User talk:Candyo32/Archive 2

Re:GA review

I'll see what I can do. I'm not very familiar with music related articles so am not fully up-to-date on the criteria and MOS requirements, but I'll try getting to it as soon as I can. :) The Flash ^{talk} 02:11, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Alright, done with the review. Talk:My World (Justin Bieber album)/GA1. The Flash ^{talk} 15:40, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

No problem, but the article still consists of mainly bare url refs. Once that's fixed, I'll be able to pass it. The Flash ^{talk} 16:23, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Actually, you haven't sorry, there's still several bare refs. Here let me just list the ref numbers that need fixing: 32, 40, 41, 43, 44, 45, 50, 51, 52, 53, 65, 67, and 68. Also, you need to fix all of the refs to contain the main fields in Cite web (url, title, date, author, publisher, and accessdate, unless certain info is not known) Thanks, The Flash ^{talk} 15:52, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Alright, it's almost done. But please add "Accessdate" and "Publisher" to every ref (these two fields are always available information) The Flash ^{talk} 19:43, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for taking care of those issues, because I've gone ahead and passed the article. :) The Flash ^{talk} 17:18, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

I'll try and get to it when I can. :) The Flash ^{talk} 05:29, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Sure. The Flash ^{talk} 05:58, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi, Candyo. Just alerting you that I've performed a GA review for "One Time;" very few problems and I'll pass it when the sole concerns are done with. Sorry for the long wait! The Flash ^{talk} 05:38, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Hey, just reminding you about the review, as I haven't seen any adjustments being made since I started it. Thanks, The Flash ^{talk} 02:29, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Alright, very sorry for the delay myself; I've asked the second reviewer to give his final say and see if he believes the article is GA worthy. Cheers, The Flash ^{I am Jack's complete lack of surprise} 00:38, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Disputed non-free use rationale for File:Onetimemyheart.jpg

Thank you for uploading File:Onetimemyheart.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this file on Wikipedia may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the file description page and adding or clarifying the reason why the file qualifies under this policy. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your file is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a non-free use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for files used under the non-free content policy require both a copyright tag and a non-free use rationale.

If it is determined that the file does not qualify under the non-free content policy, it might be deleted by an administrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. Chase wc⁹¹ 23:21, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

One Time cover

Please see WP:WAX. Articles should only have extra covers when necessary. Extra covers should only be provided if they enhance the readers' understanding. How I see it is, if commentary on the alternate cover is worth a mention in the article, it should be included (see The Fame Monster and Virgin Killer). However, this cover art for One Time is not necessary, as it doesn't add to knowledge a reader would pick up from reading the article. The alternate cover cannot be there just to show that it exists, that is a violation of WP:NFCC#8. Let me know if you'd like me to explain further. Chase wc⁹¹ 01:22, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Remixes and other versions typically chart as the original song on the Hot 100; even if it doesn't, it's a different version of the same song, which doesn't make it worthy of a new article at all. Please again see WP:NFCC#8: "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." If this "My Heart" cover were to be removed, it wouldn't decrease understanding of the song in any way.

My point is that, alternate covers that are just placed on Wikipedia to show that they exist cannot be used. We must only use non-free content when absolutely necessary. I do not find the use of the extra cover in One Time necessary at all, and I'm sure many other editors would feel the same way. Do you see where I'm coming from? Chase wc⁹¹ 01:35, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

I wasn't working on that article, I just happened to pass by that article and noticed the single cover had been removed, so I uploaded a new one. But I will redirect that. Chase wc⁹¹ 03:41, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

UNC Wikiproject

Glad to see you joining the UNC Wikiproject. Let me know if you have any questions or areas of interest. I am currently working my way to create articles for all of the previous head coaches of the North Carolina Tar Heels men's basketball team as well as getting the list of all of the coaches up to FL status. Let me know if you are interested in helping out or if there is any specific area of interest that you like to work on. Thanks again for helping out. Cheers. Remember (talk) 14:12, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Justin Bieber

Hi. I see you recently reverted a couple of changes that Tanthalas39 made to the Justin Bieber page. He made those changes after I left him a note to point out that the page is not accurate. (I cannot make the changes myself because of the page protection). If you check the sources cited for the two claims he changed, you will see that the report that Bieber "is the FIRST SOLO artist to send 4 songs from a debut album into the Billboard Hot 100’s Top 40 prior to its release". The claim does not preclude that a group priously did the same thing, but leaving the word out does. So insering the word "solo" made the Wikipedia page more accurate. As for the claim that was removed altogether, the source says that all songs from the CD charted, but not that he was the first to do this. So that claim needs to be changed as well. Since I cannot make the changes, I would appreciate it if you could do so. Thanks. 99.192.91.148 (talk) 22:10, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi!!!! I'm a new user and not quite sure what is required to get past page protection, but I saw you did recent edits on Justin Bieber's page. I'm actually doing research to write a Bio for Cody Simpson and Justin Bieber and was looking around for the company "Rapid Discovery Media". I noticed that all the other Bios of Justin Mention that company, but Wikipedia doesn't. Apparently they worked with both Cody Simpson and Justin Bieber. I think they used to be mentioned in the article, but were removed. I noticed at least one of Justin's official videos still mentions Rapid Discovery Media here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y0t8w-0GO8Q in the description. It's also mentioned on their own page here: http://www.youtube.com/user/RapidDiscoveryMedia which I think was the reference that was removed before because they made it themselves? I guess? Maybe you can fix that info. It would be really cool if Cody Simpson gets as popular as Justin Bieber that this company is mentioned. Awesome!

My attack on Justin Bieber

Sorry for that because I read something fake about his death. I didn't need the 2nd warning though, I only did it once... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Riadse87 (talk • contribs) 21:29, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Unreferenced BLPs

Hello Candyo32! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot alerting you that 2 of the articles that you created are tagged as Unreferenced Biographies of Living Persons. The biographies of living persons policy requires that all personal or potentially controversial information be sourced. In addition, to insure verifiability, all biographies should be based on reliable sources. if you were to bring these articles up to standards, it would greatly help us with the current 41 article backlog. Once the articles are adequately referenced, please remove the {{unreferencedBLP}} tag. Here is the list:

1. Drew Sidora - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
2. Anndretta Lyle - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 20:12, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

ARC

Thank you! I didn't know about Pop Songs but I'm glad it can be used. As the Pop 100 is now non-existant. However, I do object to ARC, only main charts should be included in the article. It's not an official chart. The official charts for America are run by Billboard. I will remove this continually if you have a problem with it please create a disucussion in Wikipedia: Record Charts. I'm sure this will be welcomed. Jayy008 (talk) 02:23, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Re: Naturally cover

I apologize, I thought the cover that I uploaded was removed from the page. I didn't see that it was at the bottom of the infobox. QuasyBoy 14:38, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Pop Songs

Hi Candyo32, I came here to leave a comment about the use of the Billboard Pop Songs chart in the discography section of Justin Bieber when I noticed you had informed a user that it was fine to use it as there was consensus at this Wikipedia talk page. May I ask if you got the Pop Songs chart confused with the now-defunct Pop 100? What Billboard now calls Pop Songs is a renamed version of Top 40 Mainstream which that talk page says not to use. "These are component charts. They are based on airplay-only of a small subset of pop/R&B/dance-oriented stations. Not broad enough to be notable in a charts table." The Pop 100 which is okay to use was discontinued this summer and you may find chart appearances from Bieber at his Allmusic page, in the Charts & Awards section. However, consensus at that talk page is that the Pop Songs/Mainstream Top 40 should not be used.

I notice this chart was also at One Time which you nominated for GA; you may wish to remove that. Chase wc⁹¹ 01:20, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Consensus from the original list posted where there is hardly any comment about Pop Songs shows to be in favor of excluding Pop Songs in articles. The user who posted that comment was never replied to so consensus never was gained on his/her idea. Regardless, we generally exclude airplay charts when there has been main charting action on the Hot 100, which is obviously the case here. The main chart is a combination of airplay and sales which is why charts pertaining to only one of the two are not included unless there was no action on the main chart. Chase wc⁹¹ 01:51, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

R&B/Hip-Hop Songs bases its data off of not only airplay but sales, according to the description of the chart at Billboard.com. Pop Songs bases its data off of top 40 airplay alone. The main pop chart would be the Pop 100 which is now discontinued. Chase wc⁹¹ 01:59, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

There's no pop chart to use unless there was charting action on the Pop 100. If it didn't chart there, then just leave it at the Hot 100. Chase wc⁹¹ 02:12, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Beautiful Eyes/GA1

Hi, when you say you "oppose", do you mean that you fail the article? Could you complete the review and let the nominator know the grounds on which you are failing it? Then remove the article from the GAN queue with an edit summary that you are failing the article. That would be much appreciated. Thanks! Regards, —mattisse (Talk) 22:37, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

OK. Per your statement[1], I have removed your name as reviewer and noted on the review page that the review needs to be completed by another editor. Hopefully, another editor will pick it up. Next time, if you want to comment on an article, please do so on the article talk page rather than opening up a review page. Thanks! Regards, —mattisse (Talk) 15:48, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Re:Australian Singles Chart

Ok. You have to click this link. By the way, they are archived monthly, so you will not have access to the most recent charts until next month. The last issue archived was dated January 4, 2009, so all the charts complied since that date will be archived next month. It is the only source that lists the full top 100 positions of the chart. I hope that helped. • вяαdcяochat 22:16, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Actors in Tyler Perry works

Template:Actors in Tyler Perry works has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. Magioladitis (talk) 15:43, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Vandalism to One Time

{{helpme}} Can someone please revert all the vandalism done to One Time, i'm not to well with reverting vandalism, especially since so much was done in separate edits. Thanks to whoever helps!! Candyo32 (talk) 23:58, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

 Done. FYI, WP:REVERT--Jac16888^Talk 00:01, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

One Time GA review

Hi Candyo32, you nominated One Time for GA and the reviewer and myself have left comments for how to improve the article. Very few of the concerns raised have been addressed, and it has been more than a week since the article was initially reviewed. I am in no place to fail the article as I am not the reviewer, but I just thought I'd let you know, before the reviewer decides to fail it. –Chase (talk) 00:02, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

File:Favoritegirl.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, File:Favoritegirl.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Theleftorium 20:56, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Re:Charts

The reason they are not included is because of the number of charts already present. It was making the table too long and hence was decided that genre charts are best kept in the prose. In places where the number of charts are less, such as "Telephone", the genre chart has been kept. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 03:42, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Number format and chart performance in music articles

No, WP:MOS and WP:SONG do not specify spelled-out numbers for chart performance. In fact, WP:MOS contains only one reference to this issue: "Her album reached No. 1 in the UK album charts." That's a numeral, which is contrary to the general WP:MOSNUM guideline of spelling out numbers smaller than ten. The guideline favors numerals for larger values: "numbers greater than nine are commonly rendered in numerals, or may be rendered in words if they are expressed in one or two words". So "one-hundred and thirty-five" (besides being improperly hyphenated) is totally against the guidelines. When I fixed that in the One Time article, I changed the other large numbers to use the same style. And when you reverted my edit, you reintroduced spelling errors, while there was nothing wrong with the edit I had made. I believe I'll set it right again. Happy editing! Chris the speller (talk) 03:39, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm not going to watch the article, and I'm not going to argue with you when you keep changing what you claim are the guidelines or standards, but I will say that "one-hundred and thirty-five" looks ridiculous, and is certifiably wrong. If you change it to "one hundred thirty-five", it will not be dead wrong, but still looks ridiculous. Happy editing! Chris the speller (talk) 04:17, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

BTW, I looked at Hollaback Girl, and right in the opening it has "The song was listed at #180", a numeral, not spelled out. Chris the speller (talk) 04:33, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Brazilian Chart

Please read up on things before you remove charts. 100Brasil is listed on WK:BADCHARTS not Billboard Brazil Hot 100. Two different charts ran by different companies. There are problems with Hot100 Brazil because it's completely different than the official albums chart published by ABPD. Billboard Brazil is official airplay chart and ran by Billboard. It's listed on WK:GOODCHARTS and is allowed to be used BUT it has to have a magazine reference because there is no online archive. Jayy008 (talk) 01:02, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

It's okay, an easy mistake! As for Carey's singles: they was originally those titles but I was the one who moved them. The remixes are the only versions that were released. If the original versions were released first and the remixes after that would be fine. But it's just the remixes, that should be the title of the pages. By the way I've reverted most of your removing charts edits accept on Up Out My Face, I don't know how reliable that was because they've simply pasted the source from I Want to Know What Love Is so I'm guessing it's a fake. Jayy008 (talk) 01:16, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

RE: singles move

PS. If you think it should be done bring it up for discussion. Jayy008 (talk) 01:25, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

I will if I think a consensus is going to be reached. It seems like a dead end at the moment but I will check back tomorrow then voice my opinion. Jayy008 (talk) 01:29, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

re:Rihanna discography

That's fine... please then add the source so the 93/99 doesn't keep getting changed back & forth. Thanks. - eo (talk) 15:39, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Altered speedy deletion rationale: District Wholesale Drugs

Hello Candyo32. I am just letting you know that I deleted District Wholesale Drugs, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, under a different criterion from the one you provided, which doesn't fit the page in question. Thank you. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 16:44, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Jump Then Fall

Hello Candyo32. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Jump Then Fall, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: The article makes a credible assertion of importance or significance, or is not a musical recording. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 23:25, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Hello. Thank you for your message. I'm sorry that the automated message above was incomplete. In order for an article about a recording to qualify for A9 speedy deletion, the artist must not have an article. In this case, Taylor Swift has an article, so Jump Then Fall doesn't qualify for speedy deletion. Please feel free to merge the information into the album's article and turn Jump Then Fall into a redirect, or use WP:PROD or WP:AfD to delete it. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 23:35, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: I Won't Apologize (Selena Gomez & the Scene song)

Hello Candyo32. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of I Won't Apologize (Selena Gomez & the Scene song), a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: A9: The artist's article exists. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 23:45, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Blah blah blah

Comparing the delivery to emenem is "praise" only if you think that em's delivery is worthwhile. MM207.69.139.146 (talk) 05:17, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

"When we discuss an opinion, we attribute the opinion to someone and discuss the fact that they have this opinion" Yes, we do attribute claims to the critics who make them. MM207.69.139.146 (talk) 05:23, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Australian Urban Singles Chart

Sorry, I only just noticed your query regarding the Australian Urban Singles Chart after you pointed it out from your last message. I have a feeling it is a component of the main singles chart showcasing the highest selling songs in the urban genre, but there may be an exception. I know for a fact that the UK Dance Singles Chart is permitted because I asked a question regarding that on WP:CHARTS last year. I come across the UK R&B Charts every now and then, so I think that is permitted also. This may be the same case for Australia. You may want to make sure at WP:CHARTS though. • вяαdcяochat 05:47, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Blah Blah Blah (song)

Please stop removing the "Kesha says ..." attribution from the lead. The description is not a straightforward statement of fact that can appear in a Wikipedia article. It is an opinion that has to be attributed.—Kww(talk) 03:41, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Not Myself Tonight (song)

Sweetheart, that #23 was not sourced. Genieofmusic(talk) 20:46, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

NoW U C ME

First off I just wanted to let you know that going through my history of revisions and removing charts from every song I've edited is obsessive and strange, secondly on the pages I've just mentioned, I see you've left Country Songs, which is an airplay only chart and according to you (from my talk- "Is a component chart because it is AIRPLAY only, as Radio Songs is AIRPLAY only.") , it should be gone too- so explain to me why you are picking and choosing whichever ones you want to delete and keep? I don't think what you did will go over well on some of those pages.

Nowyouseeme (talk) 08:02, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

• Just wanted to reiterate the very first part of what I wrote above. Nowyouseeme - Tà£k 05:14, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

• I'm just talking about the VERY first thing I said, about going throught my revision history, it's weirdddddddd. Nowyouseeme - Tà£k 05:38, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

• 04:18, March 26, 2010 (hist | diff) Today Was a Fairytale ‎ (→Charts) (top)

04:18, March 26, 2010 (hist | diff) Need You Now (song) ‎ (→Chart performance) (top) 04:17, March 26, 2010 (hist | diff) Two Is Better Than One ‎ (→Chart performance) (top) 04:17, March 26, 2010 (hist | diff) Halfway Gone ‎ (Removing Components per WP:BADCHARTS) (top) 04:15, March 26, 2010 (hist | diff) Need You Now (song) ‎ (Removing Pop Songs charts per WP:BADCHARTS) 04:14, March 26, 2010 (hist | diff) User talk:BravesFan2006 ‎ (→Components) (top) 04:14, March 26, 2010 (hist | diff) Today Was a Fairytale ‎ (Removing Pop Songs chart per WP:BADCHARTS)

Here is some of your recent work, I'm the only one who's edited all those recently and Halfway Gone and Two Is Better Than One aren't country-pop crossovers, so FAIL. Nowyouseeme - Tà£k 05:44, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

• I already know, I added it to Naturally earlier. & I wasn't harrassing you, don't be so dramatic. On the down side, now if a song has charted on Hot Adult Contemporary Tracks you can't include Hot Adult Top 40 Tracks, so I guess I'm going to still have you stalking my revision history after all. Nowyouseeme - Tà£k 23:13, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Need You Now is really the only one I care about & I already did it. (its SO stalking =P) Nowyouseeme - Tà£k 23:22, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Scott Evans (actor) and others

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated articles are Scott Evans (actor), Gus Hoffman, Anndretta Lyle, Judy Peterson, Even Angels. 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 the relevant discussion pages: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Scott Evans (actor) for Scott Evans (actor), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gus Hoffman for Gus Hoffman, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anndretta Lyle for Anndretta Lyle, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Judy Peterson for Judy Peterson, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Even Angels for Even Angels. 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, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Yo. Sorry i dont know how to make my own thing. My edits are NOT Jokes! I do my research. I AM taking this seriously and if you think otherwise the i dont know but i am taking this seriously THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

One Time

Please, that rule is for when it doesn't chart on the main chart as in the Hot 100. Component charts can only be used if it didn't chart on the Hot 100. Ask the user above if you want to clariffy. I apologize if I didn't explain myself better in my reversion summary. Hot 100 Airplay is a component of the Hot 100 not the Pop 100. Jayy008 (talk) 01:10, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Here is where it says that Billboard Hot 100 Airplay is a component of the Billboard Hot 100. This Link I have also removed Pop Songs from "One Less Lonely Girl" I personally think it should be included though as it is billed by Billboard as a replacement for the Pop 100 and was said to mirror it. Bring it up for discussion? Jayy008 (talk) 01:39, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Do you not think Pop Songs should be allowed? That way there's Rock, R&B/Hip-Hop, Adult and a POP subchart for the Hot 100. Even though it is a component chart. What do you think? Jayy008 (talk) 01:49, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Ahh I will think of a good argument for it, then add it for discussion on Record Charts then let you know so you can voice your opinion! Jayy008 (talk) 16:14, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Genre Formatting

Either format is acceptable, meaning the format in those featured articles could be changed to the break format and still be fine, so it is not a standard. Breaks improves readability and makes things less cluttered when the genres have references. Again, either way is acceptable but breaks improve the look. --Babyjazspanail (talk) 06:48, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Either one is the standard, so calling one a standard and the other one not is ridiculous. The guidelines/rules specify that either one can be used. I don't know where you got the idea that the commas are the standard because they're not, both are the standard. Just because most featured articles have commas instead of breaks does not mean anything, breaks and commas are both fine. The featured article could be changed to breaks instead and it'd be fine. I have already told you why I like the breaks better so I'll say it again, breaks improve readability and makes things less cluttered when genres are cited, commas do neither of those. This says either can be used and says nothing about the comma being a standard for Featured articles. --Babyjazspanail (talk) 18:49, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Most featured articles do have it, but probably because its simpler. This "," is much simpler than "< br >" to many editors but simpler isn't better. Your argument doesn't work because the rules say either can be used, what you're telling me there's a nonexistent standard. I could go through all those featured song/musical articles and change the genre format without a fuss, unless someone like you reverts it claiming it's against some kind of nonexistent standard. --Babyjazspanail (talk) 19:08, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Justin Bieber discography

Thanks for letting me know that. EnDaLeCoMpLeX (talk) 03:10, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Lady Gaga Telephone Cover Discussion

It would be appreciated if you could add your opinion to the above discussion to try and resolve the situation and if you could please vote on this non-consensus binding survey. Official Telephone Cover Conflict Resolution.

Thanks Lil-unique1 (talk) 01:05, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Jessica Jarrell

A tag has been placed on Jessica Jarrell, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G4 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a deletion debate, such as at articles for deletion. Under the specified criteria, where an article has substantially identical content to that of an article deleted after debate, and any changes in the content do not address the reasons for which the material was previously deleted, it may be deleted at any time.

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. ^Bongo_matic 01:34, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Sub charts

No they can not, I brought it up for discussion about if I could use a non-clickable link for the UK R&B Chart as there is no archive but I was met with no AND it was also said that it's not allowed when it charts on the main chart, so I assumed the same was for Australia, if you have a problem, bring it up on Wikipedia:Record charts. For now I am reverting back my edits, if you revert, I will send you a warning, the only option is to bring this issue up for discussion. Jayy008 (talk) 23:27, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

I've done it myself, feel free to comment! Jayy008 (talk) 23:33, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

I brought it up for discussion so please comment, however, I am going to remove the UK R&B Chart based on the unarchived source, unless you can provide a stable source. Jayy008 (talk) 19:03, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

My Worlds

I agreed with what you did before, but all UK chart archives are listed it as "My World" under the same title, so I think "A" should stand for the UK and Ireland. Jayy008 (talk) 23:23, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Perfect, thanks, it's nice to work together for a change lol. Jayy008 (talk) 23:40, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

March 2010

Please do not add or change content without citing verifiable and reliable sources, as you did to Not Myself Tonight. Before making any potentially controversial edits, it is recommended that you discuss them first on the article's talk page. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. KingOfTheMedia (talk) 02:04, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

"Written by Ester Dean and Polow da Don with the latter also producing the song, it is set to be released as the lead single from her forthcoming fourth studio album, Bionic." is an over-long and complicated sentence. The alternative is much easier for a reader to digest. KingOfTheMedia (talk) 02:07, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

[2][3] - these edits added poorly sourced and unreliable material to the article. There were lots of problems with your editing and I had to chose one template, so I selected that one. KingOfTheMedia (talk) 02:12, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at ANI regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Personal attacks and accusations of article ownership, vandalism. Thank you. --EyeSerene^talk 10:09, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

New Billboard chart policy

As per consensus at WP:record charts there is a new guide to using Billboard Charts available at Billboard charts guide. Mainstream Top 40 (Pop Songs) (formerly known just as Pop Songs) is no longer deemed a component chart - there is no evidence to support this motion. Lil-unique1 (talk) 19:27, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi no problems. glad you like it. i'm working on verifying the Rythmic Top 40. Give me a few days and then i'll add it to the approval list. Please note if you are going to use pop songs it must be linked as Mainstream Top 40 (Pop Songs) because this is the agreed new name for the chart. If you have an troubles with adding it or if you need to refer to the policy it can be accessed at WP:USCHART Lil-unique1 (talk) 23:21, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

I know! I'm very happy that this is all resolved!! Jayy008 (talk) 23:29, 1 April 2010 (UTC) I don't agree with that, Pop songs is included because it was Pop 100, R&B/Hip-Hop has it's genre chart with "Hot R&B/Hip-Hop Songs" where as Pop didn't. I can assure you Rhythmic Top 40 will never be allowed (Well I don't think it will be anyway lol) Jayy008 (talk) 23:33, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Rythmic Formats

I'm afraid that according to Billboard the Rythmic cannot be used on Wikipedia.

• Rythmic Top 40 is a chart consisting of Rythmic Airplay but Rythmic Downloads
• Rap Songs is measured by Rythmic Airplay + R&B/Hip-Hop Airplay

This means Rythmic Airplay is a component of Rap Songs and also of Rythmic Top 40 (which is thus a component of Hot R&B/Hip Songs) does that make sense? Lil-unique1 (talk) 02:52, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Sorry i've made a small mistake which i've corrected. Rap Songs is made up of: "Mainstream R&B/Hip-Hop" and "Rhthmic Airplay Chart". As for the Rhythemic Top 40.... that is still bein investigated. Slightly more detailed response at the WP:USCHARTS talk page. Lil-unique1 (talk) 17:42, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

I still think not. I've been doing some research and Rythmic Radio is effectively crossover radio where both pop and r&b songs can be sent. Therefore it doesn't really quality as a genre chart of US charts because there is not really such genre as Rythmic. Rythmic itself cannot be defined as a genre or style of music it is simply a format of US radio. And also it is a component chart although we've already established that it's exact status is rather complex thanks to billboard's own chart definitions. What article and under what circumstances are you trying to use the chart in?Lil-unique1 (talk) 00:32, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

although i kinda understand what your saying neither crossover nor rhythmic are genres in themselves. The Mainstream Top 40 though an airplay chart is specifically listed by billboard as a genre chart. Rhythmic Top 40 isn't. It all boils down to the fact that Pop is a genre and rhythmic isn't. Billboard states that genre and component charts have different chart criteria for chart entry. so although on paper rythmic top 40 and mainstream top 40 sound the same (40 most popular songs in that format) in reality any song could be sent to rhythmic radio and therefore any song could chart there. the whole point of rythmic radio is for artists to make the move from mainstream to urban radio or vise-versa. some songs never make it that far.Lil-unique1 (talk) 00:47, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

And thats why mainstream rock, trip a songs etc. are listed as components of Rock Songs. Don't forget that for rock music there is are rock music radio stations. and yes Rythemic does resemble R&B but the measurement of airplay for R&B songs comes from the R&B/Hip-Hop Airplay chart. The reason telephone didn't chart on the R&B/Hip-Hop Songs chart is that its single sales are not classified as R&B and it did not chart on R&B airplay charts (to my knowledge). Rythemic Airplay is a componet of Hot 100 Airplay (Radio Songs) too. but for now no i dont think it is classified as a genre chart. Also don't forget Billboard.com publishes the main genre charts. the underlying argument here is that the only billboard charts that we allow on wikipedia are the hot 100 (main singles) or its components if it doesnt chart and the other genre charts. By default rythemic does not fall into either of these catagories and on billboard's own website it states that Rhythmic airplay is used to determine the hot rap songs chart too but we removed it from WP:USCHARTS to make chart identification simpler... it was getting very complicated. I will try and look into the case further but right now based on the information and guidance already available i would strongly advise against using it and firmly support actions to keep it off song pages. i after all measures the popularity of songs which are sent to crossover from one genre to another and therefore only measures a subset of all radio airplay which falls into this catagory. Hope that helps... Lil-unique1 (talk) 01:26, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Again i do understand but Billboard.com clearly defines Hot R&B/Hip Hop Songs as the digital sales of R&B/Hip-Hop Songs as well as the airplay of those songs. There is no evidence to suggest that Rap Songs is a component of R&B/Hip Hop Songs especially not since rap is a seperate music genre to R&B although it is closely related to Hip-Hop and i assume thats why it is listed the way it is at Billboard.biz. I have to stress that this still wouldnt resolve the issue of rhythmic not really being a genre of its own. It is due to these multiple issues which cannot be resolved which is why i think it should be used. Like i said i will do some more research and get back to you at the end of the week(ish).Lil-unique1 (talk) 01:44, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Its fine (as long as its not all the time LOL). No but seriously i'd prefer if people ask questions rather than loads of mass reverting and edit warring. this is when wikipedia works best - when you talk. :) i dont know wherebouts in the world your editing from by im in the UK and its nearly 3am here... i'm off to bed. {yikes... i shoulda been asleep by 1am - long day tomorrow :(} good night and happy editing. Lil-unique1 (talk) 01:54, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Justin Bieber

None of Justin Bieber's singles have peaked on the Bubbling Under charts. Eric444 (talk) 14:30, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Hard (song)

Hey there, I just wanted to let you know that I've begun my review of your WP:GAN for Hard (song). I should have it completed sometime today. Torchiest (talk | contribs) 18:04, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Great, you fixed a bunch of the citation problems I was getting ready to comment on. That's a big help! Torchiest (talk | contribs) 18:16, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

On hold

The article Hard (song) you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within seven days, the article will pass, otherwise it will fail. See Talk:Hard (song) for things which need to be addressed. Torchiest (talk | contribs) 20:24, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Updated GA review

Check out the new notes I left for you. It's getting close though! Torchiest (talk | contribs) 03:29, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

GA passed

Just letting you know I passed the article. Good work! Torchiest (talk | contribs) 11:58, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
		For your tireless contributions to all Justin Bieber articles, I am glad to award this to you. EnDaLeCoMpLeX (talk) 23:56, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

No problem! I really do appreciate your contributions to his and tons of other music articles. EnDaLeCoMpLeX (talk) 00:07, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Well thanks. What do you mean "pointing out flaws like most"? EnDaLeCoMpLeX (talk) 00:11, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Oh, gotchaaa. EnDaLeCoMpLeX (talk) 00:14, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Justin Bieber

It's not about the citations, it's about the notability of chart ratings. This is an encyclopaedia, temporary/historic chart placements in the USA simply aren't noteworthy enough for inclusion in the article. --Pumpmeup 13:56, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Lol, well just put it as two then people can work it out :) Jayy008 (talk) 13:47, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of One Time

The article One Time you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needed to be addressed. If these are fixed within seven days, the article will pass, otherwise it will fail. See Talk:One Time for things which need to be addressed. S Masters (talk) 18:35, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Hello, I have made some additional comments (13 April) that require attention before the article can be passed or failed. I would like to wrap this up by today or tomorrow latest. Please help fix these issues so that we can close the GAN and make a final decision on the status of this article. Thanks. -- S Masters (talk) 02:33, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

I have replied to you at the GAN page. Thanks. -- S Masters (talk) 02:49, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

LOL OK, let me know when you are done and I think it can be passed. Thanks for all your hard work. :-) -- S Masters (talk) 02:57, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Skinny Jeanz and a Mic

The article Skinny Jeanz and a Mic you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needed to be addressed. If these are fixed within seven days, the article will pass, otherwise it will fail. See Talk:Skinny Jeanz and a Mic for things which need to be addressed. S Masters (talk) 13:51, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Will you be addressing the issues for the WP:LEAD for this article? There must not be anything in the lead that is not in the sections. There are several items in the lead that is not mentioned anywhere else. Make sure that you repeat these in the relevant sections below. Recast the sentences if possible so that it does not look like its repeated. Thanks. -- S Masters (talk) 03:28, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Skinny Jeanz and a Mic

The article Skinny Jeanz and a Mic you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Skinny Jeanz and a Mic for eventual comments about the article. Well done! S Masters (talk) 04:34, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of One Time

The article One Time you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:One Time for eventual comments about the article. Well done! Thanks for all your hard work and congratulations! S Masters (talk) 04:49, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

My World 2.0

Because it says it twice, the only bit it doesn't say twice is the part about the beatles, which is why I left it. Jayy008 (talk) 19:47, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Lol, no worries, I fixed the wording now, I think it looks better now I've just done that edit because of the broken sentence thing you mentioned. Jayy008 (talk) 19:51, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Tell me about it, it's highly annoying, I have the same trouble with Mimi articles, someone put on "Up Out My Face" that it charted at #1 and put some info on it in the prose, when I removed it the user put in my user box "transexual retard" lol, it's ridiculous, as I said to him changing sales and charts on Wikipedia won't change the artist's real chart positions! Jayy008 (talk) 19:54, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree, sometimes the registered users are worse, if you don't like someone don't waste time editing their articles putting stupid things, it's so irritating! Grr lol Jayy008 (talk) 20:01, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

http://swisscharts.com/showitem.asp?interpret=Justin+Bieber&titel=My+World+2.0&cat=a (My World 2.0) http://swisscharts.com/showitem.asp?interpret=Justin+Bieber&titel=My+World&cat=a (My World) http://swisscharts.com/showitem.asp?interpret=Justin+Bieber&titel=My+Worlds&cat=a (My Worlds)

IFPI is more reliable than achart.us http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Record_charts#Sourcing_guide IFPI is the most important music organise of the world. http://www.ifpi.org/

SJ (talk) 20:47, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

RE: Articles

Aww thank you, that's nice of you to say so. I just try and stick to facts and policy as much as possible but yes its nice when people say they like my work. I will give you a hand in copyediting the article and you have my full support in nominating the article for GA alhtough i would hold fire for a week or so. :) Lil-unique1 (talk) 21:58, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes i think she could be good in the U.S. but both of them have to establish themselves in the UK first then they can release material without promotion whilst they focus on the US. I think people are scared of the US because it can make your or break you. Also the US is massive market so if you play your cards right e.g. "Bleeding Love" or "Down" you can have a massive hit but if you don't you could end up like Kylie Minogue (three failed attempts at launching a uS career) or with a song like "Happy" which has no chart longevity.

p.s. i've already begun work on fight for this love. i've copyedited the lead section. i want to work on the sources making sure they all use templates. i think its easier to do it section by section. Lil-unique1 (talk) 22:51, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of The First Flight

The article The First Flight you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needed to be addressed. If these are fixed within seven days, the article will pass, otherwise it will fail. See Talk:The First Flight for things which need to be addressed. S Masters (talk) 07:07, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Hey Daddy (Daddy's Home)

The article Hey Daddy (Daddy's Home) you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needed to be addressed. If these are fixed within seven days, the article will pass, otherwise it will fail. See Talk:Hey Daddy (Daddy's Home) for things which need to be addressed. S Masters (talk) 07:19, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Ultratip

It's hard to say we had consensus: it was SveroH and you on one side, with me, Lil-Unique, and Iknow32 on the other. I have a hard time seeing your point, though: it was number one on Ultratip. People looking at a chart table can't be protected from ignorance: if they don't know what being number one on Ultratip means, they need to read up on Ultratip. It isn't an extension of Ultratop, because Ultratip factors in airplay and sales, while Ultratop is a sales-only chart. The song that would be number 51 by Ultratop's rules probably isn't the same song as the #1 on Ultratip.—Kww(talk) 23:06, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

We shouldn't do it in Bubbling Under either, for the same reason. The rules for Bubbling Under are different than they are for the Hot 100: the problem there is that the song can never drop from the Hot 100 to the Bubbling Under Hot 100. The only time I can see doing it there is in a discography where one column combines the Hot 100 and the Bubbling Under Hot 100, and that isn't the case here.—Kww(talk) 23:56, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

It does seem pretty strange that such a small country needs four charts to keep everything straight.—Kww(talk) 00:18, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Airplay, Billboard & Digital Charts review

Hello, i was wondering if you could give your opinion of the following as part of the final review process for WP:USCHARTS before it is fully promoted to policy. Discussion. Thanks. Lil-unique1 (talk) 21:08, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Dutch 100

I thought it was common knowlage that component charts are allowed when it hasn't charted on the main chart? The reason the Dutch Top 100 is there is because it hasn't charted on the Dutch Top 40, so it's allowed until/if it does. Jayy008 (talk) 14:10, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

No worries lol. Jayy008 (talk) 12:52, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Belgium

Hello Candyo32. You appear to be confused about the use of ultratip and ultratop song charts in belgium.

Chart	Position
Belgium (Ultratip Bubbling Under Flanders)	1
Belgium (Ultratip Bubbling Under Wallonia)	1
Belgium (Ultratop 50 Flanders)	10
Belgium (Ultratop 50 Wallonia)	10

• The Ultratip is an independent chart measuring the achievement of songs which have often not fully been released or that are yet to fully make main chart debuts.
• Ultratop is the main singles chart and takes priority over Ultratip once a song makes it onto this chart. It has only 50 positions - there is no such thing as position number 51.

Just like the bubbling under hot 100 and just like the discussion at WP:record charts with regards to dutch charts.... they are not to be treated as additions to each other. They are completely seperate with their own wikipedia pages. All 4 of the charts i've listed for beligium are valid but only if song is charted on Ultratop and Ultratip only ultratop IS Listed. Please follow the guidance carefully. I know it can be confusing but people will be able to tell the difference if the song is number one on the full singles chart (Ultratop) because it would be mentioned in the text. Lil-unique1 (talk) 19:23, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Clarification

• if a song has charted on both ultratop and ultratip then only the ultratop should be included.
• the approved source from the chart macro [4] automatically removes ultratip and replaces it with ultratop when a song charts on ultratop. does that make sense? Lil-unique1 (talk) 22:52, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Its ok it is very confusing to understand at first. Unfortunately all charts around the world are different because there isn't a general standard. Some like the U.S. include airplay but then others like the UK completely discount it. Lil-unique1 (talk) 22:58, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Apologies i didnt realise that the album already credited him as jeezy. Lil-unique1 (talk) 11:48, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of The First Flight

The article The First Flight you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:The First Flight for eventual comments about the article. Well done! S Masters (talk) 08:54, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Jessica Jarrell

A tag has been placed on Jessica Jarrell, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G4 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a deletion debate, such as at articles for deletion. Under the specified criteria, where an article has substantially identical content to that of an article deleted after debate, and any changes in the content do not address the reasons for which the material was previously deleted, it may be deleted at any time.

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. ^Bongo_matic 16:21, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Khalil (entertainer)

You may also wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles. See the Article Wizard.

Thank you.

A tag has been placed on Khalil (entertainer) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the article, which appears to be about a real person, individual animal(s), an organization (band, club, company, etc.), or web content, does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not indicate the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable. If this is the first page that you have created, then you should read the guide to writing your first article.

If you think that you can assert the notability of the subject, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the article (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the article's talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article 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 article that would confirm the subject's notability under Wikipedia guidelines.

For guidelines on specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for bands, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Accounting4Taste:talk 16:33, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for providing such a complete and terse explanation of your assertions with respect to this article. I actually have to say that none of them has convinced me, but your thoroughness certainly deserves a thorough response. I'll say at the outset that you require neither my permission nor my assistance to simply put the page up again -- you can do that immediately if you want to, and if you require help to do that, I'll provide it. I strongly suggest that you would be faced with the same objections from a different administrator, and that your time would be better spent in improving the article before remounting it.

You seem to be enthusiastic about bringing this sort of article to a wider audience and I thought perhaps a detailed analysis of your suggestions would be useful to you. This is more or less how I compare articles to various standards when considering them for deletion; if you can meet these objections with references, it's far more likely that your article will remain undisturbed in the future. 1. Signed. Unfortunately, not an assertion found in WP:MUSIC, which generally requires that someone have actually released music before asserting notability as a musician. 2. MULTIPLE verifiable sources. They are certainly verifiable, but only one of them could even hope to meet the requirements of the reliable sources policy. Twitter is definitely not a reliable source. You have provided some evidence that would be a primary source -- a company talking about its own product, for instance -- but these are not generally used on Wikipedia because of their unreliability. I would be looking for arm's-length third-party expert sources writing in a reputable publication, something like a newspaper or magazine (not blogs, forums, or other venues that don't restrain their contributors from contributing anything they want to -- like Wikipedia, for instance. 3. Appearance on The First Flight, album date set. Again, not sufficient to meet any requirement of WP:MUSIC, and sometimes promised albums don't get released although promised. 4. Traffic driven from Lil Twist, Diggy Simmons, and The First Flight. I think this is a suggestion best covered by a policy known as What about x?. Since anyone can add anything to Wikipedia at any time, the simple existence of any article is not a good justification for the existence of any other article, or even its own continued existence. Similarly, the traffic between two pages is not really a useful indicator of notability; traffic numbers can be affected by many factors. 5. Confirmed producers, verifiable sources. Unfortunately, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Again, the sources are certainly verifiable but they are also not reliable. 6. If deleted well just have to be recreated sooner or later, so would seem pointless. If and when that time comes, the article can be recreated as it stands from the history. In the meantime, if you would like the keystrokes placed into a sandbox page where you can add reliable sources, etc., I would be happy to help you with that; just leave me a note. I'm sorry that my own brief search revealed nothing that would assist you. If you have any questions about policy that are not covered by the links above, or anything else, I would be happy to assist you further. Accounting4Taste:talk 03:21, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Papers (song)

The article Papers (song) you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needed to be addressed. If these are fixed within seven days, the article will pass, otherwise it will fail. See Talk:Papers (song) for things which need to be addressed. S Masters (talk) 09:09, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Favorite Girl

The article Favorite Girl you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needed to be addressed. If these are fixed within seven days, the article will pass, otherwise it will fail. See Talk:Favorite Girl for things which need to be addressed. S Masters (talk) 10:13, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Hello, Candyo32. You have new messages at Talk:Papers (song)/GA1.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Your GA nomination of Favorite Girl

The article Favorite Girl you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Favorite Girl for eventual comments about the article. Well done! S Masters (talk) 15:45, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Papers (song)

The article Papers (song) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Papers (song) for eventual comments about the article. Well done! S Masters (talk) 04:34, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Hello, Candyo32. You have new messages at Talk:Hey Daddy (Daddy's Home)/GA1.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Articles for deletion nomination of Jessica Jarrell

I have nominated Jessica Jarrell, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jessica Jarrell (2nd nomination). Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. ^Bongo_matic 04:56, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Justin Beiber

Currently says he was born march 69th! You might want to fix it. So much for protection! --220.101.28.25 (talk) 02:50, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

No worries. Pretty quick, 4 minutes! (my note to your fix). Too bad it was there for 1 hour 52 minutes!
Protection? It just stopped me from fixing it myself!--220.101.28.25 (talk) 03:12, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

		The Press Barnstar
		Your contribution to the article Justin Bieber was mentioned by Vanity Fair magazine http://www.vanityfair.com/online/daily/2010/04/whats-the-point-of-having-a-source-if-youre-just-going-to-pretend-it-says-something-else-wikipedia-editors-and-justin-bieber-fans-battle-for-control-of-justin-bieber-wikipedia-page.html Huey45 (talk) 09:15, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Justinonelesslonelygirl.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Justinonelesslonelygirl.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) 16:19, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Hey Daddy (Daddy's Home)

The article Hey Daddy (Daddy's Home) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Hey Daddy (Daddy's Home) for eventual comments about the article. Well done! S Masters (talk) 10:31, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Not Myself Tonight

Hi, i had a quick scan over your previous version (before all the edits by Ips etc.) and quite liked it. The info seemed well sourced although the sections seem a little lengthy. You've obviously taken inspiration from Telephone's article which is fine. In the future i am sure that this section will require copyediting and reducing. For the time-being i've reinstated one of your original edits to the section with a few small modifications. Lil-unique1 (talk) 00:15, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree and hence i've reverted it to one of your earlier versions that i personally thought was quite good. I did remove the Michael Jackson and George Michael comments because i felt they were ambiguous. Also removed the background heading. Otherwise good work! :P Lil-unique1 (talk) 00:51, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

I think its a good indication of the state of pop at the moment. In terms of of xtina work i am disappointed. Although i must say this is xtina's territory, she did it with Dirty before Gaga. But it is OTT and does have an air of madonna/gaga about it. i think its not a good look for her tbh. To say all the interviews she gave about Bionic chanelling from her motherhood etc the video and song are a hot mess. they should move on quickly cus this one aint an impactor. Lil-unique1 (talk) 01:07, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Ok i know i reverted back to your edit because i thought it was correct but you need to stop making mass reverts. You've carried out 6+ reverts in the last 24 hours and it would be enough to file an incident report if someone wanted to. Personally i dont have an issue with your edits but you need to stop displaying ownership. other people's edits can be correct too and in reality we cannot allow people to own a certain article/or section of an article.Lil-unique1 (talk) 14:38, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Articles for deletion nomination of Aaron Fresh

I have nominated Aaron Fresh, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aaron Fresh. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. ^Bongo_matic 10:40, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Jessica Jarrell

This was deleted because of the deletion discussion that only closed 12 hours ago. Read Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jessica Jarrell (2nd nomination). You can ask at WP:DRV for a review. Or you can ask User:JForget about their closure decision. Now that her song has been released(?) There should be more information on her article's notability. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 13:19, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

The following is what you wrote on the talk page, in case you want to reporuce it on a WP:DRV. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 13:26, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Wrongful deletion

Before the create watcher starts on a tangent, this article was wrongfully deleted last time. It meets WP:MUSICBIO

1. 1 Works comprising merely trivial coverage, such as articles that simply report performance dates, release information or track listings, or the publications of contact and booking details in directories.
2. 11 Has been placed in rotation nationally by any major radio network.
3. 10 (maybe) Has performed music for a work of media that is notable, e.g. a theme for a network television show, performance in a television show or notable film, inclusion on a notable compilation album, etc. (I don't know if appearance on My World 2.0 counts) Candyo32 (talk) 12:01, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

talk before 2 May deletion

There is no doubt that she is notable.

• 1. MULTIPLE verifiable sources.
• 2. Single has BEEN RELEASED, album date set.
• 3. Becoming more notable, added to My World Tour
• 4. Charted song.
• 5. Flimography
• 6. Traffic driven due to My World Tour, My World 2.0, Justin Bieber, etc..

If the article is deleted, it will just be recreated again sooner or later, however I contest that this is a well developed, well sourced start page. Candyo32 (talk) 23:26, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Her single has not yet been released yet. Having a single does not qualify an article for WP:MUSIC Graeme Bartlett (talk) 09:43, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

The single impacted on urban radio on the 27th. Candyo32 (talk) 13:41, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, technically she hasn't had a single released yet, (today is the 24th, and it is scheduled for release on the 27th.) That being said, this article does have two verifiable sources, (AllAccess.com and FMQB.com,) confirming that Ms. Jarrell will satisfy criterion #11 of WP:MUSIC within 72 hours. Technically you could speedy this page and recreate it verbatim in three days, but I do not see a harm to Wikipedia if this article is allowed to stand at this time. -- RoninBK _{T C} 15:23, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

I've declined the speedy deletion as it isn't substantially identical to the version that was deleted via the first AfD, and there is enough assertions of importance to avoid A7. I suggest this article is left for a while, and if anyone still thinks it should be deleted they should take it to WP:AFD for a second nomination there. Peter 19:36, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Adolf H

Have you ever heard about Adolf Hitler?! (P.S. Thanks for the vandalism reversions. ^^) ×××BrightBlackHeaven^(talk)××× 23:57, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Over

i missread your edit summary. i thought u said to use YouTube if nothing else is aviable. Im reallly getting tired of you trying to make every article a GA or whatever. How is youtube a bad source. Whats the difference if i find it on HipHopDX.com or YouTube. STAT- Verse 02:56, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

take it as whatever you want but you can stay go control Pop Music all you want cause me, User:SE KinG, User:Hometown Kid and User:St8Cash got Hip Hop shut DOWN. STAT- Verse 03:10, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

No need for that it was just a suggestion. Hip Hop articles dont ussaly fall into GA areas beacause Hip Hop is not as accepted in the World as Pop is. I never practice OWNERSHIP of articles. Just staing some of the better editors in the Hip hop articles ive seen. DONT threatin me i might have to report you for threating me with a "report". STAT- Verse 03:18, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Well thats "good" to know. Im really done talking Ba Bye.STAT- Verse 03:34, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Deletion review

I have posted a question at Wikipedia:Deletion review#Jessica_Jarrell which you may be able to answer. Can you please return to that discussion to answer it? Stifle (talk) 08:08, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

OMG! Usher is Fifth

"OMG" makes Usher the 5th, not the 4th, artist to score a #1 hit in three consecutive decades. He follows Stevie Wonder (60s,70s,80s), Michael Jackson (70s,80s,90s), Janet Jackson (80s,90s,00s) and Madonna (80s,90s,00s). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.32.17.105 (talk) 20:19, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Sales.

Where's the sale in Live Like We're dying article? 22:37, 8 May 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Syfuel (talk • contribs)

Hasn't the single already achieved platinum?Syfuel (talk) 22:46, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Owh, it is okay then, by the way I misread the word "earmarked", thinking it should be "remarked". Thanks for letting me know. I'm still new with Wikipedia editorial stuffs. : )218.111.254.49 (talk) 13:39, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

The Truth (Kris Allen song)

Just a heads up, The Truth (Kris Allen song) has been redirected to the article on the album. Songs rarely meet notability guidelines for songs and this one doesn't look to be any different.--RadioFan (talk) 19:56, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Theuhohreo

Theuhohreo had checkuser run on March 18. Not Brexx. I'll take a look and see if there are other reasons to take action.—Kww(talk) 21:43, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Nothing to apologize for. Checkuser was run because MuzeMike thought the exact same thing that you did.—Kww(talk) 21:45, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Disputed non-free use rationale for File:Evenangels.jpg

Thank you for uploading File:Evenangels.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this file on Wikipedia may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the file description page and adding or clarifying the reason why the file qualifies under this policy. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your file is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a non-free use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for files used under the non-free content policy require both a copyright tag and a non-free use rationale.

If it is determined that the file does not qualify under the non-free content policy, it might be deleted by an administrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. Aspects (talk) 23:30, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

May 2010

"WooHoo" is NOT an OFFICIAL SINGLE! So stop being stupid and putting it in the "Nicki Minaj chronology", their is no citation that it will become a single!!!!!! Songs that Minaj features in and is NOT YET a single do NOT go in the chronology but in "Album appearances and remixes" on her Discography. Theuhohreo (talk) 20:38, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of One Less Lonely Girl

The article One Less Lonely Girl you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needed to be addressed. If these are fixed within seven days, the article will pass, otherwise it will fail. See Talk:One Less Lonely Girl for things which need to be addressed. Adabow (talk) 23:21, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Hello, Candyo32. You have new messages at Talk:One Less Lonely Girl/GA2.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Your GA nomination of One Less Lonely Girl

The article One Less Lonely Girl you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:One Less Lonely Girl for eventual comments about the article. Well done! Adabow (talk) 05:38, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

My World

Hello, Candyo32. You have new messages at L-l-CLK-l-l's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Hello, Candyo32. You have new messages at L-l-CLK-l-l's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Can you...

...leave some comments at the FA candidacy for "Speechless (Michael Jackson song)"? Me and User:Pyrrhus16 would appreciate if you could comment on the article. Thanks, Crystal Clear x3 04:58, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Ping ping Crystal Clear x3 06:17, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Woohoo

The article was redirected because there is an element of expectation that it would chart which is a breach of WP:CRYSTAL, moreover and more importantly WP:NSONGS points out that songs should only have pages if there is sufficient information. Currently without a single cover, charts or extensive coverage the song isn't really notable for its own page. It should be merged into the album.Lil-unique1 (talk) 23:05, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

But my point is that according to WP:NSONGS notability goes beyond having extensive coverage (which comments from Daily Star and Rap Up dont really constitute). It states if there is not enough sufficient information to warrant a seperate page then one shouldn't be created. All of the information contained there could be merged into the album. Without a cover and a extensive coverage the song is not notable enough for its own page. A release date and a couple of comments about the song do not really make it notable. Compared this to something like Speechless (Lady Gaga song) which was never officially released but has way more extensive coverage. Even the same can be said for Commander (song) which was only released yesterday but has lots more coverage than this.Lil-unique1 (talk) 23:12, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of File:Newboyzperforming.jpg

A tag has been placed on File:Newboyzperforming.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be a clear copyright infringement. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words.

If the external website belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text — which means allowing other people to modify it — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. If you are not the owner of the external website but have permission from that owner, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission. You might want to look at Wikipedia's policies and guidelines for more details, or ask a question here.

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 - if no such tag exists then the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate and adding a hangon tag is unnecessary), 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. Manway (talk) 16:54, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Genre changes?

Sorry but people really need to learn their genres & it just really peeves me when the wrong ones. I don't mean to make problems but shouldn't readers know the correct information? Also, i just come here to edit minor things & i haven't really got the hang of this site besides editing the genres lol. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sebizzar (talk • contribs) 09:10, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Cut and paste move

Hi, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you recently tried to give Abby Carlton a different title by copying its content and pasting either the same content, or an edited version of it, into another page with a different name. This is known as a "cut and paste move", and it is undesirable because it splits the page history, which is needed for attribution and various other purposes. Instead, the software used by Wikipedia has a feature that allows pages to be moved to a new title together with their edit history.

In most cases, once your account is four days old and has ten edits, you should be able to move an article yourself using the "Move" tab at the top of the page. This both preserves the page history intact and automatically creates a redirect from the old title to the new. If you cannot perform a particular page move yourself this way (e.g. because a page already exists at the target title), please follow the instructions at requested moves to have it moved by someone else. Also, if there are any other pages that you moved by copying and pasting, even if it was a long time ago, please list them at Wikipedia:Cut and paste move repair holding pen. Thank you. Rocksey (talk) 19:27, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Justin Bieber

Justin Bieber is Canadian-American. Live with it, little girl. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Uncedited (talk • contribs) 22:26, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Bubbling Under

Aaron Fresh's "Spending All My Time" peaked at #106 and Nicki Minaj's "Massive Attack" at #122. Eric444 (talk) 15:18, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't have a subscription to Billboard and multiple Google searches haven't turned up anything. Eric444 (talk) 14:38, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Abby Carlton/Newman

I can do it, but please point me at a good source (preferably official from the production company) supporting one name over the other.—Kww(talk) 15:38, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

• Butting in... Here are some sources referring to the character as Abby Carlton from Sony [5], from CBS [6], and the Soap Opera Digest actor profile of Marcy Rylan [7]. Rocksey (talk) 00:05, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Here are a couple news articles establishing the characters common name as Abby Carlton: [8] [9]. Rocksey (talk) 00:22, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

That level of objection means that you will have to go to WP:RM and use the controversial moves process. Not too hard: basically a discussion on the talk page to come to a consensus before the move is performed.—Kww(talk) 03:28, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Minaj Chronology

"Knockout" has a release date stated May (and referenced) which is before "Your Love" which will be officially released as a single in June. Also the "Knockout" music video will be released before "Your Love" as well. Which means after "Woohoo" it's "Knockout" and than "Your Love" by Ms.Minaj. 74.72.160.180 (talk) 03:11, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

• ...Alright just make sure you edit all the singles that come in afterwards too so they all fall in order. 74.72.160.180 (talk) 03:26, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Pop 100

Hello, I just saw your message on Record Charts. It certainly looks like the Pop 100 is back. I'm going to research it. Jayy008 (talk) 16:59, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Yep, I much prefer the old charts, Hot 100 Digital, Hot 100 Airplay. For some reason I prefered them being called that. As for the subscription, I was going to sign up, but it's like over double price for the UK :( Jayy008 (talk) 17:05, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

fight for this love

Hello, Candyo32. You have new messages at Talk:Fight for This Love#GA Review.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

regards, Lil-unique1 (talk) 19:35, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

per MOS:NUM only numbers less than ten should be spelled out. Lil-unique1 (talk) 21:15, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

additionally WP:FN mentions nothing about placing notes after the period. I have personally always preferred put references directly next to the source of information that they relate to and it helps reduce the claims that x information is sourced in y reference. Thanks for the other comments though. Regards, Lil-unique1 (talk) 21:22, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

well thanks for the heads up. it was really nice of you. i'll wait and see what my GA reviewer says as the guidelines (to best of my knowledge) dont say that about sourcing or numbers and so i am wary of WP:Other stuff exists. As long as the article follows MOS in my eyes that's more important than other articles. But yes i really appreciated your comments. good luck with getting Break Your Heart to GA. regards, Lil-unique1 (talk) 16:21, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Re: Charts

Hi Candyo32. I noticed you reverted my edit to "Can't Be Tamed. U notified me to be aware of the Bad charts and Sourcing guide, but I already was aware of that, and I do not see where I disobeyed these guidelines. Since the template is the current and best format to use to cite sources in Wikipedia, i reverted the edit, removing my former inclusion of the Hot Digital Songs (since it has already charted in the Hot 100). Other than that, I don't see any faulties in my edit. I would like to hear your opinion on this. Kind regards -- Luigi-ish (talk) 22:45, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

AfD close

Your non-admin closure of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Woohoo (song) was not in line with the WP:SK guideline, and I have therefore reverted it. It may well be that the article is worthy of retention, but you really shouldn't be closing an AfD for an article that you created, and one in which you've already registered an opinion. Deor (talk) 15:05, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Gettin' Over vs Gettin' Over You

Hi Candy, hope your ok? I've reverted your move of the article from Gettin' Over → Gettin' Over You for the following reasons:

1. Per WP:NSONGS articles are about songs not singles. Plus the original version "Gettin' Over" charted first and it is the original featured version.
2. The second version "Gettin' Over You" is a remix of the original.
3. There is a consensus on the talk page which agrees that the article page should be named "Gettin' Over" but the infobox be named "Gettin' Over You".

Regards, Lil-unique1 (talk) 12:58, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Somebodytolove.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Somebodytolove.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) 05:52, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Rollback

Hi Candy. I noticed that you've been using rollback recently to revert non-vandalism edits. 1, 2, 3, etc. Rollback is only to be used for obvious vandalism, not good-faith missteps. You're an excellent contributor to Wikipedia and I'd hate to see your rollback removed for misuse. –Chase (talk) 14:15, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Charly1300

Charly1300.com is listed on WP:BADCHARTS#Websites to avoid.—Kww(talk) 12:32, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

I should have kept the diff. A reference to an Italian chart on it had been removed, you had reverted the editor and put it back in, and another editor had reverted you. I spotted it in an edit history this morning.—Kww(talk) 21:54, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Welcome

your welcome.... Californiagays (talk) 13:03, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Removing charts?

From my understanding with music charts, Airplay charts as well as digital charts are not to be added to wikipedia pages? I might be wrong? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Perhapsthebestsamuel (talk • contribs) 11:50, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you

For the nice editor review, appreciated. Yeah, Justin Bieber.. yikes. talk about a vandal target. Tommy2010 [message] 01:05, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank Me Later

Umm if you checked the archives HipHopDX was discussed before, no one opposed it but it was never added to the list. STAT -Verse 21:35, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Hockeylover17

Hi! I saw your report at WP:AIV. At the time I saw it, Hockeylover17 had made only one edit since their final warning, and that edit seemed OK to me. Since then they've made a few more, all OK edits. For that reason I've not blocked them (I actually dropped a bunch of cookies on to their talk page, in the hope it'll nudge them towards productive editing).

I'll keep Sean Kingston discography on my watchlist. In the meantime, if you're concerned give me a shout and I'll take a look.

Happy editing! TFOWR 01:13, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Break Your Heart

Hello Candyo32, Your article nomination of Break Your Heart is currently being reviewed, there are a few issues, nothing major. Please work to correct them as soon as possible.
On another note please do not write on the review page, instead please message me if you have any questions comments or concerns, or if you are done, i would prefer this because review pages can tend to get insanely long. Thank you :) By the way this is user ..:CK:.. ^(talk2me) now known as (CK)Lakeshade✽talk2me 02:25, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Just to make sure you are aware, i am also reviewing Bad Boys (Alexandra Burke song). It needs minor improvements as well. :) (CK)Lakeshade✽talk2me 01:06, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Hello, Candyo32. You have new messages at L-l-CLK-l-l's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Hello, Candyo32. You have new messages at Talk:Break Your Heart/GA1.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Hello, Candyo32. You have new messages at L-l-CLK-l-l's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Are you watching my talk page so i can stop posting notices on your page? lol (CK)Lakeshade✽talk2me 05:02, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Massive Attack

I understand that, but wouldn't the Controversy add more to the article to help it pass GA? Theuhohreo (talk) 19:35, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

What do you mean by "cite sources properly"? Do you mean the source that is referenced or where and how the statement is referenced? Theuhohreo (talk) 03:35, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

You are now a Reviewer

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Calmer Waters 03:54, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Rolling Stone

Hey, if you'd like me to do this if you dont have time i will, but rolling stone reviews need to be removed from the Justin Bieber articles. My World (EP) is a dead link, and Somebody To Love, Baby and My World 2.0 Will turn into dead links in the next month or so, they no longer back up their archives and all reviews get deleted after 3ish months. I wanna sign the GA Article Topic of Biebs, but i cant until all rolling stone reviews are removed. (CK)Lakeshade✽talk2me 00:32, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Also in reguards to baby, is there anything else you want me to do besides finish up the chart section? the article is looking pretty solid. (CK)Lakeshade✽talk2me 00:32, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Hello, Candyo32. You have new messages at L-l-CLK-l-l's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Over

As requested i have started the review of Over (Drake song). There are some simple issues i noticed giving the article a quick glance, not hard to correct :). As for Massive Attack, i have to admit im a little hesitant to review the page, there are some bigger issues and i dont think it will pass if i were to review it at this point in time, the Background section is long whilst the composition section is not discussed in very much detail, another issue is there is no chart performance section. Truthfully at this point in time i think it could use a peer review rather than a GA nominee, i have no doubt it will pass in the future as ive seen/ and reviewed many of your articles as well as working with you on many articles, your a solid editor, but at this time i dont think its going to pass :S. (CK)Lakeshade✽talk2me 21:48, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Massive Attack

Hello, Candyo32. You have new messages at Talk:Massive Attack (song).
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Regards, Lil-unique1 (talk) 23:42, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Naturally (The Remixes) cover

The fact that they are variations is not my fault. Hollywood Records released those covers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Selenaismylife555 (talk • contribs) 00:31, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Bad Boys

It did actually chart at number 1 in Scottland as seen here. Scottish Singles and Albums Chart —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.151.199.124 (talk) 16:06, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Sweet Dreams

Thanks a lot for uploadibg the image. I had been requesting some editors to do it but noone was doing it. Can't you upload an image where she wears the golden dress? Jivesh boodhun (talk) 16:25, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks a lot. Actually, i am a big fan of Beyonce. I edit all her articles. Thanks for your precious help. Jivesh boodhun (talk) 16:32, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Can you tell me what to do to improve the article. I have already helped a lot for I Am...Sasha Fierce and i have done most of the major works but no one is nominating it for GA. I am so happy that "Halo" passed GA. Jivesh boodhun (talk) 16:35, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

In first place, sweet dreams, then the album. But concerning the album, everything is done ( i guess so). Jivesh boodhun (talk) 17:05, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Justin Bieber Question

I haven't seen mention of him being on the Larry King Live special that was on June 21, 2010. I forget what the name of the special was called, but it was to raise money for the gulf disaster for the United Way, the National Wildlife Federation and the Nature Conservancy. I can't even find a wiki article about the Larry King Live Special. Is it worth mentioning that he appeared on the special? Do you know if there is an article on that special? --Mjrmtg (talk) 14:37, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Somebody to Love (Justin Bieber song)

— Rlevse • Talk • 00:04, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:DaniOLTL.JPG

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:DaniOLTL.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) 05:27, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Non-free media and userspace

Please stop placing non-free content onto userspace pages, as you you did here, which resulted in File:ThankMeLater.jpg appearing on this page. Such usages violates WP:NFCC #9, which restricts the use of non-free media to actual mainspace articles, and does not permit such use in userspace. Thank you, --Hammersoft (talk) 16:37, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Your GA nominations of Never Let You Go (Justin Bieber song) and I Can Transform Ya

The articles Never Let You Go (Justin Bieber song) and I Can Transform Ya you nominated as a good article have been placed on hold . The articles are close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes (Mainly sentence issues) that need to be corrected. If these are fixed within seven days, the articles will pass, otherwise they will fail. Let me know when you are done or if you have any question/comments/or concerns. Good luck :) (CK)Lakeshade✽talk2me 22:06, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

I have passed Never Let You Go. It is now a GA, ; Great Work!. (BTW You have talkback on my page) (CK)Lakeshade✽talk2me 02:38, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Oops, it has passes but there is a few little mistakes still, fix them ASAP please. Your dating and release history is not consistent, all need an accessdate and need to follow (2010-00-00) and ref 6 should not be italicized. (I didnt notice them the first time) (CK)Lakeshade✽talk2me 03:23, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Hello, Candyo32. You have new messages at Talk:LOL Smiley Face/GA1.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Hard

You say critics commend her monotone vocals (which shouldn't be something to compliment, even though they aren't monotone) and how this information is not my opinion, however I don't see any links that support the so called statements from the critics. Emmure 89 (talk) 14:59, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Re:

So, the Crowley Broadcast Analysis is an official institution of research, currently the company provides data to the Brazilian Association of Record Producers (ABPD). See the article, before remove the Brazil in charts. Vitor Mazuco ^Msg 21:48, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

WP:NSONGS

Please don't do things like this. If it charts tomorrow, it will pass WP:NSONGS then. Today, it doesn't pass, so today, WP:NSONGS says it should be a redirect to the parent album.—Kww(talk) 10:39, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Your Love cover

The cover was official and used as a promotional cover like many other songs have had. Sites like Rap-Up and AOL use the cover. The cover was changed to the cartoon form for the iTunes release giving it 2 covers (should we just put this in the talks page of the article???) Theuhohreo (talk) 15:36, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Ride

Thank you for all the work you've done to Ride. I made a good start but maintaining the article was difficult. Apart from you and I most other users were mad fans adding random editions and admitteddly the article was in a state. Its because I've been consumed in all my time with Fight for This Love (which is finally GA), lots of Kelly Rowland-related stuff. You're work to the article is excellent. Well done! btw what do you think of xtina releasing "You Lost Me"? Regards, Lil-unique1 (talk) 23:50, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Aww jeeze thank you. *blush*. Yes its been hard work but i've noticed your doing well on the GA front. It takes so long sometimes! yup i've been busy keeping Commander (song), Rose Colored Glasses and Kelly Rowland (album) up-to-date. All three of which im exstatic with. Commander could have done well if give the chance. Part of the problem is US radio is so segregated. In the UK the stations will generally play all sorts of music so its not an issue. But the US doesnt seem ready to embrace songs like Acapella or Commander. RCG is good but i dont think it will go above 50 on Hot 100. I can see it doing good on Adult Contemp or Adult Pop charts though. Grown Woman is good... urban radio should eat it up. Its already 87 on charts on two days after relase! "you lost me" is defo one of better songs on what is otherwise an aweful album. they should have released title track too and gone for double a-side to try and salvage the situation. Maybe they'll repromote woohoo after YLM makes a big chart impact? Lil-unique1 (talk) 00:53, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Actually yes i do understand what you mean. Just wondering do you think User:Lil-unique1/Grown Woman is notable enough for creation as a stand alone page? Lil-unique1 (talk) 22:31, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

*Sighs* its getting very silly isn't it. We didnt have this problem with "H.A.T.E.U." or "We Got Hood Love". Lil-unique1 (talk) 14:31, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

ANI

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. –Chase (talk) 04:20, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

ANI and Rollback

Sorry you got dragged to ANI without any discussion here first. As a fellow rollbacker, let me say I understand your reasoning behind your use of the tool. However, the community at large feels rollback should be used in extremely limited circumstances, AKA blatant, obvious vandalism. Other editors can't understand your reasoning if you don't leave an edit summary, so even if it's a genre warrior vandalizing, most people won't know that without an explanation. So in those 5 cases you're better off using undo with an edit summary stating "known genre warrior" or whatever the case may be. There are also tools you can get that will allow a custom edit summary to be used with rollback. One example is this.

I don't know if you've tried WP:TWINKLE yet, but that tool provides several links (with custom edit summaries) that function just like rollback but without the need for the permission and with edit summaries. You do need Mozilla Firefox or some other browser to use the tool; it doesn't work with Internet Explorer.

If you have any questions on twinkle or otherwise, feel free to ask them here or on my talk page. Thanks! N419BH 15:11, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

N419BH, I don't know where you come off saying no discussion was started here. I tried discussing the matter a month ago... –Chase (talk) 19:09, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

No problem. Try that script and you'll get a custom edit summary even with rollback. N419BH 18:49, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

File copyright problem with File:Sayaahvid.jpg

Thank you for uploading File:Sayaahvid.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the file. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. Eeekster (talk) 06:45, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Woohoo

Just to let you know i filed a report at WP:RFPP and got Woohoo semi-protected for three weeks. Lil-unique1 (talk) 18:12, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

I was thinking of doing the review for Woohoo. Am I ok to do it or would you rather it be left until your more free (I noticed your nomming a lot of GAs lol)? I won't time restrict the review. Lil-unique1 (talk) 21:16, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Ready review

The review is listed at Metacritic, with its score and criticism. If u think that link should be added, then add it, but removing the review completely is ridiculous. With the Metacritic page, anyone can, as stated by WP:Verifiability, "be able to check the sources to verify that material in a Wikipedia article has already been published by a reliable source". Dan56 (talk) 13:50, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

What does "parts of the review, not in the side cannot" mean? Dan56 (talk) 14:26, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

On my edit, I only included what Metacritic supported. And according to a user at the WPAlbums talk page, the review and its criticism can be added as long as its attributed to the original source of the information, Metacritic. Dan56 (talk) 14:42, 7 July 2010 (UTC)