Unint

Welcome!

Hello, Unint, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{helpme}} after the question on your talk page. Again, welcome! 

Here's some extra tips to help you get around in the 'pedia!

• If you want to play around with your new Wiki skills the Sandbox is for you.
• You can sign your name using three tildes (~). If you use four, you can add a datestamp too.
• If you ever think a page or image should be deleted, please list it at the votes for deletion page. There is also a votes for undeletion page if you want to retrieve something that you think should not have been deleted.
• If you're still entirely confused, or would like to get a better grasp of your wikipedia skills, and you have an IRC client (or don't mind getting one), check out the Bootcamp. It's not what it sounds like, but it is fun and can help you with your editing skills.
• If you're bored and want to find something to do, try the Random page button in the sidebar, or check out the Open Task message in the Community Portal.

Link, Hero of Wind 01:35, 27 October 2005 (UTC)Reply

Yes, that sounds like a good idea to me, and I'll probably assist with subcategorizing the articles as well. Beno1000 14:37, 28 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

===>Oh well I noticed that it was to be done, and took it upon myself to do it. If "Myself, and possibly someone else, will be going over those again eventually, which really just made twice the work for everyone in the end," that's probably the sort of thing you want to mention on the talk page or somesuch, or else I wouldn't have moved them all myself. If you don't fix it, I will. C'est la vie. Same thing is true of the bot – I have no idea if it exists or is doing its job properly. I came, I saw, I recategorized. -Justin (koavf), talk 12:59, 29 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

Just wanted to say you've done a great work categorizing these and increasing my workload! Circeus 01:32, 13 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

If Wikipedia:Categorization guideline is any hint, we want to use only the most specific cat. navigational templates should probably be divided by subject (while a division by type such as footer/series/other) is possible, they would way too big categories. Circeus 12:20, 13 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

For the most part, I only merge the discography stuff, clean up some links and implement a standard style and colors (for articles that are not band templates stricto sensu, I use the genric footer style with #ccccff). Your Leeb-Fulber thing looks okay, if a bit big, but I guess that's to be expected in that case... Circeus

I've thought about it, it just seems as if we're getting bogged down trying to think about every possible permutation of artist/type/chronology, etc. Do you think it might be easier to make 'artist' and 'chronology_artist' two independently declarable parameters? And maybe we could provide a means to let users type in for themselves "Soundtrack to the film Wonderwall by George Harrison", or whatever? Flowerparty? 02:19, 14 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

Oops, didn't mean to post this in two places :) Flowerparty? 03:17, 14 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

I dunno where you took this thread to, but since I'm here I'd like to support that idea. Space for example is by Jimmy Cauty aka Space, but it's unlikely that if he releases any more albums they would use that moniker. It would in that instance be preferable to be able to assign the value "Jimmy Cauty" to 'chronology_artist' whilst retaining "Space" as the artist. (Sorry I can't at this ungodly hour think of a better example – i.e. someone who actually has more than 1 album!- but I'm pretty sure there are examples out there :)). --kingboyk 07:36, 17 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

Template talk:Album infobox – something of a backwater, alas. It's the same deal with Frank Zappa LPs, some of which are credited as being with the Mothers of Invention, but all of which should have a "Frank Zappa chronology". Flowerparty☀ 11:48, 17 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

What about moving this discussion to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Albums? Jogers (talk) 12:23, 17 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

I'm not sure I agree with the way you're sorting those Peel recordings. If you look at Category:Peel Sessions recordings it looks like some of the titles have just been assigned a letter at random, since there's nothing to explain that they're sorted by artist. Best to sort by the title of the LP, IMO.

On an unrelated note, I've left another comment at Template talk:Album infobox. Apologies for not replying to your last message there for a couple of days, I needed to think. I hoped someone else might have commented by now – it's frustrating waiting for feedback, no? :) Flowerparty? 02:19, 14 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

...at User talk:Kingboyk#Yeah, about that... no need for a further reply, although of course if you have one it's welcome! --kingboyk 07:33, 17 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

It's on the Commons. ed g2s • talk 12:55, 20 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

GAH! Don't tell me there's a different single infobox template! *sigh* Ah well, I know better – I should have checked before I started all of this. Well, the info is all there, if you're really feeling motivated, feel free to update the infoboxes and add any edits. I'm really just writing very basic stuff so far. Good luck with the older singles search! -- eo 04:48, 21 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

I'm trying to remember where I got that infobox template... I guess I just swiped it from an article I came across earlier today. And yes, the U.S. tracklistings need to be added... I have a mixture of US/UK singles in my personal collection so once I get all the song articles created I'll go back and tweak stuff. Most of the time the US versions just mash together the same stuff that the UK record companies spread out over multiple discs. -- eo 05:06, 21 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

Good add about the illustrators, thanx. I only have one book the rest I did as audiobook. ;) -- RevRagnarok 13:01, 23 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

Hi. We're discussing how to proceed with chronicling The KLF's singles over at Category talk:The KLF, and we would welcome your input. The issues we have are: a) do we document all of the singles, or just the biggest hits and otherwise especially notable songs? b) how will we do the chronology when some of our articles (e.g. What Time Is Love?) cover more than one single, and when some of them don't have articles. User:Vinoir has suggested a new footer template, I've been thinking of substing and hacking the infobox. A third party's contributions would be very helpful. Cheers. --kingboyk 06:42, 25 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

Hi there... not sure what you mean about "completionist" singles. Isn't a single a single? Regarding your Pet Shop Boys plans: besides going through their singles discography in chronological order, what other singles would there be?
FYI: Not sure if you have a copy... or whether it is even valid to use as a source... but the Alternative B-side compilation has a Q&A interview with Tennant and Lowe that gives a lot of insight and background info on all the singles and their B-sides. -- eo 23:31, 25 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

OK I see what you mean now. I'm wondering, however, if it would make sense to just do a full singles discography set of articles because of the collectibility of PSB in particular. I'm thinking this also based on this text from their main article:

The vast array of Pet Shop Boys remixes have made them one of the most collectible bands in the world. Collectors relish the assortment of triple-vinyl limited editions, unique artwork sleeves, and multiple compact disc singles...

PSB seem to fall into that singles-completist category with artists like Depeche Mode, Erasure, Bjork, New Order, Smiths, etc., etc. What do you think? -- eo 13:10, 27 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

Sure, didn't know they were being listed there. For the by nationality category, though, the only thing I would say is that Wikipedia does actually have a pretty explicit rule against applying a category to articles or categories before it actually exists; whenever you do get around to it, you can slap it on wherever it needs to go, but there's a pretty explicit rule against letting a redlinked category sit on an article for much more than a few minutes. But knowing that, next time I'll go the next step myself :-) Bearcat 06:35, 27 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

It may be a good idea to convert the articles using the templates before we list them for deletion. I'll do it soon.

I fixed the problem on my talk page by making the artist parameter optional. Thanks for pointing this out. Jogers (talk) 10:52, 27 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

I would just convert the articles using the obsolete Template:Kalnoky album infobox and then redirect it to the Template:Album infobox. This is what I did about Template:Various artists album infobox. The templates we are talking about are obviously redundant and are not widely used so I wouldn't worry too much about procedures.

We could still use Category:Various artists albums without the template but personally I don't find it very useful. Jogers (talk) 16:39, 28 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

Just because they can't be found in albums by artist categories like other albums. --Easyas12c 07:11, 1 May 2006 (UTC)Reply

So I admit I kind of lost interest in this infobox for a while, but I'm thinking it's still worth implementing, at least for songs that aren't singles. Do you have any specific objection to this moving into the template namespace? If not, I'd welcome any further feedback you might have, particularly with respect to anything that might be difficult to fix once the template is in use in articles. Flowerparty☀ 19:58, 6 May 2006 (UTC)Reply

Your system looks good, though I'd probably have used a little less categories (categories with less than 20 or so elements are practically useless). You might want to group the countr navigational boxes under a "navigational boxes by region" cat, which can receive supra-national stuff. Note that templates like {{Italianmusic}} already have a specific: they are called Musicboxes.

It's generally more practical to split a category that is too large than tostart by ategorizing into small units. 23:23, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

• Indeed, if I categorized these, I would use "musicboxes" for the country-specific ones (in adition to the appropriate country cat)
• Right now, I'd leave the country-based cats where they are, if only to avoid moving them too far back in the category three, as they are relatively recent creations. You can always put them both in the continent and region cat. (a are case of exception for me, as I usually spendmy time removing such cases lol)
• As I said above, I'd sort em in the broader cat for now and then see whether a split of some sortis appropriate. Templates can be much harder to sort sensibly, as there are so many different types. I ended up removing quite a few infoboxes from the country-based nav. templates. Circeus 15:43, 11 May 2006 (UTC)Reply

How do you like an idea of splitting the advanced usage information into a seperate section like this? Jogers (talk) 11:37, 11 May 2006 (UTC)Reply

I'm not sure if it really has to be maintained independently at all. Maybe linking to WikiProject Albums for usage instructions would be a better solution. Jogers (talk) 16:01, 11 May 2006 (UTC)Reply

It's straightforwardly a speedy-renaming case, as it's wrongly capitalised. The only reason that I didn't just do it myself is that I ddin't want to to take on a very big job only to have it renamed again. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 20:32, 11 May 2006 (UTC)Reply

Hi there! I am notifying you that I was unable to process the nominations you gave regarding the music video images on Stoned in Love. Had you notified the uploader per WP:IFD policy, I would have been able to delete the images. In the future, when nominating an image for deletion, the user must be notified (and it would also help if you also added {{ifdc}} to the caption of each image listed on IFD, should they be used in an article.

Now, OTOH, some of the images you did tag are speedies as they don't list source or copyright information, so they could have been tagged {{nsd}} or {{nld}}. I've already tagged those images, so that they don't need to be relisted at IFD, but can be speedied once the images have been tagged as such for more than 7 days. -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. ^{Think out loud} 03:28, 17 May 2006 (UTC)Reply

Hi there. I can't think of a more concrete reason for not including remix desciptions inside the quotation marks other than the title of a remix simply is not part of a song title. When a songwriter copyrights his/her composition, s/he doesn't have to submit a new copyright for each mix of the song, i.e. "Song X (Remix A)" and "Song X (Remix B)", etc. The copyright would cover all mixes of "Song X" so long as the basic melody and/or lyrics remain in tact. At least that's how I see it. -- eo 05:16, 18 May 2006 (UTC)Reply

Oh, and to add to the argument – a remixer doesn't receive royalties for a song's sales and/or performances in the same manner as the song's composer. Remixers usually receive a one-time fee for taking already-copyrighted material and presenting it in a alternate version. -- eo 05:20, 18 May 2006 (UTC)Reply

Hi Unint, I know you do a lot of navigation box work, so you might find this list I'm putting together interesting: User:CapitalR/Uncategorized navigational boxes. It's a work in progress, but it aims to find every single navigation box in English Wikipedia so they can be categorized and possibly standardized. I'm going to spend most of my time over the next few weeks working through the 40,000 templates finding all of the navigation boxes (with the help of a few bots), but feel free to distribute this page to anyone you know who might want to help start sorting, categorizing, and converting some to the NavigationBox form. --CapitalR 17:12, 21 May 2006 (UTC)Reply

• One other question: when you go through and categorize large numbers of templates, do you do this by hand or with an automated tool? I use the AutoWikiBrowser sometimes, but I was wondering if there is another one out there. Thanks, --CapitalR 17:12, 21 May 2006 (UTC)Reply

Nice work creating Go West (song). I've added images to the infoboxes but wanted to give you props for creating it and removing it from the notable song list. --Reflex Reaction (talk)• 14:43, 22 May 2006 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for removing that text from the Music genre article. It previously looked as it had been written by a 14 years old girl; why? the word pigeonhole, for example, none else would ever use it in this context. Or am I wrong? I regret I can't contribute on this topics for now, becouse some idiots around here are ready to insult me in any possible way, and I am tired of all this, I am no longer very enthusiastic about wikipedia. regards. Brian W 01:01, 9 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

But this is something so familiar it doesn't need a citation, it is like asking for a citation that God Save The Queen is played before football matches involving England. Jooler 21:58, 12 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

Actually on TV I've heard it being played on the public address systems at the Stadiums during the half-time and at the end of the matches of the World Cup that is on at the moment. Jooler 22:00, 12 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

Hey, thanks! Glad someone appreciates them. It's something I've wanted to do for a long time and I was motivated to begin because I saw that someone started them for UK number-ones. I'm working backwards and I'm up to 1974 right now, but of course this is not counting all the number-one songs that don't have articles yet... plus it gives me a chance to clean up all of them as I go thru. Still lots of work to be done! btw, keep up the good work yourself... especially on the PSB stuff! -- eo 22:22, 15 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

Actually that category had quite a number of entries before I started the succession box thing. There is another editor who seems to have gotten wind of what Im doing and is a couple steps ahead of me, creating a whole bunch of those one-and-two-line stubs. It doesn't bother me – once I'm done with the succession boxes and all the wikilinks are correct I want to expand most or all of them. Adding them to the category now rather than later is just one less thing that will have to be done once the boxes are completed. -- eo 23:19, 17 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the tidy on the FLA albums including Artificial Soldier. I was copying and pasting an older copy of the template from another album, and thought that the orange was merely a suggestion, and seemed somehow wrong for an Industrial band. -- Xinit 04:11, 21 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

Hi, Unint. Thanks for making the {{imagewatermark}} template. I've tagged several images with it. Do you know if there is a corresponding template for use on images that are on the Wikimedia Commons? —Bkell (talk) 03:36, 2 July 2006 (UTC)Reply

Oops! Sorry, I was intending to mention it in my edit summary and explain on the talk page but I forgot. I thought that it was a bit silly boldfacing the song's title because the reader would already know that the middle song in the chronology was the song that the article was about. Anyway, I'll undo it, and then leave a message on the talk page in a while, because it's not urgent (the boldfacing is barely visible at the current font size). Thanks for noticing. Extraordinary Machine 22:48, 6 July 2006 (UTC)Reply

Hey, when you get a moment can you take a look at Love Is a Stranger? The song was re-released twice and I thought I added the "extra chronology" info correctly but I can't get it to appear when I save the page. Apparently I'm doing something wrong. Please and thank you! -- eo 15:41, 12 July 2006 (UTC)Reply

Never mind, I figured out what I was doing incorrectly. Actually it wasn't me – it was all the infobox's fault. I am so fucking smart. Are you completely amazed? Thanks anyway :-) -- eo 13:32, 13 July 2006 (UTC)Reply

Hey, I just wanted to let you know what a good work you did on the new Enigma album article! You got to it just before me! :P --Andylkl ^{[ talk! | c ]} 10:42, 18 July 2006 (UTC)Reply

Wikipedia is in sore need of a policy on for musician pages, and you have been active in this area before. Therefore, please provide your comments and opinions on the policies there. Thanks in advance!--Esprit15d 19:35, 16 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

Here :

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Songs#What to do when...

Thanks in advance. — Prodigenous Zee - 01:29, 18 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

Sorry about that; I was really busy with off-WP stuff. The previous article on Trickle was completely unrelated to Olive (band); it was a punk group from Texas or something.

You're doing just fine, but thank you for letting me know. DS 23:49, 18 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

...d'oh! You're completely right, that's exactly what happened. Srsiesta blanked the article and replaced the text with his own material, and I didn't notice that. I'm sorry. DS 13:28, 21 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for letting me know about DJ Varit. I'll keep an eye on both him and Varitphenpimol.

You mean that inserting data into a sample template doesn't change the template itself? Isn't it self explanatory? Sorry for replying late, I've been away. Jogers (talk) 09:51, 22 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

I'm not sure if that was the case here neither but please go ahead and add any message you find appropriate. Consider adding the link to Wikipedia:Template namespace to provide inexperienced editors with basic information about templates. Jogers (talk) 09:24, 24 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

Wow! A lot of work has been put into the article sinmce I last had a look at it. And yes, I put a watch on it after I created the article to track its edits (there are a few of my articles that have that watch on them; Virtual band is the most notable of them). I didn't actualy realise just how much effort has been put into it since its creation. Thankyou so much for doing that.

On the subject of images, however, I'm not too sure as to where to find a picture of the original lineup. My best bet would be Always On The Run; they have a mini gallery of the artists mixed in with the lyrics. (This was where I found the image for Ruby.) Olive should be listed there somwhere. --JB Adder | Talk 23:46, 27 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

Hi there. Since you've taken the time and trouble to support my FA nomination for The KLF's ***K the Millennium, I'd like to ask your advice about which – if any – of the following articles I should nominate for FA next. If on the other hand you think none of them are up to par, please say so!

• 1987 (What the Fuck Is Going On?) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (GA, PR)
• All You Need Is Love (The JAMs song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (GA)
• Whitney Joins The JAMs (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (GA)

Since my cohort Vinoir is on an indefinite wikibreak, I'm just looking for a little guidance as of course to me all 3 are great! ;) Please reply on my talk page or at WP:KLF. Thanks! --kingboyk 09:56, 31 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

ooh... thanks for that! very nice! --kingboyk 07:38, 7 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

Hi, thanks for the extensive rewrite of It's a Sin. I've done one for Heart if you'd like to have a look at and add to/correct. Yorkshiresky 19:44, 10 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

Just noticing the addition of the Other Uses template to Laurie Anderson, I'm curious as to the point of adding the template since the wording ends up being identical to what was there before anyway. I've been noticing this template turning up on other articles and it seems to be kinda pointless. 23skidoo 20:08, 11 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

Interesting. I guess what struck me as odd was I wrote the original dab statement having never seen the OtherUses template -- I guess great minds do think alike! ;) 23skidoo 01:14, 12 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for helping with changing the infobox. I was debating on changing it to how you did it, but you went ahead and did it and it looks good. Thanks for the help! I am trying on working on this whole project of adding Tiesto's discography to Wikipedia, so any help with minor edits like you did helps! Thanks. --DJREJECTED 09:03, 14 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

The lyrics section does interpret things. The song doesn't have an explicit narrative the way, say, Sk8er Boi does, so it's wrong to ascribe one to it – the idea that it's a man propositioning someone else is strongly alluded to, but never actually confirmed. It would be fine to say "In the song, Tennant makes a series of claims, as if propositioning someone", because that is self-evident, but anything beyond that is crossing the line.

The other parts are in journalese. It tried very hard to tell a story, like a magazine article on the song might, when really all it should be doing is stating a series of facts. For example the main lyrical concept came when, in the studio, Chris Lowe asked Neil Tennant to make up a lyric based around the line "Let's make lots of money". Firstly, this isn't ascribed to any particular witness. Even if it was sourced, you can't just declare something that happened presumably in private between two people as fact. Secondly "in the studio" is a very wishy-washy cliche – "while recording" or "while working" or even "in a studio" might be less pretty, but define solid events. I could go on. --88.111.41.106 20:43, 17 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

Thanks very much for tidying up. Also, for adding the description of the single cover -- I never knew that! The JPS^{talk to me} 02:37, 27 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

I split off the album and tour articles because they had become too detailed to be in the band article. What is too detailed? The presence of album and tour infoboxes, a track listing for the album, and a dates listing for the tour. Even if you don't have anything more to add to the album article, it has enough to stand on its own. I understand your concern about the tour article being thin and perhaps not even having the correct name, let others add to it and/or correct it as they encounter it – that's the power of Wikipedia. Wasted Time R 03:13, 27 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

Hi, Unint. How pronounce last two letters (AY) in the reality family name "Aday" in singer Meat Loaf. Like second and third letter in word "Day" or like second letter in word "Pit". I'm Прон from Bulgarian Wikipedia —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 87.126.108.238 (talk • contribs) 13:09, 3 December 2006 (UTC).Reply

In the future, if you want to suggest deleting a category because it's been previously deleted, you can tag it with {{db-repost}} instead of listing it on CFD. Mairi 02:59, 6 December 2006 (UTC)Reply

I guess my edit summary was a bit authoritarian, but it was really just a judgment call rather than any hard-and-fast ruling and I don't have anything against putting both lines there. The thing is that there are only two blue links at Roger Manning (disambiguation) and one red link (with little explanation), so don't the specific link and the disambiguation link amount to the same thing? (Or do people tend to confuse the keyboardist and the anti-folk musician often?) –Unint 01:01, 5 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

Another editor has reduced Roger Manning (disambiguation) to the point where it is scarcely needed. There has been some confusion here about the two men. The keyboardist is also more and more often billed as simply "Roger Manning"--early in his career he may have used the longer name to distinguish himself from the once popular, but now inactive anti-folkie (just a guess). Also, both artists have had some association with Beck. For a some time we had one page that mixed-up facts about the two. If anything I'd drop the link to the generic dab page. -MrFizyx 01:16, 5 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for posting some sources on Milton Preves, I will certainly look into reading up on them! Compuguy1088 15:16, 22 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the advice. SilkTork 00:32, 23 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

I am the same user as commons:User:Unint. –Unint 00:33, 3 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

The use of square brackets for song version is to differentiate it from the actual song title ... like "(Waiting For The) Night Boat [Live]". It's all semantics these days anyway. There's a load of people putting the song version outside the quotes, some use round brackets for track times, some use dashes. it'll never be an exact science. --Feduciary 20:42, 11 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

Per your request I deleted your user page. If you ever want to retrieve some information from it, just let an admin know and we will retrieve it for you (or undelete the page if you prefer). Happy editiong :). NoSeptember 23:23, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I've moved away from touching that, but I think I can still provide some guidance:

• Band logos: It's hard for me to tell since I can't see an example. However, any appearance of a fair use image in a template must be aggressively removed per the Fair-use policy, even if it's hidden in the template namespace via noincludes.
• "they end up inserting non-existent interwiki links into their templates." Again, this means nothing. Are they misusing <noinclude>? Or are they pasting the entire content of {{click}}?
• "Also, now and then somebody either copy-and-pastes or substitutes a template into anywhere from ten to twenty articles."
  • This calls for a good swat on the hand. There's a reason we create templates in the first place. I say point them toward Wikipedia:Transclusion for an explanation, then replace the occurences with the template. You can try using AWB for that (what links here list+search and replace+skip if no replace).

Circeus 21:02, 16 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

• Ouch, yes, that MUST go. Actually, if someone willingly re-adds them repeatedly after being warned, give a shout at the admin noticeboard (or me ^_~). That's ground for blocking.
• Logos in infobox: can't see much wrong there, I'm afraid, our template:Infobox University includes both seal and logo, for example. Same for websites and companies...
• bad cut-and-pasting: The best we can do is educate the users as they come, I'm afraid.Circeus 21:21, 16 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

Circeus 21:21, 16 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

• A cropping is still copyrighted as the original was.
• File:Title.gif. See Wikipedia:Image file names. I'm gonna fix it as soon as I'm done with my watchlist.Circeus 21:41, 16 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

Dropped some comments into Talk:List of apocalyptic and post-apocalyptic fiction, per your request. You know, if there's enough people like me that get obsessive over maintaining these non-category lists, it might warrant a WikiProject. Threw the bones of one up during/after my near-all-nighter harvesting the data for List of Nuclear Holocaust fiction from Jericho (TV series), The Day After, and Threads, all of which had largely duplicated the list above. Wikipedia:WikiProject ListMakers – Interested? MrZaius^talk 01:21, 24 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

I didn't notice this discussion until recently. Hopefully the link at WikiProject Albums will attract some attention. Jogers (talk) 10:52, 24 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the comments, they're much appreciated.

About the context – Believe me, I'd love to find more material for this, but everything I've found seems to focus less on her and more on more recently prominent crossover acts (Josh Groban, Il Divo, etc.) I'm working on it though. Not sure I should mention Amelia since she doesn't have an album out yet and it's going to be released independently. I still need to update for the greatest hits albums; looking for good solid information on that. Crystallina 03:07, 25 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

Also, I forgot to ask – Do you by any chance have a free picture of her or know where I can find one? I've asked the official forums about twenty times and they're being very unresponsive. Also asked around with copyright owners without success. (There's a listing on requests for pictures but with the backlog I'm not holding my breath.) Crystallina 22:12, 6 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

They don't look like they've existed before, so I doubt it's necessary to have them be protected.Circeus 18:56, 11 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

On March 27, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Option (music magazine), which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

Thanks for your contributions! Nishkid64 03:21, 27 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

hi,

I noticed you have been active in debates about the wether or not to include fair use images in discographies. I created an album infobox proposal a while back, that incorporated the cover images of the previous and the next album in the chronology section. The proposal was defeated because we weren't sure if that could be considered fair use. But now I see that the Sonic Youth albums (Rather Ripped for example) have reintroduced this idea. I was wondering if this had been up for discussion again, or if this is a breach of wikipedia policy.

thanks,

--Tokle 19:30, 27 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for fixing my ascii copy-'n'-paste blunder on DNA Microarray with international characters in interwiki links. Nice catch. Jethero 20:05, 1 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

• The Orb was just promoted to featured article. Thank you for all your feedback and work you've put into it. Cheers! Wickethewok 06:09, 12 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

You posted at Talk:Bill Drummond a while back; I've been working on the article a little today and realised it's quite bad. It's not nicely laid out, not compelling, and is missing information on Drummond's work with Mark Manning and much of his "art career". If you'd like to help in any way that would be great. --kingboyk 22:32, 18 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for fixing my error at the stub discoveries page. I didn't consider that there might be "April" sections at the top and bottom of the page, so I didn't bother checking carefully. That's a nice thing about Wiki, how we catch each other's mistakes. :) -GTBacchus^(talk) 07:28, 23 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

i saw your post here but i'm not too certain what you were getting at. are you changing the template instructions explicitly 'forbidding' flags? --emerson7 | Talk 03:45, 28 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

I would have though so, but I was reverted numerous times on other articles, and its now become a habit. I don't really feel strongly either way, but I need to read up on it to be fair. Thanks for the typo fixes bty; and don't forget to vote on the FAR! Ceoil 22:18, 30 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

Thanks; no, I made a quick judgment as its late and I need to be up early in the morning. Once again, thanks for the watchful eye. Ceoil 23:24, 30 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

The line isn't demanded, nor is it forbidden. My view is thatit provides a clear distinction between the article and extraneous material, as used in many printed reference books. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 08:08, 3 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

I do, unfortunately, think you're right. However, if automated fair-use rationales come into play, they will likely be insufficient. I think it's unlikely that every article to use a picture of a CD cover really makes any commentary on that cover's design or content. If an image is not itself the subject of any discussion in the article, it's supposed to be removed. We'll cross that bridge when we come to it, I think. (ESkog)^(Talk) 22:58, 4 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

I haven't seen anything from Jimbo, but there have been a couple of discussions recently about fair-use images on Wikipedia. While they have centered around the removal of screenshots from lists of television episodes, there has also been some discussion about the fair-use rationale and how it has been abused or misused for a while. Obviously, if some clarification came down from them about any of this, we'd follow that over our interpretation of existing fair-use policy pages, but it's not really the Foundation's style to meddle as long as we're getting things mostly right. (ESkog)^(Talk) 23:17, 4 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

Sorry – I meant to link it but forgot. The discussion I'm referring to is here. (ESkog)^(Talk) 23:40, 4 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

Replied: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ADgies&diff=129080830&oldid=129078924 —dgies^t_c 22:51, 7 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

I saw that you referenced some early articles on Red Flag. Do you have scans of those articles you can email me? I am trying to gather as much as possible for the website and we are lacking those sources you cited. Thanks! : ) info[at]redflag[dot]org

That occurred to me when I started the categories, but I didn't fully think it through at the time. I'm not totally sure where that line should be drawn, but I suspect it should be somewhere in the middle of two extremes. For example, it seems reasonable enough to class "Unforgettable" as a duet, since the duet version is the one that is most famous today (for that reason, in fact, it may be something of a special case). However, I would really like to avoid, say, calling the many Hank Williams songs that were overdubbed with the voice of one or another of his family members years later "duets." I guess an appropriate rule of thumb might be that a songs with such latter-day versions would go in the duet category only if the overdubbed duet achieved renown comparable to the solo version.

Thanks for writing. InnocuousPseudonym 04:25, 26 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

What are your thoughts on the subject? InnocuousPseudonym 04:36, 26 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

I think there probably are enough, and having a separate subcategory definitely appeals to me. I'm not sure what would be the best way to describe/define it concisely in a nonambiguous category name, though. Practically all modern studio duets are "overdubbed", so a category name like "overdubbed duets" doesn't help much in defining the specialty if taken literally, but maybe a statement on the category page can help clarify the meaning. The most descriptive names I can come up with now is "Duets overdubbed onto earlier solo recordings" or "Solo recordings later overdubbed as duets." How does those sound?

Your example of "Slipping Away" raises further issues. Modern dance music adds and subtracts vocals so readily in remixes and so forth that it makes me wonder if a category like this would be an unmanageable anachronism. Still, it seems worth a try. For what it's worth the current version of the article on "Slipping away" describes the added vocals as backing vocals, not a duet.

Thanks for describing the CfD consensus. InnocuousPseudonym 08:43, 27 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

"Songs overdubbed as duets" sounds good to me. Thanks for your discerning thoughts on the subject. And I should have read the "Slipping Away" article more carefully. InnocuousPseudonym 01:03, 28 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

I created Category:Songs overdubbed as duets. InnocuousPseudonym 02:40, 28 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for your reply (you win the prize for being first to react!). I can't recall seeing discussion of the appropriateness or otherwise of comparable categories created by a WikiProject – the occasional daft category tree (or "pillar", perhaps) created by an individual, yes – but you may well be right that the issue has come up before. My "off the cuff" reaction is to say that it probably depends on context – I'm not trying to rewrite the entire categorization principles of Wikipedia, only this little bit of it. But it'll be interesting to see whether other contributors say "this level of category is a bad idea generally/in some cases, see XYZ" or something like that. Yours, Bencherlite 23:41, 29 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

Interesting reading – I must have seen it at the time, as I contributed to a discussion elsewhere on the page, but it hadn't stuck in my mind. I notice that Johnbod said that he didn't want the result used as a precedent, which would suggest that there is nothing written in stone at present – as it happens, I've left a message for him about this discussion as he and I have had some dealings on music-related category discussions in the past and I thought he might be interested. Thanks for the reference. Bencherlite 23:55, 29 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

Ok, I'm sorry... Felipe C.S ^{( talk )} 19:20, 14 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

You are right, I get long winded and my points are lost in the process. I realize i shot myself in the foot somewhat through poor diplomacy, and wonder if some voted for the merger just because of my demeanor. I just hated seeing some hard work get flushed was all. Anyway, the horse is dead. I'll try building consensus first, but I doubt this will ever pass. I was very surprised at how many came to shoot it down. that is not typical for most category discussions. As for All Music Guide, it is pretty accurate 99% of the time and it is at least a reference. Some people just place musicians in genres they "believe" them to fall under. (Mind meal 15:13, 10 July 2007 (UTC))Reply

wow, i never realised there was such an amount of reading material available on the novel... proper critical analyses are few and far between online. gotta check these out. unless of course you're 'doing a danielewski' and providing a load of nonexistent references ;) just kidding --Kaini 16:27, 11 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

unfortunately, not any more. a friend might, though, i will look into it. --Kaini 18:14, 11 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hi Unint, thanks for your comments about the recent disruptions.

I've reverted the changes a few times, but I need to be careful not to go over the line. A couple other editors have reverted also, though I don't know how often they're around. It would be great if you would take a look at the page history and revert the page moves. He's also changed a lot of the content, moving info from Electronica to the article that used to be about Electronic Dance music. This is causing a lot of confusions and it's going to take more than one of us to stop the loss of information.

The articles can certainly be improved with references, but they should still exist. The only way to deal with tendentious editing is for multiple editors to help with reversions. He's been watching everything I do, and he'll see your comment on the talk page, so don't be surprised if you get some strange messages from him on your talk page. Please do check the history of those pages and revert the vandalism of both page moves and content when you have a chance, that would be very helpful. Best Wishes --Parsifal _Hello 22:29, 19 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hello Unint. I have caused no vandalism. This man tried to accuse me of vandalism, the case was thrown out quickly spinning. We have a communication problem, I am very happy be friends and work improve wikipedia, please all calling me vandalism really hurts my feelings, I worked very hard yesterday, all day long, 24 hour. Unint, I am happy to discuss with you, I hope we can agree some misunderstandings, now progress from the current edit, anyone can edit wikipedia, be bold, no revert good faith ^-^ ok i feel sad and depressed and frustrated when you call me vandal becaue i really worked hard as ^-^ --Susume-eat 22:52, 19 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

Susume-eat, those words are manipulations, as anyone can see when they read the other words you've written. You came here with uncivil language and declared you were going to make changes without considering anyone else opinions. You made the following statement:

The word for this action in America is "being a pussy". They will say "get some balls" and just do it.

But you are smart, so since that comment, when you saw the response, you then learned how to write pretend-cooperation comments, while your actions show that you do not care even one bit what others think or what references they can produce. You have produced zero references to support what you're doing. I am sure that Unint will through your disingenous note. --Parsifal _Hello 23:30, 19 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

Parsifal please I beg you please stop making personal attacks against my name, it is very hurtful, it is depressing also, makes me feel sad, and also the comment is very "out of context", it makes me look awful when really I worked very hard and there is a lot of discussion there. How can I defend to myself, I feel like crying , I really worked so much of yesterday, 24 hours :-( --Susume-eat 23:41, 19 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

First, there are no personal attacks in my comments. I am discussing your actions, not you as a person. The fact is that your actions are disruptive and show no respect to other editors. And your comment I quoted is uncivil whatever the context.

As far as you feeling sad about how hard you worked, you could get more benefit from your work by doing some actual research and adding information and sources to improve Wikipedia instead of moving around articles against the consensus of other people.

If you do positive work and collaborate instead of ignoring and making fun of people, then your hard work will be recognized and appreciated, even by me. So you don't need to defend yourself, all you need to do is start working with people instead of against them. That will solve all problems. --Parsifal _Hello 23:59, 19 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

Unint, I don't know if I'll have time to respond to whatever else Suseme-eat posts here. I'm sure you see the situation clearly, whatever else he writes here. I hope you want to help restore the lost articles and if you do, please make whatever reversions you find appropriate. Thanks. --Parsifal _Hello 23:59, 19 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hi ... If you have a chance, would you take a look at this talk page section and article history of the page that used to be titled Electronic art music? Thanks --Parsifal _Hello 03:18, 4 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

I'm trying to figure out where you found Leslie Smith's middle name; except for some of your articles and one other site that doesn't make the connection clear, the most substantiative references I can find online are to "Leslie O. Smith".

Any pointers? –Unint 00:32, 18 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

(Sharp intake of breath.) Good question! I'm afraid I can't remember where I saw it.
I can remember seeing "Leslie O. Smith" many times, so on the occasion that I saw "Orlando", I noted it. But as I said, I'm afraid I can't remember where I saw it.
(And, of course, now I can't find that reference!)
I'll ask Freechild – he's good at finding things – and get back to you. Cheers, Pdfpdf 02:27, 18 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

P.S. Which is the "one other site that doesn't make the connection clear"? Pdfpdf 02:27, 18 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hi again. No, that wasn't the site I got the name from. I'll keep looking, and when (not if, when) I find it, I'll get back to you (unless Freechild finds it before I do!). As I'm away next week, it might be a couple of weeks before I reply. Sorry to be so vague and unhelpful. Cheers, Pdfpdf 12:41, 18 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

Found it!:

• http://therecordroom.com/Catalog/albumdetails/album1581.html
• http://www.therecordroom.com/Catalog/albumdetails/album1580.html

While looking, I also found:

• http://omahablues.com/forums/paul-mccartneys-guitar-player-t206.html?t=206
  • http://omahablues.com/forums/paul-mccartneys-guitar-player-t206.html?s=40ac82509a4fbdf165eb295d460fadab&p=292

(I haven't been able to check http://www.danubemusic.com/bio1.html)
(I was also surprised to see how many people mirror WP! e.g.:

http://0po0.com/Lester_Abrams

http://www.britain.tv/wikipedia.php?title=Lester_Abrams

http://www.medlibrary.org/medwiki/Lester_Abrams )

Hope this helps. Cheers, Pdfpdf 01:06, 19 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

Spotted you referenced the Cascone CMJ article, I remember reading this a few years back and thinking how badly researched it was, fact is he is plainly wrong about electronica, I have commented on this at the E page discussion, but let me refer you to this directly WIRE —Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.117.78.169 (talk) 21:29, 1 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for uploading File:Behind The Sun.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 07:30, 2 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for uploading File:The Future Sound of London Dead Cities album cover.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 06:24, 21 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for uploading File:Delerium Chimera album cover.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 19:44, 13 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for uploading File:Delerium Poem album cover.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 19:46, 13 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for uploading File:Chicane featuring Bryan Adams Don't Give Up single cover.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 21:47, 13 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

 

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Category:Technology navigational boxes, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Category:Technology navigational boxes has been empty for at least four days, and its only content has been links to parent categories. (CSD C1).

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Category:Technology navigational boxes, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. To see the user who deleted the page, click here CSDWarnBot (talk) 07:30, 20 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for uploading File:Philhits.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this image under "fair use" may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the image description page and add or clarify the reason why the image qualifies for fair use. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a fair use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for images used under the fair use policy require both a copyright tag and a fair use rationale.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it might be deleted by adminstrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 16:35, 8 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

Hi :) was it you who created the FSOL Dead Cities (album) page? How did you get album chart data? I have a really good comprehensive singles chart book but no album one, if you know where i could get FSOL top 40 or top 100 album positions from since they started that would be awesome. Thanks! :) ΤΕΡΡΑΣΙΔΙΩΣ(^Ταλκ) 19:16, 29 June 2008 (UTC)Reply

In case you missed it  — Mike.lifeguard | ^@en.wb 04:18, 9 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

I have nominated Category:Alberta musicians (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) for renaming to Category:Musicians from Alberta (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs). Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Many otters • One hammer • HELP)} 11:40, 9 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

 

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Behind the Sun (Chicane album). We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Behind the Sun (Chicane album). Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:10, 17 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

 

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Somersault (Chicane album). We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Somersault (Chicane album). Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:07, 26 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

I have nominated Category:Magazine compilation albums (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) for renaming to Category:Compilation albums included with magazines (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs). Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:18, 5 May 2010 (UTC)Reply

I have nominated Category:Music genre compilation albums (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) for renaming to Category:Compilation albums by genre (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs). Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:14, 8 May 2010 (UTC)Reply

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Solo: Songs and Collaborations 1982–2015, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Working Week and A Distant Shore. 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) 10:29, 21 August 2016 (UTC)Reply

Hello Unint! This message is to inform you that due to editing inactivity, your access to AutoWikiBrowser may be temporarily removed. If you do not resume editing within the next week, your username will be removed from the CheckPage. This is purely for routine maintenance and is not indicative of wrongdoing on your part. You may regain access at any time by simply requesting it at WP:PERM/AWB. Thank you! — MusikBot II ^talk 17:17, 30 May 2019 (UTC)Reply

 

The file File:Popupwiki3.gif has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

unused, low-res, no obvious use

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated files}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.

This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 01:01, 31 May 2019 (UTC)Reply

 

The file File:Popupwiki5.gif has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

unused, low-res, no obvious use

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated files}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.

Also:

• File:Popupwiki6.gif
• File:Popupwiki7.gif

This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 01:00, 6 June 2019 (UTC)Reply

 

The file File:Popupwiki4.gif has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

unused, low-res, no obvious use

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated files}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.

This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 01:00, 7 June 2019 (UTC)Reply

 

The file File:Popupwiki1.gif has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

unused, low-res, no obvious use

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated files}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.

Also:

• File:Popupwiki8.gif

This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 01:01, 10 June 2019 (UTC)Reply

 

The file File:Popupwiki2.gif has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

unused, low-res, no obvious use

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated files}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.

This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 01:02, 14 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

 

Category:Record label compilation albums, which you created, has been nominated for merging. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Jalen Folf (talk) 22:04, 18 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

 

Category:Fiction about magic has been nominated for deletion. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 16:19, 19 June 2021 (UTC)Reply

Hi. Your edit, in which you rewrote the "Plot" section, passed the 400-700 word band and became an 860-word section. Please try to shorten it to under 700 words, or your additions may be reverted. ภץאคгöร 12:53, 14 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of Sayonara, Zetsubou-Sensei episodes, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Maker's mark. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar 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) 07:56, 27 August 2024 (UTC)Reply