User talk:Ericorbit

---

Ciara Discography

Leave it as it is, it fits WP: Discography, and since fantasy ride hasn't been certified it has its sales. leave it or you will be blocked.--TrEeMaNsHoE (talk) 01:35, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Yamh91

You probably want to comment at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Yamh91.—Kww(talk) 17:02, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Now we're in an awkward position: you blocked him as an obvious sock (and I tend to agree), but the checkuser says the editor is editing from the wrong country. We can do one of two things:

• Assume the behavioural evidence is so strong that it must be Yamh91 on vacation or using a proxy.
• Reverse the block based on the checkuser.

I'm happy enough going with the behavioural evidence.—Kww(talk) 17:17, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Whether its Yamh91 or not, the editor is an obvious sock. I think the block is justified, although the tag on the user page should be changed, if it is a sock of someone else. That's easy enough to do. I didn't know the Yamh91 checkuser request had been re-re-re-re-re-re-re-re-opened. - eo (talk) 17:26, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Let's let it sit until there's an unblock request, and see what to do then. I agree that a two-day-old account recreating an article again after it has been salted in multiple variations is a sock of someone, even if we aren't precisely sure who the puppeteer is.—Kww(talk) 17:30, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

That works for me. The only other person off the top of my head I would suspect is the "Headstrong" person, although Yamh91 (for lack of a better word) is, in general, a "better" editor (i.e. better handle of the English language and understanding of WP formatting guidelines, etc.). Anyway, I used the "suspected sockpuppet" template so we can see what (if anything) happens. - eo (talk) 17:36, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Dbunkley6

I think the sudden return of Dbunkley6 and the upswing of Raven-Symone related problems are probably related, yes. Not quite certain yet, but I've been watching closely. Dropped a level-3 warning on Dbunkley6's talk page yesterday.—Kww(talk) 19:45, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

RE: Please stop re-adding this

The title of the article is "List of Number One Albums of 2009" and in that period, the true number 1 was Number Ones. S&J (talk) 13:16, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

That page lists the Billboard 200 number ones, but that chart includes only the albums that aren't old at least 18 months. Top Comprehensive Albums lists old and new albums and this chart shows the true number 1 of the country, not only the number 1 of the new albums of the country. In that period, Number Ones was number 1 in the Top Comprehensive Albums. If the title of the page is "List of Number One Albums of 2009", we must to post the undisputed number one album and not the number one new album. S&J (talk) 14:16, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

"There is already a mention of what happened in the Comprehensive Albums article"

A person that read only the "List of Number One Albums of 2009" don't know that fact. It's better to post it.

"Billboard has chart rules and thus what is listed is the number one album for each week of the year. It's that simple. Billboard's charts are compiled as a tool for those in the music industry, not for Michael Jackson fans. The Billboard 200 is the industry standard for for U.S. album sales and no further explanation is needed."

They are fake number ones, because in that period other albums sold more than their. The title of the article is "List of Number One Albums of 2009" and the undisputed number ones must be posted, not the number one new albums. S&J (talk) 15:46, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but the title is wrong, it's not the "List of Number One Albums of 2009", but the "List of Number One Albums of the Billboard 200 in 2009". S&J (talk) 22:02, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

The rules of Billboard aren't obiettive. S&J (talk) 22:21, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

So, for you the true number ones are the Billboard 200 number ones also if a catalog album sold more their. S&J (talk) 22:34, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Beyonce Discography

Hello eric :

1. Could you please add total sales of her cds to the studio albums table? I see the totals of 11mill, 6mill,5mill in the lead. Other discography pages have the totals in the table. I think it should be in the table for bk as well to keep format.
2. Also is there a way to bold the line that separates the albums in the singles table? In the studio albums section it is easy to read, but in the singles section, it isnt.

Thanks ! 64.26.99.120 (talk) 21:23, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

The Fame

Hey Eric. Could you please come to the above mentioned article? A user is continuously adding an infobox for The Fame Monster re-release inspite of being repeatedly asked not to do so. Thsi is turning into a mess. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 04:40, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Rihannano1fan

OK, I've had it. I've tried explaining it enough times to Rihannano1fan (talk · contribs) (my last warning following their "confirmation" when nothing was confirmed), my good faith is out the window. He was told not to post rumors and speculations as facts, but he still does, all based on a countdown ticking on the singer's website. He was told that retailer sites aren't reliable sources for release dates, but he carries on using them. He was told not to remove SD templates from articles he creates, but continues to do so anyway. I have told him that he needs to take copyright on Wikipedia seriously, to run his next uploads by someone who knows something about it if he is unsure himself, but he still keeps uploading copyrighted images (1 2 3) with claims of CC-BY-SA or PD-self when he obviously doesn't hold copyright to them and they haven't been released as such.
I have tried to explain it often enough that I can only conclude now he is doing it deliberately, or deliberately doesn't care. Since I've blocked, reverted, and pleaded with him often enough that he might consider me biased or involved, could you have a look and decide whether a topic ban (anything Rihanna + image uploads) or a block might be appropriate?
Thanks, Amalthea 15:08, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

I tend to agree with Amalthea. The talk page is a pile of final warnings, and I don't see any sign that Rihannano1fan is paying any attention to them.—Kww(talk) 15:14, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Ugh, I agree, I forgot about this guy; a complete nuisance. Two-week block and I put him on my watch list so I can keep one eye on him. I'd be on the lookout for block evasion, too. - eo (talk) 15:33, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Amalthea 16:08, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

RFA spam

Thank you for participating in WP:Requests for adminship/Kww 3
Sometimes, being turned back at the door isn't such a bad thing

—Kww(talk) 18:37, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Bananarama Viva 2nd single

I relinked the source so it would show where the thread is on the Bananarama.co.uk forum of the official news of the 2nd single. So I would appreciate it if you didn't remove it.Saskatuneguy (talk) 01:42, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Histmerge

Hey, could you please histmerge Talk:Fast Ryde/Comments to Talk:Fast Ryde? Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 17:53, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Discography

Sorry, i didnt know about the ten charts only rule. You may want to check the discography of rihanna, chris brown, michael jackson, beyonce, because thats why i thought there could be more than ten.--TrEeMaNsHoE (talk) 12:19, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, there are quite a number of discographies that need some serious reductions, or that have been trimmed but the excessive countries keep being re-added. - eo (talk) 12:55, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Dbunkley6

He's independent. He's already been cleared of being Yamh91 by checkuser. If you think he's being a bad enough editor that he is disruptive enough to block, I'm not going to raise a fuss, but he isn't a Yamh91 sock.—Kww(talk) 18:27, 28 October 2009 (UTC)