Jump to content

User talk:Iknow23

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Carly Greene (talk | contribs) at 15:23, 19 October 2009 (→‎Welcome back to Fefe Dobson articles :): new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

1

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on If That's Your Boyfriend (He Wasn't Last Night), by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because If That's Your Boyfriend (He Wasn't Last Night) is very short providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles.

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting If That's Your Boyfriend (He Wasn't Last Night), please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. To see the user who deleted the page, click here CSDWarnBot (talk) 02:41, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, adding content without citing a reliable source is not consistent with our policy of verifiability. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. If you are familiar with Wikipedia:Citing sources, please take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. HarlandQPitt (talk) 02:14, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, regarding your edits to the article i do believe they are in WP:good faith but nevertheless they have been reverted. Please take a look at Talk:Battlefield (album) where i have given a general reasoning for my own edits and reasons why my edits should not be reverted. (Lil-unique1 (talk) 22:29, 18 July 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Help maintain the Fefe Dobson article!!

Hi, I noticed you've been contributing to the Fefe Dobson article and I was hoping you would agree to clean up the article, so the said article could reach a good article status. It's simple just try and find sources to her debut album and sophomore unreleased album, by using the Google search. I only cleaned up the early section and didn't have time for the other sections but your HELP would be kindly appreciated.

Thank You! Greene Leigh Online (talk) 12:49, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

August 2009

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, one or more of the external links you added such as to the page Fringe (TV series) do not comply with our guidelines for external links and have been removed. Wikipedia is not a collection of links; nor should it be used for advertising or promotion, and doing so is contrary to the goals of this project. Since Wikipedia uses nofollow tags, external links do not alter search engine rankings. If you feel the link should be added to the article, please discuss it on the article's talk page before reinserting it. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you.Template:Do not deletedαlus Contribs 07:59, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tracklisting on Kiss & Tell

Please go to Talk:Kiss & Tell (Selena Gomez & the Scene album)#Track listing to solve the edit problems with the track listings format. Let's put it to vote. -- Ipodnano05 (talk) 09:27, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

IP 76.106.178.182

Odd about that IP user from Florida. It's the second time he/she has deleted sourced material from the article without explanation. I've left the appropriate warnings, so that if it continues one of us (or anyone else following the article) can seek admin action.--VMAsNYC (talk) 23:20, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank You. Unfortunately, people edit ALL THE TIME without explanation. It is definately disconcerting.
Iknow23 (talk) 23:30, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yep. They don't need to have explanations if it is noncontroversial or the thinking is clear ... but pure deletions of sourced material? BTW, do you want me to be the one putting back what you call the confusing material? Without it I fear someone may think Fefe is competing for the award (looks like one magazine already made that mistake!).--VMAsNYC (talk) 04:09, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, as you first conributed it, you are welcome to the honor to restore it. THAT was/is part of my concern also. People reading that Fefe is at a competition may ASSUME that she is also COMPETING in it. Hopefully it can be made clear that she is NOT [as I understand?]
:Iknow23 (talk) 04:34, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I got inspired. Check it out. Does that work??
Iknow23 (talk) 05:05, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Haha. Good enough for government work, I think at this late hour. The oddity is this -- depending on what you read, it is either a Battle of the Bands at which she happens to be singing, or I guess it is her singing, and there happens to be a battle of the bands at the same time! I think what happened was it was always pitched the first way at first (probably because they didn't know who the singers would be), and now LiveNation is leaing the other way no doubt because they expect that Fefe and Cobra S will be better sells than the bands competing. At least that is my take, if you look at all the article in chrono order. Good work on catching the date mistakes -- missed them myself.--VMAsNYC (talk) 05:55, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I bet you are right. Fefe & Cobra are the "BIG NAMES" and should get a better "draw."
"I guess it is her singing, and there happens to be a battle of the bands at the same" Event. < That's what I'm trying to say.
I said its a CONCERT with...FIRST. Then a "by the way" there is ALSO a competition that will be there too. AND if anyone reading it knows anything about Fefe, or reads the first line that she "is a Canadian singer-songwriter" they may be able to figure out that she wouldn't be a NYC Artist competing. Although people call me Mr. DETAIL I don't think we need to put the detail that the CONTESTANTS will perform interspaced between the "CONCERT" acts. [If I understand]
Iknow23 (talk) 06:53, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yep ... though it looks as though at least some of the members of the competing bands aren't native Americans.--VMAsNYC (talk) 07:45, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OH! So then they should rename it from: "The Best Breakout New York City Artist Award" to "The Best Breakout Artist Award Given Out in NYC"!!! LOL < couldn't resist a bit of texting lingo here
Iknow23 (talk) 07:53, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Falling Down

In "Falling Down" you put that it cannot be accessed in there. Yes it can if you have a subscription, so does that count? -- Ipodnano05 (talk) 23:02, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion, a "verifiable" reference should be able to be viewed by all. I would recommend to find a different source or link for this information.
Iknow23 (talk) 23:06, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In aCharts it shows the entry position so that can be used. Oh, and I added its current position, please web archive it. I would do it myself, but I have no idea how to do that. -- Ipodnano05 (talk) 23:15, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Did you notice if you click [I think] ANYWHERE on the number 97 listing at Billboard it opens a dropdown with ADDITIONAL info! Unfortunately the url does NOT change so can't link directly to the "expanded" view. I'm sure any archive [if allowed-see below] would just show the "regular" number 97 view.
I clicked on the Canadian chart link in the expanded view but can only access chart positions 1-50 [it is 82] so it can't be DIRECTLY viewed there [by me anyway] but that's just me, "Mr. DETAIL" haha checking everything out. It is NOT really necessary because IS IT shown in THAT "expanded" view.
Similarly with the Digital Songs I can only see positions 1-40 [it is 55]
I CAN see it on Heatseekers Songs at position 14, by clicking on the tab [11-20] and AGAIN when I click on the 14 position a dropdown opens with the additional info.
As regards to archive, in my experience NOT all websites allow you to archive them, but that doesn't stop anyone from at least trying. This is the archive site that I have been using webcitation.org archive form. Give it a try and let me know how you make out. It you have any problems, I'll try it then.
If a GOOD ref link can be found, it looks like a lot of ADDITIONAL chart info can be added to the page.
Looks like you could add a column to the Charts for "Debut". The word "Position" as in "Peak Position" probably is unnecessary being generally understood. Especially if debut or other columns are added, probably don't need to see the word "Position" added to each one.
Iknow23 (talk) 01:08, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I did not see it. Doing it right now. -- Ipodnano05 (talk) 23:11, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OK -- Iknow23 (talk) 23:15, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Heatseekers

Heatseekers lists the top singles by groups that have never had top 50 single. I can't say that there is a compelling consensus against its inclusion, but not a strong one for it either. It's more or less a marketing tool for the perennial "also-ran" and the occasional new group. I won't take it out again, but I'm willing to bet that it will be removed by multiple editors.—Kww(talk) 01:00, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. My thinking is that it is a chart by Billboard, a recognized industry leader, so it is "encyclopedic" to include any of their charts where it is shown. It is verifiable.
Iknow23 (talk) 23:17, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Quick Question

Why do I need to join the discussion if it's resolved lol? Jayy008 (talk) 23:23, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I didn't know that... Well I don't think it's charted on the Top 40 that's why I added it! I will get involved with the question when I get a spare second. Jayy008 (talk) 14:03, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]


No need to restore it. It charted at #91 on the Dutch Top 100. Component charts are allow if it doesn't chart on the main chart which is didn't. Jayy008 (talk) 18:42, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Lol, yes I definately agree now highly confusing!! As soon as I see it chart on the Top 40 I will personally delete the Top 100 listing! Jayy008 (talk) 19:19, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome back to Fefe Dobson articles :)

Joy (Fefe Dobson album) Understood! I think... Greene Leigh Online (talk) 15:23, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]