User talk:Ericorbit/Archive20

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Yamh91

You probably want to comment at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Yamh91.—Kww(talk) 17:02, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Now we're in an awkward position: you blocked him as an obvious sock (and I tend to agree), but the checkuser says the editor is editing from the wrong country. We can do one of two things:

• Assume the behavioural evidence is so strong that it must be Yamh91 on vacation or using a proxy.
• Reverse the block based on the checkuser.

I'm happy enough going with the behavioural evidence.—Kww(talk) 17:17, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Whether its Yamh91 or not, the editor is an obvious sock. I think the block is justified, although the tag on the user page should be changed, if it is a sock of someone else. That's easy enough to do. I didn't know the Yamh91 checkuser request had been re-re-re-re-re-re-re-re-opened. - eo (talk) 17:26, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Let's let it sit until there's an unblock request, and see what to do then. I agree that a two-day-old account recreating an article again after it has been salted in multiple variations is a sock of someone, even if we aren't precisely sure who the puppeteer is.—Kww(talk) 17:30, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

That works for me. The only other person off the top of my head I would suspect is the "Headstrong" person, although Yamh91 (for lack of a better word) is, in general, a "better" editor (i.e. better handle of the English language and understanding of WP formatting guidelines, etc.). Anyway, I used the "suspected sockpuppet" template so we can see what (if anything) happens. - eo (talk) 17:36, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Dbunkley6

I think the sudden return of Dbunkley6 and the upswing of Raven-Symone related problems are probably related, yes. Not quite certain yet, but I've been watching closely. Dropped a level-3 warning on Dbunkley6's talk page yesterday.—Kww(talk) 19:45, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

RE: Please stop re-adding this

The title of the article is "List of Number One Albums of 2009" and in that period, the true number 1 was Number Ones. S&J (talk) 13:16, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

That page lists the Billboard 200 number ones, but that chart includes only the albums that aren't old at least 18 months. Top Comprehensive Albums lists old and new albums and this chart shows the true number 1 of the country, not only the number 1 of the new albums of the country. In that period, Number Ones was number 1 in the Top Comprehensive Albums. If the title of the page is "List of Number One Albums of 2009", we must to post the undisputed number one album and not the number one new album. S&J (talk) 14:16, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

"There is already a mention of what happened in the Comprehensive Albums article"

A person that read only the "List of Number One Albums of 2009" don't know that fact. It's better to post it.

"Billboard has chart rules and thus what is listed is the number one album for each week of the year. It's that simple. Billboard's charts are compiled as a tool for those in the music industry, not for Michael Jackson fans. The Billboard 200 is the industry standard for for U.S. album sales and no further explanation is needed."

They are fake number ones, because in that period other albums sold more than their. The title of the article is "List of Number One Albums of 2009" and the undisputed number ones must be posted, not the number one new albums. S&J (talk) 15:46, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but the title is wrong, it's not the "List of Number One Albums of 2009", but the "List of Number One Albums of the Billboard 200 in 2009". S&J (talk) 22:02, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

The rules of Billboard aren't obiettive. S&J (talk) 22:21, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

So, for you the true number ones are the Billboard 200 number ones also if a catalog album sold more their. S&J (talk) 22:34, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Beyonce Discography

Hello eric :

1. Could you please add total sales of her cds to the studio albums table? I see the totals of 11mill, 6mill,5mill in the lead. Other discography pages have the totals in the table. I think it should be in the table for bk as well to keep format.
2. Also is there a way to bold the line that separates the albums in the singles table? In the studio albums section it is easy to read, but in the singles section, it isnt.

Thanks ! 64.26.99.120 (talk) 21:23, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

The Fame

Hey Eric. Could you please come to the above mentioned article? A user is continuously adding an infobox for The Fame Monster re-release inspite of being repeatedly asked not to do so. Thsi is turning into a mess. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 04:40, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Rihannano1fan

OK, I've had it. I've tried explaining it enough times to Rihannano1fan (talk · contribs) (my last warning following their "confirmation" when nothing was confirmed), my good faith is out the window. He was told not to post rumors and speculations as facts, but he still does, all based on a countdown ticking on the singer's website. He was told that retailer sites aren't reliable sources for release dates, but he carries on using them. He was told not to remove SD templates from articles he creates, but continues to do so anyway. I have told him that he needs to take copyright on Wikipedia seriously, to run his next uploads by someone who knows something about it if he is unsure himself, but he still keeps uploading copyrighted images (1 2 3) with claims of CC-BY-SA or PD-self when he obviously doesn't hold copyright to them and they haven't been released as such.
I have tried to explain it often enough that I can only conclude now he is doing it deliberately, or deliberately doesn't care. Since I've blocked, reverted, and pleaded with him often enough that he might consider me biased or involved, could you have a look and decide whether a topic ban (anything Rihanna image uploads) or a block might be appropriate?
Thanks, Amalthea 15:08, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

I tend to agree with Amalthea. The talk page is a pile of final warnings, and I don't see any sign that Rihannano1fan is paying any attention to them.—Kww(talk) 15:14, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Ugh, I agree, I forgot about this guy; a complete nuisance. Two-week block and I put him on my watch list so I can keep one eye on him. I'd be on the lookout for block evasion, too. - eo (talk) 15:33, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Amalthea 16:08, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

RFA spam

Thank you for participating in WP:Requests for adminship/Kww 3
Sometimes, being turned back at the door isn't such a bad thing

—Kww(talk) 18:37, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Bananarama Viva 2nd single

I relinked the source so it would show where the thread is on the Bananarama.co.uk forum of the official news of the 2nd single. So I would appreciate it if you didn't remove it.Saskatuneguy (talk) 01:42, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Histmerge

Hey, could you please histmerge Talk:Fast Ryde/Comments to Talk:Fast Ryde? Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 17:53, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Discography

Sorry, i didnt know about the ten charts only rule. You may want to check the discography of rihanna, chris brown, michael jackson, beyonce, because thats why i thought there could be more than ten.--TrEeMaNsHoE (talk) 12:19, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, there are quite a number of discographies that need some serious reductions, or that have been trimmed but the excessive countries keep being re-added. - eo (talk) 12:55, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Dbunkley6

He's independent. He's already been cleared of being Yamh91 by checkuser. If you think he's being a bad enough editor that he is disruptive enough to block, I'm not going to raise a fuss, but he isn't a Yamh91 sock.—Kww(talk) 18:27, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Ciara Discography

Leave it as it is, it fits WP: Discography, and since fantasy ride hasn't been certified it has its sales. leave it or you will be blocked.--TrEeMaNsHoE (talk) 01:35, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Shirley Bassey

Could you please keep an eye on this article. You will see from recent editing that, not for the first time, we have a user trying to force their version of the 'facts' on the whole world. Unless I am completely wrong, it is in violation of Wikipedia:Verifiability. Thank you,

Derek R Bullamore (talk) 00:11, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Way ahead of you - it is still on my watchlist from the problems we had with this editor months ago. I see another "final" warning has been left on his talk page, so we'll see where this goes. - eo (talk) 10:08, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Rock Songs and Pop Songs

I was hoping we can find some consistency with listing chart performance for songs that make the Rock Songs and Pop Songs/Top 40 Mainstream charts. With Alternative and Hot Mainstream Rock charts merely components to the Rock Songs chart, should they no longer be allowed on a chart table? Mainstream rock, in particular, since Billboard doesn't even include it in its print or online editions. And isn't Rock Songs an airplay-only chart and a component to the Hot 100? So I would think that it should be treated on an equal level as the Pop Songs chart, especially since the end of the Pop 100 and merging of R&R. Pop Songs seems to have taken on an added significance/importance at Billboard. It is listed first among all genre charts on their site[1], and another site, Radio-info.com [2], seems to treat all the various genre/airplay-based charts equally. Isn't it biased to exclude one component over the other? I'm all for keeping the direct Hot 100 components (Hot 100 airplay, digital songs, and singles sales) off any chart table and keeping U.S. charts to two in all other cases (the Hot 100 and its main genre chart). By the way, has the print edition of the chart names come in line with the online names yet? Thanks. --Wolfer68 (talk) 21:43, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

I completely agree, the charts and the new names, etc. are completely convoluted at this point and something needs to be sorted. I think what needs to happen is the wording at WP:CHARTS... i.e. from blatantly saying "no component charts" to instead introducing some consensus-driven list of *which* component charts are acceptable. Some components are (in my opinion) more "important" than others in terms of, for example, the notibility or status of a number-one rank on certain lists. Arrgh. And yes, the print edition titles are in sync with what is online now. - eo (talk) 15:44, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

This Is My Time

I think it's time to semi-protect this article for a while. The anonymous edits have been atrocious, and I think that we both suspect that the anons are actually Dbunkley6. A few months of semi-protection would help a lot in terms of both the article quality and flushing out any puppetmasters.—Kww(talk) 21:14, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

No problem.... done! - eo (talk) 21:39, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Edits

I have agreed with many of your edits and kept them, but its best to use the discussion page to go over changes. It makes things easier and is part of Wikipedia guidelines. No.1 is used everywhere in our lists and is what is used at billboard. There are probably 100 uses of it on our page if you look closely. But I did like your other edits. If you have other oomments aboout style etc. Please link to the appropriate Wiki file on the discussion page and lets talk about it. Thank You —  MateyAhoy  15:20, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Cocoamazon

I had to roll back every edit to She Wolf. Time for a fresh block, methinks.—Kww(talk) 11:01, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Al Paccino

I noticed you left a warning on user Al Paccino's talk page in August noting that if he vandalized another page, he would be banned from editing articles. On November 3rd he edited the album page for Blackout by Britney Spears, claiming that it was "widely believed to be the best album of 2007" with no citation, and it's patently untrue. I undid the edit, but am not sure how to report vandalism, so I just thought I'd let you know, in case you're capable of banning this person. Dhatura (talk) 14:08, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of FlyKKiller

The article FlyKKiller has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Non-notable band. Appears to fail WP:BAND.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{dated prod}} will stop the Proposed Deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The Speedy Deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and Articles for Deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. ttonyb (talk) 01:21, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

RE

What are you saying? Where are my vandalism? --Matthew Riva (talk) 15:50, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

My apologies, I left that message on the wrong Talk Page. I've stricken it. Thanks. - eo (talk) 15:54, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

some articles have problems and I wll give notice that they need to be improved

don't be overzealous 24.45.35.85 (talk) 23:47, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

An IP address whose first two edits are coincidentally identical to a long string of sockpuppet-related vandalism on two articles that have been promoted to featured lists will most certainly result in a vandalism warning on the IPs Talk Page. - eo (talk) 11:54, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Chart trajectories in tables? [Invitation to discussion]

Hello eo,
I thought you might be interested in joining the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Record charts#Chart trajectories in tables? so I'm stopping by with an invitation for you. Please for completeness of discussion post all comments there. Thank You.—Iknow23 (talk) 22:54, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Re:Kick

Oh yeah, that was sum kick.... best I hope that Tikkuy ignores such provocation. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 14:09, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

And here's another kick for you. Lol. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 05:58, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Brazil chart

I don't understand why you remove the Brazil Chart! It's official, there's an official website about this chart. And you keep removing this. It's not either from acharts or from top-40 charts. It's getting ridiculous! I want you to add this back! Or i will kepp adding it, and i don't care about being blocked! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Argi15 (talk • contribs) 19:49, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

i don't understand why this is a vandalism for wikipedia.! Explain that to me. Can you? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Argi15 (talk • contribs) 19:58, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Pop 100 pages

I was thinking that with the end of the Pop 100 chart, it may be simpler to just have a single page for the main Pop 100 article and its list of number-one songs. What do you think of this? It merges all the Pop 100 number-one hits of 200x (USA) pages into the main page. If you feel it's worth doing, feel free to make any edits to it before I put it up. Otherwise, I'll just forget about it and leave it alone. Thanks. --Wolfer68 (talk) 19:28, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. I guess I took my cue from some of the Billboard books - as in why list a song more than once during the same chart run. On the long-running and on-going charts, week to week is understandable, but since this had a short run and relatively few chart toppers, I thought this would do. Technically, one can say the final #1 was "Poker Face" because "Boom Boom Pow" reached the top before and then returned. I revised the statement from "the final number-one song on the chart was..." to "the number-one song on the final chart was..." I'll let the wiki-editors make any improvments from there. --Wolfer68 (talk) 20:43, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

succession box at S.O.S. (Let the Music Play)

Hi eo,

I don't mean to pick on you, but I've been wondering about the use of 'succession boxes'. Yes, I've seen them used elsewhere but I've always considered them to be an 'indiscriminate collection of information' as I don't believe such information is notable to the article pages they appear on. It might just be me, so I'd be interested in what someone else thinks of this.
Again, I just decided to look into this a little bit.—Iknow23 (talk) 01:45, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Wellllllll honestly they don't bother me too much. I do say that a bit begrudgingly however, since I know for a fact that there are those occasional times when they get way out of control. I remember starting them with the Hot 100 number-ones way back when, not fully realizing at the time that eventually people would add them for just about every music chart imaginable. I don't quite see them as an "indiscriminate collection" — I do think that in the grand scheme of things they serve a purpose and benefit the average reader, maybe someone who is interested in following the succession of number-ones in such-&-such country or on such-&such chart. That said, if there was some huge discussion about succession boxes in music articles and the consensus was to eliminate them I wouldn't cry about it; they really aren't that big of a deal. But if they stay, I'm ok with that too. - eo (talk) 02:10, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I was interested in some input. I guess I can grin and bear it, probably not worth making a big 'to-do' over it. haha.
but maybe some day? :) —Iknow23 (talk) 02:27, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Ha, maybe so... but if you feel strongly about it, then bring it up in one of the discussion pages. Maybe there are a lot more people in agreement with you than you think? - eo (talk) 02:31, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

LOL, I just might some day ;) —Iknow23 (talk) 02:38, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

← btw, I think that I found an example of the 'out of control' situation at Girls Just Want to Have Fun with TWO listing for Norwegian VG-Lista with just one week in-between them. "(first run) 13/1984 (1 weeks)" and "(second run) 15/1984 (1 weeks)" being a lil jockeying for number 1 occurred with it and "To Be or Not To Be" by Mel Brooks.—Iknow23 (talk) 03:26, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

(Hot Dance Airplay)??? <--- this is a Hot 100 component. - eo (talk) 02:32, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Hey, I noticed your comment on my talk. I'm bringing it back over here because now I have a question about the succession box at Obsessed (song). The chart shows it charted on the Billboard Hot 100, but still showing the Billboard Hot Dance Airplay COMPONENT in the succession box. Isn't that just a sneaky way to use the otherwise BANNED info?—Iknow23 (talk) 02:54, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, what I've seen lately is people are combining "drop-then-return-to-#1" boxes together.... I'm guessing the GJWTHF succession boxes were added a long time ago. And I do agree about the Hot Dance Airplay box on "Obsessed"... My assumption is that someone prob saw the Dance Club Play box and figured it was OK to have both. - eo (talk) 16:32, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Could you point me to an example of where someone combined the "drop-then-return-to-#1" boxes together. I'd like to check that out.
With the additional examples and it not just me [you agree too] that the use of COMPONENT chart in succession where UNALLOWED in Charts should not be allowed either, I've decided to go ahead and bring it up soon on the discussion page.
It'll be a two-fold approach:

1. Do we want succession boxes?
2. If yes, then want standards should be set for them?—Iknow23 (talk) 01:07, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Hey, sorry for the delay, I was editing very sporadically during the holiday weekend. Anyhoo, an example is Poker Face (Lady Gaga song) (see the Australian and Canadian bits). - eo (talk) 13:04, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

No problem. I wasn't around as much as usual myself. And thank you. That does look better having just one grouping per chart.—Iknow23 (talk) 02:32, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, LOL, somebody beat me to starting the discussion. So I joined it in progress. Wanted to let you know it is ongoing in case you'd like to particapate. HERE :) —Iknow23 (talk) 00:59, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Viva Bananarama and Love Comes

There is someone continually adding what they think is the second single , it will be confirmed soon but I'd rather not deal with all the rumour mongering , is there any way to stop this until the announcement is made ?

Thank you 79.77.27.14 (talk) 10:49, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

I'll keep an eye on it; I've removed false 2nd singles a few times already. If it gets really bad I could semi-protect it, but then as an IP-only you wouldn't be able to edit it either  :-) eo (talk) 15:44, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Okay thank you very much :) FascinatingBlondeOne (talk) 03:52, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

American Pie

Thanks for the heads up - I will join in the discussion you linked. The split, however, was appropriate, and done under existing guidelines. Perhaps when the WikiProject discussion has finished, it can be seen if the consensus from that discussion conflicts with wider Wikipedia consensus guidelines and general common sense, and if it does not, and the consensus is that two different topics are dealt with on the same page, then the articles can again be merged. Regards SilkTork *^YES! 11:56, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

cover versions discussion...

Thanks for the extra list, I'll add them to my list (if I am unlucky and nobody else does!). meanwhile of the first 10 entries, 8 have already been merged. --Richhoncho (talk) 21:46, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

List of Artists that went number one on the Billboard Hot 100

All I am trying to do is to expand the list and show the songs that went number one (ex. a-ha had one and I put below the artists name Take On Me). Plus, I am trying to make it as a good accurate article to make it as a featured article by showing the songs that were on top of the charts. So please, what I am doing is to make it perfect and show the songs that were number one. The best way is to undo it, and also to show the songs below the artists. Please understand what I am doing. --Talladega87 (talk) 18:23, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Erasure single solsburyhill.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Erasure single solsburyhill.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude (talk) 06:38, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Human League Fascination.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Human League Fascination.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude (talk) 06:51, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

RE: List of Artists that went number one on the Billboard Hot 100

Never mind what I said, the fact of it is that I am still furitated that I made the assasination of JFK into a featured article and someone removed it. All I am trying to do is that I want to make things happen. The other message is deleted, so were cool right? I'm just a bit not happy. --Talladega87 (talk) 18:38, 8 December 2009 (UTC)