User talk:Status/2010/11

Promotional singles
Anticipating and That's Where You Take Me are NOT promotional singles.

As I have said before, promo singles


 * Are not released to the public (Only for DJs and Radio)
 * Do not have album artwork

-- Cprice1000 talk2me  20:50, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
 * On the contrary: many, many promotional singles are released to the public with album artwork. Examples: "Dance in the Dark", "Today Was a Fairytale". Yves (talk) 20:56, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

No, never as CD singles. -- Cprice1000 talk2me  21:01, 2 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Promotional single: "A promotional recording, or promo (recently known as a radio single), is a recording issued on Vinyl, 8-track, Cassette, CD, MP3, VHS, DVD, or Blu-ray. and distributed free in order to promote a commercial recording." ΣПDiПG–STΛЯT   (Talk)  22:44, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, and was Unusual You, That's Where You Take Me, or Anticipating free? No. -- Cprice1000 talk2me  23:08, 2 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Regardless, the best title for them is promotional singles, what even is "other singles"? That doesn't even make sense. It really doesn't matter if it was free or not, they were used to promotional purposes. ΣПDiПG–STΛЯT   (Talk)  23:10, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
 * All singles are used to promote albums (besides non-album singles). Just because they had a small release does not make them promotional. -- Cprice1000 talk2me  23:21, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Honestly, whatever. Call it what you wish. But "other songs" makes no sense at all. I'd suggest maybe minor releases maybe. ΣПDiПG–STΛЯT   (Talk)  23:34, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Nicolepoison.png
 Thanks for uploading File:Nicolepoison.png. 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  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 November 2010 (UTC)

Fergie discography
What in the world is going on? The Dutchess only had five singles; the ones you added (i.e. "Finally" and "Labels or Love") were only promotional releases, with no physical releases. And why did you remove the other charted songs? Yves (talk) 23:05, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Ughhhhhh I have no idea; everyone seems to be doing things differently, and I've been told different things. The CD single argument was made when I tried moving "Today Was a Fairytale" to the regular singles section of the discog way back. I honestly don't know. :( Yves (talk) 23:43, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Great, but pleaseeee don't delete other charted songs. You're removed at least two (I think?) already. Yves (talk) 23:58, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
 * But it is; she is on the track. Featured singles and appearance belong in discographies (examples Rihanna discography, Lady Gaga discography). You also got rid of "Beat It 2008". Yves (talk) 00:02, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Sure, but just to let you know: if a song that was not released as a single charted, it belongs in the other charted songs table, regardless of featured status. Yves (talk) 00:06, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Your use of caps
Please do not use caps (or exclamation/question marks) in the manner that you did here, and in countless other edits. It is very rude, hard to read, and in no way will it increase your chance of getting the point across. Nymf hideliho! 16:33, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Loud (Rihanna album)
Per WP:ALBUMS, covers should be no more than 300 x 300 px in size AND of low quality as they are non-free media items. Per WP:NFCC that means we have to use a low resolution that demonstrates what the image illustrates without being of a high enough quality that someone could replicate and used the image, e.g. for an illegal CD, because wikipedia is borrowing the image under US and international copyright laws. --  Lil_℧niquℇ №1 &#124;  talk2me  21:19, 7 November 2010 (UTC)


 * SWITCH BACK TO HIGH QUALITY AND SET UP THE PIC 2 NOT BE COPYED!!!!!! JUST LIKE ON RATED R —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.10.192.113 (talk) 09:20, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Per WP:ALBUMS album covers must be no larger than 300 x 300 px and of LOW QUALITY. Per the guidelines governed by international copyright laws which can be seen at WP:NFCC:
 * WP:NFCC: Minimal extent of use. An entire work is not used if a portion will suffice. Low- rather than high-resolution/fidelity/bit rate is used (especially where the original could be used for deliberate copyright infringement). This rule also applies to the copy in the File: namespace.

Now please stop edit warring over this. --  Lil_℧niquℇ №1 &#124;  talk2me  02:30, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

The Time (Dirty Bit)
Why did you remove the second "The"? Yves (talk) 15:57, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
 * It's still "The Time (The Dirty Bit)" on Billboard charts, though. :S Yves (talk) 20:43, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
 * No, if you check the references of the chart performance section, it's listed as "The Time (The Dirty Bit)". I'm so confused, because the press release calls it "The Time (The Dirty Bit)". :| P.S. you forgot to sign. Yves (talk) 20:49, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Haha wait until you get to uni. :P From what it looks like, it does seem like the second "The" was removed; I'm just wondering why it charting and is still charting with it. Yves (talk) 20:58, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Billboard still calls it "The Time (The Dirty Bit)" (article published today). Yves (talk) 23:18, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of List of Jeffree Star concert tours


A tag has been placed on List of Jeffree Star concert tours requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a band or musician, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding 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 hang-on 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. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. ESMcL 22:28, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Avril Lavigne Canadian dates
Hi Ending-start. Instead of reverting my revert, as you did here, you should get in the habit of starting a discussion on the article's talk page so you can see where I (and the majority of editors on the Avril Lavigne article) are coming from. If you will take a gander at WP:STRONGNAT, you will see that Canadian dates are acceptable in both formats; it's the consistency that is important (and since Avril Lavigne is a Good Article, it needs to remain so). By reverting my edits, you have made the entire article inconsistent because all of the dates, including all those in the Reference section, use the Day-Month-Year format. I will revert your date changes again. If you feel the dates on the article need to be changed, please start a discussion on the Avril Lavigne talk page and reach a consensus as to which format should be used. (For the record, this discussion already took place earlier this year, I believe, and may be found somewhere in the archives. But consensus can always be changed). Please do not revert my edits because this would be considered starting an edit war. Your help is appreciated on the article, though. –  Ker αun oςc op ia◁ galaxies  06:10, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Avril Lavigne reference
Hello again. I noticed you had cited avrillavigne.com; please be aware that her website is constantly updated and anything cited from the main page of her website will eventually disappear or become difficult to locate and double-check. In a case like this, it is best to use a secondary source. There is already a reference in use that mentions these dates in the text, and I also placed the link to another, probably better source (MTV) on the talk page. These sources are easily archived (to avoid WP:LINKROT) and make information easy to find since they are in the format of an article instead of an artist's news page. –  Ker αun oςc op ia◁ galaxies  06:21, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm With You
And finally, I reverted your edit to correct the preposition "with" in the title. This debate has taken place on the "I'm With You" talk page and no consensus was reached. In order to maintain consistency within the Avril Lavigne articles, "I'm With You" should continue to have a capital W. This cannot be debated here; if you feel this title should be changed (and therefore every occurrence of the title and the article's title), I recommend starting a discussion on the AL talk page or the I'm With You talk page. One last thing, as well: you only changed one of three examples in the Avril Lavigne article. Please note that we are trying very hard to keep this article a Good Article, and consistency must always be performed when making your edits. Sorry for filling up your talk page, but I felt I should keep you in the know with the rationales behind my reversions. Please do continue to contribute to the Avril Lavigne article(s). Thanks! –  Ker αun oςc op ia◁ galaxies  06:31, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

The Best Damn Thing
Hi! I noticed that you're unhappy with the way the genres are set out on The Best Damn Thing article. If you want the genre formatting to change, start a new discussion (as you have done) and then changes can be discussed and a consensus can be reached. Until then, the current genre format should still be used as that is the current consensus we have. It's much better to talk about things first and act later, instead of disrupting an article due to the way genres are listed. Thank you! :) Zylo1994 (talk) 17:49, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Merging years
I noticed you reverted the edit I did in Ashley Tisdale. Is there any rule saying we can't merge years I don't know? If there are, please, show me and I'll do it in other articles, but if there is not, I think it's much better having years merged... Decodet (talk) 01:30, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I see... thanks for showing me that! :] Decodet (talk) 15:52, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Hello
No, I don't mind at all. Feel free to make editions to the article; I will need the help because I will not be on too often in the coming weeks, so thank you for the assistance :) Garry says OK (talk) 04:09, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Body Talk Series
Hello, thank you for inquiring. I do remember that, prior to the release of Body Talk Pt. 1, Robyn stated each part was an album. In saying that, it seems as though the plans have changed since Body Talk includes tracks from all three parts. I think it's probably best to label each respective part as a studio album and have Body Talk be a compilation album. Cazxiro (talk) 23:16, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Found and interview with her where she basically confirms Body Talk (or the third part) would be a compilation. I think, considering there will be a separate release for the new tracks as Body Talk Pt. 3, that it should have a section on the Body Talk compilation page (with tracklist and cover) but not it's own page. Cazxiro (talk) 23:21, 14 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Fine by me. Honestly, I do think Body Talk Pt. 3 should be accounted for even though it is a limited release. Cazxiro (talk) 00:04, 15 November 2010 (UTC)


 * That format is actually what I had in mind regarding the Body Talk page. Cazxiro (talk) 00:08, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Kesha
Dude I started a discussion on your edits in the Kesha talk page, please reply. To me none of your edits make any sense, please clarify. I'm the only reason your rationales don't make sense (they really don't) are because of the limited character limit for edit summaries. Fixer23 (talk) 22:57, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Kesha discography
Can you please revert your edits. You are not allowed to add unreleased music videos especially if they do not have a director. Kesha discography is an FL and this is not allowed. Please revert it now. - (CK)Lakeshade  -  talk2me  - 21:08, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
 * And to top if off its unsourced. You should know better. - (CK)Lakeshade  -  talk2me  - 21:08, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Raven-Symoné
I don't think anyone called your edits vandalism. It seems that an anonymous editor backed out your changes, without comment. It seems you've restored an old version of the article; you may want to pick through recent history to see if there were any more edits that are worth rescuing. Elizium23 (talk) 23:10, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

The Black Eyed Peas articles

 * By the way, are you still interested to work on improving The Black Eyed Peas articles, or have other things risen on your priorities list? Yves (talk) 23:32, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Awesome! Do you have MSN, then? It'll be easier to communicate. E-mail me if you do! Yves (talk) 00:18, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Well you don't have to; I can just reply and you'll know mine. Yves (talk) 00:21, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
 * You still around? Yves (talk) 02:22, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
 * You're not online...? Yves (talk) 02:31, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Re: The Black Eyed Peas Template
Something went wrong with the move. Currently investigating. P.S. I don't know if you're watching my page or not, but I just assumed you were and responded on it; you have talkback (if you want to respond). Yves (talk) 21:37, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Fixed. :) Yves (talk) 21:51, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Dream in Color
Simple answer: No!. Per WP:NALBUMS unreleased projects are rarely given their own independent articles. The fact is... "Dream in Color" never existed as a body of work. Neither did "Elope". Milian began recording her fourth studio album under the titled Dream in Color, then moved to Elope when she moved from Myspace to Radio Killa records and now it has no title. The fact is that under either of the names there was never a completed body of work to receive notability. --  Lil_℧niquℇ №1 &#124;  talk2me  18:26, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Regarding Strip Me
Once again you've created a page but instead of writing the section/article yourself you have stolen half of the contents from my sandbox. Not only is it rude and disrespectful its also plagerism. And by directly copying the information and sources you've created a copy edit violation as you did previously. *sighs* if you thought it was time the article should have been created you should have asked me and I would have then got an admin to correctly move the article in the userspace from my sandbox so everyone could contribute to it. --  Lil_℧niquℇ №1 &#124;  talk2me  14:50, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I've reverted the plagiarism and edited the page history.&mdash;Kww(talk) 15:08, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
 * It counts as plagarism because you didn't write or compose the information. I did in my sandbox and when i click 'save' i publish the work "I irrevocably agree to release my contributions under the CC-BY-SA 3.0 License and the GFDL." However because its my personal sandbox its my own personal contribution that has not been released publicly. I'm sorry if it came across as harsh. --  Lil_℧niquℇ №1 &#124;  talk2me  21:19, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
 * If he had pointed to your sandbox as the source, it wouldn't have been plagiarism. Still probably not the best thing to do without your permission, but it would have been legal under the license.&mdash;Kww(talk) 21:37, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I am going to review the information and once I've double checked it ... i'll move it over. --  Lil_℧niquℇ №1 &#124;  talk2me  23:07, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I knew you mean well... If you look at Strip Me, I've been able to add quite a lot of information to it. --  Lil_℧niquℇ №1 &#124;  talk2me  23:47, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Alright. Thanks so much for understanding and such. :) ΣПDiПG–STΛЯT  (talk · contribs) 01:29, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Its ok. We all have things to learn.... (BOY dont i know) --  Lil_℧niquℇ №1 &#124;  talk2me  01:31, 1 December 2010 (UTC)