Hello, Ipodnano05! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions to this free encyclopedia. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! --Avant-garde a clue-hexaChord214:29, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Liquidluck has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy munching!
Spread the goodness of cookies by adding {{subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!
Edit warring on Falling Down (Selena Gomez & the Scene song)
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Falling Down (Selena Gomez & the Scene song). Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing. —Kww(talk) 03:51, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If you can find sources that describe the sales as "mediocre", you can add that. If you just think that's a good way to describe them, that's a violation of both WP:OR and WP:NPOV. The lead is currently quite long enough, and summarizes the article: the details of the positive reviews don't need to be included to summarize that the reviews were positive. Think over what to do, and wait 22 hours before you do it. The talk page of the article would be a good place to discuss and plan your next step. As you said in your last message, anything you do to that article in the next 22 hours may wind up getting you blocked.—Kww(talk) 04:05, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Kiss & Tell and The Fame
I noticed you have been modeling the Kiss & Tell article after The Fame article, which I agree is a great idea because I was doing the same thing. Let's continue to keep the structure of Kiss & Tell similar to The Fame. -- Foodcritic35 (talk) 09:54, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Kiss & Tell (Selena Gomez & the Scene album)
Hello,
I have noticed the disputes over using Twitter as a ref on this page. I have not been involved in that dispute, but have just noticed something that might be useful to you. This just in! Selena Gomez's CD hits September 29! as an example. MAYBE if you quote OTHER sources referring to Twitter, that might be a way to get away from dispute? THAT site has other articles also that might be helpful? Iknow23 (talk) 05:02, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You might enjoy looking at the allmusic ref [1st one on the page]. It now has the tracklist & cover art. I submitted to them to see it at Amazon. So they might have put it up because I told them? Iknow23 (talk) 00:39, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Peer Review
It isn't a bother! First, add {{subst:PR}} to the top of the talk page and save the page. Click on the link that opens in the notice, and follow the directions. You will be picking a topic to put it under (probably Arts) and explaining that you are nominating it for GA status.
I don't believe you can have a peer review and a GA nomination going at the same time, though, and it probably would be helpful to have it reviewed first anyway, so I would recommend taking down the GA nomination template first.
Hope that helps! Liquidluck (talk) 20:09, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, perfect. It will automatically be added to the WP:PR page in the next hour, but until then you can just click "request" in the talk page pr notice, where it says "A request has been made...". Also, thank you for your Last Song peer review comments! Liquidluck (talk) 03:01, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not add PRs to the PR page by hand - a bot takes care of that and I had to revert your edit. It does take the bot an hour or so to add the PR, so in the future just be patient please. Thanks, Ruhrfisch><>°°03:10, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Twitter
It's basically stream-of-consciousness from the person at hand. Not checked or verified by anyone, and, depending on the twitterer, fairly reliable or a stream of lies. In this case, you aren't gaining anything significant from the tweet, the article reads just as well without it, so there's no reason to republish a potentially unreliable piece of information.—Kww(talk) 02:24, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's not critical information. If it was, there would be other sources of the date. Good rule of thumb: if the only source of a fact is on Twitter, Facebook, MySpace, or IMDB, it isn't very important. It's sufficient to know that it was filmed sometime after the song was recorded and somewhat before the video was released.—Kww(talk) 02:32, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I dug back through your sources one more time, because you are being so insistent. I still argue "no." First, lets look at the text of the tweet: "Fitting for my music video while jamming to FTSKs deluxe edition of Alma Mater. Greatness. Making a vid to introduce my band soon!! :)" Does it say she's filming the video? No, it says that she's being fitted for her outfit. It says she will make the video soon. The video probably was not filmed on the day she was fitted, and there's no way to tell for sure. The picture at http://twitpic.com/dvpz0 is a publicity still: no way to validate that it was or was not taken the day of the video, or, for that matter, anything about the date. The Examiner is only reporting that the tweets are occuring, and the tweets aren't giving you a release date.—Kww(talk) 03:00, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Great example of why tweets have a really hard time being included. That only says she is on the set, but not what she's doing there. We can guess that she's there to film, based on the earlier tweet, but it doesn't say that. Putting the two tweets together that way would violate WP:SYNTH.—Kww(talk) 21:44, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"I think it should be stated, she is on set filming it because she is saying that a picture of the music video is coming soon.": that would be a clear violation of WP:SYNTH. You just aren't going to be able to write what you want based on tweets. You need to find a real source or leave it out.—Kww(talk) 21:50, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is the 140 character limit. There just isn't enough room in 140 characters to state things with enough context so that you don't have to make guesses about the meaning. You really need to read WP:SYNTH and understand it. If you really think I have it wrong, then take the group of tweets you have, the statement you want to add, and post it over at WP:RSN. See what people say. It's such an obvious WP:SYNTH failure that I can virtually guarantee the result.
What I really don't understand is why you are struggling so hard over this. We generally don't know when TV shows were filmed, when individual songs were recorded, when individual manga were drawn, etc., and those articles don't suffer from the lack of information. You know the date it premiered, and that's enough to build a good article around.—Kww(talk) 22:11, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there, just wandering through and thought I'd add my two cents oh, well after a month later. Tweets can't be used for a source because they're primary sourcess - written by the subject, or someone very close to it. This automatically makes them not reliable from an academic standpoint, even if they weren't self-published. Twitter is a great way to find stuff out, but for it to be the type of information that's trustworthy enough to be included in Wikipedia, we need it to be a secondary source instead - someone collecting those tweets, discussing them dispassionately, and fact-checking them against other data, as we might find in an article in a magazine. Does that help?
I am about to revert it again. All things must be cited. If the info is cited in the body all you need to do is add the citation to the lead. It isnt hard. 70.108.114.181 (talk) 04:22, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Which article?
That's so weird- I just logged in, and I saw your message a few seconds later! I guess we both get back from school at the same time. Anyway, I'll do my best- but which article are you talking about? Liquidluck (talk) 22:54, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, but I'm actually just going through it. I don't want to look as though I'm your sockpuppet, and the 70.x ip does have some valid points. I'm almost done, and writing explanations on the discussion page. I'll let you know when I post! Liquidluck (talk) 23:31, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As you can see from this, Juanacho doesn't talk much. I guess I should feel honored that he talks to me sometimes. I reverted some of his changes to your version, but some of his sections were better than yours. Hopefully that will slow things down a bit. Usually, if he sees me reverting his edits he takes the hint.—Kww(talk) 02:24, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
From what you said on the talk page of Flyer22. Don't take as such, no one has said that you are not significant. All I said was that you have been using profane language and making personal attacks. I did not lie due to the fact that I NEVER said there was a consensus. All I said was that a non-significant contributor (that would be Flyer22 because he has not edited the article prior to the notability issue), and since three of us, including Luquidluck seems to think that the page IS neutral. And since you constantly keep pointing that since I or anyone is a fan, they do not add a neutral point of view to the article. Besides, all those points you brought out have nothing to do with neutrality directly, (it did have critical/commercial success by the way). All I am saying was that since you have violated WP:EQ several times with warnings, it is only fair. And since I don't know how to perform any of those take I was seeking for Flyer22's help. Also, as I saw above you have a record. It is not just on Party in the U.S.A., more warnings, so... -- Ipodnano05 (talk) 03:47, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The edit summary said "non significant". That is where I got /saw you calling me non significant; as in my feeling about the NPOV didnt matter. Calling you a stan (song) is a personal attack?
In your edit summary you said there was consensus & that that was the reason you took off the NPOV tag. Wait, so now you say you were calling Flyer the nonsignificant editor? I dont know if I should believe that.
For the consensus, liquid never came back so how are you sure of his/her final opinion? You didnt wait long enough IMO. All the points I raised do have to do w POV as every sentence is praise of Miley. If you want that go to her website,articles here should be objective.
See again, w that parentheses comment is why I call you stan (song): I dont feel your edits are for the good of the article, I feel they are for making Miley seem good bc you love her.
You too violated WP:EQ,how many times did I tell you stop bolding and caps typing? You still did it. 70.108.89.47 (talk) 04:07, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I apologize for confusing you with removing the tag and I probably should not have to begin with. Also, I apologize for capitalizing and putting words in bold, as I was not aware they violate WP:EQ; however, you didn't warn me to stop you said, "You may bold and capitalise all you want. It dont give you greater credence.". But, you have made personal attacks. Before I start on that I would like to say that not believing me is your choice; calling someone a non-significant contributor is not offensive. That is only a term for people who do not regularly contribute to the article. You do, so you would be a significant contributor. That is beside the point. About the personal attacks:
You, yourself has also capitalized and put things in bold. "So Im supposed to believe you bc you say so? Well if that is the standard, I KNOW WHAT I AM DOING AS WELL!, & I typed mine in CAPS w an exclamation point so it mean more.LOL You see how silly this is?. Again with the crap. I posted nothing uncivil. You keep posting threats. Dont serve it if u wont eat it." So, don't use a point that might come back to get you.
When you first edited the article in early August you said the following to User:Pokerdance: "Get another person who is experienced bc we are just gonna keep disagreeing. Ive done no personal attacking. You're making sh*t up. You threaten me with blocking, & now you're crying foul? Get another editor who knows what they're doing." He warned you that you might become eventually blocked if doing so. Then you said it again in one of your edit summaries. "[...] there is sh*t on the talk page ( a consensus) that says this article is neutral. I am not "non significant"; bc I am not a miley stan like you I dont matter?" That is all a clear violation of WP:PROFA. In the previous number, you also said "crap" which is another violation of the rule.
You have since the beginning said that I am completely impartial and a stan that believes she only does good. That is a personal attack that at first did not bother me, but is commencing to annoy me. And I have politely hinted that I desire for you to stop. You also speculated and made accusations that I only put positive things, and no negatives, (including reviews, charts, etc.) You said: "All critics DONT say postive things, you only included the postive reviews bc you're a fan/stan." Another WP:EQ and also WP:NPA violation.
Next you have strongly judged upon me saying: "Unlike you Miley stan/Stan, I have a life.I ve not made edits and you repeatedly do. I thought we are supposed to agree here before edits are made?" That is a clear violation of WP:NPA. You called me a "no-life" and that is about as judgmental and impolite as it gets.
And with all of that being said I was contacting Flyer22 because overtime you have very heavily abused these rules. I was seeing what the procedures were and if there were more notices to made. Also, all the points that you made about it not being neutral are more like "tweaks" of the article and most of them have already been resolved. My reasoning is: it is fine to disagree and argue with anyone as long as offensive remarks are not being made, that is crossing the line. I haven't used bad language against you, so I do not understand. -- Ipodnano05 (talk) 04:35, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
O ok. I agree that the NPOV tag shouldnt have been removed. Let us discuss and then agree on removal of the NPOV tag & edits to the article. That is what the discussion page is for. Despite the page's ontent being challenged, you continued to edit. I even asked you not, but still you did : QUOTE " Overall, the article is not completely biased, at least not enough for the template. It only needs to have minor adjustments. I will take care of them and hopefully that will satisfy all of us" from here. You shouldnt have. Liquid--a neutral body-- should of done the edits, not you. My last content edit was on 17:52, 12 September 2009; whereas you continually have edited 14times since then. So when you too of the NPOV tag I took as you continuing to do as you wished. Thanks for the apology, and I too apologise. I dont know you in person so to jump & address you as stan wasnt/isnt fair. Your bold & cap typing annoyed me.
If calling some1 nonsignificant isnt offensive, why is calling some1 stan an offense?
It isnt beside the point. The way in that you wrote your edit summary, I interpreted it as
"70's comments are nonsignificant, liquid, flyer,ipod's comments(the 3/4) are, so Im removing the NPOV tag".
My edit summary --a response to your edit summary-- was a typo. I typed this :
" [...] there is sh*t on the talk page(a consensus) that says this article is neutral. I am not "non significant"; bc I am not a miley stan like you I dont matter? "
and shoulda said this:
Im reAdding {NPOV} tag bc there isnt sh*t (there isnt consensus) on talk page indicating consensus. I also dont appreciate you declaring my oppposition as "nonSignificant"(instead og calling you a miley stan).
The rest of what you wrote is tit for tat.
Not directed to you. My edits to poker arent of concern to you. So leave that alone.
Not directed to you. My edits to poker arent of concern to you. So leave that alone.
I dont know you in person so to jump & address you as Stan (song) wasnt/isnt fair.
IMO you contacted Flyer bc u wanted a block not bc you wanted resolution. Everyone else has went along with you edits to PITU while I rightfully challenge them.
I had reason to question you. When I asked you about the overly positive slant of the article, you said bc only postive things were said. Specifically Miley on that stripper pole. You maintained that she was defended more than criticised, & that it wasnt a big deal. Example :
I have some other points to make. You said that it was in fact a dance pole. It was not in fact a dance pole. Neither Cyrus or a representative of her's said that it was a dance pole. In fact, they said nothing about that specific part. Another thing, there is NO source saying that Handler was being sarcastic. To me she did not sound as such and I have watched Chelsea Lately many times, even when she pokes fun at her or the Jonas Brothers. And it is not that I am a fan. -- Ipodnano05 (talk) 22:38, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
We both know that is bull. I easily found criticisms of her. You again reverted my contribition, censoring that miley isnt adored by every1 by deleting the negative criticism I found.
Also, all the points that you made about it not being neutral are more like "tweaks" ...
See you say things like this & that is why I dont feel like dealing with you. You're trying to downgrade it it "o they're just tweaks", they werent tweaks. Whole sentences were re written but you reverted my edits continually. Call it w/e you want, info needed to be cleared up to make the article better and that is why I we are arguing over stripper pole & why I NPOV tagged the article.
It's probably the Wikimedia problem discussed in the banner. Once they claim that's fixed, let's see what happens to the article.—Kww(talk) 01:00, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Party in the USA
I'm sorry, I can't figure out what went wrong. If you haven't already done something similar, try using the Template:Adminhelp template, and someone with (hopefully) more experience will come. It's probably something to do with the wikimedia updates, so try waiting until that clears up. Let me know what happens! Liquidluck (talk) 01:02, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Possibly unfree File:Supergirlmusicvideo.jpg
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Supergirlmusicvideo.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you.
Possibly unfree File:Icecreamfreezevideo.jpg
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Icecreamfreezevideo.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you.
Possibly unfree File:It'sallrighthere.jpg
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:It'sallrighthere.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you.
Images
Ack, we're always logging on at the same time! LOL. Anyways, it is so cool you found these! I'm pretty much adoring the girl who took them. And yes, they are free. When you upload them, make sure to pick CC Attribution 2.0, since that is what they are licensed under.
I'll help upload, so lets make sure we aren't doing the same ones. I'm about to do this one for last song and this one for PitUSA. Liquidluck (talk) 01:09, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. I commented on the unfree tags above. Replace the tags with the one I linked, and they should be fine.
Let's just upload the ones we think might be useful, since there are a lot of repeats. Where are you in the set? Oh, and what do you think about starting a "Miley Cyrus" or "Disney Stars" task force? Liquidluck (talk) 02:55, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Cool, I'll upload them in about half an hour, after I eat dinner. A Miley Cyrus project is fine- there's a lot of articles on her which could use improvement. But I think a task force would be better, because we could create it right now if we wanted, and an entire wikiproject seems excessive if there hasn't been a lot of interest in the proposal so far. Let me know what you think! Liquidluck (talk) 03:30, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Re: task force
Sorry I didn't reply sooner! I uploaded all the pics I thought would be useful, but mostly not repeats or ones where you can't see Miley's face. I just got really busy in real life, so I might actually go on a wikibreak for a week or so, but I'll come back for the taskforce. In the meantime, can you put a notice up on the Disney wiki talk? Just say that this is something we'd like to do, we welcome everyone to join, and if there are no objections in 4 days, we'll go ahead. I figured out how to set up the page and talk page header, so we should be good after those 4 days. Liquidluck (talk) 03:25, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi! So apparently I'm not very good at wikibreaks. Thanks for starting the discussion, I commented to support. I'll make a userpage so that we can make the taskforce's main page in the meantime. Also, I was wondering if you would mind if I replaced File:Party in the U.S.A. music video.jpg with this image. I think it is more useful because it demonstrates Grease's influence, so it works better with WP:Non-free_content_criteria#Policy #8. It means that the image you uploaded would be deleted, but you won't be penalized or anything. Let me know! Also, after you see the image I linked, would you delete the link? Thanks! Liquidluck (talk) 21:04, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Taylor Swift 2009 Video Music Awards controversy section
Okay, will do. I might do some tonight, but I'll probably have to do it tomorrow, since I have homework I need to take care of tonight. Liquidluck (talk) 04:53, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry I haven't been replying quickly! I think what you've done with the Wonder World Tour is amazing and the best choice. We should cite it if possible, and there are enough citations to do so. I copy-edited the Fly on the Wall song a little more, but I'm still not quite done. Congrats on getting Send it On to GA status! Liquidluck (talk) 03:14, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I did. Powers raised good points; we should probably advertise until we have at least 5 members before starting the task force, which would cover just Disney related material. I guess we can contact the other person who signed your project proposal, and hold a discussion on the disney wikiproject about how best to organize Disney Channel material. Unfortunately, I'm pretty busy in real life right now, so maybe we can hold off for a little bit? Liquidluck (talk) 03:27, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm so sorry but I had to fail this article as it couldnot pass the Qucik-fail criteria. Please re-nominate the article once the EP goes down the charts. It can be a wonderful article and even a potential FA candidate. --Legolas(talk2me)09:58, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Taskforce
Hi Ipod! Unfortunately, we can't make a taskforce under a wikipedia article, only beneath a project. The disney project would cover Disney related info, so we couldn't cover "Big Fish", for example. But we could use a userpage. Liquidluck (talk) 01:54, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hoedown
Sure! In my opinion, at least. Under a section entitled "Dance steps" or moves. Be bold and do whatever- if someone disagrees at GA review or someother time, deal with it then. Most people don't care about anything that's sourced. As for TV shows, those are live performances and should be included! Liquidluck (talk) 23:22, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Phrase it like, "In "Pop it", the left hand is extended as far as possible toward the front". In other words, make the move the subject of the sentence. Liquidluck (talk) 23:35, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No problem! You do really amazing work on Cyrus articles. About the taskforce- I'm really sorry I got super excited about starting one and now can't do it (at least right now). I'm just all over the place with sports and activities and school stuff. We'd also have to figure out a wikiproject to hold it under- Disney could only cover disney stuff, and Living persons is probably too broad to agree to it. Liquidluck (talk) 23:45, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm glad it's useful. The files are PDFs of the movie's production notes. Production notes are often released along with movies in order to promote the movie, so that reviewers and audiences have extra background info. I copied and pasted everything about the Hoedown Throwdown onto the talk page, but here's an html version if you want to read it yourself (I think that link will work). Both the files I linked were just PDFs of the production notes hosted by different sites. I'll go format the citation so that you can add it in if you want. Liquidluck (talk) 19:47, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
With this edit, you reverted my addition of the sourced genres country pop, country, and teen pop with the reason "no subgenres on albums." I've never come across a rule that says this, but in case I've overlooked something, would you care to show me? And if there indeed is a rule that says that, it would be nice to mention that in your edit summary. Thank you! :) Chasewc91 (talk) 17:10, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Orphaned non-free image (File:Miley Cyrus' iTunes Live from London cover.jpg)
⚠
Thanks for uploading File:Miley Cyrus' iTunes Live from London 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. Skier Dude (talk) 02:49, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You've got a week to move it into article space (& be sure to update the article backlink in the image's description page); after 1 week the image will be deleted. Skier Dude (talk) 02:53, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Orphaned non-free image (File:Hoedown Throwdown music video.jpg)
⚠
Thanks for uploading File:Hoedown Throwdown music video.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) 02:57, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think you need to update your browser. Nevertheless, here are teh details that you can get from the sheet music. Voice, range: A3-D5, Key: C Major. Metronome: q = 130 bpm, chord:- C5-G5-D5-F5. --Legolas(talk2me)04:31, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No problem at all. Even I really appreaciate teh way you are developing the Miley Cyrus and teh Hannah Montana articles and keeping them away from Disney fancruft. Keep it up! --Legolas(talk2me)04:37, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I meant that they were just tacked on to the article, but should be incorporated into the rest of the article. Brian said he thought the article would be better if it could be reviewed after the tour was done and I thought this was an example of that - right now it is not clear if this is an isolated incident or a continuing trend in the tour. Ruhrfisch><>°°22:27, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I almost think there needs to be a section, probably after synopsis and before critical reception, on the history of the tour. I would mention the strep here, any concerts that were cancelled / rescheduled, the changes in the set (adding the duet perhaps), and perhaps the decision to go to the UK and Ireland, plus whatever else comes up in the course of the tour. Ruhrfisch><>°°03:20, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it is hard to know until the tour is over what will happen on it, but History or Tour history come to mind. What happens could well determine the name - for one example, if she cancelled it, the section would probably be called Cancellation. Hurry up and wait ;-) Ruhrfisch><>°°03:34, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is List of Miley Cyrus concert 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").
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) 01:15, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Braziian Albums chart
Please do not list the "Brazil Album Chart" in any Wikipedia articles, and do not use that name for legitimate Brazilian chart. There is software that notifies me every time that someone adds the "Brazilian Albums Chart" so that I can remove it. Calling the APBD chart that does nothing but cause problems.—Kww(talk) 12:28, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
When you see the sheet music, above the lines you can see the progression written like Am above the first line, F♭ on the second line like that. Hence the progression will be Am–F♯–..... and so on.--Legolas(talk2me)06:04, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hiya Ipod! I don't know if the HM movie can be a good topic, because there isn't anything directly related to it (unless we improved the cast, director, etc. too)- but I think we could definitely do the HM soundtrack. Do you want to? Liquidluck (talk) 05:24, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
According to the rules, there has to be at least three articles in the topic, so we'd need the movie, soundtrack, and one more. I think the soundtrack would be easier, since a few of the songs are already GA, right? Liquidluck (talk) 06:05, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I would think that would be fine, since the movie is a musical, and the rest of the articles are musical related. I'll go copy-edit the soundtrack, since I think there's still some issues with it before it gets to GA status. Do you want to collaborate on one song at a time, or work on each of them by ourselves? I think collaborating would be more fun, but working separately would probably be faster, so whatever you want to do =] Liquidluck (talk) 06:16, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, how do you find the track listings for all the songs you've done? I'm almost done with Fifteen (song) (once it falls off the charts, I'm going to nominate it) but I don't know how to find the track listings. Liquidluck (talk) 06:32, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe we can just start working on it whenever we have time, but focus on it until it is GA status? We can work on other articles at the same time. Liquidluck (talk) 21:51, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, can we start with Crazier? I added some simple chart info and realized it would be a pretty easy Did You Know article, but we have to get it to 4290 characters (around 800 words, I believe) by Monday. It's at 1140 characters right now, and I'll add some more info later. Liquidluck (talk) 01:50, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Ipod! OMG, you're fast. I don't think there are any live performances, but I'm going through movie reviews to see if there are any more out there. Also, I think we can add more about Swift's scene to the Background section by describing it in further detail. Let's nominate it for DKY? before GA- what do you think of the hook, "... that during her cameo in Hannah Montana: The Movie, Taylor Swift performed "Crazier", a song she co-wrote with Robert Ellis Orrall?"
We don't have to nominate it for DYK, and I suppose it would slow up the process. It would just be an additional thing to tack on- an article can be both DKY and GA or FA at the same time, and I figured we'd have to wait a few days before a GA reviewer comes around. Okay, let's not go for GA. Let's do You'll Always Find Your Way Back Home next. Liquidluck (talk) 04:47, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oops, I meant let's not go for dyk- definitely go for GA. Right now I'm searching through HM movie reviews for reviews of "Crazier" (I've found four more so far). I don't believe the song was ever released as a promo single, since it appeared on the chart the week the album was released. Amazon lists the release date as the release date of the album. I think we should just include the album's release date in the lead. On Taylor Swift's discography page, "Crazier" is listed as a digital song. Liquidluck (talk) 05:07, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I saw that, but I thought it was because Taylor is the star artist from a small, independent label (Big Machine Records), and the label was simply willing to create a cover promoting both her and the label. But I'll keep an eye out for a release date- I went through her official site just now, but I couldn't find anything under news, news archives, or her blog. Liquidluck (talk) 05:26, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't care who nominates the articles; we're still both main contributors =]. You can nominate all of them if you want to. I'll finish adding reviews/copy-editing Crazier and then come join you on that song. Liquidluck (talk) 05:36, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi! I'm sorry I didn't help on YAFYWBH yesterday; I had to get a good night's sleep in order to take a test this morning, which is why I wasn't on much so far. I've been searching the internet for around the last half hour for info for the article, but I haven't found anything. Maybe we should work on another article and come back later? I figure we'll find info while researching the other songs. Liquidluck (talk) 00:31, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I added reviews, although there weren't as many as I expected. I'll look for more in a few hours, after I go shopping. Thank you so much for telling me about the publisher problem. I've never been sure about how to do the work and publisher parameters. I'm kind of groaning right now, since I have to go through all 98 cites on The Last Song, but it's a good thing I know and won't go around ruining articles anymore! Question though- May I ask who told you? I went to a few FA's for examples on citing correctly, for example, Michael Jackson, and their citation formats are generally like what I was doing. Liquidluck (talk) 18:58, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Chart trajectories in tables? [Invitation to discussion]
Hello, Ipodnano
I know that we do not always see eye-to-eye. I see that you have a commitment to Good Articles and the betterment of Wiki. In consideration thereof and in all fairness, I'm extending an invitation to you to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Record charts#Chart trajectories in tables?. Please for completeness of discussion post all comments there. —Iknow23 (talk) 07:29, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
HM:TM new section
If we changed the main article from the HM:TM soundtrack to the HM:TM movie article, we could potentially add on the video game article. Let's do two GTs: the first with the soundtrack as the main article and the songs beneath it, and the second with the film the main article and the songs, soundtrack, and video game beneath it. Let me know how that sounds. Liquidluck (talk) 04:48, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I forgot I hadn't written back! Mass reply: I like your idea; Let's finish the soundtrack one first and then work on the film/soundtrack. Since Bless the Broken Road is not on the soundtrack, I don't believe it would fit within the GT. Thanks for nominating Butterfly Fly Away and adding the chart performance info. I plumped up the background section a bit, but I used the source msnbc.com. I couldn't find anything on the site itself, but it looks like the publishers would be NBC Universal and Microsoft. I put both down, as msnbc.com is a joint venture between them. What do you think? Liquidluck (talk) 01:38, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, it was more important to the BoT album (title track) than to HM:TM, so let's leave it as it is. It did get a music video, so I'm guessing it was released as a single, although the video has bits of the HM movie in it. Liquidluck (talk) 02:04, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm pretty sure it may have been both. However, I don't know if I could locate a source on a CD single, but it was definitely released digitally as well. It is a radio single, as it was the second single from the album of the same name. EnDaLeCoMpLeX (talk) 21:18, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You read my mind! Everytime I look at that article, I'm immediately tired because of all the issues there are mixed up with the good stuff. I was thinking that we should do it on a subpage, though, so that the article is still available for readers. User:Liquidluck/The Climb? Liquidluck (talk) 01:45, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Working on those right now. I'm sure it could be an FA someday. If we're working to that right now, would you please add a time on the podcast source, and add a more specific title to it? I checked out the link, but I couldn't tell which podcast episode the quote came from. Liquidluck (talk) 21:10, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, thanks for explaining! I'm still not sure that that's the correct original version, since it seems to be transposed for added guitar, when the original was primarily piano, and although Cyrus does go high, her vocal range isn't as high as a G#7 (If you look at her other songs, she stays below the fifth octave, I think her highest is Party in the U.S.A. at D5. I don't really care too much, but if anyone is musically inclined at FA or GA, it might be pulled into question. I don't think I'll be able to finish all those sections by tonight- I have soccer, homework, and other things to do offline. I'll do as much as I can, though, and luckily Wikipedia isn't on a deadline (if it was, I'm so busy I'd have to quit!). Feel free to work on any sections you want to or move on to another song. I'll get done with everything soon. Liquidluck (talk) 20:52, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for editing the sheet music. No worries on how long it takes, it'll be done when it's done. The internet shouldn't be our first priorities. I hope you had fun at your parties!
You're missing the point. All the articles you linked too are Pop songs, while this is a Country song. Charts for country genre articles are placed in the order I tried to give them (for one thing, and they are not to be directly linked in the chart box. So, you're comparing apples to oranges here. The reason for that order being that country songs are released specifically to country radio and are thus intended to chart directly on that specific chart. They only chart on Hot 100 or Pop 100 charts because of potential crossover success, but primarily from digital downloads. In result, a country song's chart position with the Hot Country Songs chart is most important goes above these other charts. Likewise, Canadian chart positions go below the U.S. positions if they are an artist of American descent, such as Billy Ray Cyrus. However, an artist such as Terri Clark would have the order reversed, to have Canadian before the U.S. Hope that helped. CloversMallRat (talk) 23:21, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wikiproject
Thanks for the invite, but I'm not sure how active I would be in a Miley Cyrus wikiproject. I was actually thinking of revamping the Nicholas Sparks article, The Last Song (novel) and possibly the other Sparks movies once we're done with the HM:TM GT. We could always use a subpage as a psuedo wikiproject for now, unless we find others with an interest in Cyrus. The commenter at the Disney WP had a good point- a wikiproject/taskforce might be a nice touch, but there isn't a real need except for organization. And with only two active workers, we can organize on a subpage or talk page. Liquidluck (talk) 20:33, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Good day, I just "re-stumbled" across this article while patrolling the recent changes looking for something to do! I'm considering reviewing its GA nom but I thought I'd drop you a note since you seem to have more knowledge of GA than myself. I have some experience in the area, some knowledge of the song and I'm uninvolved with the article, so if you have the time (and don't fancy the month long wait for the backlog to clear), drop me a line on my talk page to get the ball rolling. Regards, HJMitchellYou rang? 03:10, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Eso no hace absolutamente sentido a mí en todo. Básicamente el usuario que agregó últimamente que dice que C.A. y gráficos de Piedra son de no ser utilizados que es absurdo. (That makes absolutely no sense to me at all. Basically the user who just recently added that is saying that AC and Rock charts aren't to be used which is preposterous.) EnDaLeCoMpLeX (talk) 05:13, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ready, Set, Don't Go
Please explain how my edits are nonsense. The Canadian peak isn't in the cite; the Allmusic link doesn't work if the | character is in it (I removed the "&searchlink=" part, which isn't necessary anyway; without it, the link still points where it needs to) and there were }}}s in the "title" field that were messing up the citation template. Also, "Pursue" is correct; "peruse" means to look at something. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer)05:12, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The Climb
Quit removing the AC charts. A discussion a while back (Wikipedia talk:Record charts/U.S. Billboard chart inclusion) states that the AC chart is "The industry standard for easy listening/adult contemporary songs. This chart has been around since the 1960s and is based on airplay. Verifiable and easily sourced." and IS ALLOWED. Before reverting again, if you feel we shouldn't use this chart bring up a discussion on Wikipedia talk:Record charts. Also the sources for the Canadian AC/Country charts are fixed to match the issues they charted on. --Caldorwards4 (talk) 07:21, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think I'm finished. I went through all the music/album reviews I could find, and I think the section is bulky enough for GA; it's comparable to the Lady Gaga song GAs. I'll probably go through the film reviews before FA nom. I found the iTunes episode, but I don't know how to link to iTunes. Do you know how? Liquidluck (talk) 23:17, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
){kind=link}
){kind=link}
