Jump to content

User talk:Tuzapicabit/Archive 5

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1←Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7→Archive 9

File source problem with File:Mark Morrisss.jpg

Thank you for uploading File:Mark Morrisss.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of that website's terms of use of its content. However, if the copyright holder is a party unaffiliated from the website's publisher, that copyright should also be acknowledged.

If you have uploaded other files, consider verifying that you have specified sources for those files as well. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged per Wikipedia's criteria for speedy deletion, F4. If the image is copyrighted and non-free, the image will be deleted 48 hours after 18:58, 16 November 2010 (UTC) per speedy deletion criterion F7. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 18:58, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

The Famous Five (1970s TV series)

What is the reason that you have undid my revision. Please compare the version before the IP makes his revision and look into the article Famous Five or look into the internet movie database There you can read that the production company Children's Film Foundation of the old films was the same company, beside that there exists younger danish films. Ok, it seems to be a theory for the not existing production of the both films, but now this theory seems to be false, because one of the both films of the Children's Film Foundation seems to exist. (I dont buy the DVD in the moment. I will do it later and will not now in the moment anything about this DVD.) I suppose the truth would be that the producers wants first to produce first the films, which does not exists in England. In similar cases you will find the same action of film producers. But this is a theory too. So the sentence is unsourced and unlogic. Please look over this problem again and bugfix it. with friendly greetings, --Soenke Rahn (talk) 05:40, 24 November 2010 (UTC) Footnote two only says: Interesting to note though that a third series was planned using new stories, but this was thought a bad idea by Blyton who vetoed it. --Soenke Rahn (talk) 05:57, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi. I reverted the edit because the previous edit made sense, whereas your edit did not. It seems Five on a Treasure Island was adapted as the first episode (Five on Kirren Island), so yes, it appears that just two of the books were not adapted. Thank you for your edits otherwise.--Tuzapicabit (talk) 11:29, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi, I looked now on the German Sites to the DVDs it seems to be that it is not right that the there exists a lost part on it. The first part of the serial is not Treasure Island. It owns another content. Ok, Treasure Island was the first book of the serial and Five Go to Kirren Island is the part one of the Tv serial, but it is definitly clear that the content is another. So I mean that the article must be reverted to the version before the IP edited it. But the statement with the gossip with the reason for the not produced episodes should be erased, it is unsourced. with friendly greetings, --Soenke Rahn (talk) 11:57, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Hello again. Sorry, my mistake - it turns out that it's actually another (similarly titled) book: Five on Kirrin Island Again. I've searched for where I originally found the information and added the ref to the sentence. The IP user's edit has been reverted. Thanks for pointing this out.--Tuzapicabit (talk) 12:12, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, good footnote. Yes now it seems to be Ok. (-: --Soenke Rahn (talk) 13:18, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

FLC

Can you see if you are happy with the changes I've made to the list and revist the FLC. Thanks, Rambo's Revenge (talk) 23:42, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

I've also now changed the name if you'd like to take a look. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 18:04, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
Responded. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 13:49, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
Done. Thanks, hopefully all is okay now. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 20:37, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
Thanks. Any chance you could move our most recent 30 November exchange at FLC next to your earlier comments (you can also cap them if you wish). That way I think it is clearer that your issues are resolved but, moreover, that they are unrelated to the discussion they (currently) follow on from. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 15:09, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Bucks Fizz Greatest Hits

Hi there,

I put in that disambiguation line because there were other compilations out there that may be confused with this one, regardless of whether they are budget or non-"official" or whether they have articles of their own.

Personally, I don't think those compilations *are* particularly interesting or notable in themselves (I'm *not* a fan of the "individual article for every slightly different compilation" approach), but they *do* have the potential to cause confusion with the album under discussion and that's why they were mentioned.

You and I might know all this, but some random person reading the article doesn't, and that's why the line was there. Do you think we should include this information in the body of the article itself instead?

All the best, Ubcule (talk) 12:04, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Not a major deal really, but the article should be fairly clear about which album it is - eg, the picture in the infobox is there for illustrative purposes and will immediately tell people they are not at the right article if they're looking for another. I think the two albums you list are not really worthy of mention, but as I say not a major deal. Feel free to reinsert it. Thanks.--Tuzapicabit (talk) 16:42, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Picture of Bucks Fizz

Hello Tuzapicabit, thanks for your image of the Band Bucks Fizz. Can you please add the year/date the photo was approx. taken? The English wikipedia article mentions the year 1983. Many thanks and greetings, --Kdkeller (talk) 18:16, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

RFC courtesy notice - succession boxes

As someone who has taken part in previous discussions regarding the use of succession boxes in articles for songs and albums, I'd like to notify you of a request for comment that is taking place at WT:CHARTS#Request for comment: Use of succession boxes. It would be nice to finally come to a resolution on this. If you have already participated in this RFC or do not wish to participate, then please disregard this notice. Thanks. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 00:26, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Audio theatre an article to audio dramas

Please if you have time and you know anything to it, please look on the article Audio theatre, somebody placed a erase discussion on it. after we have had a merge discussion. It would be interesting what you would say to the merge and the delete discussion. )-: --Soenke Rahn (talk) 02:29, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Autopatrolled

Hello, this is just to let you know that I have granted you the "autopatrolled" permission. This won't affect your editing, it just automatically marks any page you create as patrolled, benefiting new page patrollers. Please remember:

  • This permission does not give you any special status or authority
  • Submission of inappropriate material may lead to its removal
  • You may wish to display the {{Autopatrolled}} top icon and/or the {{User wikipedia/autopatrolled}} userbox on your user page
  • If, for any reason, you decide you do not want the permission, let me know and I can remove it
If you have any questions about the permission, don't hesitate to ask. Otherwise, happy editing! Acalamari 21:15, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image (File:Body MindSoul.jpg)

You've uploaded File:Body MindSoul.jpg, and indicated that it's used under Wikipedia's rules for non-free images. However, it's not presently used in any articles. Wikipedia policy requires that non-free images be either used or deleted, so if this image isn't used in an article in the next week, it will be deleted.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 05:21, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

It is. Check again--Tuzapicabit (talk) 10:38, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Cilla Black

Great work on the Cilla Black albums! I have a better version of the album cover for Sher-oo! would it be ok to replace yours? I will also be adding details on the digital bonus tracks ASAP. Dutchdean (talk) 13:19, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Feel free to add a new cover - and others as well. I was going to do more, but became more interested in the number of formatting errors and other clean up needed. Not really a fan of hers as such, but I like to see cleaner and properly formatted articles. If you have any further info on the original album releases themselves would be good too. --Tuzapicabit (talk) 02:42, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Gary Glitter

You say the list of TV shows adds nothing and all singers make them. As I said it adds to an overview of his career and it certainly doesn't detract from the article. It's as if there is a shortage of space on here so why not just put it back? What harm does it do? --Shylocksboy (talk) 16:26, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

The appearances are not notable nor are they interesting. Every popular singer would have a similar list, but other singers articles don't. It says nothing at all about Gary Glitter's career. If it were a filmography - then fine, but it's not. What harm does it do? - it looks messy, it's woefully incomplete and makes the page look amateurish rather than like an encyclopedia entry. I don't really care about GG, but I think musician articles should follow a fairly standard formatting.--Tuzapicabit (talk) 01:07, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Singing a song - Brotherhood Of Man.jpg

⚠
⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Singing a song - Brotherhood Of Man.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 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).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 09:55, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

WikiProject Eurovision: Recent changes

Hello,

Please note that there have been some changes to operations surrounding Eurovision articles, these being that:

If you have any questions, please ask at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Eurovision.

You are receiving this message since you are listed as a member of WikiProject Eurovision. If you are no longer interested in contributing to Eurovision articles, please remove your username from this page.

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of WikiProject Eurovision at 15:14, 26 August 2011 (UTC).

regarding this edit

...why does that song not belong in the article? Sorry if I'm missing the obvious -- Bobyllib (talk) 20:06, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps you need to read the article first. It doesn't meet the criteria (yet anyway). Sorry.--Tuzapicabit (talk) 02:31, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
The OHW article says "Artists who are classed as one-hit wonders within the past 12 months are not yet added to the list, as they may still follow-up their #1 with another hit. A one-hit wonder from earlier who now go on to score another hit will be removed from this list." The "We No Speak Americano" article says "UK Singles Chart number-one single 25 July 2010 – 31 July 2010". As it is currently September 2011, I'm really not seeing a conflict here. Again, apologies if I am missing something obvious -- Bobyllib (talk) 16:23, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
My apologies, I've had a look again and thought it read 2011, so yes, I've reinstated it. Well spotted, it meets criteria exactly. --Tuzapicabit (talk) 09:20, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

File:Amy, the girl who waited.jpg listed for deletion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Amy, the girl who waited.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. MASEM (t) 22:24, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Only Love

Template:Only Love has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. — This, that, and the other (talk) 23:40, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Done thanks. Amazing that this is still hanging around after all this time.--Tuzapicabit (talk) 00:25, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

One hit wonders

All I did was place a reference to show that Christopher Ryan is the only member of that line up who has had no other hits in the charts, therefore he and he alone is a one hit wonder in the full sense. I have still left the main information there, I have only added to it, not taken anything away. I have a copy of the GHS book, 7th edition and it actually shows them as being in the list of collaboration OHWs, the only difference here though is that one member has not had any other hits and the other four have. If you can think of seven other acts then please name them. The collaboration list is with people who have had hits on their own AND then one number 1 together. So I guess Cliff Richard and The Young Ones can fit into both categories but the way I worded it shows them eligiable for the first list as we do have one member who is a OHW. Another thing is who can you say I did original research when I placed a reference? Cexycy (talk) 17:42, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

All I did was place a reference to show that Christopher Ryan is the only member of that line up who has had no other hits in the charts

. You did not provide a reference that says this. The reference you added is meaningless. Your findings are based purely on your own Original research. I have no more time (or patience) for this.--Tuzapicabit (talk) 22:17, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
I remember talking to you before regarding this article with great fondness as we appeared to want what was best for it. Now you appear to be attacking me for it. I provided a link which confirms that Bad News charted, which means in another guise three out of the four Young Ones did make other chart appearances. If Christopher Ryan DID make any other chart entries then the whole Cliff Richard and The Young Ones act would have to be moved to the collaborations list as all five members would have had alternative hots but only one number 1 together and nothing else, if you see what I mean. If he did not then tht can only mean that he and him alone would be a OHW, hence his name singled out in the list. Failing this maybe they should be in a sepeate list of collaboration one hit wonder acts where some members have had other chart entries and others haven't. I do not like the way you are talking down to me saying you do not have time, etc. You have every right to tell me of anything you oppose and for what reason (and I am glad you have) but please do it with some respect. Cexycy (talk) 01:12, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
Just checked my GHS book and it says Cliff Richard and The Young Ones (aka Bad News) have had seperate chart hits. Christopher Ryan was NOT in Bad News! This can be confirmed on Wikipedia itself. To say this is my own research is just not true. Cexycy (talk) 01:26, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
OK. The Young Ones were a separate group in their own right who did a collaboration with Cliff Richard. They are mentioned alone because The Young Ones never had another chart entry. Bad News is a totally different group (the fact that they had some of the same members is immaterial - they are a different group). Neil was a solo act who had a hit - if that had been a No.1, he would also be in the list as a OHW for his own hit. If Bad News had a No.1 and nothing else - then all three acts would be listed as One hit Wonders. They are all different acts.
Like you yourself originally argued that collaborations are also OHWs, which I agree technically is true (David Bowie and Mick Jagger are essentially a whole new act who had one hit). The only reason why I wanted THEM out was because of their name, both acts were individually listed in their title and would cause confusion. If say Mick Jagger never had a solo hit - then yes, he would be listed as a OHW (It would of course be explained in the sidebar that he had many other hits as lead singer with The Rolling Stones, but none others as a solo act). This can be done in the same way with The Young Ones - the Young Ones are a OHW as they are, but it can be mentioned in the sidebar that member Neil had a hit in 1984... while two other members had a hit as part of Bad News. To pick out Christopher Ryan as a OHW is incorrect (unless you can show me a book or online ref which states that he alone is a OHW, then yes, this is original research.
Sorry if my tone came across as brusque, but I really didn't want this whole thing dredging up again. This is my response in a calm manner, but other than minor edits here and there I don't really intend to do much more work on this article. Thank you anyway.--Tuzapicabit (talk) 11:20, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for your reply and sorry for the delay in getting back to you. The problem here is that it is a lot easier to prove someone has done something than proving they did not. If Mr Ryan DID have another hit, there would be sources to prove it. From what I can gather, and this is not a wild guess, he did not. He was never part of the Comic Strip people to start with, he only got the job of playing Mike at the last minute, etc. etc. He is also an actor not a singer. I can find no proof to suggest that he had any further hits at all. From what I gather, a little Good Faith is permitted as there is no solid evidence to prove 100% either way but from what I have seen, any proof that he had any fuirther chart entries looks very bleak.

Basically, what I am trying to say is that out of these five men, from different musical sources, no further chart entries were produced, but four of them have had hits either as solo or other group acts. ONE of them had no further chart entries whatsoever. Technically this one record could fit into both the first two lists, unless a special hybrid one is created. Cexycy (talk) 01:56, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Nomination of List of the top ranking countries of the Eurovision Song Contest for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of the top ranking countries of the Eurovision Song Contest is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of the top ranking countries of the Eurovision Song Contest until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. CT Cooper · talk 22:01, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Replaceable fair use File:Tomek bork.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Tomek bork.jpg. I noticed the description page specifies that the media is being used under a claim of fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first non-free content criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information or which could be adequately covered with text alone. If you believe this media is not replaceable, please:

  1. Go to the media description page and edit it to add {{di-replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original replaceable fair use template.
  2. On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per our non-free content policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Hammersoft (talk) 15:23, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Tomek bork.jpg

⚠
⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Tomek bork.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 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).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hammersoft (talk) 15:23, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Image tagging for File:DanBedingfield.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:DanBedingfield.jpg. You don't seem to have said where the image came from or who created it. We require this information to verify that the image is legally usable on Wikipedia, and because most image licenses require giving credit to the image's creator.

To add this information, click on this link, then click the "Edit" tab at the top of the page and add the information to the image's description. If you need help, post your question on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 11:05, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi. When you recently edited Angels (Robbie Williams song), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Let Me Entertain You (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:57, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

EDIT WARRING

YOU ARE ENGAGING IN AN EDIT WAR PLEASE STOP BLOCKING GOOD FAITH FACTUAL EDITS.

  • 1st revert: [1]
  • 2nd revert: [2]
  • 3rd revert: [3]
  • 4th revert: [diff]

--88.104.33.38 (talk) 11:06, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Indeed. With you! Your edits were unreasonable and had to be removed. However, I see your latest edit is far less intrusive and is also referenced, so I have no objections to that. Hopefully, this needs to go no further. By the way - please stop shouting.--Tuzapicabit (talk) 01:42, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

WikiProject Eurovision: Discussion on the use of navigation templates

Hello,

There is currently a discussion ongoing at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Eurovision#Template duplications on the future use of navigation templates (navboxes) within Eurovision articles. The consequences of this discussion could have a large impact on how these templates are organized, named, and used in future, so all project members are invited to participate in the discussion.

You are receiving this message since you are listed as a member of WikiProject Eurovision. If you are no longer interested in contributing to Eurovision articles, please remove your username from this page.

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of WikiProject Eurovision at 15:31, 11 March 2012 (UTC).

Hello, Tuzapicabit. You have new messages at A Thousand Doors's talk page.
Message added 21:11, 20 March 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Hi. In your recent article edits, you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Gareth Thomas (actor) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added links pointing to The Avengers, Bergerac, Heartbeat (TV series), Doctors (2000 TV series), Tales of the Unexpected, After the War and Man at the Top

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:05, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi. When you recently edited South Pacific (soundtrack), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page South Pacific (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:56, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Possibly unfree File:DebbieReynoldsinLondon.jpg

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:DebbieReynoldsinLondon.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 14:06, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

WikiProject Eurovision: Discussion on recategorizing

Hello,

There is currently a discussion ongoing at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Eurovision#Recategorising on the proposal of recategorising following the rollout exercise of the new navigation templates (navboxes) within Eurovision articles. The consequences of this discussion could have a large impact on how articles are reorganized in future to provide an easier index system, so all project members are invited to participate in the discussion.

You are receiving this message since you are listed as a member of WikiProject Eurovision. If you are no longer interested in contributing to Eurovision articles, please remove your username from this page.

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of WikiProject Eurovision at 22:30, 24 April 2012 (UTC).

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Tuzapicabit/Archive_5&oldid=1089124920"