User talk:IndianBio

Take a Bow (Madonna song) I'm sorry but I don't understand your revert. Why does a journal article have to be "helpful"? Surely it is either about the song or it isn't. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 13:33, 10 May 2017 (UTC) @The Vintage Feminist:, we usually add a further reading section, when we have material which is related to the article but there is no use of adding it in the article itself. In this case, the journal article is about media and video, however is it related to the song itself? IS there any mention of "Take a Bow" or its music video for instance anywhere? —IB [ Poke ] 13:42, 10 May 2017 (UTC) The article's abstract: The music video poses several questions in which the ordering of the senses becomes central: What does it mean to show a singing body, a close-up of a singer and her body parts (her open mouth, her hands, her lips, etc.)? Does the music video emphasize sight over hearing by becoming cinematic and theatrical? The tension between the somatic side of singing and the beautification of the singing, instrumental, working body through dancing brings a gendered vision to the fore that links the female body strictly with codes of beauty. A reading of Madonna’s video “Take a Bow” allows for such an analysis in its tendency to dramatize the division of sound and image as in film: the image of the beautiful woman entails the use of voice through dubbing. The entire journal article uses Take a Bow as a case study. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 13:48, 10 May 2017 (UTC) Okay thanks for pointing it, I will revert myself and add it to the further reading. —IB [ Poke ] 13:51, 10 May 2017 (UTC) Thank you. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 15:31, 10 May 2017 (UTC) Rebel Heart Great work on the RH missing articles ;) What will you b working on next?--Chrishm21 (talk) 17:31, 10 May 2017 (UTC) Madonna list Hi, IB. Congrats! there are currently several Madonna's article on hold to be GA and FA :). I will ask you, if you can fix (later) the English grammar and mistakes in the List of artists influenced by Madonna?. I'm working on the article now but I will finish later. Also, I was thinking and you know, there is a future biopic about Madonna named Blond Ambition. I think that will be attract readers to Blond Ambition Tour. So, what do you think?, we can work on this article and convert to GA. I can recolect links. Chrishonduras (Diskussion) 18:21, 11 May 2017 (UTC) Hi @Chrishonduras: yes I agree that Blond Ambition would probably need an article once the film starts production. And yes once you finish with the list do let me know and I will copyedit it. —IB [ Poke ] 04:34, 12 May 2017 (UTC) Question Hey Indian! What's up? I have a (random) question. What do you think about this website Radiomonitor.com. Do you think it's a reliable source for radio airplay positions? — Tom(T2ME) 17:31, 14 May 2017 (UTC) Hi Tomica. Hmm they do not seem to have any authoritative alignment to give radio positions and are not associated with Nielsen I see. I would say no. —IB [ Poke ] 04:31, 15 May 2017 (UTC) Gaga lead Also pinging SNUGGUMS, what do you think of this lead for Gaga's article? – FrB.TG (talk) 18:26, 14 May 2017 (UTC) Not sure about the "vocal abilities" bit (sounds promotional), but otherwise looks fine. Snuggums (talk / edits) 18:49, 14 May 2017 (UTC) @FrB.TG: I think this is absolutely wonderful restructuring. Just minor c/e but I'm very impressed. —IB [ Poke ] 04:13, 15 May 2017 (UTC) A Head Full of Dreams Tour You asked me for source You can look it from Billboard box-score here : http://www.billboard.com/biz/current-boxscore And please look A Head Full of Dreams Tour. Here's all official (reliable) tour box scores Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Esambuu (talk • contribs) 06:00, 17 May 2017 (UTC) That's fine Esambuu, but it is your onus to archive the urls and then properly add the source to update the total. I still do not see the total being present in the link above. —IB [ Poke ] 06:17, 17 May 2017 (UTC) Witness I did not revert you. --Jennica✿ / talk 05:07, 19 May 2017 (UTC) [1]. —IB [ Poke ] 05:08, 19 May 2017 (UTC) Oh. Woops. I thought you meant in the midst of it all. And by the way, the ref template does DMY by default. I'll be sure to watch out for this in the future. --Jennica✿ / talk 05:26, 19 May 2017 (UTC) Youcan set which format you want the dates to be. —IB [ Poke ] 05:30, 19 May 2017 (UTC) How? Thanks --Jennica✿ / talk 05:44, 19 May 2017 (UTC) In your preferences, in the monobook.js. —IB [ Poke ] 05:46, 19 May 2017 (UTC) Hm. I don't know. I use the reftoolbar and we might be using two different things. I tried looking this for more info but it's a little confusing. If you can't help, that's ok. I'll just do it manually with my MOSDATE script. --Jennica✿ / talk 07:25, 19 May 2017 (UTC) Confessions Tour Hi there, not sure why my edits are being reverted. I've added important information to a page and and sourced it. I don't understand what I'm doing wrong. "The Duck Mixes the Hits" medley is listed in the DVD booklet and in the credits on the actual film, it is an integral part of the show. It's not listed on the back cover as a separate track/chapter, I am aware. Hence, I included it as a note as although it does not separate the two compositions by chapter, perhaps even by mistake, it is still part of the show. I'd like to know why the information was removed. As I don't think it's any different to say a hidden track appearing on an album; the tracks are not individual but they contain two separate compositions.Let's go through the ritual... (talk) 07:34, 23 May 2017 (UTC) The section you are adding it is the track list, and it is not needed to be added there. We source the track list exactly as it appears in the DVD and as you mention, its not present there. If we go on adding stuff from the booklet to the article, we would be duplicating the booklet instead, which would fail WP:COPYVIO. —IB [ Poke ] 09:57, 23 May 2017 (UTC) I see how one could interpret it that way. But consider my hidden track comparison and it's a different situation. I do not believe adding a note to the track violates WP:COPYVIO at all. For now, I will append the information underneath the track list. But I do firmly believe adding a note to the track information does still comply. Let's go through the ritual... (talk) 00:46, 24 May 2017 (UTC) Thanks, that looks good. —IB [ Poke ] 10:17, 24 May 2017 (UTC) Awesome. Glad we could reach an agreement and I think it looks good aesthetically that way too. Thanks. Let's go through the ritual... (talk) 12:13, 24 May 2017 (UTC) How do you know? How do you know if it's official or not? Luke Kern Choi 5 (talk) 08:37, 27 May 2017 (UTC) WP:RS, please read this. —IB [ Poke ] 11:36, 27 May 2017 (UTC) Madonna Pics Hey man, how r u? Sorry for all the changing of the images, in my defense I was just trying to switch them up for something not as random as the ones uploaded (both in caption and picture) there are so much more better pics that could be used; in M.D.N.A's case, the picture of Madonna with pompons is more appropiate as its from the singing of the lead single rather than a far view of her, never is my intention to bother. Just trying to help :) I've also been want to ask you if you would be itnerested in helping me with this sandbox; it will be a translation from here. I know it's not a Madonna article, but perhaps you could be interested in helping me? Another of my favorite singers is Kylie and would also love very much to contribute to her articles. Look forward to your answer, again never my intention of causing trouble. --Chrishm21 (talk) 19:43, 27 May 2017 (UTC) Its OK, I just don't like random placement of images without any thought, and purely hate decorative images. And sure I can help you with the article, although I'm not sure how good I would be at translating it. —IB [ Poke ] 13:28, 28 May 2017 (UTC) I can do the translating myself, it's not that hard, but if you could find info regarding artwork or photoshoot or stuff like that, that can work :D As for the decorative images, many of the articles have and whereas I do think they look pretty and useful on some sections, other pics could work. It would be good to do a through cleanup of some articles (specifically of the early Madonna albums), there is more info we could use from more wikipedias just look at the articles from the spanish wiki. Also do you think it would be oK to revert the Give Me Your Luvin picture from SB on M.D.N.A, you can see Madona better :P?? Look forward to your answer.--Chrishm21 (talk) 20:19, 28 May 2017 (UTC) The reason for adding that picture of GMAYL from Super Bowl was not to stress on Madonna, but rather to give the enormity of the proceeding and the show itself. Remember, it was the halftime show by Madonna, not the halftime Madonna show. There's a subtle difference. —IB [ Poke ] 04:17, 29 May 2017 (UTC) Raavan — Orphan of Aryavarta Why is this a hoax? I can see reasons to delete this per WP:CRYSTAL (and have added a proposed deletion tag), but the information seems to be exactly that on the author's webpage. —Kusma (t·c) 13:45, 29 May 2017 (UTC) @Kusma:, Raavan: Orphan of Aryavarta was repeatedly deleted for a WP:HOAX, now since the page is salted this user recreated it under a new name. Naturally I CSD'd it under hoax. If the author has listed this name on his website, then fine it can be a redirect I guess, but the article cannot be created as you can say now its WP:CRYSTAL. —IB [ Poke ] 14:25, 29 May 2017 (UTC) It is suboptimal that other admins deleted this as "hoax" when it clearly does not meet WP:CSD#G3 (but then, we often delete things that need to be deleted even if the reason given does not apply). A "hoax" is deliberate misinformation, and I can't see anything like that here. —Kusma (t·c) 14:34, 29 May 2017 (UTC) @Kusma:, you are missing the point. It was a hoax when the user was creating it continuously because there was no existence of this name anywhere and I had checked the author's website myself. Given the continuous socking and disruptive editing by this user, its not er on any admin's part reviewing that this was still a hoax until the author announced the name or listed it. —IB [ Poke ] 14:37, 29 May 2017 (UTC) Being unsourced and unverifiable does not make an article a hoax. To be a hoax, it has to be deliberate misinformation. The article was never a hoax, and it was wrong that you tagged it as one. —Kusma (t·c) 14:47, 29 May 2017 (UTC) Oh please, a non-existing name of a book about which the author had never said anything anywhere and its not a hoax? Gimme a break. —IB [ Poke ] 14:49, 29 May 2017 (UTC) I can't tell whether there was really no information about this available publicly back in April (unfortunately I have mislaid the keys for my time machine). I assume there was some information out there. As the article contents were plausible, it was not a "blatant hoax". WP:PROD or WP:AFD are more suitable for this type of crystal ball articles. —Kusma (t·c) 15:08, 29 May 2017 (UTC) You are free to choose to believe me or not, I have created the previous book of this series and I can tell you there was absolutely no indication of any release under that name in April. Obviously there was a third book, but it was not created under Amish Tripathi's Third Book of Ram Chandra series and the author did not announce any name for it. My hunch is that this user is probably an insider or something inline and was probably aware of it. Trying to create something non-existent, when no source or third party could affirm its presence, was definitely a hoax then. Now, the name is listed in the author's website, however it is now PRODd correctly for being CRYSTAL. Thanks, and I do not want to continue this circular discussion anymore. I have the sockpuppets to deal with. —IB [ Poke ] 15:13, 29 May 2017 (UTC) Gaga Guinness Do you think that "Most Famous Celebrity in the World" here is true? The source attached to it does not support the statement and a google search also revealed nothing. On the other hand, this looks like something worth adding considering that Guinness replied to it. – FrB.TG (talk) 15:02, 29 May 2017 (UTC) No @FrB.TG: I definitely don't think that's correct and might have been added by some IP over the year and we missed it. I believe we should remove it and replace it with the GWR book for most important celebrity as you indicated in the source. —IB [ Poke ] 15:05, 29 May 2017 (UTC) Another award that I am unsure of is Best-Selling Digital Album in United Kingdom as I am having a hard time verifying it. Oh dear. – FrB.TG (talk) 15:14, 29 May 2017 (UTC) Oh that was definitely something awarded, I remember her getting it. Oh dear it would be a great loss if we can't find any source for it. :S —IB [ Poke ] 15:19, 29 May 2017 (UTC) What do you think about views? Since there are videos that have a lot of views, what do you think about the music video views? Luke Kern Choi 5 (talk) 15:05, 29 May 2017 (UTC) I don't think anything as its a worthless piece of information unless a third party media reports about it. —IB [ Poke ] 15:06, 29 May 2017 (UTC) Thanks. List of artists influenced by Madonna Hi, IB. I think that I finished the information. Later I will double-check the list, because I know that there are poor additions but some can be easily replace. So, can you help with the text? :). Chrishonduras (Diskussion) 07:32, 30 May 2017 (UTC) Sure Chris, I have a couple of projects in mind and surely after that I can take a look. —IB [ Poke ] 09:06, 30 May 2017 (UTC) Your GA nomination of Rebel Heart (song) The article Rebel Heart (song) you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Rebel Heart (song) for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Aoba47 -- Aoba47 (talk) 14:41, 1 June 2017 (UTC) The Formation World Tour modification I don't understand your revert. There is a obvious difference in total box-office gross between the 1989 and Formation World Tour. Being branded as 'disruptive' without any sort of explanation is unnecessary; especially as that was never my intention. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mathiasabra (talk • contribs) 23:49, 3 June 2017 (UTC) None of your changes had any source indicating the total gross updates, and you clearly smartly replaced Formation tour with 1989. Need I say more about the vandal policy of Wikipedia? —IB [ Poke ] 04:16, 4 June 2017 (UTC) YOU ARE IDIOT fucking idiot dates are officially added to the tour!!!!!!!!!!! SEE OFFICIAL SITE OF KATY PERRY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! IDIIOTEEEEE,, MORONNNUUU --Maja Polovina (talk) 11:23, 9 June 2017 (UTC)