User talk:BBilge
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Just letting you know, you can use {{spa}} to identify users on AFDs whose only edits are to the AFD and its subject. Cheers. Someguy1221 03:28, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks. I consider my template vocabulary officially increased. Bilge [TC] 08:06, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
[edit] List of warez groups
You've tagged a bunch of groups with {{cn}}. No problem with that. However, you've also tagged a bunch of groups that have Wikipedia entries that state what's in the summary. How/why would you cite those? - JNighthawk 04:27, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
- Surely, just because another page has an appropriate reference does not mean that that reference can be neglected on this one. Also, I didn't tag groups, I tagged sentences which really do need a reference because they could easily be incorrect without one. Bilge [TC] 08:43, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
- Really? That was exactly my thought. If the references are included in the group's pages, I wouldn't think they'd be necessary on the list page, but I have no idea what WP policy is on that. I may take a look at finding references for what you tagged. Before you tagged them, did you check the group's WP page to see if it had references for those facts? - JNighthawk 09:47, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
Also, are you planning on withdrawing your nomination? If not, I'll most likely close it tomorrow under WP:SNOW. - JNighthawk 04:28, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
- I can understand some of the reasons for keeping it but I would still support the delete for the same reasons as before. I still honestly believe it will continue to be a dumping ground for unverified material. The only thing that the AfD discussion teaches is that nobody cares if it is. It seems that people want to know about warez gossip more than they care about the quality of the encyclopaedia, which frankly, I find very disappointing.
- Additionally, almost nobody has responded with an objective keep and absolutely nobody has formed a basis for an argument to keep by denying any of the multitude of valid reasons that I put forward for a delete. I am sure that there are many people who would agree with me but I guess that they have either left Wikipedia already or they don't patrol AfDs; who knows. I still stand by my original opinion, so I can see no reason at all to withdraw. Bilge [TC] 08:43, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
- That's fine, I was just checking. It's not that I disagree with some of your reasoning, it's that I disagree that the page doesn't belong on Wikipedia. By their very nature, sources for that article are going to be very hard to find. I disagree with the idea of just deleting a potentially problematic page, though. - JNighthawk 09:47, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
- This was the main reason I had in mind when I said I can understand some of the reasons for keeping it. This is also why I propose reorientating the article to become a historical list. Bilge [TC] 11:35, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
- Meh. How do you classify something as "historical"? I think that as long as the groups are notable within the scene, they should be included. - JNighthawk 18:32, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
- This was the main reason I had in mind when I said I can understand some of the reasons for keeping it. This is also why I propose reorientating the article to become a historical list. Bilge [TC] 11:35, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
- That's fine, I was just checking. It's not that I disagree with some of your reasoning, it's that I disagree that the page doesn't belong on Wikipedia. By their very nature, sources for that article are going to be very hard to find. I disagree with the idea of just deleting a potentially problematic page, though. - JNighthawk 09:47, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
Please refrain from removing groups which have Wikipedia entries. If they have a Wikipedia entry, their notability has already been proven. - JNighthawk 02:07, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
- Whoops. Accidentally took a chunk out of historical groups section. Readded. Bilge [TC] 21:09, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
So... any problems with my cleanup attempts so far? - JNighthawk 04:52, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
- If you're fishing for compliments then you've succeeded. You did several things that I would have done if only I could have been bothered. Good job. Hopefully by improving the quality of the page, randoms will be less inclined to defecate all over it. However, the citations need improving. All self-referential "sources" must be removed. External sources should be added. References and footnotes sections should be merged. Bilge [TC] 20:42, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
- I wasn't fishing for compliments. I'm just trying to see if those citations are sufficient. When you say "self-referential citations," do you mean citations of Wikipedia entries? - JNighthawk 00:59, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:FL Studio 6.3 beta screenshot.png
Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:FL Studio 6.3 beta screenshot.png. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.
If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Durin 20:52, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Flfruit.png
Thanks for uploading Image:Flfruit.png. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 07:08, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
