User talk:Z33k

A State of Trance Episode 280

Welcome to Wikipedia! We could really use your help to create new content, but your recent additions (such as "A State of Trance Episode 280") are considered nonsense. Please refrain from creating nonsense articles. If you want to test things out, edit the sandbox instead. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. JudahBlaze 21:21, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

-

Thanks, i'll do that! /z33k

Image source problem with Image:Kandi.png

Image Copyright problem

Thanks for uploading Image:Kandi.png. 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.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

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 19:54, 15 April 2008 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Polly (Parrot) 19:54, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of File:Above & Beyond presents OceanLab-Sirens of the Sea Remixed.jpg

A tag has been placed on File:Above & Beyond presents OceanLab-Sirens of the Sea Remixed.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F9 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the image appears to be a blatant copyright infringement. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted images or text borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page 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 page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. ╟─TreasuryTag►Lord Speaker─╢ 17:45, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Joshua (record producer)

A tag has been placed on Joshua (record producer) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a band or musician, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for musical topics. You may also wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles - see the Article Wizard.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page 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 page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. WWGB (talk) 12:12, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Cloak

Hi dungodung, I am z33k on freenode and I request a cloak. --Z33k (talk) 20:41, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Kent issues

Your last edit on the kent template, whcih I created, kinda ruined it. The swedish singels should not be all in one row. It is extended too far now. The thing had breaks inserted so that it does not stretch too far. So I reverted that edit. Further, pa drift was not a single cd. (LAz17 (talk) 15:30, 5 November 2009 (UTC)).

Orphaned non-free image File:Garuda.jpeg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Garuda.jpeg. 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 "file" 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 "File" 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. Skier Dude (talk) 04:04, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Garudalogo.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Garudalogo.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 "file" 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 "File" 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. Skier Dude (talk) 04:04, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

kent

Hi again. I removed the song 2000 from the single list, because it was not a CD single. If you want a page for it, consider making it like Dom som försvann. (LAz17 (talk) 05:56, 13 December 2009 (UTC)).

Also, see if you can help here, List of Kent songs. I just made the article. It'll require a bit of work to fix it up. (LAz17 (talk) 06:26, 13 December 2009 (UTC)).

Not true, 100 physical copies exists, see http://kent.nu/2009/10/26/2000-och-tuna-350-slapps-digitalt/# --Z33k (talk) 13:03, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

But it is not an official single. Kent's website has a list of all their singles, as does the kent junkie site. If they add this 2000 song to their list, then I would be willing to add it. Otherwise no. Many bands make some promotional one song CD, but this is not considered a single release. (LAz17 (talk) 16:06, 13 December 2009 (UTC)).

Their website's list of their singles is not up to date anyway. About kentjunkie, then i can go and make my own Kent fan site and claim that "2000" is a single. --Z33k (talk) 16:11, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Their website will be up to date soon, and you will see that 2000 will not be on there. As for kent junkie - they are pretty darn close to being official. You can see :::[1] , kent's official website - they recommend people to go to kent junkie, which is here [2]. Now, you may make your own kent website, but it will take time to be established and brought up to the condition that kent itself would recommend its own fans to go there. Nowhere is 2000 included. (LAz17 (talk) 16:15, 13 December 2009 (UTC)).

It was released as a physical CD single and it even charted. That qualifies as a single release and part of their single discography.--Z33k (talk) 20:30, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

I looked at the page today and it appears that you have changed your mind, or someone else has. At any rate, there is a new list for the non-album songs that charted... if you could please do add Dom som försvann to that list. I think it says that it charted in both norway and sweden. Have a good new year man, and let me know if you need anything. (LAz17 (talk) 06:33, 3 January 2010 (UTC)).

I didn't do it, but I do think it makes sense to put it under "Other charted songs". However i've recently updated the certifications/sales with proper sources. I've just moved "Dom som forsvann". Thanks --z33k (talk) 12:20, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:Medina-Velkommen_til_Medina_Special_Edition-Album.jpg)

Thanks for uploading File:Medina-Velkommen_til_Medina_Special_Edition-Album.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 'file' 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 "File" 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. Melesse (talk) 19:49, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

File:Medina-Velkommen_til_Medina-Album.jpg

I have tagged File:Medina-Velkommen_til_Medina-Album.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) 19:49, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm currently writing the article where it will be included --Z33k (talk) 19:50, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for File:Aqua-Greatest Hits-Special Edition.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Aqua-Greatest Hits-Special Edition.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file 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 file 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 'file' 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 "File" 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. Wexcan  Talk  15:44, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Muzaik (song)

Hi Z33k, if you're wondering why I redirected this article to the album's page, this is explained at the guideline WP:NSONGS. Thanks, Marasmusine (talk) 13:05, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the citation, thats better! Marasmusine (talk) 13:15, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

No problem, should've been put there in the first place. Thanks --z33k (talk) 13:52, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Re: Tiesto

You might want to provide a real rationale for this revert, rather than "I don't like it". Nymf _hideliho! 13:35, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

It's common to include the studio albums only when an artist have an entire discography article. Furthermore the list also contained some of his compilations.--z33k (talk) 13:38, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

It is done both ways, so it being common is hardly a rationale. (In fact, it is done on an article to article basis. In some articles the discography is even done in prose or not included in the main article at all.) Is there a ground in the policy or guidelines for your edit? Unless there is, going around changing it and then even edit warring over it (without providing a real reason), is considered rude.

I am not talking about the compilations being listed as studio albums, obviously. That should be changed. Nymf _hideliho! 13:51, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Also, see this part MOS:DISCOG#Ignore_all_rules about every discography being different. Nymf _hideliho! 13:54, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Benno de Goeij Biography

Could you please leave my commments in place? If there is anybody who knows what's fact it would be myself right? If you have any questions please mail me on benno@bennodegoeij.com or benno@rank-1.com. 94.209.103.100 (talk) 21:07, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

My Cassette Player edit revert

Could you please provide a rationale for your revert? The fact of the matter is that repeating all possible first names over an over again is both redundant and just looks bad. Janfrie1988 (talk) 19:26, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

I've now edited it according to "Note the standard method of attributing songwriters—write (and link) the full name the first time it appears, and then just give the last name [...]" (WP:ALBUMS)

FYI it's written Adele Laurie Blue Adkins and Lester A. Mendez, Dennis James Morris, Jason Thomas Mraz in the booklet --z33k (talk) 14:30, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

The pesonnel section is the place for listing the personnel exactly as it is specified in the booklet. The names in the tracklist only serve to identify the writers, not list their every single first name. People who do not know e.g. Adele very well might indeed be confused by "Adele Laurie Blue Adkins" and therefore not identify her correctly. Janfrie1988 (talk) 16:21, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Robyn - Robyn (US).jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Robyn - Robyn (US).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 "file" 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 "File" 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. Image Screening Bot (talk) 19:56, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

All the Lovers

Please stop. If you continue to add irrelevant information that does not belong in this article of Wikipedia, as you did to All the Lovers, you will be blocked from editing. Xwomanizerx (talk) 20:42, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

You're the one removing the relevant information. Thanks. --z33k (talk) 12:45, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

How is the writers of another song relevant on the All the Lovers article? Xwomanizerx (talk) 18:09, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Because it's a part of the release. There's no rule against putting it there. And don't add fake credits the personnel list please. --z33k (talk) 18:27, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

So, in your opinion, there should be credits for the remixes as well? Show me one example of a recent GA or FA that contained this and I will leave it. And about the credits, Discogs is an unreliable source. I know your edits are of good faith, but I have been writing and reviewing GA's for a while now. Thanks, Xwomanizerx (talk) 18:40, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

If it adds more useful information, then yes. Unreliable? I'm reading them directly off the CD sleeve itself. How on earth is that unreliable...--z33k (talk) 18:50, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

It's not useful, because it's about ANOTHER song. And you can't add credits directly from the CD sleeve into Wikipedia. Kylie's vocals HAVE to be mentioned, the rest is just the same. You can't continue to do this, but when this gets nominated for GA, it'll probably be deleted. Xwomanizerx (talk) 18:59, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

It's about a song that's WITHIN the release of "All the Lovers", a b-side. Why is that not important? It's even 1% of the entire article, so why does it bother you? YOU can't just add credits that you make up in your mind. Mine are from the official retail CD single, so they are the actual ones. --z33k (talk) 19:03, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

It is the way the credits should be in Wikipedia. It does not "bother" me personally, this is an encyclopedia, not ASCAP. I suggest you stop adding it, because it will eventually get deleted by the reviewer. Xwomanizerx (talk) 19:09, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Categories for discussion nomination of Category:Albums produced by Ghost

Category:Albums produced by Ghost, which you created, has been nominated for deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. — ξ^xplicit 23:15, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Categories for discussion nomination of Category:Songs produced by Ghost

Category:Songs produced by Ghost, which you created, has been nominated for deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. — ξ^xplicit 23:15, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Categories for discussion nomination of Category:Songs written by Ghost

Category:Songs written by Ghost, which you created, has been nominated for deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. — ξ^xplicit 23:15, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Robyn - Robyn (US).jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Robyn - Robyn (US).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 "file" 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 "File" 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. Hammersoft (talk) 13:18, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Robyn - Body Talk Pt. 1 (Germany).jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Robyn - Body Talk Pt. 1 (Germany).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).

PLEASE NOTE:

• I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions.
• I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
• If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
• To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to your talk page.
• If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 05:48, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Robyn - Body Talk Pt. 1 (UK & US).jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Robyn - Body Talk Pt. 1 (UK & US).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).

PLEASE NOTE:

• I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions.
• I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
• If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
• To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to your talk page.
• If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 05:49, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Robyn album covers

On wikipedia the primary preference for images are those which are classfied as free content. Per the policy at Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria non-free content can only be used when free content is not available.

• Critically WP:NFCC#3a states that Multiple items of non-free content are not used if one item can convey equivalent significant information. Therefore the use of more than one single/album cover is almost always not justifiable.
• Additionally WP:NFCC#8 states that Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding. Therefore if words alone can explain alternative versions or releases of an album then additional covers are not allowed.

Where two versions of an album cover bare LOTS of similarity they cannot be used. I've left the US cover as it is quite different to the international one. If you are unhappy then please discuss but do not add it back into the article. --Lil-unique1 (talk) 16:07, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

This isn't what you did to begin with. You removed BOTH covers. It's fine as it is now.--z33k (talk) 16:43, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Robyn - Body Talk Pt. 1 (Germany).jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Robyn - Body Talk Pt. 1 (Germany).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).

PLEASE NOTE:

• I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions.
• I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
• If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
• To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to your talk page.
• If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 05:31, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Saturday

Why do you turn my editing? After I added the source?--Basshuntersw (talk) 16:42, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

I've replaced it with the proper template.--z33k (talk) 16:44, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Only Girl (In the World)

Why did you revert User talk:Syedwaheedhussain's edits where he was asking you to provide a source for Cristyle having written "Only Girl (In the World)"? -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 | talk2me 15:03, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Do you even look at what you're reverting? First of all I provided a link to WP:ACCESS which discourages the use of small text and actively encourages users to think of those who are hard of sight when editing pages as well as WP:NBSP for non-breaking spaces. and you reverted even though both are part of WP:MOS. Then you remove the German Download chart with what reason? When songs havent yet charted on the main chart e.g. singles chart, the downlaod charts are allowed. -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 | talk2me 16:38, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

September 2010

Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed content from Only Girl (In the World). When removing text, please specify a reason in the edit summary and discuss edits that are likely to be controversial on the article's talk page. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the text has been restored, as you can see from the page history. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. - (CK)Lakeshade - talk2me - 20:41, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for File:Electric Light video.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Electric Light video.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file 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 file 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 'file' 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 "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Skier Dude (talk 04:15, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Succession boxes

Hi, there is currently discussion going on at WT:CHARTS#Succession boxes regarding the removal of succession boxes from articles for songs and albums that went to #1. Since it appears you are in favor of them, I invite to take part in this discussion because it is pretty much one sided so far. Your input is valued and encouraged in order to reach a consensus. Thanks so much. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 10:35, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

UK singles chart

The official UK singles chart is not fully published until 7pm. It is speculation to add any chart information before then. -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 | talk2me 15:40, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Speculation. Redefined in 2010 by Wikipedia. http://www.theofficialcharts.com/archive-chart/_/1/2010-09-25/ --z33k (talk) 16:37, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Apologies... I wasn't aware that the chart was published earlier in the day. -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 | talk2me 16:51, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

I've noticed this. They don't publish it as such because they don't link to it from anywhere on the site until after the 7pm announcement but they seem to make some preparations and it doesn't take a brain surgeon to guess what the url is going to be. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 15:49, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Armada-logo.jpeg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Armada-logo.jpeg. 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 "file" 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 "File" 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. Skier Dude (talk 04:01, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Olly Murs (album)

Can't believe you were creating the article at the exact same time as me, you must have been about two seconds ahead of me! Oh well :-) AnemoneProjectors 17:06, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Heh. I was expecting that :) Nice additions, but lets wait on adding the producers in the infobox until we know the full credits.--z33k (talk) 18:20, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

I couldn't believe it actually, I never had an edit conflict when I was creating an article before! Maybe we should wait for the full credits but I normally add the ones we know, though I don't really work on many albums, only the few artists I really like, so I don't know if that's a normal thing, to wait. AnemoneProjectors 19:36, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Aqua-Greatest Hits-Special Edition.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Aqua-Greatest Hits-Special Edition.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).

PLEASE NOTE:

• I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions.
• I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
• If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
• To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to your talk page.
• If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 05:45, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Cannibal (EP)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Cannibal (EP). Users who edit disruptively or refuse to collaborate with others may be blocked if they continue. In particular the three-revert rule states that making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block. If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the talk page to discuss controversial changes. Work towards wording and content that gains consensus among editors. If unsuccessful then do not edit war even if you believe you are right. Post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If edit warring continues, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Do you not read edit summaries? i told you do not add it again, its fan facts. Add it again you will be reported to AIV, i have to patience for editors who dont listen. - (CK)Lakeshade - talk2me - 19:05, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Aqua-Greatest Hits-Special Edition.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Aqua-Greatest Hits-Special Edition.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).

PLEASE NOTE:

• I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions.
• I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
• If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
• To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to your talk page.
• If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 05:53, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Guetta

Hey, just a heads up about Guetta's labelling because I don't want this to amount to edit warring. Virgin Records as a standalone, 'frontline' operation (as it's most often referred to in the industry) exists in two markets- the US (where the big four multinationals operate exclusively as frontline label operations), and in the UK. In every other EMI markets, Virgin is just a local repertoire division of the the national EMI company.

This also holds for France (however, in France, there is a tendency to emphasize the label, but always in line with the company that issues it). For instance, in France there is only ONE consolidated EMI office - EMI Music France (or in French: maison du disque [house of records])- however much emphasis is also placed on the artist's imprint within the 'house of records', ie. Virgin (French: 'le label' - the label). That being said, Guetta is signed to EMI Music France's Virgin imprint. However, the imprint does not stand as its own fully-independent operation like it does in the US & UK.

To leave it just as Virgin is misleading, because if you hit up the two Virgin Records websites, VirginRecords.com and VirginRecords.co.uk, and look at their respective artist rosters, you will not see Guetta anywhere. However if you want to visit the "Virgin" roster of France, you will have to find it via the EMI Music France portal. This is also because in those Virgin Records 'frontline' markets (US, UK), they are only responsible for their own repertoires and have nothing to do with foreign EMI exports. In the US, I believe that Guetta is issued by a different label entirely, Astralwerks, while in the UK he is issued by EMI UK, but not by their standalone Virgin office, but instead their central EMI office. Hence, even in the 'Virgin' markets themselves, Guetta is NOT a Virgin artist. Convinced yet that Virgin labelling alone is misleading??

Imperatore (talk) 12:32, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Body Talk

The person who changed it, has changed it again. Thought you'd like to deal with it, since it's happened before. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Body_Talk_%28album%29&diff=392200435&oldid=392059468 ΣПDiПG–STΛЯT (Talk) 17:35, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Doo-Wops & Hooligans

Are you from the States? Yves (talk) 17:57, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

No.--z33k (talk) 17:58, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Did you buy the album from the iTunes Store? I am comparing the booklet from my physical copy and the digital copy and they are completely different. Yves (talk) 18:04, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, i did. For example the booklet reads "Produced by The Smeezingtons & The Supa Dups for Black Chiney Music, Inc." for track 8, "Liquor Store Blues". The full names are not credited for track 10, but why not use the full names that we know?--z33k (talk) 18:18, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Because we don't know the names and need a reliable source for them. One thing I am most curious about is the writers for "Our First Time". The digital booklet says "Written by Bruno Mars, Philip Lawrence, Ari Levine, Dwayne Chin-quee, Mitchum Chin", but my physical one says "Written by Bruno Mars, Philip Lawrence, Ari Levine". Yves (talk) 18:25, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

The registered writers in the ASCAP database for "Out First Time" are, BROWN BRODY, CHIN-QUEE DWAYNE, HERNANDEZ ERIC, LAWRENCE PHILIP MARTIN, LEVINE ARI, MARS BRUNO, WIGGINS BRIAN", so that's even more confusing! (ASCAP entry for "Our First Time") However i've now found all the full names for track 10 in the database too (didn't think of that before).

Who in the world is Brian Wiggins? Eric Hernandez sounds like it might be one of Mars' brothers or his father... And allmusic has The Smeezingtons and Chin-Quee only. Yves (talk) 18:47, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Jonas Jeberg

The article Jonas Jeberg has been proposed for deletion because under Wikipedia policy, all biographies of living persons created after March 18, 2010, must have at least one source that directly supports material in the article.

If you created the article, please don't take offense. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners or ask at Wikipedia:Help desk. Once you have provided at least one reliable source, you may remove the {{prod blp}} tag. Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide such a source within ten days, the article may be deleted, but you can request that it be undeleted when you are ready to add one. Yoenit (talk) 17:23, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Lose My Mind (The Wanted song)

Hi, were you doing what I was doing, i.e. preparing the article to be reverted to when it's notable? If so then I apologise for reverting to the redirect before you were done :-) AnemoneProjectors 13:15, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:The Wanted - Lose My Mind.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:The Wanted - Lose My Mind.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 "file" 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 "File" 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. Skier Dude (talk 05:06, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Progress

Stop your disruptive editing.

I have been monitoring the editing of this article and you seem to be acting in an abrupt and inappropriate way (WP:CIVIL). I agree with User:Yids2010 you are needlessly reverting this article and as already mentioned by this user Wikipedia articles are not for one user to solely edit and for that user to revert all other input from everyone else. If you continue then you may be banned from editing. Virus101 (talk) 18:56, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

"Saturday" single by Basshunter

Can you add charts from [3]? --Basshuntersw (talk) 14:17, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Flo Rida - Turn Around.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Flo Rida - Turn Around.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 "file" 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 "File" 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. Skier Dude (talk 04:06, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Hold It Against Me

Hi! I added the real name "Mathieu Jomphe" in because there is already a Billboard. Common people would think that it was produced by the magazine. As for Luke and Martin, there are links. It can be checked. Correct me if I'm wrong. Novice7 | Talk 13:51, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Okay, you created a new article. Just a question, do we need the page? He produced for only three albums, no interviews, no mass coverage or anything. Novice7 | Talk 14:08, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Jessie J featuring B.o.B.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Jessie J featuring B.o.B.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 "file" 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 "File" 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. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 21:38, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Autopatrolled

Hello, this is just to let you know that I have granted you the "autopatrolled" permission. This won't affect your editing, it just automatically marks any page you create as patrolled, benefiting new page patrollers. Please remember:

• This permission does not give you any special status or authority
• Submission of inappropriate material may lead to its removal
• You may wish to display the {{Autopatrolled}} top icon and/or the {{User wikipedia/autopatrolled}} userbox on your user page
• If, for any reason, you decide you do not want the permission, let me know and I can remove it

If you have any questions about the permission, don't hesitate to ask. Otherwise, happy editing!HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 03:08, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Kidz

I had to use this source which charts Kidz at 12 rather than 11 as it did not count the evening radio play, whereas the previous source recorded the radio play up to 6am this morning. So with that in mind, maybe you should mind your manners. Yids2010 (talk) 19:09, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

February 2011

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Born This Way (song). Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. You added back this producer/songwriter even though the song's legal credits were cited and did not show his name. Stop vandalizing. –Chase (talk / contribs) 22:28, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

chipmunk

Hi, I am not sure what you are doing to the content but you are removing citations, please move to the talkpage to discuss, thanks. Off2riorob (talk) 21:56, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Still no discussion at all from you, please sxplain what you are trying to do, why are you removing all the associated acts as chipmuck has collaborated with some of them, please don't just revert and remove content without any explanation at all. Off2riorob (talk) 13:32, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

"Some of them". The guidelines for the Associated acts parameter are (Template:Infobox musical artist):

"Associated_acts This field can include, for example, any of the following:

• For individuals: groups of which he or she has been a member
• Other acts with which this act has collaborated on multiple occasions, or on an album, or toured with as a single collaboration act playing together

The following uses of this field should be avoided:

• One-time collaboration for a single, or on a single song"

I want to direct your attention to the last line, "(...)should be avoided: One-time collaboration for a single, or on a single song". So artist X shouldn't be listed as an associated act just because Chipmunk collaborated with artist X on one occasion only. --z33k (talk) 13:42, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Born This Way (song), you may be blocked from editing. I really don't care what other sources you can provide; the company that provides the legally-registered writing credits ONLY lists Gaga as a songwriter, so please stop adding this other person. You will be reported if you continue. –Chase (talk / contribs) 00:08, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Damn you

That is all. –anemoneprojectors– 16:26, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Add all you want! :)--z33k (talk) 16:27, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

And you feel free to reword anything, as I just went ahead and used the version I had worked on, without incorporating any of your edits. But I don't think I missed any facts out that you put in. I just wanted to selfishly wanted to be able to put the article on my userpage as an article I started! lol –anemoneprojectors– 16:36, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Killer Love and general attitude

I don't know what happened but you used to be a co-operative editor. Recently, you've become quite rude and rather annoying with your unhelpful and non-constructive comments. When someone undoes your edits per WP:BRD you are supposed to discuss it with them not constantly re-do them because of your own personal ideals. I am fully aware that album is on iTunes and thus anyone in the UK or Ireland can view those credits but wikipedia is worldwide and not all editors have accessed to a purchased album. Until that is the case or until further sources are found the BMI/ASCAP sources should remain in place to prevent people challenging the track listing. Furthermore I removed your edits about who produced "DHYB". Although I read this information on a forum there is no reliable source confirming it as of yet so rather than placing it in the article using unverified twitter accounts the most sensible thing to do is to REMOVE the content until it can be reliably sourced. I've wrote Killer Love from scratch and intend to make it the best page I possibly can. Of course I am not exerting ownership but I do at least get a say in things on the page and I don't think its polite for editors like yourself to come along and bulldoze things. I admit that on the "Born This Way" credits issue, myself and other editors got things wrong but we all moved on like mature adults. This is not about individual editors "getting one over on others," that's not WP:Good faith or civil. Its about editing articles to the best of your ability and collaborating together to make them as good as possible. It would be nice if you could remember that next time you edit. :) — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 ^[talk] 20:24, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

I wasn't rejecting the credits from iTunes I was rejecting the removal of existing sources. There's a clear difference. FML... read people's comment and suggestions properly. — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 ^[talk] 21:07, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Then why did you alter the writers i've added according to iTunes? On the surface you try to make it look like you do this in the best of intentions, but clearly you are the one who aren't willing to discuss anything. In reality you just want complete control of an article. --z33k (talk) 21:10, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

It doesn't matter now because Nicole refuted writing "Desperate" on her twitter. I was gonna write back to you saying removing the credits was a good idea after all but you've slagged me off before I've had chance. You're the one going round reverting and changing things yet you've made no attempt to discuss anything until I've asked you too... I'm not controlling the article but I have worked hard on it and put a lot of time and effort in. Work from others is welcome but if its drastic you should at least ask my opinion. I do have some good ideas about album and song pages.... — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 ^[talk] 21:20, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

I thought you said Twitter isn't a reliable source.--z33k (talk) 21:23, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Nicole's twitter is verified (it has the verification symbol, WP:TWITTER) and why would an artist deny themselves royalties by saying they didn't write a song? — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 ^[talk] 21:35, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Gaga said she was the sole writer of "Born This Way". It turned out to be a lie, and yet you insisted her saying that to be more reliable than a Billboad article. You're contradiction yourself to make it fit the current situation.--z33k (talk) 21:38, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Gaga's twitter was verified and Billboard was thought to be incorrect cus of the situation with BMI repertoire. This is the opposite angle... her nicole is saying she had nothing to do with the song. Hence learning from the "Born This Way" situation (which btw i never advocated using Gaga's twitter, I always said BMI was the reliable source), I concluded that removing the iTunes credits is a wise idea. The other reason for doing this was because the album has a limited release, quite different to "Born This Way" which is released in 20+ countries. I'm trying to give ground here and accept when I'm wrong but you're proving to not be a team player. I've just said the removal of the iTunes credits was a good thing. Sheesh! — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 ^[talk] 21:43, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I was always intending to buy the album but i couldn't bare to see the album in that horrific state hence rather than wait till next week i bought it earlier. I hope it goes number one. its amazing!! — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 ^[talk] 18:50, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Just a Tip...

instead of getting yourself in trouble with a edit war, I suggest that you discuss the changes made to the articles on talk pages. That's what they are for. I Help, When I Can. ^[12] 17:12, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

What is there to discuss. How can one challenge information found in a CD single booklet?--z33k (talk) 18:45, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

When there are legal credits that go against the single booklet. There is long-running consensus at WP:GAGA to use legal credits from BMI in song articles and you need to discuss before going against it. –Chase (talk / contribs) 21:21, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

"Born This Way" music video in the info box

Hi!

Why did you delete[4] the music video link from the info box? Could you please give the link to the discussion where it has been decided that the music video link is given only under "External links"? Thanks. -- Frous (talk) 10:24, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Hi, i'm sorry it wasn't my intention. I've replaced it now :)--z33k (talk) 11:40, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Born This Way (song)

Discussions at the Gaga WikiProject led to consensus that BMI credits should be used over booklet credits, and your edits are going against that consensus. You need to discuss this at the article's talk page. If you keep edit warring, you'll be reported for disruption. You've been editing here for awhile and you should know that editing against consensus is against policy. –Chase (talk / contribs) 00:54, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Please show me the discussion page.--z33k (talk) 19:23, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

WT:GAGA#Songwriter credit: Stage name vs. birth name. –Chase (talk / contribs) 02:19, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Credits

What the heck is your problem?

I've simply put the information how it should be ordered according to GA articles. That means alphabetically ordered names, listing people consistently i.e. engineer and vocalist as opposed to engineer and vocals. Additionally splitting into two columns is not necessary. Also the norm in the infobox is to list the Country/Location in standard font and the recording studio in brackets/smaller font. The multiple column usuage is discouraged as editors with smaller screen resolutions may have issues with formatting. Presently neither DYB or Poison is a large article and hence there is no reason to split the credits.

Now what's your issue with these changes? Your gripe seems to be purely editorial choice rather than policy-based issues. Why can't we just get along working on the articles.? You obviously have interest in them... hence you added the credits which I thank you for that as I didn't have time but my corrections were as I saw necessary for GA purposes. — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 ^[talk] 19:10, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

I've seen a lot of so-called "Good Articles" that doesn't follow your made-up rules.--z33k (talk) 19:19, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

It isn't a made-up rule. I've written nine GA articles and that's how I've always been asked to present the credits section. Why are my changes so much of an issue? If there was an article you were working on I wouldn't make stylistic changes if you said you'd specifically edited the way you have to take the article to GA. So the only reason I can see for your changes are a deliberate attempt to cause a fight/argument. — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 ^[talk] 19:26, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Would you be willing to accept the listing of the people in alphabetical order and the infobox changes? In return I'll be happy to adopt the two columns {{col-begin}} (etc). ? — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 ^[talk] 20:12, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

No. But i am willing to except the listing of the people in order of appearance in the booklet, which is they way i listed them. I don't care about one vs. two columns, it's eye-candy only.--z33k (talk) 20:20, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

What about the infobox changes? — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 ^[talk] 20:25, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Why do you think listing location before recording studio is better? I've seen most articles list recording studio and then location, just the way i did.--z33k (talk) 20:27, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Simply because in previous nine GA's that's how I've done it as that's how I've seen it listed, and been asked to do it. — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 ^[talk] 20:31, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Robyn - Dancing On My Own (UK & US).jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Robyn - Dancing On My Own (UK & US).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 "file" 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 "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude2 (talk) 05:56, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Happiness (Hurts album)

Why did you revert my edits? Did you at least take time to go through them? There was no removal of content. In fact, I even added a few people to the personnel section that weren't there before. All I did was put the names in alphabetical order and specify the tracks each person worked on. As for the track listing, according to WP:ALBUM, once a person's name is mentioned, only their last name is needed in the next occurrences. SnapSnap 18:36, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Robyn - Dancing On My Own (UK & US).jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Robyn - Dancing On My Own (UK & US).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 "file" 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 "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 13:31, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

21

Hi there. We've never met before, but I see from the list of contributors for the aforementioned page that you're one of the top contributors. The reason for me barging in on your page is that I could use your help (as much or as little as you can manage). I'm currently trying to get Adele's 21 to featured article status. It's coming along pretty well. Right now I'm in the process of throwing content on the page. I'm not yet ready to polish the prose, so if it sounds rusty (which it does) don't mind that. Anyway, I was wondering you'd take a look at the article and offer whatever help you can: whether on prose, content, ideas, sources, you name it. Thanks. Orane (talk) 08:44, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

You need

..to stop the baseless reversions, without checking. Hitlisten is published by IFPI, also the certifications. Kww already updated the link to reflect this. You blindly reverted. I have counter-everte you for the last time, but you are already on 3RR closeby. Please stop now. — Legolas ^(talk2me) 16:10, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

You need to stop the baseless edits. First of all, Hitlistern is not the publisher of the website or the certifications, its IFPI. Next, reverting the credits to MOS violating form is a big no-no. And third, I never implied I own the article, so cut the crap. You do not seem the kin to discuss this so its better you revert yourself, else someone else will. I have already notified Kevin of this. — Legolas ^(talk2me) 16:32, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

"Born This Way"

It seems like you're nearing the 3RR limit. If you find an issue, you can discuss it out on the article's talk page. Thank you. Novice7 (talk) 16:23, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

What about the other two, are they innocent?--z33k (talk) 16:24, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

I didn't say you're guilty, I just said you could discuss the issue out. Thank you. Novice7 (talk) 16:27, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Edit warring

If you continue to edit-war at Born This Way (song), you will be blocked from editing.—Kww(talk) 16:32, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Blocked

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 72 hours for your WP:3RR violation at Born This Way (song). Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

—Kww(talk) 16:57, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Robyn - Body Talk Pt. 1 (UK & US).jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Robyn - Body Talk Pt. 1 (UK & US).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 "file" 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 "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Courcelles 04:53, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Dutch Top 40 vsm MegaTop 100

I will direct you to this discussion: here

You're confusing the Dutch Top 40 with the Dutch Top 100. The former combines Sales + Airplay while the latter is solely Sales based. On the Top 40 it has now reached number 7 yet on the Top 100 it has reached number 4. I believe the top 40 is a more accurate representation of performance as it combines more factors and because the Top 100 is effectively a component of the Top 40. Also, note that it is the Top 100 published at HungMedien, hence the macro for Dutch Top 40 is different to the others. — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 ^[talk] 22:23, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

It has reached #36 on the Dutch Top 40, not #7.--z33k (talk) 15:28, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

BMI legal credits

Please don't remove BMI legal credits from articles as you did at "Born This Way (song)". The writers follow BMI legal credist per a previous consensus. Your edits have been reverted, and I hope you don't start another silly edit war. — Legolas ^(talk2me) 18:01, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Born this Way

When I looked at that section, no Uk charting was there. So I added it, saved, and then it was there. I realised I had made a typo, so i went to change, but I couldn't save because I went into an edit conflict with you, and then saw you had written your own. So that is why I reverted, also because mine was more detailed and had correct links. I see this isn't the first time you have been involved in a 'spat' on the article ^^. If you check the history, the time you gave for yourself does not include the UK charting. Mine is the first. calvin999 (talk) 18:30, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

What A Feeling

Actually you've been told multiple times here, here and even that infamous discussion over Gaga. So stop practising WP:IDHT. Heck you were previously blocked for edit warring over this. You have a short memory, evidently and you're probably heading the same way if you're not careful. — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 ^[talk] 22:17, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

There's no consensus to use legal credits over CD credits.--z33k (talk) 22:19, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Actually you'll find that multiple objections to your edits of using cd liner notes over legal credits is a form of consensus. I've also shown you a discussion (as you were shown before) when consensus decided that BMI/ASCAP credits take precedence over CD liner ones. The fact that you were blocked for making reversions otherwise should be proof enough that you are incorrect. Your abrasive attitude will just lead you to being blocked again. BMI/ASCAP credits ensure that those who've written a song are paid their loyalties and thus they are legally binding. CD liner notes are not,.. nor are they independent or third-party. I implore you to stop reverting because equally, there is NOT a consensus that you can remove reliably sourced information as and when you wish. — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 ^[talk] 22:26, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

I'll make this simple for you, Z33k: if I see you edit warring over this issue again, I will block you until you agree to stop edit warring over it. BMI/ASCAP credits are the norm, and have been for some time. If editors revert your changes away from normal practice, don't simply edit-war them back. Start a discussion. Try to convince people, if you can, that ignoring the legal copyright credits is the way to go, and the credits in the infobox should reflect marketing decisions by record labels. I think you will have an extremely uphill battle on that one, but you are free to give it a try. Until then, stop edit warring over it.—Kww(talk) 23:15, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

I won, again. 2–0.--z33k (talk) 19:08, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

You didn't win... (its not a game). BMI simply updated their database. Frankly I find your attitude childish and immature. — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 ^[talk] 20:21, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Progressed

It wasn't me who added a charting it was one of those IP users. Get your facts right before you accuse fellow users. Yids2010 (talk) 23:06, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

What the fuck? Chill dude. When did i say it was you who added the chart position? Read again: "(Reverted to revision 434075621 by Yids2010: Has not charted yet.. (TW))".--z33k (talk) 15:33, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Kent tracks

I don't see the point why a radio chart should not be included in a chart statistics. I know that it's not based on sales, that's no secret, but that doesn't imply that Tracks is not official. Not being based on sales is not the same as unofficial. I think it would have added some useful information in showing that populatrity of Kent in Sweden. And you can't tell me that "useful" information is forbidden here, can you? HarrySwed 12:05, 20 June 2011 (UTC+1)

Because the consensus is not to include non-official radio charts, no matter if you think it's official.--z33k (talk) 14:08, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Ever heard about WP:IAR? See Wikipedia:WikiProject Discographies/style: "Every artist is different, and therefore no two discographies will be exactly the same. Therefore, if there is a reasonable justification for deviating from the above guidelines to most accurately or appropriately document an artist's body of work, then ignore all the rules and go with what's best for the article. It is our goal to provide information in the best way possible, so a strict adherence to the guidelines listed above may not always be the best way to accomplish our goals. In an ideal situation however, any deviations from the guidelines should be with a clear purpose that is unique to the particular artist and situation in question."

I think it's not up to you and your opinion if the effort I made is useful information for the Kent discogrpahy or not. If a radio chart is clearly marked as such and provides a good overview over the popularity of a group, it is worth including IMO. If you would delete Svensktoppen chart placings from certain Swedish artists' discography, you would delete the most important information on their popularity and success. And Svensktoppen is, just like Tracks, a radio chart. The least what you could have done was to put the issue on the talk page. HarrySwed 17:04, 20 June 2011 (UTC+1)

Ever heard about WP:CHARTS? See "Suitable charts":

"A chart is normally considered suitable for inclusion if it meets both of the following characteristics:

1. It is published by a recognized reliable source. This includes any IFPI affiliate, Billboard magazine, or any organization with the support of Nielsen SoundScan. Recognized national measurement firms, such as Crowley Broadcast Analysis for Brazil or Monitor Latino for Mexico, are legitimate sources of charts.
2. It covers sales or broadcast outlets from multiple sources."

Tracks is published by Sveriges Radio (not an IFPI, Billboard og Nielsen Soundscan affiliate).--z33k (talk) 15:59, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Ah, it's OK. Judging by your talk page here you obviously know best which rules should be followed and which should be ignored ;-) HarrySwed 10:31, 21 June 2011 (UTC+1)

Please don't cry just because you lost in an argument :)) --z33k (talk) 14:17, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Losing? An argument? Oh my, get a life! Not really caring too much is not the same as losing. And you can be sure that you would have noticed it if we would have had a real argument over something I care about ;-) HarrySwed 14:21, 22 June 2011 (UTC+1)

Ah, now i see. You don't care about this matter at all, that's why you started this discussion and then tried to insult me after you lost. Hilarious.--z33k (talk) 15:48, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Sort Sol - Circle Hits the Flame - Best Off...jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Sort Sol - Circle Hits the Flame - Best Off...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).

PLEASE NOTE:

• I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions.
• I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
• If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
• To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to your talk page.
• If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 05:36, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Record Labels

You seem to be confused about the record label situation. Guadino is signed to Magnificant Records (an independent label affiliated to Ministry of Sound). MoS used to own Ultra Records but Ultra was sold on. The historical ties mean that Ultra often distributes MoS records through Universal Music International. That's why the back of the CD Cover reads: Copyright of Magnificant Records under lisence from Ultra Records. Depending on the region/country of release either Ministry of Sound or Universal Music appears alongside. — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 ^[talk] 16:55, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

It could be possible but i doubt it. Also i have never heard about MoS previously owning Ultra, and i am quite well-informed within the electronic music scene. However is is true that MoS used to release it's releases through Ultra Records in the US. Nowadays MoS releases independently in the US.--z33k (talk) 17:55, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

I've crossed referenced things and come to the following conclusion, Gaudino is signed to Magnificant Records (a most indie label). The production is handled in cordination with MoS and Ultra Records, both indie labels also but with distribution deals with EMI Music. However Magnificant has its own distribution which is administered through Universal Music International. Hence the line from the back of the Italian CD single Copyright of Magnificant Records under lisence from Ultra Records makes sense considering that Universal Music Italy/Europe distributes Gaudino in the EU. Hope that clears it up... — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 ^[talk] 23:36, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

MOS never owned Ultra ... (my bad) ... they had a 50-50 venture together previously. — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 ^[talk] 23:36, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Red Hot Chili Peppers release date

Consensus is something MOST people agree on, not one person's opinion and a person who has been warned mutiple times for edits and even blocked. PLEASE STOP!

U.S. artists do not go by the date it's release in other countries, they go by the U.S. release date. Most U.S. mainstream artists have their albums released in other countries before the US because the record store release dates are different (always Tuesday in the U.S.) but the release date is always the US date used if they are a US artist. Also, look at every RHCP album article on here or discography. The release date is ALWAYS the US date, NEVER the first date. Example: Californication came out June 8, that's the date listed however in the UK it came out June 7 and days earlier in other countries. If they were from the UK June 7th would've been used in the article. For I'm With You if they were from those countries that get the album 8/26 it would be right to use it. The full list of release dates are actually in the I'm With You article though no other RHCP album article. Also...the first thing any visitor worldwide sees when they visit www.redhotchilipeppers.com is 8/30/11. It's considered the main and official release date.

Here is the band's discography and every release date is the US date so I'm With You should be no different: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Hot_Chili_Peppers_discography

Jason1978 (talk 12:45, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Actually it is accepted practise that the first release date is reported in the infobox regardless of which country of release it takes place. This is because it is most factually accurate and logical to report the first date considering that the MOS does NOT allow multiple dates to be reported in the infobox. Drop the US Artist-US Centricity argument... this is the English-language encyclopedia about articles all around the world. — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 ^[talk] 17:12, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Actually is is NOT acccepted practice. The consensus is NOT the first release date when you look at ALL album articles/discographies on wikipedia. They ALL go by the release date of the country the artist is from and NOT the first date. .

The Cure: They are from the UK. All of their albums articles/discography have the UK RELEASE DATES. Their last album was FIRST released 10/24 but the date listed in the article is 10/27, the UK DATE.

Rammstein: They are from Germany. All of their album articles/discography have the GERMAN RELEASE DATES. Their latest album was released 10/20 in the US, 10/19 in the UK but GUESS WHAT...the article has 10/16 listed, which was the GERMAN DATE.

Red Hot Chili Peppers: They are from the US. All of their album articles/discography have the US RELEASE DATES. Their last album was first released 5/4 HOWEVER in the article it lists 5/9, which is the US DATE.

This is the same for ALL musicial artists on here. The release date ALWAYS used is from the band's home country. You can go look at any article on here and the release date more than likely is for the country they are from. As for the band we are discussing, you go directly to their website, which is viewed by every country and 8/30 is the release date.

Maybe you are new to this and maybe the person who continues to change is new to this however I noticed that the person who continues to edit the Chili Peppers article has been warned and even blocked many times for edits. Jason1978 (talk 5:34, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)WP:WAX.... there is no set consensus but a check of articles from the top 40 of the US or UK singles charts or even top-40 singles around the world would show that the common practise is to report the first release date. is most factually accurate to report the first release date as many artists are often more successful in countries outside their country of origin. I know the editor in question has been blocked before... I myself have had issues with his/her editing but on this issue I'd support what he/she's saying (though I'll always frown up edit warring and encourage people to discuss things first). And please don't be so patronising in your comments... (i've been editing for over two years and its the first time i've encountered someone arguing fiercly that country of original release dates are more important that the earliest release date). — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 ^[talk] 23:26, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree with your comments on singles however this discussion is not on a single, it's on a album release date and album release dates on Wikipedia almost always go by the release date of the artist's country and in this case, all Red Hot Chili Peppers albums have always used the U.S. release date. Singles usually have an even wider range of release dates and usually the release date used for a single is that of the CD single (which here in the U.S. they are typically imported). The main article for the band, album and discography ALL list August 30 2011 and have since early June with zero problems from any of the regular editors until this person with a history of being warned/blocked comes along and continues to edit without discussion. It would be nice for this person to discuss this without saying it's a set consensus, which it is not and continue to edit it daily especially with zero prior contributions to the article or related articles.

I really don't mean to come off as patrionising at all towards you and I apologize. I am simply following how other album articles are presented on Wikipedia with their album release dates. I have contributed alot to the Red Hot Chili Peppers article(s) since 2006 and was part of the now inactive RHCP wikiproject helping to maintain RHCP and related band articles and never had problems other than your typical vandalism etc or inaccurate info. I am just helping to maintain this article and keep it like every other album and RHCP album article. Jason1978 (talk 5:34, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Jason1978, writing in the article that the album is going to be released on August 30 is simply UNTRUE. How can you support the use of false information on Wikipedia? The album is released on August 26, this is a FACT. Now stop your childish "US is the center of the world"-argument. --z33k (talk) 12:44, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm not being childish and i'm not saying US is the center of the world. If you learn to properly read a few posts up you can see how it's the same for artists in ALL countries. Go look at the entire discography for a UK artists and the date listed for album release is the UK DATE (all album release dates for The Cure are UK dates...BECAUSE THEY ARE FROM THE UK). How exactally is that saying US is the center of the world? Go look at the ENTIRE discography for the Chili Peppers and ALL the release dates are for the The release date is ALWAYS for that artsts country (if it's UK, US, Germany etc). In your little world it might not be but in EVERY ARTICLE on wikipedia it's that way. You have been reported for your edits already so please stop. 8/30 was the date used when the article was created. The original article on the band, discography BOTH have August 30 yet you continue to change the album's article to 8/26. Jason1978 (talk 5:34, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) sorry to play devil's advocate but that's simply not true. If you look at the discography for any artist in the top-40 you'd find that the earliest release date is used. Take Beyoncé Knowles discography as an example... If you agree that singles are listed by their earliest release date why should album's be different. An album can only chart once released. Albums can OFTEN chart abroad before they chart in the US and hence its factually inaccurate to quote the US release date as more important than the first release date. (btw Apology accepted). And in the case of the RHCP project... the whole discography should reflect the earliest release date. — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 ^[talk] 21:43, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

And again, the Beyonce article is 100% misleading because they are NOT using the first date like you said they should use. They are using the UK dates for the most part, which is NEVER the first date a album is released. In Germany, all albums are released 3 days prior to the UK date, four days prior to the US date. So tell me, why doesn't the Beyonce albums use the German date like you both are proposing the the RHCP album? Another example of a Beyonce error is in the article I Am... Sasha Fierce it clearly states in the article the album was released on "November 18 (the UK date)" but in the infobox it says "November 14".

Again, the Red Hot Chili Peppers discography, main page, album articles ALL list the US dates for album releases and will continue to do so. All previous NINE albums have the US dates and not the first date released or the UK date. z33k is also a careless editor because they change the album article info yet leave August 30 in various other places.

Look, to hopefully end this, I am proposing to go back to how I originally had the date written. The album comes out August 30th (though days earlier in other countries). Jason1978 (talk 5:34, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

I guess as you've highlighted consistancy is the issue here!!! Though I will still advocate (and always use) the earliest release date. — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 ^[talk] 22:19, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I would like to keep it consistant with the other release dates. Maybe Beyonce's article didn't do that but The Cure's article uses the UK date for their albums and the Red Hot Chili Peppers articles/discography have remained consistant and always used the US date. For now I added to the article it will be released elsewhere and provided the dates (I have a feeling that wont be acceptable to z33k) but we need to settle this and comprimise on this however once the album is released it will go back to being August 30, 2011. There already is a template in the article that includes all the release dates and i'm not sure if this person noticed it but like I said, they have been careless in editing. They edit Aug 30 in one article but leave it elsewhere. Jason1978 (talk) 06:22, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

I mean if the project uses the first date then go ahead and do the same. But you've not swayed my opinion that a consensus exists to do so... I guess its a thing with project varience. I will continue to use the earliest date in articles I edit as this is my experience in 2 years + editing. — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 ^[talk] 22:31, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Like I said, you can easily go to www.redhotchilipeppers.com and the first page, which is viewed by fans throughout the world and see the date is 8/30. It's not the first release date but in every interview, article and on their website is the date they are promoting. In my 20 years as a fan, the band always promotes the U.S. date as the main release date and that's why to stick with being consistant with the other dates. It's also sort of like a movie release date. Movies are released outside the U.S. at different time or in limited released but the main date used is the U.S. release date for a U.S. movie. Trust me, this has nothing to do with being loyal to the US or whatever I was accused of. Like I stated, if the Chili Peppers were a UK artist, the UK date would be the one I used. Neither of you have ever made contributions to these articles in the past however I showed you many examples and proof of how other artists feature release dates exactally like the one here. Anyways...I made the changes which add all three release dates in the info box which will hopefully end this silly edit war. Jason1978 (talk 11:33, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

"It's not the first release date but in every interview, article and on their website is the date they are promoting." You don't gave to be Einstein to figure out why. Of course they are promoting the album with the August 30 date, because that's the date is comes out in the US. Do you think a US band would tell their American audience that their new album comes out on August 26... in Germany? You still haven't responded to the part of writing inaccurate information, because that is what you keep doing! --z33k (talk) 17:40, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Even in UK articles the band will mention the U.S. release date. It's considered world-wide to be the main date. Like i stated, their website, which is viewed by fans worldwide has 8/30. ZERO mention of 8/26, 8/29, 8/31...the other three release dates. Fans in Germany, Japan, Netherlands, Uk...you go to the band's site and you will see the U.S. date, not your own. Only place the non-U.S. dates are found is in the pre-order area for tickets. As for the template in the album article on here, that is always replaced once the album is release and once we have sales data on the album. If you look at any of the nine previous album articles by this band on here there is zero info of other non-US release dates. The home date is used in ALL nine RHCP album articles/discography on Wikipedia.

Now CD singles, those are different. The first release date is generally used. If you notice in the article on here for their first single from the upcoming album I posted July 22 as the release date, which is the first date the CD single is issued. In the U.S. we will get it as an import days/weeks later.

Also, can I please ask why you continue to ignore the rest of the article or other Chili Peppers releated articles? All of them on here feature the 8/30 release date yet the only one you change is the album article date. It's totally misleading if you look at one article and see a different date. Jason1978 (talk 05:57, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Well we have both been warned however in the warning there looks to be some agreement that artists do infact use the home release date like I have been trying to point out. Jason1978 (talk 10:18, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Red Hot Chili Peppers

With respect to this request on my talk page, I'm not going to take any action against Z33k at this time, and both of you should take this response as a warning. You should bear in mind that being right doesn't prevent you from being guilty of edit-warring. In that sense, both of you are equally guilty.

I need to see both of you stop flipping the date back and forth. Continuing to do so will result in a block. You need to get an actual consensus, even if it takes an RFC to get there.

I will note that the underlying case isn't 100% clear to me. For singles, the earliest release date is routinely used, and I'm surprised to see that Jason1978 isn't just completely wrong (which is what I thought at first). There are numerous discographies that apparently use a "home release" rule. Since I've issued a warning, I can't take place in any further discussion of the topic.—Kww(talk) 00:27, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Take That Singles in Danish Charts 1994-1996

Hi,

You've added the Danish chart positions for Take That singles 1994-1996, which seems fine, but i have to ask are you sure these are the highest chart posiitons for these singles. I have collected the Danish charts from the period of 3 September 1994 to 4 December 1998, from another source, and that one also had chart positions for "Sure" (#3) and "Never Forget" (#3).

That archive had "Sure" enter the chart on 15 October 1994 (Week 41) at #4, and climbing up one position the following week (22 October 1994, week 42) to its peak position #3 which it held also for the following week. In all "Sure" stayed on the chart for 11 weeks (including re-entries) until its last week on 14 January 1995 (week 2) (chart run 4-3-3-4-6-out-16-out-18-out-10-14-13-8).

In the same chart archive "Never Forget" entered the chart on 5 August 1995 (Week 31) at #5, and again climbing up one position the following week (12 August 1995, week 32) to its peak position #3 and stayed on the chart for 12 weeks (including a re-entry) until its last week on 28 October 1995 (Week 43) (chart run 5-3-5-4-6-5-6-14-14-13-out-20-11).

The chart archive i've got gives "Back for Good" the highest position #1. It entered the chart on 1 April 1995 (Week 13) and remained on the chart for the next 20 weeks until 12 August 1995 (Week 32) (chart run 5-2-2-2-2-2-2-3-2-3-1-2-2-5-4-7-15-13-17-15). "Back for Good" reached #1 in its 11th week on the chart, five weeks later than the chart date (6 May 1995) you've added as a source, which indeed has "Back for Good" at #2, but it did eventually climb one position higher.

"How Deep Is Your Love" entered the chart on 9 March 1996 at #2, the following week it reached #1 (a position it held for 3 weeks) and in all remained on the chart for 9 weeks until 4 May 1996 (Week 18) (chart run 2-1-1-1-2-5-6-17-10). The chart date in your reference (13 April 1996) the song was at #5 in its sixth week on the chart.

Does all this match the charts you've added as sources, or were there two separate singles charts published in Denmark in mid-90's.

Best regards Kai81 (talk) 19:13, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi, there was only one singles chart in Denmark in the mid-90's. The one published by Nielsen Company on behalf of IFPI. I've used the Billboard magazines as the source, but the problem is that not all Billboard magazines are available on Google Books, and AFAIK the magazine did not publish consecutive issues of the Danish Singles Chart, so that's why it's missing peak positions for example "Back for Good".

Can i see your source?--z33k (talk) 19:21, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

I found all those charts for that period on a site that i guess now is closed, where someone had collected the Danish Charts from when they were released back in the day and had added them to that site. I only have the charts copied from that site, but they might be hard to find these days anywhere on the internet. As you mentioned the chart positions matches the ones published by Billboard as Danish Singles Chart, so i'm very sure that the chart positions are correct. Maybe they should be added to some Internet site or something, any ideas?

Kai81 (talk) 12:22, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Nothing But the Beat

Two editions will be comercialised :

• Standard edition for the US (One CD of 13 tracks) : Standard edition tracklist
• Deluxe edition for the other countries (One CD of 12 tracks and another of 10) : Deluxe edition tracklist

So you can't present the tracklist like you did : the standard edition also contains "Lunar" (with Afrojack)

Juldu33 (talk) 22:25, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

There's no such track entitled "Lunar (Electro Track"). It's simply "Lunar".--z33k (talk) 18:08, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Ok, I know, that's not the problem. What I say is that the Standard Edition is different from the 1st CD of the Deluxe Edition, just watch the links I posted above.

Tracklist should be this way :

1) Standard edition

2) Deluxe edition

a) CD1

b) CD2

Disc 2 of deluxe edition is not an additional CD compared to the standard edition

Hope you'll understand ;) Juldu33 (talk) 18:42, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Save the World (song)

Greetings! I noticed the edits you made to the above article. I don't believe that either you or the IP were vandalizing, so remember to assume good faith. These edits were more of a content dispute than anything. If you have a problem, rather than edit warring over it, open up a discussion at the article's talk page. I did find a couple issues with the IP's edits, and I explained them on his/her talk page. The genre seems to still be up for discussion, so you may want to discuss this. As always, if you have any issues, please feel free to leave me a message on my talk page. Cheers! Ishdarian 03:33, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Aqua-My Mamma Said-Music video.png

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Aqua-My Mamma Said-Music video.png. 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 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).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude (talk) 01:10, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

New Page Patrol survey

New page patrol – Survey Invitation Hello Z33k! The WMF is currently developing new tools to make new page patrolling much easier. Whether you  have patrolled many pages or only a few, we now need to  know about your experience. The survey takes only 6 minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist us in analyzing the results of the survey; the WMF will not use the information to identify you. If this invitation  also appears on other accounts you  may  have, please complete the  survey  once only.  If this has been sent to you in error and you have never patrolled new pages, please ignore it. Please click HERE to take part. Many thanks in advance for providing this essential feedback. You are receiving this invitation because you  have patrolled new pages. For more information, please see NPP Survey. Global message delivery 13:59, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Cher Lloyd - Swagger Jagger.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Cher Lloyd - Swagger Jagger.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).

PLEASE NOTE:

• I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions. If you have a question, place a {{helpme}} template, along with your question, beneath this message.
• I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
• If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
• To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to your talk page.
• If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 07:04, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Z33k. You have new messages at Template talk:Certification Table Entry.
Message added 09:10, 14 December 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Muhandes (talk) 09:10, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Warzone

As much as I understand the reasoning that forums are unreliable sources, buzzjack.com itself is not a forum, and the information is fully reliable, even though there's a forum area there, it's only called a forum, because people can post questions and polls, the information itself is only taken from the most reliable sources — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maximuman (talk • contribs) 18:58, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

You need to provide a direct link to the source, not just a third-party source. Buzzjack.som IS a forum, don't try to tell me otherwise. So, if i create a site called www.warzone.com/forum, and i write the song has sold 1 million copies, does it make it true? --z33k (talk) 19:01, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

I will say it again, buzzjack.com is NOT a forum, it is a website containing many things including a forum, it's not a third party, don't try to tell me otherwise, if you have a problem, please feel free to ask vidcapper who gives the sales figures, they take them directly from the source, they don't have some game of chinese whispers, it's not a "third" party as you would call it, it's sales figures that you won't find anywhere else on the web for free — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maximuman (talk • contribs) 19:13, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

"Anyone can create a personal web page or pay to have a book published, then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published media, such as [...] Internet forum postings, and tweets, are largely not acceptable as sources." (see WP:SOURCE#Self-published sources). End of discussion. --z33k (talk) 19:16, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

This will be my last comment as I'm tired of arguing, if that's so we cannot trust any sight, because they've all been created by somebody claiming to know the answer, at the end of the day, buzzjack.com is a reliable source, just as reliable as reading from the daily telegraph, it's a direct source, and you seem stubborn to push so I will not say anymore apart from you believe what you believe, I believe what's fact Maximuman (talk) 19:23, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 4

Hi. In your recent article edits, you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Donkeyboy (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Digital download

Say You, Say Me (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Gaffa

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:23, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 14

Hi. When you recently edited Strangeland (Keane album), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Adult alternative (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:05, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you

		The Modest Barnstar
		Thanks for your recent contributions! 66.87.2.116 (talk) 13:50, 5 April 2012 (UTC)