B - User:NewzealanderA/Misha_B. Thank you for your time!-- NewzealanderA (talk) 23:20, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Funny that five minutes after I replied to an ANI about me canvassing a small number of significant editors on an article they edited, that I get canvassed for an article I cannot ever remember editing and an area, UK reality shows, that I rarely ever edit. Aspects (talk) 23:54, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The same picture had been there for more than a year now and her appearance from that day to now had changed a lot. So you better change it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.153.80.202 (talk) 00:42, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- If a more recent free image of Alaina can be found, then anyone can upload it and add it to the article, even you as long as it is Alaina and not Carrie Underwood, like you recently did. Until a more recent image of Alaina can be found, then the image needs to stay as it is. Aspects (talk) 00:46, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hello!
I sent an application to the user Koavf. The content of the application is connected to our ongoing dispute about the serial numbers for the tour dates. If he agrees to be the arbitrator between us, hopefully he will solve our dispute. If he cannot do that, then I suggested him to propose us another user/administrator to solve our dispute.
I recommend you to not revert back/violate my edits concerning the serial numbers for the tour dates. The main question is and will be, have we reached the consensus. I have tried to do that, but I cannot see that you have tried to do the same. As long as the dispute is up between us, I want you not to revert back my edits, because these edits are definitely not violating Wikipedia`s clauses or state laws. If you are continually going to revert back my edits, further necessary steps will be taken. Nothing personal, I stand up for my rights.
Thank you! Lassoboy (talk) 15:54, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Lassoboy (talk) 16:23, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I added my answer to WikiProject Concert Tours talk page and our subsequent talking is going to take place only there, not on my talk page any more. Check it out regularly, because I am not going to write any more on your talk page. If I find out that you will not take part of our conversation regularly, I will take it as a renunciation and start reverting back your edits concerning my numbering. Thank you. Lassoboy (talk) 11:22, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hello!
By now I have reverted back some of your edits concerning my numbering the tour dates to give people on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Concert_Tours page a glimpse of how the numbering of the tour dates make tables more readable and visually better. If you again rv my edits, then I have to allert the administrator that my edits are again being violated, because I have done the edits with good faith and in order to explain people my intentions in the best possible way.
Thank you. Lassoboy (talk) 14:01, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I am going to reply to you personally here so it does not derail the concert tours discussions. If you really wanted to show people an example of what the numbers would look like you could have set up a table in your sandbox or you could have reverted one of the articles. By going through and reverting every single one, it looks like it is not in good faith and since it is during an ongoing discussion that you are trying to continue an edit war. If I was to revert the changes and you alerted an administrator, I would probably be cited but that WP:BOOMERANG would also hit you in the process. Lastly you need to start using ":" at the beginning of your statements when you are responding to someone else because it makes it easier to read the discussion, the way you are currently writing them make all of your comments one long comment that some people might say WP:TLDR.
- And as a reply to something I said earlier about contacting an administrator about this on ANI, you contacted an administrator to get his help in this matter, but you should have waited to get his response before you took the next step up the ladder by starting an unnecessary post at ANI. You waited less than three hours and without getting his response started the ANI. The issue at hand was not that pressing that something needed to be dealt with right away. If you had waited two more hours you would have gotten his response and could have started the discussion at WikiProject Concert Tours as he suggested then. Koavf was not currently editing at the time and there was no way he could respond to you before your started the discussion at ANI. In general, you should wait and see what an editor's/administrator's response would be before you needlessly escalate situations and give them a chance to respond to your concerns. Aspects (talk) 16:28, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- First of all, as I said earlier I am not experienced user and therefore forgot the opportunity to use sanbox. I apologize for not doing so.
- Secondly, I reverted back more than one concert to really (IN GOOD FAITH) show people the tables in different sizes (60 concerts versus 200 concerts) and how does it look like when using the numbers.
- Thirdly, I am not trying to continue the edit war. How can you say that?? Why the hell should I want to do edit war with you? I DO NOT WANT TO BE BLOCKED FROM EDITING! Did you understand that? Please no more unjust accusations here!
- Added to this, yes I would have alerted the administrator in case of need, but that was all in good faith and I definitely, at least not deliberately, would not have wanted to shoot myself or you in the foot. This was not my purpose.
- Thank you for your other recommendation.
- At first I did not contact the administrator, but user Koavf. And just in case added my request to ANI. Before writing on ANI I did not contact to any administrator at all !! The suggestion to discuss our matter elsewhere came after I had written on ANI. You got something very wrong! But I thank you for your recommendations. I probably should have waited for Koacvf response first, but he wrote on ANI that he could not arbitrate and I also got my recommendations to discuss the matter at WikiProject Concert Tours and ultimately all went as was supposed to go. Thank you. Lassoboy (talk) 18:34, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. When you recently edited Shadows Between the Sky, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Ambient (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:12, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Trinity Presbyterian School, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page K4 (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:04, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there, Aspects. I'm curious why you removed the Cinema of Hungary navbox from the Istvan Szabo article. I checked the 2 articles you cited as justification, but I can't find any discussion of this issue in them. One of the articles you cited contains a discussion of the criteria for navboxes, and I think Cinema of Hungary meets the criteria, and is a useful addition to the article.Hirschjoshua (talk) 02:56, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I provided three links. WP:MOSFILM under Wikipedia:MOSFILM#Navigation states "Articles should be substantially related to the subject of the navigation template." WP:NAVBOX under Wikipedia:NAVBOX#Navigation_templates states "Finally every article that transcludes a given navbox should normally also be included as a link in the navbox so that the navigation is bidirectional." And it looks like the consensus against using these navigational templates in film/people's articles was archived and is currently at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film/Archive 41#National cinema navigation templates. Aspects (talk) 21:13, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
last one -
(The Indonesian TV pages get that like a regular cold... appreciate your vigilance - cheers SatuSuro 11:15 am, 13 August 2011, Saturday (1 year, 1 month, 5 days ago) (UTC+8) )
My annual gratitude for your trawling through the minefield of Indonesian tv etc
- Thanks again SatuSuro 00:42, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Ryan Starr, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Sunland, California (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:30, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I see that you changed No. 10 to number ten (and similar in many pages), please note that this is not mentioned in WP:ORDINAL. It is in fact mentioned that usage such as No. 10 is correct according to MOS:NUMBERSIGN. Hzh (talk) 16:11, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I am sorry that I did not respond to your comment until now, but an IP editor had left a message afterwards and I only noticed their message. Regarding my edits, I really meant to put that I was changing No. to number because that was the predominant form in the article and it matches with the singer's and other American Idol's articles as the form used. Since you changed the predominant form in the article, I am going to revert back to the predominant form. WP:ORDINAL does state that these numbers should be spelled out, but I am not going to change that in this case, but will continue to point to that in the future. As for MOS:NUMBERSIGN, that is a correct version just as much as number ten is a correct version. Aspects (talk) 02:48, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- It wasn't the predominant form. All the word "number" followed by digits were given as the form No. X (X being the numeral figure). This is how people normally use it - it is used in articles published in the States, for example here in Billboard, and it is suggested by wiki itself to be the correct usage per MOS:NUMBERSIGN. You are in error trying to cite WP:ORDINAL. If other pages uses spelt out "number + digits " whole, it is most likely it be because you the one who has been doing it, other people have been complaining about your action as noted in your talk page. You are turning your personal preference into the rule against what is actually accepted in wiki as well as the normal usage in US. Hzh (talk) 09:31, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- My edit, [1], only changed one form, while your edit, [2], changed four forms, therefore it was the predominant form in the prose. MOS:NUMBERSIGN says either are acceptable uses and since it was the predominant and original form per WP:ENGVAR, it should have stayed that way. Either are acceptable in wikipedia but No. is not commonly used in American English as can be seen in Numero sign and not being common it is preferably to spell out a word instead of using an abbreviation, especially when the abbreviation is never stated what it is short for. WP:ORDINAL is about the spelling out of numbers, which I did not even do, so I do not know how can say I was in error in citing it when I did not cite it. In the past, one person commented on these changes and never replied back and after I changed all of the # signs to number, they have not been changed. But I feel this debate to weigh on me too much offline and I would rather spend my time and energy somewhere more productive, so I will not be changing this, but if asked for my opinion in a discusssion I will give what I stated above. Aspects (talk) 22:34, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Numero sign doesn't say what you think it says at all. It merely says that # sign is often used. Since I have given you example already from Billboard, here's more from Hollywood Reporter - [3], Washington Post - [4], New York Times - [5], etc. "No. + digits" is in fact the usual usage in the US together with the # sign, and spelling out "number + numeral" in full is in fact rarely used in the US, and therefore the correct version to use per WP:ENGVAR would be No. or #. But since the # sign is discouraged in wiki, therefore No. should be the standard form for the US. You are mistaken in insisting on a wrong usage, since spelling it out in full is not the standard usage in the US.. Hzh (talk) 09:25, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I got your message about the change to JG page. I actually tried to find that specific video but had no luck. I know it exists because I remember seeing it on tv. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.197.184.121 (talk) 04:06, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Please respond to my note here.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:06, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Did you revert the merge because there was no discussion, or because there is a valid reason to not merge it? It has only two independent reliable sources that discuss it in any great detail, and much of the reception is game usefulness, which is very bottom-of-the-barrel kind of stuff. If a discussion needs to occur for each Pokemon merge, it will never be viable to attempt such a thing. - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 21:58, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I reverted the merge because an edit summary of "Merged." does not explain why the article was merged and there was no talk page discussion, so there was no explanation or consensus to support the merge. Even the reason you give here saying it has independent reliable sources could been seen enough to pass WP:GNG. Discussions should be started to form a consensus on which Pokemon articles should be kept as individual articles and which articles should be merged into the lists articles. Some of these have been through AfD, but some of them could be started at the talk page of the lists articles with links put onto the talk page of the individual Pokemon articles. That way a consensus could be formed and if future editors have questions about why certain articles were merged into the lists, they could be pointed to the discussion to show there was agreement. I would advise starting merge discussions at the lists articles, at the WikiProject talk page or last case resort, take the articles to AfD. Aspects (talk) 23:51, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of awards and nominations received by Carrie Underwood, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page I Told You So (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:10, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The Blown Away Tour's March 2, 2013 venue location is in Las Vegas, Nevada, as noted by the official address of the resort and venue on the Mandalay Bay Resort and Mandalay Bay Events Center official website:
Mandalay Bay Resort and Casino
3950 Las Vegas Blvd. South
Las Vegas, Nevada 89119
Paradise, NV is an unincorporated suburban region of Las Vegas, NV. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Undrwood9098 (talk • contribs) 00:01, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Mandalay Bay states the resort is located in Paradise, Nevada. It is placed in the following categories: Category:Buildings and structures in Paradise, Nevada, Category:Casinos in the Las Vegas Valley, Category:Skyscraper hotels in the Las Vegas metropolitan area and Category:Resorts in the Las Vegas Valley, showing that the resort is located in Paradise, Nevada and the Las Vegas metropolitan area/valley, but not in Las Vegas, Nevada itself. Mandalay Bay Events Center states the center is located in Paradise, Nevada. It is placed in the following categories: Category:Buildings and structures in Paradise, Nevada, Category:Sports venues in the Las Vegas Valley and Category:Music venues in the Las Vegas Valley, showing that the center is located in Paradise, Nevada and the Las Vegas metropolitan area/valley, but not in Las Vegas, Nevada itself. Las Vegas Strip says Mandalay Bay is on the strip and that the strip is not located in Las Vegas, Nevada. Las Vegas also states that the strip is not located in Las Vegas, Nevada.
- In your case of the zip code, ZIP code states "A ZIP code's address and the city name written on the same line do not necessarily mean that address is within that city. The Postal Service designates one preferred place name for each ZIP code." And List of ZIP code prefixes states that the "default" place name for all addresses in the 691 prefix is Las Vegas, hence why Mandalay Bay's zip code says Las Vegas and not Paradise, where it is located.
- Also on tour articles we match the city to the venue location and not the larger, nearby city. In the Blown Away Tour article this means Resch Center lists Ashwaubenon, Wisconsin and not Green Bay, Maverik Center lists West Valley City, Utah and not Salt Lake City, Jobing.com Arena lists Glendale, Arizona and not Phoenix, The Palace of Auburn Hills lists Auburn Hills, Michigan and not Detroit, BankAtlantic Center list Sunrise, Florida and not Miami and 1stBank Center lists Broomfield, Colorado and not Denver. Taken altogether Mandalay Bay is clearly located in Paradise, Nevada as stated in its article and it should state that correct information in the Blown Away Tour article. Aspects (talk) 00:03, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I can agree with your work, but you should reach an agreement with User:Foofbun, that is making the exact opposite of you. If you remove the templates and he re-adds them, I think both of you could save time and keep things as they are. Regards, Cavarrone (talk) 12:32, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If you look at this edit: [6], this was the first change done by an IP. If anything this section should be shorter (since they have their own articles - it's pointless to have both), not longer. But, instead of just reverting it, I cut it in half vertically, so that it had even columns. --Musdan77 (talk) 03:11, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No reply? --Musdan77 (talk) 20:21, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The IP address changed the format, while you deleted the co-headlining tour information. Those tours are also her concert tours and that information should be included in the list. Are you saying it is pointless to list the tours because they have their own articles? Aspects (talk) 21:56, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Why should the tours section be twice as long as the discography section? Discography sections only list studio albums. It should be the same type of thing for tour sections. Not every single tour needs to be listed (if they have their own articles). To give a couple of examples: Carrie Underwood's has the discography and tours sections the same size, while Reba McIntyre's doesn't have a tours section at all. --Musdan77 (talk) 02:44, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The tours section should be longer because she has gone on more tours than she has released articles. Carrie Underwood's tour section is longer than her discography section for the same reason Kelly Clarkson's is. Aspects (talk) 21:34, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Maybe you're still not getting my point. You didn't address the first part of what I said. How about an example from a Featured Article? - the article for Mariah Carey doesn't have a tours section, and has the link to the article of her tours under See also. --Musdan77 (talk) 05:06, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I must express my frustration with communicating with you because you do not full describe what you are saying. Case in point, you bring up that the section should be shorter, not longer, but not until your next reply do I even know that you mean in comparison to another section that you never mentioned before. Likewise with the last reply, I do not know what first part I did not address because the next question talks about Featured Articles that you had never discussed before. It seems to me that I point something out about one of your arguments just to have you throw more arguments back at me that were never discussed before that I could not possibly refute. Aspects (talk) 22:59, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, I guess we're even then, because I can't understand why you can't understand what I'm saying. I kept giving more and more reasons why the section in this article shouldn't be the way it is, but I guess it's no use trying, so I'll have to give up on it. Maybe a another editor will be bold enough to try to change it. --Musdan77 (talk) 02:59, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Aspects. I've left an explanation regarding the images for this George Harrison song article on the talk page. As mentioned there, I've now gone for a compromise between my previous changes (deleting two of the original three images) and your change reinstating the images. I notice though, from a quick look at your (very impressive) contrib history, that you reinstated the images while working on the navbox or infobox in a variety of articles. So while I'd never question your experience as far as whether an image satisfies NFCC requirements, I wonder if you made the change in "Give Me Love" with the actual article content in mind. As I'm sure my contrib history will show, I've been working only on Harrison-related song and album articles from the early 1970s – so to my way of thinking, reinstating the images is not a change that improves the article, which is currently close to achieving GA status. Again, all this (and more) is in my message on the talk page, but can I ask, do you actually object to the two images not appearing, or did you revert the deletion simply because the images happen to satisfy NFCC? I would like to revert to the one image (deleting label and Spanish sleeve images), and I think my talk message provides sufficient reason to do this. But obviously, I want to avoid a situation where you and I are simply undoing each other's changes. Many thanks. JG66 (talk) 06:35, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I reverted your edits to this article. The album cover should be of a lower resolution and quality than the original (the previous image's file name is highres, as it is). The images you removed are free, so they can be placed in sections that only have prose. If you would like to discuss this further, please start at the talk page rather than restoring your changes. I worked hard on fixing the article from this to what it is now, and just nominated it for good article status. Dan56 (talk) 16:53, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I am going to reply at the talk section of the article since you also started a section there and it is more likely to attract other editors with opinions there. Aspects (talk) 17:09, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Do you like upsetting other editors, or do you just not care? Anyway, if you look at the lead section in this article (American Idol (season 12)) you'd see that it's done the correct way. You can't have it one way in one paragraph and then another in the next. That's the consistency I was talking about. But, more importantly, strictly speaking it is poor grammar to have a stand-alone ordinal number. Basically, there can't be a second without a first (and so on). Ordinal means in sequential order. As far as the way other Idol articles are, that's a secondary issue, and if you give me some time I'll fix those as well. But, when you're editing, think about whose edit you're reverting (if it's an established editor or not), then think about if it's really necessary (if it ain't broke...). Is it really worth causing friction between editors? (I'm not just talking about between us. I've seen other examples.) --Musdan77 (talk) 19:38, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The very first words of American Idol (season 12) are "The twelfth season of American Idol." The parts about the eighth and ninth seasons were recently added and should have been added to be consistent with the article. You have made edits to American Idol contestants and season articles changing grammar that has been consistent across the articles for a long time with edit summaries of generally "Copyediting." Not until your last edit to American Idol (season 12), did you mention ordinal and even then it was not explained until here. Is there someone you can point to about the poor grammar to have a stand-alone ordinal number? I looked and could not find any. How is having season 11 not mean that there would have had to been seasons 1-10 before hand and the exact same situation you are trying to correct? You made WP:BOLD edits that were reverted because "it ain't broke" but you tried to fix it. Anyone's edits can be reverted even if they are an established editor and that does not necessarily mean there is friction being caused and even if friction is caused it does not mean that an editor should not revert something just to avoid the friction. Aspects (talk) 02:42, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I know what the first words are, and that's wrong too. Look at the title. And look at the rest of the lead. Cardinal and ordinal numbers are not meant to be used interchangeably, and I tried to explain to you why. In your edit summary, you said "better grammar," and you still haven't explained what you meant. Sure, anyone's edits can be reverted, but the question is, "what is the best thing to do?" I don't revert a fellow experienced editor's edit unless it's a flagrant bad edit (and that's quite rare). I know that Wikipedia is not a place to find friends (unfortunately), but it's people like you that make editing here (at times) not a good experience -- and why many new editors decide not to stay. --Musdan77 (talk) 04:19, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The lead is now consistent. I wrote "better grammar" because that is the way I have always read ordinal numbers used this way in writing, even before Wikipedia, and I have not been able to find any style guides that say not to use ordinal numbers in this way. Aspects (talk) 22:52, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Other artists with less singles and albums have split decade tables. Just to name a few...
-Sugarland
-Little Big Town
-Luke Bryan
Since the country airplay chart is new, country artists should be split into decades since this is new. Also, most artists DO have split decades. Please take this into consideration. Thank you!!! Doubled1227
- If you can only find a few other artist discographies to show the split, then I can show many more examples from the vast majority of artist discographies on Wikipedia. The split by decades is really unnecessary because it breaks up the flow of the article, makes it harder to read the tables and repeats information such as the column headings. I also do not understand how a new chart should mean that the decades should be split because some of the 2010-2011 singles would still have not charted on the new chart if you had the discography split by decades, and I am sure some of those discographies were split before the new chart, so that was not even the reason they were split to begin with. Aspects (talk) 02:43, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Rajasthan (film), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Tamil (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:15, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Could you comment at this talk page regarding the article Cruel Summer (GOOD Music album)? It concerns attributing an album's proper artist and title/name, as there are somewhat conflicting sources. Dan56 (talk) 02:39, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Please show me in more detail than can be included in an edit summary exactly which points in this guideline (not policy) that states the use of the flags to indicate the origin nations of the television programs (not the hosts because I couldn't care less) listed in Template:The Amazing Race is inappropriate? They were chosen because having the names of the nations or regions listed in the I felt was inappropriate as it suggested that they were the names of the programs themselves (it's not "The Amazing Race Israel" but "HaMerotz LaMillion" and it's not "The Amazing Race France" but just "Amazing Race").—Ryulong (琉竜) 00:46, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I explained why they should not be added, yet until now you have not explained why they should be. The shows do not represent the countries. The flagicons you added next to the hosts name would make some readers think this is the birthplace of the hosts and not the show's country. The region icons you added are way too small when in the template and editors will not be able to tell what they are looking at. The names of the programs were already listed in the seasons subsection as the show names and not the country names, but your addition of the flagicons make it more likely for readers to think "The Amazing Race Israel" instead of "HaMerotz LaMillion" and "The Amazing Race France" instaed of just "Amazing Race." You obviously did not look at my edit because when I replaced the Norway flagicon behind Freddy dos Santos I put the show name "Norge" and not Norway, the Israel flagicon behind Raz Meirman I put "HaMerotz LaMillion" and not Israel and the Asia region icon behind Allan Wu I put "China Rush" and not Asia. If you still feel I am wrong in my reasons or in my reading of WP:MOSICON, you should start a discussion at the template talk page and ask for a third opinion at WT:MOSICON. Aspects (talk) 01:04, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The template lists the show as "HaMerotz LaMillion". How are we as Wikipedia editors supposed to show that it means that's the version that's broadcast in Israel when the template was changed from saying "Israel" to "HaMerotz LaMillion"? Also Wu still hosted the Asia version.—Ryulong (琉竜) 01:25, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Testament (band), which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 09:18, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Aspects! You've been watching over photo illustrations for articles about two sculptures in Milwaukee (Acqua Grylli and Pedestrian Drama) and I'd like to see if you might agree with User:Lonibug and me that the replacement images are indeed better quality than the "originals." I'd be very grateful if we could replace the images. Thanks! --Jgmikulay (talk) 03:18, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- While I think the original images are better, if there are more people saying they are not, I am not going to argue further with it. Aspects (talk) 18:34, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Aspects. I am not ignoring you nor have I forgotten. I simply have trouble enduring articles that deal with fictional subjects. I will apply myself as I am able. Thanks for bringing the matter to my attention. Tiderolls 00:31, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
