User talk:Kiac

Leave a message, click New Section! ^^

Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2

Saw your question on Talk:21st Century Breakdown and thought you should know: the WP:ALBUMS standards have changed due to consensus that external links ought to be provided in the form of citations. See Wikipedia:ALBUM#Professional reviews for the new MoS wording. --IllaZilla (talk) 18:10, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bruce's comment has achieved enough coverage to warrant Delicious referring to Rioli. Everyone around the club calls him that now, if you were a true Hawthorn fan you would too. You need to loosen up and quit crying so much. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.7.165.91 (talk) 07:17, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What are you talking about? What I did was revert genre vandalism by a single purpose account whose sole mission is to remove the completely verified and accurate "pop rock" from all Nickelback related articles. I just had mistakenly reverted further back than I needed to; simple error.

And since you didn't completely revert my edit - you actually kept the change that I intended to make, but reverted the sales source, you must have made more than just a cursory glance, which means you must have read my edit summary, which leads me to ask why didn't you notice it was a simple oversight? I will now remove your "warning", as it is erroneous. Cheers! 123.211.141.151 (talk) 11:40, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey man, no worries. 123.211.141.151 (talk) 11:51, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure why you feel it is necessary to include "poor" references when there are also good ones in there. In other words, two genre references is enough to fend off genre warriors, and there's no great reason to ignore rules simply for that reason.

I could easily be missing something- but it seems the remaining reliable sources should be fine.

Cheers, tedder (talk) 06:42, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps checking what was actually deleted and coming to an educated conclusion as to why something so obviously useless was deleted in the first place might help you in future ventures as well. Don't be so quick to revert stuff if you can't be bothered to actually read. —Preceding unsigned comment added by The Real Stucco (talk • contribs) 11:17, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am well aware of how to sign my name on wiki, thanks for the useless batch of info. I said what I had to say and you said what you had to say, we can both work on being better editors. Stay off my page with this crap though. I am not going to have a worthless pissing match with you, you are more than welcome to keep what you want on your page as i am with mine. If you want to leave it up on yours, good for you. I don't want useless crap on mine, do not revert MY page again. Savy? The Real Stucco (talk) 05:56, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I'm not sure how this works with user's talk pages and stuff, but you said to talk to you on your talk page, and then there's all these people just asking questions and stuff....I'm just not sure I understand what I'm supposed to do when I talk on here? lol --Zzguitar14 (talk) 14:34, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Eh, I just never use Wikipedia, so Idk, am I supposed to respond to you on MY talk page or on yours? --Zzguitar14 (talk) 01:49, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just curious; you do plan to respond to me right? --Zzguitar14 (talk) 05:17, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is true, however, that there first two songs have charted at #26 and #28 so far, which is pretty high on the Billboard Hot 100. I don't know how accurate that chart is, but if they knew of the presumed popularity of the two singles, I think they would be trying to pick the best ones for commercial use....I don't know, though. --Zzguitar14 (talk) 05:38, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Right, yeah. I'd say that there won't be any more successful singles from that album, although I don't know about some songs. Some people judge songs on lyrics, some on the tune, some on both, and some on other aspects of the song. So I'm thinking that the lyrical content is not all of what's got to do with it.

And besides, a big way that a song can get popular is due to sales (including digital downloads and CD sales), and since it's Green Day, you could imagine that a lot of people are probably going to make downloads and buy the CD single. --Zzguitar14 (talk) 06:29, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah that sounds about right; I do think it's a shared effort, however. And that's pretty weird....about the CDs in Australia.... --Zzguitar14 (talk) 07:14, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh and I wanted to ask you something about what charts are allowed on here. Does Wikipedia not allow people to put up the "World Singles" chart? Because I think that would be, like, the most notable chart in the world, lol. --Zzguitar14 (talk) 02:28, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've added citation tags to the statements left by User:Kitagz regarding the Triple J Hottest 100 results. Would you like me to move them out of their own sections as well?--^{The Legendary}_{Sky Attacker} 07:45, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You should know that User:Jakers 78 is a sock of User:USEDfan who was banned over a year ago and has made numerous new accounts since then. In the last year, the other editors that knew him simply as USEDfan would block the new accounts on sight. I figured that maybe after a year he would have changed, but I have come to find that was quite the mistake. He will be ignoring any discussion and editing pages how he sees fit. I will be tracking down one of the other editors that dealt with him previously probably sometime today to get him blocked again. Fezmar9 (talk) 15:35, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yea, I noticed that the Brand New article had a practically new section written for the upcoming album every time I popped my head in. I will see what I can do. Looks like it's just ref issues, yes? Fezmar9 (talk) 16:40, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Once is enough?.. That sure seems rude... I guess I just don't understand the protocol for the discussion page... The reason that I re-entered my comment was that I thought that the person that responded to me (who's comment is still showing on the discussion page) had accidentally deleted my comment... Are you saying that my comment isn't worthy of further viewing or discussion?... I would love it if you would explain to me the discussion protocol so that I will act correctly.(Cindy10000 (talk) 16:23, 22 July 2009 (UTC)).[reply]

Thanks for the help. I'm relatively new to Wikipedia and still find it difficult to navigate communication procedure and to understand proper general protocol. It's good to know that constructive argument is welcomed. I really believe that this subject needs to be re-evaluated.(Cindy10000 (talk) 17:41, 22 July 2009 (UTC)).[reply]

I apologise for not fixing the links to The Betrayed film. I will work on this after writing the album article. As the "fourth studio album" article was always redirected fortwith, it didn't actually occur to me to move the article, especially as it would have to go over a redirect. The versions created before aren't really the same article, and every time it has been redirected before it has been because there is no title or reliable info on release etc. That has changed now. I must admit I forgot that articles on this album have been attempted before, but really they could have been deleted, but redirecting was easier. I don't see their edit histories being overly useful. I'm trying to create a good article before a rubbish one comes along and gets deleted, because I believe there's enough info for it now. And don't worry, I will hunt down and include sources across the article; I'm just concentrating on getting it written first. U-Mos (talk) 14:02, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A semi-protected edit request was performed, to amend the figures for MJ to 750m. This request was reverted. Therefore, I have started a fresh discussion thread, in Talk:List_of_best-selling_music_artists#Michael Jackson (again).

I see that you contributed to the previous discussions, which is why I am leaving you this note.

I remain neutral on the issue; I hope that we can form a consensus.

I am asking any and all interested parties to please make brief, policy-based arguments as to whether or not the edit should be made.

Thanks,  Chzz  ►  21:10, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Chzz  ►  07:28, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

if you read Thugs-n-Harmonyharout section in best selling artist Harout72 says articles published by major record companies such as Sony Music are acceptable but for michael jackson its different why is this —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.2.6.43 (talk) 03:03, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

i gave you this messsage beacuse for some reason i am not allowed to edit the best selling artist talk page —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.2.6.43 (talk) 04:45, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Did some detailed history searching. Results are at WP:ANI#Serial Venezuelan Katy Perry vandal.—Kww(talk) 19:24, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've tried to summarize the debate; I'm not quite sure what your opinion is on the matter, hence I didn't list you in support or oppose. Feel free to do so. Please see Talk:List_of_best-selling_music_artists#Michael_Jackson.2C_summary_and_further_discussion. Hopefully, it's somewhat less tl;dr now! Cheers,  Chzz  ►  03:46, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

if you read Thugs-n-Harmonyharout section in best selling artist Harout72 says articles published by major record companies such as Sony Music are acceptable but for michael jackson its different why is this —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.2.6.43 (talk) 03:03, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

i gave you this messsage beacuse for some reason i am not allowed to edit the best selling artist talk page —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.2.6.43 (talk) 04:45, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

it does not seem right

POKERdance ^talk/contribs 22:09, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

POKERdance ^talk/contribs 03:16, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll have to go adjust the sourcing guide. It's clearly on the compilation chart, per http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio1/chart/compilations.shtml . Apparently Zobbel is blurring the charts. Per chartstats.com, the only Hannah Montana album that has ever made the official UK album chart is "Best of Both Worlds".—Kww(talk) 03:22, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Won't have to adjust anything. The sourcing guide doesn't recommend using Zobbel, and the Basic CLUK Rules at http://www.zobbel.de/ clearly state that it includes the compilation chart.—Kww(talk) 03:29, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It was definitely not fan made. It was with the girl from the JOS video singing Whatsername in front of the camera. It was most certainly not fan made, you should check it out sometime. The video's pretty lame too...lol —Preceding unsigned comment added by RickWilliams75 (talk • contribs) 22:26, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am trying to find a new way to show/not show info in discographies. That article looks like any other FL-Class Discography articles, but a reader may get more information about a recording simply by clicking the "show" link in the Additional info hidden table for that recording, and that would be great! Can you please check The Clash discography out if you have the time? Cheers. 12:01, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

The Beatles discography has track-listings and there is also a discussion on "Track Listings". I'll think about that and make a proposal at WP:DISCOGS.
In regard with The Clash discography, I have to confess that I created those three sections //o\\. I thought it was best to add those sections to that article for trying to make it more readable. On the other hand, the {{Infobox Artist Discography}} and the TOC feature different items... I think I will do nothing for now. If someone decides to move everything in the lead sections, I will not oppose. I think that they never charted in Australia, but I will try to find more international charts. I really don't like that UK-US Singles separation. Also, a couple of singles are not listed there because they were released in other countries... so I have to work on it. Probably, I will merge them into one list. I have tried to find out something about "Music videos" at MOS:DISCOG and on Wikipedia, but have not yet found anything that would help. In the '80s, with the launch of MTV and the advent of the Audio CD, Promo Singles were gradually replaced by Promo Videos, Singles by Music Videos, and Vinyl by CD. Before the '80s bands, musicians and their producers chose which pieces would become the single(s) from an album. Now, the pieces are chosen to become Music Videos, and MVs are often used for promoting albums. So, I thought to add that column. About the Filmography, if I remember well that section was removed from the main article, so I decided to include it in the Discography (but I'm not sure about that). I know it is the wrong place to put it, but I will work on it too.
Anyway, I will take all your suggestions into [great-great] consideration. Thank you for your prompt and very helpful reply. All the best. –pjoef (talk • contribs) 17:53, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I forgot to say about the Filmography/Videography of The Clash.... You are right, This is Video Clash is a compilation of music videos, and same for The Essential Clash, which also features 2-CD, Hell W10, a b/w silent film written and directed by Joe Strummer, a promo footage, and an interview. The Clash: Westway to the World has been awarded Best Long Form Music Video at the Grammy Awards in 2003, but it's a doc-rockumentary exactly like The Clash: Up Close and Personal, Joe Strummer: The Future Is Unwritten, and The Clash Live: Revolution Rock. I've copied the Filmography and Singles sections on a scratch page of mine, so I can separate films from video albums, and combine all the singles in one table.

• What about having the Box sets subsection??? The Discography Infobox does not provide a field for them, so the link is showed at the end of the infobox and in the right place on the TOC.

I like those extensive/massive info in discogs (^___^). You do not have to jump from one page to another in order to find information about track listings, writers, labels, producers... it is all in one place, but that's just my opinion. –pjoef (talk • contribs) 10:39, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks for the advice. As you have suggested, I will wait and see. –pjoef (talk • contribs) 15:29, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

haha. You got me. BUT IT WILL HAPPEN! I WILL MARRY ALEX GASKARTH! damn you. (; —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ohhaiitscarolyn (talk • contribs) 08:09, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

true, but so do I. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ohhaiitscarolyn (talk • contribs) 00:21, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

From what i have read, u seem to be stretching things, for a supposed expert, and appear to be distorting sources to put the band in a less favourable light. You seem to be playing cowboy, and downplaying certain "professional" aspects of certain reviews, with bias towards larger sources from a negative standpoint, as indicated by the reviews left in. While claiming others as unfavorable and illegal just because u don't like them. Bit of a stretch. --CosmicLegg (talk) 00:04, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect you have sockpuppeting problems, too, but that's hard to prove. For now, stop reverting. I think you are going to have to open an RFC on the topic to get more eyes on it. You are right that the set of reviews they are trying to insert are pretty ludicrous.—Kww(talk) 09:49, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Youhavebeenthunderstruck—Kww(talk) 14:02, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not too surprising, but it was all one editor. I've requested semi-protection of the article as well.—Kww(talk) 17:53, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Who are you to say what is professional and what is not? RRR is NOT a personal blog, so it falls within the rules. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.63.104.143 (talk) 10:23, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Professional? Sure, we're not as large or popular as Rolling Stone or Blender, but that doesn't make our review devoid of meaning.

Your point about 'qualified journalists' is slightly phased. Do AbsolutePunk.net have 'qualified journalists'? Are their opinions always respected? No - yet their reviews are everywhere. Their writers however, are good. Similarly, we have very high standards when selecting reviewing staff. We don't just find any d00d from a music forum. Linking our reviews provides an well written, informative review for readers of Wikipedia - often when there are only one or two other reviews to choose from for that particular album. Why not provide that information?

We may not be a reputable or huge website - we're a site covering generally underground bands, so by definition, we're not going to be 'Rolling Stone'. 'Blender' and 'Rolling Stone' are NOT our contemporaries - AbsolutePunk.net is the most reputable site which covers similar content. We are incredibly good at what we do, as has been acknowledged by the labels and publicists we deal with - we deal with pretty much most indie labels. Going back to my point about 'underground bands', you won't be seeing a review of a band like Between The Trees in Blender - this is the music we cover, not Blender. Without our review being linked, there would perhaps only be one review there. Why limit knowledge?

I certainly don't see us as being 'alike 10,000 sites'. To my knowledge, there are less than 10 sites who cover essentially, similar content to us - and this is our business to know, so please don't spit out figures like this.

To cover your point about advertising.. yeah, we are. Please remember however, we're not forcing anyone to read our reviews, and we're not fooling anyone into clicking a link. Looking at today's traffic statistics, I can see that many people have been referred from Wikipedia - so people are choosing to click the links, or extra information, that we've provided.

Please take what I've said into consideration. Sadly, you seem insistent on bringing us down, but I hope you'll read and understand my argument. We are adding to Wikipedia, not taking anything away.

Kindest regards, Denis (ReviewRinseRepeat Staff) —Preceding unsigned comment added by DenisatRRR (talk • contribs) 12:57, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

First off, thank you for being reasonable.

I have no idea how you saw us on The Used's page, as we have never covered The Used in terms of reviews (http://www.reviewrinserepeat.com/?s=%22the+used%22) - just a few news posts.

I really and genuinely believe that we have something that sets us apart from other webzines which cover similar content (Quality, professionalism), but I really don't wish to spend time debating this. In standards of reputability, we may not meet Wikipedia's standards. In standards of quality, I feel that we certainly do.

We will continue to link to reviews of smaller bands. This benefits both Wikipedia, us, and the band. We will avoid pages which already have many reviews from more 'reputable' sources, such as the aforementioned bands (AFI, The Used).

Again, thanks for being reasonable, fair and supportive.

Regards, -Denis —Preceding unsigned comment added by DenisatRRR (talk • contribs) 13:47, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Saosin. That makes senses. Thank you! —Preceding unsigned comment added by DenisatRRR (talk • contribs) 13:57, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'd appreciate your two cents/pence here. Thanks. Rafablu88 13:09, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In the interest of ending edit warring, I'm going to respect the deletion of the review. I maintain that the site is not a blog but a website with a paid staff composed of professional journalists. The personal blog rules should not apply to it. In this case, it should remain in the article until the larger publications release reviews and there's no longer room for this one. Spidercomrade (talk) 22:21, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's not my website, but it is on its own domain (www.apolloscred.com). Spidercomrade (talk) 15:22, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What's up, man. I did a review of this record and I've got published on absolutepunk as an user review. So, I think it's a very in depth and thought out review, I've worked my ass off on it. I'm trying to find a venue where my review can be qualified as good enough to be on wiki. I find the fact of the review been on ap.net hillarious, since it's well known the bias the website has with this band. I have published the review on my tumbler and my sputnikmusic account too.

So, could you help me getting my review linked over there? I don't want to brag, but I really think it's worthy the reading, I just don't know if it's possible.

Thanks for your time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Antiscene (talk • contribs) 15:10, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was wondering why the a article was so good. As most AFL articles are very poor. Well done. I can have a look over if you want? It's hard with Rioli because no books are out about him yet. Aaroncrick (talk) 21:44, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If the lead was expanded, you could possibly go for GAN. Aaroncrick (talk) 22:04, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wasn't the goal against Richmond end up being goal of the year? Aaroncrick (talk) 22:11, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good work. If you do go for GAN, give me a buzz and I'll review the article if you like. Aaroncrick (talk) 11:05, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Great Job! Well feeling a bit lazy and have a few others to review but if no one has reviewed the article by the weekend I should be able to start. Some Sports articles take a few months to get reviewed... Aaroncrick (talk) 06:08, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry been busy. You may be interested/want to comment on the discussion about stats.rleague at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/York Park/archive2. As the site is used in the Rioli article. Aaroncrick (talk) 10:18, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your research. I would be quick to remove the source if there were others but in this case there isn't. If removed, stuff about crowds would as well. Aaroncrick (talk) 12:14, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Congrats :) Aaroncrick (talk) 08:29, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks mate! :D k.i.a.c (talktome - contribs) 09:28, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On September 21, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article The Sundance Kids (band), which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

BorgQueen (talk) 04:08, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Kiac,

Apologies for that. I just though I'd be a better source of verification to have an image of the reivew. But as you point out, that is most likely breaching copy right laws! I'll stick to the normal citaion rules.

Cheers! LostLikeTearsInRain (talk) 15:20, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Chzz  ►  19:17, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FEEL GOOD DRAG

I added a reference for IP address 69.37.32.11 since you undid his/her revision. I researched and found the information and cited it. Please do not undo this change please. He never stated that the songs success was ONLY and directly a result of the homosexual community. Please dont delete the information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Navysoccerboi7 (talk • contribs) 13:58, 29 September 2009 Navysoccerboi7 (talk) 14:12, 29 September 2009 (UTC) [reply]

If I only knew how to block you from making deletions to pages with notable info, I WOULD!

Hi. Thanks for your suggestions as to the review of Written Roads.

Would the following block quote addition be OK in your opinion? Or is there anything that you think I should take out? The article is very short as it is -- I just want to make sure that I am not putting in anything that is innappropriate, by Wiki album standards.

Seventeen reviewed the CD in August 2009, writing of it:

The vibe: Indie folk-rock mixed with a little R&B. Very Dixie Chicks meets Indigo Girls.

Why you should listen: These three gorgeous girls wrote most of the songs on their new album themselves! Their original sound was dubbed "cosmo country" — a blend of city pop with folk. Love it!

Our fave songs: Give a Little Take a Little, Wrong from the Start.^[1]

Many thanks.--Epeefleche (talk) 10:00, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Quoting the entire text of a review, yeah, that would be great. But hey, this just shows how desperate you and this band are, if this skimpy review is the best you can get. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 14:29, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's a tad sad that you follow someone around an entire website trying to get a single article deleted. k.i.a.c (talktome - contribs) 05:19, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have opened a discussion in Talk:The Resistance (album)#Track_Listing_2 regarding your removal of the {{tracklist}} template in the article on The Resistance - I am trying to gain consensus on whether or not the template should be used. Feel free to leave your opinion there. --Ali ^(t)_(c) 07:43, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for letting me know, I have replied. k.i.a.c (talktome - contribs) 08:17, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there - not related to wiki sorry....do you know of any good Aussie Music Books that deal in early chart stats and sales? Much appreciated if you do. Eight88 (talk) 08:25, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for your help :) Eight88 (talk) 17:42, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just wondering if you'd like to review Intimacy over at FAC. It's had a lot of extensive reviews (2 nominations so far) so it shouldn't be too demanding or time consuming as it's relatively snappy. What it's lacking is mainly verdicts I guess or any more tweaks that need to be done. I'd appreciate the help. RB88 (T) 20:10, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done :) k.i.a.c (talktome - contribs) 06:00, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review. When you have time, revisit. I also started a discussion about Uncut on the wp:albums talk page. I'd appreciate a vote. RB88 (T) 15:51, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It appears you have not read the application of some templates from Wikipedia, I did get this from Template:Discography list where as an example Social Distortion discography. But even so, you must realize in the discographies should apply this, the albums can be studio albums, compilation albums, live albums, extended play, and so on. Thus I consider it not only I can see that most of the articles discographies are well, I'm not the only one. On the other hand I think you ought to be more tolerant of the contributions of others. For that we are here to help. Thanks. --Dan6hell66 (talk) 20:31, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Musicomh2009.gif. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude (talk) 06:24, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. I checked flickr and there were no free images so I sent the two users a version of the informal image request at WP:ERP and emailed one of them a second time because he initially only wanted a NC license, so I explained to him why that's not enough and linked to http://freedomdefined.org/Licenses/NC. Regards Hekerui (talk) 12:01, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

look at Blink-182's page. it states that their name is ocassionally spelled "blink-182." why wouldnt Relient K being written as Relient k not matter?--Krazycev 13 13:42, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Of course. I failed to look over the consensus guidelines, so I really don't feel that it is necessary to argue something that, as you stated, is quite trivial. Sorry about the trouble.--Krazycev 13 21:13, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Because they were only relesed in one place they weren't needed. Underneath I added a note saying which songs they were, which country's they were released and what number they charted. Jayy008 (talk) 14:05, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's a much better way rather than an empty singles discography. I will keep an eye on it from now on to see if someone changes it back, if you could do the same that would be appreciated! Jayy008 (talk) 15:05, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry citations weren't posted earlier. I had some trouble finding past articles where newspapers etc. questioned the credibility of the site. BLARE Magazine is not an unprofessional blog run by some randoms. Sure, the staff are students, but they're non-profit and they function like any other publication as they have strong ties with Canadian music labels such as Universal Canada and Warner Music Canada, Live Nation and a handful of music venues in Toronto. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.230.239.19 (talk) 16:13, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have reported Rjanag at the ANI here based on what I believe was grossly uncivil behavior during the Epeefleche/Shells affair. You should know that I cited some of your comments. Regards - Draeco (talk) 06:22, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I really liked your old signature. Was so unique :) --Legolas ^(talk2me) 11:21, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ahahaha! I thought it was time for a change :P Kiac (talk) 12:32, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are involved in a recently-filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Rjanag and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—

• Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Requesting Arbitration;
• Wikipedia:Arbitration guide.

Thanks, --Epeefleche (talk) 22:08, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The certifications were a nightmare: open up {{singlecert}} and look at the code for France and Sweden. Anyway, it's done. Let me know what you think.—Kww(talk) 13:31, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Your submission of MusicOMH at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 02:12, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the two reviews. kiac. (talk-contrib) 02:22, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Have corrected his birthdate - check out this article - it would seem that someone has fallen for his eternal youth theory. Dan arndt (talk) 05:20, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On October 29, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Cycles (Cartel album), which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

SoWhy 17:15, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

		The Barnstar of Diplomacy
		For THAT edit summary on musicOMH. Nicely done. RB88 (T) 23:34, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lol. Cheers. kiac. (talk-contrib) 12:17, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

heh, the reviews were solid, and I've seen them on other pages with no one whining, but I guess if you're a fall of troy fanboy who is hurt by seeing an album he likes receive poor reviews, that can't be helped.

I won't bother reverting any more changes, —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.152.136.48 (talk) 15:28, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am trying to keep the often stylized as blink-182 on the page because bands like .moneen. and korn are kept to their typesets in parentheses after the titles of the pages. Wikipedia does not allow titles to begin with a lowercase, and since majority of the band's name is listed with a lowercase it is fair to the band to keep how they try to spell it —Preceding unsigned comment added by TheRobbEllisonShow (talk • contribs) 02:19, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A Request for Comments has been opened concerning the conduct of Rjanag. This follows the suggestion of a number of arbitrators at the Rjanag RfA. I am contacting you because you are mentioned in this RfC.

The RfC can be found here.

Editors (including those who certify the RfC) can offer comments by:

(a) posting their own view; and/or

(b) endorsing one or more views of others.

You may certify or endorse the original RfC statement. You may also endorse as many views as you wish, including Rjanag's response. Anyone can endorse any views, regardless of whether they are outside parties or inside parties.

Information on the RfC process can be found at:

1. RfC Conduct
2. RfC Guide
3. RfC Guide 2
4. RfC Rules

Thanks.--Epeefleche (talk) 09:56, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, I should have added an edit summary. Thank you.T.tyrael (talk) 12:46, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In regards to adding the album reviews from BLARE Magazine, it's for supporting and promoting the artists, not for personal fame. I know for a fact the website doesn't make any profit for it's work and is solely meant to support musicians. Plus a lot of review sections posted in Wikipedia articles have critiques from the U.S. and England so they add a Canadian media point of view.

• So do other accounts owned by media outlets do other things than just add reviews that support artists? Because it doesn't seem like it all.

Shesastrutter (talk) 02:02, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you have the time, Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Gwen Stefani discography/archive3 needs eyes. Thanks, Dabomb87 (talk) 15:14, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On November 25, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article The Positives (album), which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Materialscientist (talk) 19:42, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On November 26, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Alter the Ending, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Materialscientist (talk) 01:50, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's done. I contacted an admin and he blocked the page for non-logged users. So, that IP (or any other IP) won't be able to edit the article anymore. Decodet (talk) 15:54, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for doing the cleanup, I'll add an image or two, Dan's drum exhibits the er, artwork for Artwork, so it is appropriate.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:20, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Your submission of In the Room Up There at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Calmer Waters 02:11, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

how can I nominate an article for deletion? --SveroH (talk) 16:17, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ok, tnx :) --SveroH (talk) 20:09, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not attack other editors, as you did at User talk:71.96.121.172. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. 猛禽22 ^•• 02:46, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

F-22, besides WP:DNTTR, are you talking about this edit by Kiac? If not, exactly what are you referring to? tedder (talk) 02:56, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So, I'm pretty sure those fags get a lot more pussy than you, loser. is not considered an attack then?--猛禽22 ^•• 02:59, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah it was a bit over the top, sorry. I really should quit this place, sick of the exposure I get to the stupidity of the common person. kiac. (talk-contrib) 04:16, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bear in mind it was regarding this edit, where he senselessly called the band fags. So it's not like I just pulled what I said from nowhere, it was more a reply to his idiotic statement. Everything I said was true, I also believe it was an attack on the content he posted. What kind of idiot writes that? You need to be bagged for taking the time to add that to a Wikipedia page. Absolute nitwit, and is this really worth some kind of template? I already know it's wrong to bag someone, but some deserve it. Can't argue against that. kiac. (talk-contrib) 04:22, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I hadn't seen that. Yeah, don't make a habit of it. Sometimes we want to get the cluestick out. That's when I usually go to User talk:Baseball Bugs for some insanity. tedder (talk) 04:33, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude (talk) 07:25, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete it, page was redirected. kiac. (talk-contrib) 10:45, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On December 8, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article In the Room Up There, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

⇌ Jake Wartenberg 18:14, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Spin rating is based on the rating of the user that are log in in the site and The Guardian is a community, so they violate the wikipedia criteria. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.47.183.29 (talk) 12:59, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The IP is continuing to remove those reviews... I have reverted twice already. Should we consider escalating this to get some further input/sanctions...? Nouse4aname (talk) 14:04, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Spin rating is based on the rate of the users that are log in the site (from the website "Login or Register to rate this item."). The Guardian rating is unreliable because you can sign in the site and edit the review. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.47.183.29 (talk) 16:43, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have posted a request for comment here. Nouse4aname (talk) 09:27, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps we should try and get the page protected... Nouse4aname (talk) 15:57, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to be protected now. I think the IPs are the same user. Probably using home/school/friends internet access... Nouse4aname (talk) 09:03, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I see, you requested protection, good job. I won't be around for a day or two now, thanks for sorting this... Nouse4aname (talk) 09:10, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Those damned IPs are at it again. My attempts to redirect Edge of the Earth to the album article as per WP:MUSIC are reverted without discussion by the same IPs as were causing chaos with This Is War. Fancy trying to persuade them they are wrong? I've already requested page protection but doubt it will work... Nouse4aname (talk) 15:34, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, File:AnberlincitiesSEDVD.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Peripitus (Talk) 15:05, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for providing a meaningful edit summary! -- 188.222.50.68 (talk) 14:28, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This IP has done nothing but change several pages just for music genres to label everything emo along with recent straight up vandalism to a few pages. I really don't want to revert everything that's been done since it's a lot. Just looking for some help. 24.110.124.227 (talk) 23:10, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry. That was me leaving this first message. Didn't realize I wasn't signed in. DX927 (talk) 23:16, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please join this discussion, as a frequent contributor the record charts page, your opinion would be helpful. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Mariah_Carey_discography#Glitter_and_Merry_Christmas

Thank you. Jamie Jayy008 (talk) 01:22, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

hello!

while i was hoping that putting information about Weezerpedia on the Weezer page would help promote the site, i also think that it is information that could belong on Weezer's wiki entry as well. Do you think it belongs on the page at all? There's an external link to it already. Because you completely outrank me as an editor, i'd like to ask for some help. --JasonDaniel123 23:24, 9 January 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by JasonDaniel123 (talk • contribs)

there is a link to it on the main page of weezer.com, and people involved with the band have provided positive feedback about it. no band members have had anything to do with it as of it. but Rivers Cuomo's assistant,who plays a large role in the activities of the band and is named Sarah Kim, and provided feedback, and Karl Koch, who is the webmaster, historian, and unofficial fifth member of the band has talked to fans about it numerous times. I apologize for any type of inappropriate edits. I'm a big supporter of Wikipedia and would never want to hurt it. --JasonDaniel123 —Preceding undated comment added 05:22, 13 January 2010 (UTC).[reply]

This kid is really starting to annoy me. First the constant reversions to This Is War and now attempting to overturn the AfD redirect of Edge of the Earth claiming that the AfD is "old"! It is clear to me that the various IPs are all this same person (as per WP:DUCK)! I have asked User:Ged_UK to take a look into his editing to see what can be done to end this nonsense. Anyway, just a heads up for you to keep an eye on these two pages! Cheers Nouse4aname (talk) 14:41, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User:ItHysteria seems to also follow the same editing pattern, and magically appeared out of nowhere just after This Is War became protected from IPs and Loverdrive was blocked. Perhaps it's time to file an SPI. Fezmar9 (talk) 17:20, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"I didn't want to hurt your feelings. Your site is a completely unprofessional amatuer blog, ran on a free webhosting server - it fails WP:RS and WP:ALBUM."

You probably had a bad day and it's none of my business, but that attack on my own and my colleague's work was a bit uncalled for, wasn't it?

But well that's beside the point. I read the WP:RS and WP:ALBUM pages attentively but I fail to see where my site doesn't fit in. Also you should check in your definition of "blog" just because the site I'm involved in uses software that was originally intended for web logs doesn't mean it's a blog.

Second, I don't know where you got the idea we were using a free webhosting server (perhaps because of the subdomain) but if you checked carefully you'd know our host has other hosting plans other than the free one. And guess what, we are paying for them to host our site.

And third, I know you're probably pissed at me for "advertising my site", but before you happily take out my contribution you'd better check out what you are doing and actually justify your reasons. Calling names isn't justifying. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.144.132.118 (talk) 19:28, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I'm sort of new to editing Wikipedia.  :) I noticed that there is a citation notification at the top of The Rocket Summer page. I've been editing a lot, putting in a lot of the citations as needed. Do you know how these notifications are removed? Curious to know. Thanks! Joannakwong (talk) 12:57, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your help! Joannakwong (talk) 10:45, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm aware that flagicons aren't usually placed in the infoboxes for articles, but just out of curiosity; what is the reason why they're not supposed to be there? - GunMetal Angel 19:57, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Basically because there is simply no reason or need for them. See MOS:FLAG, as I put in the edit summary, it brings a couple of immediate issues to light. One main one being "Use of flag templates without country names is also an accessibility issue". And the reason why I will remove them so bluntly usually, is that there is only supposed to be one (the original) release date in the infobox per WP:ALBUM. kiac. (talk-contrib) 22:48, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Kiac,
could you be a tad more conservative with rollback usage in the future? Some recent reverts (1 2 3) weren't quite in line with policy, I believe, and could have used a more explanatory edit summary.
Thank you, Amalthea 12:56, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Noted. I know I should really be using undo for those edits, but I do end up using rollback because of the frequency of seeing those sort of senseless things happen over and over (eg. adding Wikilinks to terms which self-redirect...?). kiac. (talk-contrib) 08:02, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I know the feeling, it's often obvious for established editors that an edit isn't productive, but if we don't give feedback to the user who made it, it's hard for them to learn the ropes (besides WP:BITE).
Out of interest (and to possibly improve the interface): Did you make those edits using the rollback links in your watchlist, or somewhere else? Amalthea 11:01, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I usually go down the watchlist and pick out the edits which appear to be more likely unproductive, then go to the difs and rollback from there. The thing is, a lot of the time you're not biting a new editor, you're biting someone who has come here to change something completely insignificant, like say a genre or something. Wikipedia does nothing to help us out for these repeated acts, so I've just ended up rollbacking because wasting time on posting edit summaries goes no where - if they do ask I'm more than happy to give them a sufficient response. kiac. (talk-contrib) 01:29, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you keep changing my contributions to Alex.He is my younger brother and what i write is fact.Check me out on youtube under "oliver lloyd yesterday". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alex lloyds brother oliver (talk • contribs) 08:19, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We are in no way trying to spam or advertise our website as we don't receive that many views anyway. We are more motivated by the fact of supporting artists and their work. Several musicians/bands have encouraged us to include it on their Wikipedia page so it can stand out as it is a professional review as we are a credible music website in Canada.

The website is non-profit and from day one, has always been about supporting the artist. That's why we have certain credentials, a sense of professionalism and the ability to feature artists of all genres and popularity.

Shesastrutter (talk) 15:24, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

By what criteria should we judge this? Is it based on how much money the company makes or something?

I ask because you removed a couple links that I added to the Sea of Cowards page. You said, "Removed unprofessional reviews. Sputnik needs to be a staff review. Blare is an ongoing promotional attempt by owners/users of the site."

I didn't have anything to do with Blare, but I found the Sputnik review (and one other) through Google and they seemed better than about a dozen others that I read. Also, could you please elaborate on the "staff review" comment?

Thadoctuh (talk) 17:03, 11 May 2010 (UTC) [trying to help, trying to learn][reply]

-You pointed me to some information that I didn't know existed (WP:ALBUM/REVSIT) and I've got a much better idea about how things work now. I still think some of the "professional" reviews from "reputable" sources are not worth linking to and the list will definitely help.

Thanks. Thadoctuh (talk) 19:23, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude2 (talk) 03:12, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 04:08, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 04:08, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 14:56, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 14:56, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User_talk:189.106.28.197#Writing_credits

I didn't though. -_-
--189.106.28.197 (talk) 15:41, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 23:38, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 23:40, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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) 13:32, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cyril Rioli, an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for an individual good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. - Yellow Dingo (talk) 02:33, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As an Australian Wikipedian, your opinion is sought on a proposal to advocate for the introduction of Fair Use into Australian copyright law. The discussion is taking place at the Australian Wikipedians' notice board, please read the proposal and comment there. MediaWiki message delivery MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:08, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This message has been automatically sent to all users in Category:Australian Wikipedians. If you do not wish to receive further messages like this, please either remove your user page from this category, or add yourself to Category:Opted-out of message delivery

Dear Kiac,

My name is Devon Freebern from a small town band from Upstate New York, we are not big or anything but we'd like a Wikipedia page for future promotion. We would like to assign you the task of creating this page if you are willing to do it. I came across your name on the Alternative Rock WikiProject page as a member committed to the project. I saw you were interested in anything and I believe you are willing to do this for me, so I think this task is perfect for you! Please email me if you accept my offer, through email I will give you any questions and our Facebook link concerning the page.

Sincerely,

DRF | SIBENAVO

Email me at: dfreebern@students.fulton.cnyric.org — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sibenavo (talk • contribs) 15:36, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Kiac! 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 20:19, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Crying Sun Records to redirect/merge it with Radio Birdman, your comments/feedback are welcome at Crying Sun Records merger proposal. Dan arndt (talk) 10:19, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:37, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:38, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:39, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Category:Ellington (band) albums requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:24, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:45, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 00:55, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Soundwave08Aus.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:23, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Soundwave09Aus.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:24, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]