User talk:MoovieStarz

Pet Shop Boys discography
Please stop rearranging the comments in this article. The "Always on my mind" comment in particlular is speculation ("Some question why it didn't"). In addition, there are many artists whose singles are released in various order throughout different countries or regions. The PSB discography is arranged in the order of release in the UK. Thanks. - eo 21:22, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
 * What I said wasn't an attack. I'm not unfamiliar with the U.S. charts.  Still, the comment you added is out of place in a discography listing, and the final statement is speculation.  Unless you have a source, it doesn't belong there.  If you have a verifiable source about PowerPick information, then it is best suited for the article for the song. - eo 21:38, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) You have no knowledge of my edit history nor of any supposed attacks on other editors. Any communication between other editors and myself has nothing to do with you.  It is you who have determined that my original message to you was an "attack".  If I attacked other editors frequently, I would have been blocked long ago.  That's not how things work here.  2) The fact remains that the footnote you left on the page does not belong in a discography listing.  3) Your write-up is speculation.  Aside from the final statement which I highlighted above, there has never, ever been any indication from Billboard that any song earning a "PowerPick" or a "Greatest Gainer" award was guaranteed or had any potential to hit number one.  Those awards are given solely based on a sales or airplay increase over the prior week.  If you have a source stating that Billboard expected any PowerPick song to hit number one, please provide it.  4) There is no need to add notations for every instance where singles were released in slightly different order between the U.S. or the UK or any other region.  Your comment about "The World does not revolve around The U.K. or U.S. so stop acting like it does" makes no sense.  The PSB are from the UK and it is standard practice within Wikipedia to format music chronologies and chart listings based upon the home country of the artist.  I'm the one who removed the comment pertaining to release order, so what you're saying doesn't even apply.  5) Your comments on my page are of a much more aggressive nature than anything I have left here, so please be careful about who you accuse of "attacking".  6) If you continue to add those footnotes in the way you have previously (speculation, chart commentary, capitalization of every word), I will continue to remove it. - eo 22:09, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

My comment about the world does not revolve around the U.K. or the U.S. does make sense because you seem to think that all information provided must flow from the United Kingdom. I am quite aware of where the Pet Shop Boys come from and that Chart Chronologies will be based on that. That does not mean that information relating to other countries can not be added. There is a certain arrogance in your reply that seems to imply that you believe you know everything and everyone else knows nothing. In The Chart Beat Section of Billboard magazine both the former writer (Paul Green I believe, but I can't remember for sure) and the current writer (Fred Bronson) both repeatedly commented on the Power Pick and that it was going to hit Number One. Till this time all songs winning the Combined Power Pick Airplay & Sales Gainer Award went to Number One. At the time of "Always On My Mind" Hitting Number Four on the Hot 100, I was regularly subscribed to Billboard magazine. I read these comments weekly and they ARE IN PRINT! My comments about you attacking me and others is based on what is already placed on your user page. I am obviously not the first person you have angered or had this problem with. I checked the rules and you are not supposed to revert information automatically back to the way you wrote it or the way it was previously. You are supposed to write the individual first or add commentary. As for my footnote not belonging on the discography page, if it does not belong there, then none of the remaining information belongs there either. The comment about the recordings not getting airplay but sales is again in your terms, pure speculation. I am not trying to fight here. I just added information to the discography that I felt made it more accurate and informative. The idea behind the edit format on Wikipedia is to be able to update and add information that others feel is inaccurate or missing. I added information that can be confirmed by contacting Billboard magazine. Writing me and telling me not to rearrange comments implies that you believe you are the only one allowed to do so. Just because you added information to this discography, does not mean other can't also add things, nor does it mean what you have added is 100% correct. Please if you continue to remove information I have added I will report you. Not all the information listed under The Pet Shop Boys pages is correct. Or many other pages either for that matter. But I don't go in automatically and change them. I go to investigate to see if all the information is correct first. Just because you do not know about the combined Power Pick Airplay & Sales Gainer Award at one time being a 100% accurate indicator of a song hitting Number One, does not mean it isn't true, nor does it give you the right to remove the information from the page. You say you will go back and remove any changes I make. That is a violation of the rules here. Continue to delete my edits and I will report you. There was no reason for you to change things nor to reply to me with a rude comment. This is the Pet Shop Boys Discography Page. Not the Ericorbit page.MoovieStarz 23:02, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Editing here
Welcome!

Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place  after the question on your talk page. Again, welcome!
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

It would be advisable to read some or all of the documents linked to above &mdash; it's especially important to have some knowledge of our Manual of Style (with regard to capitalisation rules, etc.), and to read WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA. You might also look at the various Wikiprojects concerning articles in the field of music.

When experienced editors correct you, it's also a good idea to stop and consider the possibility that they're right before losing your temper with them. Wikipedia is a collaborative project, with guidelines and policies of which you should gradually become aware as you continue editing. No-one expects you to know everything, and you're bound to make mistakes at the beginning (in fact, we never stop making mistakes, partly because there are a lot of guidelines and policies, and they sometimes change); the learning process is a lot easier and pleasanter if you allow others to help you, though. --Mel Etitis ( Talk ) 11:12, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Problems with Ericorbit....
Thank you for taking the time to write to me, but I have a feeling that Ericorbit's bad behaviour is being defended rather than being scolded as I noticed your comment at the bottom of his Talk page. Although I don't presume to know everything about the Pet Shop Boys, I do not appreciate Ericorbit coming in a reverting what I have written back to the way it was originally, just simply because he believes what I have written is not accurate. He tries to tell me that what I have written is hearsay even though Hearsay already exists not only on the discography but Biography as well. He speaks to me as if I know nothing about the Pet Shop Boys. He lives in England and does not know everything about the chart fortunes of The Pet Shop Boys in the United States. If someone like Ericorbit continually goes in and removes items others have written simply because it doesn't fit in with his view of things, then what is the purpose of people being able to edit anything at Wikipedia. I found certain information to be missing from the Biography & Discography and I added it. Just because he is not aware of this information does not make it wrong. Nor does the fact that he may have been doing this for a while make his actions correct either. He has a bad attitude and it is obvious from his talk page that this is not the first time he has done this, nor the first time he has angered people. The arrogance with which he initially wrote to me and told me not to rearrange comments and not to write something he felt was hearsay, was out of line. Just because he is not aware of something, does not mean it isn't factual. He is an Englishman who doesn't know everything about the U.S. Pop Charts compiled and printed weekly by Billboard magazine. To talk down to me as he did was rude. If people are to continue to add and make edits to the sight, you need to make sure individuals such as Ericorbit are not being rude with other people who make edits here. Just because what I entered did not fit into his concept of what he knows about the Pet Shop Boys does not make it inaccurate. I am new to this and I am not going to say I can't make mistakes. I know I can. But when I have added information to a page that I know is correct and verifiable, and then have someone like Ericorbit come along and remove it and get rude with me, I question why I or anyone else should bother. If I had written something completely untrue or Defammatory I could understand it being removed. There is Hearsay within the Biography part of the Pet Shop Boys Page, but I have not edited it out or changed it. The little bits of information I added did not hurt the discography, nor take away from it. They were just additional bits of information I added like the ones already there and are verifiable. This simply comes down to an arrogant man who doesn't like someone adding information to a discography he probably has partially written. I am sorry but I am angry with this man and a letter should have been written to him and not me. Just because I am new here does not mean that he is automatically correct. The information I added was correct. Just because he is not aware of it as Englishman does not make it inaccurate. The Pet Shop Boys may be an English act, but that does not mean that all info about them is from or flows from the U.K. This is not the first time he has had trouble so I am not sure why a letter was written to me. Ericorbit should be scolded severely by Wikipedia for his actions. Unless he knows for certain something is incorrect, he should not be removing it from the pages here. I thank you for your time, but I added correct information to the site, only to have this arrogant man come along and delete it and then get rude with me about it. That is wrong and he is the one that should have had been talked to, not me. My future of making any edits here will probably depend on this whole situation and I may contact a moderator about this. This sort of behaviour is unecessary at Wikipedia.MoovieStarz 05:45, 24 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I am defending his edits, which certainly don't deserve scolding. You need to learn about how Wikipedia works – its policies, guidelines, and customs – before trying to throw your weight around like this.  In particular, you're violating WP:NPA, which could lead to your being blocked from editing.  Please take time to calm down and check what he said about, for example, the way that discographies are handled here.  --Mel Etitis  ( Talk ) 08:26, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
 * As stated above, the added information is speculation and unsourced ("PowerPick" awards and the assumption that these guarantee a number-one placing by Billboard policies, and the "Some still question why it didn't" sentence). Per Five pillars, "any writing you contribute can be mercilessly edited and redistributed at will by the community".  Countless edits I've made in WP have been removed or changed.  Also, I'm not English. - eo 12:38, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I will not bother adding to or editing any pages any longer
I will probably not bother editing or adding any new information. Not only did I get attacked my Mr Ericorbit with his comments, I then get accused of attacking him by you. I do not understand how things work here as the idea of Wikipedia is to add new information and make corrections. My point was that Ericorbit just arbitrarily removed something from The Pet Shop Boys Discography page that I had added simply because It doesn't fit into his definition of what he knows about them. Just because is unaware of information on them does not make it false. You suggested I made an attack on him, but he was the one that made the attack by telling me not to move things around or add certain comments. If he felt what I had written was wrong, there was a better way to write that then to tell me and I quote, "Please stop rearranging the comments in this article." I am sorry but I simply decided to add information that I know to be true and which can be verified. I did not expect to be treated so rudely by this man and then to have his actions defended. I will not bother to add any information again. I do not mind someone questioning something I have added, but I do mind someone getting rude with me about it. That is what Eric did. I did not attack him, he attacked me. I will continue to use Wikipedia for certain information, but I doubt at this time that i will add or edit any pages. I will take this to someone higher at Wikipedia. Ericorbit should not be allowed to continue to edit or add anything as He has made similar attacks on Eduemoni. I thank you for your time, but this was not the way to be introduced to Wikipedia. The idea is to share information you have with others. Based on his attitude it seems I am not allowed to add any information to any page.MoovieStarz 03:08, 25 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Your notion of a personal attack is, I'm afraid, out of keeping both with normal usage and with Wikipedia policy. Still, I'm sorry that you've chosen to misread what I've said in this way.  It's your choice, but if your position is that either Wikipedia changes to suit you or you don't edit, it's true that the latter is the only option.  Perhaps when you've thought about it you'll change your mind.  We always welcome people who want to edit within our guidelines and policies. --Mel Etitis  (Talk ]]) 08:07, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

You aren't listening to me....
Sir, I simply don't understand how you simply don't listen to what I have to say, yet embrace Ericorbit as if he has not done anything wrong. I followed the guidelines that I read. Ericorbit just came in and treated what I had written as if it was false, without any investigation on his part. I would be wrong if I came in on any page and removed information, simply because It didn't jive with what I know of that subject. If he felt what I had written was incorrect he should have requested the source material (According to Wikipedia, that is what he is supposed to do). No what he did was just to remove what I added without any consideration that what I posted could be correct. He could have written me and asked me where my information came from and where is the source material. He didn't do that. He just arbitrarily removed what I had posted and then got rude with me about it. I read the rules also and he is not supposed to go back and continue to remove things that some one had added or edited. I will go back one more time and add the information I had posted to the page again. This time I will type in the source material. If it is removed again by him then I will have to contact a mediator on this subject. I thank you for your time, but I feel you were directed to this issue by him and that you simply are not listening to what I have to say. Your comment "Your notion of a personal attack is, I'm afraid, out of keeping both with normal usage and with Wikipedia policy." says nothing to me as an attack on someone is an attack on someone. I felt like I had been attacked. Ericorbit got rude with me about this subject. There were other ways for him to get what he had to say to me across rather than telling me not to edit or rearrange things. Something could have been said like "Hey MoovieStarz, thanks for trying to edit and add information to the Pet Shop Boys Discography, but you need to reference your source material and make sure the information you add is put in the correct place." Had that been said I would not have gotten upset. I have been a Manager at Retail for years. I Own & Moderate Yahoo Groups. In both of these cases you have to handle people and issues with respect when they arise. As a manager I could not talk to a customer anyway I wanted to. I have to handle the concerns with the respect and thought to which they are given. I have to LISTEN and resolve the issue. I am sorry but Ericorbit did not handle this correctly and was rude in the process of talking to me. I may have just started at this. That does not mean that his opinion or ideas should have more weight. My problem is with the way he handle this subject and the rudeness with which he handle it. It seems that because I am new, my side is being blown off and that you may know him. I am sorry but if this happens again with Ericorbit, I will go higher about it. There is simply no reason for his behavior and actions should be defended. When an issue arises like this, both sides should be listened to. Unfortunately from what I am reading it seems that Listening to both sides is something that doesn't have much weight around here.MoovieStarz 05:29, 26 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Your position seems to be that if someone doesn't agree with you, then he's not listening to you. That's not the way it works. --Mel Etitis  ( Talk ) 08:13, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Again with Pet Shop Boys discography
Please stop adding non-notable footnotes to this article. In addition, your edits were filled with capitalization and spelling errors (i.e. "Pet Shob Boys") which I manually corrected, only to have you revert. You cannot insert whatever you want into this article and then get mad when people fix your mistakes. - eo 23:14, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Stop reverting the corrections made to this article. Aside from the information you insist on adding, corrections have been made to formatting and capialization, as well as an out-of-date footnote that is no longer needed.  Your blatant reverts remove these fixes.  Your reverting is disruptive at this point and this is considered vandalism.  - eo 13:31, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Lady Gaga discography
Stop adding LoveGame to the Gaga singles discography page. Its not confirmed as a single. If you want add it to the Promo section not in the Single section. As evident from your talk page, I think we are gonna have problem with your WP:NPA ways . --Legolas ( talk to me ) 05:34, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

First, I don't attack people! Just your making that comment is an attack on me.

Second I tire of people on here that assume that because they do the majority of the editing on many of these articles, that they assume they know everything and that no one should question them. I can understand the importance of wanting to be accurate. But when you repeatedly ignore what numerous people tell you, it seems that it is more a matter of arrogance and the feeling you know it all. As I said before even if you want to argue that there has not been an official single release, It doesn't have to be officially released to chart on any billboard chart. That was done away with a long time ago. And where do you drawn the line on determining what countries will or will not be used as a determining factor as to what will or will considered as an official release. I love finding chart information on here for many artists, especially songs that have peaked at Number One. I just tire of people setting up different rules for different artists.

As for the comment about my talk page, that was more than 2 years ago. So I don't make a habit of this. I like many others try to add information that I know to be factual when I can. I have just run into a problem with some people acting as if no one else is supposed to edit a page but them. And from reading your page, it seems you have had you run ins with other people as well so telling me I have had a problem my WP:NPA ways is abit like the pot calling the kettle black.

All I ask is that people on here listen to others when they tell them about information. That they look into the information that others give and not just assume they know it all. Countless people have told you of the singles release. My question is why won't you listen. I like to help out on here and like many others I don't appreciate it when someone writes something rude about me when all I was trying to do is help. I guess I probably should bother offering any help or information (MoovieStarz (talk) 04:15, 17 March 2009 (UTC))
 * Learn to sign your talkpages. And yeah, two years or not, you seem to have not corrected your WP:NPA ways. LoveGame will be removed untill and unless confirmed as a single. --Legolas  ( talk to me ) 04:17, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Look I am trying to help here. Matter of fact I just added the image for the single to the page for LoveGame. By The way, I noticed LoveGame has been added back to the chart again. Now I am not sure if you think I added it back based on your comment, but I didn't.

And again with the accusing me of WP:NPA ways, you have some room to talk. Your Talk page is full of rude comments to other people. I am not sure why some people on here think it is their right to get rude with people, just because they have set up articles and charts etc. Accept peoples help and feedback and do it in a decent manner. I can understand wanting to be accurate, but there are better ways to do it than being rude with people, just because you believe you are right and they are wrong.

So you can take the information I have offered or leave it. I don't care. Like I said Billboard magazine doesn't require a song to have a single released any longer to chart. If you don't believe me I can get the information for you to prove it. Just talk to people in a decent fashion on here. I appreciate the time you have put into this page, just like all the other pages I look at here at Wikipedia. I just don't appreciate being treated as if I don't have a right to make edits because you think you know it all.(MoovieStarz (talk) 04:38, 19 March 2009 (UTC))

Songs Don't Need Single Release To Chart at Billboard Magazine!
I have included the information below which can be found on Wikipedia about songs not having to be released as a single to chart on Billboards charts.

As many Hot 100 chart policies have been modified over the years, one rule always remained constant: songs were not eligible to enter the Hot 100 unless they were available to purchase as a single. However, on December 5, 1998 the Hot 100 changed from being a "singles" chart to a "songs" chart. During the 1990s, a growing trend in the music industry was to promote songs to radio without ever releasing them as singles. It was feared by major record labels that singles were cannibalizing album sales, so they were slowly phased out. During this period, accusations began to fly of chart manipulation as labels would hold off on releasing a single until airplay was at its absolute peak, thus prompting a top ten or, in some cases, a number one debut. In many cases, a label would delete a single from its catalog after only one week, thus allowing the song to enter the Hot 100, make a high debut and then slowly decline in position as the one-time production of the retail single sold out.

It was during this period that several popular mainstream hits never charted on the Hot 100, or charted well after their airplay had declined. During the period that they were not released as singles the songs were not eligible to chart. Many of these songs dominated the Hot 100 Airplay chart for extended periods of time:

* 1995 The Rembrandts – "I’ll Be There For You" (number one for eight weeks) * 1996 No Doubt – "Don't Speak" (number one for sixteen weeks) * 1997 Sugar Ray featuring Super Cat – "Fly" (number one for six weeks) * 1997 Will Smith - "Men in Black" (number one for four weeks) * 1997 The Cardigans – "Lovefool" (number two for eight weeks) * 1998 Natalie Imbruglia – "Torn" (number one for eleven weeks) * 1998 Goo Goo Dolls – "Iris" (number one for eighteen weeks)

As debate and conflicts occurred more and more often, Billboard finally answered the requests of music industry artists and insiders by including airplay-only singles (or "album cuts") in the Hot 100. Still, a song has to be officially promoted by a record label to be eligible for inclusion on the Hot 100 whether it has a single available or not. A song that does not have a retail component is allowed to enter the Hot 100 provided it ranks above position 75 on the Hot 100 Airplay chart.(MoovieStarz (talk) 04:58, 19 March 2009 (UTC))
 * I'm not denying the fact that LoveGame charted, but the fact is LoveGame hasnot been relesaed as a single. I'm just telling not to add it under singles, add it under Other Cahrted songs. When LoveGame is confirmed as a single, we can add it to the Single section. --Legolas  ( talk to me ) 05:38, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

License tagging for File:Lady-gaga-lovegame.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Lady-gaga-lovegame.jpg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information; to add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia.

For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 06:09, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

File copyright problem with File:Lady-gaga-lovegame.jpg
Thank you for uploading File:Lady-gaga-lovegame.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 uploaded by following this link.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. &mdash; neuro (talk) (review) 04:27, 20 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Well I have no idea about the images copyright all I know is where I found it, so I guess you can get rid of the image. I was just trying to help. (MoovieStarz (talk) 11:50, 20 March 2009 (UTC))

top40-charts.com
If you want to take top40-charts.com off of WP:BADCHARTS, please discuss it at WT:Record charts. Be prepared to explain exactly who operates the site, what the sources of their charts are, and, for any chart they produce themselves, what their methodology is. You'll need sources for all of that, of course.&mdash;Kww(talk) 11:56, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Lady Gaga discography
Please stop adding such discussions at the talk page. They are forum like and are completely unacceptable. Please read WP:NOTFORUM. --Legolas ( talk to me ) 11:07, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
 * What is your problem! Are you that arrogant that you feel you can do or say what you like here and no one else has the right to say anything? I just wish Wikipedia had easy links to report abusers like you. Unfortunately people who try to add information or try to have a discussion on the "Discussion" page, get treated like dirt by people who obviously think too much of themselves. Wikipedia doesn't need contributors who believe they have all the answers. I don't know why I even bother. This is just like High School. Everything is run by the "Bullies"!!! (MoovieStarz (talk) 13:10, 2 April 2009 (UTC))

Discography - Lady Gaga
Your welcome, I recommend in leaving this issue with an administrator or someone of higher authority more so than a regular user like yourself or I .. In the meantime, happy editing! childfunk. ( chat ) 22:33, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Discography
No problem.

I'm glad to be doing something to stop this unjust treatment of people who are just trying to help.

Legolas just needs to be stopped running this page.

And i will write my comments in the mediation page from now on. And thanks to you too for agreeing with my points of view.--Love.Game (talk) 02:23, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
 * The problem with your German charts was that you were posting at the wrong place. You should have posted at the WP:CHARTS section where I redirected you, but instead you are now accusing me of not reading your comments. Posting it at the Gaga discography page will do no good as I strictly follow the WP:GOODCHARTS and anything which violates a guideline cannot be allowed. As I said before, if you expect me to beg of you and say it, sorry I won't. --Legolas  ( talk 2 me ) 04:01, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Romanian Singles Chart
Hello. I've noticed that you have updated the Number-one Hits of 2009 (Romania). Can you provide a source for that? Alecsdaniel (talk) 14:02, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Wow, I didn't knew about that site, but do you know if it has an archive or something? It would be really useful. Alecsdaniel (talk) 19:09, 7 May 2009 (UTC) 07:30, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Regarding the SA Chart, I've found this site - . Alecsdaniel (talk) 19:11, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah I had that too but since it doesn't involve charts from today, I just stored it away. Thanks Anyway! (MoovieStarz (talk) 04:57, 8 May 2009 (UTC))

Fairytale
I reverted your edit to List of Swedish number-one hits. "Fairytale" is neither performed nor written by a Swedish artist. NorwegianBluetalk 20:42, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

May 2009
Welcome to Wikipedia. The recent edit you made to the page List of Swedish number-one hits of 2009 has been reverted, as it appears to be unconstructive. Use the sandbox for testing; if you believe the edit was constructive, please ensure that you provide an informative edit summary. You may also wish to read the introduction to editing. Thank you. NorwegianBluetalk 20:47, 23 May 2009 (UTC) edit: Please check out my previous message, and don't add erroneous content to Wikipedia. NorwegianBluetalk 20:50, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

List of Swedish number-one hits of 2009 edit
Please do not make an edit of this page like this. This is not a list Swedish artists that have hit number one but a list of songs that have hit number one in Sweden. If that was the case other songs on here would have to be removed as they are not Swedish Artists These songs have hit Number One in Sweden. I created this page and other pages for years to go with them. I am in the process of working my way back to 1975. All information is correct and verifiable. (MoovieStarz (talk) 16:09, 24 May 2009 (UTC))


 * Thanks for letting me know. It would have been helpful, though, if you had responded to my first message instead of just reverting. --NorwegianBluetalk 16:20, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Lists of Swedish hits
Hello, I noticed that relatively recently, you created List of number-one hits of 2004 (Sweden) to List of number-one hits of 2009 (Sweden). As far as I can judge, exactly the same information is also contained List of Swedish number-one hits, where you are also active as an editor. The only difference is that one line is used per week in the annual lists, irrespective if the same song has stayed in the top place or not, while the total list is a little more compact. I can't really see any point in having duplicate sets of lists, so merging should take place. While either a total list of a set of annual lists would be OK, I would suggest keeping the total list, since that one is "symmetrically" wikilinked to an article svwiki. Regards, Tomas e (talk) 15:34, 27 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I am in the process of adding these year by year charts, because the full list is hard to navigate and find information. Also as I am adding these additional years I am finding that someone has gone through and basically change weeks at number one for many songs. I have fixed these errors as I have found them. The year by year pages are in line with the way most other pages for #1's of a country are listed and it makes sense to change the pages accordingly here as well. I would then suggest the original page be deleted. I took over editing the page because no one had been updating for some time and since I regularly check #1's in other countries almost daily, I can keep it up to date. I do the same with other countries as well. Also all songs and artists are linked appropriately on the pages I have created. I am just doing this because the page that list all #1's since 1975 is not in keeping with the way the lists from other countries are done. As I said the yearly pages are easier to navigate.(MoovieStarz (talk) 03:02, 29 May 2009 (UTC))
 * Fine with me, as long as the final result (somewhere down the road) is that we don't have duplicate articles, because that is what concerned me when I checked up interwiki links for these articles. Then I assume that the total list eventually will become a disambiguation page or something similar? (You may also wish to check for consistent interwiki linking.) Regards, Tomas e (talk) 19:45, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
 * By the way, you're welcome to tag these lists for WP:SWEDEN on their talk pages as you create them. I think would be appropriate for these lists. Tomas e (talk) 19:50, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Your Message
Thanks for the message you left on my page the other day. I have noticed that Legolas and EO both seem to be running their own little world over on the Lady Gaga articles. Like you said, it's not very fair that other people's opinions aren't taken into account, but I guess there's not too much we can do about it except complain to Wikipedia. Tikkuy (talk) 08:20, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Romanian Singles Chart
Hi. I've noticed you updated the Romanian Top 100 chart, but the editions aren't updated on any of the 3 sourced. Do you have an extra one? Alecsdaniel (talk) 16:00, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I know, but it wasn't updated in some time. Alecsdaniel (talk) 08:33, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

"Musiklärare"
The article Musiklärare is supposed to be on a Swedish eurodance group. I suspect that it is a hoax. Since you seem to follow the Swedish charts, could you possibly have a look and see if I'm right in my suspicion? I've already proposed it for deletion, but I wouldn't mind having some sort of confirmation. Tomas e (talk) 19:04, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:34, 23 November 2015 (UTC)