User talk:Aspects

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Nohat-logo-XI-big-text.png This user is one of the 400 most active Wikipedians of all time.


Barnstar[edit]

Tireless Contributor Barnstar.gif The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
Although we disagree about Perry the Platypus, wow, 25,000+ mainspace edits! Great work! Cheers, Nsk92 (talk) 02:22, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Cookie[edit]

Something shiny[edit]

WPABarnstar.png The WikiProject Albums Barnstar
For all the work you do to improve album related articles, your effort has not gone unnoticed, Happy Holidays. J04n(talk page) 15:16, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

A barnstar for you[edit]

Modest Barnstar.png The Modest Barnstar
You are among the top 5% of most active Wikipedians this month! 66.87.2.142 (talk) 14:59, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

An award for you[edit]

A Barnstar!
Golden Wiki Award

Thanks for your recent contributions! 66.87.2.2 (talk) 00:51, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

A pie for your effort today![edit]

A very beautiful Nectarine Pie.jpg You did a commendable job in cleaning/revising the American Idol Season 11 contestants' articles just this day. Have you considered removing "The Tireless Destroyer" on your User Page? It doesn't reflect your real contributions to Wikipedia. - SyncSeth (talk) 03:09, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for the pie. A previous editor that did not like what I was doing on Wikipedia called me "The Tireless Destroyer", so I decided to laugh it off and put it on my user page as a badge of honor. Then the editor complained that I was using his term on my page, so it definitely made it worth it to put it on there. Aspects (talk) 17:36, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Congratulations[edit]

Bästa nyskrivna.svg 100000 Edits
Congratulations on reaching 100000 edits. You have achieved a milestone that very few editors have been able to accomplish. The Wikipedia Community thanks you for your continuing efforts. Keep up the good work!

If you like you can add this userbox to your collection.

Bästa nyskrivna.svg This user has been awarded with the 100000 Edits award.

```Buster Seven Talk 13:36, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing infoboxes[edit]

Tireless Contributor Barnstar.gif The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
Thanks for fixing all those infoboxes. Wistchars (talk) 01:21, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your efforts[edit]

Tireless Contributor Barnstar.gif The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
Thanks for your efforts. It's very nice to see an editor trying to improve Wikipedia, when so many others seem to only delete and destroy. --Judgeking (talk) 07:34, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Original Barnstar Hires.png The Original Barnstar
Thanks for fixing all those infoboxes. Jai98 (talk) 07:51, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Original Barnstar Hires.png The Original Barnstar
Thanks for fixing all those infoboxes. Jai98 (talk) 07:52, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Pacific Liner[edit]

What was wrong with the new image that was placed in the article? Just very curious why it was challenged. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 15:43, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

The previous screenshot was deleted for WP:NFCC#8, which this image also fails. I have started a discussion at Talk:Pacific Liner#Screenshot in production section. Please continue any further discussion there. Aspects (talk) 06:44, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Merry Merry[edit]

To you and yours

Weihnachtsschmuck.JPG

FWiW Bzuk (talk) 22:31, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Happy New Year![edit]

Fuochi d'artificio.gif

Dear Aspects,
HAPPY NEW YEAR Hoping 2015 will be a great year for you! Thank you for your contributions!
From a fellow editor,
--FWiW Bzuk (talk)

This message promotes WikiLove. Originally created by Nahnah4 (see "invisible note").

Removal of stills from film articles[edit]

Per this and similar edits you have been removing stills (they're not "screenshots"; that's what you call images from video games and software) from film articles on the grounds that they don't meet the fair-use criteria. You aren't specific, as I would imagine you'd need to be if removing fair-use images that otherwise have rationales and have been in the articles in question for a long time, and this apparently did not follow any discussion as to whether they should be removed or not, which again such a move usually should.

I wondered if perhaps (as so often happens) the criteria had been amended to make them narrower without the sort of projectwide discussion one would hope to have. It does not seem that they have been.

You appear to have based this move not on the numbered criteria but on, instead, WP:NFC, again without being more specific as to what aspect justifies the stills' immediate removal. I would direct your attention to WP:NFCI, informally known as the fair-use whitelist, which includes:"Video screenshots: For critical commentary and discussion of the work in question (i.e., films, television programs, and music videos)."

Unlike other entries in the whitelist there is no specific requirement that the stills be accompanied by sourced commentary discussing them. This has long been interpreted to allow the use of up to four such images in any article about a movie or TV show, primarily to depict the main cast members as they appear in the film (I suppose eventually video clips will supplant them, but that's not the subject of this discussion). That's how those images were used in The Reader. I am requesting that, with this understanding beneath your wing, you at least restore all the images you removed. If you want, we can discuss whether this is something we should still informally allow, formalize, or whatever the community thinks best in the appropriate forum before taking this to such a wide range of articles. Daniel Case (talk) 05:27, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

From Film stills: "A film still (sometimes called a publicity still or a production still) is a photograph taken on or off the set of a movie or television program during production." None of the images I removed were film stills, they were screenshots taken from the movie itself, most of them are correctly tagged with Template:Non-free film screenshot and you quote the video screenshot sentence from WP:NFCI.
A screenshot located in the film's plot section goes against WP:FILMNFI in that "Since a film article's "Plot" section contains descriptive claims about the information found in the primary source (the film) and not information found in reliable sources regarding the film, the section is not considered critical commentary or discussion of film." Most of the images fail WP:NFCC#1 since they can be replaced with words only. Almost all of the images fail WP:NFCC#8 in that the images do not increase the reader's understanding of the film and their exclusion is not detrimental to the understanding of the film. Some of the images I have removed, secondary posters and lobby cards, fail WP:NFCC#3a in that a movie poster is already showing how the film was advertised.
In regard to the three images from The Reader, the first is in the plot section against WP:FILMNFI, is easily replaced using words alone against WP:NFCC#1 and its removal is not detrimental to the understanding of the film against WP:NFCC#8. The second image is used in the cast section to show what one of the characters looks like without any critical commentary and its removal is not detrimental to the understanding of the film against WP:NFCC#8. The third image is used to show the makeup process and has a quote from Entertainment Weekly about the length of time, replaced by words against WP:NFCC#1, but the image is not needed to show that she was older and has no critical commentary about the makeup itself and its removal is not detrimental to the understanding of the film against WP:NFCC#8.
There is nothing written or nothing in practice that I have seen from editing thousands of film articles that they are allowed the use of up to four such images. Most film articles contain one fair use image, a movie poster/lobby card/promotional image used in the infobox. Most screenshots used in film articles are in the public domain. The rest of the screenshots need to have critical commentary about the image itself and tends to be about the production of the film and not used in the plot section, cast section or to show what the cast looks like.
I am not going to restore the images because it was a WP:BOLD move and in my opinion, the images fail WP:NFCC. If another editor adds back the image, hopefully with an edit summary to explain why, I either agree with their addition or I disagree and I might eventually take the image to WP:FFD. Only a small percentage of the images I have removed have been added back. The only time I have reverted the additions was a couple of IP addresses that kept adding the film poster for Wrongfully Accused to The Fugitive (1993 film) when a link to the former is provided in the latter's article, which cannot be brought to FfD, but would definitely never be able to pass WP:NFR. Aspects (talk) 18:59, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Navigation box[edit]

Hello, I was trying to add the navigation box to the Category:Tamil film directors and found you have already removed sometime back, so I undid my addition. Any reason why the navigation box is not required?. The navigation box was easy to navigate between the directors, writers, producers, etc, within the same film industry.Sriram V. (talk) 14:27, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

About your (non)participation in the January 2012 SOPA vote[edit]

Hi Aspects. I am Piotr Konieczny (User:Piotrus), you may know me as an active content creator (see my userpage), but I am also a professional researcher of Wikipedia. Recently I published a paper (downloadable here) on reasons editors participated in Wikipedia's biggest vote to date (January 2012 WP:SOPA). I am now developing a supplementary paper, which analyzes why many editors did not take part in that vote. Which is where you come in :) You are a highly active Wikipedian (104th), and you were active back during the January 2012 discussion/voting for the SOPA, yet you did not chose to participate in said vote. I'd appreciate it if you could tell me why was that so? For your convenience, I prepared a short survey at meta, which should not take more than a minute of your time. I would dearly appreciate you taking this minute; not only as a Wikipedia researcher but as a fellow content creator and concerned member of the community (I believe your answers may help us eventually improve our policies and thus, the project's governance). PS. If you chose to reply here (on your userpage), please WP:ECHO me. Thank you! --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 13:53, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Merger discussion for Joan the Maiden, Part 1: The Battles[edit]

Merge-arrows.svg

An article that you have been involved in editing, Joan the Maiden, Part 1: The Battles, has been proposed for merging with another article. If you are interested, please participate in the merger discussion. Thank you. Deoliveirafan (talk) 07:48, 14 February 2015 (UTC) --Deoliveirafan (talk) 07:48, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Bull in the Heather[edit]

Hi Aspects, I've seen that you restored the Bull in the Heather article and I think you misunderstood the concept of WP:NSONGS. The fact that a song charted on two national charts does not necessarily mean that the song deserves a separate article. The song is not notable because there is not enough coverage in reliable and independent sources from which to write an article. I know this because I am improving the Experimental Jet Set, Trash and No Star article and I haven't found any source which discusses the song directly and out of the context of the album. According to WP:NSONGS: "If the only coverage of a song occurs in the context of reviews of the album on which it appears, that material should be contained in the album article and an independent article about the song should not be created." For that reason, I think there is not enough coverage to write a reasonably detailed article. Please let me know what you think. Thanks. --Niwi3 (talk) 17:42, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

I am wondering this too with regards to the Avenged Sevenfold songs you reverted. And an AfD would not really apply as the article was rediected and the content copyedited and integrated. Karst (talk) 00:00, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
In my edit summaries I stated that the articles "can be seen as passing WP:NSONGS," which then falls to the "enough material to warrant a reasonably detailed article" from WP:NSONGS, which should be a consensus among editors and not one editor's judgment call. The redirects were like a prod that was contested and as I stated the next step in the process is an AfD, not to revert back to a redirect, this is WP:BRD where the discussion is an AfD. Aspects (talk) 23:13, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

File:Mills cat.jpg[edit]

Your request for deletion of this file has been declined as I am not convinced it is obviously replaceable by a free image. Please list at WP:FFD if you would still like the file deleted. Stifle (talk) 14:11, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

John Paul McQueen and Craig Dean[edit]

Hi, Aspect, I just see your revision about the page of John Paul McQueen and Craig Dean. I'm in charge of the copyright of the images of Guy Burnet and this one is copyrighted by Channel 4. Thank you in advance to reload my version. Do not hesitate if you need further information. Best regards, Emeric.

The screenshot has been on Wikipedia for over six years now and has a valid fair use rationale. If you think it should not be used in the article in that it does not pass WP:NFCC, then you should open up a WP:FFD for it. Aspects (talk) 23:16, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Illinois River problem[edit]

Please triple-check to make your the move you undid exactly matches what you thought it was. I didn't move Illinois River (Oklahoma) to Illinois River (Arkansas); I moved it to Illinois River (Arkansas River). Did you pay close attention?? Georgia guy (talk) 14:35, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

I used the word "similar" in my edit summary, which goes to I did pay close attention and that you sir, did not. Aspects (talk) 06:20, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
And "Arkansas River" is simply the name of the river the Illinois River empties into. Georgia guy (talk) 13:50, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

James Morris (bass-baritone)[edit]

You removed a fair-use image from this article with little explanation. I left a comment at Talk:James Morris (bass-baritone), since I do not understand why you removed it. Would you please give a more detailed explanation for your edit on the Talk page. Thanks. --Robert.Allen (talk) 20:38, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

I finally found an answer to my question in the footnote. Thanks for pointing it out to me. --Robert.Allen (talk) 16:56, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

American Idol (season 13) revert[edit]

Why would you revert the cn tags? None of these episode titles is sourced and they need to be. --Musdan77 (talk) 20:41, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

As I stated in my edit summary either the themes were already sourced or they could be sourced to the show itself. Aspects (talk) 17:29, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, that's exactly what you said, but it doesn't help me to just repeat what you wrote in the edit summary. Elaborate! "already sourced"? I wouldn't say that they should be sourced if they are. They have sources for the ratings, but those sources don't mention any such title. This is the first season article that has these episode titles. "could be sourced to the show itself"? What does that supposed to mean? And don't you have email notification of new messages? --Musdan77 (talk) 02:08, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
The episode titles in the performance section are sourced or could be sourced to the show itself when they announce the theme of the episode. The pre-finals episodes in the ratings table should have the titles sourced since they are different than the previous years, so I will add back those citation needed tags. Another possibility is to go with the generic episode names used in the DVR ratings section that seem similar to past seasons' articles. Aspects (talk) 00:49, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
Thank you (finally). It's also helpful to "ping" or "talk back to" the editor that you reply to on your talk page - so I don't have to keep checking here for a response. --Musdan77 (talk) 18:48, 5 May 2015 (UTC)