User talk:Ericorbit/Archive31

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.

Hey there. Don't believe we've met. Thought you might want to know that this guy copied all your barnstars. No clue why, since the rest of his userpage seems to be the complete opposite of yours. It's been reverted, and he's been blocked for a week on an unrelated offense, and it looks like it's not the first time he's copied parts of someone's page, but I thought I'd give you a heads-up. — PinkAmpers&^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 05:44, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Hey, thanks for the heads-up. That's just..... weird. - eo (talk) 11:43, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi there, would you like to explain why you want to keep it in one column? I obviously did multiple columns for the specific reason of to be able to have an overview of the names - and have that with less scrolling. On the other hand I haven't yet found the specific reason why there should not be an overview and everything should stay in one column next to an empty space. Loginnigol (talk) 12:53, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Because multiple columns aren't necessary. It's actually more difficult to read when one has to scroll up and down and up and down when going thru the list. If a reader wants to jump to a specific location, that's what the navigation box at the top of the page is for. As this article is several years old, and no one has changed it to a multiple-column layout the entire time, the silent consensus shows that a single column is preferred. Perhaps starting a conversation on its Talk Page to gather opinions could help, if you feel that strongly about it. There really is no benefit to squashing it all into columns. - eo (talk) 16:57, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

In the least offensive way possible I would like to explain my edits to some pages containing information about the US Billboard Hot 100 and why I believe they are correct and shouldn't reverted back to how they were originally.

1. On the page "Hot Digital Songs", grammatically "Thrift Shop by Macklemore and Ryan Lewis featuring Wanz is the first song to log eight and also nine weeks of 300,000 or more in digital sales.", does not make sense. "Eight and also nine weeks"?. Overall, it is the first song to log nine weeks of 300,000 or more in digital sales, so shouldn't that be the only thing needed to be mentioned?

2. On the page "List of Hot 100 number-one singles of 1998 (U.S.)", shouldn't the order of "Something About the Way You Look Tonight/ Candle in the Wind 1997" be reversed? I just think that because on the page "List of Hot 100 number-one singles of 1997 (U.S.)" the order of the two songs is with "Candle in the Wind 1997" first and "Something About the Way You Look Tonight" is second, so why are they randomly reversed on the Hot 100 number-one singles of 1998 page? Alphabetically, Candle in the Wind 1997, is first so it makes sense to put it before Something About the Way You Look Tonight.

3. Suit & Tie on "Justin Timberlake discography" should be "featuring Jay-Z" not Jay Z. This is because Jay Z is the stylized version of his name and for example, on Kesha's discography page they would not use Ke$ha since it is the stylized version. (talk) 4:29, 03 May 2013 (UTC)

1. No other song has had eight weeks. So it is the first to sell 300,000+ in eight and nine weeks.
2. Billboard changed the billing on the Hot 100 mid-run because, at the time, AA-sides were listed with the song receiving the most airplay points first.
3. This I have nothing to do with; I haven't seen this revert. But a dash is not the same as a dollar sign. - eo (talk) 23:14, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm obviously going to have problems with WP:INVOLVED with this problem, so can you take care of warning Innano1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) about how edit-warring in an blogspot chart is a very bad idea? You might want to take a peek at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Romanian Top 100 top 10 singles in 2013 for background.—Kww(talk) 02:23, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Hello. If you get time would you be able to comment on my FLC please. It's stalled in the past month or so.  — AARON • ^TALK 13:27, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi Ericorbit! I was wondering, do you still have an access to Billboard.biz? If you do, can you see if the DVD Rihanna 777, debuted on the Music Video Sales chart? And If so on which position and for what issue. Thank you! :) — Tomíca^(T2ME) 22:28, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Sure. Debuted at #7 on issue date May 25... following week dropped to #18 on June 1. - eo (talk) 11:27, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks!:) — Tomíca^(T2ME) 12:30, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to List of number-one Billboard Alternative Songs of 2013 may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 01:41, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

I honestly don't even understand what I did wrong on this wiki page, please explain. Also, I don't think I should be blocked, once again, for making a small mistake that was not even explained to me when posted on my talk page. Finally, I mean, at least I edited this page and did it first before anyone else did and also contributed by noticing and changing mistakes with some of the dates! For example, where it says the "number-one single as of", this had the wrong date and I changed it. I do not like being discriminated this way. —lucifer1998(talk) 03:18, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Your "small mistakes" yesterday are some of many mistakes you make whenever you edit. If you look at your edit history, you may notice that nearly every edit you submit is either reverted or corrected by someone else. This pattern indicates that you either a) don't care, b) are rushing too fast to check your work and make sure links and formatting etc. are correct, or c) you simply lack the basic level of competence required to edit articles. In any case, it is disruptive. - eo (talk) 14:30, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Number one modern rock hits of 1988 is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Number one modern rock hits of 1988 until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 15:59, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Deadmaus#Requested_move_3_.28to_.22Joel_Zimmerman.22.29. Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 16:21, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

In the article List of artists who reached number one in the United States What do you think about adding this "if both entries from George Michael and Wham! combined it will make him the most successful british and non American solo artist in the charts". — Preceding unsigned comment added by GM25LIVE (talk • contribs) 19:31, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

I wouldn't do this, especially since McCartney (as well as the other Beatles) are all British :-) - eo (talk) 19:50, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of Billboard Hot 100 chart achievements and milestones, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Get Lucky (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

The number of number-one singles 2Pac has in the U.S. is only 1. It may seem like he has two, but this is not the case, since California Love and How Do U Want It shared a joint run at number-one as a Double A-side. Another case of this is how Toni Braxton only has 2 number-one singles even though 3 of her songs had a run at the top of the Hot 100. Un-break My Heart had a run by itself and You're Makin' Me High and Let It Flow had a joint run at number-one, like 2Pac, as a Double A-side single. This is why I have changed 2Pac's number-one single count back to 1. —lucifer1998(talk) 01:56, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:13, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Can you double-check some of the edits being made by Thissz here? He says that he is using the published magazine as a source, but the positions differ from what I get on Billboard.com. Billboard.com being the piece of crap that it is, I'm willing to believe it could be wrong. Billboard.biz seems reliable, though.—Kww(talk) 17:10, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Just logged into .biz and checked the "hits of the world" section....many charts listed, but only one for Brazil, and it is an albums chart. No idea where this editor is getting those chart positions. - eo (talk) 17:18, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

"Brazil Hot 100 Airplay" is in the dropdown box for "chart name" on the main page.—Kww(talk) 17:21, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Okay, this looks like typical inconsistent Billboard crap. That chart is not listed in their "Hits of the World" section on .biz, however, when using the "search" function, Brazil Hot 100 Airplay" does come up in the drop-down. More, when I did a search on just that chart, odd chart weeks came up: the most recent being 06/01. Prior to that, I see 04/27 and from there it seems to have all weekly charts listed. - eo (talk) 17:33, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

"Weekly"? That's really peculiar, because it's a monthly chart.—Kww(talk) 17:45, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

This is what I see: http://awesomescreenshot.com/0391hqbjd2 - eo (talk) 18:04, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

You are invited to the 2nd Annual Wikimedia New England General Meeting, on 20 July 2013 in Boston! We will be talking about the future of the chapter, including GLAM, Wiki Loves Monuments, and where we want to take our chapter in the future! EdwardsBot (talk) 10:04, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

I'd like to make List of number-one dance singles of 2012 (U.S.) an FL, do you want to do it with me?  — AARON • ^TALK 12:05, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Sure! Just let me know whatcha need. - eo (talk) 12:41, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Cool. Just a source for each linked week, and other Chart beat articles for interesting stats etc.  — AARON • ^TALK 11:18, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading File:Joan Jett ILRNR.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 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).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 20:27, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading File:Human League Greatest Hits 1988.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 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 '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 all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Werieth (talk) 18:51, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

I've gotten myself too involved. Can you keep an eye on Studiomusica (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)? If a block isn't already justified, it will be very soon.—Kww(talk) 17:28, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Will do! Sorry was offline for a coupla days. Looks like the user is already blocked but I will continue to keep an eye. - eo (talk) 11:40, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

User talk:RealityShowsRock/subpage01, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User talk:RealityShowsRock/subpage01 and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of User talk:RealityShowsRock/subpage01 during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Whpq (talk) 14:21, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to List of number-one dance singles of 2013 (U.S.) may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• |}

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 22:20, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

I do NOT believe my edits were disruptive and unconstructive ... sales are a better indication of record sales ... it's not like I DELETED the certifications ... I thought it was helpful — Preceding unsigned comment added by SayaamRulz (talk • contribs) 11:44, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Hello, sorry that I edited your page, I really don't know how to edit. Regarding the article, in the 2010s songs with weeks at #1, Katy Perry's Firework spent 4 weeks on top. Can u please add it? Thank you!

Hello, sorry that I edited your page, I really don't know how to edit. Regarding the article, in the 2010s songs with weeks at #1, Katy Perry's Firework spent 4 weeks on top. Can u please add it? Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Graviton08 (talk • contribs) 15:48, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

"No"? Why not? It's pretty clear here that it entered the midweeks at #40, and obviously the full chart position will be added once it charts on Sunday. Sometimes a simple "no" doesn't suffice and makes an edit look ignorant. DJUnBalanced (talk) 16:28, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

We do not report midweeks, especially without any source. Please see Wikipedia:Record charts for acceptable chart positions. - eo (talk) 16:30, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

User:62.7.174.178 seems to have been accorded long enough time here. See their recent edit history. Can you put him/her in the cooler ? Thanks,

Derek R Bullamore (talk) 15:16, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

 Done - eo (talk) 15:32, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks - Derek R Bullamore (talk) 15:36, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Could you answer the question that I posted here?: Talk:List of Billboard Hot 100 number-one singles of 2013 BollyJeff | talk 20:21, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Hi Ericorbit

During the time of editing the tables on the discography, there were many many mistakes in the original. I didn't realize "sandbox" was the place to do this. I would like to continue this project there, and refresh the discography. Please advise.

Thank you

Thanks. - User:Wozza20 17:36, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

The undo was temporary so I could copy my previous work to my sandbox. Thank you

Hi Ericorbit

I will do as advised and complete the discography in my sand box than seek your advise when complete. I have noticed that Elvis Presley has a singles discography for Europe, and another one for the US. I think something like this could be beneficial for MJ. The current information is inaccurate, and has many major markets missing.

Thank you

(talk) 17:53, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to List of Billboard Hot 100 chart achievements and milestones may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• *64 weeks – [[Carrie Underwood]] — "[[Before He Cheats]]" (2007), [Awolnation]] — "[[Sail (song)|Sail]]" (2013)

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 16:16, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Oh, sorry sorry, thanks for for letting me know. ;) . List of Billboard 200 number-one albums. Connie (A.K) (talk) 18:34, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

This is an automated message from MadmanBot. I have performed a search with the contents of List of number-one Billboard Alternative Songs of 2014, and it appears to be very similar to another Wikipedia page: List of number-one Billboard Alternative Songs of 2013. It is possible that you have accidentally duplicated contents, or made an error while creating the page— you might want to look at the pages and see if that is the case. If you are intentionally trying to rename an article, please see Help:Moving a page for instructions on how to do this without copying and pasting. If you are trying to move or copy content from one article to a different one, please see Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia and be sure you have acknowledged the duplication of material in an edit summary to preserve attribution history.

It is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article. MadmanBot (talk) 22:29, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Hey, just wanted to run something by you, please don't block me again. I changed the top-selling song on this article to Blurred Lines since Billboard recently posted this article declaring it to be the top-selling song. http://www.billboard.com/articles/news/5855151/justin-timberlakes-2020-2013s-best-selling-album-blurred-lines-top-song , take a look. The article states "Robin Thicke's "Blurred Lines," featuring Pharrell and T.I., was 2013's top selling song, with 6.5 million sold. Macklemore & Ryan Lewis' "Thrift Shop," featuring Wanz, was the year's second-biggest song, with 6.15 million. So just realize that before you revert the edit. Thanks talk) 7:43, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

It's still wrong. That article refers to digital sales. The indicator in the number-ones list is for the number one song on the year-end list, which is "Thrift Shop". - eo (talk) 13:35, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

So then why on the article does it say indicates best-SELLING single of 2013? You keep telling me my information is false, disruptive, etc, but I think you should at least change it to best-PERFORMING on that article as well as the other Billboard Hot 100 articles. Not only is best-SELLING false and disruptive but it is also plain wrong considering the article that Billboard just posted on their website yesterday clearing claiming Blurred Lines as the top-selling song by a good 350,000 downloads. Thank you, have a nice day. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lucifer1998 (talk • contribs) 13:44, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

The Nielsen Soundscan year-end info is different from Billboard's chart-year lists. Billboard is reporting on Nielsen's calendar-year results in your source. This is not the same thing as Billboard's year-end charts, which cover a December-to-November schedule and factors in sales, airplay, streams and online activity. - eo (talk) 13:48, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Reply: You said it right there "Billboard's year-end charts, which cover a December-to-November schedule and factors in sales, airplay, streams and online activity" So by saying this what this really means is that if a song tops Billboard's Year-End Hot 100 Chart it is therefore not the best-selling single of that year but rather the best-performing single of that year since sales, as well as, airplay, streams and online activity are all factored. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lucifer1998 (talk • contribs) 14:01, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

NE Meetup #4: January 18 at MIT Building 5

Dear Fellow Wikimedian, You have been invited to the New England Wikimedians 2014 kick-off party and Wikipedia Day Celebration at Building Five on the Massachusetts Institute of Technology campus on Saturday, January 18th, from 3-5 PM. Afterwards, we will be holding an informal dinner at a local restaurant. If you are curious to join us, please do so, as we are always looking for people to come and give their opinion! Finally, be sure to RSVP here if you're interested. I hope to see you there! Kevin Rutherford (talk)

(You can unsubscribe from future notifications for Boston-area events by removing your name from this list.)

The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar

Hi there, sorry for the edit war but I didn't know how to contact the mods since I'm a very infrequent Wikipedia editor... :( Thanks for locking the List of best-selling girl groups page, I'm not an expert on the subject either but all that guy did was to remove all the South Korean groups, and he's done so before according to his edit history, thanks again! :) Arthur Arthurmauk (talk) 00:08, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

No problem... and thanks! - eo (talk) 13:03, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Directly from http://www.billboard.com/articles/news/5862620/pitbull-kesha-take-timber-to-top-of-hot-100: "Chart historians, take note: as of this week, Radio Songs becomes the chart's name across all Billboard platforms; it previously went by Hot 100 Airplay in Billboard magazine and on billboard.biz. The tweak, thus, better streamlines the names of the Hot 100's three main component charts: Radio Songs, Digital Songs and Streaming Songs. Additionally, Digital Songs drops the "Hot" at the beginning of its name in print and on billboard.biz. The prefix "Hot" will now be reserved solely for the sales/airplay/streaming hybrid charts, which mirror the Hot 100's methodology. Adding "Hot" as of this week are Dance/Electronic Songs, R&B Songs, Rap Songs, Christian Songs and Gospel Songs."

Lucifer1998 (talk) 15:42, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Please add this source to the article. It will also need to be moved to its new title, and template wikilinks will need to be updated all around. - eo (talk) 20:54, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Please put a reasonable time-limit on the full protection of List of best-selling girl groups. With limited exceptions such as Office- or Arbcom-imposed or -sanctioned situations, "indefinite full protection" is a bad thing, frequently worse than the problem it solves.

Please reduce the terms of the full protection to something like 1-2 years, or less if possible. Consider putting and "update after" or similar template that will expire shortly before the full protection to remind the community to re-add at least semi-protection when the full protections expires.

If a "PC2-protection" proposal that would allow this article to be put under PC2 protection passes, consider immediately downgrading the protection to PC2 as soon as such a proposal passes. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 04:34, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

I must apologize for my unsourced material edits. I thought those dates were right, but then I realized, they were the wrong dates. I promise it won't happen again.DBrown SPS 21:25, 15 January 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by DBrown SPS (talk • contribs)

User talk:190.233.208.78 - time for a spell in the cooler ? - Derek R Bullamore (talk) 01:08, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi, I see you reverted the link in Morrissey's discography from His Master's Voice to HMV, a slightly mystifying choice considering that the latter covers only the retail activities of the HMV brand, whereas the former covers the record label including its revival for the Morrissey releases. Might I ask you to reconsider?--Humphrey20020 (talk) 10:03, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Women's History Edit-a-thons in Massachusetts this March - You are invited!

New England Wikimedians is excited to announce a series of Wikipedia edit-a-thons that will be taking place at colleges and universities throughout Massachusetts as part of Wikiwomen's History Month from March 1 - March 31. We encourage you to join in an edit-a-thon near you, or to participate remotely if you are unable to attend in person (for the full list of articles, click here). Events are currently planned for the cities/towns of Boston, Northampton, South Hadley, and Cambridge. Further information on dates and locations can be found on our user group page. Questions? Contact Girona7 (talk)

I noticed you have reverted the capitalization on the "Now 49" entry. Keep in mind that each and every various artist entry between 2000 and 2013 have used capitalization for the words "Various Artists". Likewise, Billboard itself has classified it as a designation, allowing it to function as a collective proper noun. I noticed that Billboard may not always be the brightest bulb, but I'd recommend just using what they have on their site as the standard. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WolfSpear (talk • contribs) 20:09, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

NE Meetup #5: April 19th at Clover Food Lab in Kendall Square

Dear Fellow Wikimedian, New England Wikimedians would like to invite you to the April 2014 meeting, which will be a small-scale meetup of all interested Wikimedians from the New England area. We will socialize, review regional events from the beginning of the year, look ahead to regional events of 2014, and discuss other things of interest to the group. Be sure to RSVP here if you're interested. Also, if you haven't done so already, please consider signing up for our mailing list and connect with us on Facebook and Twitter. We hope to see you there! Kevin Rutherford (talk) and Maia Weinstock (talk)

(You can unsubscribe from future notifications for Boston-area events by removing your name from this list.)

You're invited to the Peabody Essex Museum Edit-a-thon Spring 2014

On May 3rd, the Peabody Essex Museum in Salem, Massachusetts will be hosting a Native American and Chinese Art edit-a-thon from 9:00-5:00 pm. You are more than welcome to attend, as there will be free food and drink, and an outing afterwards. If you are interested, please sign up here, as we would love to see you there!

If you have any questions, please leave a message at Ed Rodley's talk page. You can unsubscribe from future notifications for Boston-area events by removing your name from this list.

If two songs by Summer are included, shouldn't there be a note for Destiny's Child attached to Beyonce?  — ₳aron 15:22, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

I don't understand, how are the two scenarios related? - eo (talk) 15:26, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Well, like, sometimes achievements by DC are merge into Beyonce's. Like Grammy Award wins and noms and her record sales for example. I didn't know if it was worth putting a footnote saying how many #1s Beyonce got with DC?  — ₳aron 15:28, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Ah. No, I wouldnt combine them. I think it's just like not merging group/solo feats for the Beatles or the Supremes, etc. The Donna Summer asterisk has to do with the Billboard/Record World period when Billboard had multiple-city charts and Record World had a national chart. - eo (talk) 15:31, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Okay. Also, don't you think their respective number ones should be listed and the date it reached number one? I think the article could do with being overhauled a bit!  — ₳aron 15:33, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Upon reading the footnote, I suppose it could be a bit clearer... without the Record World data Summer has 15 instead of 17. Anyhoo, my personal preference is to not list the number ones. I mean, Madonna has 43!.... can you imagine what the section would look like with all of that? I think it would bloat the article. - eo (talk) 15:36, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Can use collapsable tables, or just do ("X", 1 January 2013, "X", 1 January 2014,) and so after her name? I think it's important that it actually lists what their number ones are. - — Preceding unsigned comment added by Calvin999 (talk • contribs) 15:38, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Hmm. Wonder if it could even be spun off to its own article? That way the list could expand past 10 artists. I'm afraid that a spin-off article would be deleted. - eo (talk) 15:42, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

I don't think I spin-off has to be created in order to do it. It's just that it seems odd to me to documents chart milestones and who has has the most number ones without listing the number ones that have put them in the list in the first place. That goes for all the Billboard chart articles though.  — ₳aron 15:49, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Well if you feel strongly about it maybe try it in a sandbox to see how it looks. I can assist if you need me to. I'm just afraid that the number of songs that would have to be listed will be way too long. Perhaps a smaller font? - eo (talk) 15:51, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

It's taken me this long...  — ₳aron 16:41, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Yikes, and that's just Madonna. That's why I was pondering the idea of spinning it into its own article. The only thing that I worry about is that it will get nominated for AfD. There was a similiarly-styled list article for the Hot 100 most number-ones and that one got zapped... if the main singles chart gets deleted then surely the dance chart list would also? - eo (talk) 17:03, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Oh and by the way I have a spreadsheet of number ones I can send you, if you use Excel and find it easier to filter artists & songs that way instead of scrolling through every by-year page. - eo (talk) 17:05, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Madonna is a one-off though, the other's don't have as many. I just google the Billboard articles with the list of songs and copying them lol  — ₳aron 14:17, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

I've just added Rihanna's to the sandbox. I don't think will impact the article too much to be honest. I think it will work.  — ₳aron 14:47, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

← Looks good thus far. Mind if I add to it and/or experiment a bit? - eo (talk) 17:07, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Go for it.  — ₳aron 13:56, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Heh, thanks I went ahead already.... I got bored at work. - eo (talk) 14:36, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Looks good :)  — ₳aron 15:47, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. I threw in links for others with more than 10. Maybe if it is collapsible then it wouldn't be too bad to keep going? I dunno. - eo (talk) 15:50, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Maybe there could be different sub sections? Artists with 10-15, 16-20, 20-25, 25 + ?  — ₳aron 15:52, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

That works for me. I got everything linked. Now wave yer magic wand and make it all collapsible and stuff. - eo (talk) 18:50, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Done. Seriously need some prose for each one now to break it up a bit, some pictures too.  — ₳aron 19:13, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

I wish there was a cleaner way to do it. Like are we just gonna dump all those collapsed blue headers right into the middle of the Hot Dance Club Songs article? Do you think it would be better to perhaps open/collapse the entire thing in one click? I'm also thinking it should be put back in order from most to least. - eo (talk) 19:42, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

If there is prose for each one it won't look so imposing. Yeah can change back to most to least if you want. But it says 10 or more, so kinda makes sense to start at 10 down to who has the most.  — ₳aron 19:46, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Beyonce has joined the 20 something club. Each artist needs some prose like how Beyonce does in this article  — ₳aron 11:54, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

I've added some more sections, what do you think?  — ₳aron 15:17, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Looks good! I'm just afraid of making the article too bloated. Also, was thinking if we pull this off for the dance chart, the same type of thing should/could be done for the main Hot 100 chart. - eo (talk) 18:41, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

That's where I got the idea for the two new sections from :) And that list is soooo long I really don't think we will have an issue with this one being too long. There's not as much to document/it's less reported on.  — ₳aron 19:20, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

How was my edit vandalism when I gave a source on why Timbaland should be featured? The US iTunes and JT's VeVo both featuring him as an artist, and if that is not good enough, then fine. But please don't say that it was vandalism when I gave a source. Thank you. Arjoccolenty (talk) 19:40, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

The iTunes store is not a "source". Even if it was, you didn't include it into the article in any way. Your Talk Page history shows a long list of blocks and problems with your edits to music-related articles, in particular with artist and featured credits, so I would consider it disruption at the very least, if not vandalism. - eo (talk) 19:46, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Did you see what I did with Madonna's box? I think this might be better than a load of collapsables.  — ₳aron 15:04, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Hey... sorry, I've been distracted from wiki lately... I did see it and it does look better. After sitting on it or a while, I agree the collapsibles aren't really working. - eo (talk) 11:37, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Okay cool.  — ₳aron 11:38, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Hi Eric. I'm pasting this request from Kevin's talk as he appears to be busy. I feel this issue has no reason to be discussed. It's a fact in my eyes, which is why I'm asking for administrative assistance. Cheers.--PeterGriffin • Talk2Me 02:41, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

"Greetings, Ol' chap! Edit wars are brewing over at I Am... Sasha Fierce. Can you take a look and weigh in on the talk page discussion? Apparently, folks are trying to pass tabloids (Daily Mail) as acceptable journalism on a GA level article. Cheers.--PeterGriffin • Talk2Me 00:15, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Petergriffin9901, your last remark in this message "presents the topic [of discussion] in a non-neutral manner." (WP:CANVASSING). Dan56 (talk) 02:30, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Educate yourself, Dan. This isn't a topic up for discussion. There is no where for it to sway. Placing a tabloid such as the [[Daily Mail] in a GA Class article is unacceptable. End of story. This is me requesting administrative assistance to explain it to the uneducated and fool-hearty.--PeterGriffin • Talk2Me 02:37, 18 May 2014 (UTC)"

Adrianne Wadewitz edit-a-thons in Southern New England

As you may have already heard, the Wikipedia community lost an invaluable member of the community last month. Adrianne Wadewitz was a feminist scholar of 18th-Century British literature, and a prolific editor of the site. As part of a worldwide series of tributes, New England Wikimedians, in conjunction with local institutions of higher learning, have created three edit-a-thons that will be occurring in May and June. The events are as follows: May 21st at Northeastern University's Snell Library, in the Digital Scholarship Commons on the second floor May 22nd at Brown University's Rockefeller Library, in the Digital Scholarship Lab June 25th at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (exact location TBA), where we will also be hosting a "how to conduct an edit-a-thon" session beforehand We hope that you will be able to join us, whether you are an experienced editor or are using Wikipedia for the first time. If you have any questions, please leave a message at Kevin Rutherford's talk page. You can unsubscribe from future notifications for Boston-area events by removing your name from this list.

Hello there, a proposal regarding pre-adminship review has been raised at Village pump by Anna Frodesiak. Your comments here is very much appreciated. Many thanks. Jim Carter through MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:46, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of Billboard Hot 100 chart achievements and milestones, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Ashanti (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:49, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

I noticed your chart differs from the official chart on the AT40 site. http://www.at40.com/top-40 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.87.65.37 (talk) 17:40, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

I dont know what "your chart" refers to, but AT40 is not based upon Billboard magazine. - eo (talk) 10:59, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi! Would you care to review my FA nomination for the article Of Human Feelings? The article is about a jazz album by Ornette Coleman, and the criteria for FA articles is at WP:FACR. If not, feel free to ignore this message. Cheers! Dan56 (talk) 09:55, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, but YOU are being disruptive. Artist credits (usually) NEVER have commas, the words "featuring", "with" and "and" are applied. Billboard is the only site that credited with commas, I don't know why, but the fact is: "Zedd, Matthew Koma, Miriam Bryant" and "Zedd featuring Matthew Koma and Miriam Bryant" will not cause difference, since the three artists will remain the SAME (you would be right if this really cause a big difference in the artist from the source, but in that case no - the Kesha example was to show that). But, as I said, it's a song BY Zedd with GUEST APPEARANCES (or featuring) from Matthew Koma and Miriam Bryant, just accept it. Thanks. User:Afavoritaweb (talk) 11 July 2014

Hi, I recreated the page What I've Been Looking For, which was protected a few years ago. Can you remove its protection? Thanks. © Tbhotch^™ (en-2.5). 00:28, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Bananarama may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• backed by Ian Masterson's 2010 reworking of the 1995 single "Every Shade of Blue" and "The Runner" (originally recorded by [[The Three Degrees]] remixed by Buzz Junkies.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 17:21, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

 Done fixed! - eo (talk) 21:16, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Róisín Murphy may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 21:22, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Hi eo,

The IP user 96.41.91.255 has been doing a lot of vandalism in recent days in both the List of Billboard Hot 100 number-one singles, and Billboard Year-End Hot 100 singles series. Caught the latest vandalism which happened within the last hour or two, and I reverted six different articles. Plus, I reported the user to the Administrator intervention against vandalism board. Apparently a Kiss fan, one example of this user's changes involves replacing George Michael's "Faith" from 1987 and 1988 with Kiss' "Reason to Live".

As this is an IP user, blocking can only be for a limited period of time. I did read in the log that you blocked the user for 48 hours after the first group of vandalism edits. I don't know what should be done should this user repeatedly vandalize these articles, but I'd be in favor of page protection on both series, though that's a lot of pages to protect. MPFitz1968 (talk) 02:53, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Well, the IP is blocked by someone else for a week. I'll be watching. If protection of a series of articles is what's necessary, I will do it if s/he returns. - eo (talk) 12:25, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading File:Disclosure Settle.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 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).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 21:39, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading File:Eurythmics SDAMOT.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 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).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 23:46, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

	Happy Holidays!
	Hi, Ericorbit! Have a happy and safe season, and a blessed new year! Holiday cheers, --Discographer (talk) 18:14, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading File:Eurythmics 1984.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 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).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 23:33, 26 December 2014 (UTC)