User talk:Kww/04232010

Possessives: Thanks

Uh I feel dumb. Thanks for catching my error on the Miley Cyrus article! I got a little carried away I guess lol – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 05:01, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

ARC Weekly Top 40

Could you please help me clean up after Zscout370? That is, make sure that the succession boxen and tables are removeed and not just the links to the article. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 20:06, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Backstreet Boys Article

The dates provided are very false and from what I can tell the user is holding a bias. The Swiss charts are valid, but the Billboard ones do not apply to release dates. The same page at Billboard establishes their Millennium album to be listed on June 5, 1999, when commercial promotion and appearances clearly prove it to be released on May 18, 1999. This applies as well to the 2000 album, Black & Blue which is said on Billboard to be December 9, 2000, which is the day it was number one. All these dates given by User: Harout72 only refer to the peaking day of sales. They ARE NOT release dates. Those are given by many other resources. All of what I removed was false or needed to be fixed. I do not appreciate how you undid that without checking entirely what information is correct and analyzes the whole situation. They certainly did not release anything in February 1997 for Billboard to recognize. In October 1996[1](excludes Highbeam research, it isn't reliable), the Toronto Star was already making mention of how the Backstreet Boys album was at number one on October 30, 1996. A number of radio stations started playing Quit Playing Games (With My Heart) in May 1997, with a physical single following in June. MTV establishes their US debut album to released on Tuesday, August 12, 1997[2]. Their European album "Backstreet's Back" has been listed in many places, including at its own page on Wikipedia as August 11, 1997. In that case I haven't damaged anything to deserve that removal. Harout72 may have provided a correct single release date for the second single, but not for anything else. The clean-up provided by User: Mad Hatter and User: Harout72 greatly improved the article, but the release dates are inaccurate as Billboard does not list them as such. I will have to speak to another administrator on what to do, since you aren't being fair or helpful by removing ALL of my changes. User: Harout72 is guilty of edit-warring, but accusing me isn't logical as I undid your edit, not his.Carmaker1 (talk) 05:34, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

I take it you refuse to respond for some odd reason.--Carmaker1 (talk) 09:27, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Never mind, you're probably a very busy man at your age. Sorry!Carmaker1 (talk) 09:29, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Your comment: (I'm confused as to what response you were expecting.—Kww(talk) 13:53, 4 March 2010 (UTC) ) I am not really interested in responding to you again on this topic. I have tried to be polite and explain where I'm coming from, but all you continue do is behave in a smug manner as User: Harout72 has been or deride any points I make. I have judged your edits and looked at you as great editor to look up to, but I refuse to continue to be looked at the way I am. Your support of belligerent and domineering editors and not giving them an equally deserved warning of edit-warring is implying an unfair bias to me I didn't expect from you. I know you probably meant well on the 3RR notice, but to not do the same for Harout makes me "?". You're an editor I have admired & respected upon the sight of any edits or changes made by "Kww" these past 3 years. I'm really hoped that wouldn't change, but your recent conduct towards me and your last comment will prove otherwise.--Carmaker1 (talk) 05:57, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Sockpuppet

Hmm, I'm not sure. But if I'm correct, weren't all of the editors involved in the Santa Claus Lane dispute blocked as ducks of each other? Thus, if it's a sock of any of them, it's likely a sock of all of them. If I'm making any sense... –Chase (talk) 18:10, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't see too much of a similarity either, if you ask me. But it does look fishy... –Chase (talk) 19:04, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Hello

Hi Kevin. Please can you voice your opinion Wikipedia talk:Record charts#U.S. Billboard Pop 100 Airplay Here there. A user "Candy" thinks that the rule for component charts and main charts means that if a song didn't enter the main chart it's allowed. The main chart they think being if a song didn't enter the Pop 100 then Pop 100 Airplay "IS" allowed. I thought that rule was for the Hot 100? Jayy008 (talk) 01:17, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

OK sorry

Hello, I'm sorry, but it was certified gold, the problem is that britney.com has old certifications and wrong information, but i will try to find a source:)--GenieOFbritney (talk) 16:12, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

30 Seconds to Mars

This "79" IP is starting to get really problematic now. I must've counted 5 different variations of this IP, editing 30 Seconds to Mars and all other articles related, including Rock Band and Guitar Hero, where I edit regularly, and it's doing a good amount of consensus-free editing. For the moment, I am going to request page protections, but is there any way this can be resolved?--F-22 Raptör^{Aces High♠} 19:58, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

The Fame and its "worldwide certification"

Thank you for removing that line from The Fame tonight. I'd already removed it twice, so I wanted to get another editor involved (and avoid 3RR myself); that's why I put up the dubious tags. —C.Fred (talk) 23:25, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Quick question...

Hi, I was just wondering if there is anyway breaks can be used to split up genres in music articles instead of commas. I heard that if a mixture of breaks and commas are used in the infobox, the article becomes less...respectable? So if breaks are used throughout the entire infobox instead of commas, would that be allowed? I just think that breaks are much more tidy when lots of citations are used and they've recieved positive feedback from other contributors. Thank you and sorry for bothering you. Zylo1994 (talk) 18:09, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

• Thanks for this, Kww. It seems I messed up on this one, and didn't even realize I was not up to date with some of the formatting. I'm sorry you got involved, even if slightly. Thanks again. Acalamari 18:56, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Chart Macros

This User I listened to you and didn't issue a warning straight away. I left a message first. Jayy008 (talk) 14:47, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Very good. I will thanks! Jayy008 (talk) 15:24, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

RE: Jivesh boodhun

Hi Kww, sorry for the delay in getting back to you about this. You probably already know all this, but just posting it for clarity's sake: A hard block means that anyone who accesses wikipedia from the hard blocked IP will not be able to edit, whether they are logged in or not. A soft block will mean that anyone who accesses wikipedia from the IP will not be able to edit or create an account, however, if they already had an account before the block was issued, then they can still edit from that. For obvious reasons a checkuser is nesscery before a hard block to ensure that there will be no collateral damage, however, a checkuser is not really nesscery for a soft block.
As it is, the user appears to only be editing from the IPs, which makes a hard block redundant, as it's not going to prevent anything that the soft block wouldn't. Even if they started editing from accounts, it's still unlikely that a hard block would be issued, as they are normally only used in cases of long term abuse. I don't think that a checkuser is not going to be of great use here because it won't be able to show you anything that you don't already know. However, I note that the user appears to have expanded out of the old range, and I will correct my comments on the SPI page accordingly.
Let me know if you have any queries about this or if anything I've said doesn't match up.
Kindest regards, Spitfire^Tally-ho! 19:23, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

If you do a whois on the IP you can see that the ISP hands out addresses between 41.136.0.0 and 41.136.255.255, in other words within 41.136.0.0/16, which is just within the "okay" area for rangeblocking, so a softblock on that should solve the problem. If the user has displayed a long term pattern of creating accounts to be disruptive then I would be okay to endorse a CU request to turn over any sleepers and possibly to see whether or not hardblocking is feasible. However, based on the evidence provided at the SPI page it appears that the user started of with just one account, but since that was blocked they have been sticking to IPs, which, as I said, seems to make a hardblock redundant. However, if they have displayed a pattern of using accounts disruptively I'll be happy to reconsider a CU. Again, let me know if I'm misunderstanding you here. Kindest regards, Spitfire^Tally-ho! 20:19, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

For sure, I'm not treating this as an argument, rather a conversation between two editors who have a slightly different perception of a situation. I am aware of the subdivisions in the network and the cons of WHOIS; what I actually did to calculate the new range was match 41.136.75.18 against 41.136.53.145, which came up with 41.136.0.0/17. Although I can understand that the 41.136.53.145 address may simply be a anomaly as you suggested, I prefer to err on the side of caution with these matters. There's no point hard blocking an IP range just to have the user being able to get around it.

Anyway, I appreciate that this conversation is starting to get pointless, so I've endorse the case for checkuser to clear up the IPs and hand out blocks/rangeblocks where appropriate. Please also note that I didn't initially deny the request because I thought I could just sort of the range blocks without a checkuser, rather I declined it because the only reason provided for a check at the time of the request was to check for any collateral damage that might result from a hard block, with the assumption that the range was already sorted. However, due to the addition of the new IP and your reasoning on my talk page I now see that a checkuser would be helpful to clear up what IPs are being used here. Sorry for the large amount of conversation required for me to realise this.

Kindest regards, Spitfire^Tally-ho! 21:01, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Israeli chart

Sorry for my delay, but Glgltz's chart is Israel's official chart. No matter if it's on charts.co.il or not. The official site clearly says: "1:1 (אחד אחד) is Israel's official chart". Edenc1 • Talk 00:04, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

You know, Glgltz can't say this is the official chart if it's not. The chart used to be aired also on the Israel Army Radio, Channel 3, Channel 2 and it sometimes airs on Music 24. If you want more sources: This one says Omri Ronen used to host Israel's official chart in Glgltz; Radio.org.il says "1:1 is Israel's officiale chart"; In ynet, Noam Segev asks himself who gave Glgltz's chart the title "Israel's official chart".Edenc1 • Talk 09:46, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

I gave you sources, what more do you need? Someone in Israel (not in Glgltz) decided that this is Israel's official chart. We shouldn't care how it affects sales, artists or other things. If a song is listed in this chart, it should be mentioned in the song's article. Ynet and NRG are reliable, and they both says this chart is the official chart of Israel. Edenc1 • Talk 14:25, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Softpedia

It's a scan, I think it's alright. Alecsdaniel (talk) 19:36, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

I know the site isn't reliable, but it's a scan. I'm sure you didn't even bothered to check the link out. All that work for nothing. It's not like the chart was written on it or something. >__> Alecsdaniel (talk) 19:41, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Edit War?

I'm sorry, I did not realize. I tried talking on the user's talk page but that stopped because they stopped replying. One time I saw a user warn another user about talking to someone about it on their talk page and that it was suppose to be talked out in the edit summaries so I thought I was doing the right thing. Should I take it to the article's talk page instead? --Babyjazspanail (talk) 20:17, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you.--Babyjazspanail (talk) 20:29, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

RE : Nyleve02

I'll nudge a more experienced CU for a second opinion. - Mailer Diablo 23:23, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Sint Maarten Links

Kevin, could you please voice your opinion on the Talk:Sint Maarten page. I believe an admin went roughshod on the links collection. —Preceding unsigned comment added by InfoCatch (talk • contribs) 13:26, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Hungary

Hello, Kww. You have new messages at Iknow23's talk page.
Message added User talk:Iknow23#Hungary. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

—Iknow23 (talk) 01:40, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Avalon High (film)

Hello!

Since you nominated the article for deletion, would you mind revisiting the debate to offer your opinion on a change I suggested? It has to do with potentially adding more articles to the same debate.

Thanks! Big Bird (talk • contribs) 21:35, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

I Look To You

Hello Kevin, I've recently added like 6 charts to "I Look To You" but I can't check Argentina because I don't know how to navigate through it's archive. Could you see if I Look To You and Memoirs of an Imperfect Angel charted in Argentina please or tell me how to do it, thanks as always! Jayy008 (talk) 16:56, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks very much, all sorted now. Jayy008 (talk) 17:17, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

RE: Jeodin

Thanks for your note. I was indeed so inclined, but backed off and left a personal, non-templated note, as if it might help, assuming good faith, etc. (Not a real hopeful-sounding note, though, is it?)

I had just had a discussion with somebody who had given a (IMO) vandalism-only IP user a Level1 "Welcome to Wikipedia..." 16 hours after they'd already received a Level4 "This is the final warning you will receive..." I really hate when that happens, because it seems like we're training people that the notices don't mean anything.

This followed a notice from another user on my Talk (separate situation), reminding me not to template the regulars. That user seemed to prefer personal notes in every instance (except, you know, telling me not to template the regulars). So I guess I thought, don't BITE, AGF, don't attack, etc., and left the note. Somehow, I suspect we'll have the chance to leave a Level4 soon anyway.

I don't believe I've ever placed a Level 4 user warning, though, because I don't want to do it without some certainty that it will be backed up by an actual block if they do continue. I don't how to get those wheels rolling; a message at ANI, I guess. Yes? Maybe once I've seen that work a time or two I'll be more comfortable giving a final warning. Best, — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 02:07, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Cummins B Series

Unsourced info on Cummins B Series engine that you have removed once and I have removed twice is now being re-added by: User talk:Azpyroguy. I normally don't care about sourced vs. unsourced. But the user is clearly part of the anti-cummins movement. I figure I'm not one that should be taking part in dispute being my name shows my bias: --Dana60Cummins (talk) 00:10, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Chart Macros

Kevin, this may be personal preference but I think this would make it alot easier, it won't change anything visually, just technically. Like for example for the UK you have to put "UKchartstats" to get the correct macro, why can't it be simply "United Kingdom" like most of the others and for Canada instead of Billboardcanadianhot100 can't it be simply "Canada". This I mean for implementing it like {{ singlechart=Canada|etc etc you know? Jayy008 (talk) 00:38, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Oh I didn't know that, which other UK archives are there? Also can you do it for Japan please. Jayy008 (talk) 15:32, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Re: Mbmbmb123456789

I'm not seeing a smoking gun in the deleted contributions of Blackrican342 (talk · contribs) that would connect it to Mbmbmb123456789 (talk · contribs). Blackrican342 did create a since-deleted article on Nicki Minaj's First Studio Album, but I'm not (yet) seeing any patterns that suggest anything other than two users. That said, I agree completely with your nomination of Raven-symoné's 5th studio album for deletion. —C.Fred (talk) 19:24, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

However, I may need to look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Raining Money Outside and the related articles' logs a little closer. This isn't the first time an article has been started on a Raven project in the last month. —C.Fred (talk) 01:18, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Nominated.

- Zhang He (talk) 00:01, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Petergriffin9901

Kww, I need your help. Petergriffin9901 in articles: One Heart, Miracle (Celine Dion album) and The Colour of My Love is changing the U.S. sales numbers from the ones that go with RIAA certifications to the ones that go with the SoundScan figures from last year. We all know that SoundScan does not include the music club sales. However Petergriffin9901 is lowering the numbers over and over again. And the text in the chart tables says "Sales/shipments". Max24 (talk) 00:23, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, please look at the articles Kww, Max doesn't seem to understand that 2x Platinum means 2 million Shipments, just like Mariah Carey's Daydream is certified Diamond, but only sold 8.4M according to Billboard. I have placed a Billboard source & a source Max found me in another Celine article earlier today and placed the sales next to the certifications. I don't see the problem, Max just wants to revert all my edits, please review those pages and ask me if you have any concerns. According to what I wrote sales of 1.79M with Billboard source & certified double platinum for shipments. Thanks--Petergriffin9901 (talk) 00:34, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

If the chart table says "Sales/shipments" and I write 2 million because the album was certiied 2x platinum, then it's the thruth. The source with 1.79 million isn't updated and doesn't include the music club sales. The Billboard articles always give only the SoundScan sales. So there is no need to put only a partial sales. Max24 (talk) 00:38, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

It's hard to set a firm and fast rule for every article, but in this case, I side with Petergriffin9901: it sold 1.79 million, not 2 million. It certainly shipped 2 million, or it wouldn't have a 2xPlatinum certification. Shipments and sales get confused on Wikipedia all the time because we can generally only find a source for one or the other, but when we have both, it's best to include and clearly label both. Both of you should try to figure out ways to incorporate both figures when both are available.—Kww(talk) 02:25, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

OK, I have made the compromise version of One Heart, with both numbers included. In Miracle (Celine Dion album) I have changed the source for a better one (although still old - September 2007) and did the same. What about The Colour of My Love? The album was certified 6x platinum for shipping 6 million copies in 1999. It was released in 1993 and must have sold a lot in music club sales, as SoundScan figure is only 4.5 million. Is 1.5 million still on the shops shelves? Should also both numbers be included? Max24 (talk) 10:38, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

The 1.5 million could even have been returned: if they shipped 6.1M and had 6.05M returns, the RIAA would still give it 6xPlatinum. Both figures should be included.—Kww(talk) 14:24, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Ok, fixed. Thanks for your help. Max24 (talk) 15:10, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for looking it over Kevin, I do seem though to still have a concern. Max provided this source a while back which lists the 100 best-selling albums in the MG Music clubs. He used it in all the Dion albums in which hers are listed here such as Falling into You and Let's Talk About Love. As you see even though the Nielsen Soundscan and Billboard only list it's sales at 10.8 & 9.5 Max's source lists sales of 1M and 900K for both albums at BMG clubs. This is fine, however The Colour of My Love did NOT even make this list at all, with the lowest on the list being under 400K. So if Max should be allowed to use this source, you can't assume that in potential it sold 1.4M copies in BMG because the source that lists them claims otherwise. If it did sell anything in the BMG club it would be under 400K, making it's sales well under 5M.

Also for the other 2 articles, I do not see why both numbers are needed. It is confusing and unnecessary, because it already lists the 6x Platinum certification, something that already TELLS us it shipped 6M copies, so now that we have a real source for it's sales, why also include the shipments again in number form. For example, in this Mariah Carey album page, Butterfly, The album has Shipped 5M copies, however by looking at the discography page here, Mariah Carey albums discography, the album only did indeed sell 3.7 million copies. So it's like if I went to the discography page and just write 5M next to it even though the 5x Platinum certification is right next to it. It is like doing that and claiming "Well it could have sold more in the BMG club" even though this source which Max provided and uses doesn't include it (meaning sales in BMG less than even 400K). So in other words I dispute to using both numbers: certifications and actual sales suffice, especially with a source not only not supporting, but disputing his made up ideas.--Petergriffin9901 (talk) 15:50, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

The main reason to list both numbers is that most readers don't have a clue that certifications have nothing to do with sales. As for the record club figures, I'd like to hear more from both you and Max24. Why don't you believe the RIAA and Nielsen are consistent in their treatment of record clubs? What source do you have for that?—Kww(talk) 15:55, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

So does that mean in every album page it should be appropriate to place both next to each other? I mean take a look at the way those articles look now, in my opinion it looks more confusing to readers than just by leaving certifications and actual sales. That is, unless Max finds a way to clearly differentiate between which number serves which purpose. Because as I see it now I see 2 numbers side by side that looks confusing and unexplanatory. Take a look, The Colour Of My Love. Secondly regarding the RIAA & Nielsen. I will be honest and admit that I really don't know whether Nielsen is inconsistent of BMG or not. However that isn't the problem I see with it. The problem is Max doesn't have a source for the album having sold Anything in BMG at all. If he did such as in the other 2 previously mentioned articles I would leave it without a word. But the way it is we're just relying on the fact Max thinks it sold in BMG clubs. Well you know, I think Music Box sold 32 million copies, does that mean im just going to write next to it maybe 32, of course not. If that would be the only problem have with it it wouldn't even be so hard. In addition to Max not having a source for the albums having sold Anything in BMG at all, he has a source that says they Didn't! even more proof why it shouldn't be permitted.--Petergriffin9901 (talk) 16:09, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Hey Kww, did you read my above post?--Petergriffin9901 (talk) 22:13, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Waiting for Max24's reply.—Kww(talk) 22:18, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

One thing should explain it all: BMG Music Club wasn't the only music club selling albums in North America. It is just the only music club which published the list of its best selling albums. No other music club has done that. That explains the big differances between certification and SoundScan sales (shippment isn't the only reason). Dion has only 1 album with big differance - The Colour of My Love. Carey has at least 4 albums like that. I don't see any problem with adding to Carey articles numbers from the RIAA certifications. Now the music club sales is dead but in the 90s, million of copies were sold that way. We don't know for example the Columbia Music Club numbers. In case of the U.S. it shouldn't even been said "sold" but "sold according to SoundScan", as SoundScan is only partial sales (especially for older albums). As you can see, Shania Twain has sold 2 million copies through BMG Music Club alone. Max24 (talk) 00:52, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

If you don't have a source specifically stating the Nielsen doesn't count record clubs, it's WP:OR to make the claim, and isn't acceptable.—Kww(talk) 04:01, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Since you see he does not have any source to back his claim, and yet has a source that Disputes it, what do you think abiout removing those extra numbers on the articles? And about the inclusion of that BMG source in articles at all?, as I don't see it as reliable enough to include, especially because we haven't even come to a conclusion about whether Nielsen SounScan even counts them.?--Petergriffin9901 (talk) 05:34, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

There's been enough back-and-forth. Wait 12 hours or so, and see if anything new gets concluded in the discussion. If not, go ahead.—Kww(talk) 05:37, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

I have a question regarding BMG sales and the issue with Max. I would like to remove both. Until it's resolved I would like to remove all sales indicated by BMG as being Added to the total tally. Secondly I would like to remove the inclusion of the shipments written next to it's total sales, as you see here in The Colour of My Love.--Petergriffin9901 (talk) 01:36, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

As Kww said "Both figures should be included" and I agree with him. As you know we have a problem with sales number but we don't have any problem with shipment number - 6 million because of 6x platinum certification. As it goes for BMG numbers the discussion is on Carey's singles talk page. Max24 (talk) 01:42, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

I know as I'm on the page as your are. And there seems to be a sort of consensus between that they should be removed. I'm just waiting for Kww's thoughts.--Petergriffin9901 (talk) 02:42, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Alice

I couldn't verify it at the moment. Since I don't have the March issue of the magazine, I'll try to go to a store and verify the position. I should have the information by Wednesday. Decodet (talk) 20:47, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Hm... well, the edition (in this case - March) is missing. The correct page is 79 and correct publisher is BBP. Excluding all those, I think it's eveything ok. About "Alice", I'm pretty sure that position is false since I think Alice is not released here yet. I'll double check the position and send you a feedback. Decodet (talk) 22:02, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I couldn't check it for you yet but I'm 99% sure it's false. I see you have already removed the reference, good job. Decodet (talk) 16:31, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Don't worry, I can help you to verificate peak positions that you consider dubious. The main problem is that I do not buy the magazine and do not have enough time to visit stores and verificate peak positions, but I'll try to do that when I'm available. I also have ways to get the full list in a Brazilian forum that I consider reliable but unfourtunately they didn't post this month's chart. Decodet (talk) 21:34, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Invite to join discussion: ADDING BMG music clubs sales to other reported figures?

Invite to join discussion Talk:Mariah Carey albums discography#Use of reference http://www.mi2n.com/press.php3?press_nb=47877—Iknow23 (talk) 01:05, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

About the bio issue with Nelly Furtado. . .(we need to let this die down)

. . .when you make incorrect statements, you are giving fuel to the fire with this anonymous IP. I follow a number of international bios and have where Spaniards, Basques, Mexicans, etc. do the same type insertion. We need to stick to what MOS BIO says or this anonymous IP will continue to rant. We need to let this cool down and stick to what MOS Bio says. To tell you the truth, I don't like it either. But, as it was put to someone, who got blocked for editting warring on an issue like this, the anon IP was told If you don't like what is written here, then don't read Wikipedia. Peace and cheers. --Morenooso (talk) 02:57, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

In blocking the anon IP, the Admins pointed out that was why the examples were laid out the way they were. The three cases are specific. The only doubt let in, is the United Kingdom example (which is part of what I disagree with). We need to left this die down or this will never end. --Morenooso (talk) 03:00, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Jim Belushi is one of the more recent ones but it doesn't have the full blown argument. I think John Bosco is another. Cesar Chavez was. --Morenooso (talk) 03:03, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

As a senior editor, I would hope you would trust me. I just looked at Jim Belushi again. It has Albanian in it even though he wasn't born there and doesn't have dual citizenship. Again, MS BIO has three specific examples which Admins and Page Patrollers follow. It's when editors try to interpret or squeak in a technically that the edit wars start, and the edit warrers usually lose. --Morenooso (talk) 03:07, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

BTW, if you looked at my talkpage, wherever I start a conversation as per the norm with editors who have been on Wikipedia for a while, is where the conversation stays (like an article talkpage). I came off the talkpage to reason with you. --Morenooso (talk) 03:09, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Mariah albums disc

I have re-opened discussion, Nielson doesn't include club data Jayy008 (talk) 21:29, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Petergriffin9901

Again removing ceritication from Madonna albums, to glorify precious Mariah. Just did so in Confessions on a Dance Floor. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 06:08, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

You have absolutely No idea of what your saying Legolas. The article says it's been certified 5x Platinum by the UK, and you give this source, a home page. That's pretty reliable, a home page. I go and I actually search in the site for the actual source and find this, the actual certification page claiming what I wrote, 4x Platinum. For some odd reason this page doesn't have a different address once you search the artist. So Kww, search Madonna as an artist and on the first page you'll see Confession on a Dancefloor and if you click the more info you'll see it's only been certified 4x Platinum, not 5. Before you go babbling lies to people you should research it a little more, legolas.--Petergriffin9901 (talk) 07:10, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

This is what I see on the site

MADONNA - CONFESSIONS ON A DANCE FLOOR

WARNER BROS (WARNER BROS)

Released Monday, November 14, 2005

Certification History:

Gold Certification Friday, January 12, 2007

Platinum Certification Friday, January 12, 2007

2 x Platinum Certification Friday, January 12, 2007

4 x Platinum Certification Friday, January 12, 2007

3 x Platinum Certification Friday, January 12, 2007

Now I'd like to know where, Legolas do you see 5x Platinum?--Petergriffin9901 (talk) 07:17, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

You removed an entire Canadian certification, stating that its unsourced. Cut the MC fan crap and edit properly. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 07:30, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm talking about the UK certifications, the Canada part was an error. Get this straight Legolas, I have made over 60 edits to Madonna's albums tonight, and out of them I have made 1 mistake. I think you need to reanalyze the situation and cut the crap. And one more thing, I would appreciate it you would stop making up the same excuse of fancruft every time, because it's getting old. I have no need to degrade Madonna anymore than she already has herself, thank you. Your accusations of spending all my time editing Wikipedia just to glorify a woman who needs no glorification whatsoever is ridiculous. If you would come here accusing me of doing that to Celine or Whitney it would make a little more sense, I would think "well maybe he thinks it because they are all in the same league as singers and legends". However you are accusing it for Madonna, a woman that became famous by acting like a total prostitute, whereas the other 3 made and worked it by being incredibly talented Vocalists, and not using such terrible and degrading methods.--Petergriffin9901 (talk) 09:04, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

If you two are going to use me as a dispute resolution technique, a few ground rules: first, provide me diffs and sources. Second, no insults, either against each other or against the various artists you edit articles about. Third, I reserve the right to set more rules if needed.—Kww(talk) 14:44, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Well Kevin, I don't care much for Legolas' opinions. My concern is that you understand my error, so I will explain. Normally when I edit charts, many times it will say for example, 2x Platinum and show me a source, which is basically the RIAA home page, or any other countries home page. I then go to the actual page like this and correct the source. So in the above mentioned Madonna page, the source was this, which looked to me like a home page. I then went and searched Madonna here and found nothing. So you see I just didn't see it as the certification was on a different type of page, something that I mistaked for a home page.--PeterGriffin Talk • Cont.

Walking on Air

Good to know. –Scarce ✉ 06:46, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Source

Hey Kevin, Iv'e stumbled along this source, this is the more specific page. Do you think this is sufficient in terms of reliability, to place as France sales in a artist's discography?--Petergriffin9901 (talk) 07:00, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Not reliable

...follow the asterisk at Actual sales column "Estimate (yet!) Made by our team." (SEE Google translate)
Their estimate can hardly be used as a reliable source.—Iknow23 (talk) 07:11, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Did you see this yet Kww?--PeterGriffin Talk • Cont.

No, I missed this one in the barrage. See what Explicit knows about InfoDisc estimates. He's my goto-guy for French certifications. My inclination is like Iknow23's, but if InfoDisc is at Billboard class reliability for France, it may be acceptable.—Kww(talk) 04:15, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

AGNES - Release me

You can look Spanish Charts here: http://www.promusicae.es/files/listastonos/top%2050%20canciones_w10.2010.pdf That's the official chart in Spain. TONYCT91 (talk) 0:28, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Question and suspicion

Is Classic80 another sock of Excuseme99? Given the articles the account has edited and the content being added, it certainly seems so to me. Wildhartlivie (talk) 05:07, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

I know, an old but persistent one. Note the account is posting content to Natalie Wood that once again is blaming Robert Wagner for her death. The account also uploaded images of her and claiming that she owns them. Well, she might technically own the copies, but she doesn't own the copyright. The morning is fine. Wildhartlivie (talk) 05:25, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, that and the account uploaded the same picture of Natalie Wood as one of the socks did before [3], only this time she's asserting that it is her own work. Wildhartlivie (talk) 19:55, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

It continues. She restored content that was objectionable and is claiming that Lana Wood is the photographer, even though she also says the photos were given to Photoplay magazine. How's it going on connecting to Excuseme99? I called her by that name and she didn't deny it. Wildhartlivie (talk) 21:41, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Re

No is a Hot 100 Brasil, this chart is right, but the Chart in Pt is Billboard Brasil, so in En doesn't accept the URL Mariah-Chart.com, só i put in phisical magazine, because the Web billboard.br.com is a inctive that's right i put a ref for a magazine no for URL, Right? Vitor Mazuco ^Msg 17:21, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Let's wait the URL will came back, in next month i put the chart on the article. Ok? Vitor Mazuco ^Msg 19:10, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Ok, ok let's wait let's wait, i will show you. Vitor Mazuco ^Msg 19:21, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Any Kind of Guy (single)

Hello Kww. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Any Kind of Guy (single), a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Editor's other account is blocked, but doesn't appear to be banned. Thank you. Ale_Jrb^talk 19:50, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

The Brexx sock

Good catch! I knew something had to be up, but had no idea what user to check it against. By the way, User:Alxknight is another user I am fairly sure is a sock. Any ideas? Nymf _hideliho! 23:34, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the link! It's close to a duck, so I'll prepare a case. Cheers. Nymf _hideliho! 23:53, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

user Charleysgrilledsubs

You know that this user has blocked? do we have to undoe all of their edits? for example you undid his edit on Un-thinkable (I'm Ready) which was actually an ok edit because it added the slant magazine review with a source? Lil-unique1 (talk) 23:52, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Sales chart version

Hey Kevin, Max and I don't seem to agree on a certain point, so before I start an edit war I'd like you to take a look to keep things amicable. As you know, Nielsen SoundScan began in 1991, hurting the actual sales of listed albums from before, such as Madonna's The Immaculate Collection which was released in 1990, and is certified Diamond, but only has sales of 5.7M recorded. Well anyway as you see here and here both Mariah and Madonna's sales are listed in the discography sections with there sources, as with many other artists. So I went and did it to Celine Dion's album discography, you know the pages Max owns. Anyway I'd like you to see here the differences in our versions of the page. My version is the right column, his old version is the lefft column. Now to make your decision easier I'd also like for you to see the discussion we had about it, so you understand both out views on it as well. For what Max wrote to me when he reverted, please see here...and for what I responded to his logic and reversion, see here. Thanks Kww, I'd just rather do things without edit wars this time...lol...Thanks a bunch!--PeterGriffin Talk • Cont. 11:10, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

I think you have a good case (as the US sales are 30%-50% of each album's sales, it's clearly significant). Take it to the talk page on the article, and give neutral notices to a few of the regular editors. Journalist (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) clearly comes to mind, as well as Lil-unique, Iknow23, Legolas, and the other inhabitants of my talk page. Try to build consensus.—Kww(talk) 20:52, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Hey Kww, I have notified 4 editors including yourself. Iknow & Jay have already agreed with my version, as we are just waiting for Unique. Can you also input your opinion in the talk page, as I don't want to accidentally wrongly quote or misinterpret your opinion.Thanks!--PeterGriffin Talk • Cont. 02:25, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks!

For reverting vandalism on my userpage. GedUK  21:13, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

BB Succession dates

Hello, Kevin. Say, you know about music charts... (You also seem to know about content battles and bickering between editors; you should charge people for each edit made on your Talk page which isn't actually about you.) Well, I'm sorry to bother you, but maybe you can advise me.

Of the time I waste in my life, some portion is wasted on Rude Boy (song). Recently, that song made it to #1 on the BB Hot 100, and that fact was quickly added to the article, followed not long thereafter by a reference.

A succession box was duly added at the bottom for "US Billboard Hot 100 number-one single", based on the info in the reference. The reference for the #1 claim is dated March 17, and refers to "tomorrow": "Rihanna replaces labelmate Taio Cruz atop the Billboard Hot 100, set to be released Thursday (March 18)". And indeed, " Chart Beat Thursday: Rihanna, Ludacris, Timbaland", dated March 18 confirms this. I have been "correcting" the date to March 18, 2010, but one user (71.191.12.100) keeps changing it to March 27, 2010, which, to me, is just patently ludicrous. The 27th can't be the start date of the song's reign, because we're (still!) not there yet; it can't be the end date, since the song might rule through July. So how could March 18 be wrong and March 27 be right?

I have reverted and warned 71.191.12.100 a few times now (here again latest User talk:71.191.12.100), but s/he's not the only one to enter the 27th: original addition later again. Only one other editor besides myself has changed from the 27th, and that IP changed it to the 17th.

So are these just persistent vandals (or dolts), or am I the dolt? I'm starting to wonder if there's some convention or source I'm unaware of here, that "everyone just knows about". I believe I have violated 3RR if this isn't really vandalism, but I can't get any discussion or response from 71.191.12.100 yet. I can't even get an edit summary out of hir (or most anybody else, for that matter). Where are these people getting the 27th as a date? Help? — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 12:36, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

You aren't a dolt, you are just using the calendar date, not the chart date. Billboard puts advanced dates on its charts, and that is what is usually used in the succession box.—Kww(talk) 15:32, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

That's what I was afraid of (well, not that I'm not a dolt...). But, jeez, the chart date is a week and a half after the determination of new positions?

And also, where do you find out the actual chart dates they use? I couldn't find March 27 anywhere on BB's pages, and I was looking hard for it. (Have I mentioned that I hate the Billboard site?) Is the chart date always the second Saturday following an announcement/news item? Thanks for helping me on this. — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 16:22, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

It's an algorithm like that. Ericorbit would know for sure.—Kww(talk) 16:51, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Max24

So you can see what Max is truly about when regarding Celine Dion, please see here. He is exactly what he's been accuses me of.--PeterGriffin Talk • Cont. 18:43, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Hey, did you get a chance to check this out?--PeterGriffin Talk • Cont. 03:13, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Brexx/sper

You have new messages

Hello, Kww. You have new messages at Chzz's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{user:chzz/tb}} template.    File:Ico specie.png

 Chzz  ►  21:50, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Socks of banned users

Hello, KWW thanks for telling me about WP:BAN . Really you are a great wikipedian. Thanks. Ashishvats23(talk) 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Telephone

Thank you for trying to clarify that the "violations/breaches" of NFCC#8 and NFCC#3a are tolerated. But they simply don't give a shit.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 07:35, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Chart Macros

Can you add "All Music" to the U.S. macro's please. So this time it will be Artist= and song =. Much easier and always has ALL the charts correct. Jayy008 (talk) 15:52, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

"One Time" by Justin Bieber for "Pop 100 Airplay" Jayy008 (talk) 15:56, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Discussion

Please "voice" your opinion in form of agree or disagree please Jayy008 (talk) 15:59, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

You have a message

Hello, Kww. You have new messages at Whpq's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

InfoDisc

Hi again Kevin, I'm really confused by this website, I thought if a website was listed on GOODCHARTS, anything on there could be included, but user Max keeps reverting them, possibly because it sold more than a Celine Dion album (Yes, an uber fan). I keep reverting because I always go by GOODCHARTS. It says on the page "these sales are estimates" but I put that on the bottom now, because aren't all sales estimates? Even Nielson? What do you think about using sales from InfoDisc? If they are not allowed I request that a note be added to Wikipedia:GOODCHARTS to say that although InfoDisc is allowed for certs it isn't for sales. Jayy008 (talk) 16:41, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Got it! Max doesn't add another souce, just leaves it blank with just shipments, I only add the sales because I thought websites on GOODCHARTS were fine. The user thinks they own Wikipedia and makes policy. Jayy008 (talk) 19:20, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Template: Chart Macro

Hi Kww, First of all can i say thank you for all you work on the chart Macro. It is an excellent piece of innovation. I remember when you first activated the macro you said one of the reasons for doing so was to prevent the loss of references when websites like billboard are revamped. Well since Billboard's revamp the website is no longer stable. on a number of occassions i've had to actually remove the singlechart template for U.S. charts and replace with Allmusic reference because the billboard no longer show a song's chart position. e.g. Angels Cry (song). I was wondering if you could replace the US chart macro's source with Allmusic instead or at least add a 'usallmusic' macro as an alternative US chart? Also is there plans for an album chart macro? Lil-unique1 (talk) 17:00, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

sorry just incase you'd forgotten about this message i left earlier? is there anyway we can make the US chart macro specify allmusic as a source (perhaps as an additional source?) or make a US chart macro that uses AllMusic instead seen that it is more stable? Lil-unique1 (talk) 23:57, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Malta Eurovision

Hi Kww. I've replied on my Talk page, giving the sources for the dreaded Priscilla/Pricilla

The CD is available through a couple of online record shops, but neither show the inside sleeve notes or back cover, both of which list the artists. The best I can suggest is a Rapidshare download at Rapidshare : The Go Malta Eurosong 2010, which includes the full covers. It comes as a Winzip file, and includes the 20 finalists on mp3. You can always delete the mp3s if you don't want illegal copies! Skinsmoke (talk) 22:11, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Help Required with Australia Charts

I wonder if you could help with this? Archive for AUS Physical chart? Lil-unique1 (talk) 18:57, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Wide-ranging approach to Sales/Shipments/Certs

Hello, Kevin

I've been following (or trying to follow) the discussion about the perennial difficulties of sourcing and separating sales and shipments for music-related articles. While you may well have already noticed it and decided not to add anything, I have made a new proposal (below the "Shipments and Sales in box" discussion you've already been a participant in) which might address several concerns or cause quite a ruckus. I'd be grateful if you could find time to look over the discussion there and add whatever remarks you feel useful. Thanks! — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 13:55, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Kww. You have new messages at Ged UK's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

PS, archive your talkpage ;) GedUK  15:55, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Denmark

Hello Kww, this is just to reitterate my point. On the Hitlisten.NU website that chart is called Tracklisten so why can't it be like that in the Macro? Tracklisten does have it's own Wiki page. But it says "IFPI" for Denmark which is mis-leading. Jayy008 (talk) 16:10, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Book Sources

Hello Kww, I have a few questions regarding book sources. First of all if a book ISBN is not real according to Wikipedia, that should give every right to remove it correct? Secondly regarding certifications for singles, do you think it should be allowed to use book sources. I mean why should it be allowed when official charts are readily available on the internet. With these sources we can't readily check the accuracy, nor can we test it especially if it's not a real one. Thirdly, with sources, some of them are not reliable according to Wikipedia standards, whereas few are. With book sources how do we know if it's a reliable author or book? I mean why should a biography written by John Jones on Celine Dion be reliable? What makes his published works reliable, especially being relatively unknown. How can we judge a books reliability regarding sales and certs. Thanks--Petergriffin9901 (talk) 20:53, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Petergriffin9901 removed the Swedish, Australian, New Zealand and Belgian certifications from Celine Dion singles discography despite the given sources:

The Swedish certifications links direct to the .pdf files on the IFPI official website [4].

The Australian certifications before 1997 are taken from the Australian Chart Book 1993-2005 isbn=0646458892.

The New Zealand certifications are taken from the book The Complete New Zealand Music Charts 1966-2006 isbn=978-1-877443-00-8.

The Belgian certifications are taken from the book Ultratop 1995-2005 isbn=90-5720-232-8.

So these are the ISBN he's talking about. I'd like to know your opinion. Max24 (talk) 11:30, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

That's actually not the sources I was talking about Max, the reason i removed them is because they weren't working. When I would press on them Wikipedia Book sources would say incorrect or not real ISBN, that is why I removed it. Also I still don't think Books should be used for certs, if we already have official sources on the web. But if they are allowed I will check out the books in the library to see if it's true, and if i can find any more for other artists that interest me.

A source as an example Kww would be this, Bombardier, Denise (2009). L'énigmatique Céline Dion. XO Editions. ISBN 2-8456-3413-7. I don't see why we should trust this as a sales source.--Petergriffin9901 (talk) 22:04, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, since everyone is talking here, I'll leave it here. This ISBNs all check out:[5][6][7]. I don't understand what problem Petergriffin9901 was having with aspect.

As for the reliability of these sources, these are the kind of sources that are generally considered reliable. The question really is whether they are better than another source. What other sources are being considered, and why would these sources be better than those? These are certainly better than ticketspecialists.com and similar sites.—Kww(talk) 22:23, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

My problem was the fact that Max placed fake ISBNs for Japan, that's number 1. Secondly I'm not comparing it to Ticketspecialists, I'm comparing it to the websites such as RIAZ, or CRIA etc. If you could possibly find that info there, I don't see why use a book source. Anyway that was my main concern, and now that I've gotten my answer I'm satisfied. I'll check up on those sometime, thanks kww.--Petergriffin9901 (talk) 22:29, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

"Placed fake ISBNs ..." is a pretty serious accusation of malfeasance, Peter, and not one to be made lightly. Can you give me an example?

As for comparing to the RIAZ and CRIA, I would normally trust the website to be more up-to-date than a print copy. That doesn't make the print copy unreliable, just a bit stale.—Kww(talk) 22:34, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

After Petergriffin9901 removed most book sources and said he couldn't find ISBNs, I went through all of them again and brought back all except the Japan where I couldn't find an exact match. Instead I have added this source for 1 million selling single in Japan. [8]. Max24 (talk) 22:30, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

I sure can give you an example, he placed this source, for Japan, which when you click on the ISBN, the Wikipedia page tells you that it's not real, which it doesn't say for any of the others. this is it. "Oricon Entertainment (1996). RIAJ Year Book 1996. Recording Industry Association of Japan. ISBN 978-4-87131-064-5" --Petergriffin9901 (talk) 22:52, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

OK, Max24, it's reasonable to ask: where did you get that ISBN number from?—Kww(talk) 23:01, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

I am a member of few charts forums since 2004. Over the years I have gathered many charts informations on paper, in my internet links, forum topics and so on. I have every chartrun, certifications, sales and all that goes with it. This ISBN number was from old notes of mine. Unfortunatelly many links that were working back then, don't work now. I tried to find the right ISBN online but couldn't. That's why I did not revert Petergriffin9901 edit regarding Japan. I'm glad that all others books were ok. These are the RIAJ certifications for Dion singles which I'd like to find good online source for (I have also exact sales, even weekly numbers):

• 08.04.1992 - BEAUTY AND THE BEAST
• 11.1996 - Platinum 100,000
• 21.10.1995 - TO LOVE YOU MORE
• 01.1996 - Million 1,000,000[9]
• 20.08.1996 - THE POWER OF THE DREAM/IT’S ALL COMING BACK TO ME NOW
• 09.1996 - Gold 50,000
• 13.11.1997 - BE THE MAN
• 11.1997 - Platinum 100,000
• 14.01.1998 - MY HEART WILL GO ON
• 02.1999 - 2 x Platinum 200,000
• 20.06.1998 - MY HEART WILL GO ON (Dance Mixes)
• 02.1999 - Gold 100,000

Max24 (talk) 23:15, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

This could be a legitimate problem. Are you taking information from an internet forum that states "such-and-such a book says so-and-so" and posting the information on Wikipedia as if you had actually looked in the book?—Kww(talk) 02:21, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

That was the case with Japan only. The informations that I have about Japan come from RIAJ member who posted them for free on the forum. Others countries are verified. For example I did some research and found an on-line source for Belgium certifications and they say exactly the same that is included in Celine Dion singles discography after the book: [10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18]. I also prefer direct on-line sources but sometimes they are not available. Max24 (talk) 09:28, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

If you have not physically examined the book source and verified the figures, you should not be citing it. The only exception I can think of would be using Google books, and even then you should provide the Google book URL.—Kww(talk) 13:31, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree. Max24 (talk) 18:00, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

That's my point Kww, even though Max knew the ISBNs were not functional, he still posted it and did not remove them all to glorify Celine Dion. That isn't honest because he's taking advantage of the fact that we can't redily check the information he's placing. He will make up and post anything in order to praise her, which is why I am not happy with his usage of Book Sources.--Petergriffin9901 (talk) 01:41, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

JANET-Number Ones/The Best

In Brazil there is Billbord Brazil and ABPD and the album was certified Platinum. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.32.224.62 (talk) 23:20, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Telephone Debate

Please see the response i've left you on the talk page. The 'official' consensus part is just there to direct the opinion into one thread so it is easy to develop the outcome of the discussion. User Ryulong is proving difficult. He keeps adding counter-opinions to each response hence i set the survey up as a point of demonstrating opinion within the discussion not to stimulate a 'vote'. It is part of the consensus but not based solely on it. Ryulong feels we've been unfair because even though their are more people agreeing that the use of more than one cover was wrong he was right because he kept arguing the same thing over i'm wrong to bring discussion about it. I'm trying to be fair and keep in spirit of wikipedia. Lil-unique1 (talk) 05:15, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Billboard Charts

hello i've left a detailed response about the state of component charts on the talk page at wp: Record charts about the current state of billboard chart rules. Lil-unique1 (talk) 22:18, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

there's been quite a few developments at the talk page of WP:record charts it would be good to get your opinion. Lil-unique1 (talk) 16:46, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Bulgaria

Yeah, I know there is, but that one was from ACharts which isn't allowed so I didn't bother explaining that there was an airplay one. Oh really? Link me please (Romania) Jayy008 (talk) 15:29, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Also please help, I'm posting this on all Admin's pages (for you can you post on a reliable ones page for me please):

Hello, I was wandering if you could help me This user has gone through all of Mariah Carey's articles and inflating all the sales to unrealistic levels, it's annoying having to go through and deflate them after, I've left around 10 warnings, can you issue a block please, thanks. Jayy008 (talk) 16:28, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

No I know, I was asking if you could post that on an admin's page for me please, an admin that literally replies in 5 minutes and sorts it, I'm getting wound up reverting it's edits. Jayy008 (talk) 16:40, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Obviously, I didn't know such page excisted or I wouldn't have asked. Thanks for the tip. Jayy008 (talk) 16:55, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Uw-bv

I responded here. Thanks! Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 17:20, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Do not circumvent admin decision

The recent AfD that closed for N.I.N.A. closed as no consensus, which means a default to Keep. You, minutes ago, redirected the article to Lisa Lopes, directly against the admin closure. Please do not do this again. I have reverted it, if you redo it, I will report you to ANI. Silverseren^C 20:58, 31 March 2010 (UTC)