If I have left you a message: please answer on your talk page, as I am watching it. If you leave me a message: I will answer on my talk page, so please add it to your watchlist.
Please click here to leave me a new message.
January 2009
Unconstuctive? Well, these types of albums should be listed separately by their own types per Article-wide, so we can not add them all in one section. I think you should review what you reverted because you made a mistake. SparksFly16:37, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
My apologies for the warning, which has been removed. The warning was an accident, and in trying to remove the message and undo the removal of content, my browser crashed. When I got back in, I forgot to undo the revert and the warning. Please accept the apologies for my clear error. Alansohn (talk) 16:49, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wikiquote does not. It only have quotes as her roles in films and/or television, not as herself so it should be deleted. SparksFly14:09, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Orphaned non-free media (File:Livefrommadisonsquare.jpg)
Thanks for uploading File:Livefrommadisonsquare.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 media 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 'image' 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 "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:12, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hot 100 number-one lists
Hey, Efe. I saw it was you who started to format these lists like t-h-i-s, and I also did it. I just wanted to know if you were upset by it. I don't know, you started and I did not ask permission to "copy it." Well, that's all. Thanks. SparksFly14:49, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If I own those pages, I'll kill you. Hehe. Just kidding. Its fine. Looking forward to working with you on the other lists. I'm inviting you to join the project. --Efe (talk) 06:28, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
2002 page is actually one of my projects. My initial plan was only to include 2003 up to present. But one of the members of the project wished of me working on the list of number-one singles up to the 90s. 01, 02, 03 are unfinished because I've been busy these previous days. --Efe (talk) 11:00, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
2002 page is actually one of my projects. My initial plan was only to include 2003 up to present. But one of the members of the project wished of me working on the list of number-one singles up to the 90s. 01, 02, 03 are unfinished because I've been busy these previous days. --Efe (talk) 10:59, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I understand, wikipedia does not pay our bills. And on the invitation, I would love to participate, but I have a problem: I still am not so good with English, and when I see those discussions in the project's talk page; those words, words and more words, I get a headache and I want to give a shot in my head. I am glad you ask, but I have to pass. SparksFly14:35, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Philippines. We are actually good in English; its our second language. But in my case, I'm still struggling to level the standards here in WikiPedia. --Efe (talk) 05:04, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Orphaned non-free media (File:Shopaholicsoundtrackcover.png)
Thanks for uploading File:Shopaholicsoundtrackcover.png. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 media 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 'image' 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 "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:16, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I saw it was removed yesterday. I think its fine to add it on the lead, and its real good for the improvement of the lead. What I can suggest is add an attribution of the line "is being credited as having started the 'first major dance craze of both the new millennium and the Internet'", like who said the quoted phrase, then add an inline source due to the quotation. That will save it. --Efe (talk) 04:12, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Daydream
Hi. I can review the article again, but I have to do it later in the day, but I did a quick glimpse and I found this:
The tracklisting is incomplete. Where is "Melt Away"? The track was written by Mariah and *Babyface, produced by Mariah.
The bonus tracks are also missing, "El Amor Que Soñe", "Fantasy" feat. ODB.
The succession boxes are gone, why?.
The previous version had more certifications with references, where are them?.
Just for your information, re: what you wrote at Talk:Lady Gaga: "Wikipedia does not accept videos as sources." - Videos are no different from other sources according to policy, from WP:Reliable sources: "The term "published" is most commonly associated with text materials. However, audio, video, and multimedia materials that have been recorded then broadcast, distributed, or archived by a reputable third-party may also meet the necessary criteria to be considered reliable source. Like text sources, media sources must be produced by a reliable third-party and be properly cited." (this is not me arguing to include that specific video as a source, just a heads up about broader policy.) Regards, Siawase (talk) 17:52, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi,
I would like to resolve our dispute peacefully. To show my good will, I'm not reverting your changes and I will wait for your anwser.
I have noticed that you've made same changes in the Daydream (Mariah Carey album) article in April 2009, so I understand you're involved in it.
I want you to know that I like female singers, including Carey or recenty Lady Gaga. Still, going through their Wikipedia pages I have
noticed that Carey's articles are one of the worst. That's why I've decided to make changes in the Daydream article. But on top of that, I'm interested
in charts and sales of different artists around the world, and I'm a memeber of various chart forums for a long time.
I've made different kind of changes in the article. First of all, I have fixed many, many links and I'm sure you'll agree with that?
Next thing I remade was the track listing. I have changed its format, according to WP:ALBUMS. I hope you're ok with that too?
And now the worst part - sales/charts. I think this is something we should work out. I don't know if these claims were already in the article or if you added
them, but:
1. The London Paper is not a good source when it can not be verified anywhere else. Nor Carey's label, nor respected music magazines have
never stated that Daydream sold 25 million. And I'm sure if Carey sold that, they would mention this every time they make a press release. The source I
provided with sales of 22 million is much more realistic.
2. The first source in the article leads to Undercover.com.au., which say nothing about the claim that Daydream was one of the 116 most influential
albums. No problem, this sentence can stay but the source should be romoved or changed.
3. The article is about Daydream. You're mentioning Carey's two others albums: Music Box and Merry Christmas, and that's ok, but let's leave them
with words succesfull or big sellers, but without fake numbers (32 milllion of Music Box according to Undercover.com.au - not reliable source at all.
It's one of the most ridiculous articles regarding artist sales I have ever read. Every of these albums is few million higher from the numbers from official
sources). And Merry Christams is defenately not the best selling Christmas album. The source for this claim doesn't mean anything. It's not from any
respected music magazine or the label itself. These are the kind of sentences like "the best selling female artist in the world" or "the queen of pop". I
have replaced this with a link form Billboard magazine. Or we can just write one of the best selling Christmas albums if you agree.
4. Chart table: I have added peak positions and additional certifications/sales, and only the official ones. I'd be happy to give additional sources if you
like. And even if few of them can not be proved, it doesn't mean it's not true. I have many sources which unfortunatelly can not be used in Wikipedia (like
charts forums).
I'm waiting for your opinion. I hope we can make this article look good. I appreciate your work and if you could let me make may changes, the article would
be even better. I don't want the numbers to be to high or to low, I'm not an obsessed Mariah Carey fan nor a hater. Hope we can agree.
1. I will leave your source thelondonpaper, although I still believe that this free newspaper is not reliable. According to Sony Music Japan press release from November 1999, the Daydream album has sold 19 million copies worldwide. Unfortunatelly the article is offline now. It's impossible to sell additional 6 million between 2000-2008.
2. great
3a. I will change the sentence about Music Box and leave it without a number. The source Undercover is the worst source in the world. I could replace it with the Tickets Specialists source which is better, although still inflated. In Mariah Carey DVD #1's from December 1999 we can read in the Biography section that Music Box has sold 24 million worldwide. So the claim that between 2000 and 2008 it has sold additional 8 million (to make it 32 million) is ridiculous.
3b. What does it mean that the album is the most succesful? It can mean that it has won the most music awards. Merry Christmas didn't win any. It can mean that the album peaked the highest on the charts. Well, Dion's These Are Special Times had better peaks and chartruns. Finally, it can mean that the album sold the most. Again, Merry Christmas is not the best selling Christmas album in the U.S. or worldwide. As you can see here [1] it's #8 in the U.S. As it goes for worldwide sales we'll never know for sure. However, Elvis Presley sold 12 million in the U.S. alone of his Elvis' Christmas Album and that's the maximum Mariah could sell in total (although she didn't: 1 million in Europe, 5 million in the U.S. and 2 million in Japan = 8 million, all confirmed officially. How much could she sell in the rest of Asia? Not 4 million, that's for sure).
Do you see may point? It's not about finding article saying something and put it here in Wikipedia. I can find many articles written by Mariah haters but I don't put them here although they exist. I will say again that the sentence the most succesful in the world should be backed with the reason for this claim. I hope I have proved to you that Merry Christmas is not the most succesful and we can leave it as "one of the most succesful".
4. As you said I have fixed the sources for peak positions and certificatios. Few of the links don't lead directly to the source and you have to search in the database. The worldwide sales in not needed in the table. It is mentioned in the article and sourced.
I don't understand why you're reverting all the changes if you don't agree only with point 3 and 4? We don't argue about links, track listing, points 1 and2, and I have changed all these things too.
3. As you said, I have found reliable article saying that Merry Christmas is #12 of best selling Christmas albums of all time in the U.S. The source is respected Billboard magazine. It's definately a bigger reliable source, no question about it. [2]
4. Why are you removing all? Most of the peaks and certifications can be find in the given links, just click on them (make some effort and check it please). In few cases, it is enough to type album's name in the database to find desired information. It's not complicated and it's all from official sources. These websites are made that way and that's the closest to 'direct' we can get. It takes only few seconds to find what you want. And if some can't be find according to you, please use the 'citation needed' tag, but don't remove them.
I have agreed with you on point 1, 2 and we can discuss point 3. But I will never agree with you on point 4. I'm hoping that the only thing you will change in the article now is adding citations tags. Remember, don't remove everything as I have made thousand changes in this one edit. Remove/change just the thing you don't agree with. Max24 (talk) 23:24, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Now I see clearly that you don't care about the article itself, but just want it to be your version. I don't need to point out my changes. You can see them by comparing my edit with yours. But you don't even care about what was changed, just reverting it all over and over. Luckily, you're not the one who has the last word. That's why I have asked for third opinion. And by the way, the case of Daydream selling 25 million is not resolved. And if you think that peak positions are not needed in the article, that shows what kind of expert you are. Max24 (talk) 00:13, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Both images are different, showing completely different sides of the video, so how one image could be equivalent to the other? SparksFly17:53, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Different images will always be....well....different; and that difference is, of itself, insufficient justification for additional images. What is the usual interpretation, and mine and others in this case, or "equivalent significant information" is that all significant information that an image conveys to a reader can be covered by the existing image. None of the keep arguments showed how having this additional image conveyed such significant image. What a failure of NFCC#3a usually means is that the additional image adds little or nothing to reader's understanding and certainly does not add significant additional understanding of the article's topic - Peripitus(Talk)06:56, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the music video has nearly eight minutes of length, I know that is not a good reason to add new images, but it's certainly sure that one image can not convey all the meaning of this topic – in this case, the music video. I still did not understand your point; the image deleted portrays the artist lying in a pool blood which is the climax of the video – I think that you are saying that it does not add significant additional understanding of the article's topic, is that right? SparksFly16:32, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Essentially yes. The NFCC rules are designed to exclude all but a limited range of non-free content. The image shows a reader something. Something that you may think is significant, though this is often the case for those close to a topic. What is needed is to show how it meets WP:NFCC#8 as without this, it is unneeded and, if there is other non-free content, will likely fall foul of NFCC#3 - Peripitus(Talk)22:35, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for uploading File:Madonnacelebrationsong.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. FileBot (talk) 01:44, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Orphaned non-free image (File:Now!US29.jpg)
⚠
Thanks for uploading File:Now!US29.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. FileBot (talk) 07:24, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The Simpsons 20th Anniversary Special – In 3-D! On Ice!
I have no idea why you would say that I didn't explain my edits, when I did. But, I'll do so in more detail.
The image. It is just a generic 20th Anniversary promo, and not necessarily about the special. Because of wikipedia's rules regarding nonfree images, all fair use images in a page must aid in the critical commentary. That image does not and it is just decorative.
Morgan Spurlock was more of a presenter than a star.
This was not an episode of The Simpsons, it was a special. So you can not say it had "the largest audience for the show since it aired after the Super Bowl in 2005" when a) it wasn't an episode and b) the episode that preceded it (Once Upon a Time in Springfield) had higher ratings. As for the fact that the game boosted the ratings, it is noted for the episode, but I don't see why it's worth noting here because it didn't air directly after the game. I'd also like to point out that the section's current state is temporary because I plan on cleaning it up and expanding it when the sources become available.
Hi, noticed you repeated the same action on this template. Would love to discuss your reasoning as your editing currently could be taken as disruptive. So would like to resolve the issue so that we are in agreement going forward. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 02:41, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for uploading File:20th Anniversary Special.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. FASTILYsock(TALK)05:13, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Gaga revisions
Hey, I think it's great that you're being bold in editing Gaga's bio. However, some stuff has to be put back, most notably about touring. I've omitted plenty of stuff in the past from the bio, but they were far less notable, non-valuable affairs. Try to rephrase it or eventually it will be put back. Imperatore (talk) 02:51, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for uploading File:Livefrommadisonsquare.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 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).
){kind=link}
){kind=link}
){kind=link}
){kind=link}
