User talk:Ericorbit/Archive16

This is an archive of past discussions with User:Ericorbit. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Since you were the last admin to block 70.50.163.147 based on boldfacing in music articles. I just wanted to let you know the editor was back at it today in four articles and even boldfaced the weeks that Jordin Sparks performed first on American Idol. Aspects (talk) 20:31, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Although I seem to have been somewhat dragged into the middle of this, I would like to direct your attention to a minor content dispute/major editor spat between KM*hearts*MC and JWAD. Every editor (on Wiki) seems to go through some sort of "disagreement" with each other but these two seem to have an on-going catfight for the past few months.I believe it first began with the Confessions Tour and then went onto the Blond Ambition World Tour and now its at the Sticky & Sweet Tour. Getting annoyed by someone is not adequate reasoning for blocking a user (as JWAD claims on this talk page. Something needs to be done with these two before the problem gets worse. Not to cause further uproar but it appears that admin lifebaka is showing some of sort of favoritism in this matter. If I am wrong, I do apologize, but aren't admins supposed to be a neutral element when it comes to disputes such as these? My reasoning for this is here and he tells JWAD something different. If his/her intention were to warn KM of a blocking, he/she should have done so and not be sneaky about it. Alkclark (talk) 16:17, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm curious. — Realist² 20:51, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

If he tries to stage a revolt let me know lol. — Realist² 21:02, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

I responded, hope that helps. — Realist² 15:50, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Eo, I think some of these new Britney Spears articles need semi protecting. I have both the singles and the album on my watchlist and it's getting too much to handle. — Realist² 22:44, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Hey I just re-deleted this page as I saw you recreated it, but I'm wondering if maybe you were in the middle of doing something particular here? If so, sorry about that - I thought that the content was already merged per the AfD discussion. - eo (talk) 12:50, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Hello! I deleted and restored the page (minus my one edit) because of an erroneous edit summary on my part. The merger has not yet occurred.

Also, an article whose content has been merged into another article should not be deleted; the title should be redirected to the destination article (thereby preserving the revision history and sending interested readers to the information). —David Levy 12:56, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

This guy is causing no end of trouble today and he already has a colorful block log. I haven't warned him, it's a waste of internet ink as he ignores. Any help is appreciated. In related news, I think I should stick those two links on the chart ban list soon, I don't see any objects, do you? — Realist² 20:58, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

why this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Flygui (talk • contribs) 22:18, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

There's a well established precedent for singles templates being separate. Merging this content into Christina's main template would make for a monstrous template. (For instance, I know there's Template:Shania Twain and Template:Shania Twain singles. Heck, George Strait has three singles template since one template can only hold 20 rows.) Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 13:33, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Think you could semiprotect Backflip (song) and Bump (song)? The only place these things charted was Radio Disney, and there's an IP dead set on undoing the redirects.—Kww(talk) 04:16, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Can you watch over I Hate This Part while I'm traveling? There's an editor that insists on adding the Bulgarian charts.—Kww(talk) 16:05, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Bottle Pop actually was confirmed as a single by group member Melody Thornton. Watch the reference I put on the page. 67.172.94.65 (talk) 21:51, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Can you stop deleting the chart positions i put on Dido's Safe Trip Home page. These are real and valid charts, so stop deleting them, or i will report you to Wikipedia. User StephenN17 (talk) 16:05, 22 December 2008 (UTC)StephenN17StephenN17 (talk) 16:05, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi, i'm putting the US Billboard chart positions back on the page, please do not delete them. User StephenN17 (talk) 22:30, 23 December 2008 (UTC)StephenN17StephenN17 (talk) 22:30, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

I submit this to you. This is an excerpt from the critical biography by Brian Johns (1988, omnibus press). Johns wrote about "The Tube" Uk TV'performance that the band made in april'86, performing "Candyman" and "92°" (you can find it on youtube). So, one can apply the Johns'remark to this 1986'pic as it's from exactly the same era-. I brought the whole part as it makes more sense. I completely share this point of view of course, but Johns explained it in a far better than what I did earlier. Johns wrote this at page 82 in his "Entranced" book : "Sioux sought to dissociate the group from the nostalgia and the post-mortems as much as possible but the knockers must have drawn some satisfaction from the band's performance on the 100th edition of the tube in april, where they were introduced by seventies game show host nicholas parsons. No doubt the chairbound weeks spent resting her leg played its part, but watching sioux conjured up images of bolan circa 1975, gary glitter on one on his comeback shows or elvis's swansong on his last tv special. Her face had filled out and the make-up she had always employed to dazzling effect looked uncomplimentary. The songs "candyman" and "92 degrees" indicated a musical consoilidation, rather than constipation, as the quanticks of this world would have it, but the lasting memory of the burlesque image of Siouxsie." Let's note that the oakland pic' was taken one month later in May during the us'leg of the tour outside a hotel. I'd like to know now your point of view after this meaningful point of view from a critical journalist. I'll add to this that to me, the Oakland'86 pic is not neutral, 'cse it shows a cartoon image of the singer. I don't see why this pic should remain after all this, especially as it's not attached at all to a special 1986 concert or 1986 event mentionned in the page. Carliertwo (talk) 16:58, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:King and Queen of America.png. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. 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 any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Stifle (talk) 10:19, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Lennox Beethoven1.png. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. 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 any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Stifle (talk) 10:52, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Lennox Beethoven2.png. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. 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 any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Stifle (talk) 10:52, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for uploading Image:Lennox ItsAlright.png. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this image on Wikipedia may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the image description page and add or clarify the reason why the image qualifies under this policy. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a non-free use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for images used under the non-free content policy require both a copyright tag and a non-free use rationale.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under the non-free content policy, it might be deleted by an administrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. Stifle (talk) 10:52, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm on! Thanks for the invitation. --Efe (talk) 03:04, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

I have noticed that you have reverted the page from others who have edited it. Please discontinue this action also "Annie" and "Jump Up In The Air" aired to the radio and Ms Badu stated they were singles of New Amerykah Pt. 2. She introduced these songs during her 2008 Vortex Tour. Also, please refrain from changing the content "Confirmed Tracklisting" to "Tracklisting". These were songs that were just confirmed not the whole set. Tarysky (talk) 21:07, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree. Your edits were sloppy. Tarysky (talk) 21:25, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

That's not vandalizing. Tarysky (talk) 21:32, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Your discussion is done and has been erased from my page. Please discontinue from leaving further comments. Thank you Tarysky (talk) 21:43, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

If you continue to place unsourced information into the article and/or vandalize it, I will leave as many messages on your Talk Page as is necessary. - eo (talk) 21:44, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

I have not vandalized the page. Besides, there's no point in you even editting the page when you did not want to start it. Also, you will not leave as many message as you want on my talk page. But who cares because I will not get in trouble behind your reckless and foolishness edits. Tarysky (talk) 22:20, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Please do not leave personal attacks on my page. Also, discontinue from leaving comments on my talk page. Tarysky (talk) 22:34, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

No personal attacks are being made against you Tarysky. — Realist² 22:40, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

		The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
		I'm giving you this barnstar because you deserve it, and according to your userpage, you ain't had a barnstar in ages, which is shockingly unfair. Clearly keeping Wikipedia clean doesn't always make you popular—seriously, the Britney Spears fanboys hate me—but those of us that respect policy, also respect you. — Realist2 03:24, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

No problem. — Realist² 15:56, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Not actually a big deal for me Eric. Its just it has been agreed that we should use her full name. And for consistency purposes, too. --Efe (talk) 11:08, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

That a valid reason too. Maybe we can ask other's input? --Efe (talk) 11:35, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm really worried about consistency. OK, I will change BK to B first until we get a consensus. Anyway, its not detrimental. --Efe (talk) 11:40, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

I am really busy tonight, Eric. I would be willing to discuss this stuff probably tomorrow. I am just wondering why did you removed/reverted everything that has been added above the table. You know, I am trying to expand them for future FL nominees. I am looking at List of number-one Billboard Top Latin Albums of 2002, List of number-one Billboard Top Latin Albums of 2001, and two more. All are featured. --Efe (talk) 12:24, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

And by the way, the image is free; I just uploaded it tonight. --Efe (talk) 12:27, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Is it fine if we open the discussion on the project's talk page? --Efe (talk) 04:34, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I have responded on my sandbox page. Thanks for dropping by. --Efe (talk) 12:57, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

		The Music Barnstar
		For your amazing contribution to WikiMusic, especially in organizing lists related to Wikipedia:WikiProject Record Charts. Every time I click these pages, I see your name. For inviting me as well in joining the project. Wish you a fruitful 2009, Eric. --Efe (talk) 06:37, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Eric, I am really sorry. I am just so excited. If you have comments, please go either to the project's talk page or Wikipedia:Peer review/Hot 100 number-one hits of 2008 (United States)/archive1‎. Thank you. --Efe (talk) 09:27, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I was turned down at RFPP for "not enough recent activity", but I disagree. Hot 100 Brazil is being added to this article every day by our friends from 189.106.*.*. I think a few weeks of semi-protection is in order.—Kww(talk) 18:03, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi Eo, two Britney Spears sites are claiming that the 3rd singles from her album has been announced. Unfortunately these sources are very unreliable. One was written by someone called "lead bitch" and the other is a blatant blog log. Britney fans are screaming it's reliable and are trying to add the information to Circus (Britney Spears album) and Circus (song). There have been attempts to start a new article for this "single" based on these dubious sources. Currently I'm the only person trying to instill order. More established editors have agreed with me on the album talk page that more reliable sources are needed. However the fanboys are not listening. I need more eyes in on this, and Protection is probably needed if things don't calm down. Could you lend me a hand, I'm getting bogged down. Cheers. — Realist² 21:23, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, this is getting a little crazy, there are literally swarms of these people coming from everywhere. — Realist² 22:54, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

If You Seek Amy needs protecting (the managed to get around it by using the letter U as an abbreviation). — Realist² 04:35, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

New source, I think we can create the article now, and allow the information through. It might be wish to but the article on Semi protection straight away. It's certain to cause mass hysteria fr the first few days because of the Australian "controversy" surrounding the lyrics. — Realist² 04:58, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Cheers, a new Britney Spears article for me to watchlist *Rolls Eyes*. — Realist² 15:33, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi, i've put appropriate sources to the Billboard charts, so you don't need to delete them anymore. User StephenN17 (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 22:17, 7 January 2009 (UTC).

I'm not sure if your still watching this article, I am. It seems that editor is now using his IP to insert the text. He's siting essence magazine. However I went to essence magazine and read the "The Brave One" article and it did not mention any of this tracklisting stuff. — Realist² 18:29, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Cheers, like I said, I found the article piece on their website and it did not mention any of this. Unless a more detailed piece was published in print. If so, he needs to site publishing info etc. — Realist² 18:36, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I have noticed that you, User:Realist2 and User:JC STARR729 have engage in an edit war over the page, New Amerykah Part Two (Return of the Ankh). Please discontinue this action, because this will result in the page being fully-protected. By the way, In Essence Magazine she mentioned the upcoming releases of "New Amerykah Pt. 2", "Lowdown Loretta Brown", and "Mama's Deuce Deuce" coming in 2009. She also mentioned some of the tracklisting for "New Amerykah Pt. 1 and 2 (individually paged)" in the magazine to.Erykah Badu on the cover of Essence So if you have not read this magazine, you do not have the privilege of reverting back and forth. Tarysky (talk) 23:01, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

take a look. *Rolls eyes*. — Realist² 17:43, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Your sock aka you just confessed and now your trying to say it's a joke. Tarysky (talk) 22:54, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Unless you have something specific to say about Wikipedia or the improvement of an article, keep inappropriate comments off my Talk Page. I will not comment on your sockpuppet accusation — that's your mess, not mine. - eo (talk) 23:13, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

We found a sock. Tarysky (talk) 14:38, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

False. Read my prior comment. Stay off my Talk Page. - eo (talk) 15:53, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi Eo (If I'm allowed to message you without accusations of sock puppetry *rolls eyes*). I've been reading online (at dubious sites), a list of the top 20 selling artists of 2008 in the US, based on album sales. I read that Michael Jackson had sold 1.4 million albums, making him the 14th best selling artist of the year. I've had a quick look and can't verify it. What I do know is, Jackson sold 712,000 albums this year from the combined sales of Thriller 25, Thriller (2001 reissue) and Thriller (1982 original). Read here. Thus a total of 1.4 from his back catalog seems very plausible. Know any reliable sources for this list? Best. — Realist² 00:52, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I know the man who writes it is very distinguished so a assumed it would pass WP:RS quite easily. It's not really very useful to me, as it only documents his sales for the three Thrillers (I already have a reliable source for the sole sales of T25). However I'm sure the info is very useful to others. I'm just interested to see if Billboard or someone have done this top 20 list that's buzzing around. If I can get a reliable source that he's sold 1.4 million albums in America this year, I can add it to the main biography. This is quite huge for Jackson, his US sales had been on a slide since 2003 (when he was accused of child abuse for the second time). His sales started to recover in 2007, but 2008 sales are probably his best since 2001. — Realist² 14:37, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

http://www.allmusic.com/cg/amg.dll?p=amg&sql=11:gifwxqe5ld0e~T5 - this lists chart positions for Sammy Hagar's albums. But a bunch of them are for some other Pop Albums chart that it appears Billboard used before the current system? Looks ok to use as the chart of the times instead of Billboard for older stuff but I didn't want to until I know until I asked someone. Until you get back to me I'll use it though, for Sammy Hagar discography (The Elfoid (talk) 22:22, 11 January 2009 (UTC))

Yeah, I'm not sure why the chart title changes like that, I'm no expert on Billboard history, Eo? — Realist² 22:33, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Just a chart name change, that's all. It's the same chart. - eo (talk) 10:51, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi Ericorbit, i am in the process of modifying the single pages of the above artists according to WP:SINGLE for being a WP:GA article. Can you please keep an eye on their changes. I was recommended to you by User:Realist2. Thanking you, "Legolas" (talk) 04:36, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

A little help. In the article Poker Face (Lady GaGa song), i am trying to merge the cells with precession of "Hot N Cold" together. But its not working. Please can you help me out?? "Legolas" (talk) 09:57, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Hey can you tell me, for which chart Mainstream Top 40 is a component? I couldnot find it. Maybe i did a wrong update in Just Dance "Legolas" (talk) 12:54, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I would appreciate if you would atleast reply back to my messages. Seriously, am I asking for anything else? So disappointed in you. "Legolas" (talk) 04:25, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

FYI, since you're an admin and I see your name in the history and talk pages of a lot of the articles affected, there was a long-running sockpuppet operation in the pop music and concert tours articles, mostly centered around Madonna, Kylie, Britney, et al. Alkclark, Dancefloor royalty, KM*hearts*MC, and the IP address 64.140.0.3 were all the same person, operating in conjunction. See Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Alkclark and Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Alkclark and User talk:Tiptoety#Sockpuppetry case concerning Alkclark. For an example of the deception games this person was playing, see #Content Dispute/Editor Spat on your talk page above. I also see this person showing up on some of your past talk archives, requesting you for help. Anyway, just wanted to let you know, and something to watch for if this person returns under another guise. Wasted Time R (talk) 23:02, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Yeah I saw this. A shame too because, generally speaking, Dancefloor royalty and KM*herats*MC were decent editors (or I should say editor)... will keep my eyes peeled for future shenanigans. - eo (talk) 12:45, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Uber Christina fan here is causing more problems, I remember you contacting me about her removal of that album review. Clearly this is more a case of systemic bias and whitewashing of all criticism of her idol, no matter how trivial the issue. Today Alextwa has repeatably removed well sourced content from the Lady GaGa article because it was negative info about Christina. Eventually Alextwa explained that she basically doesn't trust British journalism (the British media generally aren't pop friendly, but that's irrelevant). Furthermore, Alex removed perfectly valid discussions of potential content from the Christina talk page, because the discussion included suggestions of adding info that wasn't favorable to the singer. — Realist² 04:22, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi
He just keeps going and shows now willingness to discuss or compromise. Could you take care of it since you left him the only-warning?
Thanks & Cheers, Amalthea 15:13, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Concur. 24-hour love tap apparently didn't get the message across.—Kww(talk) 15:18, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, eo. --Amalthea 15:59, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

I think we are being too harsh, because I think that is the source page is NOW credible. and personally this Amalthea is a cynical. User talk:Rbwm

Hi, I was thinking the same so what should i put: That Billboard obtained its data from manual reports filled out by radio stations(singles) and stores(albums and singles). Is there a reference to support that? Another question: in the album charts from the 90's the digital downloads part should be removed?

Frcm1988 (talk) 21:10, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

I found this in the book Joel Whitburn's Top Pop Albums, 1955-1992: "Billboard tallied the pop album charts from rankings of best -selling records as reported by representative sampling of stores nationwide". And this in a 1991 article of the Los Angeles Times: "Under its old system, Billboard estimated album sales based on reports from record stores, who ranked the popularity of albums at individual stores, but did not provide actual sales figures".

I don't know if this articles would cover the introduction. Please let me know what do you think about it? Frcm1988 (talk) 04:24, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for reverting, but I do not need your help. It doesn't matter what you reverted behind me, I will revert back. Your making up your own rules that has nothing to do Wikipedia. Tarysky (talk) 15:28, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Don't flatter yourself. I'm not helping you, I'm improving Wikipedia. If I see original research, I'll remove it. Perhaps if you adjusted your belligerent attitude and stopped accusing people of sockpuppetry and requested checkuser for editors who disagree with your edits, people would not be paying so much attention to what you do. For someone who has only been editing here for a little over a month, you've certainly brought a lot of unnecessary attention to yourself, so there's really no one you can blame but yourself. - eo (talk) 22:19, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

A concern has been raised on the project's talk page. Please have a look. Thank you. --Efe (talk) 11:07, 22 January 2009 (UTC)