User talk:Alankc/Archive 2

Hi
Please always make sure that you use the rollback tool only to undo blatantly unconstructive edits. This revert to Kelly Clarkson did not fall in that category. Although I do agree that such vague info should not be added to encyclopedic articles, an unexplained revert is not the way to do this. Jackgill06 is an experienced editor who added the information in good faith, with a source. He and others editors deserve an explanation why you removed it. Not giving one only leads to editwarring (and, actually, removal of the rollback right, if it's regularly misused).
Regards, Amalthea 18:49, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Generally, if you are nominating numerous items created by the same user for deletion, it is better to simply inform them of this with a a single message you write yourself, rather than "template bombing" their talk page with 20 automated messages. When using Twinkle, you always have the option to uncheck the "notify user if possible" box in the upper left hand corner of the Twinkle edit window. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:29, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you putting my created page Look For Me (Chipmunk song) up for deletion

I've reverted your recent edit to Already Gone (Kelly Clarkson song). If you're removing something per some guideline, you would be well advised to read it beforehand. WP:YOUTUBE links are okay as long as they are not WP:LINKVIOs. The one to the music video is not a copyright violation because it is hosted by Kelly Clarkson's Youtube Channel which is owned by RCA.

From WP:LINKVIO : "Wikipedia is not restricted to linking only to CC-BY-SA or open-source content. If you know that an external Web site is carrying a work in violation of the creator's copyright, do not link to that copy of the work." It is okay to link to copyrighted work, as long as the copyright isn't being violated. In this case, it isn't. Which makes linking to it OKAY. Matthewedwards :  Chat  03:07, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I've recently redirected the Annie Wilson article to Characters of 90210 due to a lack of any established notability. One or two anonymous users appear to be opposing the change without discussion. I've noticed that you have a history with certain similar cases. If you could help me keep an eye on this page's edit history today or tomorrow, I'd appreciate it. Thanks. -- James26 (talk) 11:38, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind. It's been taken care of. -- James26 (talk) 14:18, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Which guideline says you can't have a record label category? Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 00:28, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see anything in the external links guidelines about record label categories. Also, links for sites such as myspaces and facebooks, etc are allowed as long as they are official. It's sometimes easy to miss, but it's in bold before the list of things not to link. To provide some proof, the links to be avoided section starts off with "Except for a link to an official page of the article's subject, one should avoid:" and at number ten is social networking sites. Since say for instance Annet Artani's is official, it can be included. The guidelines for officiality are defined on the page as "1. The linked content is controlled by the subject (organization or individual person) of the Wikipedia article." and "2. The linked content primarily covers the area for which the subject of the article is notable." I don't know why they haven't better defined that list, because yes, at first site it does seem like they are against all social networking sites. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 02:00, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In the case of Annet Artani, her former official site http://www.annetartani.com now redirects to her myspace which she updates regularly, writes blogs on, etc. She's amazingly fan oriented and answers messages. As for the label categories, every label on wikipedia has categories for its albums and artists. It's not something new and it's not against any guidelines. I suggest if you want to move forward with that believe that you should start some sort of discussion. In the meantime, it would be greatly appreciated if you would revert yourself and restore the relevant category. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 03:17, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Alan. I've closed this as the article was just at AfD and kept last week. If you wish to appeal the initial AfD, then the appropriate venue would be deletion review not AfD. Thanks -- Samir 10:01, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Alankc! I just wanted to let you know that I have declined your speedy deletion tag for Billy Joel Band. Please note that the G4 criteria for speedy deletion only applies to pages deleted after a deletion discussion, such as AfD. Speedy deletion and PRODs are specifically excluded. If you still feel the article should be deleted, you can consider tagging it with the original reason why it was speedy deleted, or go through PROD or AfD. I should advise, though, that I believe the orignal reason was incorrect, since the website it was allegedly copying from was, in fact, copying from the Wikipedia article. Singularity42 (talk) 00:58, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Some rather compelling arguments for keeping have been raised on the AFD -- if you'd like to withdraw the nomination, I can speedy keep it. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 03:19, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi
Regarding this F11 speedy deletion request of File:Toni Braxton - Yesterday.jpg, fair use images don't require evidence of permission by definition.
Amalthea 21:51, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, and apparently you want on a tagging spree on images uploaded by User:Loveableone. What's the deal here? Amalthea 21:55, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nevermind the question, so am I now. Try to get the tags right, though otherwise it's often better and easier to leave a short note at WP:ANI. Cheers, Amalthea 22:54, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Again, fair use images don't need permission! Don't tag them with either db-F11 or db-nopermission, as you again did, this time with seven images, including the Toni Braxton cover image I pointed out above: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7. Amalthea 21:13, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alan, you're overdoing it. Before you mark an album cover for speedy deletion as a probable hoax, please do try and research it first. The bare minimum you should do is go to amazon or http://allmusic.com and type in the album name and look for a cover. In the case of Pode Entrar, it was trivial to verify, and I had done so before. Please leave the image uploads of Loveableone alone for the next while, I'll keep an eye on them. From you recent edits, you give the appearance to have a vendetta against them. Amalthea 00:06, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Through a coincidence, I visited Tsadaqbmein's talk page just now, and noticed that you again nominated three album covers, uploaded under a claim of fair use with a standard rationale for that type of image, with the reasoning: "no proper source or proof of permission".
I'm going to say it a third time: Fair-use images do not require permission! In addition, while a source for album covers is highly advisable for verifiability, a missing source of an album cover is also not a reason for deletion, unless you've already looked and can't verify it for yourself (if you did, please make note for the reviewing admin in your rationale).
In this case, I've checked File:Elisssaaaaaaa3.0.jpg, could both verify the cover at http://allmusic.com and http://amazon.com (albeit a slightly different variant), and have added the source link. I would appreciate it if you could do the same with the two remaining images, File:Elisssssaaaaaa2.0.jpg and File:Elissssaaaa.jpg.
I really don't want to have to say the same thing for a fourth time. I know you mean good, but the way you approach those album cover images is not helpful.
Regards, Amalthea 17:03, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]