Talk:And I Am Telling You I'm Not Going

YouTube links
This article is one of thousands on Wikipedia that have a link to YouTube in it. Based on the External links policy, most of these should probably be removed. I'm putting this message here, on this talk page, to request the regular editors take a look at the link and make sure it doesn't violate policy. In short: 1. 99% of the time YouTube should not be used as a source. 2. We must not link to material that violates someones copyright. If you are not sure if the link on this article should be removed, feel free to ask me on my talk page and I'll review it personally. Thanks. ---J.S (t|c) 04:43, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Second infobox
Let's open this up for discussion, shall we? Here are the reasons why I am currently opposed to the infobox about the Hudson version of this song: However, if somebody would like to explain what this infobox is contributing, I would love to know. GassyGuy 01:26, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
 * It is aesthetically not pleasing as there is just enough text currently to support the main infobox.
 * It is not actually adding much (any?) info that is not already contained either within the text or the first infobox.
 * This song has not officially been promoted as a single in any way. Only "Listen" has actually received official promotion from the film soundtrack.

Sadly
Your editions are erasing important information! and where there is not promotion about the single?? Of course there is The song is performming well on charts, coz the single is gaining cool rotation on radios, especially on Urban Radio stations, and don't you see television? the song as well as announcend as newest single from the motion picture! I'll report you to admins or mods for vandalism! Any informations that can add or especify details about the article are very welcome

Eduemoni 21:44, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, I'm not the only one who is of this opinion, as I'm not the one who last removed it. I opened up the discussion here to see why the infobox (note I say the box, not the info) should be there. I am not removing information, as it's all in the article. I agree that it is now likely to be promoted as the second single, but the first two points I made above stand, as at least two other editors have implicitly agreed with in some form by removing this second infobox. GassyGuy 21:53, 14 January 2007 (UTC)


 * You are the only one who edited this article, many other editors have agreed with me stop this bullshit vandalism, like I said before, I'll report you to the admins and mods, leave the infobox, infoboxes can be added to the article independently if there is or not enough text, the main factor being the informations that it can pass to the readers. Eduemoni 21:59, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
 * The edit history shows that, besides my removal of it, other users to do so include User:FuriousFreddy and User:Kafziel, so you're either not looking at all or you're just being difficult. Either way, you're not addressing this issue that the information is already in the article, rendering the infobox not particularly informative. Regardless, this discussion is proving futile, so I will invite you to bring in admin intervention for my "vandalism." GassyGuy 22:05, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
 * For what it's worth, I'm going to back off for a bit and wait to see if somebody else comes to contribute to this discussion, but I think the recent addition of a chart position section is also repetitive to the text and unnecessary, and, were I to hypothesize, is a way to take up space and rationalize the second infobox, which also doesn't need to be there. GassyGuy 22:25, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
 * And, hey, since I'm going for broke, I think using edit summaries would be a good idea, and maybe using the "show preview" button instead of making multiple consecutive edits. Those both tend to be recommended. GassyGuy 22:27, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

I removed the infobox before because the article was too short to have two infoboxes. Even now, it is still too short to have two infoboxes, but because Hudson's version is a top 40 R&B hit now, I'll let that go. However, Eduemoni, you need to review the guidelines at as far as how to properly fill out these infoboxes. There are set directions on what to put where. The current version is correctly formatted (reguardless if the song is a single from a soundtrack, Hudson is to be listed as the artist, and "Recorded" is for information on where and when the song was recorded). --FuriousFreddy 21:18, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Re-record section
"The Hudson's version as well aclaimed as the original, receiving good reviews, just not demonstrating her vocal techniques used as well as the theatrical performance, what the song demands." I don't understand a word of this. Skotoseme 23:55, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
 * That section desperately needs cleanup, but I don't feel like being called a vandal just yet, so I'm hoping someone else will undertake it. I have a feeling that is attempting some sort of original research, besides being incomprehensible, and should be stricken. GassyGuy 00:20, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, I'll be the vandal then; I deleted it. If the original author can reconstruct the sentence so as to be comprehensible, they're more than welcome to re-submit it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.95.51.216 (talk) 09:40, 15 January 2007 (UTC).
 * I went ahead and did some copyediting on this section, and also removed a charts section that was completely redundant to the text. I did not remove the second infobox, but this is more in compromise than any sort of concession that it belongs there. I would still love to hear more about the community's opinion of it. GassyGuy 18:59, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I have also reverted a conversion of the single infoboxes to song infoboxes. The two types of infobox have distinct uses, and simply converting them to song infoboxes is not appropriate as was done. It solves the space problem, but it causes one which goes from aesthetic problems to utility problems, which are of greater magnitude. GassyGuy 21:27, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Two questions -- (1) What IS the difference between the single infobox and the song infobox (since the song infobox seems to be the least cumbersome format for this situtation)? (2) Given the rising success of Hudson, the Dreamgirls film and the Hudson version of the song, why are you still fighting this?  65.215.37.164 --- 16:02, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) The song infobox is used mainly for pop standards and other songs of that nature. I wouldn't be opposed to converting the entire thing to a song infobox, but having two song infoboxes is nonstandard usage at best. 2) I'm not sure exactly how the infobox somehow correlates to Hudson's success? I'm not fighting the addition of information about her version. I'm attempting to copyedit that information so that it's comprehensible, even, although User:Eduemoni, who seems to have a bit of a tenuous grasp on the language, keeps reverting my edits in that respect too. But I'm not sure why an infobox is somehow an indicator of success - it's just a way to present information. GassyGuy 16:28, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

This article seems to be missing the following very important cover information: Bianca Taylor Ryan (born September 1, 1994) is an American singer and guitarist from Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. Ryan was the first winner of NBC's America's Got Talent at the age of eleven.[1] Ryan auditioned for Talent when the producers visited Chicago in 2006, and "blew [the judges] away" with her big voice, [SINGING "AND I'M TELLING YOU"!].[2] Singing two Broadway show tunes along the way, Ryan was announced as the winner of Season 1 on August 17.[not "two Broadway show tunes" Janis Joplin's "Little Piece of My Heart" and "I'm changing" ! SEE THE YOUTUBE CLIPS -Doctor Derrick]

Sampleing
I recall seeing a rap music video a while ago that sounds like it has a sped up sample of this song in it (particularly the "...you're gonna love me" line). If enyone knows what im talking about, please post it somewhere in the article. thanks. 69.250.130.215 20:21, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:AndImtellingyou.jpg
Image:AndImtellingyou.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 23:25, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Her rendition is also considered as one of the most powerful among all versions of the song.
Oh really? There's no source for this opinion, making it not NPOV. 74.229.215.99 (talk) 04:53, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on And I Am Telling You I'm Not Going. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070216080958/http://www.msnbc.msn.com:80/id/15994165/site/newsweek/ to http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15994165/site/newsweek/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 12:28, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on And I Am Telling You I'm Not Going. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20051021201118/http://theater2.nytimes.com/mem/theater/treview.html?html_title=&tols_title=DREAMGIRLS%20(PLAY)&pdate=19811221&byline=By%20FRANK%20RICH&id=1077011429808 to http://theater2.nytimes.com/mem/theater/treview.html?html_title=&tols_title=DREAMGIRLS%20(PLAY)&pdate=19811221&byline=By%20FRANK%20RICH&id=1077011429808

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 04:45, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on And I Am Telling You I'm Not Going. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160409024049/http://australian-charts.com/showitem.asp?interpret=Dami+Im&titel=Dami+Im&cat=a to http://australian-charts.com/showitem.asp?interpret=Dami+Im&titel=Dami+Im&cat=a

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 07:24, 31 December 2016 (UTC)