User talk:Tuzapicabit/Archive 3

Notability of Tomasz Borkowy

A tag has been placed on Tomasz Borkowy requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the article, which appears to be about a real person, organization (band, club, company, etc.), or web content, does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not indicate the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable. If this is the first page that you have created, then you should read the guide to writing your first article.

If you think that you can assert the notability of the subject, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the article (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the article's talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm the subject's notability under Wikipedia guidelines.

For guidelines on specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for bands, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. ←Signed:→Mr. E. Sánchez ^{Get to know me!} / _{Talk to me!}←at≈:→ 10:49, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay - why have you suddenly slammed a tag on my article- when I've literally just started writing it? It took you 8 minutes from the creation of the page. I've put an inuse banner on it to show that I'm currently wrting it - although your edit conflict didn't help when I tried to post a bit more of it. I've now had to leave the article, which I'm in the middle of researching to come and talk to you. --Tuzapicabit (talk) 11:06, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Right. Well, it didn't really say anything other than "this guy appeared on Doctor Who" when I read it. It also lacked citations. You should have really stuck that UnderConstruction tag on it to begin with. Please tone it down, though. I am sorry if it caused inconvenience to you. ←Signed:→Mr. E. Sánchez ^{Get to know me!} / _{Talk to me!}←at≈:→ 11:10, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, but you need to check the edit history before you go to measures like trying to get articles deleted. With one edit of just 8 minutes earlier - of course it had just been started. At least wait a few days before you consider that it's not worthy. I have put an inuse tag on it now, but let me pause for breath. Please try to be less trigger happy when people are trying to be creative. Thank you. --Tuzapicabit (talk) 11:19, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Having now been disrupted, I've gone off on a tangent - looking into your edit history and I see you seem to be a new article patroller. Well, I would direct you to this: Wikipedia:New pages patrol and in particular; Patrolling new pages. Jumping on brand new articles which are not vandalism "only serves to annoy the editor". If you want to patrol new pages - go back to the start, having had a look - the New pages section goes back to 14 October - rather than attack articles which have been created in the last few minutes. I have now lost track of the article I was writing so I'm going to take a break. Please consider your actions more carefully. --Tuzapicabit (talk) 11:50, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Higher Than High - Brotherhood Of Man.jpg)

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

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of '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 all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:13, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:From the Beggar's Mantle.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:From the Beggar's Mantle.jpg. 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. Fastily (talk) 00:12, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Grammar

Hi there. I just noticed that you changed the Roxy Music article from is to are. There seems to be a lot of debate about this lately, but I've always considered it are (as in Roxy Music are). The rule is 'he is' and 'they are' - and I consider a group to be more than one person. However, other people say a group is singular (a group is an it). With this in mind it seems understandable to say Roxy Music is - but I still prefer are! By this stage I'm completely confused - despite English being my best subject in school! Do you know which is correct (or can they both be used?) ? Thanks.--Tuzapicabit (talk) 20:22, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi:

The rules for collective nouns are different in the UK than in the US. British grammar dictates the use of a plural verb. Because Roxy Music are/were a British act, UK rules apply. Likewise, if one were to refer to an American band, the singular would apply, as in "R.E.M. is home now from the world tour".

Cheers.

Vytal (talk) 14:22, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for that. I can see where the confusion comes from then, but also a relief to know I was right. Thanks again.--Tuzapicabit (talk) 14:54, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:All for a Song - alt cover.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:All for a Song - alt cover.jpg. 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. Fastily (talk) 06:01, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Eurovision Newsletter - December 2008

Note: from now on the Newsletter will be "collapsed" for convenience. To see the full letter, click on the "show" button at the right end of the gray bar.

This Newsletter was delivered by Grk1011 (talk). If you are no longer interested in WikiProject Eurovision then please remove your name from this list.

One-hit wonders in the UK

This article is still woefully short of references / citations, which are needed to deter potential vandals, fancruft freaks and deletionists etc. I know you have worked hard to get this article into shape, and I have not contributed at all in recent times - BUT - "must try harder" is your current school report. Very best wishes,

Derek R Bullamore (talk) 11:58, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed non-free use rationale for Image:Eurovision 81.jpg

Thank you for uploading Image:Eurovision 81.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this image on Wikipedia may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the image description page and add or clarify the reason why the image 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 image 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 images used under the non-free content policy require both a copyright tag and a non-free use rationale.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under the non-free content policy, it might be deleted by an administrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. Stifle (talk) 11:23, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

B for Brotherhood

Thanks for visiting the B for Brotherhood page and rating it. I find it hard to believe you'd rate it stub however. I've checked a lot of start class articles and they seem much less than this one. Any thoughts?--Tuzapicabit (talk) 08:12, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. My bad, i failed to see the writters name and rated it stub, i chaged it to C (The lead section is small but fulfill the criteria)Zidane tribal (talk) 08:20, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the ammendment. I will be adding to the article and will try to extend the opening. It's reallly hard to find references and info on these old pop albums. How much easier people have it for today's albums!--Tuzapicabit (talk) 15:31, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for Hi-NRG article maintenance

Just wanted to say thanks for monitoring and pruning the Hi-NRG article of excessive examples. I support all of your recent edits. —mjb (talk) 21:49, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments. I came across the article a few months ago when it looked like this. It was a mess! I've kept a watch on it since to try and keep it clean. Well done on your edits also.--Tuzapicabit (talk) 22:30, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Join us?

(I saw this and thought you might be interested...)

Hello, Tuzapicabit/Archive 3! Thank you for your recent contributions to one of Wikipedia's Greater Manchester-related articles. Given the interest we're assuming you've expressed by your edits, have you considered joining WikiProject Greater Manchester? It's a user-group dedicated to improving the overall quality of all Greater Manchester-related content. There is a discussion page for sharing ideas as well as developing and getting tips on improving articles. The project has in-house specialists to support and facilitate your ideas. If you would like to join, simply add your name to the list of participants.

If you have any questions, don't hesitate to ask at the project talk page. We hope to be working with you in the future!

--Jza84 | Talk 16:14, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem

Thanks for your uploads. You've indicated that the following images are being used under a claim of fair use, but you have not provided an adequate explanation for why they meet Wikipedia's requirements for such images. In particular, for each page an image is used on, the image must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Can you please check

That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for each article the image is used in.
That every article it is used on is linked to from its description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --08:23, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

Actually what had happened was that you had added a comment at exactly the same time so please do not try to manipulate what I was saying. How could I have changed it to look like you were agreeing with me when you were saying something different?

I was actually trying to reply to the comment directly above, hence why I put it there.

I deeply resent the fact that you are accusing me of trying to corrupt anything. Not only that but you seem to be asking for my article to be deleted to get back at me. You already knew that I was creating the article and for what purpose as I had discussed it with you beforehand and you seemed to think it was a good idea. Maybe I was wrong, but I never tried to change what you were saying or anyone else.

I also resent the fact that you say I will not listen to reason, I have my thoughts and opinions and I did try to talk to you before. Just because I have different opinions does not make me unreasonable. --Cexycy (talk) 23:14, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Apology very gratefully accepted. Please look at the main parent article as I have merged the other article in and cleared it up a little. It should make perfect sense now and not mislead anyone. Not that I thought it did anyway but there you go. Let me know what you think. --Cexycy (talk) 22:50, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, it looks good at the moment and I look forward to see what else you have to offer. For now, I'll answer your quesions:

Clint Eastwood reached a peak of #18 with the double-A side (as stated on the official charts), so clearly it doesn't belong. Show me the proof that Clint Eastwood reached No.1.

You said yourself that this was a double A side, this means there were two hits. Lee Marvin had one, Clint Eastwood had the other. If Marvin had both, he would have had two hits and could not be a OHW.

Tubeway Army was a band (as stated by Wikipedia - unless you're going to argue with every editor in that article) - Tubeway Army had one hit - a No.1, they are a genuine one hit wonder. Do not give the argument that the band just happened to contain Gary Numan - this makes no difference - he is not the whole band. And unless you are aware of every member of every group listed (going back to the 1950s) you can't just pick out individual members (and even then it would make no difference) Gary Numan and Tubeway Army are two different charting acts

Good point, as I meantioned before Tubeway Army is technically a collaboration, but in this case in reverse. As mentioned below Cliff Richard and The Young Ones contains other (multiple) hitmakers, so do Tubeway Army because one of their members went on to have other hits, therefore they should really be in the other list. If this were the case for any other OHW group like the Archies, Overlanders, Floaters, etc. there would most likely be some note of this in the Guiness Hit Singles book and the groups concered would also be put into the other list.

If Tubeway Army and Gary Numan had one number one hit each and nothing else then they would both have to be in the other list for this reason.

The Young Ones are a one hit wonder - they never had another hit.

The Young Ones themselves are nothing in the singles chart. Cliff Richard and The Young Ones is a different story. Cliff Richard had other hits, Neil from the Young Ones had another hit and so did a couple of the others with the group Bad News. Therefore it would be wrong to list Cliff Richard and The Young Ones as a genuine OHW, however no other records were released under the guise of Cliff Richard and The Young Ones, however as a collaboration, they should be in the other list, see below.

As per the nomination process - the titling of your section is wrong - "alternate guises" is not accurate.

I was only using what the Guiness Hit Singles book one used. If people don't like it, it an be changed. How about One off Collaborations? As this would be a subheading in the main OHW article, people should understand that better and not laim it to be misleading. Also inlude a note before the list saying that the one off collaborations made it to number one only once and so satisfy the criteria as a OHW although the artists conerned on their own do not. Or words to that effect.

Your section is still missing many many examples - the argument for 'and' or 'featuring' is invalid unless you check (and give references) as to how these artists pairings were actually credited.

Well only collaboration artists that have been equally credited are listed, this includes and as well as vs, but not featuring. This wasn't my rule anyway. The main artile already said that artists featuring were not counted so such OHW collaborations have not been included. This is a shame as Tupac featuring Elton John would have been an interesting one, but this would only be a hit for Tupac and as he has already had other hits, the Ghetto Gospal song could not be included.

We could include another separate list for featuring artist collaboations of this nature, but this would have so many entries, it would seem meaningless, that is if it was ever completed!

The list should be a list - as it's of lesser importance to the genuinely authentic one hit wonders.

Good point, we could have it as an indented list, as it is now.

I hope you understand my points here, even though it is hard to explain. These points do not mean that I am right and everyone else is wrong, but I hope I have made myself a little clearer. Please tell me what you think. I may well be wrong. --Cexycy (talk) 23:49, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Eurovision Newsletter - January 2009

Note: the Newsletter is "collapsed" for convenience. To see the full letter, click on the "show" button at the right end of the gray bar.

If you are no longer interested in WikiProject Eurovision then please remove your name from this list. This Newsletter was delivered by Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 23:54, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image (Image:BOM - Lightning Flash - Barry Upton.jpg)

⚠

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

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of '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 images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. JaGa^talk 01:57, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikinews has news for you!

Tell me what you think! Mike H. Fierce! 00:51, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My next scheduled interview is with Anne-Marie David, which will be difficult because it'll be the first interview I've ever conducted completely in French. Mike H. Fierce! 09:31, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for File:The Underwater Menace.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:The Underwater Menace.jpg. You've indicated that the image meets Wikipedia's criteria for non-free content, but there is no explanation of why it meets those criteria. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. If you have any questions, please post them at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions.

Thank you for your cooperation. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 23:17, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for File:The Gunfighters.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:The Gunfighters.jpg. You've indicated that the image meets Wikipedia's criteria for non-free content, but there is no explanation of why it meets those criteria. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. If you have any questions, please post them at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions.

Thank you for your cooperation. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 23:21, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Doctor Who images

Please stop uploading new version for Doctor Who images. While some do require cleanup, your images only make matters worse. Your versions look overexposed. Also, TV screenshots should not be cropped as it creates a derivative of a non-free work. — Edokter • Talk • 00:27, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not to seem thankless, but your images do bounce the current ones from one extreme to another. But don't let it discourage you; experiment and let other see the results before uploading. — Edokter • Talk • 00:41, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the effort is appreciated - but unfortunately the end result has not improved the image quality. The changes have had to be reverted, because they demonstrate consistent issues with contrast, chroma, and exposure, as well as an overall loss of resolution. Just out of curiosity, what software and methodology are you using to process the images? As well, how is your monitor set up? Based on the changes, I'm inclined to think that it may need to be realigned. If you can provide some details, I might be able to suggest ways to achieve your desired results without the issues in the current batch.

Again, your interest in improving the images is great - but in future you might wish to put up one or two sample revised version on the Doctor Who talk page first, to allow others to offer some input.--Ckatz^chat _spy 01:06, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I've given it a go at some examples on Talk:The Seeds of Doom. See how it goes.--Tuzapicabit (talk) 09:32, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikinews has more news for you!

Mike H. Fierce! 12:19, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, did you see it? ;) Mike H. Fierce! 12:59, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It was originally in French. Mike H. Fierce! 22:55, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Doug McClure .jpg

Hi, I noticed this image and saw it was missing information. Do you own the copyright to this image? Since it seems like a scanned image, if you are not the copyrigh holder the image can't be released under a CC license. The fact that you scanned it does not mean you own the copyright. This image could pass the non-free content criteria though. Garion96 (talk) 23:33, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Edited the original image as per permission to modify. Changed the rationale now. Thought it was more appropriate/respectful. If not okay, just revert. I'm not that bothered, I just happened across it. --Tuzapicabit (talk) 23:40, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I see. This was an image on his grave? Then indeed you can't release it under a free content license. Since it would be considered a derivative work. I changed the image accordingly. Regarding adminship, the ad on my user page is exaggerated, although sometimes it seems that it is only slightly exaggerated. :) Garion96 (talk) 10:31, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Dawn_records.jpg

I have tagged File:Dawn_records.jpg as {{orphaned fairuse}}. In order for the image to be kept at Wikipedia, it must be included in at least one article. Otherwise, it will be deleted in seven days. Melesse (talk) 05:57, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ha ha! look at it - no wonder I didn't use it!!--Tuzapicabit (talk) 21:45, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Newsman here!

Mike H. Fierce! 15:36, 3 March 2009 (UTC) [reply]

Beep beep! More news! AND TELL ME WHAT YOU THINK OF IT. :P The joy is all in hearing what people think! Mike H. Fierce! 09:55, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Eurovision Newsletter - February 2009

Note: the Newsletter is "collapsed" for convenience. To see the full letter, click on the "show" button at the right end of the gray bar.

If you are no longer interested in WikiProject Eurovision then please remove your name from this list. This Newsletter was delivered by Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 15:40, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Time for more news!

Let me know what you thought. Mike H. Fierce! 10:00, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Eurovision Newsletter - March 2009

Note: the Newsletter is "collapsed" for convenience. To see the full letter, click on the "show" button at the right end of the gray bar.

If you are no longer interested in WikiProject Eurovision then please remove your name from this list. This Newsletter was delivered by Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 22:41, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File source problem with File:Krynoid2.jpg

File Copyright problem

Thanks for uploading File:Krynoid2.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, their copyright should also be acknowledged.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 08:45, 27 April 2009 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Radiant chains (talk) 08:45, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Eurovision Newsletter - April 2009

Note: the Newsletter is "collapsed" for convenience. To see the full letter, click on the "show" button at the right end of the gray bar.

If you are no longer interested in WikiProject Eurovision then please remove your name from this list. This Newsletter was delivered by Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 23:58, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File source problem with File:Krynoid2.jpg

File Copyright problem

Thanks for uploading File:Krynoid2.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, their copyright should also be acknowledged.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 10:13, 30 April 2009 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Radiant chains (talk) 10:13, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Irish Songs on the RS 500

On the RS 500 Greatest Songs Talk page, you wrote:

Irish songs

It says that there are 12 songs by Irish artists - 6 of them by U2, but having had a look I can only find Sinead O' Connor's "Nothing Compares 2 U" and right at the end, Thin Lizzy's "Boys are Back in Town". Have I missed the other 4 and what are they?--Tuzapicabit (talk) 07:39, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Van Morrison (Belfast, Northern Ireland) has 2 songs on the list. Two to go. Seduisant (talk) 19:15, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Eurovision Newsletter - May 2009

Note: the Newsletter is "collapsed" for convenience. To see the full letter, click on the "show" button at the right end of the gray bar.

If you are no longer interested in WikiProject Eurovision then please remove your name from this list. This Newsletter was delivered by Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 02:28, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ARTICLE: One Hit Wonders in the UK

I would like to comment about the inclusion of "Baddiel, Skinner and the Lightning Seeds" as a OHW. The original song released in 1996, was the official anthem of the England football team for that year's European Championships, held in England. The music was written by The Lightning Seeds, with comedians David Baddiel and Frank Skinner providing the lyrics; and reached #1 making it a OHW at the time. However, it was subsequently re-recorded with different lyrics (under the title "Three Lions '98") as an unofficial anthem for England's World Cup campaign in 1998 and landed the number one spot in the singles chart for a second time. Thus now making it a 2-hit-wonder for the same group (Baddiel, Skinner and the Lightning Seeds). Then in 2002 they re-released it again; and it reached #16; and in 2006 released for the 4th time and peaked at #9 in the UK charts. So this song is no longer a OHW. My brother-in-law who is a DJ also agrees with this; and states that the facts themselves show that it is no longer a OHW and has never seen since its second release in 1998. (Pr3st0n (talk) 13:59, 1 June 2009 (UTC))[reply]

RfC on reliable sources for Eurovision articles

A second RfC has been started on sourcing for Eurovision articles, you can view it at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Eurovision#RfC on reliable sources for Eurovision articles. You are being notified as you participated in the previous RfC on the issue at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Eurovision/Archive 3#Reliability of ESCKaz. You are free to participate in the debate once again if you wish. Camaron · Christopher · talk 16:47, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Eurovision Newsletter - June 2009

Note: the Newsletter is "collapsed" for convenience. To see the full letter, click on the "show" button at the right end of the gray bar.

If you are no longer interested in WikiProject Eurovision then please remove your name from this list. This Newsletter was delivered by Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 02:19, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/Separation of different versions of the same song

As somebody who appears to be interested in song articles you might be interested to know there is a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Songs/coverversions with the purpose of trying to establish a standard rule for merge/separation of different versions of the same song. You are invited to comment.--Richhoncho (talk) 18:46, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Attacks in the article Gloria (Irish singer)

Warning

Please do not make personal attacks as you did at Gloria (Irish singer). Wikipedia has a strict policy against personal attacks. Attack pages and images are not tolerated by Wikipedia and are speedily deleted. Users who continue to create or repost such pages and images, especially those in violation of our Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons policy, will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Thank you. Kingpin¹³ (talk) 01:10, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sad! Desperately sad! Do something more constructive with your time or - GET A LIFE!!!!!--Tuzapicabit (talk) 01:15, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]