User talk:Aspects

This user is one of the 400 most active English Wikipedians of all time.

Barnstar

		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)[reply]

The Second Coming of The Cookie Monster has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy munching!

Spread the goodness of cookies by adding {{subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!

Something shiny

		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)[reply]

A barnstar for you

		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)[reply]

An award for you

Golden Wiki Award

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

A pie for your effort today!

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Congratulations

		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.

This user has been awarded with the 100000 Edits award.

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

Thanks for fixing infoboxes

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

Thanks for your efforts

		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)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

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

A barnstar for you!

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

Pacific Liner

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Merry Merry

To you and yours

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

Happy New Year!

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Navigation box

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

Bull in the Heather

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

File:Mills cat.jpg

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)[reply]

John Paul McQueen and Craig Dean

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)[reply]

Illinois River problem

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

And "Arkansas River" is simply the name of the river the Illinois River empties into. Georgia guy (talk) 13:50, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

James Morris (bass-baritone)

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

American Idol (season 13) revert

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Removal of tags from images tagged with template:orfud

Hi Aspects, as an FYI, I have a bot at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/B-bot 2 that is now checking the dated orphaned fair use images for deletion categories the night before they are to be processed and removing the tag from any that are in use. I noticed that you removed the tags from a lot of images in Category:Orphaned non-free use Wikipedia files as of 2 May 2015. Though obviously, there is usefulness in looking at images that might have been removed only due to vandalism and reverting that vandalism, it is no longer necessary to review them just to remove the tag from no-longer orphaned ones as the bot will do that now. (The bot is actually the one doing most of the tagging in the first place and it is able to be more intelligent than the human process in doing so. When a human was running a report to get a list of orphaned fair use images, that report was getting frequent false positives from images that were momentarily orphaned due to vandalism, which was rolled back with admin rollback. Now, before tagging anything as orphaned, the bot is purging all of the pages for which there is a fair use rationale on the image description page and so if it tags something, it actually is orphaned at that moment, not just showing up as orphaned due to out-of-date database information.) --B (talk) 14:28, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sidónio Pais

This picture is fine, since it's also available in the Portuguese, Spanish and other wikipedias. The previous one, since it's not available in the Portuguese wikipedia, and since Sidónio Pais was a Portuguese politician, I (as a Portuguese) can't morally accept that it would be available on the English Wikipedia but not in the Portuguese wikipedia. Thanks for replacing the image. Viet-hoian1 (talk) 05:46, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring on concert tour articles

Hey, I just got your message. I usually don't check my messages. But anyways, I just wanted to start off by saying that if anybody started this whole edit warring, it was you. The way I had the Blizzard of Ozz, Diary of a Madman, & Van Halen 1978 World Tours were fine. Even though I did not create the Blizzard of Ozz Tour, it needed to be fix because there was a lot of false information that could've very well misled people easily to learning the wrong stuff. I did however create the Diary of a Madman, Speak of the Devil, & Van Halen 1978 World Tours, and let me tell you this, I have not once ever said that I own these Setlists, but I will say that I have just as much of a right to edit the Setlist, especially considering I created 3/4 of them, as anybody else, you definitely damn well can't tell me any different. And another thing is that you wouldn't have any of this info if it wasn't for me, so if anything, I should be thanked for having created these articles as well as making the corrections, and even though I didn't ask for that to begin with because I didn't necessarily care for that as well as not being one who asks for much along with not whining/complaining, considering that's the person I am, I especially don't appreciate having this backlash come at me after having done nothing but good things and what not. That's not cool. But anyways, the way I had these articles were fine until you came in ruined it, and I'm not just talking about the format, I'm talking about some of the info on the venues since I know you took out stuff that's supposed to be there since some of those places are convention centers, multi-purpose facilities, complexes, properties, etc., not venues, which is why I was very specific about the venues like for Nakano Sun Plaza Hall, that's a venue, whereas Nakano Sun Plaza is a hotel. Brighton Dome is just a convention center with multiple venues, and the Pavilion Theatre is a venue. Tulsa Assembly Center is a complex, not a venue, whereas the "Tulsa Assembly Center" Arena is a venue, and the reason why I have "Tulsa Assembly Center" in quotations is because that's the name of the complex while the arena is just the arena with no given specific name, that's why I had it like that. And that's just to name a few of what you fucked up. Another thing that I noticed was that you said something about how I put quotation marks for the name of the venues like for "Tulsa Assembly Center" Arena and how that's incorrect because of how it's not called that & that it would change how people how call that venue. Again, I have it like that because Tulsa Assembly Center is a complex and that the arena is just the arena so it I just put in quotes is because Tulsa Assembly Center is a complex and that the arena is not actually part of the name so that's why I have it as "Tulsa Assembly Center" Arena. The same goes for "San Antonio Convention Center" Arena, "Dallas Convention Center" Arena, "Von Braun Civic Center" Arena, . Another thing is that I really don't think it would affect how people would call the venue, I mean if you have Tulsa Assembly Center Arena & "Tulsa Assembly Center" Arena written on a piece of paper and some people would read them aloud, I really don't think it would affect how people call it as well as how it's called. To be honest, I really don't even know where you were even going with that. If anything, i think you were just creating another excuse to point something wrong, stupid, as since, etc. that I did, I of course, I really don't appreciate that. And that's not all because there's a whole lot more of which I have to say about each everything you said to me. My bold headings were fine because they were specific & I liked how they looked. I really don't see what the problem was there. The whole thing about how only the first word in a heading should be capitalized is such bullshit, I mean I really don't see what the problem is there & that I think it looks better when it says "Tour Dates" & not "Tour dates." Plus it sounds like something you made up because you want it to go your way & it seems you'll even do that with the little things, but anyways, seriously, how does that look better than the way I had it, and again, I don't see what the issue there is. Also, the reason why I had it formatted as Date, Venue, City/Suburb, State/Province/County, & Country is because it's gives the reader a more useful specific the knowledge where exactly the venue is, and if you want my opinion, I think the info is very useful, necessary, & helpful considering there a multiple cities through certain countries let alone the world with the same names so it gives the reader exactly where the venue is at & again I think it's very useful, necessary, & helpful; not only that but I guarantee the readers of these articles aren't even going to click on the cities or the suburbs or the states/provinces or counties anyway because they don't necessarily care for what info is on the pages of those certain places, I guarantee they at least just want to know where the venue is & that's why all of that was on there, and it's for the specifics; another thing about that is that I have cities & states for the US, I have cities & provinces for Canada, I have cities &/or suburbs, counties &/or cities for places like in Europe or Asia. That's why I have that like that, and again, I think it's all very useful, necessary, & helpful, and I just don't see what the problem is having that certain specific info on there. As for the previous message about using Wikipedia edit summaries, again, I didn't ignore, I just didn't see it because I usually don't check that as hardly ever get any messages, and that's not bullshit, so don't even think about patronizing me. Also, if anybody is being personally attacked, it me. How dare you accuse me of making accusations of vandalism as well as accuse me of making personal attacks. That is totally not cool. I really don't appreciate that at all. I also don't appreciate how I've been made out to be a stupid asshole who starts an editing war as well as fucks up everything. I really didn't fuck up anything. Again, it was all fine the way I had it. It looked great. I think every tour date listing should look the way I had it was fine, and again, I had it look that way & be formatted & laid out like that for many reasons. So yeah, they were fine the way them. Again, if anybody fucked them up, it was you. Now I have to go back and fix what was fucked up like the links, the venue names, etc. Another thing I noticed that you fucked up was on the Blizzard of Ozz Tour where I happened to notice that there's nothing in the venue section for the August 11, 1981 Pittsburgh show, which actually was at the Stanley Theater, and the same goes for the September 5, 1981 Fayetteville show, which actually was at the Cumberland County Memorial Arena, and I just don't understand why those were missing to begin with, because those are the venues, and those shows did happen, so I don't understand what the problem was there. Overall, I'm not happy with what I was made out to be, and I'm definitely not happy with how the tour dates came out to look. Again, it was fine the way I had. I like how it looked because it looked great. When I looked at it the way I had it, I look at the good job I did making, and seeing it changed, edited, &/or ruined takes that good feeling away from me & the it becomes a problem for me. Also, I really shouldn't have to explain myself whenever I edit something, and I'm not saying this out of blissful ignorance, stubbornness, cockiness, arrogance, etc., I say it because it's the truth, if I ever have something down the way I have it, or if I edit something, it's like that because it's correct & the way I have it is just alright, and that there really shouldn't be a problem with the way I have it. Another thing of what I don't like is how when I read your message, not only did I feel antagonized, but that cons ending it all sounded to me as if I'm supposed to kiss your ass like I'm below you or your superior to me like I'm you sit on a throne or a high horse where I'm supposed to bow down to or kneel before you or something like that, and that I most definitely appreciate as I'm am not nor ever have been ass kisser as ass kissing is one of my biggest pet peeves. I've come across the same type of people at Setlist.fm, which is why I gave up on trying to fix incorrect dates, Setlists, etc. Another thing I don't appreciate as it is another one of my biggest pet peeves is hypocrisy. Hypocrites along with snobby pretentious assholes are some of the worst people I can't stand to be around personally & socially. It's funny how I've been made out to be an asshole, a dumbass, a control freak, etc. yet it seems like if anybody is trying to take complete control of all of this is you as It seems that nobody even had a problem with the way I had it & that the only one who seems to have a problem with it is you, which leads me to think that you just want yo have this whole go your way as if your way is the right & that if it doesn't go your way, it's the highway. Finally, It seems you've managed turn this whole thing around me like it's me who's the asshole that's in the wrong, and I most certainly don't appreciate being put in the wrong when I shouldn't even be there as well as be antagonized & talked down upon in general. I definitely don't condone any such nonsense, and I seriously hope that I shouldn't have to go through with this again.

Bots

You are receiving this message because a technical change may affect a bot, gadget, or user script you have been using. The breaking change involves API calls. This change has been planned for two years. The WMF will start making this change on 30 June 2015. A partial list of affected bots can be seen here: https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikitech-l/2015-June/081931.html This includes all bots that are using pywikibot compat. Some of these bots have already been fixed. However, if you write user scripts or operate a bot that uses the API, then you should check your code, to make sure that it will not break.

What, exactly, is breaking? The "default continuation mode" for action=query requests to api.php will be changing to be easier for new coders to use correctly. To find out whether your script or bot may be affected, then search the source code (including any frameworks or libraries) for the string "query-continue". If that is not present, then the script or bot is not affected. In a few cases, the code will be present but not used. In that case, the script or bot will continue working.

This change will be part of 1.26wmf12. It will be deployed to test wikis (including mediawiki.org) on 30 June, to non-Wikipedias (such as Wiktionary) on 1 July, and to all Wikipedias on 2 July 2015.

If your bot or script is receiving the warning about this upcoming change (as seen at https://www.mediawiki.org/w/api.php?action=query&list=allpages ), it's time to fix your code!

The simple solution is to simply include the "rawcontinue" parameter with your request to continue receiving the raw continuation data (example <https://www.mediawiki.org/w/api.php?action=query&list=allpages&rawcontinue=1>). No other code changes should be necessary.
Or you could update your code to use the simplified continuation documented at https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/API:Query#Continuing_queries (example <https://www.mediawiki.org/w/api.php?action=query&list=allpages&continue=>), which is much easier for clients to implement correctly.

Either of the above solutions may be tested immediately, you'll know it works because you stop seeing the warning.

Do you need help with your own bot or script? Ask questions in e-mail on the mediawiki-api or wikitech-l mailing lists. Volunteers at m:Tech or w:en:WP:Village pump (technical) or w:en:Wikipedia:Bot owners' noticeboard may also be able to help you.

Are you using someone else's gadgets or user scripts? Most scripts are not affected. To find out if a script you use needs to be updated, then post a note at the discussion page for the gadget or the talk page of the user who originally made the script. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 19:03, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Some troubles on your watchlist, maybe

Hi, Re your interest in our coverage of the movies, so to speak, you may be interested to check the Contributions by user 2600:1006:B107:50A:B54A:54DC:4A42:DE45 --which covers a single 200-minute session 2015-05-10 quite destructive in some cases. Among the small changes reported in green at the top, I visited only the second, Married to It, and reverted what seemed to me bad work.

(I wonder whether you receive notice that I linked you moments ago in the edit summary there. I also named you on the talk page, but without a wikilink, so that contribution Talk:Married to It#1991 Canada, 1993 US should not generate a notice. I hope to learn whether the edit summary is an effective "ping!".)

The big changes reported in red primarily concern plot summaries. At The High King near the top of the red listings, this user simply deleted 10 of 18 paragraphs with the edit summary "... made it more concise" (under a false section heading). I don't recognize many of the pagenames, but The High King is a novel I know and I reverted its change last hour. --P64 (talk) 23:09, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I only received an alert that you left a message on my talk page, not one for the edit summary. I will leave a message about the release date on the article's talk page. As for the plot shortening, I have noticed it before and it was discussed at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film/Archive 56#IP user and plot summaries, so discussing the issue with the editors that took place in that discussion would probably be more helpful than talking to me. Aspects (talk) 00:02, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In regard to this edit

How come this photo be non-free? Jonas Vinther • (Click here to collect your price!) 11:04, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You uploaded the poster as a non-free image. If you wanted to change the license, you would need to find a reliable source to back up the new license. Aspects (talk) 22:41, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Love Takes Time cassette cover art

How about this edition? I downloaded it from eBay and then uploaded it to Discogs. --George Ho (talk) 04:35, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That is a much better quality image, so thank you for improving Wikipedia and Discogs. Aspects (talk) 22:54, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Coal Miner's Daughter (film)

I see that you removed an image from the subject article for being "non-fair use", yet the image's page explains why it's fair use for this specific article. What exactly is being contested with regards to that explanation? Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 17:39, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The screenshot is used in the plot section of the article against WP:FILMNFI in that the plot section describes the film and is not critical commentary of the image itself. The fair use rationale states "The image is significant in identifying the subject of the article, which is the film or film character itself." The poster itself shows the subject of the article, thereby failing WP:NFCC#3. There is no critical commentary of the image itself in the article, it does nothing to increase the reader's understanding of the film and its exclusion is not detrimental to the understanding of the film, thereby failing WP:NFCC#8. Since it was used in the film and is still used in Sissy Spacek and East Texas, I am going to bring the image up at Wikipedia:Non-free content review. Aspects (talk) 04:40, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the explanation. It's a shame we Wikipedians have been turned into copyright attorneys to "protect" images where their display causes no harm to anyone in objective reality. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 13:27, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your removal of state and province names in tour itineraries

Hi. You'll see I've reverted changes you recently made at two tour articles. After checking with some other tour articles, though, I notice you've been removing state and province names there also. I've stated my reasons for reverting but seeing as you've been imposing these changes elsewhere, it seems a general discussion might be useful. Perhaps here or at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Concert Tours. In fact, I looked on the project talk page, found that the issue had been raised, but with no result/consensus gained. (I skimmed through the Village Pump discussion mentioned there, but it seemed far too general to be applicable to city names in a table of concert tour dates.)

So, can I ask why you're removing the state and province names? As I wrote in a summary at Diamond Dogs Tour just now: "this is a tour itinerary, showing progress through North America; and it's informative to include province and state names, particularly as many of the US cities will otherwise mean nothing to most readers." Going on from that, a good, in-depth Wikipedia article on a US tour will typically include discussion of a tour's progress across the country and, in that context, may often be using wide geographical terms – state names, certainly, as well as regions (West Coast, American South, etc). That's the sort of coverage I hope to bring to George Harrison and Ravi Shankar's 1974 North American tour, anyway, because the sources I have approach the subject in that way. So it seems the more we can provide something, in a tour dates table, that helps readers identify the less widely known cities, the better. Many of the state names – Ohio, West Virginia, Utah, North Carolina, Wisconsin and the like – may still flummox some people. Okay, but for many other readers, the inclusion of a state name tells them everything that the city name doesn't (eg, Greensboro, Casselberry, Trotwood, Toledo, New Haven, Buffalo … many more). JG66 (talk) 13:07, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the late reply, but life got in my way. I noticed your reversions before you had even written this message and I had already decided to stop making these changes based on those reversions. A lot of tour articles were lists that I turned into tables and many of the lists had American cities mentioned with postal codes. When I added the city links, I changed the postal codes since they were unhelpful to state names. Other editors then changed the city, state links to city links, so I started that as well. When the cities were not linked in the lists, the postal codes and/or state names may have been helpful, but now that the city links are provided the state names are unnecessary. Readers who live outside the United States may not know the state names and find them unnecessary. Readers inside the United States may already know what states the cities are located in and if they do not know and want to find out, they can click on the link to get to the city article. I also find the state/province/territory/regions inconsistently used, with the United States and Canada being used a lot and sometimes Australia used, with other countries in the same table not having them used, such as England or Germany. I think it would be helpful to start a discussion at the WikiProject and invite editors who edit a number of concert tour articles. If you start a discussion there, I will take part, but in the meantime I will not make any similar edits. Aspects (talk) 21:20, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My turn to apologise for a late reply(!). Thanks for your explanation, I can see how you came to adopt that approach. I still maintain that the state and province names are useful additions – but as you say, let's take it up on the project talk page. Cheers, JG66 (talk) 05:07, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Plot blanker

I've been trying to deal with this guy for a while now. See User:NinjaRobotPirate/Plot blanker. Flyer22 has also been involved. I'm not exactly sure how to deal with this, but I think it might be time to go to ANI to get more input from people. One possibility is a long-term abuse report, which would perhaps make tracking and reporting a bit easier. This guy really seems to believe that randomly blanking paragraphs is an improvement to the articles, so I doubt he's going to stop. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 21:56, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Image removal

Hi Aspects. I see you've removed a lot of non-free images, only for them to be restored by an IP editor. You might be interested inthis. I'm reverting the IP's changes per WP:EVASION. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 13:07, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your help with this editor, I saw that they were evading their block, but I also saw that Bbb23 was away from Wikipedia for a bit, so I was not sure what to do. Aspects (talk) 16:02, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the link, Lugnuts. Could come in handy.Bkstone (talk) 07:25, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Justin Guarini image

The poster has 30 days from 8/30/15 to provide any info needed. Give them the time to comply. It is my understanding that this pic is authorized for use by it's owner, Justin Guarini. Hopefully his people will catch the need. If not, eventually. Bkstone (talk) 07:06, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

MUCH better with the chronological format. Thanks. That old parade pic still needs to go, something more representative of his work and/or performing (and not another head shot OR American Idol reference). Have the shots, but I might need your help. I'll let you know if I can't figure it out. Again, nice job on the format! We just might make a good team.Bkstone (talk) 22:14, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thought latest pic had been approved according to notification on uploaded pic page. If not, why not? Bing.com has it listed as licensed for use. As they do with the pic you keep putting back up. If that one's ok, why not the one you deleted? Bkstone (talk) 23:04, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Also, seems odd requiring citation for "Beginnings" section YEARS after info being on the page, and being fairly common knowledge through the years since he became known, and included on various bios, as well as by his management. This is all old news, discussed and written about since around 2002. Working on it, but seriously...Bkstone (talk) 23:04, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The latest pic was deleted from Commons after it was nominated after a discussion that you participated in. I did not nominate that image for deletion, participate in the discussion, delete the image or remove the deleted image from the article, I simply replaced the most recent image back into the infobox.

For needing sources, what you may think is common knowledge, may not be common knowledge to others. If an editor thinks something in the article could be contested, they can put a template to alert others to that fact. Neither the citation needed tags nor the BLP tags were originially put in my me, I simply replaced them after removing the unacceptable sources. If you think they were put in error, you should ask the editors who placed them in the article. Aspects (talk) 03:52, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

James Ingram

Hello! I have semi-protected the James Ingram page for a month. If the same pattern recurs after the protection expires - namely, a range of IPs making the same suspicious edits as the previously blocked user - you might want to call the situation to the attention of a currently active administrator listed here: Category:Wikipedia administrators willing to make range blocks. Thanks for helping keep Wikipedia honest. --MelanieN (talk) 17:31, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the help and advice. Aspects (talk) 01:37, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You're Invited!

Lorna Gray reversion error

Thank you for reverting my rollback at Lorna Gray, as this was made in error. Regards, Yamaguchi先生 23:44, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2015 September 20

You were involved in a discussion about File:Madonna-Material-Girl-333295.jpg. I invite you to the above DRV. --George Ho (talk) 23:48, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:FILMPLOT

Howdy Aspects, re: this reversion can you please explain to me why this IP's longplot flagging, and my restoration of the longplot flag is inappropriate? WP:FILMPLOT wants 400-700 words. The current version is 771 words long, and I'm not aware of "grace periods" for length with the exception of for complicated formats. Thoughts? Cyphoidbomb (talk) 22:31, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This editor has gone through numerous steps to their editing on Wikipedia from changing reception areas to add box office bombs without sourcing, to reverting back years of edits to a smaller plot, to plot blanking, to changing the dates of cleanup templates and now to simply look for articles that they feel need plot help. Unfortunately, they seem immune to advice from several editors telling them the same thing on their numerous different IP addresses. What would normally be a case of WP:SOFIXIT for a plot summary that is not that much over the recommended range, does not work for this editor because they have shown themselves incapable of reducing long plot summaries without deleting entire paragraphs instead of condensing what is already there. This editor's single purpose now is to go to an article, throw the plot in a number counter, tag anything below 400 with the more plot template and anything above 700 with a plot template without making any other changes to the articles. This single-mindlessness towards plot is not really helping Wikipedia.

Honestly, I did not see your edit because I was going through the IP-hopping "Plot blanker" and saw that the template was there, so I reverted it. If you feel the plot template still belongs on this article, I understand and it is not something I would revert. Aspects (talk) 23:11, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, a disruptive user! Well, that seems reasonable. Your explanation is much appreciated. :) Cyphoidbomb (talk) 23:48, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

At A Nightmare on Elm Street you again removed a Plot template despite the summary being over 800 words. Please review WP:FILMPLOT. A summary over 700 words exceeds the guideline, and it is appropriate to tag the plot in such instances. Thank you for your understanding. DonIago (talk) 14:12, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As I stated above this is a IP-hopping disruptive user that current looks for film articles to throw the plot in a number counter, tag anything below 400 with the more plot template and anything above 700 with a plot template without making any other changes to the articles. In theses cases being just over the range (a lot are 700 to 800 words), I would normally tell the user to WP:JUSTFIXIT, instead of them tagging the article with something simple for someone else to address, but this user has been shown to not be able to handle reducing plots. For extremely large plots, they used to remove entire paragraphs instead of reducing to the key points, but for these smaller ones, they are unable to remove a small amount of words. Their actions are not helpful towards building a better Wikipedia, and a lot of editors have spent time addressing their problems without much success.

To let you and any future editor that might revert my plot template removals, I understand and will not revert them. Furthermore, of the IP's edits I have to address, they are concerning the changing template dates for no reason except that the IP thinks they are old and need to be updated. Please let me know of any other concerns about my editing in this regard. Aspects (talk) 23:35, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I recall the user in question, but if the plot is 800+ words then the template is appropriate in that particular case even if they may be abusing it in general. Having the template there if the plot is in violation of the guideline does no harm and may lead to the problem being resolved. As it's not difficult to get the word count for a plot summary, I'd ask that you do that before summarily de-tagging.

That said, if they are drive-by tagging in trivial cases (say, 725 words) and making no effort to improve the article, or updating the template date for no evident reason, then I think you're within your rights to tag them for disruptive editing. They need to explain what their intentions are and why they can't or won't be bothered to even take a cursory stab at improving the articles themselves.

Anyway, thanks for the clarification. The way it appeared was that you were simply de-tagging for the sake of de-tagging, which on the face of it isn't necessarily better than what the IP was doing themselves. If they're making any good edits along the way, even accidentally, we might as well retain those if we can.

Thanks for getting back to me on this, and sorry if I jumped the gun or came off a bit too harshly. DonIago (talk) 00:41, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I believe we should ban these IPs because they are in so much trouble from editing plots or movies.70.209.19.46 (talk) 11:10, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So you believe that you should be banned to because this was clearly another MO, that you would come up with another IP address, warn a previous IP address and then go about doing the same kind of edits over and over again. Aspects (talk) 22:51, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The non-fair use of the Criterion logo in Akira

Hello. I just wanted to say sorry for not knowing that how I used the former Criterion logo is actually non-fair use. It was the first time I placed an image in an article throughout my whole 5 year stay in Wikipedia, fearing the many technical details that would go against my way through just my looking to add an image in an article. Can you provide details as to how this is non-fair use so that I have better knowledge of what images I can put in an article? LionFosset (talk) 16:45, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The image currently fails WP:NFCC#10c because there is no fair use rationale for the image's use in the film article. Even if a fair use rationale was provided, it would easily fail WP:NFCC#8 because it does not increase the reader's understanding of the film and its removal is not detrimental to that understanding. Aspects (talk) 04:18, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Another one of your image removals

I reverted this removal (although not the one from the novel article, since that couldn't have been justified). It is accompanied by sourced quoted text by the film's costume designer describing the look she created for the character as "so far over the edge she's almost falling off." I believe that helps it meet fair use criterion #8: not everybody can visualize what that would mean, and it's contextually significant. It was uploaded so long ago that it didn't require a separate fair use rationale at the time; I can certainly add one to the image page if desired. Daniel Case (talk) 06:49, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Older tags

The templates that you reverted are old aspects, so I have changed them newer versions that stands out. BlackGator (talk) 10:21, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As numerous editors have told you across your numerous IP addresses, template with older dates do not need to be "updated," and if anything the older dates make them "stand out" more than the newer ones because editors know that it has been a problem for a while. Aspects (talk) 15:20, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) BlackGator I'm in agreement with Aspects on this. Knowing that a block of information has been unsourced for five years makes me more likely to do something about it than a block of information that you have freshly marked as unsourced. Tweedling around with template dates is not a useful contribution. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:18, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WTF? BlackGator (talk) 23:29, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

BlackGator Was there something confusing in particular that you'd like me to clarify? Cyphoidbomb (talk) 01:30, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have just been treated to one of these warnings as well for reverting templates to their original date, even though I haven't come close to 'edit warring' or WP:3RR. User Blackgator, however, continues to revert template dates back to his 'better' version, and has blanked a polite request that he cease doing this from his talk page. I have little doubt that any further warning on Blackgator's talk page would be ignored and blanked as well, and suspect that, unfortunately, a trip to WP:ANI may now be required to stop these activities. That process is a mystery to me, however, so I'll leave it in more experienced hands to decide how best to proceed. 86.174.107.27 (talk) 00:10, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Laura Branigan - Gloria.png

I invite you to FFD (discussion) on this image. --George Ho (talk) 09:04, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:34, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Queen of Ireland (film)

Hi, you contributed to the article The Queen of Ireland (film). you may be interested to know that there is a requested move (to "The Queen of Ireland") at Talk:The Queen of Ireland (film)#Requested move 14 December 2015. --Scolaire (talk) 12:00, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Season's Greetings

File:Xmas Ornament.jpg

To You and Yours!

FWiW Bzuk (talk) 04:01, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

American University of Sharjah Logo

Please avoid changing the American University of Sharjah from the current one back to the emblem as it is incorrect and the university does not use the emblem in official documents or files. --Mgaria (talk) 13:06, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The seal has been used in the article for eight years and is still in use by the university as can be seen as the only emblem on their website. I have added the emblem back into the image location and moved the new benchmark image into the logo field, similar to other university article. Aspects (talk) 23:26, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Aspects

My understanding is that the University has been rebranding and according to their new online communications policy http://www.aus.edu/commsguide the new Bilingual brandmark is the signature of the university. Whenever this does not fit, the stacked version is then used as used in their other platforms such as Twitter and Facebook. (Mgaria (talk) 12:17, 29 December 2015 (UTC))[reply]

Your A-ha/Sun Always Shines on TV edit?

Don't you think it would be better if the full detail of the 'Diva' single release of this song was merged with the Diva band article mainpage instead of being dumped into the A-ha single release like this? It takes up too much room & gives too much info for what was just a cover version here?

--(talk)(Bardrick (talk) 14:31, 24 December 2015 (UTC))[reply]

No, notable cover versions of songs should be included in song articles per WP:SONGCOVER and should have their own section. Aspects (talk) 23:30, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

January 2016

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Getting Any? may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

Any?'''''|みんな～やってるか！|'''''Minnā yatteru ka!'''''|literally: "Is everyone doing it?"}} is a 1995 [Japanese film, written, directed, edited, and starring, [[Japanese people|Japanese]] filmmaker [[

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 05:10, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Laff Trakk Logo

I see you reversed my edit that replaced the png version of the Laff Trakk image with the svg one. I went ahead and undid your edit, because the SVG image has no border/background and is a better quality. I also re-tagged the PNG image as orphaned. Elisfkc (talk) 18:55, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

When I looked at the article, there was no image and that is why I reverted back to the png file. I do not what was wrong with the page, but I am glad that I was incorrect and that the preferred svg file actually works. Thank you for taking the time to let me know, Aspects (talk) 04:35, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

March 2016

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Renaissance Man (film) may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

*[[Gregory Sporleder]] as Private Melvin Melvin (''Polonius''

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 03:23, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox musical artist reversions

Hello, I was wondering how you are differentiating between which people qualify as people who are known mainly as musicians and those who are not. You marked artists such as Kelly Clarkson and Judy Collins as only needing Infobox musical artist, while other very well-known musicians such as Beyoncé and Adele use the more detailed Infobox person with the musical artist infobox embedded. The template talk page does not seem to clarify which should be used in which cases, in fact it seems to leave the option open. The WP:Musicians talk page does not seem to clarify this either. In addition, why do you keep changing the Flatlist template to hlist? It specifically says on the template page to use Flatlist.
Thanks, Iamthecheese44 (talk) 03:25, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Like I stated in my edit summaries, people who are mostly known for being a musical artist should be using the Template:Infobox musical artist. I noticed another editor reverted another of your edits for the same reason. Since Kelly Clarkson is on my watchlist, I changed it back since she is mostly known for being a singer and then reverted other edits you made for similar musicians. I cannot explain about other articles, but it is possible that there was a talk page discussion that reached a consensus for which infobox to use. If you feel one of my reverts was incorrect, please start a talk page discussion on the article to see if a consensus can be reached. As for using the hlist template, I used it because other editors use both and it takes less space than the flatlist template. I did not realize that the template instructs using flatlist. In the future I will do this and I will not change my edits, but I would not be opposed if someone else changed them. Aspects (talk) 01:51, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough; thank you for your response. :) ~ Iamthecheese44 (talk) 20:19, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	Daniel Kenneth (talk) 11:35, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A sad little man

You are fucking pathetic, man. Get a life. Même sous la pluie (talk) 21:13, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If you cannot be civil on my talk page, I ask that you not use it. Since I never edited any of the pages you have, I assume that you a sock puppet of another editor. If you can point to something specific you think I did wrong, please supply that. Aspects (talk) 02:48, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merging

Hi Aspects, I'm so sorry! - You can obviously Merge articles however those you're wanting to merge are way too big for the parent article so it's best they're seperate articles,
Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 15:17, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Screenshots are worthless for infoboxes

Use cover arts, flyers, etc. --94.246.144.29 (talk) 16:31, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It is better to have a screenshot in the infobox, then to have nothing at all. You linked to an arcade flyer, if you uploaded it to Wikipedia, then it could replace the screenshot, which would then be deleted for being unnecessary, but you are going about it backwards. If you do not want to upload the arcade flyer and still feel the screenshot should be deleted, you need to open up a WP:FfD. Aspects (talk) 02:50, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

2016 Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director Search Community Survey

The Board of Trustees of the Wikimedia Foundation has appointed a committee to lead the search for the foundation’s next Executive Director. One of our first tasks is to write the job description of the executive director position, and we are asking for input from the Wikimedia community. Please take a few minutes and complete this survey to help us better understand community and staff expectations for the Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director.

Survey, (hosted by Qualtrics)

Thank you, The Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director Search Steering Committee via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:48, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Photographer's Barnstar
	I want to ask you something about Big Girls Cry. I just want to be sure that the cover is the real one. If you could sent me a link or something Dionbanda123 (talk) 17:13, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rapsodia Efectului Defectului

I saw you reverted my changes on the R.A.C.L.A. album. Album titles should be capitalized and on the new page I changed the infobox according to the new Wikipedia standards, while also adding more information. The album cover is different and a few other things are as well. (talk) 13:48, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted the changes because it was a bad WP:Cut and paste move like I stated in the edit summaries. I would expect an editor who has here for nine year would know how to either move an article or start at WP:Requested move. If an article needs to be moved to a different title that is currently a redlink and the move itself is noncontroversial, then you can hover over the "More" tab and then the first link is "Move." After clicking on that, there is one field for what the article title should be and another field where for the reason to move. If the article can be moved, it will be, but if the target link is already a bluelink, it will tell you the page could not be moved. In this case or if the move could in any way be considered controversial, a WP:Requested move should be started explaining why you think the article should be changed, other editors will join the discussion and after a week or so, another editor will close the requested move according to the consensus found. The reason you need to move instead of cut and paste, is the need for attribution. The correct way(s) I mentioned would continue to show that User:MJ for U created the article five years ago. The way you did it makes it look like you just created the article and forgoes other editors contributions to the previous article.

As for this particular move, doing a Google search for the album shows a mixture of both the non-capitalized version and the capitalized version in both links and news articles. You are going to have to show that this is the correct capitalization for the Romanian language and not just English language capitalization rules, and you would need to show a majority of sources with this capitalization to even make the move worth while. Sine you went the route of cut and paste instead of moving the article, the only way to correct this error is for you to start a WP:Request move. As such explained here and per WP:BRD, I am again going to revert the cut and paste move. I ask that you please start the requested move if you still think it needs to be moved instead of reverting this actions, which could be seen as WP:Edit warring. Aspects (talk) 01:33, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

L'Etoile de Morne-à-l'Eau

Why do you keep deleting all of our hard work and hours of research? It's not vandalism and since there seems to be little evidence of that page being updated since 2007 (last recorded league position is from 2006/07), I don't see why you're acting bothered about the page. If you were really bothered you'd update it yourself. You haven't so we have. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.5.17.154 (talk) 22:44, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I was going to respond with a longer reply about how this was vandalism, but the fact that you put in a Wikipedia article, "Aspects is a cunt." demonstrates it quite clearly. Now the article has been semi-protected for one week, so one admin thinks it is vandalism. Please take this time to cool off and find reliable sources to update the article instead of vandalizing it once the protection is lifted, but I am not expecting that to happen. Aspects (talk) 22:52, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

adam lambert

we seem to be having some communication problems lately. i'm getting the message that "announcing" has been over done; - but it seems to me, in several recent cases where you've intervened, that it's been called for - or else what's left is sentence fragments and/or incoherent placement of news/events. i can see you don't like the chronological organization of the page either (or something to that effect). . . but it's the location of some of these events in time that has them contiguous on the page. by eliminating time frame, it seems as if the info is just plopped down from above! i don't mind fixing what you leave dangling, i appreciate your input and interest in the page. while i've added most of the actual information in the article, i'm not a wiki expert by any means - so if you could be clearer about your issues that would help. i've been trying to keep edits as succinct as possible - or a lot more succinct than they had been - i've gotten that message. IMO we're down to bare bones. which brings me to the lede paragraph: as you know, almost all of the longstanding lede was dumped a awhile ago (of course it needed editing and updating, but that's not what this was). i attempted to add in a bit of background (theater, as an example), but my edit (or edits, i don't recall) were reverted by the writer/editor of the paragraph. after adding the Queen association, i just left it. i'm wondering what your opinion is of the paragraph as it now stands? to me, it's uninteresting and does not make the reader want to know more. i believe those are aspects of an intro paragraph that wiki encourages. it's bland and mostly a recitation of semi-precise sales figures (as einstein or some other wise person once said, not everything that counts can be counted) - i've also seen many lede paragraphs (and long ones) with no refs at all. is that ok, so long as the information is factual? speaking of factual: recently several internet blogs or sites tweeted that adam was the first idol to headline a worldwide tour immediately following his idol season. that was then changed to ONLY american idol to do so, which is in fact true. that info (first idol) was in his lede paragraph before i started working on the page. - there was no ref (and so it stood for five years), but obviously the info could be verified by checking pages of other idols. what about that kind of info? can you clarify when refs can be left off, particularly in that first paragraph? getting back to the lede but related to this former point: what exactly constitutes a hit single? the paragraph notes that the first album had several hit singles - i agree, but i don't know what the line technically is. i wonder because worldwide media refer to ghost town as a worldwide hit. would you agree? it now has over 200 million streams on spotify and youtube alone. new dawn new day for assessing reach. would you agree it could be added to the lede as a qualifier to TOH album? would it not require a reference /like the others? thanks for any clarification you can offer. Jordan200 (talk) 07:31, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:Jerrybrassiere.jpg File:Yankeedoodlemousescreen.jpg File:Fattymariosm64ds.jpg and File:Mario64dscourtyardlwn.jpg

@Aspects Would you restore these 4 images YoshiFan155 (talk) 0:02 July 22 2016 (UTC)