User talk:Xwomanizerx/Archive 2

Greatest hits My Perogative

Hey thanks for correcting my mistakes man i just noticed all them althought you could edit the page saying it sold 5 million copies ohh P.S both of us are established user but there is this guy called Genieofmusic that is messing up britney's success just to make christina look good so if you look any of the album numbers go down please change it back to its correct stats K

BOMT= 25 million Oops= 20 milloion Britney= 12.5 million (changed it and even have the right source) ITZ= 10 million= (same with In The Zone) Blackout= 3.1 million Circus= 3.5 million? i checked billboard and it said it sold 4.5 million but cant find source

anyway just saying please invert them to this number if changed

TotalBlackout Talk  —Preceding undated comment added 04:04, 22 March 2010 (UTC).[reply]

AfD nomination of List of Britney Spears promo tours

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is List of Britney Spears promo tours. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Britney Spears promo tours. Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:09, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Non Free Images in your User Space

Hey there Xwomanizerx, thank you for your contributions! I am a bot alerting you that Non-free files are not allowed in the user or talk-space. I removed some files that I found on User:Xwomanizerx/Sandbox. In the future, please refrain from adding fair-use images to your user-space drafts or your talk page.

See a log of images removed today here

Shut off the bot here

Report errors here.

Thank you, -- DASHBot (talk) 20:12, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

TSC edits

Well, do you want to know why I wrote "box" and not "boxset"? Well, is simple: all the single's articles (or almost all of them) say "Box" not "boxset", so, I know you are a wonderful wikipedian and you help the promotion of the articles, but what I did was just in order to homogenize all the single's articles, most of them say "box", and just the latest one say "boxset". I know there is a difference, but, since I just did it all wrong, why don't you homogenize all the articles??? Maybe you could get some more kudos doing that...

...I make no apologies for wanting to get good looks on the easy way... Fortunato luigi (talk) 07:17, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Update: BTW, you didn't chang all the "Box Single" for "Boxset Single" in every article, just in the latest... again, it is also about coherence... Fortunato luigi (talk) 03:44, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I read your message about my edits on "3"! And what i have to say is that in the beginning European Hot 100 and Japan Hot 100 were on the list of the charts that "3" was on. One day, poof! they dissapeared, someone removed those! Why is this happening?? They are official charts, why someone remove them?? That's why i added them back! Because those charts were there before and now they aren't because someone removed them.! Now how can we get them back?? I don't get.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Argi15 (talk • contribs) 20:35, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Promo singles

Well, as you wish, revert my edits, but at least do a good work with the chronology. You remove "And then we kiss" from "Someday", but you didn't remove it from "Gimme more", so if you wanna go from the beggining to the end of her chronology, you can do it, but if you wanna go from the end to the beggining, the chronology breaks at some point. It is not about make GA all the articles, is about make GA all the articles AND make them have coherence. Fortunato luigi (talk) 03:41, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Singles Collection

No one is assuming anything, unless you are. I could post a million sources and photographic material that proves she recorded it in on July 12 and 18, 2009, but for someone reason you just refuse to believe it compared to other intellectuals who find it genuine. Other established users have not been reverting it continuously over the past 5 months. There was a time late last year when the Box set track list didn't contain as many songs as it does now, which then only pointed to the earliest material coming from Cheiron in 1998. I changed it from 1997-2009 to 1998-2009 as it didn't seem sensible, if the earliest were actually cut in March 1998. As a result User: ShadowRanger pointed out to me in this diff about the lengthier box set version containing tracks recorded in 1997:[1]. That's my point right there that your unsourced change isn't accurate.Carmaker1 (talk) 03:56, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Womanizer (song)

Please read Wikipedia:Record charts which gives you allowed formats. Chart macros are NOT compulsory but are NOT to be reverted either they create automatice links to the correct and reliable website and they are more accurate for example "Norwegian Singles Chart" does not exist. It's a singles chart run by VG Lista, for it's not called anything. With the macros, it doesn't say that there's a singles chart when there's not. I know like maybe you're slightly obsessed with Britney Spears, but that doesn't give you the right to revert edits based on personal opinion of "what's neccessary" I deemed it neccessary because there were charts missing, and when I add new charts I may aswell add the macro as soon they will be the only ones. The sources was also incorrect. If you make your disruptive edit again, you will be issued stages of warnings before being ultimately blocked for a perioud of two days or more. Jayy008 (talk) 14:19, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I saw that you deleted Womanizer's Pop Songs Chart, I am agree that it is a componet chart but I saw this on Telephone (Song) from Gaga, That is why I put it again:(as per consensus and new information at WP:record charts and WP:USCHARTS it is now allowed). What do you think about it?. Thanks--Albes29 (talk) 15:39, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Chart macros

I don't care much for the warning you were given above, but I would like to ask you about this edit. Why did you feel it necessary or desirable to revert the change to macros? Using the macros allows us to make changes in one centralized place when things change. For example, the Hungarian charts moved last week, and I was able to update all the references by changing the macro, without having the change the 400 articles that referenced it. I am also looking into a bot that can read the macros and validate them against the sources, allowing us to automatically revert and fight vandalism. To make this work, though, it is important that articles slowly get converted from the manual chart style to the newer one.—Kww(talk) 15:00, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Skype browser plugin breaks ISBN in your edits

It thinks the ISBN string is a phone number I think? See look at the diffs for your edits to Womanizer (song) people for example. DMacks (talk) 18:32, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Showtime1.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Showtime1.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 recieved 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 {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to somewhere on your talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 11:54, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:My Prerogative Bobby Brown.JPG

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:My Prerogative Bobby Brown.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 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 {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} 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) 23:48, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Piece of Me

Hello. I'm here about Piece of Me, an article you requested me to copyedit. Just if you were wondering "where did that copy editor go?" I couldn't find much to fix. The GA review has been on hold for over a month. Just a heads up, Airplaneman ^talk 12:40, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Piece of Me/GA2

I'm taking over the review since the reviewer disappeared. Left a few comments, just fix them and I'll pass the article. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 02:18, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fifth

How do you know that other song is the highest-selling single of the decade? Wherever you know that from, can't we source the fifth-highest to the same place? Someplace where the source actually states it is what you are inferring it to be? Billboard? SoundScan? Abrazame (talk) 02:36, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, just wanted to give you a heads-up that I looked into it at WikiProject Songs and the response confirmed my impression about the imprecision of that blogger's playlist. You're welcome to continue the conversation there if you have something to add. I mean no offense, and didn't mention your user name or anything; I'd be interested to know where there might be a sum total of singles sales over the years and am a little perplexed that it's so hard to track that down in the internet age. One thing that makes that difficult is the record business' most lucrative years were prior to SoundScan and that current statistics pad actual physical and digital singles sales with album track sales and remixes and ringtones and the like. It's not really in the music business' own best interests to present the data; as even that blogger notes, sales are not what they used to be, and the business has an incentive to place current artists in the best light possible, even when it means counting the same figures twice or more. Best, Abrazame (talk) 08:21, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Circus Starring Britney Spears

I'm currently reviewing this article for GA. See my review so far here. CrowzRSA ^{16:56, 5 April 2010 (UTC)}[reply]

Talk:Dream Within a Dream Tour/GA1‎

Just to let you know that I completed the Good article nomination on Dream Within a Dream Tour and placed it on hold pending one prose issue. See Talk:Dream Within a Dream Tour/GA1‎ for details. Thank you, –MuZemike 19:33, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of My Prerogative

The article My Prerogative you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needed to be addressed. If these are fixed within seven days, the article will pass, otherwise it will fail. See Talk:My Prerogative for things which need to be addressed. S Masters (talk) 09:11, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File source and copyright licensing problem with File:OutrageousMV.jpg

File Copyright problem

Thanks for uploading File:OutrageousMV.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, we also need to know the terms of the license that the copyright holder has published the file under, usually done by adding a licensing tag. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged files may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the file will be deleted 48 hours after 01:41, 14 April 2010 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. ww2censor (talk) 01:41, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of My Prerogative

The article My Prerogative you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:My Prerogative for eventual comments about the article. Well done! S Masters (talk) 04:25, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Outrageous

The article Outrageous you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needed to be addressed. If these are fixed within seven days, the article will pass, otherwise it will fail. See Talk:Outrageous for things which need to be addressed. S Masters (talk) 07:27, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unusual You

why did you delete the Unusual You page? it is confimed as a single, PLUS the deletion discussion was made in August 2009, before the single came out... The song deserves an article because it is confirmed as a release: http://www.ultratop.be/fr/showitem.asp?interpret=Britney+Spears&titel=Unusual+You&cat=s http://australian-charts.com/showitem.asp?interpret=Britney+Spears&titel=Unusual+You&cat=s

so please don't delete it again, it deserves an article, PLUS, the redirect to Circus album was until the single was confirmed...which it is now.--GenieOFbritney (talk) 02:39, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Outrageous

The article Outrageous you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Outrageous for eventual comments about the article. Well done! S Masters (talk) 07:44, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unusual You 2

yes, but what about: http://www.ultratop.be/fr/showitem.asp?interpret=Britney+Spears&titel=Unusual+You&cat=s http://australian-charts.com/showitem.asp?interpret=Britney+Spears&titel=Unusual+You&cat=s they are reliable pages and they say that it was released as a single and it shows the cover and everything...shouldn't it have a page? even kill the lights has a page...please undo it because it is a single...--GenieOFbritney (talk) 17:24, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok...

ok, but I don't understand one thing...is it a single or not? ultratop.be says so but the cover is fake? what should we believe? Maybe it is a promo single like And then we kiss?? Can we merge it with Circus album page? --GenieOFbritney (talk) 22:01, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And then we kiss

Hi! Hey about "And then we kiss" I think it is important to mention like her other promotional singles. I know, since it did not chart or was released as an official single one would think that it is something that could be easily ignored, but WP:NSONGS says that it apply when we are trying to create a stand alone article for the promo single, which is not the case here, cause the promo is mentioned on the album's article, and it meets with the exception to the rule, which is that if it has significant independent coverage in reliable sources it could be notable, and, at least for the album is notable enough, given the fact that is "new" material and it is a promo single for the album. It would be mentioned only like Madonna's GHV2 Megamix, on her GHV2 album's article (note that in that article the megamix has no sources, opposite to "And then We Kiss"). Ok, and I think you are right saying that promo singles are not mentioned on the infobox for the album. I'm ok with that one, but then we should remove "Chris Cox Megamix" and "Anticipating" from the infoboxes. Fortunato luigi (talk) 06:57, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can you...

...leave some comments at the FA candidacy for "Speechless (Michael Jackson song)"? Me and User:Pyrrhus16 would appreciate if you could comment on the article. Thanks, Crystal Clear x3 21:20, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File source and copyright licensing problem with File:Kylie.jpg

File Copyright problem

Thanks for uploading File:Kylie.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, we also need to know the terms of the license that the copyright holder has published the file under, usually done by adding a licensing tag. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Unsourced and untagged files may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the file will be deleted 48 hours after 09:57, 5 June 2010 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Theleftorium ^(talk) 09:57, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion declined: Britney Spears Clairol Herbal Essences: Exclusive CD Sampler

Hello Xwomanizerx, and thanks for patrolling new pages! I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Britney Spears Clairol Herbal Essences: Exclusive CD Sampler, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: A9 only applies when the artist has no article, but Britney Spears has one. You may wish to review the Criteria for Speedy Deletion before tagging further pages. Thank you. JohnCD (talk) 16:38, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

About britney spears page

You used britney.com as the source for Britney and In the Zone sales. This page may sound like her official page, but it is not. It's just a fan blog, not controlled by Britney's team. That's why britney.com says different sales from what britneyspears.com says... Baby one more time sold 25 million according to Britneyspears.com, but it sold 22 according to britney.com, and the same happens with Oops!...I did it again sales. It should also be noted that some certifications, if not all, are fake. It lists some Asian countries with certifications of 10x platinum, but there is no Official charts in that countries, and no one certify those sales...Also, Latin American certifications are fake, like Brazil's, and Mexico's ones. All of them are outdated too.

So, britney.com is not reliable.

Here is a reliable source for Britney, and In the Zone sales. It has updated sales figures and Live Nation reliable, as it was one of the Circus tour promoters. http://www.store.livenation.com/Product.aspx?cp=13281_16771_16305_16306&pc=MUDD413 http://www.store.livenation.com/Product.aspx?cp=13281_16771_16305&pc=MUDD417

You have to select the Overview button to see the sales. According to them, Britney sold 12 million copies, and In the Zone sold over 10 million copies worldwide. Thanks for your time reading. --GenieOFbritney (talk) 21:33, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, i will fix it. I didn't mean to say that britney.com is unofficial. I tried to say that britneyspears.com is more official.

And Britannica isn't reliable :P

I will fix that link as you told me. --GenieOFbritney (talk) 23:59, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA Nomination of Glitter in the Air

Hello , Your article nomination of Glitter in the Air is currently being reviewed, there are a few issues, nothing major. Please work to correct them as soon as possible.
On another note please do not write on the review page, instead please message me if you have any questions comments or concerns, or if you are done, i would prefer this because review pages can tend to get insanely long. Thank you :) (CK)Lakeshade✽talk2me 05:15, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are now a Reviewer

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Courcelles (talk) 18:45, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh really

Luckily for you I have been very busy and out of country to read your response. Soon enough I suggest you start to mind the tone of your commentary, as you obviously think you're slick. I certainly have a lot more logic and much better etiquette towards others than you do. In many cases, this supposed "reputable" online encyclopedia considers certain factual additions that stem from private findings, to be "original research". I only provided what was publicly available as a source and could not submit the most legitimate private sources of information that show when Ms. Spears recorded 2 of the songs released as singles between September 2004 and February 2005. Apparently you are so stubborn and seek to only approve things that SOLELY you approve of! If you use sensible logic yourself, you would realize that the song definitely was recorded and mixed by July 28, 2004 to even be publicly announced by that date. Mixing is usually done between 3-6 weeks on average for one song, so I dare you to find anything between June and July 2004 stating she found herself in either of those two cities again, recording. I would really like you to prove you are not being biased as it seems that you happen to be one of the most stubborn editors in the music section of this site. From the spring of the previous year to present I could never say that I've been impressed with your conduct towards myself and other users one bit. I stand by what I included, which is that she recorded it sometime between May 10 and May 28, 2004. There has never been a time where she recorded a song for a single and it was released the month after. The copyright registration itself gives a recording year of 2004 in addition to her NOT being anywhere near Berlin, Germany in June or July 2004. I have no time to bother myself over a mere article on a site that universally isn't trusted for reliability in references. I know I have some faults in providing material at times, but in this situation you are the bigger issue indeed.Carmaker1 (talk) 00:39, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]