User talk:Aspects/Archive 13

ARCHIVE (July 2015 - August 2016)
Please note that: This is an archived thread of discussions. Please do not add any more discussions to this page. Instead engage in discussion on My Current Discussion page.

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

You're Invited!

{{WPW Referral}}

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

(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)

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

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

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)

File:Laura Branigan - Gloria.png

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

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)

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)

Season's Greetings

File:Xmas Ornament.jpg

To You and Yours!

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

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)

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)

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))

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))

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

A sad little man

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

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)

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)

Screenshots are worthless for infoboxes

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Reference errors on 23 July

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that some edits performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. They are as follows:

• On the Queen of the Desert (film) page, your edit caused a URL error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)
• On the Punchline (film) page, your edit caused an unnamed parameter error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check these pages and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:19, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

User:Sangavitamilmani

No matter what, it seems he won't respond. Guess blocking him is the next thing you can do. Kailash29792 (talk) 07:04, 19 August 2016 (UTC)