Archives

2008 • 2009 • 2010 • 2011 • 2012 • 2013 • 2014 • 2015 • 2016 • 2017 • 2018 • 2019 • 2020 • 2021 • 2022

I am sincerely disappointed. Earlier today I was happy to see saw that you started a discussion at WP:Content noticeboard#Rated R (Rihanna album), and had it marked for trying to somehow moderate that discussion. If you had had the patience and would have avoided reverting, this block would not have been necessary. Amalthea 22:52, 2 January 2010 (UTC) reply

Unblock request

{{ unblock|Sorry about the reverting, but I was trying to reason with the User:Vitorvicentevalente, but he was not being reasonable. My reverts were explained and justified, but I should have done more and maybe contacted an administrator about the issue. I opended my dispute to help at the noticeboard, but no one responded but the user Vitorvic..., who made ridiculous accusations and names towards me. Although I did remove his comment, it was by accident and I tried to put them back but he beat me to it; I told him this at the noticeboard. I contacted another user, Chasewc91 , and was about to use the Wikipedia:Third opinion page before I got blocked. My bad, and I should have counted my reverts.}}

For what it's worth, you shouldn't have counted your reverts. If you're counting reverts, something's already gone wrong, and you are already edit warring. 3RR is certainly the line not to cross, but personally I'm not finding fault if people try to sort out a dispute by controlled reversions if there is some kind of visible progress. In this case, you could have remembered from two weeks ago that just changing the genres is not the least bit productive with Vitorvicentevalente. You've changed the genres of that article three times during the last hour, fully knowing that Vitor will change them back. That's not progress, and you didn't expect progress. Admittedly, the discussion you started that I mentioned earlier has heavily deteriorated into name calling, but you still could have been more patient – it was just going for half a day, I'm sure we could have lived with imprecise genres for a couple of days. If you're deadlocked in a dispute, there's plenty of editors from the music area you can call in – User:Explicit, User:Kww, User:Ericorbit, User:Bookkeeperoftheoccult, ... . The only way to find a sustainable solution for a dispute like this is through discussion, and for that at least one "side" needs to have the sense to leave the issue in question in peace for a couple of days. :\ Amalthea 23:13, 2 January 2010 (UTC) reply

You got a point. I cant argue with that. Dan56 ( talk) 23:35, 2 January 2010 (UTC) reply

Well, OK! Now, I'm always open to lift blocks, but it would obviously create a very difficult situation if you went back to that article. I'm not sure if you and Vitor have any other disputes I'm unaware of, you seem to have met on only a very few articles. If you can stay away from any items of dispute you had with him, including the whole of Rated R (Rihanna album), and try to approach conflicts like this differently in the future (which is really in everybody's best interest), I'd happily unblock you. We've hardly met before, but from what I can tell you're doing lots of good work here, it'd be a shame to force you into a brake. Amalthea 23:53, 2 January 2010 (UTC) reply

I can dig that. But I will continue to seek help from other users about this ridiculous issue on Rated R, but staying away from the article and other ones that the user and I have met on. Dan56 ( talk) 23:59, 2 January 2010 (UTC) reply

Fine by me, feel free to revive the discussion somewhere, either at the article's talk page or at the noticeboard, and to advertise it as you see fit. Please try to detail the issue as neutrally as possible, though, and I would very much appreciate if in addition to your reasoning and list and order of genres, you could also attempt to list Vitor's preferred genres and sources with his reasoning. :)
Thanks, Amalthea 00:27, 3 January 2010 (UTC) reply

Your request to be unblocked has been granted for the following reason(s): see above Request handled by: Amalthea 00:27, 3 January 2010 (UTC) reply Unblocking administrator: Please check for active autoblocks on this user after accepting the unblock request.

Me again,
I had to notice that a couple minutes after the above unblock, a brand new account came in and continued your "side" of the edit war, by undoing Vitor's last change. I would lose my faith in humanity if this were a sock account of yours, and don't actually believe it, but it's very likely that this is a sock of someone, so I felt compelled to create a checkuser report: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Dan56. Feel free to add a comment there.
Amalthea 01:17, 3 January 2010 (UTC) reply

Hi Dan, it seems that Vitor is blocked for a month so I don't think his genre warring will be an issue for awhile. In the meantime, I think you should gain consensus with other editors on what the genres should be listed as, that way when his block expires he can't go against it without having to go through a whole new discussion. But please be careful when dealing with him when he returns, you seem like a good-faith editor but you also seem to have a heavy hand on the undo button. Edit warring isn't productive and discussion without reversion would have helped in this incident and in the incident from a few weeks ago that I noticed when I came here. Chase wc ⁹¹ 01:46, 3 January 2010 (UTC) reply

Well a discussion on the talk page would likely involve primary contributors to the article and people who pass by the article, but anyone who comes by is free to comment. What I'd do, is just leave a note on the talk page stating what you think should be done about the genre issue, and wait for other editors to comment. Eventually, consensus will be gained. Chase wc ⁹¹ 01:55, 3 January 2010 (UTC) reply

Absolutely yes. I just have to post that kind that, to my knowledge, suits the album? *FranklinG* ( talk) 02:30, 6 January 2010 (UTC) reply

Do not change citation titles... ever. Unless of course they are actually incorrect. You are undoing edits that correspond to the actual title of the pages cited, which is highly inappropriate. It doesn't matter what the template says, WP:CITE takes precedence. Parsecboy already mentioned so in reverting your edit once and given two separate users (one of which is an admin.) told you such behaviour was inappropriate you continued to do so. If you want to discuss this on the talk page do so, but I am reverting it to previous admin state until that time. -- Labattblueboy ( talk) 21:03, 4 February 2010 (UTC) reply

Hi.

I`ll rate the article a B but the personnel section feels incomplete, if is not, then, great but if it can be expanded would be nice. Zidane tribal ( talk) 00:22, 9 February 2010 (UTC) reply

No consensus needed. I'm not getting into an edit war over this. Darwin's Bulldog ( talk) 22:03, 11 February 2010 (UTC) reply

How does it make sense? She is also a producer. Should exec.s even be there? Dan56 ( talk) 00:46, 18 February 2010 (UTC) reply

Well, she is more of an overseer than an actual music producer (she doesn't come up with the beat etc like other producers). It make sense to have the executive producer first, who oversee the project and works on every song, and then we list all the other producers who work on the individual songs on the album. Orane (talk) 00:52, 18 February 2010 (UTC) reply

Hi.

Its always a problem with the line between C and B, this is a very good example of it, other members would have given the article a B, i didn`t because, well if you compare it with the example of B in the assessment template of the project, love VS. money seems a bit small but the fact remains that the article meets the criteria. The only thing that seems lacking in the chart history section, it seems poor, but nonetheless, after checking the criteria again, i`ll rate it a B. Zidane tribal ( talk) 21:28, 18 February 2010 (UTC) reply

The cases are very similar, How to Be a Lady: Volume 1 is a worth article, but again compared to some B articles it feels short, some others have tour section, very long chart sections, sound samples and stuff, again checking the criteria if fits B, i just would like the line to be more clear between a nice C and a B. Zidane tribal ( talk) 23:17, 18 February 2010 (UTC) reply

Well, if U take a look here: Wikipedia:Albums#Reception it does no longer state that there should only be 10 reviews. However, if U take a look at the new review tamplate (here: Template:Album ratings) U will see that there are 12 scores, so I guess that 12 is the new 10?? I do believe that 12 reviews are more than enough. :-) MariAna_MiMi ( Talk) 22:03, 23 February 2010 (UTC) reply

You're completely right, it was misleading! I've removed it from the article now! TopopMAC1 ( talk) 00:40, 4 March 2010 (UTC) reply

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. When you make a change to an article, please provide an edit summary for your edits. Doing so helps everyone to understand the intention of your edit. It is also helpful to users reading the edit history of the page. Thank you. Lil-unique1 ( talk) 23:17, 18 March 2010 (UTC) reply

 Gongshow  ^Talk 00:11, 25 March 2010 (UTC) reply

Sorry unless i've completely missed something there is still a limit of 10 professional reviews. Nothing at WP:albums or its talk page agreed the limit had been lifted or moved to 12. Lil-unique1 ( talk) 18:49, 29 March 2010 (UTC) reply

According to the discussion you provided it says until the BOT has removed the extra two review spaces use the guidelines as WP:Albums. Also here is noted that 10 review limited maximum was restored by consensus. this is the problem when you multiple discussions and multiple locations Lil-unique1 ( talk) 18:58, 29 March 2010 (UTC) reply

As per consensus at WP:record charts there is a new guide to using Billboard Charts available at Billboard charts guide. Mainstream Top 40 (Pop Songs) (formerly known just as Pop Songs) is no longer deemed a component chart - there is no evidence to support this motion. Lil-unique1 ( talk) 19:28, 1 April 2010 (UTC) reply

Just being polite and informing those who edit highly trafficked articles of a new policy that's been developed. It is quite significant as it clearly outlines component and non-component charts. Considering that you edit music articles i thought it useful info. Lil-unique1 ( talk) 19:40, 1 April 2010 (UTC) reply

using this online tool, you can 90% of the time archive a website. usually flash and avi websites don't work. No offence to monica but just in case her album drops out of the top 40 we wouldnt have been able to see the album next week at the citation given hence it needed archiving. its the only way to preserve UK R&B positions. Lil-unique1 ( talk) 05:29, 2 April 2010 (UTC) reply

 Done No problems. Lil-unique1 ( talk) 05:47, 2 April 2010 (UTC) reply

Yes, the primary genre of the album is R&B, but there is a mixture of several genres and influences on the songs. Every article on Wikipedia is listing several genres, it's not just 1! I don't see the reason to remove the other genres at all. MariAna_MiMi ( Talk) 08:01, 2 April 2010 (UTC) reply

Thought i'd give you a heads up... there's a new official uk chart archive at [1] which has been approved and added to WP:record charts. I've already replaced the source at Still Standing (Monica album) because it should be stable and provides archives for UK R&B.!!! =) Lil-unique1 ( talk) 21:15, 7 April 2010 (UTC) reply

Thanks for uploading File:Nina simone 1969.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) 03:28, 8 April 2010 (UTC) reply

Dan: You recently reverted some edits I made to How to Be a Lady: Volume 1, restoring background info that I had removed because the same info was already at the Electrik Red group page. No big deal in the larger scheme of things... but the "background info" in question here is not even about the album (except for one sentence). That's why there are two articles - one for the group and one for the album. Look at any album article for an established act and you'll see that there is nothing about how the group got together years before. That's for the biography in the group article. (For example, see the FA The Dark Side of the Moon which has background info about the creation process for a few years before the album itself was recorded, but not about the formation of Pink Floyd back in the day.) So that was my reason for the edit to How to Be a Lady: Volume 1. I respectfully disagree with your reason for restoring the info in question, and just wanted to clarify, but we're all volunteers here. DOOMSDAYER520 ( Talk| Contribs) 13:48, 9 April 2010 (UTC) reply

Hi there Dan, you recently tagged the redirect Raymond v. Raymond for deletion so Raymond v Raymond can be moved there to correct the punctuation, so I went ahead and moved it. However, it was brought to my attention on my talk page that Raymond v Raymond—without the period—appears to be how the album title is being marketed, and therefore is the "correct" title. I'll be moving it back shortly and I wanted you bring the situation into light. Regards. — ξ ^xplicit 04:22, 10 April 2010 (UTC) reply

If Billboard is included on Wikipedia's Review sites and RapReviews is not, why include RapReviews at the expense of Billboard? -- Blastmaster11 ( talk) 20:24, 11 April 2010 (UTC) reply

The IP in question, 217.14.11.150 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), has not edited since the last warning he received. A second IP was editing the Eivan "Ricco" Bj article today, but it has been blocked. If more edits happen, warn the IP again (it's up to level 3 so far, with only level 4—final warning—left). If still more edits are made, you can report the IP at WP:AIV.

I'm watching the article. If IPs keep removing the AfD notice, I'm prepared to protect the article. — C.Fred ( talk) 23:31, 12 April 2010 (UTC) reply

Thanks for uploading File:Gaye What's Going On sessions.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) 00:31, 13 April 2010 (UTC) reply

I don't doubt Pitchfork's credibility, I just think if the 2004 Rolling Stone ratings can pass for albums such as Illmatic, It Was Written, etc. (where there's no shortage of reviews) then it should be able to pass for The Miseducation as well. -- Blastmaster11 ( talk) 02:30, 15 April 2010 (UTC) reply

Hi Dan, Erm i think the best way to deal with it on new articles (dont this for articles where you've already reverted twice) is to try and add the sources to the infobox. In the mean time try and engage with the editor on his talk page and if it fails you might have to make a WP:ANI report. i will try and keep an eye on the situation.

Also on a side not according to WP:MoS if your editing an article about an american subject e.g. american artist you should use U.S. instead of US. Alternatively if its a British subject but happens to mention American then use US. Lil-unique1 ( talk) 23:24, 15 April 2010 (UTC) reply

Hello again Dan! I'm going to agree with the above user and try to get the other genre's source and failing that use sources to explain what is going. If he does manage to find some sort of gonzo source mentioning synthpop link up to several sources definition of what synth pop is and ask him again how it fits. I'll put the article on watch and try to help where I can. Cheers! Andrzejbanas ( talk) 01:00, 16 April 2010 (UTC) reply

Thanks for uploading File:Joshua tree 20th.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) 04:39, 17 April 2010 (UTC) reply

Hello, i was wondering if you could give your opinion of the following as part of the final review process for WP:USCHARTS before it is fully promoted to policy. Discussion. Thanks. Lil-unique1 ( talk) 21:10, 19 April 2010 (UTC) reply

As one of the other major contributors to the article i was wondering what you think about nominating it for GA? It will need a bit of work before like a proper year end charts and credits splitting into technical and production credits. Lil-unique1 ( talk) 21:29, 22 April 2010 (UTC) reply

{{subst:ANI-notice| User:Iluvrihann24's edits to Rated R (Rihanna album) and in particular the constant addition of poorly sourced information, WP:BADCHARTS and iTunes etc.|The discussion is about the topic [[: Rated R (Rihanna album) and in particular the constant addition of poorly sourced information, WP:BADCHARTS and iTunes etc.}} Lil-unique1 ( talk) 16:23, 25 April 2010 (UTC) reply

I assume you've come accross the new Rolling Stone page layout. I was wondering if you have any suggestions on what to do with RS reviews (on wikipedia) that are A.) no longer on their website, and B.) newer one's that are on their website, but won't direct to the actual review. -- Blastmaster11 ( talk) 23:10, 1 May 2010 (UTC) reply

Hey there Dan, nice work with the How to Be a Lady: Volume 1 article. I was just wondering, are you interested in taking the article to Wikipedia:Good article nominations? With some more production information and more details on content I think the article would be ready. I'd be more than happy to wrote those sections and give the article an overall copyedit. Corn.u.co.pia • Disc.us.sion 13:31, 3 May 2010 (UTC) reply

Hmm, well I guessed as much. I'll be on the lookout for more info but I'm sure you're right. It's a shame though, I still really enjoy that album. Are you a big fan? Corn.u.co.pia • Disc.us.sion 10:29, 5 May 2010 (UTC) reply

Well I guess that most of the credit goes to The-Dream. I don't have too much faith in their upcoming album. Are they still working together? Corn.u.co.pia • Disc.us.sion 05:06, 7 May 2010 (UTC) reply

Hi dan! Your first port of call it to list the page at WP:requests for page protection as this would stop IPs from editing the page. In the reasons you give for requesting protection... state that there is suspected sock puppertry. Then monitor the situation and if a new user registers the same edits etc. then warn the user and file an WP:ANI, if they continue they're likely to get banned. Lil-unique1 ( talk) 21:53, 3 May 2010 (UTC) reply

Hi Dan. As one of the (if not the main editor of the article) i was just wondering what you thought of this proposal... here. Lil-unique1 ( talk) 00:31, 7 May 2010 (UTC) reply

I have a question about the article Phrenology (album) and noticed you edit (or at least revert) there often, so I figured I'd direct it at you. Is there a reason that the article lists "Thought @ Work" as containing elements of "Hey Bulldog" by The Beatles? The album version does not contain that sample because they didn't license it from Apple. As for the other samples, I'm assuming they're still in there, though I can only discern "Jam on the Groove". I don't know if The Beatles were retained after a debate or anything, so I didn't want to just change it without asking. But it seems that this should either be mentioned elsewhere or just removed since it's not part of the published album. DKqwerty ( talk) 19:15, 7 May 2010 (UTC) reply

Alright, I will see what I can do. Thanks for letting me know. -- Yvesnimmo ( talk) 20:23, 10 May 2010 (UTC) reply

Hi, sorry for the late reply. It appears that the user in question has already been blocked for sockpuppetry, so the issue seems to be resolved. I'll keep an eye on the page, but there's not much I can do. - Reconsider ! 07:15, 12 May 2010 (UTC) reply

Hi Dan, Yes its a big shame WebCite is no longer working whilst the site undergoes maintainance. I think the only other one i can think is WayBack machine but for that i think you have to purchase some software. I suggest keeping a printscreen of the website if its for things like hits daily double and maybe uploading it to something like flicker? though i'm not sure what the policy about this kind of thing is. Lil-unique1 ( talk) 20:48, 16 May 2010 (UTC) reply

Re: the cover, the reason for changing was that the image you have picked is of the relatively recent CD cover, which is a CD format adaptation. The photo is clearer than before but the typography is awkwardly placed, crashing into Davis' forehead. I believe wikipedia policy favours the original cover design over revisions (probably to avoid instances of completely different or reissue series style approaches which may be out of context with the era of the original). Anyway... feel free to source a better quality image of the 1969 LP cover, otherwise I will do so in due course when I have some free time. Ricadus ( talk) 01:41, 17 May 2010 (UTC) reply

Please discuss content disputes without using the word "vandal". A vandal is someone that makes edits with the intent of harming Wikipedia. I'm not certain exactly what the explanation is here, but I will point out that the statement removed by Petergriffin9901 isn't even true: Confessions came in number 2 on a US only chart that began one year before the decade started and ended one year before it ended, and that's substantially different from being the "second best selling album of the decade".

And yes, I know that you can find cases where Petergriffin9901 has used the word "vandal" inappropriately as well. I've had talks with him about it as well.— Kww( talk) 19:35, 17 May 2010 (UTC) reply

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The discussion is about the topic Iluvrihann24's POV-pushing, disobeyal of community opinion/practises and repeated disruption of Rated R, Rihanna discography and " Te Amo". Thank you. Lil-unique1 ( talk) 17:27, 22 May 2010 (UTC) reply

Hey what do you think about User:Harout72 insistance on having citations in the lead section? Lil-unique1 ( talk) 18:57, 23 May 2010 (UTC) reply

I noticed "per liner notes" as your recent edit summary for Dirty doing backing vocals on North Star, and I'm curious where exactly he's credited - I'm not trying to be a smart ass here by the way, I'm just curious because a friend and I have long argued who does backing vocals on this song - either Dirty, or Popa Wu. -- Blastmaster11 ( talk) 21:04, 23 May 2010 (UTC) reply

Greetings Dan56 - thanks for your note on my page. I've slapped a 3R warning on the user's talk page, but as you are the other party involved, I'm afraid I'll have to slap one on you as well, even though you have clearly tried to engage in conflict resolution. I've been in exactly the same situation myself, so I realise how frustrating it is. Let's see if it's enough to resolve this. In the meantime, I'll keep an eye on the pages in question. -- Technopat ( talk) 23:25, 31 May 2010 (UTC) reply

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.-- Technopat ( talk) 23:25, 31 May 2010 (UTC) reply

hey! see that the info about the album selling 3.1 mill is a about The Eagles album! look into the link and read it at the end! so, please take that down!

all the best! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.86.243.62 ( talk) 08:58, 1 June 2010 (UTC) reply

ok, sorry I forgot to sign it, I am Usur.

But...now you have removed the info about the album selling 5 millions around the world, and that it is a legit info!

so put that please back on!

Usur —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.86.243.62 ( talk) 09:22, 1 June 2010 (UTC) reply

hey Dan! it's almost good now, but you need to put in the source! here ti is: http://www.minyanville.com/businessmarkets/articles/chinese-democracy-music-album-guns-roses/9/28/2009/id/24396

thank you for all your suport here!

Usur —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.86.243.62 ( talk) 13:43, 2 June 2010 (UTC) reply

Hi. I think if there is already a source that says that as of May 2010 the album has sold nearly three million copies worldwide, it is not necessary to keep the source from february. If you think that should be keep it, I am Ok with that. Albes29 ( talk) 09:35, 8 June 2010 (UTC) reply

Thanks for catching that. I haven't got the slightest clue as to how I ended up doing that. Anywho, I'm currently working on the article to nominate it at WP:GAN. Would you be interested in collaborating on the article? — ξ ^xplicit 19:07, 10 June 2010 (UTC) reply

Hi there! I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. Recently, you reverted my fix to Late Registration.

If you did this because the references should be removed from the article, you have misunderstood the situation. Most likely, the article originally contained both <ref name="foo">...</ref> and one or more <ref name="foo"/> referring to it. Someone then removed the <ref name="foo">...</ref> but left the <ref name="foo"/>, which results in a big red error in the article. I replaced one of the remaining <ref name="foo"/> with a copy of the <ref name="foo">...</ref>; I did not re-insert the reference to where it was deleted, I just replaced one of the remaining instances. What you need to do to fix it is to make sure you remove all instances of the named reference so as to not leave any big red error.

If you reverted because I made an actual mistake, please be sure to also correct any reference errors in the page so I won't come back and make the same mistake again. Also, please post an error report at User talk:AnomieBOT so my operator can fix me! If the error is so urgent that I need to be stopped, also post a message at User:AnomieBOT/shutoff/OrphanReferenceFixer. Thanks! AnomieBOT ⚡ 18:47, 13 June 2010 (UTC) If you do not wish to receive this message in the future, add {{ bots|optout=AnomieBOT-OrphanReferenceFixer}} to your talk page. reply

I will not engage in a revert war with you. I'll compromise by putting only the clean-up tag in that section but that is it. Do not remove it without using the discussion page. -- Iron Chef ( talk) 21:37, 21 June 2010 (UTC) reply

Hi Dan, I agree with your point (Metacritic shows mixed and lukewarm reviews as well; what it does support is that "most" were positive; its not encyclopedic to make such an absolute statement) which is what I was aiming to edit out--the language "generally" positive from "most" critics seems a little overwrought; and is a definitive statement itself, based solely on Metacritic's POV. -RoBoTam ^ice 15:42, 24 June 2010 (UTC) reply

What was up with this edit summary I think I know how wikipedia works i've been here for over 6 months. I was just stating a fact that those songs have recieved airplay. STAT -Verse 00:00, 29 June 2010 (UTC) reply

Well mine and his additions were different as he made outright claims that they were the singles I just stated rumored possible future singles. But doesn't madder no harm, no foul. 00:10, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi, I'm literally brand new here. I see that you reverted the changes I made to the Kind of Blue article, and I'm sure that I failed to follow protocol in some way. What do I need to do in order to make the changes stick? It may be hard to come up with an attribution, because the assertion I corrected would be recognized as false by any undergraduate jazz major at the university on whose faculty of jazz studies I serve, and I can't imagine how the author to which it is attributed could defend it. (Kind of Blue is in no way "entirely modal;" only two of the five tunes are modal, although this sometimes gets confused by the fact that in the most widely disseminated version of the liner notes the titles for "Blue in Green" and "Flamenco Sketches" were mistakenly swapped in the description of the modal techniques employed in their composition.) Thanks for any help you can offer! Recumbent DNA ( talk) 02:53, 29 June 2010 (UTC)Recumbent DNA reply

Well seeing that Recovery (Eminem album) has sold the most copies in a week since Tha Carter III is qualifys for High on the importance scale. STAT -Verse 00:16, 1 July 2010 (UTC) reply

would you like to exchange accounts please......i will use your account and you will use mine....ok?..please man... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Champagnewoman ( talk • contribs) 09:40, 2 July 2010 (UTC) reply

I think you're bright enough not to do this, Dan56. I've already blocked Champagnewoman as a sock of Brexx. Let me know if you get similar offers in the future.— Kww( talk) 13:22, 2 July 2010 (UTC) reply

You pointed out that "There is nothing in WP:Albums policy about there having to be a link/url to the review; The template page says only add a link if available." But you can't add unsourced information to a Wikipedia article per Wikipedia:Verifiability. If there is no stable link, than anything can be added for the review. Also when the article is nominated for GA, it cannot pass with dead links. Candyo32 ( talk) 13:23, 7 July 2010 (UTC) reply

How can removing the review be ridiculous if its not sourced. The only part of the RS review that can be included in the article per WP:Verifiability is what is included from the review on Metacritic. But parts of the review, not in the side cannot because the original link is dead. Candyo32 ( talk) 13:59, 7 July 2010 (UTC) reply

Oops, I meant "not on the site." Candyo32 ( talk) 14:28, 7 July 2010 (UTC) reply

& by "parts of the review" I mean the portion of the review included on Metacritic. Candyo32 ( talk) 14:29, 7 July 2010 (UTC) reply

Ok, that's alright as Metacritic is cited as the source of the RS review. In the past edits the dead linked RS article was cited. Candyo32 ( talk) 18:15, 7 July 2010 (UTC) reply

Please dont revert my edit to the Roots article. Gearslutz was declared *non-notable* a few days ago. Ima only following procedures. Jrod2 ( talk) 13:04, 9 July 2010 (UTC) reply

Yo Dan. Im sorry but i had deleted that reference at Voodoo's again. Wait for Cavalry's opinion before u decide to revert me again. Thx. Jrod2 ( talk) 13:14, 13 July 2010 (UTC) reply

Dan, I got no beef with ya, but using the word "dick" is considered a personal attack on these parts and I could've got you a warning tag right there, know what i am sayin??. Chill out Bro, some of us are just doing what we think is right. Jrod2 ( talk) 17:10, 14 July 2010 (UTC) reply

Yo Dan, looks like 'Chase me' is too busy with OTRS stuff to give a proper answer....I ain't gonna be waiting around for you to "ask around" and you never do. I did ask another fellow admin an happened to have COI issues with the same article, so can't intervene. You need to show me why ya believe this citation and its reference source needs to be included in the article, not the other way around. Im the one deleting (editing out). Find a passage in our Wiki guidelines that supports your conviction. I recommend you reading this first and before you make hasty decisions:

"Never use self-published books, zines, websites, webforums, blogs and tweets as a source for material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject of the biographical material."

This means that the information you wanna keep on that Voodoo article about this engineer "Elevado" MIGHT be considered for inclusion on his own biography article. I say it might 'cause Gearslutz is not considered a reliable source (Web Forum). Like I said, if it ain't sourced from a major publication, then WP dont need that. Jrod2 ( talk) 14:32, 5 August 2010 (UTC) reply

I see you been editing Voodoo's article but ya still dont remove the content about Hunter, why?? Jrod2 ( talk) 21:26, 9 August 2010 (UTC) reply

U cant use what Elevado said about Hunter at gearslutz or any other place period. It makes no difference if ya find another source; ya just cant add that type of content regarding LP ("Self-published sources should never be used as third-party sources about living persons, even if the author is a well-known professional researcher or writer"). I thought ya understood all that. So take it right off or I am sorry, I'll have to get you blocked from editing due to your seemingly disregard of our guidelines. Jrod2 ( talk) 22:45, 9 August 2010 (UTC) reply

The majority of the editors are against using anything on Gearslutz, even if this the content is about Elevado. So Ima just remove the links to the forum for now. If consensus moves on your favor before closing the discussion, you can re-insert the links to the forum. This is not a negotiation so respect the wishes of other editors. Jrod2 ( talk) 23:48, 9 August 2010 (UTC) reply

The article Roland Jupiter has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

The article fails at notability and is prohibited under wp:not.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{ dated prod}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{ dated prod}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. My76 Strat 16:03, 18 July 2010 (UTC) reply

XXL reviewed Drakes Thank Me Later album with an XL grade. Which reviewer should be removed to place this one in? Red Flag on the Right Side 04:57, 22 July 2010 (UTC) reply

Hi.

I assessed it a B, but lacks performance personnel, it only has production personnel; that`s the only thing. Zidane tribal ( talk) 16:25, 22 July 2010 (UTC) reply

Don't i need to be part of the GA project to do so?, if not, i`ll be glad to review it. Zidane tribal ( talk) 05:23, 17 August 2010 (UTC) reply

No, i just need to be impartial, ok i`m on it. Zidane tribal ( talk) 05:27, 17 August 2010 (UTC) reply

Yes, seems ok to me. Sorry i haven't started with the GAN, been busy. I'll get to it ASAP. Zidane tribal ( talk) 20:38, 25 August 2010 (UTC) reply

SO SORRY, with school and work in my back i`m really behind my wiki-schedule, i`ll get to it tomorrow, the next day tops, promise. Zidane tribal ( talk) 06:24, 10 October 2010 (UTC) reply

 Done So Sorry it took me so long, i`m very busy lately...besides it was my first GA review, i was kind of nervous. Thans for the wait, and congratulations, very good work. Zidane tribal ( talk) 19:57, 12 October 2010 (UTC) reply

Can you please help me to fix the track listing for the Platinum Edition? It consists of two parts: I Am... Sasha Fierce and DVD video collection. Jivesh boodhun ( talk) 21:02, 26 July 2010 (UTC) reply

Hi, please forgive me, i don't want you to have a bad image of me. Actually, i didn't see all that in the reference provided. I am sorry. Jivesh boodhun ( talk) 08:21, 4 December 2010 (UTC) reply

Granted.. I accept that in this case when speaking of Fleshtone dance music refers to Electronic Dance Music whereas when speaking about Gaga its Dance - pop. -- Lil-unique1 ( talk) 02:54, 6 August 2010 (UTC) reply

As I mentioned, WP:SPS says that self-published sources cannot be used as sources for information regarding living people. If you disagree, you could bring this up at WT:V where the editors will be much more knowledgeable as to whether you can use the source or not. -- JD554 ( talk) 09:33, 6 August 2010 (UTC) reply

...must have hit Rollback unintentionally with the mouse. -- Stephan Schulz ( talk) 18:21, 9 August 2010 (UTC) reply

Hi. Thank you so much for weighing in at that thread. I'm attempting to summarize viewpoints there, since at this stage numbers seem somewhat divided, and I have included your view in my summary. Please read it over at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Summarizing; more feedback welcome, since opinions seem divided and speak up if I've misunderstood you or if your opinion has changed. Under the circumstances, I think we need to nail this down, one way or another. :) Thanks! (Please also see my response to you at my talk page.) -- Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 15:28, 10 August 2010 (UTC) reply

Please stop reverting other people's edits, as you are doing in Eminem Recovery . You violated the three-revert rule. The revision you want is not going to be implemented by edit warring. If you revert again, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia without further notice. Please discuss any disputed changes on the talk page. Thank you. ScottieAngelo ( talk) 22:40, 14 August 2010 (UTC) reply

The fuss is you violated the three-revert rule. The revision you want is not going to be implemented by edit warring. If you revert again, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia without further notice. Please discuss any disputed changes on the talk page. You cant revert a single page three times in less than 24 hours. You reverted three times on the page at the same time. ScottieAngelo ( talk) 22:50, 14 August 2010 (UTC) reply

About those headings; you are right in saying that "conception" is about "forming or process behind album", but not entirely. The word conception itself is about how the album began, its very origin and its inspiration. However, the recording of the album has nothing to do with that! That is after the conception; after the album's idea has been though of, then actually making the album begins. And that's the production of the album. Some (other) editors (not naming names here), somehow have come up with the idea that everything before the album's release date is background information or "conception" information. By the very definition, how does it make sense in the The Son of Chico Dusty article for "background" to be under the "conception" heading? So the proceedings before the album somehow are part of how it began? It doesn't really make sense. Also, I think that "recording" should be renamed to "production", as the section is about how it was produced, and not just recorded; the information on being mastered doesn't fit under "recording". The "record label" section could have its own section, but it definitely should not be under "conception". I may have come across as a bit rude or angry here but it totally wasn't my intention. I just want what's best for the article. Also, could you show me which GAs/FAs have used the "conception" heading like that? I just want to make sure that they're not using the term wrong as well. Thanks, Corn.u.co.pia • Disc.us.sion 12:29, 21 August 2010 (UTC) reply

My suggestion is to actually give all those three sections their own headings, and not make them subheadings. Right now, the information is all under "background", and again that doesn't make sense. Have a look at Off the Wall (album) and see difference between the "background" and "production" sections. The difference between production/recording is extremely minimal (as you said), so either is fine. The word "conception" is what bothers me the most as its not being used properly. If you just take it out entirely the headings will make a lot more sense. Corn.u.co.pia • Disc.us.sion 12:54, 21 August 2010 (UTC) reply

It's not so much style, but incorrect presentation of the information. With the Invincible article, I changed the heading to be consistent with the other Michael Jackson album articles. A GA review can be completed by any ordinary editor. The reviewer may have missed the error or could have not realized entirely. With the Son of Chico Dusty article, the first paragraph under "conception" is actually "background" information, and the second paragraph about the album title can be put under a heading with an appropriate title of your choice. If you do not wish to change the headings then that's your choice. I'll just bring it up at the review when someone decides to review it. Corn.u.co.pia • Disc.us.sion 13:13, 21 August 2010 (UTC) reply

Consensus is only needed for large changes. Something like changing a title doesn't require consensus. Also, the version of an article that passed after a GA review isn't necessarily the best version of that article. Maybe the reviewer overlooked that aspect. The non-production information could be moved to "background", as those events with occurred before the album's era inspired the dedications. Corn.u.co.pia • Disc.us.sion 13:36, 21 August 2010 (UTC) reply

That's all good. But it cant hurt to inform the reviewers from the GA process that he/she might have overlooked the aspect, for future reference and understanding in editing articles. Dan56 ( talk) 13:46, 21 August 2010 (UTC) reply

I've changed the headings to show the reviewer the proposed changes. If we can't agree then we can take it to the talk page for consensus. Corn.u.co.pia • Disc.us.sion 14:13, 21 August 2010 (UTC) reply

I replied back there too; who knew headings could trigger so much debate? lol. I think where we have a misunderstanding is with the definition of "background". The way I see it, there's two ways to interpret it, 1) the events before the album's release, or 2) the events before the album began production. For me, the second definition makes the most sense, because an album does not have to be released to exist. What happened during production is part of the album's existence; what triggered its creation is its background. See Dignity (album) as an example. Once we establish the meaning of "background", the rest will sort itself out (hopefully). Corn.u.co.pia • Disc.us.sion 12:15, 24 August 2010 (UTC) reply

So a baby in the womb isn't alive until it is born? Once work has begun on an album it exists. That's almost like saying a TV Series hasn't begun until all the episodes have aired. ;) Corn.u.co.pia • Disc.us.sion 12:24, 24 August 2010 (UTC) reply

LOL - I'm not here for a medical lecture. Obviously if I'm not taking care with technicalities then that's not what the issue is about. I don't know if you were just trying to make a friendly joke, or if you were being condescending - whatever the case, if you have an issue with my suggestions then I suggest we just wait for a third-party response. I don't have the time to keep debating this, especially if the other person wants to get so cynical about it. Corn.u.co.pia • Disc.us.sion 12:43, 24 August 2010 (UTC) reply

The thing about the baby was just an analogy to give my suggestions some context. And thanks, it's good to know you're not getting annoying by most constant disagreeing. Moving on, the key phrase from your quote is "intended for distribution". An incomplete album is still going to be released, and I think that's what I'm trying to say. I disagree with, "For an album to exist, it has to be completed, produced". Even in the early stages of the album, it exists. It's not finished, but it exists. And I think that makes the difference. Look at Rihanna's GGGB; I could argue that the standard edition does not exist because unlike the deluxe edition, it is not complete. Of course, you could retort with some argument, and the example doesn't make 100% sense, but I think it gets the overall message across. As soon as work begins on the album, it has come into existence. Corn.u.co.pia • Disc.us.sion 12:59, 24 August 2010 (UTC) reply

Hey again, long time no talk. ;) I didn't get much of a response from Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Albums, but two editors agreed that background is "important in establishing historical context and providing the reader with an idea of where the band/musician was in their career when the album was conceived or recorded" and "the historical context of the album's development, not the production process". Hope that helps, Corn.u.co.pia • Disc.us.sion 07:15, 3 September 2010 (UTC) reply

Adding "Citation Needed" is not a unconstructive edit. Please get your facts straight before you post nonsense on my talk page. Thank you. Dumaka ( talk) 15:43, 23 August 2010 (UTC) reply

It seemed unconstructive, as there was no merit for the tag to be added in the first place, especially without an edit summary. Why did you add it and not explain? Dan56 ( talk) 19:08, 23 August 2010 (UTC) reply

I don't care what it 'seemed' like to you, adding a "Citation Needed" where one "is" needed is in no way unconstructive. I did add an explanation in my first edit which you reverted without reason (while breaking the three revert rule in the process). But, I don't even give a damn about the article anymore, so please shut up about it. The article could say, "Rick Ross licks butt crack" and I wouldn't care. I removed all my edits in the article so please don't contact me again about this nonsense. Dumaka ( talk) 00:06, 24 August 2010 (UTC) reply

What part of, "please don't contact me again about this nonsense" don't you seem to understand? I don't care about it anymore. Dumaka ( talk) 13:06, 24 August 2010 (UTC) reply

hey

i saw you took my name out of the production credits for the ob4cl2 page. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OB4CL2. there is a track with travis barker on the cuban linx 2 gold edition. first let me say that i am raekwon's personal engineer and in-house producer. i worked my butt off on that project including the remixes on the gold edition. i not only produced the track with travis barker on drums, but then arranged travis's drums as well as added different sounds and new drops and arrangements. you can then maybe understand why i am annoyed that you took my name off the credits. why did you do this? that is the main question i have. i hope you respond back to me as i think i deserve it...bt —Preceding unsigned comment added by Btisquality ( talk • contribs) 21:41, 23 August 2010 (UTC) reply

I posted a section regarding these edits on the talk page (hopefully this may help). If not, we should consider putting a lock on the page, or getting administrators involved. Just by the edit activity which has taken place in the last few weeks on CL II, this really is getting out of hand. It's the Wu-Massacre page all over again (non-stop unconstructive edits to track listing, etc.) -- Blastmaster11 ( talk) 21:25, 24 August 2010 (UTC) reply

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Relapse (album), without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive, and has been reverted. Please make use of the sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits. Thank you. TomCat4680 ( talk) 18:34, 3 September 2010 (UTC) reply

Please stop reverting other people's edits, as you are doing in Ushers Raymond v. Raymond article. You violated the three-revert rule. The revision you want is not going to be implemented by edit warring. If you revert again, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia without further notice. Please discuss any disputed changes on the talk page. Melody Prince$$ ( talk) 22:22, 5 September 2010 (UTC) reply

Dan
Have replied to your question on Talk:Honorific nicknames in popular music
Sorry that, having "played by the rules" and asked on the Talk page, no-one had replied.
Some editors get very posessive about what goes on that list. I only came across it as a Wikignome sorting our mis-spellings of "rhythm", then noticed various other things that needed changing.
A Google search for "George Clinton" "grandfather of funk" gives 7,140 results - there must be some good references in there, just avoid blogs, Press releases and promotional material.
Arjayay ( talk) 11:37, 11 September 2010 (UTC) reply

The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) has added 3 alternative refs on the Talk page, at least 2 of which are fine. We are now both happy and (so-far) no-one has put it in the article - over to you.
Arjayay ( talk) 14:20, 11 September 2010 (UTC) reply

Hi.

I assessed the article, is good. I`m a casual reader and learned a lot, but i doubt it would satisfy an experimented reader, some images would be good, maybe representative albums or artist, and also there`s a whole and large paragraph made up entirely on artist names, doesn't look good to me. I rate it a C, but a little work and could be a B. Zidane tribal ( talk) 18:53, 12 September 2010 (UTC) reply

Thanks for the message on my talk page. And sorry if I accidentally reverted one of your edits on Teflon Don.

To report persistent vandals, go to Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism. If you look quickly you will see that I have just reported 184.59.17.119, and with luck they will be blocked soon. Grafen ( talk) 22:11, 18 September 2010 (UTC) reply

Hey thanks for your contributions that you did to that album, looking very good! AJona1992 ( talk) 22:26, 4 October 2010 (UTC) reply

Okay, I just started looking at the articles you mentioned and who's been doing what. Seems they're tag-teaming you there, and the two editors I notice both started editing on the same day, both on Versus (Usher EP). Do you think there are fewer humans than named accounts here?

I haven't done anything with Usher yet but I'll pay more attention with you now. —  JohnFromPinckney ( talk) 20:56, 13 October 2010 (UTC) reply

I'll help. I've seen the same thing going on in the Versus article, and I was originally trying to on Raymond v. Raymond but but I got annoyed with it. But most of the time its the same obsessed Usher fans and unusually the users that edit them have accounts and not IP's Candy o32 21:40, 13 October 2010 (UTC) reply

It seems as if your edit is up to par on RvR, and Confessions is full protected. Smh. These amateur editors drive me crazy just looking at their bogus edit summaries. Especially, for Confessions it is a GA and was passed with that lead. Candy o32 00:31, 14 October 2010 (UTC) reply

Seems like all three of the users pushing for the lead changes on the articles were all sockpuppets of a previously blocked user. Makes sense now. Candy o32 13:59, 16 October 2010 (UTC) reply

Dan, you might want to just keep a quiet eye on this IP user, who is certainly not a sock, and this user, who makes the same argument about some edits at Vince Young that the IP user does. They both like the same edit that Michael Jeffrey Kyle JR made there before he was blocked. Now he was a sock, but not these other two guys. Oh no. —  JohnFromPinckney ( talk) 12:08, 4 November 2010 (UTC) reply

I was unaware of there sock puppetry however the lead is fine. Michael Jeffrey Kyle JR ( talk) 06:34, 21 October 2010 (UTC) reply

Gabe19 asked me to comment on Roughstock's reliability. I write for the website, so I'd be obviously biased in any discussion of it, but you might want to look at [ [2]]. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{( Otters want attention)} 04:56, 24 October 2010 (UTC) reply

The move by the previous editor was not warranted or done properly. But I copy/pasted it b/c the revert option at its log page was not there. I think there is a guideline that supports this if such an option is not available. Will u atleast help me move it back to "Slant Magazine" properly? Dan56 ( talk) 03:11, 27 October 2010 (UTC) reply

Pages used to be copypasted in the past, but due to copyrights they should be moved with their history. If a page is moved and you cannot move the page request deletion of the target per WP:G6. Just wait until it is deleted and after it, you move the page correctly. Tbhotch ^{Talk C.} 03:16, 27 October 2010 (UTC) reply

The information I placed on Taylor Swift's Speak Now album is reliable and credible. It is an official article published Billboard article about Soundscan's estimations of the album's performance in the United States of America. Please check the this link for confirmation. If there is a valid reason why this was removed then please let me know. Thank You. Kevon100 ^Talk! _{If you're ❺❺❺ then I'm ❻❻❻} 21:44, 27 October 2010 (UTC) reply

Greetings. I noticed that you and 70.82.62.11 ( talk) had reverted each other's edits back and forth numerous times in the last couple of days. This behavior constitutes edit warring and is best avoided. Except in cases of clear vandalism, the WP:3RR guideline limits you to 3 reverts. In this case I suspect that the other editor may have been looking at US-centric release data and possibly was not have been aware of the earlier release date. A simple note in the user's talk page or a more descriptive edit summary may have resolved this much sooner. -- Tom N (tcncv)  talk/ contrib 23:05, 28 October 2010 (UTC) reply

A discussion between two editors that should have happened on the article's talk page does not a consensus make. First off, we don't cite ourselves as a reliable source, so using the Wikipedia article on dance music to back your point is not appropriate. Nor is piping a subgenre to read dance. If it should be electronic dance, then pipe it as [[Electronic dance music|electronic dance]], not [[Electronic dance music|dance]]. – Chase ( talk / contribs) 23:27, 29 October 2010 (UTC) reply

It's been piped to read electronic dance as opposed to dance, as the former is the article being linked to. Please do not pipe it back to read dance unless you change the link to the dance music article as well. – Chase ( talk / contribs) 23:32, 29 October 2010 (UTC) reply

RE: this. I thought I knew MOS as much as anyone, but it's useful to know that. Cheers. Markfury3000 ( talk) 16:42, 30 October 2010 (UTC) reply

Hi, Dan. I am afraid this will come across as rude, but I really, really dislike the idea of doing reversions for somebody else who's nearing 3RR. That kind of thing leads to a kind of me-and-my-friends against you-and-your-friends rumble in the playground, and the anon contributors end up at an even greater disadvantage. It's somewhat meat puppet-y, too.

In the case mentioned in your note, I think the IP was actually trying in good faith to add another review to Tha Carter III, and probably don't know about the " rule". They stopped after your explanatory note, so I'll take it as evidence that providing explanations for our reversions is always a good idea (and I realize you linked to the page in your first reversion, but the anon didn't seem to catch that). I've reverted after inspecting the recent edits, and I left a note of my own at User talk:67.181.35.35, so maybe it's all clear now.

While studying the last edits, I saw you re-adding a table to the "Personnel" section. Most of this info (the track number, title, and writers) has a place in Template:Track listing, and the track number and title are already there in the existing use of the template, so it makes sense to me to consolidate the info, and do away with that later table, which at first glance seems misplaced or redundant. See other similar article for how the extra stuff like sampled songs get put into notes at the bottom of the Track listing section. Regards, —  JohnFromPinckney ( talk) 22:18, 30 October 2010 (UTC) reply

Hi Dan56, I noticed you created Let It Rock as a redirect to musician Pete Wingfield. I've now started to write an article giving a fuller account of this magazine, based on the publication of a history of the magazine in an academic journal by founding editor Dave Laing. best Mick gold ( talk) 13:45, 31 October 2010 (UTC) reply

Thanks for uploading File:Loveland ep.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) 05:48, 1 November 2010 (UTC) reply

Hey, why did you revert my edit on Warning (Green Day album)? i fixed re-directing links and removed unncessary links, so why did you do it? -- Chickenguy13 ( talk) 06:17, 2 November 2010 (UTC) reply

Well, you didn't have to undo my whole edit cuz i did one thing wrong, that's really stupid in my opinion, everybody on Wikipedia does that and i can't tell you how mad that makes me. you could be removing important information, think about it that way. And about the in the future put something in the edit summary, i know, i'm not stupid, i've used Wikipedia before, okay? I'm sick of people on here treating me like i'm stupid, so watch it. -- Chickenguy13 ( talk) 06:45, 2 November 2010 (UTC) reply

Dude, what are you talking about? I don't get what you're saying about "Why do you have to clean up peoples mistakes", that has nothing to do with what i'm talking about. -- Chickenguy13 ( talk) 06:52, 2 November 2010 (UTC) reply

Again, what are you talking about? Can't you explain? All you're doing is making me mad. -- Chickenguy13 ( talk) 07:01, 2 November 2010 (UTC) reply

The edits that I made to this article I felt were necessary because I generally do not feature album reviews for any P-Funk album article that I create. Since I was the one who created the article, I generally reserve the right to eliminate any additions not made by myself. Groovemaneuvers 13:24 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading File:Scott-Heron graffiti.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) 05:27, 5 November 2010 (UTC) reply

Thanks for uploading File:Vintageheron.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) 05:28, 5 November 2010 (UTC) reply

Thanks for uploading File:WinterinAmerica LP.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) 05:32, 5 November 2010 (UTC) reply

Thanks for uploading File:WinterPersonnel.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) 05:38, 5 November 2010 (UTC) reply

Thanks for uploading File:WinterinAmericaLPb.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) 05:38, 5 November 2010 (UTC) reply

Thanks for uploading File:H20 Gate Blues sample.ogg. 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) 05:40, 6 November 2010 (UTC) reply

Can u help me and talk some sense into User:Groovemaneuvers? He has been removing content from P-Funk-related articles Go Fer Yer Funk and A Fifth of Funk, because according to him, the edits "were necessary because I generally do not feature album reviews for any P-Funk album article that I create. Since I was the one who created the article, I generally reserve the right to eliminate any additions not made by myself" ( my talk page). I've tried to explain things simply to him at his talk page, but he doesnt seem to get it. Dan56 ( talk) 21:54, 6 November 2010 (UTC) reply

First you should try to make him understand that although he created the page he is not the owner, if persist, report the issue at wp:AIV. Tbhotch ^{Talk C.} 04:24, 7 November 2010 (UTC) reply

Before making changes like this, please make sure that you always provide an edit summary. — Legolas ^(talk2me) 15:50, 14 November 2010 (UTC) reply

I noticed you have been replacing many chart references with αCharts ones. While this may be good for the short term, keep in mind that guidelines for record charts state the usage of this site is unacceptable for good and featured articles as it is not an official resource. The page lists good alternatives, such as Chart Stats for the UK, and Hung Medien for Australia, Ireland, and almost twenty more countries. For Canada and the States, the official Billboard site is used, or allmusic, which has an archive of Billboard. Just thought I'd let you know! Yves ( talk) 23:10, 14 November 2010 (UTC) reply

Sure. I see you've only left one message on his/her talk page and it was a templated one. Perhaps you should write a bit more, explaining why his/her edits were reverted? Since this user has been problematic, you could notify him/her in a serious but polite manner, perhaps referring to WP:RS and/or WP:V. Yves ( talk) 21:45, 19 November 2010 (UTC) reply

I believe you have a point in the case of single download mp3's not being actual singles but this only applies to "Wanna Go Back." "Would've Been the One," "I Told You So" and "6 O'clock Blues" are all legitimate remix EPs and I believe that constitutes a single release as artists don't usually bother sending songs out for dance play if they aren't singles. And this project is clearly a lower budget marketing so I believe the release of "Wanna Go Back" as a single is for promotion for the new deluxe version. I don't really know what to do about all this since I don't believe there are any press releases on any of this but these all seem to be real singles at least by my standards. Ratizi Angelou ^contribs 04:38, 23 November 2010 (UTC) reply

When I said "my standards" I meant as a Wikipedian not my own crazy made up personal standards. I understand the guidelines on singles and all arguments you have presented me with still don't make me see how what I'm contributing is incorrect. Maybe we need to get a moderator or admin involved but it seems silly to argue about singles especially when I have references. Instead of reverting my edits you could explain to me what exact guideline I'm braking and then I will have no issue correcting it myself. Ratizi Angelou ^contribs 00:14, 24 November 2010 (UTC) reply

Notes

• Deluxe edition contains DVD with film " Runaway".
• "Dark Fantasy" contains samples of " In High Places" by Mike Oldfield.
• "Gorgeous" contains portions and elements of the composition "You Showed Me", written by Gene Clark and Roger McGuinn.
• "Power" contains elements from "It's Your Thing" by Cold Grits, contains elements of "Afromerica" by Continent Number 6, and contains material sampled from " 21st Century Schizoid Man" performed by King Crimson.
• "So Appalled" contains samples of "You Are – I Am" by Manfred Mann’s Earth Band.
• "Devil in a New Dress" contains samples of "Will You Still Love Me Tomorrow" as performed by Smokey Robinson.
• "Runaway" contains a sample of "Expo 83" performed by Backyard Heavies, and contains excerpts of from " Rick James ‘Live at Long Beach, CA’ 1981".
• "Hell of a Life" contains samples of "She’s My Baby" by the Mojo Men, contains samples of "Stud-Spider" by Tony Joe White, and contains portions of " Iron Man" by Black Sabbath.
• "Blame Game" contains elements of "Avril 14" by Richard James.
• "Lost in the World" contains portions of " Soul Makossa", written by Manu Dibango, contains a sample of " Think (About It)" as performed by Lyn Collins, contains samples of "The Woods" as performed by Bon Iver, and contains samples of "Comment No. 1" performed by Gil Scott-Heron.
• "Who Will Survive In America" contains samples of "Comment No. 1" performed by Gil Scott-Heron.

I think the use of this template is optional.

Xtina and Britney all have both 2 templates in every album, single page. While Beyonce not. Cheer! Silvergoat ( talk∙ contrib) 08:59, 24 November 2010 (UTC) reply

Hey Dan, are you a Nelly Furtado fan? Because I seen how you protect Nelly articles from vandals. Do you think you can do me a favor? Garry says OK ( talk) 21:58, 28 November 2010 (UTC) reply

Why did you revert my edits on My Beautiful Dark Twisted Fantasy?? Wasn't aware that I had to write an essay on why I thought they were important in order for them to be valid. The perfect pitchfork review is pretty much the hottest thing surrounding this album (besides the album itself) and definitely needs to be prioritized in the wiki article. The quote that is currently listed is hardly relevant, and the one I added from the p4k article is much better. - Todayishere ( talk) 13:42, 29 November 2010 (UTC) reply

Thanks for your response. This week is quite busy for me, but I want to read more about what you are talking about and get back to you fairly soon. (Ignore what I had previously typed and have now erased; hadn't seen your message at that point.) - Todayishere ( talk) 03:37, 1 December 2010 (UTC) reply

Please participate http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Why_Don't_You_Love_Me_(Beyonc%C3%A9_Knowles_song)#Single.3F Jivesh boodhun ( talk) 05:25, 1 December 2010 (UTC) reply

"Including" is not used when you name all of the lights people involved in something. The definition you provided is correct, in that it does contain parts of a whole, which means your usage is incorrect. If you were to name major people (e.g. "...including Alicia Keys and John Legend."), its usage would be acceptable, but you named everyone so it's not including all of those people—it is all of those people. "Including" means there are more items than what is named, that could be looked up somewhere else like longer lists (e.g. "There are thirty-three member states of the OPANAL, including Argentina, Mexico, and Brazil."). "Namely", on the other hand, just means you are naming things, which is what is being done in this case. Does that clarify things for you? 20:25, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

You're quite welcome! Yves ( talk) 20:39, 2 December 2010 (UTC) reply

Thanks for uploading File:Miles Davis - 1958 Miles album cover.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently 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).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the " my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Admrboltz ( talk) 02:15, 5 December 2010 (UTC) reply

Hey...can you help me understand a bit more about the edit they're making? You're saying the album sold over 5 million copies and they're saying it sold only 1 million in the US? mikomango ( talk) 04:41, 8 December 2010 (UTC) reply

I've been keeping an eye on it --- is it still happening? It seems like it's been contained at "1 million sales in Europe for a while." (Also...sidebar...Nicki Minaj is Trinidadian, not Trinidadian-American! She is a recognized citizen of Trinidad and Tobago since she was born there. There have been many many many Wiki fights over that one honey, I wouldn't press that if I were you! Caribbean people and Nicki fans in general ain't having it. She reps "Southside Jamaica Queens" in all interviews but she is Trinidadian woman.) Anyway back to CD...there seem to be a lot of shell accounts for the same few vandals, but they don't seem to be as active as you and I!-- mikomango ( talk) 07:33, 15 December 2010 (UTC) reply

Bloggers??? *falls down and dies laughing* Hilarious, dude. :-)-- mikomango ( talk) 00:55, 16 December 2010 (UTC) reply

Take a look here. Jivesh boodhun ( talk) 18:42, 11 December 2010 (UTC) reply

Thanks for uploading File:Sarah Vaughan 1951.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).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the " my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude ( talk 03:57, 12 December 2010 (UTC) reply

Hi there, I've noticed you've edited Keri Hilson articles before. Feel free to edit and help out on her new album's article No Boys Allowed and the single Pretty Girl Rock. ozurbanmusic ( talk) 10:23, 15 December 2010 (UTC) reply

Hi! The Mariah Carey WikiProject is now initiated! If you'd like to join, please add your name here. Thank you. Novice7 | Talk 09:26, 18 December 2010 (UTC) reply

I noticed you added a link to the actual Death Certificate review - this is from the Jan. '92 issue = I've been trying to get a hold of this issue for a long time. I was therefore wondering where exactly you found this on the webcitation.org database. I own all of the '94-'97 issues, and several issues before/after, and I've been trying to get a hold of the earlier ones for a while now. If you could hook me up w/ links that have these, it'd be greatly appreciated. -- Blastmaster11 ( talk) 20:52, 24 December 2010 (UTC) reply

Thanks for those links man, I appreciate it. If you search around here there's a few more. -- Blastmaster11 ( talk) 20:43, 27 December 2010 (UTC) reply

Done, thanks... I asked that page you gave me and hope everything is OK... Thanks for helping me!

-- 79.216.153.186 ( talk) 01:06, 31 December 2010 (UTC) reply