User talk:Savvi72

Wow! Can't believe nobody's welcomed you yet.

Welcome
Hello Savvi72, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions, they have helped improve Wikipedia and make it more informative. I hope you enjoy using Wikipedia and decide to make additional contributions. Some resources to help new Wikipedians include:


 * How to edit a page
 * Editing tutorial
 * Picture tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Naming conventions
 * Manual of Style

As a contributor to Australian articles, you may like to connect with other Australian Wikipedians through the Australian Wikipedians' notice board and take a look at the activities in WikiProject Australia and associated sub-projects.

Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes ~ ; this will automatically produce your name and the date.

If you have any questions, please see Where to ask a question, try the Help desk, or ask me on my talk page. Or you can just type   on your user page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Thank you for signing up!

Note we have a project specifically catering to Australian music, and there's also a general project on music.

(BTW - guess who this is :) Orderinchaos 14:34, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

WP:BADCHARTS
I appreciate the effort, but please do not include information from the United World Chart (mediatraffic.de), or any other chart listed at WP:BADCHARTS, in any Wikipedia articles. Thank you.&mdash;Kww(talk) 16:09, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Bon Jovi discography
I've added some comments. Care to take a look? Jimknut (talk) 23:01, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Heya! Hmm I dont see where you have left any comments? Savvi72 (talk) 02:25, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

ABBA Discography
I have reverted your edits as your persistent unreasonable reversions clearly indicate that you do not wish anybody touch that page except you. Well, that's not how it works here at wikipedia, if you disagree with other editors' edits try and discuss it. I in fact have opened a discussion at the talk-page days ago to which you still have not bothered to respond, but you keep reverting my edits without any reasonable bases. There is no such thing as 150 pixels are standard as you have stated in the edit-summary here. Column-Pixels can be adjusted according to the length of the content within the column. Regards.--Harout72 (talk) 18:21, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Hey man, sorry if thats the impression that you got. The only reversions I have done are 2... hardly persistant? And the reason I reverted the two edits was 1) You mentioned you wanted the tables downsized so you got rid of the 9pt font in the tables. I was thinking to myself the 9pt font does downsize the tables and I couldnt understand why you were changing that. I didnt know there was another way to do it. My fault for not reading the discussion page. I was unaware you added that section. And 2) the extended area for the certifications are unnecessary. All it does is created larger cells with blank spaces. Again, I should have discussed it on the talk page. I apologize for that. There was also some formatting I reverted in the first undo but I quickly fixed it back (see where I mentioned "formatting error". My computer was playing up and internet explorer was in 'compatability mode' which made all the tables look squished and funny. I thought you did that in your editing but when I refreshed I realised it was my browser doing it so I quickly fixed it back.
 * So hopefully now you can see why I did those TWO reversions. I apologize again for not taking notice of the discussion page, but I do not believe that two reversions are persistent and unreasonable? And I have not in any way indicated that I do not wish for anybody to touch the page. Savvi72 (talk) 02:04, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm glad to find out that you're not one of those people at wikipedia who think they own some of the pages they constantly contribute to. But again, I would really like you to consider replacing | class="wikitable" style="text-align:center;font-size: 9pt with | class="wikitable which entirely changes the looks of the tables into something much neater. As I mentioned in the discussion page of ABBA, I dislike edit-warring with editors, so I would like you and I agree on this before I modify anything within the tables.--Harout72 (talk) 03:58, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:BonJovi Superman Tonight.jpg
 Thanks for uploading File:BonJovi Superman Tonight.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 will not be able to answer your questions.


 * I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used once again.


 * If you received 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  to somewhere on your talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 16:25, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Re: Canadian RPM Charts
Re: the missing 1988 charts - I know a few libraries which carry RPM, and have filled in a few gaps based on the hardcopies. As for checking the Bon Jovi singles in question, I don't have regular access to these libraries. If time and priority permits, I could do a check on the late-1988 issues. Another remote possibility is that RPM charts of the day were published in other available newspapers or media. Thank you for the interest in these chart articles. Dl2000 (talk) 03:16, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I was able to look at some 1988 RPM's in the past few days. For "Bad Medicine", it entered the charts on 1 October 1988 at #79, peaked 10 December 1988 at #5 then remained on the chart until 14 January 1989 (at #62). In the year-end summary top 100 singles chart, it was #67 for the year (as published 24 December 1988). For citation purposes, you could use "RPM 100 Singles" as article title, for the date(s) specified, linking to the RPM (magazine) article. I was unable to complete a trace for "Born to be My Baby", though. Dl2000 (talk) 22:55, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Wow, thank you so much for that. I really appreciate it mate. :) Savvi72 (talk) 15:35, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Bon Jovi Discography
Let me first state that I have reverted you edit. I'm not sure where you get the idea that I changed the fonts based on my personal preference as I had not stated anything of that kind within the edit-summary. The content within the columns appear squashed due to the chosen size for countless certification awards especially. Please note that all large content possessing discography pages including Madonna's, Celine Dion's, Michael Jackson's, Elton John's all use {|class="wikitable" style="text-align:center;"  for easier reading and neatness purposes. There really was no reason for you to revert my edit and ask me discuss first. --Harout72 (talk) 15:18, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I said it was personal preference because you mentioned the size of the font looked "awful" (according to you)... it looks fine to me? Unless it is an issue with different computer monitors/settings, the font size that was already in place (and had been for months) looked perfectly fine and actually looked neater because all the text was smaller, therefore fitting more into the screen saving people having to scroll up and down as much. And I dont see how other discographies using different sizes is relevant. The ABBA discography page uses the same as the Bon Jovi page and you seemed to not have a problem on that one? (side note - I hope I dont come across in any way as attacking you. That is the last thing i'd want).

I am not sure how on your screen the previous version may appear neater or smaller. I have two computers at home they are set on different resolutions and the previous version appears much larger on both. As far as viewing it without having to scroll it up and down a lot, that should be the current version. The studio albums' table (for example), I'm able to view releases from 1984-2000 without scrolling down. Whereas, with the previous version, I'm only able to view releases from 1984-1986. As for ABBA's discography, I think it should be changed also. --Harout72 (talk) 03:35, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
 * That is very weird. With the current size I can see 1984-2000, but with the previous size I could see 1984 to almost 2005. I just checked on a different computer and a laptop and it appears the same on there as well. It is quite bizarre. I might ask some friends to see how they see it. If it is appearing like that (1984-1986) for you I can understand why you changed it. It just didnt make sense to me why you were changing it when it looked fine the way it was. Just a technical misunderstanding... weird! Check out the Bryan Adams and Def Leppard discographies and see if they appear like that for you as well because they also have the same settings. I'm sure if someone else was viewing it the same as you it would have changed by now.Savvi72 (talk) 06:41, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

The resolution on my computer which I'm using at the moment is set at the highest 1920 x 1080, and I have a 24 inch monitor. Any resolution lower than that makes everything appear larger and I'm able to view fewer items than I am able to with 1920 x 1080. It is simply impossible for the current version of Bon Jovi to appear larger than the previous version regardless of the resolution one uses. It is also the same with my older computer's 19 inch monitor, once I lower the resolution the previous version, especially, becomes large as well, almost unbearable.--Harout72 (talk) 15:23, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Source for 30 Seconds to Mars discography
Hello Savvi72. What source do you have for 51 in Australia? I don't even see one for 85. Also (BTW) it would be great if you'd start using edit summaries. Thanks, &mdash; JohnFromPinckney (talk) 11:25, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh sorry, I usually use edit summaries. My bad. My source for the #85 position is under the chartifacts of the ARIA website (the ARIA website only publishes the top 50 but gives mention to new entries in positions 51-100). You can find that link here: http://ariacharts.com.au/pages/chartifacts.htm ... As for the new position (#51), I use the ARIA charts forum on the Hung Medien Australia site. You can see the post where it is mentioned here: http://www.australian-charts.com/forum.asp?todo=viewthread&id=33124 ... you will need to scroll down to the 8th paragraph in the first post to read the bit about 30 Seconds to Mars. Eventually, all top 100 charts are archived here http://pandora.nla.gov.au/tep/23790 . Hope that wasnt too confusing lol.
 * Thanks for answering. Okay, I've seen (and used) ARIA's Chartifacts thing before but I guess I'd forgotten, of forgotten where to find it. Or something. I guess I'll see how (or if) we might add the ref to the article. Probably have to use the archived ref via Pandora, so it lasts, but that means we'll have to wait a while, too. I can't say I like the idea of using forum posts. But thanks for the tip; I haven't ever poked around on those pages. &mdash; JohnFromPinckney (talk) 15:00, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Led Zeppelin discography
hello,

could you say where you found the Australian peak chart positions? You added them here. Thank you.-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 09:37, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Ah, no worries! Just added them now. Sorry they weren't added in the first place. Savvi72 (talk) 01:28, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification
Hi. When you recently edited List of Bon Jovi songs, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Bad Medicine and Bed of Roses (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:00, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 31
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Because We Can - The Tour, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Etihad Stadium (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:13, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Why add Aussie chart info to AronChupa? Aren't you too old for that shit? :P

Regarding your use of sources on talk pages
You recently opened up a new section at Talk:List of best-selling music artists, and you have used the sources on there as we'd normally use them on main articles. I just want to show you what happens when a new discussion is opened up immediately under your section. All references that you have posted in that section for Bon Jovi, end up at the bottom of a new section, which is not related to yours. Therefore, on talk pages, when you provide a source simply put your source as follows: Australia, or Mexico. I will look at your certified sales numbers on there now, but I won't put my response yet. You need to convert each of your citations into talk page form. I would normally do this for you, but you have enormous amount of sources, it's best if you do this yourself. If a new section is opened up before you correct this, I'm afraid I will have to remove your post entirely.--Harout72 (talk) 14:56, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
 * ✅ Thanks for that. I didn't know about the citing on talk pages. Cheers! Savvi72 (talk) 00:21, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Here is what happens
All your references end up under this section.--Harout72 (talk) 14:56, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
Hi, You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:41, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Talk:2018 AFL season
Dear User:Savvi72

As a member of the "WikiProject Australian rules football" it would be good to hear your opinion on a current debate occurring on the 2018 AFL season talk page.

The debate centres around whether or not a third column should be included in the club attendance table to display "home state games vs. interstate opposition".

The main justification is that Victorian clubs play on average 7 home derbies each year compared to non-victorian clubs who play only 1 home derby each year. This provides an average home figure for Victorian clubs which is inflated as their home games have the fans of other Victorian clubs attending.

Please provide whether you support or oppose this proposal for AFL Club attendance tables.

Sincerely:Thejoebloggsblog (talk) 06:59, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Burning for Love cover.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Burning for Love cover.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 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).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:09, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

Nomination of Burning for Love for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Burning for Love is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Burning for Love until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished. signed,Rosguill talk 15:04, 4 June 2023 (UTC)