User talk:Ericorbit

This user may have left Wikipedia. Ericorbit has not edited Wikipedia for a considerable amount of time. As a result, any requests made here may not receive a response. If you are seeking assistance, you may need to approach someone else.

Welcome to my talk page. Please sign and date your entries by inserting ~~~~ at the end.
Start a new talk topic.

Archives

U.S. Dance Article

Shall we resume it soon? User:Calvin999/sandbox1. Maybe spinning it into it's own article is a good idea. — ₳aron 09:29, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of artists with the most number ones on the U.S. Dance chart — ₳aron 19:52, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Are you there? Lol — ₳aron 11:16, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

heyyyyy yes I am here, sorry bout that! I like what you did with the article. I haven't been ignoring you, I just have been pulled away from wiki lately. :-P eo (talk) 13:33, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lol cool. Feel free to chime in with edits! — ₳aron 15:27, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The positions on Hot Dance Club Songs need changing now do they? So this make Janet third, Mariah and Donna jointed fourth etc.? — ₳aron 09:05, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, can you explain to me how the rankings work? Why don't numbers 3 and 6 appear? — ₳aron 14:48, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Generally, when there is a "tie", the following number is already filled... so if you have two people tied in first place then there is no "second place" because you already have 2 people in first. The next rank would then be third. In fact there is a wiki article about it! Wow! Ranking (see Standard competition ranking). - eo (talk) 14:57, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ah okay. It makes more sense to me to use the other way. So Madonna first, B and R jointed second, Janet third etc. So are we adding 10th place, anyone with 11 or 12? — ₳aron 14:59, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If B & R are second then Janet would be 4th. I don't think we need to go deeper into the list because there are already three people tied for 9th, which brings the grand total to more than 10 artists anyway. If one of the 9th placers hits #1 again then s/he would be alone in 9th and the other two would be joint 10th. - eo (talk) 15:08, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah but B and R have the same, so IMO that makes Janet third, because she does have the third most with 19 after 22 and 43. Lol. — ₳aron 16:47, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Conceptually I know exactly what you mean but normally that's not how things are ranked. It's kinda non-standard (which, I guess, is why the other method is called "standard competition ranking"). From an encyclopedic standpoint I think we should stick with the standard way, unless there's some huge uproar to change it. - eo (talk) 16:57, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

SO if B and R are second, which makes Janet fourth, doesn't that mean that by Kristine and J Lo being seventh, making Katy ninth, not eighth? Because technically Kristine and J Lo are 7 and 8? — ₳aron 17:05, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

*derp* you are correct, that was my error. I fixed it on the main HDCS page. - eo (talk) 17:10, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Haha. I think I need your help for the Donna Summer section on Top 10 artists with the most number ones on the U.S. dance chart. She has multiple songs which charted as one song, which I find a bit confusing, so it looks like she has had about 24 on her singles discography but in fact it's 17 became some of them are combined. Lol. Also anything else you think on the article which could do with improving? — ₳aron 17:13, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, I can help with Donna Summer. The dance club chart used to let mutiple songs chart at once at the same position, or even the entire album, which counts as one entry. Also for Summer, some of her #1s happened during the Record World chart era so some statisticians don't count them. We should specify that. - eo (talk) 19:50, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Okay cool. Thanks. Whenever you are free. :) — ₳aron 08:58, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

← I've expanded the Madonna, Donna Summer and Kristine W sections, plus some small grammar/punctuation fixes. I also put an "under construction" template at the top of the article. - eo (talk) 17:13, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Okay cool :) — ₳aron 17:37, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for February 7

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Top 10 artists with the most number ones on the U.S. dance chart, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Lucky Star (song), M.I.A. and Be Alright. 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) 09:24, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Billboard Hot 100 Article: Unique Song Count Reference

Hello Ericorbit, I happened upon the Billboard Hot 100 page you contribute to regularly and was wondering what the source is for your 'different number-one hits' figure. In your revision between '2015-01-01T16:54:54' and '2015-01-07T20:08:07' this figure changed from 1,040 to 1,041. Beyond manually (programmatically) counting entries in List of Billboard number-one singles how do you happen across this figure? Minor Googling doesn't reveal a straight answer. Help? - Thank you for your time, UnclassicallyTrained (talk) 03:28, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

PS: I'm asking because I'm putting together a song lyric database that I'll analyze with [R] to learn neat things about American music listenership. People who help me get early access to results in two months (yes - that's a music nerd bribe) — Preceding unsigned comment added by UnclassicallyTrained (talk • contribs) 03:39, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Billboard Year-End Hot 100 singles of 1988

Hi Ericorbit,

That IP user 96.41.91.255 is back and vandalizing the Billboard Year-End Hot 100 singles series, particularly the 1988 one a little while ago, by changing a title on the chart to something else ("Reason to Live" by Kiss), something that user was doing more than two months ago, as identified in the history for the 1988 article. I remember some discussion on the possibility of semi-protecting the articles, and I think it may be time. (May need to see if this user does any more damage first.) MPFitz1968 (talk) 01:54, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Was going thru your talk page archive just now, and I saw this: User_talk:Ericorbit/Archive31#Vandalism_of_Billboard_articles_by_a_single_IP_user_on_November_21_and_November_25.

MPFitz1968 (talk) 01:57, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Came across more disruptive edits from that user in other years of the series, 2000 and 2001, falsifying some more data in both year-end charts. (Looked back at that user's recent contributions to find them, as I don't have the entire Billboard Year-End Hot 100 singles series in my watchlist.) MPFitz1968 (talk) 03:01, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of artists who reached number one on the U.S. dance chart

Do you think anything can be done with this? It's largely unsourced. I was thinking a sortable table? — ₳aron 17:19, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, its no more sourced than List of artists who reached number one in the United States. I can work to find an acceptable format and source(s) for all of it, but I think that if we do one, we should do both articles. - eo (talk) 20:46, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Billboard Year-End Hot 100 singles of 1969 Duplicate 100th Rank

Hi Ericorbit, After crawling through all the billboard songs I found that year 1969 ( http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Billboard_Year-End_Hot_100_singles_of_1969 ) has two 100 rankings. I tried finding out which of one of the two songs are actually the 100th spot but couldn't from Billboard.com (without paying I guess). I figure you or someone else close by probably has the source and could fix it in a jiffy so I'm simply blowing the whistle here.

Take care, UnclassicallyTrained (talk) 05:21, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmmm, interesting. I checked to see who created that article and unfortunately he has not been active since 2014. I do know that in the past Billboard did have songs tied, both in weekly or yearly charts, although I didn't realize it happened as recently as '69. Both billboard.com and billboard.biz have year-end rankings going back to only 2002. I'll have to research around to see what I find. - eo (talk) 13:17, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User:Taytay9135 falsifying Elvis Presley numbers

Hi eo,

Taytay9135 has been changing the List of Billboard Hot 100 chart achievements and milestones article in the "Artist achievements" section [1] [2], falsifying the number of number-one songs Elvis Presley has had, without any explanation in the edit summaries. As Elvis' tally is well-sourced (one of the sources cited in that section, from The Washington Post), I reverted both edits, but as the user has made this change twice in about 12 hours, the user needs to be watched. I've warned the user with a level 2 and then a level 3, also pointing out that Washington Post source in the level 3.

From user's contributions and previous warnings, this appears to be one who wants to highlight Mariah Carey's accomplishments by either falsifying those of others (like Elvis) or introducing unsourced material into her album discography. MPFitz1968 (talk) 19:05, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I will be watching. - eo (talk) 12:07, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User did it again, [3]. Will revert and issue level 4. MPFitz1968 (talk) 16:51, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Upon checking that section more closely in the article [4], I came across a footnote explaining the discrepancy with Elvis Presley's number-one tally, and decided to put up a topic on the talk page. There could be some validity to Taytay9135's edit, but I'm thinking it still goes against consensus, and the source that's in the section to back the tally of 18 number ones for Elvis. Am giving user an opportunity to explain edit as well with that talk page topic. MPFitz1968 (talk) 17:37, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Adding current number one in chart articles

What do you think about not including the current number ones in articles of music charts? You tend to make sure they are current and accurate, but I would agree with this edit that their inclusion would qualify as WP:NOTNEWS. Articles on the charts should just discuss the charts and their history in general terms and shouldn't need to be maintained/updated on a weekly basis just to list the most recent number one. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 00:59, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest I don't have an opinion either way. I don't mind it being included, however if consensus thinks it's too "news"-y then removing it wouldn't bother me. Is there a discussion about it somewhere? - eo (talk) 11:38, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No discussion yet, just the edit summaries by the user whose edit I linked you to. I saw that and the reasoning made sense to me, so I thought I'd pass it by you. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 19:45, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What the ... ? (a page from the "List of Billboard Hot 100 top 10 singles..." series has been moved into "User talk" space)

Hi eo,

I have to bring this to your attention! User:Aaron2014 has taken it upon himself to move the List of Billboard Hot 100 top 10 singles in 2015 article into User talk space ... User talk:List of Billboard Hot 100 top 10 singles in 2015. I don't see how that doesn't violate Wikipedia policies, as it's unauthorized and without explanation. MPFitz1968 (talk) 06:13, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've moved the article back to where it should be, reverted that user's changes, and warned the user with a single-notice final warning. This type of vandalism is suggesting this whole series should be move protected (I don't see why anyone other than administrators should have the authority to move a page in article namespace anyway). MPFitz1968 (talk) 06:34, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Uptown Funk"

User:DavidReyAlvite and I have brought up the issue of the song's title stylization at Talk:Uptown Funk#The "!" in the title of the song is not in the article's heading — request to add it, and your thoughts are welcome there. MPFitz1968 (talk) 08:18, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of Billboard Top 10 Hits 2015 remove protection!

Hi can you please remove the protection on the Billboard Top 10 2015 page? The page isn't being updated quickly enough and access is restricted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.49.88.9 (talk) 19:15, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Simultaneous albums in the top 200

Hi, I noticed you reverted my edit to the Billboard Top 200 page. You said that's not the record anymore, but after doing some searching, I haven't found any new records in that category. Can you provide that info, and perhaps re-add the section with the new record-holding artist on top? Thanks, Rockypedia (talk) 14:32, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So I saw your edit saying that you'd found a source for Led Zeppelin having 9 albums in the Top 200 at the same time. I went through the entire source, but didn't find anything indicating that this actually happened - none of the mentions of Led Zeppelin mentioned that info, and the only mention of the "Top 200" was in reference to a Blondie album. Do you have a page number you could cite for this info? It doesn't seem to exist anywhere online either. I really don't want to edit war over this so I'd rather see you respond here on your talk page, rather than in your edit summaries. Pretty sure we could work this out with some communication. Thanks. Rockypedia (talk) 22:35, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for confusion. It's the actual issue of the magazine mentioned in the item. I dont know the exact page number but scroll to the Billboard 200 of that week and LZ has 9 albums on the chart. As far as a list of artists who had 8 or less, I'm still trying to find some kind of definitive list. - eo (talk) 11:56, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, found it - pages 95 and 97. I'll add the page numbers to the cite. Also found another source, LA Times in 2003, that mentions all five of the artists that have 7 or more for that record, including Led Zeppelin at 9 total. I think it's a significant record, so maybe rather than burying it in the Additional Milestones section, all five artists could be repped in their own Artist Milestones section. Thoughts? Rockypedia (talk) 21:06, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That totally works for me. Remove it from that bottom section and stick it in a more prominent place. - eo (talk) 18:43, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User:Nero333

Hi eo,

I've just come across a series of edits from user Nero333 at List of Billboard Hot 100 chart achievements and milestones (6 edits) that clearly falsify chart statistics of songs on the Hot 100. I reverted those edits, and saw that the user already had warnings up to level 3 on his/her talk page, so I gave user a final warning. Nero333 did this once before a few days earlier (2 edits) which were reverted by user Darkwind, who also warned the user at that time. Thought I'd bring this to your attention. MPFitz1968 (talk) 03:51, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User added the info back in (2 edits), and I reverted again. I have reported Nero333 to AIV for vandalism/disruptive editing, but should they not take action (and I have seen where they say it's not vandalism), I'll leave it up to you. MPFitz1968 (talk) 15:48, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks.... I've blocked him. - eo (talk) 17:00, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Finally (CeCe Peniston song)#Request for comment

You were one of editors of the article. I invite you to an RFC discussion. --George Ho (talk) 19:38, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hot Dance Club Songs

Hi, how are you? Pitbull is now tied with Enrique Iglesias for the most #1s by a male artist. Why was it deleted? BrunzPOP (talk) 12:03, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. It seems there is a discrepency on his total... Billboard is now saying 13 when really he has 12... kinda. I started a discussion at Talk:Hot Dance Club Songs#Pitbull... please comment! - eo (talk) 12:26, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hot Dance Club Songs

Hey, can you sort out the mess Sunboys0111 has made please. I've made two reverts and warned him. He's supplied a source for 14 number ones with a link to a list of Enrique's latin airplay number ones. — Calvin999 20:20, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hot Dance Club Songs 2

Should Hot Dance Club Songs be renamed to it's new name of Dance/Club Songs? — Calvin999 12:15, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oh good lord, another fucking name change. Well, I just checked billboard.com and billboard.biz and it is indeed "Dance Club Songs". I have a print issue sitting here and it also reads "Dance Club Songs" (no slash in any of them). So I guess yeah, it shoud be moved? - eo (talk) 13:01, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Moved. Will templates update themselves? — Calvin999 13:28, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, they will not. I normally do a "what links here" search and move things myself... however there are probably a trillion song articles that have the old link in their 'charts' sections... perhaps we can request a bot to do the bulk of the work. - eo (talk) 17:21, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah that would be better. 18:44, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

I've made some additions to Dance Club Songs by the way. Feel free to add more. — Calvin999 08:36, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Towa Tei Sound Museum.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Towa Tei Sound Museum.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. --B-bot (talk) 03:06, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Ericorbit. You have new messages at Calvin999's talk page.
Message added 15:51, 7 August 2015 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

— Calvin999 15:51, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of 4 Minutes (disambiguation)

The article 4 Minutes (disambiguation) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Unnecessary DAB when 4 Minutes and Four Minutes are the only notable entries that aren't partial title matches. Both articles can have referral notes at the top of their pages linking to one another.

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

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

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Snuggums (talk / edits) 13:33, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Shocking Blue Venus.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Shocking Blue Venus.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. --B-bot (talk) 02:32, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

46.177.44.105 - Mr Techno from Greece on 18th July 2015

Hello. Did you know that this IP vandalized the Pet Shop Boys? The reverting I made from him on Friday was sensible. It is not vandalism. So why did you revert back to his version? Just cool it, OK? Thanks!

JG

Malmsimp (talk) 15:17, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Problem at List of Billboard Hot 100 top 10 singles in 2015

Hi eo,

IP users 151.51.18.213 and 151.51.31.219—likely the same person based on the type of edits they're making—are introducing incorrect information into the article (probably a Fifth Harmony fan, as they're insisting "Worth It" was a top 10 hit, but it wasn't), and/or removing correct content. [5][6][7][8] As this is involving at least two IP's, there might be need to semi-protect this article temporarily, as I don't think warning or blocking either will help. Thanks. MPFitz1968 (talk) 20:32, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Done - eo (talk) 11:28, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Towa Tei SRATM 2002.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Towa Tei SRATM 2002.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. --B-bot (talk) 02:22, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Hall Oates Luncheonette.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Hall Oates Luncheonette.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. --B-bot (talk) 02:36, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Guess which IP user is back vandalizing Billboard articles?

IP user 96.41.91.255 is back again (same IP as I reported here back in February, as well as before that), and already vandalizing here. Already have given user an instant level 4 warning for the edit. Would keep eye on this one again, as six months away (the length of his last block) didn't deter him. MPFitz1968 (talk) 00:30, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This Friday: Women in Architecture edit-a-thon @ Cambridge, MA

You are invited to join the Women in Architecture edit-a-thon @ Cambridge, MA on October 16! (drop-in any time, 6-9pm)--Pharos (talk) 18:28, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Billboard Chart Highlights

I can't find any of the Billboard chart highlight articles from the past month or so, where debuts and peaks are listed. Do you know where they would be? — Calvin999 09:29, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ever since they moved the release date of the charts from thursday to tuesday i think they stopped them. - eo (talk) 13:24, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

But they still did them as of a few weeks ago? — Calvin999 16:28, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

oh! if so, i honestly hadn't noticed. sorry. - 12:00, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Your recent edit at Dance Club Songs

I recently noticed that you undid my revisions to the page, Dance Club Songs. My edits were backed up by factual information, and I do not know why you undid them when there was nothing incorrect regarding the information. Madonna] has acquired 10 number one singles in 3 years, 11 months, and 2 weeks. "Die Another Day", "American Life", "Hollywood", "Me Against the Music", "Nothing Fails", "Love Profusion", "Hung Up", "Sorry", "Get Together", and "Jump" were all number one, and took place with the aforementioned amount of time. Please clarify as to why this edit was removed when it is indeed factual. Carbrera (talk) 18:05, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Vandal on some Billboard articles, and Jason Mraz-related articles

User 166.177.250.71 vandalized several articles, which include List of Billboard Hot 100 top 10 singles in 2003 and Billboard Year-End Hot 100 singles of 2003, falsifying chart data for Jason Mraz's song "The Remedy" in particular. I saw you made numerous reverts of user 75.128.68.95, and blocked that user, but I don't know if the 166 one is a sockpuppet; there are some similarities to the vandalism that the 75 one did earlier. Your call on whether several articles will need to be semi-protected, and/or blocking the more recent vandal. MPFitz1968 (talk) 19:26, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of Billboard Hot 100 chart achievements and milestones - time to semi-protect again?

Looks like this article needs to be semi-protected again, per edits from multiple IP users like [9] and [10], inserting false information into the article. MPFitz1968 (talk) 16:43, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Why aren't The Bee Gees listed with Night Fever and the Saturday Night Fever soundtrack listed with 8 weeks at number one? The Bodyguard soundtrack had other artists on it just as SNF did. User:Lou72JG

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:05, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Got problem with a List of Billboard Hot 100 top 10 singles article from a past year

The article in question is List of Billboard Hot 100 top 10 singles in 2005, and in the past few weeks, I've seen a few IP/new users change chart statistics for songs, especially with the Green Day ones on the list. (Diffs at issue, since late November: [11] [12] [13] [14]) Two of those have occurred in the past 24 hours, different IP addresses, with changing the number of weeks in the top 10 stat. Not sure whether it's time to semi-protect at least that article, though sometimes good edits are made, such as fixing/improving wikilinks for the songs. Your call on that.

While I have taken the liberty in recent weeks to go thru parts of this series of articles to make sure the stats on these pages are correct, and will continue to do so, I am reminded from reading past AfD discussions on this series about the difficulty to verify such stats. I think weeks in the top 10 is the most difficult in the bunch, and I've seen it the one most vandalized by these IPs, even though anyone could look thru the Billboard Hot 100 charts online and attempt to tally that part, which unfortunately is original research. However, I have looked thru Joel Whitburn's Record Research catalog recently and may have found a source concerning that particular stat: the ones that say either "Hot 100 Annual" or "Pop Annual" which list the titles from each year in order of their peak positions, then sorted by how long at the peak, in the top 10, top 40, and entire chart, plus it provides the date it first reached the peak position (link to the 1955-2011 edition of "Pop Annual", which includes sample pages). Would be a gem in verifying the stats, except debut week in the top 10, and I might purchase that 1955-2011 book. Could also add to references in all the articles, though would need to make sure of the book's ISBN. Just my two cents concerning verifiability of those stats. MPFitz1968 (talk) 19:38, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Having more issues with that 2005 article, per these edits, from two different new users Grohlhole and Dirnt55: [15] [16]. Altering stats of Green Day songs, and apparently vandalizing Green Day related articles and other articles with chart stats (again, altering stats of Green Day singles or albums). MPFitz1968 (talk) 02:15, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Have requested page semi-protection at WP:RPP as users, particularly Grohlhole, persist with vandalism edits. MPFitz1968 (talk) 02:36, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for blocking Grohlhole. The other user, Dirnt55, reverted your revert of Grohlhole at the 2005 article shortly after you blocked Grohlhole, and with that, I had a feeling these two accounts are connected in some way, so I filed a sockpuppet report at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Grohlhole. MPFitz1968 (talk) 15:55, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mary Wilson

Hi, I noticed that you deleted the entry on the Dance Club Songs page regarding Mary Wilson's record of longest gap in between hits. I'm not sure why you are discriminating against Mary Wilson when her entry had sources and the following long-existing entries do not have sources: - "One Word" by Kelly Osbourne made chart history on June 18, 2005 when it became the first song to simultaneously top the Hot Dance Club Songs, Hot Dance Singles Sales and Hot Dance Airplay charts. - Up until her death on May 17, 2012, Donna Summer was the only active artist to have placed a single on this chart in all five decades since its inception, starting with "Love to Love You Baby" in 1975 and ending with her final number one, "To Paris with Love" for the chart week ending November 6, 2010. With Summer's death, Madonna becomes the only living active artist to continue charting, as each of her singles have reached the top ten in her four-decade run from 1982 to the present. - Beyoncé, Michelle Williams and Kelly Rowland are the only artists on this chart to reach number one as members of a group (Destiny's Child) and as solo artists. The same three artists also achieved that accomplishment on the Dance/Mix Show Airplay chart. To make matters worse, the entries about Donna Summer/Madonna and Beyoncé/Michelle Williams/Kelly Rowland/Destiny's Child are false. Regarding the former, there is one another artist that has charted each decade and regarding the latter, there are other artists that have done the same (plus, the entry ignores the other Destiny's Child members.) On top of it all, I recently had to delete the entry about freezing the last chart of the year, which has not been the case since 2010. Why no scrutiny on your part regarding the above, some of which is incorrect, but then scrutinize the entry about Mary Wilson when you know there has not been anybody else since before 10/6/79 that didn't chart again until within the last three years? Regarding the incorrect entries, we need to apply the rules consistently. Are you planning to provide the sources for the three entries listed above? Otherwise, are you planning to delete them like you did with Mary Wilson's entry? I can actually update the Donna Summer/Madonna entry with the name of the additional artist but something needs to be done about the other two, otherwise it would only be fair to repost Mary Wilson's entry, which actually has sources. I will wait for your input before proceeding to update by next week. I never thought I would be updating Wikipedia thus do not have a login, maybe I will after going through this. Thanks and Happy New Year! Ricky, long time fan of the Disco/Dance chart 216.189.187.173 (talk) 04:23, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"it would only be fair to repost Mary Wilson's entry, which actually has sources" - please feel free to provide those sources. - eo (talk) 13:38, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, it's the same sources I already provided; i.e., debut dates of Mary Wilson's only two Dance chart hits from Joel Whitburn's Dance book and Billboard proper. The internet nor Billboard makes any mention of any other charting hits from Mary Wilson so it's a matter of knowing there isn't anybody else with over 35 years in between Dance hits (through reading Joel Whitburn's Dance book and Billboard charts proper.) I'm not clear on how this is different from the above examples (Kelly Osborne, Donna Summer/Madonna, Destiny's Child), which do not provide any sources at all hence following your same train of thought should be deleted. Ms. Wilson has not been popular enough for anybody else to spend the time to recognize this record but I just want to acknowledge this feat for a lady in her 70s still in the business after over 50 years. But if we cannot include it here, then those other sourceless entries should not be included either to be consistent. BTW, Cher is the other artist who has also charted in the Dance chart all five decades. BTW #2, I thought this was a fun page, like nobody cared about that entry about freezing the last chart of the year, which had been wrong for years so I deleted it; I feel like I'm defending a thesis....Thanks. Ricky 216.189.187.173 (talk) 04:08, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of Billboard Hot 100 number-one singles of 2016

I noticed with past years in the series that you've indefinitely semi-protected those articles due to continuous vandalism. This year's article has seen a couple of vandalism incidents already (different IP users), so could it be time to carry over the semi-protection to that article too? MPFitz1968 (talk) 15:48, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Done - eo (talk) 16:20, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Funkatastic

There's a long-running ANI discussion concerning Funkatastic at WP:ANI#Disruptive edits by User:Funkatastic. I made my opinion known here, but I fear this thing is just going to drag on without action.—Kww(talk) 20:47, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Just reminding you that I'm not an administrator any more ... for problems to get resolved, one of the administrators that is still active will need to actually do something.—Kww(talk) 01:45, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of Billboard Mainstream Top 40 number-one songs of 2005

Recent edits to this article ([17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] [25] [26] [27])—most, if not all, of which I reverted because it is incorrect info—are part of a bigger problem, where info is being altered which misrepresents the rock band Green Day's overall discography statistics, either in the Billboard-related articles, or Green Day-related articles (like Green Day discography, American Idiot, When I Come Around, Good Riddance (Time of Your Life), American Idiot (song), Boulevard of Broken Dreams (Green Day song), Holiday (Green Day song) and Wake Me Up When September Ends, to name a few). The users involved I am suspecting are operated by the same person, and I have filed a few sockpuppet investigation reports already, which currently reside at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Никита-Родин-2002, though I thought the sockmaster was a different account. As for the article I name for this section, I'm doing a decent job to revert the vandalism but am worried sometimes I may cross that WP:3RR boundary. 3RR does exempt vandalism-related reverts if it is clear and obvious, but some could take these reverts as being content dispute instead (it is not, it is deliberate falsification of details that are clearly backed by reliable sources in the article). I have requested page-protection for this article twice [28] [29], one of those times being declined because acting administrator did not feel there was enough disruptive activity [30]. It was semi-protected for two weeks, only for the same type of IP vandalism to resume, whose edits are the last in the group of diffs I brought up at the beginning. The addresses of these IP users are similar, but always changing — IPv6 prefix 2600:1006:b1* shows up a lot, but not the only prefix involved here. I will continue to keep my eye on this article, as well as List of Billboard Mainstream Top 40 number-one songs of the 1990s which has been receiving its fair share of vandalism by the same users, and the "List of Billboard Hot 100 top 10 singles" series which I have an eagle eye on as I am in the process of verifying/correcting stats in all the articles there. I'm sure you are watching at least some of this disruptive activity and hope there is a stop to this someday. The unprotected articles are especially vulnerable with these multiple IP addresses engaging in these edits; I definitely do not want to break the 3RR rule and need to step back when an article keeps taking these changes, hoping other editors are keeping an eye on things, though it may mean an article has incorrect information for a long period of time. MPFitz1968 (talk) 22:54, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ah yes, I believe i've reverted these Green Day things before also. Looks like a sock to me. I could put some semi-protection on these in the meantime while the investigation goes on... or I can keep checking to see whether it is confirmed. - eo (talk) 13:06, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, eo, and I see you reverted the latest disruptive edit to the article [31]. If there are more IP or new user edits making the same kind of changes (i.e., artificially extending Green Day's reign at #1 with "Boulevard of Broken Dreams" or inserting "Wake Me Up When September Ends" or another song of theirs) in the coming days, I will say semi-protection is warranted. MPFitz1968 (talk) 16:02, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Towa Tei Future Listening.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Towa Tei Future Listening.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. --B-bot (talk) 03:30, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weekly unit sales numbers in List of Billboard 200 number-one albums articles

I saw this edit in the 2016 article and reverted it, per WP:IINFO. I also remembered you reverted a similar edit from last year's article [32], which also helped me decide how to handle that edit. But I'm thinking having the sales numbers in any of the articles in this series is WP:IINFO, and I did see other articles showing them like 2011 and 2012. I may go ahead and remove them later. MPFitz1968 (talk) 15:28, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Super peak

The OCC publishes an article detailing debuts and new peaks in the top 40 of both the albums and singles charts before they are published in full every Friday (this week's). I don't bother citing that article because it usually becomes redundant in a matter of minutes. Ss 112 17:10, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Disruptive IP user at List of Billboard Hot 100 number-one singles of 1984

I have just brought it up on the article's talk page under Talk:List of Billboard Hot 100 number-one singles of 1984#User continously removes content in lede summarizing 1984 regarding how the IP changes which song(s) was/were #1 the longest in that year, discounting Madonna's "Like a Virgin", which topped the Hot 100 in the final two weeks of 1984, and continued for four more weeks in 1985, making its six-week total the most of any song in 1984, trumping the five-week reigns by Van Halen's "Jump" and Prince's "When Doves Cry" (and I cite the user's diffs on the talk page, which span more than three months). I've reverted this user's edits each time because of the precedent set in the other related articles of the series; I cite two years in particular, 1981 and 1992, which had a similar situation with the last #1 in each of those years continuing their reigns at #1 in the following year but tallying more weeks than the other songs listed in those years. User is obviously going against consensus, and I issued a level 3 to them on my most recent revert. Would be good to have another opinion regarding this matter. MPFitz1968 (talk) 18:58, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bubbling Under chart

Ericorbit, can I please ask you to look once at this discussion regarding the Bubbling chart as an extension of Hot 100? A user reverted my correction of position 101 from the article, and found one link from Billboard where they themselves indicated it as 101. Do we need to revisit the chart policy? —IB ^{[ Poke ]} 12:48, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of Billboard 200 number-one albums of 2016 — IP users adding who is #1 well before Billboard reports it

Hi eo,

I've noticed over the last few weeks that IPv6 users have been adding which album is #1 (particularly during the long run at the top for Drake's album Views), well before there is word from Billboard that confirms the addition. The IPs will either provide no source at all or a Billboard source that applies for another week. Example diffs: [33][34][35][36][37]. From what I've seen, except that last one which is the most recent (a little while ago), they end up being right about Views being on top, but again when they add it, it's unsourced and per WP:CRYSTAL it faces being reverted.

I don't know yet if this warrants semi-protecting this article, but I checked the logs for recent years in this series of articles (2015, 2014), and you have them indefinitely semi-protected. Up to you on what you want to do with the 2016 one. MPFitz1968 (talk) 20:23, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads-up.

Done - eo (talk) 13:30, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion at Talk:List of Billboard Hot 100 number-one singles of 1973#Tie a Yellow Ribbon... - the artist credit

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:List of Billboard Hot 100 number-one singles of 1973#Tie a Yellow Ribbon... - the artist credit. An editor is disputing how the song's artist credit should show, but I pointed out in my post in the discussion that it should be how Billboard showed it on their Hot 100 charts (online and/or in print). MPFitz1968 (talk) 17:17, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:PetShopBoysBackToMine.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:PetShopBoysBackToMine.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. --B-bot (talk) 18:03, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Playing With Fire

Hello Ericorbit,

I wanted to let you know that I just tagged Playing With Fire for deletion, because it seems to be inappropriate for a variety of reasons.

If you feel that the article shouldn't be deleted and want more time to work on it, you can contest this deletion, but please don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions. Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haider^tc_s 18:31, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Extended confirmed protection

Hello, Ericorbit. This message is intended to notify administrators of important changes to the protection policy.

Extended confirmed protection (also known as "30/500 protection") is a new level of page protection that only allows edits from accounts at least 30 days old and with 500 edits. The automatically assigned "extended confirmed" user right was created for this purpose. The protection level was created following this community discussion with the primary intention of enforcing various arbitration remedies that prohibited editors under the "30 days/500 edits" threshold to edit certain topic areas.

In July and August 2016, a request for comment established consensus for community use of the new protection level. Administrators are authorized to apply extended confirmed protection to combat any form of disruption (e.g. vandalism, sock puppetry, edit warring, etc.) on any topic, subject to the following conditions:

Extended confirmed protection may only be used in cases where semi-protection has proven ineffective. It should not be used as a first resort.
A bot will post a notification at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard of each use. MusikBot currently does this by updating a report, which is transcluded onto the noticeboard.

Please review the protection policy carefully before using this new level of protection on pages. Thank you.
This message was sent to the administrators' mass message list. To opt-out of future messages, please remove yourself from the list. 17:47, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

File:Human League Love and Dancing.jpg listed for discussion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Human League Love and Dancing.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination.

ATTENTION: This is an automated, bot-generated message. 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) 23:50, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of The Chocolate Puma

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a notice that the page you created, The Chocolate Puma, was tagged as a test page under section G2 of the criteria for speedy deletion and has been or soon may be deleted. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia.

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 removed 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. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. - TheMagnificentist (talk) 00:54, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Two-Factor Authentication now available for admins

Hello,

Please note that TOTP based two-factor authentication is now available for all administrators. In light of the recent compromised accounts, you are encouraged to add this additional layer of security to your account. It may be enabled on your preferences page in the "User profile" tab under the "Basic information" section. For basic instructions on how to enable two-factor authentication, please see the developing help page for additional information. Important: Be sure to record the two-factor authentication key and the single use keys. If you lose your two factor authentication and do not have the keys, it's possible that your account will not be recoverable. Furthermore, you are encouraged to utilize a unique password and two-factor authentication for the email account associated with your Wikimedia account. This measure will assist in safeguarding your account from malicious password resets. Comments, questions, and concerns may be directed to the thread on the administrators' noticeboard. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:32, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A new user right for New Page Patrollers

Hi Ericorbit.

A new user group, New Page Reviewer, has been created in a move to greatly improve the standard of new page patrolling. The user right can be granted by any admin at PERM. It is highly recommended that admins look beyond the simple numerical threshold and satisfy themselves that the candidates have the required skills of communication and an advanced knowledge of notability and deletion. Admins are automatically included in this user right.

It is anticipated that this user right will significantly reduce the work load of admins who patrol the performance of the patrollers. However,due to the complexity of the rollout, some rights may have been accorded that may later need to be withdrawn, so some help will still be needed to some extent when discovering wrongly applied deletion tags or inappropriate pages that escape the attention of less experienced reviewers, and above all, hasty and bitey tagging for maintenance. User warnings are available here but very often a friendly custom message works best.

If you have any questions about this user right, don't hesitate to join us at WT:NPR. (Sent to all admins).MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:46, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Ericorbit. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter - February 2017

News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2017). This first issue is being sent out to all administrators, if you wish to keep receiving it please subscribe. Your feedback is welcomed.

Administrator changes

NinjaRobotPirate • Schwede66 • K6ka • Ealdgyth • Ferret • Cyberpower678 • Mz7 • Primefac • Dodger67

Briangotts • JeremyA • BU Rob13

Guideline and policy news

A discussion to workshop proposals to amend the administrator inactivity policy at Wikipedia talk:Administrators has been in process since late December 2016.
Wikipedia:Pending changes/Request for Comment 2016 closed with no consensus for implementing Pending changes level 2 with new criteria for use.
Following an RfC, an activity requirement is now in place for bots and bot operators.

Technical news

When performing some administrative actions the reason field briefly gave suggestions as text was typed. This change has since been reverted so that issues with the implementation can be addressed. (T34950)
Following the latest RfC concluding that Pending Changes 2 should not be used on the English Wikipedia, an RfC closed with consensus to remove the options for using it from the page protection interface, a change which has now been made. (T156448)
The Foundation has announced a new community health initiative to combat harassment. This should bring numerous improvements to tools for admins and CheckUsers in 2017.

Arbitration

The Arbitration Committee released a response to the Wikimedia Foundation's statement on paid editing and outing.

Obituaries

JohnCD (John Cameron Deas) passed away on 30 December 2016. John began editing Wikipedia seriously during 2007 and became an administrator in November 2009.

Discuss this newsletter • Subscribe • Archive

13:36, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Nomination of Zelma Davis for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Zelma Davis is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zelma Davis until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 03:29, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sunday July 16: New England Wiknic @ Cambridge, MA

Sunday July 16, 1-5pm: New England Wiknic

You are invited to join us the "picnic anyone can edit" at John F. Kennedy Park, near Harvard Square, Cambridge, as part of the Great American Wiknic celebrations being held across the USA. Remember it's a wiki-picnic, which means potluck.

Sunday July 16 New England Wiknic (also on Facebook)

1–5pm - come by any time!

Look for us by the Wikipedia / Wikimedia banner!

We hope to see you there! --Phoebe (talk) 16:33, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for Boston-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)

Notification of pending suspension of administrative permissions due to inactivity

Following a community discussion in June 2011, consensus was reached to provisionally suspend the administrative permissions of users who have been inactive for one year (i.e. administrators who have not made any edits or logged actions in more than one year). As a result of this discussion, your administrative permissions will be removed pending your return if you do not return to activity within the next month. If you wish to have these permissions reinstated should this occur, please post to the Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard and the userright will be restored per the re-sysopping process (i.e. as long as the attending bureaucrats are reasonably satisfied that your account has not been compromised, that your inactivity did not have the effect of evading scrutiny of any actions which might have led to sanctions, and that you have not been inactive for a three-year period of time). If you remain inactive for a three-year period of time, including the present year you have been inactive, you will need to request reinstatement at WP:RFA. This removal of access is procedural only, and not intended to reflect negatively upon you in any way. We wish you the best in future endeavors, and thank you for your past administrative efforts. — xaosflux ^Talk 17:41, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of imminent suspension of administrative permissions due to inactivity

Following a community discussion in June 2011, consensus was reached to provisionally suspend the administrative permissions of users who have been inactive for one year (i.e. administrators who have not made any edits or logged actions in more than one year). As a result of this discussion, your administrative permissions will be removed pending your return if you do not return to activity within the next several days. If you wish to have these permissions reinstated should this occur, please post to the Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard and the userright will be restored per the re-sysopping process (i.e. as long as the attending bureaucrats are reasonably satisfied that your account has not been compromised, that your inactivity did not have the effect of evading scrutiny of any actions which might have led to sanctions, and that you have not been inactive for a three-year period of time). If you remain inactive for a three-year period of time, including the present year you have been inactive, you will need to request reinstatement at WP:RFA. This removal of access is procedural only, and not intended to reflect negatively upon you in any way. We wish you the best in future endeavors, and thank you for your past administrative efforts. — xaosflux ^Talk 14:07, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Suspension of administrative permissions due to inactivity

Following a community discussion in June 2011, consensus was reached to provisionally suspend the administrative permissions of users who have been inactive for one year (i.e. administrators who have not made any edits or logged actions in more than one year). As a result of this discussion, your administrative permissions have been removed pending your return. If you wish to have these permissions reinstated, please post to the Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard and the userright will be restored per the re-sysopping process (i.e. as long as the attending bureaucrats are reasonably satisfied that your account has not been compromised, that your inactivity did not have the effect of evading scrutiny of any actions which might have led to sanctions, and that you have not been inactive for a three-year period of time). If you remain inactive for a three-year period of time, including the present year you have been inactive, you will need to request reinstatement at WP:RFA. This removal of access is procedural only, and not intended to reflect negatively upon you in any way. We wish you the best in future endeavors, and thank you for your past administrative efforts. — xaosflux ^Talk 03:26, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion discussion about List of number-one Billboard Alternative Songs of 2015

Hello, Ericorbit,

I wanted to let you know that there's a discussion about whether List of number-one Billboard Alternative Songs of 2015 should be deleted. Your comments are welcome at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of number-one Billboard Alternative Songs of 2015 .

If you're new to the process, articles for deletion is a group discussion (not a vote!) that usually lasts seven days. If you need it, there is a guide on how to contribute. Last but not least, you are highly encouraged to continue improving the article; just be sure not to remove the tag about the deletion nomination from the top.

Thanks,

^{Atsme📞📧} 20:29, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of List of number-one Billboard Alternative Songs of 2016 for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of number-one Billboard Alternative Songs of 2016 is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of number-one Billboard Alternative Songs of 2016 until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. ^{Atsme📞📧} 21:52, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of List of number-one Billboard Alternative Songs of 2016 for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of number-one Billboard Alternative Songs of 2016 is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of number-one Billboard Alternative Songs of 2016 (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. ^{Atsme📞📧} 22:04, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of List of number-one Billboard Alternative Songs of 2014 for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of number-one Billboard Alternative Songs of 2014 is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of number-one Billboard Alternative Songs of 2014 until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. –dlthewave ☎ 23:54, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of List of number-one Billboard Alternative Songs of 2013 for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of number-one Billboard Alternative Songs of 2013 is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of number-one Billboard Alternative Songs of 2013 until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. –dlthewave ☎ 14:06, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of List of number-one Billboard Alternative Songs of 2012 for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of number-one Billboard Alternative Songs of 2012 is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of number-one Billboard Alternative Songs of 2012 until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. –dlthewave ☎ 14:07, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of List of number-one Billboard Alternative Songs of 2011 for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of number-one Billboard Alternative Songs of 2011 is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of number-one Billboard Alternative Songs of 2011 until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. –dlthewave ☎ 14:10, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination for deletion of Template:US Modern Rock chart

Template:US Modern Rock chart has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Frietjes (talk) 22:16, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Erasure abbaesque remix.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Erasure abbaesque remix.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) 17:16, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Siouxsie HKG.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Siouxsie HKG.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) 18:02, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Siouxsie Israel.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Siouxsie Israel.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) 18:03, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Siouxsie Mittagessen.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Siouxsie Mittagessen.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, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Siouxsie Staircase.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Siouxsie Staircase.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, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Heart Crazy on You.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Heart Crazy on You.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, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Abigail (singer) for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Abigail (singer) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Abigail (singer) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. –Davey2010^Talk 18:02, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Sarah Cracknell Lipslide US.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Sarah Cracknell Lipslide US.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) 18:21, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of File:Joan Jett ILRNR.jpg

The file File:Joan Jett ILRNR.jpg has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Replaced by File:I Love Rock n Roll by Joan Jett and the Blackheads US vinyl single.png

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 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Joan Jett ILRNR.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Joan Jett ILRNR.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) 17:30, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of File:Eurythmics LIAS91.JPG

The file File:Eurythmics LIAS91.JPG has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

1991 reissue of "Love Is a Stranger" wasn't as successful as the 1983 (re-?)release. Also, not enough critical commentary to justify using this cover art. Fails WP:NFCC#8.

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, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Women (song2)" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Women (song2). Since you had some involvement with the Women (song2) redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Regards, SONIC678 23:24, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Human League Hysteria.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Human League Hysteria.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) 17:28, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Lola (singer)

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Lola (singer) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a band or musician that does not credibly indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

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. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. Spencer^T•C 19:33, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of File:Weather Girls Raining Men.jpg

The file File:Weather Girls Raining Men.jpg has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Replaced by File:It′s Raining Men by The Weather Girls 1982 US vinyl 12-inch.jpeg

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, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Weather Girls Raining Men.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Weather Girls Raining Men.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) 03:46, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Passion 1992.gif

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Passion 1992.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 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) 18:09, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Long Train Runnin 1973.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Long Train Runnin 1973.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) 17:34, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Hall Oates BigBamBoom.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Hall Oates BigBamBoom.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) 17:28, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of The Earons for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article The Earons is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Earons until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

Hemiauchenia (talk) 02:37, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Hall Oates Ooh Yeah.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Hall Oates Ooh Yeah.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) 03:29, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Saint Etienne OLCBYH.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Saint Etienne OLCBYH.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) 18:38, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of File:VotB I Think I Love You.jpg

The file File:VotB I Think I Love You.jpg has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Even with chart performances, omitting cover art of the Voice of the Beehive release not proven detrimental to the contextual understanding of the subject of discussion. In other words, not contextually significant to the song, originally sung by the Partridge Family and later artists.

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 of your contributions for deletion; please refer to the history of each individual page for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 10:01, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Aubrey (producer)

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Aubrey (producer) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a band or musician that does not credibly indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

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. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 02:32, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:Lennox MissionaryMan.png listed for discussion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Lennox MissionaryMan.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. ResPM (T🔈🎵C) 01:18, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Friburn & Urik for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Friburn & Urik is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Friburn & Urik until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

Thebiguglyalien (talk) 05:37, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Playground (Lindsay Lohan & Pharrell song)" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Playground (Lindsay Lohan & Pharrell song) has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 November 1 § Playground (Lindsay Lohan & Pharrell song) until a consensus is reached. Steel1943 (talk) 06:36, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Goldfrapp Satin Boys Flaming Chic.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Goldfrapp Satin Boys Flaming Chic.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) 18:21, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Siouxsie Passenger.jpg listed for discussion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Siouxsie Passenger.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you.

This bot DID NOT nominate any of your contributions for deletion; please refer to the history of each individual page for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 10:00, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed non-free use rationale for File:Erasure ebx2.jpg

Thank you for uploading File:Erasure ebx2.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this file on Wikipedia may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the file description page and adding or clarifying the reason why the file qualifies under this policy. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your file is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a non-free use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for files used under the non-free content policy require both a copyright tag and a non-free use rationale.

If it is determined that the file does not qualify under the non-free content policy, it might be deleted by an administrator seven days after the file was tagged in accordance with section F7 of the criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. ✗plicit 14:26, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed non-free use rationale for File:Erasure ebx3.jpg

Thank you for uploading File:Erasure ebx3.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this file on Wikipedia may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the file description page and adding or clarifying the reason why the file qualifies under this policy. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your file is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a non-free use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for files used under the non-free content policy require both a copyright tag and a non-free use rationale.

If it is determined that the file does not qualify under the non-free content policy, it might be deleted by an administrator seven days after the file was tagged in accordance with section F7 of the criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. ✗plicit 14:26, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed non-free use rationale for File:Erasure ebx4.jpg

Thank you for uploading File:Erasure ebx4.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this file on Wikipedia may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the file description page and adding or clarifying the reason why the file qualifies under this policy. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your file is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a non-free use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for files used under the non-free content policy require both a copyright tag and a non-free use rationale.

If it is determined that the file does not qualify under the non-free content policy, it might be deleted by an administrator seven days after the file was tagged in accordance with section F7 of the criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. ✗plicit 14:26, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]