User talk:Alankc/Archive 3

Please do not nominate redirect pages for speedy deletion as blank articles. Redirects are not articles at all, they are navigational aids to help users find the content they are looking for. If you feel the redirect is inappropriate for other reasons, you can pursue a redirect discussion. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:07, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Alankc. I have a question: even if I create an image that license should I use? I hope your answer.*FranklinG* (talk) 22:27, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

NO don't delete it! The page is small, I agree but it needs some time to grow! Come on please don't delete the page!!--Ahmedfarhat (talk) 06:07, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently no information about him except on IMDb, that's the information on the article. Plus also one website which adds only one piece of information which I'm sure won't help. Delete the page and after the release of Eclipse, more websites will talk about him and we'll recreate the page.--Ahmedfarhat (talk) 06:20, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sweeps are run every few weeks. Any account that is over 8 weeks old would have had to go undetected through multiple sweeps. No need to keep adding accounts to the report.—Kww(talk) 03:51, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'd freeze the report as it stands. Checkusers know what they are doing.—Kww(talk) 03:58, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I notice that you have nominated several articles of writers and other creative people for deletion, some of which are clearly notable. Please read WP:BEFORE and search at google.com for possible sources. Bearian (talk) 03:57, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I second that. The AfD for Jim_Morris_(Pixar) is particularly careless. I'd also advise you to more carefully explain why you feel these articles are non-notable, particularly when the article contains sources apparently establishing its notability. - DustFormsWords (talk) 01:06, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• I also want to advise doing a careful WP:BEFORE search when nominating articles at AfD. That Steve Pepoon has won an Emmy should have been found before the AfD was opened. DES ^(talk) 00:55, 26 March 2010 (UTC) Much the same comment applies to Ned Goldreyer and David Richardson (writer). DES ^(talk) 01:01, 26 March 2010 (UTC) Jace Richdale was another case where you nominated a page at AfD that all others who commented favored keeping, and where it seems that WP:BEFORE was not followed. DES ^(talk) 01:33, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings! Thank you for filing an Abuse Report for abusive behavior originating from 118.90.40.13. Unfortunately, there was a problem with your filing and it has been rejected. Please see Wikipedia:Abuse response/118.90.40.13 for details on why the filing was rejected. You may also review filing criteria for abuse reports filings. There are no blocks for this IP. Abuse reports are used for IPs with long-term history of abuse, not individual incidents of vandalism. Thanks again, and keep up the positive contributions! ^Avicenna_sis @ 13:42, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Leona Lewis's song ahd more coverage.. This single barely has any (it's not even getting a music video). unfortunatley, not all singles become notable, in spite of what fans wish for Alan - talk 05:36, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I think this single will not have coverage. According to Clarkson link this'll be the last single and will not have a Music Video (last desition: RCA Records) and without M.V. the article hardly will reach the Hot 100. Tbhotch^{Talk C.} 05:42, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. the Leona song you linked to saying it never charted, did chart in multiple countries.. as for the Clarkson song, it doesn't even have album art, all the images being put up for it's cover are fan-made using photoshop back in January and February (yes, wikipedia ads that data when images are uploaded) Alan - talk 05:45, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I refer to last year, originally the single would be released on December 8 but J Records changed the date to February. Tbhotch^{Talk C.} 05:47, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Could you please explain why you removed the "controversy" section as "nonsense" by "blogs" when in fact it was legitimate news posted by real news sources? I have updated it with stories by the BBC, CBS, and CNBC. These are obviously not blogs, and this is a meaningful story. If my wording needs to be changed, I respect that, but I don't see why the item should be dismissed out of hand. Thank you Apizzaiolo (talk) 05:32, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Essentially, here you're making the judgment of what is news/history and what is not. How do you know what will not be news a week from now? The stories cited are in some of the most prestigious news sources(Associated Press, BBC, etc.), and are written by various authors. By no means is the Associated Press a "blog." Their stories are written by professional journalists. Unless you have evidence otherwise, there is no reason to believe that there are inaccuracies in them. The story is big enough that Kelly Clarkson has now responded to it:

http://www.seattlepi.com/tvguide/418814_tvgif21.html

In a very similar situation, Alicia Keys was criticized for a tobacco-sponsored concert, and it was included in wikipedia, which I quote here:

" Later that year, Keys was criticized by anti-smoking campaigners after billboard posters for her forthcoming concerts in Indonesia featured a logo for the A Mild cigarette brand sponsored by tobacco firm Philip Morris. She apologized after discovering that the concert was sponsored by the firm and asked for "corrective actions". In response, the company withdrew its sponsorship.[88]"

I can respect if the wording is changed, or the issue is moved to a smaller mention in the Wiki entry. However, this is an important part of her record. Jakarta is the capital of one of the largest countries in the world, and Clarkson is associating herself with a product that kills half its users. Advertisers advertise because it helps them sell a product, and in this case, that means the encouragement of a dangerous product. I'm not trying to get a soapbox here, but this is a real issue, a real story, by real sources, and it should be treated as such. If you disagree, the onus is on you to prove that these stories are all false or inconsequential.Apizzaiolo (talk) 06:31, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I updated the info, hopefully this new, small mention sounds reasonable to you. thanks.Apizzaiolo (talk) 04:06, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Courcelles (talk) 02:32, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You have tagged two photos of mine - both taken by me - for deletion. How can I get this changed?-- Myosotis Scorpioides 06:07, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am also curious why you tagged these photos. They are freely licensed and not claimed as fair use, thus your CSD tag does not apply. TNXMan 13:15, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Could you please explain your reason for reverting my changing the word "normalized" to describe Metacritic's ratings, here? The improper use of this term was discussed at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (film)/Archive 6#Metacritic's so-called "normalized" scores, with a consensus to use a different term that is not false information. Thank. 71.77.20.119 (talk) 19:00, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please explain this revert. Your reviewer rights don't come without responsibility to explain your edits. Otherwise the original edit needs to be restored. Thank you. 71.52.140.113 (talk) 16:38, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

...is indeed an official single. See this, this and this. He also confirmed it at the CMAs. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 19:16, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]