User talk:IndianBio/Archive 33

This is an archive of past discussions with User:IndianBio. 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.

Hi, I've just taken a look at WP:REDIRECT, but at the moment can't see what you're saying there. Did you misread it? If you still think "do not list redirects which do not pertain to the actual article name" is one of the rules here, please supply a more precise reference. It certainly isn't in the section I would expect to find it in.

Furthermore, what do you believe constitutes an appropriate use of {{redirect-distinguish}}? If there are appropriate and inappropriate uses, we could do with some guidelines in the documentation for that template. — Smjg (talk) 17:31, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

The Billboard article does state, "The 2008 dance-pop hit..."^[1] It was only recently that the genre was changed to solely synthpop; not sure why.

The notes on the page were for the song being transposed to A minor. The notes would go down a semitone, thus the notes I included.

I don't include information without looking it up first. I don't seek to vandalize. I'm including accurate information.

Hopefully we can come to an agreement. CB19 (talk) 01:24, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

The Lil' Kim source is an interview from Out Magazine: http://www.out.com/vaults/2017/3/29/lil-kim-why-hip-hops-nasty-girl-wants-be-gay-icon

The Ayumi Hamasaki source is an interview from Time Magazine: http://content.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,218375,00.html https://onehallyu.com/topic/110269-throwback-time-magazines-feature-and-interview-with-ayumi-hamasaki/ http://www.ahsforum.com/forum/showthread.php?t=25591

The Nami Tamaki source yes was AllMusic just like a lot of artists on the list. So I don't know what you're talking about, because AllMusic is clearly ALLOWED. I mean why wouldn't it be?.

Plus she has talked hundreds of times about Madonna but I don't know the Japanese language. https://namitamakisp.wordpress.com/category/entrevistas/page/3/

Next time be sure to check things out, before removing contributions. Please!

Greetings. --Lè franco (talk) 03:36, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Hi, forgive me if I get this process wrong - new to this. I wanted to clarify the attempt to correct the Borderline page:

I used the term "remix" but I am not referring to the "extended remix" or "dance mix". I am referring to the "US Single" which is not the track on the album. Jellybean (as noted in the article) remixed the track for 7" release as well as for radio play. The version of the song that we hear on radio or bought as a single is Jellybean's mix and not the album track. That version as live drums and different keyboard parts performed by Stephen Bray and Mary Kessler. I feel it's worth of noting since the also the version in the official video, etc. Let me know if I can provide you with more evidence or whatever you may need.

Thanks for any advice you have.

Best, Stephen Bray — Preceding unsigned comment added by Soultonemusic (talk • contribs) 17:05, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Wait a minute, are you Stephen Bray? Please do respond here. —IB ^{[ Poke ]} 05:11, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Forgive me but I am struggling to understand the communication protocol here. Yes, I did play on this track and have some first hand knowledge. Could you help advise me on the best way to clarify that the single version (played on the radio and sold as vinyl 45 rpm and cassette (this was a long time ago) is the Jelly mix. Maybe calling it a remix is what is confusing? It is the US Single version I am referring to. Should there be a separate wiki entry? Open to any suggestions but I do think it is currently incomplete with only album credits listed. Thank you! Soultonemusic (talk) 05:29, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Hi Soultonemusic, the question I have for you is are you the Stephen Bray who had worked with Madonna? Please see our policy on conflict of interest on Wikipedia. —IB ^{[ Poke ]} 05:48, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Nevermind Indian Bio, Stephen. He's been a grumpy lately. Conflict of Interest only really comes in to play here when your editing practices interfere with the integrity of the website (i.e., "I did this! So I'm gonna add a bunch of text saying how awesome it is!") But you're clearly requesting help about making a substantive edit. I recently had a similar issue to yours about Roxette's "It Must Have Been Love#Credits and personnel". There were multiple distinct versions of that song released, and it was impossible to incorporate all the musicians into one basic list, so I had to divide them into two separate ones. Maybe you could do something similar with the version you're referring to? I'm still not entirely sure which version you're referring to, though. Is the US single version the same as the one on The Immaculate Collection? If so, you could use that album's credits as a source. Feel free to contact me on my talk page, or just respond here, if you want to. Homeostasis07 (talk) 19:34, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

@Homeostasis07: I am not grumpy but thanks for jumping to conclusions as always. Soultonemusic, if you are the real Stephen Bray then there is much help that we can get from you for developing the articles. We still do not have any free image of Stephen Bray in the encyclopedia. —IB ^{[ Poke ]} 04:08, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Hey, can you help me with the certification box here please. It is silver based on shipments only, but I can't seem to get rid of the sales+streaming footnote and change it to just shipments without having to do a manually written certification box.  — Calvin999 09:06, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Done! —IB ^{[ Poke ]} 09:50, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks :)  — Calvin999 09:53, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Should this song be an article in the first place?

It doesn't meet the Notability criteria at all, mainly this "Coverage of a song in the context of an album review does not establish notability."

Thank you. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 12:02, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

@MarioSoulTruthFan: it does actually, since it was the very first song that was leaked from the album. This coupled with "Wash All Over Me" are the first songs to gain independent notability from the album, until the six songs that were officially released. —IB ^{[ Poke ]} 12:16, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Ok. I guess this is an excpetion apart from the other songs. How about Holy Water? MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 12:20, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

For "Holy Water" it was the controversial live performance on the tour actually. She was even banned from performing it in Singapore, which gave it a lot of traction in media, thereby gaining its notability. —IB ^{[ Poke ]} 12:22, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

I'm sorry but I don't understand your revert. Why does a journal article have to be "helpful"? Surely it is either about the song or it isn't. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 13:33, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

@The Vintage Feminist:, we usually add a further reading section, when we have material which is related to the article but there is no use of adding it in the article itself. In this case, the journal article is about media and video, however is it related to the song itself? IS there any mention of "Take a Bow" or its music video for instance anywhere? —IB ^{[ Poke ]} 13:42, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

The article's abstract:

The music video poses several questions in which the ordering of the senses becomes central: What does it mean to show a singing body, a close-up of a singer and her body parts (her open mouth, her hands, her lips, etc.)? Does the music video emphasize sight over hearing by becoming cinematic and theatrical? The tension between the somatic side of singing and the beautification of the singing, instrumental, working body through dancing brings a gendered vision to the fore that links the female body strictly with codes of beauty. A reading of Madonna’s video “Take a Bow” allows for such an analysis in its tendency to dramatize the division of sound and image as in film: the image of the beautiful woman entails the use of voice through dubbing.

The entire journal article uses Take a Bow as a case study. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 13:48, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Okay thanks for pointing it, I will revert myself and add it to the further reading. —IB ^{[ Poke ]} 13:51, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Thank you. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 15:31, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Great work on the RH missing articles ;) What will you b working on next?--Chrishm21 (talk) 17:31, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Hi, IB. Congrats! there are currently several Madonna's article on hold to be GA and FA :). I will ask you, if you can fix (later) the English grammar and mistakes in the List of artists influenced by Madonna?. I'm working on the article now but I will finish later. Also, I was thinking and you know, there is a future biopic about Madonna named Blond Ambition. I think that will be attract readers to Blond Ambition Tour. So, what do you think?, we can work on this article and convert to GA. I can recolect links. Chrishonduras (Diskussion) 18:21, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Hi @Chrishonduras: yes I agree that Blond Ambition would probably need an article once the film starts production. And yes once you finish with the list do let me know and I will copyedit it. —IB ^{[ Poke ]} 04:34, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Also pinging SNUGGUMS, what do you think of this lead for Gaga's article? – FrB.TG (talk) 18:26, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

Not sure about the "vocal abilities" bit (sounds promotional), but otherwise looks fine. Snuggums (talk / edits) 18:49, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

@FrB.TG: I think this is absolutely wonderful restructuring. Just minor c/e but I'm very impressed. —IB ^{[ Poke ]} 04:13, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Hey Indian! What's up? I have a (random) question. What do you think about this website Radiomonitor.com. Do you think it's a reliable source for radio airplay positions? — Tom^(T2ME) 17:31, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

Hi Tomica. Hmm they do not seem to have any authoritative alignment to give radio positions and are not associated with Nielsen I see. I would say no. —IB ^{[ Poke ]} 04:31, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

You asked me for source

You can look it from Billboard box-score here : http://www.billboard.com/biz/current-boxscore

And please look A Head Full of Dreams Tour. Here's all official (reliable) tour box scores

Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Esambuu (talk • contribs) 06:00, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

That's fine Esambuu, but it is your onus to archive the urls and then properly add the source to update the total. I still do not see the total being present in the link above. —IB ^{[ Poke ]} 06:17, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

I did not revert you. --Jennica✿ / ^talk 05:07, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

[1]. —IB ^{[ Poke ]} 05:08, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Oh. Woops. I thought you meant in the midst of it all. And by the way, the ref template does DMY by default. I'll be sure to watch out for this in the future. --Jennica✿ / ^talk 05:26, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Youcan set which format you want the dates to be. —IB ^{[ Poke ]} 05:30, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

How? Thanks --Jennica✿ / ^talk 05:44, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

In your preferences, in the monobook.js. —IB ^{[ Poke ]} 05:46, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Hm. I don't know. I use the reftoolbar and we might be using two different things. I tried looking this for more info but it's a little confusing. If you can't help, that's ok. I'll just do it manually with my MOSDATE script. --Jennica✿ / ^talk 07:25, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Hi there, not sure why my edits are being reverted. I've added important information to a page and and sourced it. I don't understand what I'm doing wrong. "The Duck Mixes the Hits" medley is listed in the DVD booklet and in the credits on the actual film, it is an integral part of the show. It's not listed on the back cover as a separate track/chapter, I am aware. Hence, I included it as a note as although it does not separate the two compositions by chapter, perhaps even by mistake, it is still part of the show. I'd like to know why the information was removed. As I don't think it's any different to say a hidden track appearing on an album; the tracks are not individual but they contain two separate compositions.Let's go through the ritual... (talk) 07:34, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

The section you are adding it is the track list, and it is not needed to be added there. We source the track list exactly as it appears in the DVD and as you mention, its not present there. If we go on adding stuff from the booklet to the article, we would be duplicating the booklet instead, which would fail WP:COPYVIO. —IB ^{[ Poke ]} 09:57, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

I see how one could interpret it that way. But consider my hidden track comparison and it's a different situation. I do not believe adding a note to the track violates WP:COPYVIO at all. For now, I will append the information underneath the track list. But I do firmly believe adding a note to the track information does still comply. Let's go through the ritual... (talk) 00:46, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, that looks good. —IB ^{[ Poke ]} 10:17, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Awesome. Glad we could reach an agreement and I think it looks good aesthetically that way too. Thanks. Let's go through the ritual... (talk) 12:13, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

How do you know if it's official or not? Luke Kern Choi 5 (talk) 08:37, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

WP:RS, please read this. —IB ^{[ Poke ]} 11:36, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

Hey man, how r u? Sorry for all the changing of the images, in my defense I was just trying to switch them up for something not as random as the ones uploaded (both in caption and picture) there are so much more better pics that could be used; in M.D.N.A's case, the picture of Madonna with pompons is more appropiate as its from the singing of the lead single rather than a far view of her, never is my intention to bother. Just trying to help :) I've also been want to ask you if you would be itnerested in helping me with this sandbox; it will be a translation from here. I know it's not a Madonna article, but perhaps you could be interested in helping me? Another of my favorite singers is Kylie and would also love very much to contribute to her articles. Look forward to your answer, again never my intention of causing trouble. --Chrishm21 (talk) 19:43, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

Its OK, I just don't like random placement of images without any thought, and purely hate decorative images. And sure I can help you with the article, although I'm not sure how good I would be at translating it. —IB ^{[ Poke ]} 13:28, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

I can do the translating myself, it's not that hard, but if you could find info regarding artwork or photoshoot or stuff like that, that can work :D As for the decorative images, many of the articles have and whereas I do think they look pretty and useful on some sections, other pics could work. It would be good to do a through cleanup of some articles (specifically of the early Madonna albums), there is more info we could use from more wikipedias just look at the articles from the spanish wiki. Also do you think it would be oK to revert the Give Me Your Luvin picture from SB on M.D.N.A, you can see Madona better :P?? Look forward to your answer.--Chrishm21 (talk) 20:19, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

The reason for adding that picture of GMAYL from Super Bowl was not to stress on Madonna, but rather to give the enormity of the proceeding and the show itself. Remember, it was the halftime show by Madonna, not the halftime Madonna show. There's a subtle difference. —IB ^{[ Poke ]} 04:17, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

Why is this a hoax? I can see reasons to delete this per WP:CRYSTAL (and have added a proposed deletion tag), but the information seems to be exactly that on the author's webpage. —Kusma (t·c) 13:45, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

@Kusma:, Raavan: Orphan of Aryavarta was repeatedly deleted for a WP:HOAX, now since the page is salted this user recreated it under a new name. Naturally I CSD'd it under hoax. If the author has listed this name on his website, then fine it can be a redirect I guess, but the article cannot be created as you can say now its WP:CRYSTAL. —IB ^{[ Poke ]} 14:25, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

It is suboptimal that other admins deleted this as "hoax" when it clearly does not meet WP:CSD#G3 (but then, we often delete things that need to be deleted even if the reason given does not apply). A "hoax" is deliberate misinformation, and I can't see anything like that here. —Kusma (t·c) 14:34, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

@Kusma:, you are missing the point. It was a hoax when the user was creating it continuously because there was no existence of this name anywhere and I had checked the author's website myself. Given the continuous socking and disruptive editing by this user, its not er on any admin's part reviewing that this was still a hoax until the author announced the name or listed it. —IB ^{[ Poke ]} 14:37, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

Being unsourced and unverifiable does not make an article a hoax. To be a hoax, it has to be deliberate misinformation. The article was never a hoax, and it was wrong that you tagged it as one. —Kusma (t·c) 14:47, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

Oh please, a non-existing name of a book about which the author had never said anything anywhere and its not a hoax? Gimme a break. —IB ^{[ Poke ]} 14:49, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

I can't tell whether there was really no information about this available publicly back in April (unfortunately I have mislaid the keys for my time machine). I assume there was some information out there. As the article contents were plausible, it was not a "blatant hoax". WP:PROD or WP:AFD are more suitable for this type of crystal ball articles. —Kusma (t·c) 15:08, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

You are free to choose to believe me or not, I have created the previous book of this series and I can tell you there was absolutely no indication of any release under that name in April. Obviously there was a third book, but it was not created under Amish Tripathi's Third Book of Ram Chandra series and the author did not announce any name for it. My hunch is that this user is probably an insider or something inline and was probably aware of it. Trying to create something non-existent, when no source or third party could affirm its presence, was definitely a hoax then. Now, the name is listed in the author's website, however it is now PRODd correctly for being CRYSTAL. Thanks, and I do not want to continue this circular discussion anymore. I have the sockpuppets to deal with. —IB ^{[ Poke ]} 15:13, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

Hi, IB. I think that I finished the information. Later I will double-check the list, because I know that there are poor additions but some can be easily replace. So, can you help with the text? :). Chrishonduras (Diskussion) 07:32, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Sure Chris, I have a couple of projects in mind and surely after that I can take a look. —IB ^{[ Poke ]} 09:06, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

The article Rebel Heart (song) you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Rebel Heart (song) for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Aoba47 -- Aoba47 (talk) 14:41, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

I don't understand your revert. There is a obvious difference in total box-office gross between the 1989 and Formation World Tour. Being branded as 'disruptive' without any sort of explanation is unnecessary; especially as that was never my intention. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mathiasabra (talk • contribs) 23:49, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

None of your changes had any source indicating the total gross updates, and you clearly smartly replaced Formation tour with 1989. Need I say more about the vandal policy of Wikipedia? —IB ^{[ Poke ]} 04:16, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Do you think that "Most Famous Celebrity in the World" here is true? The source attached to it does not support the statement and a google search also revealed nothing. On the other hand, this looks like something worth adding considering that Guinness replied to it. – FrB.TG (talk) 15:02, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

No @FrB.TG: I definitely don't think that's correct and might have been added by some IP over the year and we missed it. I believe we should remove it and replace it with the GWR book for most important celebrity as you indicated in the source. —IB ^{[ Poke ]} 15:05, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

Another award that I am unsure of is Best-Selling Digital Album in United Kingdom as I am having a hard time verifying it. Oh dear. – FrB.TG (talk) 15:14, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

Oh that was definitely something awarded, I remember her getting it. Oh dear it would be a great loss if we can't find any source for it. :S —IB ^{[ Poke ]} 15:19, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

I don't see where else it can or should be cut. The prose is better now although the instances of proseline is still apparent in some parts of the career section. I am going to open a peer review for it for a future possible FAC. – FrB.TG (talk) 21:57, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

That sounds like a good idea, although a GOCE would be beneficial first as that works faster than PR. —IB ^{[ Poke ]} 04:05, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

Sorry I won’t try and edit it again as I clearly don’t know what I’m doing. However Lennon did say in his last interview that he didn't mean Imagine there's no God, which I think is an important distinction and goes against the Atheists championing of the song. Lennon contradicted himself a lot in interviews and one quote from him can't be sufficient, the last interview he ever did is quite significant in that it's the most up to date opinion of his we have. Maybe you could add it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.68.67.244 (talk) 14:32, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

79.68.67.244 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) your contribution needs a reliable source where it lists Lennon saying that. And I don't know much about Lennon to find anything. —IB ^{[ Poke ]} 14:45, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

Since there are videos that have a lot of views, what do you think about the music video views? Luke Kern Choi 5 (talk) 15:05, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

I don't think anything as its a worthless piece of information unless a third party media reports about it. —IB ^{[ Poke ]} 15:06, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks.

Wait, does Vevo certified award counts as third party media? (or an article that mentions it)Luke Kern Choi 5 (talk) 13:40, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Wait, does Vevo certified award counts as third party media? (or an article that mentions it)Thanks.(so I can write about it) Luke Kern Choi 5 (talk) 05:49, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

No Vevo certified awards are not a valid award. —IB ^{[ Poke ]} 06:19, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Hi, now I'm sure Musicnotes is not reliable for genre/style. I only found The Salt Lake Tribune article "Josh Groban's operatic rendition, which plays over the final credits." 183.171.182.218 (talk) 15:07, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

I already addressed this on the article's talk page. Next move is for me to nominate for deletion. Cheers. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:12, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Good, then go ahead and do it and spare us the time waste. —IB ^{[ Poke ]} 03:45, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

You know the policies (WP:V) and guidelines WP:GNG) but yet for some reason you have a blind spot for some articles. The tags are simply a notice that it needs to be improved, but, OK. Nominated. You're a waste of time. You know that right? Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:57, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

And so are you WG, now just get lost. —IB ^{[ Poke ]} 05:16, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Million Reasons 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. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Beachey23 -- Beachey23 (talk) 05:41, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

The article Million Reasons you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Million Reasons for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Beachey23 -- Beachey23 (talk) 11:21, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

With regards to the citation you added here, does it by any chance include pure sales figures? I can't fully access it myself due to subscription issues. Snuggums (talk / edits) 11:58, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

It does not Snuggums. OCC and Music Week stopped reporting pure sales long back. Sometimes in rare cases like Adele's 25 or Taylor Swift's 1989 or Ed Sheeran's Divide they have given how much is pure sales and SPS, but not in this case. —IB ^{[ Poke ]} 12:00, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

That's a shame. Hopefully a pure figure comes around sooner rather than later (even if not for opening week). Snuggums (talk / edits) 12:04, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

Depends on how it fares down the line, does not look to be that bright currently in UK and Europe in general. If another of her singles stick and become hit, that might push the album also and then a comprehensive sales might be give. —IB ^{[ Poke ]} 12:06, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

Hey, a newer editor has been working on the Me Too (Meghan Trainor song) article, and just submitted a nomination for Good status. I was wondering, do you have any interest in taking a look at this article to see if anything else is needed before the review starts? Would be nice to see another article promoted, and a new editor helped out. No worries if you're busy or uninterested, just wanted to reach out to some experienced song article writers. Take care! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 16:16, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

I've reverted the nomination because it was from a sockpuppet of the blocked user MaranoFan. Snuggums (talk / edits) 22:58, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

Why did you revert back my editing on the The MDNA Tour page ? Bærum is a muncipality, and not a city, so the more correct location of the concert in Norway would be the capitol city of Oslo. The normal thing to use for concert setting is the city name. Mortyman (talk) 19:12, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

IndianBio, if you find some time, would you mind taking a look at this? Thanks either way. NumerounovedantTalk 07:29, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Sure Numerounovedant, give me two days time and I will. —IB ^{[ Poke ]} 12:04, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

A little reminder. NumerounovedantTalk 18:07, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

If you have a Mudic Week account, can you publish on Wikipedia how much Lorde's Melodrama sold in UK? Please Michaelapratt (talk) 00:59, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Sure, Michaelapratt Melodrama sold 17,026 copies to debut at number 5 on the chart as given my Music Week. —IB ^{[ Poke ]} 12:05, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

I respect you and Blue as editors, and I'm almost never around, so I do apologize if I got a bit combative when I see years of statute and reliable sourcing being gutted because of newer and immature editors. I would really like to extend an olive branch because, while Madonna is the #1 selling female, MC is #2 so I don't see all the squabbling Lol. I happen to like Madonna a lot, but it gets hard when shit is always getting personal. You get the drill. Cheers.--PeterGriffin • Talk2Me 04:21, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

No offence, you burnt the bridge this time. Kindly do not interact with me ever. I will go to ANI if I ever find you in my talk page. —IB ^{[ Poke ]} 04:28, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

Hey IndianBio. Sorry for the revert on List of number-one albums of 2017 (Australia), but I just feel that the Australian music WikiProject might have feelings about removing something that has been done on such pages for years. MOS:FLAG says "In lists or tables, flag icons may be relevant when such representation of different subjects is pertinent to the purpose of the list or table itself." As it is partially a list of which nationalities achieved what, it could be construed as supporting their use. However, I think any objections should be taken to the WikiProject, as it's been done for years and I'm sure others have feelings about it. Perhaps they should be removed; however, I think it could be controversial and should be discussed. I personally don't see any problem with them at the moment. Ss112 10:03, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Ok Ss112, no problem at all. :) —IB ^{[ Poke ]} 10:04, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Would you be willing to weigh in this discussion regarding The Needle Drop should be count as an reliable source or not. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 19:12, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Sure why not? —IB ^{[ Poke ]} 07:46, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Hey, just saw you reverted the user "Friendofiris" on Anti (album) the other day. You probably didn't think much of it, but after seeing them edit another few articles, it honestly seems like they're a MariaJaydHicky sock. At least, it's suspicious. They're contending genres so soon after registering and some of the articles they've edited have been the same. MariaJaydHicky also used to target Rihanna articles. Ss112 10:02, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Oh God! Is there no end to this sock's persistence? —IB ^{[ Poke ]} 07:47, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Americano (song) 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. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of MarioSoulTruthFan -- MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 21:02, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

The article Americano (song) you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Americano (song) for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of MarioSoulTruthFan -- MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 22:21, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

The article Americano (song) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Americano (song) for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of MarioSoulTruthFan -- MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 15:02, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Hi there again! I have just finished copy-editing Artpop from head to toe and archiving its dead links. May I take it to GAN? I think it is in a pretty good shape now. Best, Cartoon network freak (talk) 22:11, 6 July 2017 (UTC)