User talk:Olivewildes

Welcome

Welcome!

Hello, Olivewildes, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! Eve Hall (talk) 17:39, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ashley Tisdale

Can you explain why you are pointing all references in the article to the same source? Alansohn (talk) 03:58, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please can you tell me why you removed the Nokia Top 40 chart on which It's Alright, It's Ok charted here in South Africa? I provided a link and for the record the Nokia Top 40 is now the official chart in South Africa. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dylancraigboyes (talk • contribs) 06:17, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I explained in the edit summary why I removed the chart. Read the edit summaries before reverting.

Ashley Tisdale

I've asked all three editors involved in this dispute to start discussion at Talk:Ashley_Tisdale#Major_Edit_Discussion_Section. Please do so and try and resolve this amicably. If you can't, try dispute resolution. Exxolon (talk) 16:10, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Juanacho

I'll look into things and see what I can do, but I will tell you first that no matter how angry you are, insulting him won't help. It seems bizarre to most, but Wikipedia's policies against insulting people are usually enforced more strongly than the content policies.—Kww(talk) 14:45, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much for everything. --Olivewildes 14:50, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

3RR rule

You need to read WP:3RR as well ... another rule that is pretty strictly enforced is that no one editor can revert the same article more than three times in a day. People are pretty much agreed that you are in the right, so don't worry that your changes will stay erased. There's no reason to risk being blocked by undoing his reversions immediately ... other editors will take care of it for you.—Kww(talk) 15:03, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much again. This is a huge relief, thank you. Juanacho has reverted more than 3 times a day many times in the past, I am very glad that this is finally ending. Thank you so much for everything. --Olivewildes 15:06, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Don't get ahead of yourself. These problems don't end overnight.—Kww(talk) 15:22, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Olivewildes, I generally think your edits are for the best. However, I don't understand why you're changing a bunch of cites to the "discovery" named ref, removing references to people and billboard, which are legit references. As much as you may find Juanacho's reverts frustrating, Juanacho is probably wondering about the same things. The talk page may help. Gimmetrow 21:14, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tisdale's old official site had a detailed biography, since she re-launched her official site the old biography is gone and a new bio has been added that is mainly trivia about her. The re-launch happened this month, 2-3 days ago. The old biography on Tisdale's old official site supported most of the text in the "Early Life" section, but since the site has been re-launched everything is gone, the bio’s URL reference does not work anymore ([1]), I am looking for gossip sites that copied that original biography from Tisdale's old site and that is why I have not removed the "discovery" ref yet. Tisdale re-launched her official site and added a new biography that is more of a trivia page about her. Her new biography: New biography. The old biography was very useful and supported most of the statements in that section. There were too many references supporting the same statements, too much references showing the same thing. The previous biography included the fact Tisdale made music history, Tisdale's full name and official birth date, Tisdale's early life, Tisdale's theatre performances, her manager, her discovery, her family and her television work. I am looking for a new useful biography. --Olivewildes 15:06, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

User talk:Soulyaboy

Hi, thanks for your edit at User talk:Soulyaboy but please bear in mind that users may remove warnings and comments from their talk page and that restoring them is a violation of Wikipedia:Don't restore removed comments. Cheers - Kingpin13 (talk) 19:38, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you do think Soulyaboy is the same person as Juanacho, why not open a CheckUser inquiry? Tabercil (talk) 04:42, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppeting

You may be on to something, maybe not. I commented on the SPI report. The key to answering the question, and getting them to run a checkuser, is to demonstrate that the sockpuppeting worked to unfair advantage. If you can find a place where two accounts worked together so that they didn't violate 3RR, or backed each other up on a talk page to make it look like there was consensus when there wasn't, they'll run it. If you can't show those kinds of things, the request will probably be rejected.—Kww(talk) 02:50, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How to read the Czech charts

I've generally welcomed your cleanup efforts, but it might be best if you asked a bit about some of the foreign charts. The Czech table links (such as [2]) give three positions: this week, last week, and week before last. In this case, it shows that it is at position 83, that it is down from the previous week, that the previou week it was at 76, and the week before that, it was at 84. The individual song charts show the position on a per week basis: in this case, it shows that it was at position 76 during the 18th week of 2009, 84 during the 19th week of 2009, 83 during the 20th week of 2009, etc. A peak position of 76 is clearly supported by the sources.—Kww(talk) 03:06, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much, I agree and it was quite confusing reading the Czech table links. Olivewildes (talk) 03:11, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Billboard

Billboard's site has all kinds of interesting glitches. Some charts only have their number one positions stored. Some don't seem to track their peaks correctly. Some songs get listed by misspellings of the artist's name, which screws up the discography pages. In this case, it really doesn't matter that the table doesn't fill out the "peak position". One of the entries says that it has been on the chart for two weeks, and gives both values. Figuring out which of those is the higher position is basic arithmetic, which doesn't count as WP:OR, so the reference is acceptable for the peak.

You really do seem to be getting combative over this article. I understand how frustrating working on a vandalism/fan-boy target can be, but fighting over things like this doesn't help.—Kww(talk) 03:44, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Frustrating is an understatement, I have no intentions of fighting with the obsessed fans. I am not eager to fight with them, I am just sick and tired of the false chart positions, fake references, false album sales and the reverting. On the main Tisdale article, before all of the users moved to the music pages, the revert wars were beyond frustrating and the problem is now the users on there are using IPs instead of their proper user names therefore are able to get away with inserting false album sales, vandalizing pages and reverting others edits without a specific reason. The most common IP starts with 190. It seems this specific person's IP changes every week. I am sure the IP is connected to the previous editors on the Tisdale pages who have stopped editing using their user names because the 190 IPs edit exactly the same pages the previous edits edited, such as the Vanessa Hudgens and Tisdale music pages. Here is an example: [3] Coincidence? Never mind. It is not like these claims will change anything. Useless. Olivewildes (talk) 05:26, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I guess what I am saying is that it is important to choose your battles. If you look over my contribution history, you can see that I do a lot of chart cleanup. I'm nearly always able to make my contributions stick, and, if I have problems, other editors nearly always come to my side. That's because people recognize that I have an extremely high accuracy rate on these things. Part of the way I get there is by not getting hung up on technicalities over site presentations, and always lobbying for consensus to list a chart as being bad before I start removing it. Fighting over things like that particular peak reduces your credibility, and makes it less likely that people will assist you. 189.x.x.x and 190.x.x.x cover most of Latin America and the Caribbean, and, yes, the South American editors can be frustrating. Most of the ones you are dealing with are kids, which causes one set of problems, and most of them have some language barriers, which causes another set of problems. I'm a 190.x.x.x editor myself, although I always log in to edit.—Kww(talk) 11:26, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

RIAA certifications

RIAA certifications are based on certifying the number of units shipped to retailers, as per the article you reference: "The audit is conducted against net shipments after returns...". Thus, it is quite possible to certify Gold at over 500,000 units shipped and unreturned, while having actually only completed sales of 471,000 units. Nielsen SoundScan tracks actual completed retail sales, and, on June 29, reported 471,000, per Reuters, which is an extremely reliable news agency. 29,000 units to be sitting in warehouses and shelves across the US isn't unlikely at all. It's even been known for companies to scam the system, by overshipping, and applying for certification before the returns hit.

Again, you are letting your irritation level drive you into poor judgment. You know I'm basically on your side of cleaning these things up. When you find yourself in an editing conflict like this, why not drop a question on my talk page? I'll answer to the best of my ability.—Kww(talk) 19:05, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I will, thanks for all of the help and comments. Olivewildes 19:09, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ashley Tisdale featured article nomination

Hello. Ashley Tisdale is a current featured article candidate. Please, I would appreciate if you leave your opinion here. Thanks. Decodet (talk) 00:30, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I will, thank you for telling me. Olivewildes 00:60, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, thank you so much. Decodet (talk) 01:07, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FALSE CHARTS POSITIONS? before talking and making me become angry check out the site of the czech airplay the only false here is u i included in the article a reference that u reverted i'm right ur wrong ur not collaborative--Mojska (m) 11:09, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Guilty Pleasure Portuguese release

Hi, Olivewildes. I'm Portuguese and i asked in the store Worten, one of the stores that is selling it in Portugal if 26 June was the official date release of the album here in my country. And he said yes. The CD is in stores in Portugal since 26 June, i'm sure, other days he wasn't there. pedrojoão 11:25, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pop 100

Billboard did a major revamp to its site and charts, and dropped the "Pop 100" listings because the chart is no longer published. www.allmusic.com is a reliable source that provides an archive of the older Billboard charts. I restored the Pop 100 listing for Ashley Tisdale using an allmusic reference.—Kww(talk) 21:38, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism accusations

I can see that you are in a content dispute with Juanacho. Please don't call him a vandal because he disagrees with you. I know he's hard to talk to, but please try to discuss this with him.—Kww(talk) 22:37, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ashley Tisdale discography

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Ashley Tisdale discography/archive1 explains the majority of my edits. Please, do not revert them. Decodet (talk) 15:51, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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) 13:58, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]