User talk:IndianBio

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

purpose album certifications[edit]

brail and mexico certifications are from universal music mexico and brazil which officially declare certifications.please donot alter it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shubhamco (talkcontribs) 11:13, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

You have been responded in the article talk page. Please continue discussing there. —IB [ Poke ] 12:45, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Your advice[edit]

Hi there. I noticed this edit cautioning an editor about edit warring. I've been struggling to work with that editor and have had nothing but frustration. Would you have a moment to look at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring and then "User:Xboxmanwar reported by User:Magnolia677"? You seem to have good advice. I'm not quite sure how I should have handled this differently. Thanks. Magnolia677 (talk) 22:01, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

You did correct reporting him, although you should have done it much before. Xbox although has good intentions, but his continuous battleground mentality and personal attacks make him/her disruptive. He was just blocked for EW and attacks, hope learns his lesson. —IB [ Poke ] 22:16, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
My post on the edit warring board didn't work so well. It seems four of my reverts were within 24 hours. Perhaps dispute resolution may work better. Thanks again. Magnolia677 (talk) 01:32, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Online Music Awards[edit]

Hi. I did a lot of research and discovered that Online Music Awards and the UK Online Music Awards are two different events. Madonna was awarded during the UK Online Music Awards, in 2001. Online Music Awards only happened in 2011 and 2012, and it is a UK-based awards ceremony for unsigned musicians, and she was not nominated for any award. I suppose that's why originally there was no link to the Online Music Awards wikipedia page.

Johnnyboytoy (talk) 23:14, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Wow good find then! —IB [ Poke ] 23:18, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

What do you think[edit]

...of this? FrB.TG (talk) 13:56, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

I think its nice, and probably would be expanded? —IB [ Poke ] 13:58, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Rise (Katy Perry song)[edit]

In case I can't always tend to this, it would be nice if you and/or other frequent music article editors could keep a watch on it for original research additions. Snuggums (talk / edits) 06:14, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

@SNUGGUMS: literally JUST did it. And I love it! —IB [ Poke ] 08:41, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
I love it too! So glad she finally released new music :D!! Snuggums (talk / edits) 13:03, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
@SNUGGUMS: yes me to! I tried searching for the songwriter names, but BMI repertoire still does not list it. So its good that the article was protected. —IB [ Poke ] 13:27, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
That's probably because it was a surprise release and the site hasn't been updated yet. Either way, Today and NBC Sports both say she wrote it. The protection does help. Snuggums (talk / edits) 13:42, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
@SNUGGUMS: I know, I saw that but there will be other co-writers and now since Max Martin is supposedly involved, he's not gonna let a songwriter chance go away. Plus you never know if the asshole Dr. Luke is also involved. —IB [ Poke ] 13:44, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
Max is involved and produced it, but nothing from Luke. She also stated he's not part of it here. Snuggums (talk / edits) 13:51, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
Hmmm. That's good then. —IB [ Poke ] 13:55, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

List of cover versions of Madonna songs[edit]

Hello IndianBio. I am the person who attempted to add in information concerning Lacuna Coil's cover of Live to Tell. The reason for the second reversion appears to be that I have not added a proper source first. Does a link to the appropriate Wikipedia article not suffice? This isn't something I do very often so the finer points of Wiki etiquette may be lost on me, if so I would appreciate some guidance. Thank you in advance. SynbiosSwordsman (talk) 21:25, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Hello you can refer to WP:CITATION. —IB [ Poke ] 09:03, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2016 May 15[edit]

I invite you to improve consensus on the files that I'm nominating for discussion. --George Ho (talk) 20:11, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

Rise (Katy Perry song) has been nominated for Did You Know[edit]

Updated DYK query.svg Hello, IndianBio. Rise (Katy Perry song), an article you either created or to which you significantly contributed,has been nominated to appear on Wikipedia's Main Page as part of WikiProject Did you knowDYK comment symbol. You can see the hook and the discussion here. You are welcome to participate! Thank you. APersonBot (talk!) 12:01, 20 July 2016 (UTC)


Can you keep an eye of the IP because the IP involved genre warring. (talk) 12:12, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

I have requested protection for All I Ever Wanted. That should do it. —IB [ Poke ] 12:14, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Lady Gaga[edit]

Why did you delete my edit about LG's relationship with Taylor Kinney? It wasn't "defamatory" nor was it a BLP violation. It was well sourced and well written. There was no other mention of their relationship aside from a blurb about their proposal that I removed and included in my passage. I chose the 2015-Present section because there isn't a personal life section.Mariahfan999 (talk) 14:15, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Mariahfan999 you have been warned time and time again NOT to add libelous content to BLP articles which are definitely not true and fail WP:CRYSTAL. In this case you added about Gaga's break with Taylor Kinney using third party sources which are claiming that they are breaking up. That is bad journalism on their part and just shoddy decision on your part as an editor to take a decision on a BLP. Please never make hasty decisions to add content to BLP about personal relationships. —IB [ Poke ] 14:18, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
None of the things I have put in were libelous. It is not bad journalism if they include the instagram post in which she clearly states they have been taking a break. I didn't say that they broke up, I said with direct quotation "taking a break". Those are the exact words she used. And in terms of the Mariah Carey page, nothing I have added on there has been libelous. James Packer and Mariah are engaged. It's not a whirlwind relationship like her marriage to Nick Cannon. They publicly came out as a couple last year, and were probably together in 2014. Mariah has talked time and time again about being engaged. Most people would consider that a partnership.
I understand that I'm new here. I don't have 37k edits to my name. But I'm not an idiot. I'm nineteen. I've been a huge fan of Mariah since I was nine. I have over 270 of her songs on my phone, including live performances and unreleased recordings I spent hours converting from youtube to MP3. I'm also a huge fan of Gaga. I threw all kinds of fits and tantrums to see the Monster Ball. The last thing I want to do on either of those pages is to introduce libelous content. However, ever since I started editing I feel as if you have been continuously biting me. Every time I introduce a new passage it has been deleted, no matter how relevant and/or accurate it is. I would like to refer you to the BLP zealot and Please do not bite the newcomers essays.Mariahfan999 (talk) 14:55, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
Mariahfan999 I did not revert your edit to the Lady Gaga article, Livelikemusic (talk · contribs) did. The very fact that you have continued additions when multiple users have reverted it, makes me believe you still do not understand the libelous information part and would probably continue to do so. I really do not care how much of a fan you are. What you are doing on the articles not only fails WP:CRYSTAL as well as WP:RECENTISM, you are also edit warring over it, when instead per WP:BRD you should discuss in talk page and come to consensus. Which would be better for you not to harp in my talk page and go and do it exactly. —IB [ Poke ] 15:10, 20 July 2016 (UTC)


Thanks for your fixes. Would you have the time to do a source review? czar 20:54, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Yes I can thanks. —IB [ Poke ] 10:40, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

DYK for Rise (Katy Perry song)[edit]

Updated DYK query.svg On 23 July 2016, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Rise (Katy Perry song), which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the video for Katy Perry's song "Rise" features clips of athletes from various Olympic Games? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Rise (Katy Perry song). You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Rise (Katy Perry song)), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.
Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:02, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

Make Me...[edit]

What is seriously wrong with you, "dude"? I'm not wrong; there's a radio countdown in Australia and it's confirmed on there before ARIA updates. But fine, wanna be anal about it, well, we'll see in 12 or so minutes. Ss112 07:49, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

And I wouldn't criticise anybody for being an edit warrior. That's exactly what you're doing right back. Ss112 07:49, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
Oh please, save me the sanctimonious lecture Ss112. You very well know why that was reverted. And if you cannot be patient to add a source before it updates to reflect the actual verifiable content, then I will revert it. And reverting a blatant false edit is not warring over it. It won't hurt you to wait before ARIA updates before going on a rampage of updating charts will you? —IB [ Poke ] 07:52, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
Just because something hasn't updated, doesn't make it false or WP:OR, dude. It's an assumption to say it's original research if I'm later proved correct (and I will be). Also, I really fail to see how one sentence is a "sanctimonious lecture". Overexaggeration much? And no, I never said it would hurt me, but the information is correct and thankfully nobody is as anal about it. Ss112 07:57, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
If the information is correct, then wait till the source (ARIA) upates. As you said, 12 minutes, impatient much? —IB [ Poke ] 07:58, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
@Ss112: no one said that the information was incorrect. I clearly pointed out your impatience to wait till the source updated and then add it. So don't do an asshole revert and then come home crying. —IB [ Poke ] 08:07, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
I noticed your edit summary saying "your [...] WP:OR is no concern of mine"... yet you did concern yourself with it. Also, I find that assertion hypocritical coming from you, and I don't know what the hell "come home crying" even means in this context—but I don't care. Ss112 08:09, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
Yes it is, because it seems you go on adding these content when the source hasn't updated. If you think I can trace all your edits and monitor them. But yeah, if its an article I am monitoring, sorry bae, you are not allowed to add false content which is not verifiable. —IB [ Poke ] 08:12, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
"Bae"? Now you're just using plainly silly words to condescend to me. Thanks for the Wikipedia lecture and the veiled threat ("I will revert you on any article I'm monitoring"), but it's not "false" content. You again contradicted yourself—you just said "nobody said it was incorrect", yet you're again saying it's "false". It becomes verifiable. That's a hell of a lot different from others who add content that is plainly false and will never be verifiable because it's made up. Ss112 08:16, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
Also, don't start "correcting" my edits by using a singlechart template with a note. You're giving primary place to a source that has not updated and will not update for days, and you are in the wrong. Notes are okay if the page will update in a matter of hours; days no. I update to a singlechart template for every page when updates; you don't need to write little condescending edit summaries as if I'm unaware of what I'm doing. Wait, and do not edit war over this. Ss112 08:23, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
Who knows? That fucking radio countdown that you listen can get it wrong. See how this works? So wait till official chart body updates and then add it. It can be false, it might be correct, but its all a fucking crystal ball unless its verifiable. Simple concept, and as for your edits, yes I never said it was incorrect to add a chart, but the information would be deemed false if its not present in the source. Unverifiable only applies if I cannot even see the source. And yes, I will revert if its a content which is not supported by the source, ergo, false content. And pretty sure, deep inside you know that you were wrong to add content before source updates, so yeah stop posting here. —IB [ Poke ] 08:24, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
I will, but i just want to say, that radio countdown is officially ARIA's debut of their top 40; they are in partnership with ARIA and have never gotten it wrong aside from when ARIA provided them with incomplete sales data once. In future, can you please conduct a conversation without swearing? Just because it's your talk page doesn't give you the right to swear at people because you're mad. Remain calm. Ss112 08:34, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

List of best-selling music artists[edit]

What "note about how the list is updated" do you keep refering to ? Clausgroi (talk) 18:30, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Please read the second and third box in Talk:List of best-selling music artists. And please discuss your changes in the talk page. —IB [ Poke ] 18:31, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
Genesis has 39,9 million certified sales out of the 150 million claimed, which correspond to more than 26%. The box reads: "To be on this list, artists who began charting before 1975 are required to have their available claimed figures supported by 20% in certified units". I still can't see the problem. Be objective and specific instead of making me go to the article and read loads of text. Clausgroi (talk) 18:40, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
Please discuss inclusion of any sales update in the article talk page and not just because the Daily Telegraph said so. Genesis' certification may well be adhering to the claimed sales, that does not mean that it is not inflated. You just had a big discussion on this with Harout72, don't you understand this? —IB [ Poke ] 18:43, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
Just noticed this. Don't even bother writing here. Go to the article talk page. —IB [ Poke ] 18:47, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
Clausgroi, you can't see the problem in your edits because you are not listening to what other editors are saying to you, instead, you keep writing and making the same edits. If you don't want to read loads of text as you say above, don't edit. We work collaboratively on the List of best-selling music artists. I've already told you that inflated and unrealistic sales figures are not used.--Harout72 (talk) 18:55, 24 July 2016 (UTC)