Jump to content

Talk:You and Me (Lifehouse song)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Good articleYou and Me (Lifehouse song) has been listed as one of the Music good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
September 12, 2011Good article nomineeListed

Untitled

[edit]

At the beginning it says "Produced in 2002 and released in January 2005 ... ", but to the side it says "Released in 2004". Which is right? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.170.253.127 (talk) 21:28, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What kind of song is this?

[edit]

This song appears on a Christian Radio station in Rockford called 101 QFL. Why? This isn't a Christian song. --64.107.78.194 (talk) 16:11, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Many Christian stations have played this song, and it actually peaked reasonably high on the Christian charts. The reason would be that the singer, Jason Wade, is a Christian, and the band used to be a Christian group (I think). They've had other songs chart on the CCM charts as well. Contemporaries such as The Fray and Carrie Underwood have had success on the charts as well. Toa Nidhiki05 20:52, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:You and Me (Lifehouse song)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Calvin NaNaNaC'mon! 15:19, 6 August 2011 (UTC) Will begin shortly, 9 August.[reply]

Another reviewer is needed to review this article. Calvin NaNaNaC'mon! 12:36, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:You and Me (Lifehouse song)/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Toa Nidhiki05 (talk contribs count) 20:41, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

  1. Is it reasonably well written?
    A. Prose quality:
    B. MoS compliance:
  2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
    A. References to sources:
    B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
    C. No original research:
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. Major aspects:
    B. Focused:
  4. Is it neutral?
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. Is it stable?
    No edit wars, etc:
  6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
    A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
    B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:

I don't really see any flaws with this article, and everything looks to be well done. My only real suggestion for improvement is finding citations for the music video synopsis, so congrats! Toa Nidhiki05 20:41, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:You and Me - Lifehouse.ogg Nominated for speedy Deletion

[edit]

An image used in this article, File:You and Me - Lifehouse.ogg, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: Wikipedia files with no non-free use rationale as of 19 May 2012

What should I do?

Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to provide a fair use rationale
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale, then it cannot be uploaded or used.
  • If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Deletion Review

To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:You and Me - Lifehouse.ogg)

This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 10:12, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on You and Me (Lifehouse song). 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:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:28, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]