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. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | → | Archive 10 |
The article is on the main page today. Would you mind keeping an eye out for vandalism? The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 09:54, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
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.
Please remove the deletion tag for this file. Adammw ( talk) 13:13, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
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))
Would you please come to this article and check out the alternate covers if they are failing WP:NFCC#3a? --Legolas (talk2me) 05:09, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for participating in WP:Requests for adminship/Kww 3 | |
---|---|
Sometimes, being turned back at the door isn't such a bad thing |
. --Legolas (talk2me) 05:55, 22 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)
Looks like we might have a consensus at here. By the way did you look back at the FLC? --Legolas (talk2me) 09:36, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
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 So Why 11:04, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
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—
Thanks, Taylor Karras ( talk) 18:55, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
Congratulations, I have just closed your RfA as successful and made you an administrator. Take a look at the administrators' how-to guide and the administrators' reading list if you haven't read those already. Also, the practice exercises at the new admin school may be useful. If you have any questions, get in touch on my talk page. WJBscribe (talk) 15:55, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
Congrats on your wildly successful RfA, Explicit! I'm sure you'll make an excellent admin. Tim meh 23:08, 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)
Oh...and there's now a third user making the exact same edits as the previous user... Frmatt ( talk) 06:35, 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. --- RepublicanJacobite The'FortyFive' 05:58, 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)
Im kinda late but CONGRATULATIONS on being an admin!!! --Legolas (talk2me) 10:03, 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)
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.
Hi Explicit. You deleted a file based on a deletion discussion, but the discussion covered more than just the one file you deleted. All the similar files were nominated, from File:Stkfcnumber1.jpg to File:Stkfcnumber50.jpg. Can you please go ahead and delete all those files, per the consensus? Thanks, Somno ( talk) 09:33, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
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)
{{
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.
I therefore respectfully ask that you unprotect the article.-- Hauskalainen ( talk) 01:12, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
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)
ALbert —Preceding unsigned comment added by Albert pote ( talk • contribs) 19:48, 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)
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)
Thanks Albert 20:41, 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!-- Cinemaniac 86 Dane_Cook_Hater_Extraordinaire 02:22, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
Hello. Would you mind deleting all of these pages? Thank you. ς ح д r خ є 04:10, 10 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)
Thanks for your diligence, both in applying the CSD criteria and, especially, in taking it to RfD. Cheers, -- AndrewHowse ( talk) 20:20, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
Materialscientist ( talk) 23:15, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
The fame monster (album) needs to be taken care of.— Kww( talk) 03:29, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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"
The image contributor appeared to have licensed it...I suggest a review. Ryoung122 05:00, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
{{ di-no license}}
{{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 = }}
Hi. Just to let you know, I've semi-protected Lupe Fiasco for one week due to the continuing IP disruption. Bettia (talk) 12:06, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
The user you just blocked may have a meat puppet (is that the right word?): see User talk:Nye-yea. Thanks, Drmies ( talk) 22:01, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
Can you tell me how to make my user page cool like yours? I don't know how. -- Łoshɢooþii T. C. 00:03, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
like to comment on this one? --Legolas (talk2me) 03:32, 19 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)
Hi there. I fully support your suggestion, thanks. XPtr ( talk) 23:10, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
You deleted the file that was in this article Joy_(perfume). There are no free images of this product available. Why cannot it not be used?
-- Tamara lempicka ( talk) 01:48, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
You deleted the page that I should have placed a {{ g8-exempt}} on. Please restore it as Template talk:Incubate movedto uses {{ todo}}. Thank you for the other deletions you made for me. -- allen四 names 04:32, 21 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.
So yeah...requesting indefinite semi-protection to avoid what Legolas calls "fancruft". CycloneGU ( talk) 19:20, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
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)
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)
Are Barns and Nobel and HMV.com reliable sources for the element of freedom tracklisting? If they are i would like to add the listing to the article. ( Lil-unique1 ( talk) 00:27, 23 November 2009 (UTC))
Wooff! Another job for you. Can you full-protect The Fame: Part One? Another fan-created article with a bunch of download links and imdb link. Nothing is present in the article for warrantying a full page. --Legolas (talk2me) 05:24, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
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)
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 requested Anthony.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)
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)
Hi Explicit. Would you mind running me through the close on this one? Thanks, Hiding T 16:29, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
Regarding your recent deletion of File:HCastListingNew.jpg. Did you notice that the image had a {{ hangon}} tag, and a message stating it was the subject of a discussion thread at WP:NFCR ?
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)
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)
Hello, I thought that you might be interested?
Wikipedia talk:Record charts#Is it really needed? (18 Charts)
For completeness of discussion please make any comments there.—
Iknow23 (
talk) 02:41, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
Could you please comment on the Afd for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Speechless (Lady Gaga song)? I don't understand how can anyone possibly say that the song doesnot pass WP:NSONG. --Legolas (talk2me) 03:36, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
I understand where you're coming from, but WP:NAMB contradicts the whole purpose of {{ otheruses}} templates. THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL 07:36, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
Happened 1st time and a second time after the denial. Momo san Gespräch 05:39, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
Ok now the user's userpage is being vandalised, sensing that the talk page is protected, he found the userpage to pounce on now. Momo san Gespräch 05:57, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
Someone vandalized my Userspace! I must of really made someone angry. But a little angel came along and fixed it! Thank you! You can thank others by using {{ subst:Vangel}}! -- Meaghan the vanilla twilight 14:09, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
The Admin's Barnstar | ||
For protecting my talk page when I wasn't around to ask for it. Thanks. It means a lot to me. I dream of horses If you reply here, please leave me a {{ Talkback}} message on my talk page. @ 18:56, 4 December 2009 (UTC) |
You were right, another IP is back on Zhang_He's page. Momo san Gespräch 06:28, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
Should this, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Lorna_Angie_Cepeda.jpg , be deleted? If so, what is the process? Do I need to create a user account at Wikipedia Commons? (too much trouble for just one image)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Guide_to_image_deletion says "If an image is available at both Wikipedia and Wikimedia Commons, and it is deleted here"
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)
Hello,
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.
Thank you!
Iago 212 13:33, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
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,
Amalthea 02:20, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
Take a look at what 84.104.113.15 is doing right now, absolutely vandalizing the article repeatedly (look at the history here http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Method_Man_discography&action=history). This guy is ignorant and won't stop. Where should I report him so I can block him permanently. Hometown Kid ( talk) 11:15, 8 December 2009.
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. — ξ xplicit 17:01, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
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)
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.
Thank you Wikiwel ( talk) 13:07, 9 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)
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)
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. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | → | Archive 10 |
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. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | → | Archive 10 |
The article is on the main page today. Would you mind keeping an eye out for vandalism? The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 09:54, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
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.
Please remove the deletion tag for this file. Adammw ( talk) 13:13, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
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))
Would you please come to this article and check out the alternate covers if they are failing WP:NFCC#3a? --Legolas (talk2me) 05:09, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for participating in WP:Requests for adminship/Kww 3 | |
---|---|
Sometimes, being turned back at the door isn't such a bad thing |
. --Legolas (talk2me) 05:55, 22 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)
Looks like we might have a consensus at here. By the way did you look back at the FLC? --Legolas (talk2me) 09:36, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
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 So Why 11:04, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
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—
Thanks, Taylor Karras ( talk) 18:55, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
Congratulations, I have just closed your RfA as successful and made you an administrator. Take a look at the administrators' how-to guide and the administrators' reading list if you haven't read those already. Also, the practice exercises at the new admin school may be useful. If you have any questions, get in touch on my talk page. WJBscribe (talk) 15:55, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
Congrats on your wildly successful RfA, Explicit! I'm sure you'll make an excellent admin. Tim meh 23:08, 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)
Oh...and there's now a third user making the exact same edits as the previous user... Frmatt ( talk) 06:35, 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. --- RepublicanJacobite The'FortyFive' 05:58, 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)
Im kinda late but CONGRATULATIONS on being an admin!!! --Legolas (talk2me) 10:03, 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)
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.
Hi Explicit. You deleted a file based on a deletion discussion, but the discussion covered more than just the one file you deleted. All the similar files were nominated, from File:Stkfcnumber1.jpg to File:Stkfcnumber50.jpg. Can you please go ahead and delete all those files, per the consensus? Thanks, Somno ( talk) 09:33, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
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)
{{
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.
I therefore respectfully ask that you unprotect the article.-- Hauskalainen ( talk) 01:12, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
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)
ALbert —Preceding unsigned comment added by Albert pote ( talk • contribs) 19:48, 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)
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)
Thanks Albert 20:41, 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!-- Cinemaniac 86 Dane_Cook_Hater_Extraordinaire 02:22, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
Hello. Would you mind deleting all of these pages? Thank you. ς ح д r خ є 04:10, 10 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)
Thanks for your diligence, both in applying the CSD criteria and, especially, in taking it to RfD. Cheers, -- AndrewHowse ( talk) 20:20, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
Materialscientist ( talk) 23:15, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
The fame monster (album) needs to be taken care of.— Kww( talk) 03:29, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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"
The image contributor appeared to have licensed it...I suggest a review. Ryoung122 05:00, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
{{ di-no license}}
{{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 = }}
Hi. Just to let you know, I've semi-protected Lupe Fiasco for one week due to the continuing IP disruption. Bettia (talk) 12:06, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
The user you just blocked may have a meat puppet (is that the right word?): see User talk:Nye-yea. Thanks, Drmies ( talk) 22:01, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
Can you tell me how to make my user page cool like yours? I don't know how. -- Łoshɢooþii T. C. 00:03, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
like to comment on this one? --Legolas (talk2me) 03:32, 19 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)
Hi there. I fully support your suggestion, thanks. XPtr ( talk) 23:10, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
You deleted the file that was in this article Joy_(perfume). There are no free images of this product available. Why cannot it not be used?
-- Tamara lempicka ( talk) 01:48, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
You deleted the page that I should have placed a {{ g8-exempt}} on. Please restore it as Template talk:Incubate movedto uses {{ todo}}. Thank you for the other deletions you made for me. -- allen四 names 04:32, 21 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.
So yeah...requesting indefinite semi-protection to avoid what Legolas calls "fancruft". CycloneGU ( talk) 19:20, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
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)
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)
Are Barns and Nobel and HMV.com reliable sources for the element of freedom tracklisting? If they are i would like to add the listing to the article. ( Lil-unique1 ( talk) 00:27, 23 November 2009 (UTC))
Wooff! Another job for you. Can you full-protect The Fame: Part One? Another fan-created article with a bunch of download links and imdb link. Nothing is present in the article for warrantying a full page. --Legolas (talk2me) 05:24, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
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)
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 requested Anthony.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)
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)
Hi Explicit. Would you mind running me through the close on this one? Thanks, Hiding T 16:29, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
Regarding your recent deletion of File:HCastListingNew.jpg. Did you notice that the image had a {{ hangon}} tag, and a message stating it was the subject of a discussion thread at WP:NFCR ?
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)
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)
Hello, I thought that you might be interested?
Wikipedia talk:Record charts#Is it really needed? (18 Charts)
For completeness of discussion please make any comments there.—
Iknow23 (
talk) 02:41, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
Could you please comment on the Afd for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Speechless (Lady Gaga song)? I don't understand how can anyone possibly say that the song doesnot pass WP:NSONG. --Legolas (talk2me) 03:36, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
I understand where you're coming from, but WP:NAMB contradicts the whole purpose of {{ otheruses}} templates. THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL 07:36, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
Happened 1st time and a second time after the denial. Momo san Gespräch 05:39, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
Ok now the user's userpage is being vandalised, sensing that the talk page is protected, he found the userpage to pounce on now. Momo san Gespräch 05:57, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
Someone vandalized my Userspace! I must of really made someone angry. But a little angel came along and fixed it! Thank you! You can thank others by using {{ subst:Vangel}}! -- Meaghan the vanilla twilight 14:09, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
The Admin's Barnstar | ||
For protecting my talk page when I wasn't around to ask for it. Thanks. It means a lot to me. I dream of horses If you reply here, please leave me a {{ Talkback}} message on my talk page. @ 18:56, 4 December 2009 (UTC) |
You were right, another IP is back on Zhang_He's page. Momo san Gespräch 06:28, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
Should this, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Lorna_Angie_Cepeda.jpg , be deleted? If so, what is the process? Do I need to create a user account at Wikipedia Commons? (too much trouble for just one image)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Guide_to_image_deletion says "If an image is available at both Wikipedia and Wikimedia Commons, and it is deleted here"
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)
Hello,
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.
Thank you!
Iago 212 13:33, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
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,
Amalthea 02:20, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
Take a look at what 84.104.113.15 is doing right now, absolutely vandalizing the article repeatedly (look at the history here http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Method_Man_discography&action=history). This guy is ignorant and won't stop. Where should I report him so I can block him permanently. Hometown Kid ( talk) 11:15, 8 December 2009.
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. — ξ xplicit 17:01, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
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)
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.
Thank you Wikiwel ( talk) 13:07, 9 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)
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)
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. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | → | Archive 10 |