User talk:I7114080

If you have any questions, problems, concerns, or arguments, please Click here to leave me a message.

AfD nomination of Bon Jovi Album Discography (Extended)

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Bon Jovi Album Discography (Extended). We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Talk:Bon Jovi Album Discography (Extended). Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:09, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Taylor Swift discography

Hey! I saw your edits on Taylor Swift discography and I really do not agree with them so I reverted them. Please do not revert them again and let's have a discussion on the talk page in order to reach a happy medium and settle this conflict. -- ipodnano05 * ^{leave@message} 21:20, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

You left a comment on my talk page and we agreed that the version it is now is better because it has the lead and the infobox and the citation formatting. All you guys mainly have a problem with are minor things that could be adjusted without having to do whole revert. -- ipodnano05 * ^{leave@message} 22:53, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry... umm - we're discussing any issues you might have on the talk page. You should engage on it too. Your changes include some things that are currently being discussed. Please leave your comments and don't edit until we can reach an agreement or you will be reported for making edits without consensus that was requested. -- ipodnano05 * ^{leave@message} 23:10, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you so much for engaing into the conversation instead of just reverting. I responded to your comments. Check it out. -- ipodnano05 * ^{leave@message} 23:39, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Umm, if you keep doing that then I will report you. Please, let's settle this like people. -- ipodnano05 * ^{leave@message} 23:44, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry I did that as I thought the page was abandoned. And you can't revert more than 3x a day per WP:3RR and you have certainly done more than that. I have done three and am done for the day. If you do I will report you and you will be blocked. I don't see why you're not willing to compromise and consider what I'm saying like EnDaLeCoMpLeX is. -- ipodnano05 * ^{leave@message} 00:07, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry you feel that way and I noticed I passed it and stopped but I was just warning you. You can think as you want. -- ipodnano05 * ^{leave@message} 01:00, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Hello. I noticed that several of your comments on the Swift discography relate to the exlcusion of the Canadian country chart. Would you please comment here to say why? Thanks. Liqudluck✽talk 06:53, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Hey! Thank you for some of the improvements you made on the article like lowering the KB and reducing the redundant citing for RIAA. I saw your post on promo songs and I wrote some stuff that hopefully clears anything that you didn't understand. -- ipodnano05 * ^{leave@message} 03:37, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

January 2010

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Taylor Swift discography. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing. I really hate to do this, but you've reverted three times today. I strongly suggest you make further efforts to discuss the issue rather than edit warring. If you make a fourth revert within 24 hours, you run the very serious risk of being blocked, though note that the 3RR is not an entitlement. If you want to vent your frustrations, you're more than welcome to stop by my talk page. HJMitchell You rang? 23:32, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Hello, I7114080. You have new messages at HJ Mitchell's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Brad Paisley

I think we should leave it as it is, otherwise it will contradict 2006 in country music. Besides CMT.ca, which occasionally mentions the #1 song of the week in Canada (as they did yesterday), I only know of the internet archive. Eric444 (talk) 20:02, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. I think the way you've added it to the chart positions table is the best way to go about it. Eric444 (talk) 05:26, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Bon Jovi discography

Heya mate. Just letting you know that I have nominated the Bon Jovi discography page for Featured List status. thought I would give you the heads up seeing as you are one of the main contributors to the page. Thanks for your effort editting it! Savvi72 (talk) 14:57, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Carrie Underwood discography

I have nominated Carrie Underwood discography for featured list removal here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured list criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks; editors may declare to "Keep" or "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 04:04, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Diamond Rio discography

I have nominated Diamond Rio discography for featured list removal here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured list criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks; editors may declare to "Keep" or "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 17:04, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Canadian update

Have you received a link to the Billboard Canadian update in the past two weeks? Eric444 (talk) 06:57, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

It used to be posted here, but that link hasn't been updated in two weeks either. The only thing I've been able to do is search for individual peaks on Billboard's website. Eric444 (talk) 15:25, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Carrie Underwood discography changes

I had started a discussion at Talk:Carrie Underwood discography#Recent changes/definitions of the three single sections back in February in response to your edits. You recently made the same changes with a misleading edit summary where you only explained part of your edit in the edit summary. Please explain why you feel these changes are necessary at the discussion instead of reverting back without explaining why you made those changes. Aspects (talk) 06:22, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

You're edit is RETARDED. In no other music discography ever have I seen a footnote saying 'this song also has a physical certfication', while just making the certifications column on the side for digital certifications, that's STUPIDDD, a song having a digital and a physical cert is not important for noting, I've never seen another discography do that. 'Inside Your Heaven' IS ON the album Some Hearts, its DUMB to put [single only]! Nowyouseeme | wanna chat? 00:50, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Carrie Underwood

It's better how I have it, you have too much crap that isn't needed. Nowyouseemetalk2me 05:41, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

And what could possibly be your reasoning for removing a valid source from US Pop?! That was stupid Nowyouseemetalk2me 05:48, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

There doesn't need to be a separate section for 'othet charted songs' and 'other singles'. What the hell even is an 'other single'?! They are 1 in the same and can be put together. And all the footnotes you are adding are pointless trivia that can be left for the individual article pages, width=40 IS FINE, no need to be width=35. All this claification you want for Inside Your Heaven can be noted on its article page, the way you have it looks SHITTY and CLUSTERED. The minor wording changes you're making to release date and label are negligible, there is no need to change them. And please fix your signature. Nowyouseemetalk2me 06:00, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

I understand "Inside Your Heaven" has different types of certifications, but it just isn't that important, the disco needs to be kept clean looking, and adding all that extra info looks really bad. I think that information is best suited for "Inside Your Heaven"s article. Also, your aren't just adding notes for IYH, your also adding trivial notes for "Before He Cheats" and "Jesus, Take the Wheel". My "Other Charted Songs" section states 'These songs charted from unsolicited airplay and/or digital downloads.', which covers songs that were released digitally through itunes- and under 'album' for those songs it says 'Non-album song', i'm not sure what the problem is. Nowyouseemetalk2me 06:40, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

I'll offer a compromise, I'll add a note about IYH's different certifications, if we keep 'Other Charted songs' and 'Other singles' together like they are. I don't think 'intention' is reason enough to seperate them. Nowyouseemetalk2me 07:02, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

July 2010

Constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, but a recent edit of yours to the article Carrie Underwood discography has an edit summary that appears to be inaccurate or inappropriate. Please use edit summaries that accurately tell other editors what you did, and feel free to use the sandbox for any tests you may want to do. Thank you. Nowyouseemetalk2me 07:11, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to Wikipedia. However, please know that editors do not own articles and should respect the work of their fellow contributors on Blake Shelton discography. If you create or edit an article, know that others are free to change its content. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. EPs are not studio albums. That's why they don't share the same name. EnDaLeCoMpLeX (talk) 14:42, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

3rr warning on Carrie Underwood discography

Just as a note, but you have made three reverts in a 24-hour period and any other revert could result in being blocked from editing. Aspects (talk) 06:27, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Blake Shelton discography

I don't know how many time I have to tell you, EPs are NOT studio albums! I have not once ever seen them mixed in with studio albums. EnDaLeCoMpLeX (talk) 18:54, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm not in any way saying that aren't produced or recorded in a studio. Like I told you before, Taylor Swift discography does not have EPs and studio albums merged, and it is a featured list. It's redundant to merge these two things. And for that matter, Lady Gaga's The Fame Monster is an EP, and is not merged in with The Fame. And Justin Bieber's My World is not in with My World 2.0. EnDaLeCoMpLeX (talk) 19:06, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Strike that about Lady Gaga. Now apparently they are saying it's a studio album, even though it was an EP for the longest time, and it's credited as The Fame Monster (EP) on Billboard. EnDaLeCoMpLeX (talk) 19:09, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

The discography is organized now. It looks perfect without your edit, no offense. I obviously do not like the idea of EPs and studio albums being merged, and think it's just fine how it is. If you think you have an idea to come up with, don't just go out on a limb and go for it. Chances are, it won't last long. Try discussing any major changes before you decide to do it again. EnDaLeCoMpLeX (talk) 19:35, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

I do not support merging studio albums with extended plays, they are not the same thing. The reasons you gave me to add them together are not convincing, and I feel that the change is not needed. Nowyouseemetalk2me 20:50, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

I am against it. That page doesn't seem too clean but the idea, I think, is kind of bad. Even if you do add (EP) right next to it, some people might get confused. The infobox has albums and EPs separate and I think we should too. The first point doesn't seem valid because a collection is more like a compilation album, and if you put that that way every album is a collection of tracks. Sure, EPs and albums both appear on the Billboard 200. Then again, so do compilations, soundtracks, live album, remix albums, and so many more. The last point is very interesting, like Miranda Cosgrove's Sparks Fly. In that case, it all depends on what the label says it is. But this isn't the case with any of the Taylor EPs. -- ipodnano05 * ^{leave@message} 20:27, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

See the points he made in my talk page. -- ipodnano05 * ^{leave@message} 20:53, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

He gave the same message to everyone he asked. Nowyouseemetalk2me 20:54, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm glad I'm not the only who disagrees with this proposal. EnDaLeCoMpLeX (talk) 20:56, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

EP's are not studio albums and should not be together. Candyo32 00:23, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm gonna have to agree tha studio albums should be separate from EPs; they are definitely not the same thing, so merging them makes little sense. You gave Lady Gaga's Fame Monster as an example, but its not technically an EP everywhere it was released, since it had The Fame attached to it. I think they should remain separate, because in most cases an EP is not meant to be a major means of releasing material. CloversMallRat (talk) 00:44, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. Albums and EPs are different forms of work, so they shouldn't be together. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 01:14, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

I've come accross the discussion and let me state where my POV stands. An EP is a middleground piece of work inbetween a single and an album. It is incorrect to bundle them together because they are released, recorded and promoted differently. The Fame Monster is not a good stepping stone for altering policy because in technical terms its an EP but because it was released with 'The Fame' and promoted as an album it is actually a studio album. If you look at its chart positions you'll see that in some countries The Fame and The Fame Monster charted seperately and in others they charted as one album. In essence studio albums can come in two forms: LP - the ones we're all familiar with and EP - the ones like Lady Gaga: The Cherry Tree Sessions. If any change comes about by this discussion it should be the classification of albums as follows. Albums are either:

• Studio
  • LP or EP
• Live
• Holiday
• Compilation
  • Greatest Hits etc. --Lil-unique1 (talk) 03:25, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Canadian country charts

Here is a discussion you might be interested in. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 15:14, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Stupid-Boy.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Stupid-Boy.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) 06:07, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Days Go By.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Days Go By.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 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. Stefan2 (talk) 20:33, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:40, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, I7114080. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Somebody Like You (Keith Urban single - cover art).jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Somebody Like You (Keith Urban single - cover art).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 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 section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:48, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, I7114080. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)