User talk:Aspensti

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Orphaned non-free image File:SBXLIV mark 1 rgb.jpg[edit]


Thanks for uploading File:SBXLIV mark 1 rgb.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).


  • I am a bot, and will therefore will not be able to answer your questions.
  • I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used once again.
  • If you received this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
  • To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to somewhere on your talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 06:42, 14 March 2010 (UTC)


Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Aspensti. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Northenglish.
Message added 21:06, 1 March 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Thank you I will read it there. ASPENSTITALKCONTRIBUTIONS 22:03, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Reviewer granted[edit]

Wikipedia Reviewer.svg

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged revisions, underwent a two-month trial which ended on 15 August 2010. Its continued use is still being discussed by the community, you are free to participate in such discussions. Many articles still have pending changes protection applied, however, and the ability to review pending changes continues to be of use.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under level 1 pending changes and edits made by non-reviewers to level 2 pending changes protected articles (usually high traffic articles). Pending changes was applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.

For the guideline on reviewing, see Wikipedia:Reviewing. Being granted reviewer rights doesn't grant you status nor change how you can edit articles even with pending changes. The general help page on pending changes can be found here, and the general policy for the trial can be found here.

If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:18, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of User talk74.67.225.15[edit]

Please refrain from introducing inappropriate pages, such as User talk74.67.225.15, to Wikipedia. Doing so is not in accordance with our policies. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hang on}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion, or "db", tag; if no such tag exists, then the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate and adding a hang-on tag is unnecessary), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. andy (talk) 16:07, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

That page was created when I left the user a vandalism warning. It was not created for my own entertainment. ASPENSTITALKCONTRIBUTIONS 16:09, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Sorry, but you have to admit it was clumsy work and certainly looked like vandalism (it contained a couple of bot messages from 2006). You should have simply gone to the user's Talk page and left a warning in the usual way. Twinkle is very handy for this sort of thing. andy (talk) 16:15, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
  • I did leave a warning on the users talk page. The talk page didn't exist yet, my warning created it. ASPENSTITALKCONTRIBUTIONS 16:17, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Just Dance (album)[edit]

Articles don't expand themselves. Saying "keep but expand them" is about as helpful as saying "keep because it's an article". I see no sources anywhere; did you find any? If so, add them or at least dump them in the AFD. Otherwise, you're just throwing around WP:ITSNOTABLE and WP:ITEXISTS, both of which are arguments to avoid. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 02:06, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Membership of the Counter-Vandalism Unit[edit]

As you may know, the Counter-Vandalism unit is inactive. So for reviving the WikiProject, we will need to sort out the members. So if you are active, please put your username at the bottom of the list at Wikipedia talk:Counter-Vandalism Unit#Sort out the members.

You are receiving this message as a current member of the CVU.

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of Counter-Vandalism Unit at 00:08, 30 October 2011 (UTC).

File permission problem with File:Richardchristy.jpg[edit]

Thanks for uploading File:Richardchristy.jpg, which you've sourced to Richard Christy. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file agreed to license it under the given license.

If you created this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

  • make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
  • Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add {{OTRS pending}} to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:File copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read the Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 18:02, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

The Dark Knight Rises film plot[edit]

Hi Aspenti,

I noticed that you recently posted this on the talk page of The Dark Knight Rises:

"The plot section for this is poorly written. Obviously we don't need the entire script or ever a screen play, but the plot summary is lacking a ton of details for a nearly three hour film. I will attempt to rewrite it tomorrow to better organize it both chronologically and with better detail. Unless someone spearheads this before me. This is likely to be one of the biggest movies ever release, the most important part of the article should at least get close attention."

Before you make any changes to the page, you should know that the rules set forward by WP:FILMPLOT state that a plot summary should be between 400 and 700 words. It is currently 699. Yes, there is a lot of detail missing - but it had to go to come in under the word limit, and "this is likely to be one of the biggest movies ever released" is no excuse for ignoring WP:FILMPLOT. As it stands, the current plot outline covers all of the major plot points and skips everything that wasn't absolutely vital to understanding the plot. Recounting the events chronologically was almost impossible; it took me four hours to come up with the first draft version of the plot recap.

Please do not make any changes to this section of the article unless you can bring it in under seven hundred words. Anything over will be reverted on sight for ignoring FILMPLOT. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 04:13, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

You are half correct, I will point out from the section of Wikipedia policy you quoted me: "Plot summaries for feature films should be between 400 and 700 words. The summary should not exceed the range unless the film's structure is unconventional, such as Pulp Fiction's non-linear storyline, or unless the plot is too complicated to summarize in this range." Summaries should be between 400 and 700 words. This is a guideline, not necessarily a hard rule. Considering the length of this movie, as I already pointed out and a considerable back story involved in this story's plot, I think it's fair to say that this movie does have a complicated plot which makes it hard to squeeze into that suggested range. Not that it can't be. But it doesn't give the plot justice to leave out important detail just to satisfy a suggestive policy. ASPENSTITALKCONTRIBUTIONS 12:17, 21 July 2012 (UTC)