What do you think about nomming 7 Things for FA? The prose looks good, the article looks complete- I'd say it has a good chance. liquidluck✽talk23:55, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, I hope you guys don't mind me butting in. I would advise holding of on the FAC for a little while- I only had a very quick look because it's late here, but I can tell you that it relies a lot on direct quotes which will be frowned upon. You may also want to flesh out the lead a little. If you give me a week, I'd be happy to fix any technical issues and keep an eye on the FAC for any. I may be able to get to it sooner, but I've got a lot on my plate atm both in the real world and on-wiki! My best to both of you, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:10, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Any time! I'll make it my number 2 priority on wiki (I have a GA review that's been waiting far too long!) and I'll get to it as soon as I can. Having a few FAs certainly wouldn't hurt the effort to start a Miley wikiproject! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:16, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Miley project (again)
I think the task force idea is actually a reasonable compromise (though I strongly disagree with Matthewedwards' comment on age and said so at the discussion). As I said there, we can always spin it out into an independent project later on. I don't think any of us who have supported it have any real experience of running a project, so it could prove good experience for a future spinning-out. It would also be easier and quicker to set up than a fully fledged project since, as I understand WP:TASKFORCE, we just have to persuade WP:MUSICIANS to play ball rather than get formal approval. Btw, if we end up with a project or a task force, have you considered how you'll run the administrative side? I'd be happy to handle that, though I'd have to defer any technical stuff (ie fancy graphics, templates etc). HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:31, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A task force is fine with me but I have no idea what the procedures are or how set it up. And we would end up making a joint task force between musicians and actors so we could cover at those main aspects of her. Also, I'd be glad if you fun the administrative side. :) -- 19:41, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
Okay, only two things remain. The reviewer suggested a different screenshot for the music video; could you please do this? Also, what do you recommend for the broken Rolling Stone link? Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer)12:33, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Ipodnano05, the source for your image is just a link to The Walt Disney Company, which isn't a source at all. Can you fix the source so it's a direct URL to the location where the image was actually procured? Thanks. – Kerαunoςcopia◁galaxies03:28, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know if you know how all of this works. The Walt Disney Company is the owner of Hollywood Records and therefore listed as a source. The URL which I found it is not important because they don't own the image. -- ipodnano05 * leave@message03:31, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I do know how it works. The source is where you found the image, not who owns it. From WP:CITE#IMAGE, "Images must include source details [...] on the image description page" and "If you download an image from the web, you should give the URL." The source is not the Wikipedia article on The Walt Disney Page. – Kerαunoςcopia◁galaxies04:05, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't offended, I'm just trying to help you out. And, kind of off topic, what is this supposed to be? If having "second studio album" in the Can't Be Tamed article means that much to you, I'll step aside. I'm not here to argue for the sake of argument, but I wasn't expecting you to change an entire article's layout. We both have valid arguments, no need to take drastic measures. – Kerαunoςcopia◁galaxies04:16, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't want to argue either but I'm just sticking up for what I think. And yes, I'm probably going to work on that soon. But first, I'm going to post up my plans and discuss it with editors in the talk page. I also discussed this in her discography's talk page. It does mean a lot to since she's my favorite artist, thank you for understanding. -- ipodnano05 * leave@message19:19, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. Well, if a consensus is reached, then that could change things. I'll be curious to see what the responses will be. – Kerαunoςcopia◁galaxies19:38, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
O.K. But that's for single chart, which is not being used in "You Belong with Me". So maybe you could bring that up in the discussion because as of now it should stay how it is. Once they find a method for it, I'd be more than happy to change it :) -- ipodnano05 * leave@message01:32, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Im afraid not... the discussion clearly says that because there are seperate articles for Ultratop and Ultratip the charts should not be linked. A chart position of #1 on Ultratip is not equivalent to Ultratop #51. Its clearly stated because the two charts are different. Also WP:record charts clearly says that one a {{singlechart}} is used to list a chart position it should not be changed back. Lil-unique1 (talk) 01:37, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
O.K. But the entire article is already based on the original format and it's definately more difficult changing everything relating to charts than just two charts listed. So, I think this would be the exception to the rule. Afterall, it says "should", not "must". Plus yes it is according to the article: "Ultratip is a chart that shows the top 50 songs that didn't enter the main chart. For Flanders positions are equivalent to (51-100) and for Wallonia (40-90). Ultratip measures airplay and sales where the main chart just measures sales. The chart is similar to the U.S. Bubbling Under Hot 100." So please do not bother the article, please. -- ipodnano05 * leave@message01:42, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well you are speaking of personal preference. There is such thing as simply the Beligium Singles Chart. Both Ultratop and Ultratip are credible charts with their own articles therefore should be displayed seperately. By all means remove the {{singlechart}} if you wish but at the end of the day the ultratip should be left. I'm sensing ownership of the article. please don't go down that route by telling me not to edit the article. Anyone can edit any article on here and you asking me not edit "You Belong With Me" is absurd especially since its important maintainance. Lil-unique1 (talk) 01:48, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry you feel that way but what I meant was for you not to continue making that same edit since I don't want to start an edit war. Also, what's the compromise? -- ipodnano05 * leave@message01:55, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
YES!! Thank you. Or maybe Belgian Ultratip Singles Chart (Wallonia) or same as before but linking Ultratip? I like the way it is now though if these two don't please you. -- ipodnano05 * leave@message02:00, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Im glad we could reach a compromise. Its nice when two editors can discuss the issue without getting personal. *high five*. Lil-unique1 (talk) 02:06, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Orphaned non-free image File:Miley Cyrus - Can't Be Tamed music video.JPG
⚠
Thanks for uploading File:Miley Cyrus - Can't Be Tamed 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. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 19:15, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Orphaned non-free image File:How to Do the Hoedown Throwdown.jpg
⚠
Thanks for uploading File:How to Do the Hoedown Throwdown.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.
Hello, I snagged several images and threw them together as a selection here. Do you want to pick one? Just let me know which column/row you like best. Row 1 is the top, Column 1 is the left column. I tried to find the images with the least amount of motion blur, but she sure moves around a bit. Let me know what you think. The PNG images won't have the artifacts. – Kerαunoςcopia◁galaxies03:44, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oh man, I like all of them. Two of them are very similar to the promotional image that was previously in the article, so maybe one of those? I'll let you make the ultimate decision, feel free to ask anyone else to view. – Kerαunoςcopia◁galaxies04:11, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Do you mean the image-that's-already-on-the-article peacock and a specific frame of cage dancers? Two frames in a single image? – Kerαunoςcopia◁galaxies04:26, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, I understood you. The black bars above and below the image is called a "letterbox". So I will remove those. I was just asking Liquidluck what he meant, just to clarify the image he was looking for. In the meantime, I'll get the other image exported, uploaded, etc. – Kerαunoςcopia◁galaxies04:36, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, image added... Cyrus is pretty small in the frame, so I resized the image a touch, but feel free to change anything, obviously. Wasn't sure what to put in the caption (or the "alt" line, in fact). – Kerαunoςcopia◁galaxies04:53, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Orphaned non-free image File:Miley Cyrus - When I Look at You music video.jpg
⚠
Thanks for uploading File:Miley Cyrus - When I Look at You 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).
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.
I am satisfied with the improvements made, and have passed the article. Congratulations!
Re: Hey...
Sorry if I haven't replied in a few days. It's just that I've been somewhat busy lately. However, feel free to keep leaving requests since I'd rather do it all at once. Don't worry... I'll get to them eventually. TehRandomPersontalk04:12, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Your article nomination of You're Not Sorry is currently being reviewed. There are a number of issues, please work to correct them as soon as possible, once they are corrected i will being the prose review. Any questions of concerns please reach me on my Talk Page =). ..:CK:..(talk2me)03:34, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
When I Look at You sample
Hi! I noticed WILAY didn't have a sample, and thought I'd get your opinion before I make one for it. What section do you think would be best? The piano half, or the electric guitar half? Should it have the "Don't you know? / You're beautiful" in it? liquidluck✽talk02:04, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hey! I asked User:TehRandomPerson to make an ogg sample for "When I Look at You" and so first I would need to tell him it is taken care of. Quite frankly, I believe you should find a common place between the second chorus, the line "Don't you know? / You're beautiful", and the electric guitar solo. Two of those three things are spoken of in the "Composition" section. -- ipodnano05 * leave@message02:11, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I can't include both "Don't you know" and part of the chorus within 24 seconds. I can get either "you appear just like a dream to me" + "you're beautiful" + guitar solo, or guitar solo + chorus. Which do you think would be better? liquidluck✽talk02:31, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I can also take care of You're Not Sorry and Change (and any other TS song) if you want. Just let me know which sections you'd like! liquidluck✽talk02:36, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand this edit. Those charts were produced using {{singlechart}} which automatically expands to provide a reference. When I checked the links in the references, everything was supported except the New Zealand reference. I've restored the chart section sans New Zealand.—Kww(talk) 22:15, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:Record charts, once an article has been upgraded to use the macros, that change should not be reverted. If the other Miley Cyrus articles haven't been upgraded yet, someone will get to them eventually. Your edits had resulted in the chart table being in two places, so I folded them together, using the macros.—Kww(talk) 22:33, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I really don't like the single chart format and I know it's my own preference but I'd rather for have the original way. It says you can in several occasions and, please, I beg of you, to leave it as the original charts. Plus, Norway isn't backed up. I looked on Norwegiancharts.com and the song has not charted yet. -- ipodnano05 * leave@message22:36, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If you have an objection, then explain it to me. I will either fix it, or make you understand why it is the way it is. Just removing them isn't the answer.—Kww(talk) 22:42, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I just do not think it's visually appealing or organized. The original provides the same information in a better method, for me. It's definitely more comprehensible, both toward readers who are experienced users, IPs, do not know much about the music industry, and do know about the music industry. -- ipodnano05 * leave@message22:47, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's not very specific. It's certainly organized: every chart is listed as "country (chart)", with a clickable link to specify which chart is used, and a reference to support it. Contrast that to something like "Dutch Singles Chart", where there is nothing at all to explain which of the five commonly used singles chart in the Netherlands the entry is for.—Kww(talk) 22:51, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If there are five, then it would be specified which one and who is the provider with a link to it. So if people are interested enough, they can see and read more about it. As where there you have no option and most people are left reading things they probably do not care about. -- ipodnano05 * leave@message23:00, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I really didn't understand how that differs from what you get with the macro for the two supported charts, Dutch40 and Dutch100. How would you format it differently so that you would tell people it was from the Netherlands and which chart it was? You can look at articles in Category:Singlechart usages for Dutch40 and Category:Singlechart usages for Dutch100 for examples of how it's done today (and note how easy it is to categorize the articles, something you could never manage manually).—Kww(talk) 23:09, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Also, Wikipedia:Record charts gives you the option to use single chart format or the original. I chose to use the original in the article. There's nothing wrong with that since the original format is also approved by the guidelines. -- ipodnano05 * leave@message23:25, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
WP:Record charts#Chart macros:"Although the macros are not compulsory they are not to be reverted if they have been upgraded."
The categorization is pretty handy for maintaining articles. When Hungary moved all of its charts, I was able to fix all the ones using the macros in a couple of edits. Never have been able to fix all the ones that link manually. I'm still perplexed: are you objecting to including the country name separately? It would be nearly impossible to handle the US and the UK without doing that.
Note that I'm really not trying to harass you. It's important to me that people accept the macros, and I still haven't figured out how to overcome some of the objections. It's really hard to have a consistent format for all countries that doesn't wind up leaving information out. So far, you haven't been specific enough in your objection that I can change anything to make you happier without breaking something else.—Kww(talk) 23:30, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I do not like how the country and the provider such as ARIA is separated. I find it completely useless. If macros left the original format's look, I would have absolutely no problem with it. The singles chart format, to me, looks odd and out of place. If you can find a way to do that, then that would be absolutely wonderful. -- ipodnano05 * leave@message23:36, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've got a discussion going on with Legolas2186, who has some problems with the reference formatting. Once I'm done with that, I'll take it back to WT:Record charts and we can hash it out. Changing the format is easy once I get people to agree what it should be.—Kww(talk) 23:43, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you so much. That's pretty cool an I have a question. Two charts listed in the table do not have references. Is it supposed to be like that? Also, for now, can I leave the Can't Be Tamed article with the original format? -- ipodnano05 * leave@message23:48, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, nevermind, while editing it there seems to be no reference but one automatically appears in the article. I think I'm against this too. It would be better if editors were able to freely format the citation by themselves as people have their preferences, which should maintain cohesive with the rest of the article. -- ipodnano05 * leave@message23:55, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
We can talk about that when I take it back to WT:Record charts too, but if that's removed it defeats the whole purpose: the goal is to have it so that when websites change URL formats we can fix all the references at once by changing the macro. If it doesn't create the reference, it doesn't do that at all.—Kww(talk) 23:58, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, but right now, is there a way to format it yourself if possible? There should probably be a way where it's automatic but changeable if one wanted to. -- ipodnano05 * leave@message00:02, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oh God. Is there a way that is possible though? For right now, can I change the single chart format to the original for the article. At least meanwhile we discuss all of this. -- ipodnano05 * leave@message00:11, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
BTW, whatever you think of the templates, don't do this, where you replaced properly sourced information with an unsourced link because of your distates for the template.—Kww(talk) 21:18, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I'm sorry that you're having difficulties with the talk page. I made a new, brief reply there to test it out and it worked fine. Maybe it was just a temporary issue of some kind; I don't know why it would not let you make edits. Here's the link again in case you need it. Gongshow Talk00:09, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, I'm not sure, that's definitely odd, because as far as I can tell anyone should be able to make edits on that page. I do see that you had left a couple comments there earlier, so it must have happened sometime after that? Anyway, if you still have trouble, just go ahead and edit the article itself...you can always reach me at my talk page and I can cross out stuff on the GA talk page as each issue is resolved. Gongshow Talk00:25, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The bullet points on the GA talkpage are each preceded by three colons. I hope this helps. Regarding the Allmusic quote, I understand what you're saying about the paragraph's content being related. The first half - "Even though the title Hannah Montana 2/Meet Miley Cyrus seems a little self-defeating, it's true that the songs Cyrus sang as herself on the first soundtrack weren't especially memorable, so in a way her part of the set is a second chance to make a first impression. This time, the sound and the songs are better" - is evaluating the quality of the album as a whole (i.e., the songs collectively), and not any song in particular. That's exactly the kind of analysis I expect to read about in the Hannah Montana 2/Meet Miley Cyrus article, but not individual articles on each of the album's 20+ songs. But maybe there's a way to still get this idea across (see below).
For the second half of the quote - "several tracks, such as 'GNO (Girls' Night Out)' and 'I Miss You,' could easily be Hannah Montana songs, but Cyrus' singing is lower and throatier, and the arrangements are more organic and rock-oriented" - I agree that this can be appropriately referenced in the "I Miss You" article; just reworked a little. Perhaps something like, "Heather Phares of Allmusic complimented 'I Miss You' among several tracks on the album that she felt "could easily be Hannah Montana songs, but Cyrus' singing is lower and throatier, and the arrangements are more organic and rock-oriented". This helps keep the focus on the song, while still illustrating what the reviewer said makes it distinct from those of Hannah Montana, and also conveys that the reviewer had a favorable opinion of the song (from the first half of the quote). Gongshow Talk23:14, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, moving on to the "Original research" comments. The first point is that the beginning of the "Background" section states that the song "incorporates pop rock and soft rock elements". The source does not mention this. I know it would be awkward to write the "arrangements are more organic and rock-oriented" again, but how does that equal pop rock or soft rock? Or is there something else in the link that shows that the song incorporates elements of those genres?
The third point - How do we know from the picture that it's a sky? To me it just looks like a light-blue background along with some heads and shadows. Maybe there's a picture that makes it more obvious; if not, maybe the sentence doesn't need anything else after "December 20, 2007".
The fourth point - Here is the quote from the Boston Globe article: "She sings and dances ably enough, and her tunes (she writes, too, including one song poignantly dedicated to her late grandfather) surpass much of what's heard on Radio Disney." This does not equal "'I Miss You' surpasses much of what's heard on Radio Disney", and should not be expressed as such. It's a subtle distinction; the writer's mention of "I Miss You" is only in the context of informing readers that Miley writes songs. The parenthetical reference to the song is an independent statement from the writer's claim that Miley's songs (collectively) surpass much of what's heard on Radio Disney.
The fifth point - Maitland McDonagh of TV Guide described the song as "a vague rocker-chick grab". First, the quote is incorrect - it's "vaguely rocker-chick garb". Second, it's a description of clothing, not the song. It's fine to mention this, but make sure it's clear that the reference is to the outfit Miley's wearing during the performance of the song in the film. Regarding the song itself, the description in the source is that "she sings about...how much she loved her grandfather". Gongshow Talk01:24, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Great work on the changes! Everything looks good, and I liked your suggestion regarding the fourth point, so I went ahead and edited the sentence to something similar to your example. Take a look and let me know if it's okay with you. Gongshow Talk03:43, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome! I know what you mean, it must have seemed like my feedback was as long as the article, haha. But I give you a lot of credit for your efforts; it was a really nice article to begin with, especially for a more "obscure" Miley song. It just needed a few finishing touches! Thanks again for collaborating so well together on this. Take care, Gongshow Talk05:29, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Your article nomination of Fearless is currently being reviewed. There are a number of issues, please work to correct them as soon as possible, once they are corrected i will being a more thorough review and then begin the prose review. Any questions of concerns please reach me on my Talk Page =). ..:CK:..(talk2me)00:26, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You left a comment on my talk page saying done, i guess you didnt notice i added like 5 more issues under "Alright going through more :" lol. Please fix those too :) ..:CK:..(talk2me)04:47, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Im glad my comment made you laugh :). Ive left a couple responses on the review page, once those are done please drop me a message :). Everything is pretty much done except "Background" which i will be bold and fix myself once your done so we avoid edit conflicts. (Nothing major just a few tweeks are needed, grammer and proper sentence ends, no biggy, ill do it so we can avoid more back and forth and i can just pass the article). ..:CK:..(talk2me)04:14, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Ipodnano05, Your article nomination of Who Said is currently being reviewed, there are a few issues, nothing major. Please work to correct them as soon as possible.
On another note please do not write on the review page, instead please message me if you have any questions comments or concerns, or if you are done, i would prefer this because our reviewing of Fearless got really long :S. Thank you :) (CK)Lakeshade✽talk2me22:30, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Your Nomination of Who Said has passed. All my concerns have been addressed and i failed to find any other errors in the article. Great Work, look forward to reviewing your articles in the future! If you need any more audio files please dont hesitate to ask me since i now know how. =D (CK)Lakeshade✽talk2me05:57, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, will be commencing a two-month trial at approximately 23:00, 2010 June 15 (UTC).
Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under flagged protection. Flagged protection is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial.
When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.
Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.
Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.
When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.
Ooh, I just checked your log and it looks like I beat Matthew to actually granting the right! ;) Basically, they're rolling out "pending changes" (a euphemism for flagged revs) which means that when IPs and newly registered editors edit certain pages, an admin (like me! Yay! :D) or a reviewer (like you! Yay! :D [I'm easily amused!]) has to approve the edit before it can be seen by most readers. The idea is to screen out vandalism, BLP issues/libel, copyvios and other crap that needs to be gotten rid of quickly. the gory details on exactly how it works are at WP:PEND and its associated pages- I think they're putting a few pages in the WP space aside for testing before it's rolled out completely. That help? :) HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:27, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
aCharts is used throughout the article, they need to be removed and replaced. Good Charts states "Good and Featured class articles should not rely on unlicensed archives as convenience links, and should use official sites and licensed archives where possible."(CK)Lakeshade✽talk2me01:24, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for uploading File:Breakout Platinum.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.
Enough with this. Please stop reverting additions of the singlechart template. It works fine, all problems with the references it creates have been corrected, and reverting it is simply disruptive. There's no reason to revert them.—Kww(talk) 23:59, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Singlecharts at You Belong with Me.
I don't know if you aware but you have breached a wikipedia policy multiple times by the remove the {{singlechart}} template. We had a row over this previously when i updated the Belgium charts. I've noticed since then you've been and converted all of the single charts back to manual referencing. WP:record charts clearly states that one an article has been coverted to the singlechart template it SHOULD NOT be reverted. Personal preference does not come into the matter. The whole purpose of Singlechart is to unify chart display. Eventually there will be a BOT which checks the claim in the chartmacro against the website and automatically reverts vandalism. I find it extremely disrespectful that you agreed to to stop edit warring over the singlechart and then as soon as i stepped away from the article thinking issues have been resolved you've carried on editing to your own preferences. This on top of the fact that you have breached the policy multiple times. If you are unhappy or have issues with singlechart you should discuss it on the template's talk page. It sounds to me like someone is displaying WP:Ownership. regards, Lil-unique1 (talk) 00:01, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry but as I have discussed over a million of times, the article has to be consistent and it already is composed with the original format. If people spoke in the talk page about it then I wouldn't have to revert it. That way everyone can talk about it. -- ipodnano05 * leave@message00:05, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's fine but what we're dealing with here is a change in policy. Policy on WP:record charts is that the template is preferred over the original format for the very reasons stated above. That policy was voted on and implemented. The idea behind "once implemented singlechart templates should not be reverted" is that it takes time to implement. Like I said previously your personal preference does not overide wikipedia policy. Johnfrompickney, Kww and I are all in favor of the singlechart template and have all spoken to you about not removing it from the article. If you are unhappy with that then it is you that needs to seek consensus change on the template's talkpage because currently the consensus supports the use of singlechart. Btw because of the nature of the template it does not need discussion before an article is converted from manual referencing to singlechart because it was implemented as policy. Once in place it should not be removed. Regards, Lil-unique1 (talk) 00:09, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I understand that those are the rules. And I beg to disagree, the article is found on the original version (which is acceptable by WP:Charts so it's not like it's prohibited or strongly opposing against it. If the WP:Charts has it, than it could be used in the article). Anyways, if people see that the article has not been updated than they should warn editors about it through the talk page to make sure no one has an issue with it. Since "once implemented singlechart templates should not be reverted", as you said, people should be extra careful with it. -- ipodnano05 * leave@message00:29, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Accessdates have been added. To the best of my knowledge, all works and publishers are correct: if you have an issue with any of them, please specify what your problem is specifically, and I'll correct the template if consensus is that you are correct. The reference formats have been reviewed multiple times by multiple people. You were invited to the discussion, and chose not to participate.—Kww(talk) 05:40, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Digital Spy
This was approved as a reliable source, I'm going around adding it where possible. It's been discussed more than five times at the reliable sources noticeboard, which no one contested it's reliability... some links from a search - [1], [2] and [3] ([4]) RAIN the ONE(Talk)11:07, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Orphaned non-free image File:Party in the USA Cover.jpg
⚠
Thanks for uploading File:Party in the USA 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).
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.
Orphaned non-free image File:Hannah Montana 2 Meet Miley Cyrus front cover.jpg
⚠
Thanks for uploading File:Hannah Montana 2 Meet Miley Cyrus front 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).
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.
Orphaned non-free image File:Miley Cyrus - The Climb cover.jpg
⚠
Thanks for uploading File:Miley Cyrus - The Climb 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).
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.
Hi Ipodnano05, I noticed you uploaded a new version of the "Love Story" single cover from Taylor Swift; one had already existed on Wikipedia. I notice that the only difference was that the file was in PNG format and had slightly better quality. For minor issues such as this, perhaps it would just be better to upload a new version of the original file? There is an option to do so at the bottom of every file page on wiki. You could have uploaded the version with updated quality (the JPG to PNG change wouldn't work but it isn't much of a difference) and then there wouldn't be duplicates of copyrighted files existing. (It will take a week for the original file to be deleted.) I won't bother replacing the new file with the old one as that is unnecessary, but just a heads-up for the future! :) –Chase (talk) 05:32, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for uploading File:HannahMontanaMovieSoundtrack.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.
Orphaned non-free image File:Taylor Swift - TodayFairytale.jpg
⚠
Thanks for uploading File:Taylor Swift - TodayFairytale.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.
Orphaned non-free image File:Miley Cyrus - Time of Our Lives.jpg
⚠
Thanks for uploading File:Miley Cyrus - Time of Our Lives.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.
Orphaned non-free image File:Breakout album cover.jpg
⚠
Thanks for uploading File:Breakout 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).
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.
Thanks for uploading File:Swiftholiday.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.
Orphaned non-free image File:Taylor Swift - You Belong with Me.png
⚠
Thanks for uploading File:Taylor Swift - You Belong with Me.png. 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.
What was that GAN you wanted me to look at a while ago? Do you still need me to look at it? I've been a bit busy lately with admin stuff, but I'm trying to get back into more interesting stuff like GA reviewing and article writing now. :) I'm watching you, so you can just reply here to save yourself an edit!HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:45, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Orphaned non-free image File:Miley Cyrus Fly On The Wall.png
⚠
Thanks for uploading File:Miley Cyrus Fly On The Wall.png. 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.
I will go through the article more thoroughly in a little while, for thee most part it looks great. It doesnt have an audio sample, do you need one? Ill upload one if needed (CK)Lakeshade✽talk2me23:21, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have an idea of merging the album section and the EP section into one. Reasons are:
Albums and EPs are both collection of tracks
EPs appear in all Billboard album charts.
If bonus tracks are included in an EP, is it still an EP? (e.g. 1 or 2 bonus tracks added to a 8-track EP; see The Fame Monster.)
It is a new idea and it hasn't been use anywhere yet. Please do not included this as a reason. An example can be seen here. Please add responses here. Thank you. Langdon (talk) 20:20, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am strongly against this. That page doesn't seem too clean but the idea, I think, is kind of bad. Even if you do add (EP) right next to it, some people might get confused. The infobox has albums and EPs separate and I think we should too. The first point doesn't seem valid because a collection is more like a compilation album, and if you put that that way every album is a collection of tracks. Sure, EPs and albums both appear on the Billboard 200. Then again, so do compilations, soundtracks, live album, remix albums, and so many more. The last point is very interesting, like Miranda Cosgrove's Sparks Fly. In that case, it all depends on what the label says it is. But this isn't the case with any of the Taylor EPs. -- ipodnano05 * leave@message20:27, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Orphaned non-free image File:Miley Cyrus - Fly On The Wall.png
⚠
Thanks for uploading File:Miley Cyrus - Fly On The Wall.png. 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 (talk03:28, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for uploading File:Hannah Montana soundtrack.png. 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.
Hello, I just wanted to introduce myself and let you know I am glad to be reviewing the article Party in the U.S.A. you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Edge3 (talk) 21:08, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Orphaned non-free image File:Best of both worlds concert cd cover.jpg
⚠
Thanks for uploading File:Best of both worlds concert cd 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).
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.
Thanks for uploading File:Ordinarygirl.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.
Thanks for uploading File:Hannah Montana - Supergirl.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.
Please don't ever do this again. If you can ever gain consensus on a different appearance for {{singlechart}}, I'll happily help implement it. Trying to justify your actions by using false edit summaries (as you did here, where you should note that the template calls all had the "accessdate" parameter filled out) is inexcusable.—Kww(talk) 04:20, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
People revert you because the manual charts are more difficult to maintain. Whenever the URLs change (which they do occasionally: Hungary changed a while back, and we never have recovered from the last Billboard change), every one of your manual chart entries has to be updated by hand. The ones using {{singlechart}} can all be changed at once in a central location. Further, it makes sure that the citations are correctly formatted, consistent, and aiming at a reliable source. Reasons like that are far stronger than your personal preference. I've encouraged you before, and I'll encourage you again to try to get a consensus to change any portion of the template that you don't care for, but if you can't get consensus for your desired changes, don't just try to revert.
We are only a few months away from being able to monitor {{singlechart}} for vandalism and updates automatically. There's a beta chart generator at http://www.pinkbeachproperties.com/chartsearcher/index.php that can create the chart tables for people. I need to add a few more charts (including Billboard) and update the UK information, but it's close. Once that's done, I'll add chart validation (I have a private beta for that, but it's too buggy still). When that's complete, I'll fire it up as a bot, and chart vandalism will be automatically detected and reverted, and songs popping up on new charts that they aren't currently on will be pointed out automatically. Couple that with being able to be updated when the sites change, and you have a robust system for charts. Manual formatting just doesn't even compare.
I think that once the whole system is in place, the consensus will change from "don't revert singlechart macros" to "don't tolerate manual charts at all".—Kww(talk) 20:31, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No one is asking you to use the template, just not to revert it once someone else does. That's a big difference. I'm sorry that you don't have any more constructive criticism than "crap", and I don't really care what you may volunteer to do. No one could force you to keep your promise, so it isn't worth much.—Kww(talk) 20:51, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You don't own any articles. None. Any changes made by another person are that person's responsibility, not yours. If an article you like has singlechart templates in it, that in no way is forcing you to use it. As for your concerns, you never achieved a consensus that your prefererences were better than what was currently there. I'm pretty responsive to things that people point out as errors, and will make any changes that there is a consensus to do. The guideline states not to revert in order to keep personal preferences from interfering with construction of a reliable and maintainable charting system. Certainly you understand that relying on individual editors to maintain individual articles is less reliable than having a centralised and consistent system? You do also realise that you will outgrow Miley Cyrus someday, and won't have any strong interest in maintaining articles about her, don't you?
As for your second question, there's no reason to revert to the manual version. Being right today doesn't mean it will be right tomorrow or next week, and there's no reason to take the article backwards and make it take extra work to correct. It really isn't a question of "if", it's a question of "when". No website lasts forever, no website keeps the same format forever. All the references in every song article on Wikipedia will have to change someday, and it's only reasonable to prepare for that day, not ignore it.—Kww(talk) 21:06, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for uploading File:Hannah Montana (season 1 DVD).png. 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 (talk04:18, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Orphaned non-free image File:Start-All-Over2.jpg
⚠
Thanks for uploading File:Start-All-Over2.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.
Thanks for uploading File:Hannahmontanaforeverofficialcover.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.
Thanks for uploading File:Readysetdontgo.jpeg. 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.
Thanks for uploading File:MileyCyrus2009Tour.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 (talk04:40, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Orphaned non-free image File:OurSongSingle.jpg
⚠
Thanks for uploading File:OurSongSingle.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.
Thanks for uploading File:Hoedown.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.
Well 300x300 is still the max for NFC. I think the size for two screencaps can still be acceptable, as seen here. Other than that, I'm checking back over the article one more time. Candyo3222:17, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Okeydokey, thanks, and congratulations on your latest GA. Your work to the Miley/Hannah, T-Swizzle, and other articles are greatly appreciated. Keep up the good work! Candyo3222:34, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"Unreasonable reasons"?
Why did you make this rash edit to You Belong with Me? For one thing, you know your edit is against the guideline at WP:CHARTS. For another, your Talk page is littered with the remains of previous admonishments on the matter. You should know that such a significant revision in those circumstances requires that you develop consensus for it first, and it does not appear that you did. And I have to say, your explanation in the edit summary is both vague and opaque. What are "unreasonable reasons"? — JohnFromPinckney (talk)22:40, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Both display the same information in the charts. However, singlecharts' references are not correct. While it is useful to have them for articles that are unmaintained, here it is not needed. Please leave it original because I'm not backing down. -- ipodnano05 * leave@message22:53, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)The consensus is to encourage the use of the templates (for reasons already explained to you). The addition of templates (by whomever did it) would have been in accordance with that consensus.
The consensus is also to discourage the removal of the templates. In this situation, your removal is what might be called "unreasonable", since it is the action against the consensus. (The next step in my logical argument is to drag in some links proving why consensus is the foundation of WP, etc., but we'll skip that, shall we?)
Now, you say they both show the same information. If that were so, there'd be no good argument for changing (at least on that basis), as it'd be just a waste of time (and an unneeded addition to the revision history, as well as a lot more added code in the article). But in fact, your removal changed things. I haven't gone back to study and compare everything, but one thing I noticed before I reverted your edit was that you invented a completely new name for the European chart. With that example, we already have a good reason for preferring {{singlechart}} to the manual way you inexplicaly prefer.
And here's the biggie, you say that "singlecharts' references are not correct." This is a bold and frightening statement, and calls for immediate action. In what respect, specifically, are they incorrect? The template is used many, many places, so if something's wrong with it, we need to fix it pronto. This is a big deal.
Finally, your closing sentence indicates your willingness to work cooperatively in good faith on the collaborative project that is Wikipedia, and I am inspired to adopt the same perspective as you. — JohnFromPinckney (talk)23:18, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's a personal decision. The title isn't like on the site and the work and publisher parameters are not how they should be. I have already discussed this in the template's talk page and they are still they same. -- ipodnano05 * leave@message23:42, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You might have provided links to simplify my search, but I have read your reply with care, and found the following:
At the very end of a test reports thread, you added some quick notes in June, including, "The work should be the website like for example Charts.org.nz, Hitparade.ch, and so on." You also said, "the publishers should have the actual chart provider."
You started another thread a few hours later, beginning with "The work and publisher parameters are incorrect. For the work of Hung Medien sites, it should be the website's name and the publisher should be the actual chart owner, not Hung Medien. For example the Australian Singles Chart would have Australian Recording Industry Association as a publisher." This incited an animated discussion in which you unfortunately participated relatively little. You were in any case unable to shift the consensus of that group to your opinion.
Is that what you are referring to?
I believe Kevin (Kww) decided to keep the explicit mention of the Web site out of the generated ref on the principle that it's in the linked URL already, and very often mentioned in the title shown (all the Hung Medien sites do this, for example). He's also tried to find a compromise solution to say something about the work, in a somewhat more broad sense, so the generated refs have some meaning to readers and are easier to to differentiate from each other.
Take a look at the refs at the bottom of my test page, especially the Billboard ones. If Kevin didn't do some fudging of the would-be work parameter, all those refs would be identical (except for the linked URLs), and they'd all have Billboard or Billboard.com (my preference of the two, by the way) right before the publisher (Nielsen Business Media).
I can't say I agree with your point that the publisher shown in the ref should be the body that originally came up with the publishable data. If anything, that body would be the equivalent of author, but Kevin took that out to satisfy the consensus against it. It's clear to me, at least, that when we point to australian-charts.com as the source of our Aussie peaks info, the publisher is the owner/controller of that site (Hung Medien), and not the organization that compiled it (ARIA).
I would, personally, prefer that the refs had the Web site listed right before the publisher. However, I've learned to live with that for the time being, knowing that consensus can change, and if a discussion could lead to (yet another) sweeping change of the template in that direction, then I'd be happier, and all the articles which use the template would be "improved" in one fell transclusion. But first we'd have to get consensus to support such a change.
Finally (finally!), you mention above that "the title isn't like on the site". Here, you've lost me, as I don't know what you mean. Kevin is very exacting about the title, even down to using the hyphens that properly should be dashes. He's taken a lot of rude remarks for that, so if you now don't think the titles are correct, it's a big surprise to me. But maybe you could be even more precise in your complaint? In the meanwhile, though, I believe removing these templates (apart from going against the guideline) has more negative effects than positive. — JohnFromPinckney (talk)01:29, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If you can point me an example where the title generated by {{singlechart}} doesn't match the title on the website, I will fix it immediately. As John says, I'm scrupulous about that, and any mismatch is an error.—Kww(talk) 07:17, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I was just trying to be flexible. I know you don't have to warn me or do anything of the sort. Sorry for trying to be nice. The jpg format is bad. If by "sharp" you mean sketchy, then it is. Plus, since when is Miley orange? That image is more than horrible and I think anyone would agree with me. I have corrected the licensing on the new one. PNG is much better format. It's more clear. -- ipodnano05 * leave@message22:54, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What are you talking about? That is the best one out there. Anyways, I really don't want to keep going at this. Let's put it up for vote in the talk page since it's clearly just a preference matter consensus does not have to be reached. -- ipodnano05 * leave@message22:57, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I tried it and I will admit the jpg format is a little bit easier to read. The difference is not by much and it's just a couple of words, which are not the main focus of the image. Therefore, the PNG format is better because Miley is seen more clearly and in the right colors. Please don't try to convince me because my mind is made up and I am 100% sure we are getting nowhere with this conversation. Sorry for being rude. -- ipodnano05 * leave@message23:10, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've examined all versions and the jpg version is a faithful reproduction of the source image. That's what we should be using, not a manipulated version. As for your mind being made up, please remember, you don't own the images or the article. --AussieLegend (talk) 23:13, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not saying that what I say goes. It's just that you can't change my mind. I beg to defer because png is the best duplication of the actual image. With album covers, it seems exactly the same. With posters, it should too. In fact, it does. -- ipodnano05 * leave@message23:25, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't find your argument that "png is the best duplication of the actual image" convincing in this case because the png version is most definitely not a faithful reproduction, as evidenced by the difference in the colours between the source and the png version and out of focus text. --AussieLegend (talk) 23:31, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Any image editing program can change colours. It's not the png conversion process that resulted in your image colours being different to the original. --AussieLegend (talk) 00:09, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
File:Hannah Montana The Movie poster.png listed for deletion
Thanks for uploading File:ChangeTaylorSwiftSingle.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.
Orphaned non-free image File:Taylor Swift - White Horse.jpg
⚠
Thanks for uploading File:Taylor Swift - White Horse.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.
Invitation to comment: Formatting changes to WP:DISCOGSTYLE.
Hail and well met! I'm not sure where we stand on the topic of singlechart formatting, but I think it's important that we discuss big changes and try to work up a consensus. Some changes to discography table styling are about to be implemented (adopted), and I'd like to know what objections you might have before people start following the new guideline. Do you have some time to leave a comment?
Quick summary: Over at the Talk page for WP:WikiProject Discographies/style, there's been quite a bit of (at times tedious and technical) discussion about the formatting of discographies. Although WikiProject Discographies/style hopes to be part of the Manual of Style some day, it does not, currently, conform to WP:ACCESS, itself a part of the MoS. This is a problem because articles which conform to the WikiProject Discographies/style ought not be acceptable for promotion to FA or FL status, since they don't conform to the MoS.
After much discussion at Accessibility issues, followed by what was meant to be a conclusion at Time to update, we would be ready to actively address the problem, with discographies eventually being reformatted to appear as currently shown here (already changed from its earlier form). Column order and formatting would be noticeably changed, chart headings would typically be bigger, a few other differences in the coding would be made.
The only hold-up (as far as we know) is lack of wider consensus; I think too few people have participated and I'd like to see more editors register their opinion (be it support or criticism) before we move ahead with a rather significant change. (At the very least, you may consider this fair warning.) Your comment is welcome at Are we ready to apply this updated guideline?. Thanks. — JohnFromPinckney (talk)10:56, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Ipod, there is a European cover for Hannah Montana's "Ordinary Girl" here is [the alternate cover] for the song. Would you mind Uploading the cover as an alternate cover for "Ordinary Girl"? It would mean so much to me. Oh and sorry about all the Hannah Montana stuff I have been editing. You really know more about Hannah and Miley Cyrus more than I do. I guess I was trying to hard to make the article's more appealing and more interesting. I hope you can forgive me.Dbunkley6 (talk) 18:06, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
ok here is the actuall [cover] for Raven-Symone's "Backflip". The cover that is on there is the same cover but, there is a problem with the image posted. Oh and can you tell me how to up load photos's so I can upload on my own, so I won't ask other people?Dbunkley6 (talk) 19:00, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, I really like the double images that are on "Our Song" and "Take It Off". I feel like the video for "Who Owns My Heart" is not accurately represented by one sole screenshot. Where could I find one of those double images? -- ipodnano05 * leave@message19:20, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, double screen shots are rare use on wikipedia, alot of editors dont like them, its a split argument, some feel they violate copyrights, others dont if they are used and licensed properly. Such as in Take It Off (song) (one image couldn't show you how someone upzips themselves and what another planet looks like). Another example is Party in the U.S.A. (Two images are needed to show a comparison) I'll gladly make you one if you wish as long as they meet WP:NFCC. Which images were you thinking? (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=coqbx4C8z0o watch this video and tell me the times of the images you like) - (CK)Lakeshade - talk2me - 19:29, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Image is located at http://nl.tinypic.com/view.php?pic=2qby8o4&s=7 . All you have to do is upload it. Just a suggestion, the images by themselves fail NFCC (i personally dont really listen to it unless im uploading the image like in Take It Off, then im extremely picky on the image(s) ). They will pass if you plan to use them in a way like how provocative the video was blah blah blah. Something like that. - (CK)Lakeshade - talk2me - 20:02, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The singles that you lumped into the full singles list are actually credited to Boys Like Girls and John Mayer respectively. A single only goes into the main list if Swift and her management release it; if another artist releases it (or that other artists' management releases it on that artists' behalf), the single is not considered a Taylor Swift single. However, it is listed separately instead of being discounted entirely because she did feature on the single. This is the way it should be.
To give an example: "Half of My Heart", a song I actually heard on the radio today, is credited to John Mayer. Therefore, it's a John Mayer single, not a Taylor Swift single. Because she contributed vocals to the single and it did chart, it's listed in a separate table. The treatment is entirely correct, as John Mayer's table will list it normally.
Also, you ignored the notice on my edit page saying to keep the discussion all at one place here. I would have preferred you do that, but since it's on my talk page now, may as well do that since Yves is also involved. CycloneGU (talk) 03:07, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. I'll just ask Yves to watch my talkpage so he can keep tabs on it, too. I know he removed some of the unsourced info, and I think some have since been referenced and readded, but there may be other issues that have to be addressed that I might be able to help with. I sadly am gone most of Friday tho., but I may be here briefly in the morning. CycloneGU (talk) 03:45, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Orphaned non-free image File:Taylor Swift - Back to December.png
⚠
Thanks for uploading File:Taylor Swift - Back to December.png. 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.
On 24 October 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Speak Now (song), which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
Orphaned non-free image File:Miley Cyrus See You Again.jpg
⚠
Thanks for uploading File:Miley Cyrus See You Again.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.
File source and copyright licensing problem with File:Hannah Montana Forever.png
File Copyright problem
Thanks for uploading File:Hannah Montana Forever.png. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, their copyright should also be acknowledged.
As well as adding the source, we also need to know the terms of the license that the copyright holder has published the file under, usually done by adding a licensing tag. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.
I'm sorry. Can you hold the review off a little longer. I'm having a lot of troubles with my Internet connection. I will notify you once my Internet connection is stable. Hopefully, tomorrow will be the day. However, it's not certain. -- ipodnano05 * leave@message20:20, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well you see, some user just nominated Back to December for a GA and it has passed. I know you're the one who do most of Taylor and Miley stuff. That's what I meant by my previous message. Anyways, there is still a minor error in See You Again's background (first sentence). Novice7 | Talk03:07, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I saw it. I was more than surprised to find that out. It's pretty cool that there are other contributors who can work significantly besides me. And, no problem, will fix. So, hopefully, I will have Internet by next week. AT&T keeps stalling me. It's getting on my last nerve. -- ipodnano05 * leave@message03:16, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, there's a grammar error. Just read it thoroughly.. And also, the live performanced third paragraph needs fixing.. Not second as I mentioned. Novice7 | Talk03:20, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi again! There is a new nomination of "Mean". Maybe, you should review it. You know a lot about these songs. Just my opinion, don't take me wrong. lol. Novice7 | Talk11:14, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Could you look over the comments I've added to the GA review page? There are only a few minor issues left before I can promote to GA. Cavie78 (talk) 13:41, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I really love Miley and Taylor (thought I work on Whitney Houston articles). When I hear Start All Over, I feel like going back to being a thirteen year old =) Tim McGraw is a great song too. Then there is White Horse. I'll be on a break for a few days. So, just leave me a message when you're ready. Right now, I'm uploading clearer Miley and Taylor samples ;) Novice7 | Talk07:52, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
OMG! Thank you. Whitney Houston is an icon. She's amazing. Her voice is to die for. It's amazing for words. I don't really know any of her songs other "I Will Always Love You," which i have on my iPod. I've heard of her recent songs, but haven't taken out the time to listen to them. My favorite Miley songs are "See You Again", "The Climb", and one that's called "Spotlight" (well those are among my favorites. just the ones that came to mind). My favorite Taylor songs are "Our Song", "Love Story", "You Belong with Me" and her ENTIRE new album. That album is just TOOOOOO AMMMAAAZZING. -- ipodnano05 * leave@message08:07, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank YOU!!!!!! I didn't know you loved Whitney (or Nippy as fans call her)!!! Well, I have two articles on GA How Will I Know and Why Does It Hurt So Bad. Check the samples out. Then there is the amazing I Believe in You and Me. About Taylor, yes, Speak Now is much much better than Fearless. And as for Miley, did you hear I'll Always Remember You from Hannah Montana Forever??? It's amazing!!! It actually made me cry :"> I've finished Start All Over. I'll do the rest soon. I'm on a break now, but will upload samples soon. :) Novice7 | Talk08:14, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
But of course I heard it. I love that song. I instantly grew obsessed with it. And thank you for doing that. The sample was in desperate need for a better one. -- ipodnano05 * leave@message09:12, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Orphaned non-free image File:Party in the U.S.A. cover.png
⚠
Thanks for uploading File:Party in the U.S.A. cover.png. 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. Courcelles03:35, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi
Well, sorry to bother you, but there are more comments @ Time of Our Lives GA (I want it to be a GA!!). Also, I found this. It has amazing information on the Composition of the song. Hope we can use it. Good luck.. Novice7 | Talk06:49, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Orphaned non-free image File:Party in the U.S.A. cover.png
⚠
Thanks for uploading File:Party in the U.S.A. cover.png. 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. Courcelles08:18, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. Hahaha.. Fine, you can finish the tour. Anyways, I'm not that good in writing, so I've collected many sources and I'll give them to you to complete Love Story. Novice7 | Talk07:41, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry that I didn't answer back before. I read your message but haden't worked up the time to answer you back. Anyways, that sounds great. Finding sources is usually the hardest part. You can leave the list of source on User:Ipodnano05/Sandbox4 starting now. Thank you VERY much. And thanks for linking that on the "Tim McGraw." You're very attentive. I appreciate it a lot. Thanks. -- ipodnano05 * leave@message06:18, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I will leave the sources there. As I said before, I love Taylor and Miley. In fact, I started listening to their music first, so I kinda still have that "fan"ism in me =D Thank you. So, I just add the link and title. Is that okay? Novice7 | Talk06:28, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia Ambassador Program is looking for new Online Ambassadors
Hi! I noticed your activity as a Good Article reviewer, and wanted to let you know about the Wikipedia Ambassador Program, and specifically the role of Online Ambassador. We're looking for friendly Wikipedians who are good at reviewing articles and giving feedback to serve as mentors for students who are assigned to write for Wikipedia in their classes.
If you're interested, I encourage you to take a look at the Online Ambassador guidelines; the "mentorship process" describes roughly what will be expected of mentors in the coming term. If that's something you want to do, please apply!
You can find instructions for applying at WP:ONLINE. The main things we're looking for in Online Ambassadors are friendliness, regular activity (since mentorship is a commitment that spans several months), and the ability to give detailed, substantive feedback on articles (both short new articles, and longer, more mature ones).
I see you've nominated it for a GA. Somebody else fixed the issues pointed out at the review. Also, maybe this and this would be of help to you. Woo, it's been some time since we talked :) Novice7 | Talk16:36, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi! Wow, that tour article must have been humongous! Great! Of course Fearless would be great. Lol, but as you know, I'm not so good in writing, but will provide you with links and other information necessary. What do you say? And, the new issue of Sound on Sound has all the information on the production of Speak Now album :O Novice7 | Talk10:58, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, you did an amazing job on the tour article. Okay then, Love Story it is. You're right, doing all the singles and then the album is easier. Novice7 (talk) 04:26, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
WikiProject Good Articles will be running a GAN backlog elimination drive for the entire month of March. The goal of this drive is to bring the number of outstanding Good Article nominations down to below 50. This will help editors in restoring confidence to the GAN process as well as actively improving, polishing, and rewarding good content. If you are interested in participating in the drive, please place your name here. Awards will be given out to those who review certain numbers of GANs as well as to those who review the most. On behalf of my co-coordinator Wizardman, we hope we can see you in March. MuZemike delivered by MuZebot00:20, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A tag has been placed on File:Party in the U.S.A.png requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the image is an unused redundant copy (all pixels the same or scaled down) of an image in the same file format, which is on Wikipedia (not on Commons), and all inward links have been updated.
If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hang on}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion, or "db", tag; if no such tag exists, then the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate and adding a hang-on tag is unnecessary), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. ~ [ Scott M. Howard ] ~ [ Talk ]:[ Contribs ] ~07:25, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I know. Thanks for reviewing the article and I think I'm going to later because right now my computer doesn't work. Right now I'm using someone else's. As soon as the problem is done, I'm going to edit like crazy. -- ipodnano05 * leave@message23:26, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
.png){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
