User talk:Ericorbit/Archive22

Supremes #1 tally edit

Hello. My mistake - in the booklet to the Supremes the Ultimate Collection from 1997, they have "I'm Gonna Make You Love Me" at #1 on the pop chart. This is not corroborated by any other source, and I was just going back to correct the mistake when I saw that you had already done it. That was quick. Thanks.PJtP (talk) 16:13, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

RE:

u dont scare me, people in ur sections have told you to back off, so dont be crying to me (u are A BULLY) & people tell u all the time that ur edits are perosnal edits without consues, so.... once again... leave edits alone...

• oh and u got what u wanted peoples attention! good joob,, go find something to do in life, u loser (flag me or whatever i dont give a f*ck u are a waste of space on wiki and on the world ) [pls vandalise me!!!] i'll be back- Biac*h —Preceding unsigned comment added by Iiismael (talk • contribs) 03:06, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Wow, lots of anger. No idea what you're talking about here, but you've received your final warning. - eo (talk) 14:47, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Those 3 editors

I think they are all the same person, but I don't think they are socks of an existing account that I've run into. Do you think that between them there's a 3RR violation or anything we can get a CU with?—Kww(talk) 15:12, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Well one of them (see above) is obviously down to his last warning because of his behavior on my page. Regardless of whether or not there is 3RR, its obviously abuse of multiple accounts anyway. Perhaps a checkuser request is in order. At the very least he'll have to choose one account to stick with. - eo (talk) 15:31, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Eddiep803b. It's pretty clear to me that these are all the same editor.—Kww(talk) 18:48, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Wow, THANKS! I got sidetracked and was lollygagging about reporting this. Rock on! - eo (talk) 18:49, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

User:It'sByDesign

This User I'm having trouble with. I don't know if you saw my previous message in your archive, but it seems to be an "un-winable" war as he posted on my talk-page. Can you just please review his page and see if my warning was justified, and if so inform him why. He won't listen to me and has apparantly informed an admin, but I doubt it as I've heard nothing, he seems to just revert my edits because of his opinions. At first months ago, he kept changing the page, and ignored all my questions regarding why, other editors reverted his edits, but did not give him any warnings. Jayy008 (talk) 15:49, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Aha, thanks for the wikilink.... I tried to check it before but could not find the user (you put an apostrophe in there and capitalized, so it came up as nothing). I'll poke around. - eo (talk) 15:53, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Lol, ahh I keep forgetting it has to be exactly as it is, thanks for you help (in advance) Jayy008 (talk) 16:32, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Another use, a random rude IP, that won't listen Can you please semi-protect the page, Tik Tok (song) lots of other IP's vandalise aswell. I did put a request before but it went unanswered, so I put another request on the requests page today so I'll wait for that unless you can do it? Permanent I think would be best. Jayy008 (talk) 19:08, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

←OK I semi-protected Tik Tok for now. On the Whitney Houston tour article issue, what exactly is the problem there? I see the Russian dates separated in the set-list portions (because they are different), but included in the main table with all the dates. Is that not the way you want it? The text in the article specifies that the Russian dates were rehearsals and had a different name, so it doesn't look like it is causing confusion. - eo (talk) 19:12, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the Tik Tok protect, should I let you know if a Sockpuppet crops up? Whitney Houston: The problem is I think the Russian dates should be separate because they are different. They are still part of the tour (so should be inc on the same page) but they are rehersals and all sites say it official kicks off as "Nothing But Love" on Feb 6. Which is why I separated them to a heading of "Rehearsals" with it's own information and tour box dates but the user keeps reverting, in the process reverts lots of other information off the page, and is not interested in discussing it. I just wanted your view on it, I don't mind how it turns out, but I think the user should not revert things without discussing first. I hope I'm making sense lol Jayy008 (talk) 20:30, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't see anything in the article's Talk Page (which probably should have happened) BUT it may just be worth it to let it stay as-is. The setlist portion I understand cuz the songs are different but the way it looks now seems like a decent compromise. Just ask yourself how much its worth to go back and forth with this person and how annoying its going to be compared to allowing the Russian dates to be included. It doesn't look awful - it's not as if the formatting is bad or that there are blatant lies and rumors included. Sometimes the headache is not worth it, trust me. If it still bothers you, see what others have to say on the talk page. - eo (talk) 12:07, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Totally, I agree, it's not worth it, unless he does something awful. Thanks for the advice Eo! Jayy008 (talk) 14:37, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

A little eye..

..On The Remix. Another fancruft Lady Gaga page. I redirected it for now, however, uber-fans will soon start reverting. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 10:14, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Is this for real or a bootleg? If this is an official Japanese release, there may be problems redirecting it, although I see online stores as sources which is a no-no. Personally, I have a problem with the track list setup, it looks really bad (if this is kept). I'll keep an eye on it, but if it goes back and forth too many times it may be worth it to nominate it at WP:AfD for a consensus. - eo (talk) 11:02, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

A definite bootleg. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 04:07, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Jivesh boodhun

Why so sweet? Jivesh is the only user that anonymously edits through 41.136.74.0/23. Softblock the range for a month, hardblock the account for a few days, and let's be done with this.—Kww(talk) 16:58, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

He's edit warring again.—Kww(talk) 14:39, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

And again.—Kww(talk) 20:50, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm looking now. No warnings on his page for four days, tho. Sorry for not responding earlier. P.S. I have never blocked a IP range; I don't wanna do that incorrectly, may want to check with another admin who is more familiar with it. In meantime I'll read up on it... I can just imagine myself accidentally blocking the western hemisphere - OOPS! - eo (talk) 21:44, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

The four-day limit applies only to IP accounts. This is a named editor on his fourth final warning ... time to act.—Kww(talk) 21:57, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

I see you gave him his fifth final warning. I will grumble, even though I generally appreciate your help. I don't see why he would ever take a "final" warning seriously if they are never final. With a registered editor, repeating the edits that generated a final warning shouldn't be tolerated. Hopefully, if he repeats this again next week, I won't have to start a whole new warning cycle.—Kww(talk) 23:32, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

No four day wait was necessary: he's back again.—Kww(talk) 15:33, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Yahoo chart Watch

Hello Eric. Just wanted to let you know that the Yahoo chart watch blog is by Paul Grein, an extremely reliable source, who was himself with Billboard for a long time. A lot of the song articles, even GA and FA articles use that source as reference for sales, chart peak, etc. Hence its not unreliable. Also WP:RS states that blogs of reliable source or authors are generally considered reliable. Hence just wanted to clarify you. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 03:07, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Cool thanks. Yeah I know Paul Grein (I'm even old enough to remember when he was the Chart Beat author before Fred Bronson)... just didnt think Yahoo blogs were allowed. I even reverted someone who edited before you who used that as a source. Ah well, I think it would be OK for a temporary source, but would prefer to replace it with a billboard.com permanent link afterwards, when they publish their news story (as I did yesterday). Sound good? - eo (talk) 11:20, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Abso-***-lutely. :) --Legolas ^(talk2me) 09:05, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Vandalism

This user has had enough warnings? Jayy008 (talk) 00:21, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Jivesh

FYI: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Jivesh boodhun.—Kww(talk) 19:58, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

WTF

What are you talking about?? Which Lady Gaga certifications have I inflated?? "The Fame" is 3xPlatinum in US, and "The Fame Monster" is Platinum... check it out before making yourself a fool. Nympho wiki (talk) 13:24, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

The Fame is 2x Platinum, and The Fame Monster is Gold. What is that user on about? lol Jayy008 (talk) 14:43, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Help Please!

This User is really annoying me. According to WK:Guidelines only studio albums should appear in the chronology, the user changes this for ALL Mariah Carey albums which was fine I guess if the user didn't know the rules, even though it says on everyone of her albums "according to Wikipedia.... etc etc" but I posted a message on the users talkpage informing them of this and I reverted all the edits. But the user has again made the edits, I can't keep up. Jayy008 (talk) 14:43, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

PS. sorry if I only speak when I'm requesting blocking action, I don't want to clog up your page with unnecessary things. Jayy008 (talk) 14:46, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

OK Ill keep an eye out... I dont see any edits from this user since 03/02... if it keeps up let me know. It may help the user if you could provide him with the exact link to the guideline that explains chronology. At least then he won't have an excuse of "not knowing". - eo (talk) 14:55, 5 March 2010 (UTC) P.S. It's no problem!

Good plan, I'll let you know if he ignores. Jayy008 (talk) 15:41, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Rihanna discography intro

Hello, Ericorbit

I went back to consider your edit to Rihanna discography, wherein you removed the heading I had whacked in there. I had added it because, firstly, I dislike the general trend in WP articles to have an extensive, multi-paragraph intro, followed by a TOC followed by whatever content hadn't already been covered by the intro. I prefer a short, simple what-is-this-thing or who-is-this-person, followed by a TOC pointing to the subsequent content, explanation, reffed claims, etc. This article suffered because it was five thick paragraphs of text, followed by TOC, then some tables with no narrative text at all.

I did not mean for the addition of the header to be pretentious, to use your term. Or perhaps you meant the title itself; I wrestled for a while trying to find something which accurately described the content already there. That was the best I could do and still stay encyclopedic; maybe I should have said "Details from excited fans".

I went and compared this discography with the ones for other artists, including Elvis and The Beatles. The differences are interesting; Elvis' has only three paragraphs, touching just a bit on sales success (125xplatinum across all recordings), while the Beatles article has more text (5 graphs) confined almost entirely to what recordings were made, stereo or mono, CD releases, etc. The Frank Sinatra discography is terse as heck; only a few bare sentences. Elton John's starts with two sentences, no discussion of chart peaks or genre. The Jackson albums article is surprisingly reasonable: 4 graphs tripping lightly through the list of works, some selling well, some not, not too many details.

So with these to compare to, I think I can now see what you were complaining about with Rihanna. Hers is more of the variety I saw with Bryan Adams (4 graphs, lots of talk about weeks at number one), Lily Allen (2 graphs: genres; gold here, 3xplatinum there; "peaked at 68"; etc.), and, so help me, the two articles for Mariah Carey, one for singles (mostly one graph, with comparisons to other artist, time spent in the Hot 100, and a "This section requires expansion." note), the other for albums (5 graphs, history mentioning each album and how it did in each market). A definite close cousin to the Rihanna article.

Well, enough blathering. If you want to cut this down to a Beatles- or Adams-style intro, I think you'll do best to get some discussion going on the Talk page. If you just go in and start deleting stuff, the fans (e.g., Iluvrihanna24) will just revert it without any discussion or understanding. I have trouble as it is trying to get any communication going on the Talk pages for the article, any contributor, or some of the related articles. Still, I think you should make an attempt to build consensus (at least of those who use the Talk page).

Also, it'd be great if you could point to some policy or guideline for WP discographies. I thought I had seen one (or two?) of them, but now I can't find anything. I see there's a Project but it appears to be no help here. Do you have some link that guides us away from mentioning every single from every album and how it charted/sold?

Best regards (and apologies for my verbosity here) — JohnFromPinckney (talk)

Vandalism

Can you please get IP 69.209.224.227 blocked?? The user has tampered with genres on hundreds of articles. Charmed36 (talk) 07:33, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Edits reverted again, final warning given. The editing started again right away, so block is in place! - eo (talk) 14:15, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Jivesh (one more time)

Jivesh's block expired today. The sockpuppet report put a rangeblock in place against his IPs. As expected, he didn't learn much of a lesson. His first edits were to put back the detailed trajectories, increase the detail level further, and then put Hot 100 Brazil back into I Am... Yours: An Intimate Performance at Wynn Las Vegas. That last one earned him a fresh final warning from me. His next edit was OK. He then added back all the charts you had removed from Sweet Dreams. I removed the UK R&B chart because it doesn't even validate at the source. Of course, he added it right back. I think it's time for a fresh block. Given that he socked his way through the last one, I think a month is warranted. You tend to be a more lenient than I would be, but I just don't see that this editor is really even trying to understand why his editing is unacceptable.—Kww(talk) 19:57, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. Done - 1 month. - eo (talk) 20:31, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Underneath The Stars

Hello... Yes, you're right, I didn't know that, but I do disagree with why it was deleted. All I have sources for is the to say the promo single was released and it's date. It wasn't an "official release" but it was released to radio and on promo CD and it did have artwork and in-turn did chart. If I show you those links would that be acceptable or do you think it should be deleted? Jayy008 (talk) 22:12, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

PS can you move "Up Out My Face (Remix)" to Up Out My Face I can't because the page already exists. I know I made the page a "remix" in the first place but I agree with you that "remix" isn't in the song title. Jayy008 (talk) 00:43, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Personally I don't have a problem with the article existing - I'm just wondering what may happen with its recreation since it has already been through an AfD process, with a "redirect" result. I think whatever links you may have to help out the article, the better. If you have 'em, throw them in there. Once that is done I can move it back to Underneath the Stars but I of course couldn't guarantee that someone else won't come along and re-nominate it for deletion. And P.S. move done! - eo (talk) 11:06, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Ok later on when I'm on my Laptop I will focus all my efforts on finding sources and information to expand the page, then I will post it to you to see what you think and then move it, hopefully this time there will be enough info for nobody to nominate it. Thanks for your help as always Eo. Jayy008 (talk) 13:55, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Annie Lennox

Hi Ericorbit - can you assist with the Annie Lennox article please. I noticed you made a rv the other day before protecting the page, but it seems that there's an overzealous editor user:Jackiestewart who is determined to include details in the article that push a POV surrounding Lennox's opinion about Scottish independence. A discussion was started on the article's talk page a couple of days ago, but the user has completely ignored it and insisted on reverting the information back into the article regardless of discussion or consensus. S/he claimed it was added verbatim as per the source given, but this was not the case. This article in particular has suffered considerable vandalism and edit warring in the past from user(s) who have been pushing a pro-Scottish agenda, and it seems that this is another instance of it. GoldCoaster (talk) 12:54, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

I've placed a warning on his page as well as responded on the Lennox talk page. - eo (talk) 17:19, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. GoldCoaster (talk) 05:45, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Vandalism

Eo please help me This user went through the other day and changed ALL Mariah Carey's certifications to higher unrealistic ammounts, every single album, it tooks me ages to go through and revert, I left a "only warning" because I thought that was appropriate. However, the user ignored, and is currently going through and doing it again. It's an IP so I know that causes problems, but I also don't think all her albums should be protected. What can be done? Jayy008 (talk) 14:16, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm seeing s/he vandalized a user page also. Final warning was given - Im watching. - eo (talk) 17:18, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Eo! Jayy008 (talk) 17:40, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Vandalism ? VAI TOMA NO CU VIADO!

Janet participated in the soundtrack to "Again" your bad information! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lukek26 (talk • contribs) 20:13, 12 March 2010 (UTC) -Lukek 26 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lukek26 (talk • contribs) 20:15, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

no!

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for :disruption by persistently adding erroneous, ill- or unsourced If you continue to hinder the development of "Discography" you will be BLOCKED!

Lmao, that's hilarious sorry, this user is an admin, how can you BLOCK him? haahahha Jayy008 (talk) 15:40, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Underneath The Stars

Sorry about the above, I just found it slightly funny, anyway... I have done all I can do the Underneath The Stars article, so when you get a minute I'll leave you to review and see if you think it should stay or be deleted, thanks. Jayy008 (talk) 15:40, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Yep Ill take a look. Like I said, I can move it back but there's no telling if someone else is gonna come along and do a 2nd nomination. Then again, because it's such a minor single in her discography it may just fly under the radar. - eo (talk) 16:02, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I see what you mean, maybe the people who nominated it before won't be keeping an eye considering it's such a minor single, so maybe it will go unnoticed as you say, hopefully! Thanks again for all your help Eo. Jayy008 (talk) 18:29, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Celine Dion

Hello Eo, how are you today? I would like to Report this user major fancruft on Celine Dion articles, reverts all mine and PeterGriffins edits that restore sales to certification levels, or unsourced material but the user won't have it, Constant edit warring so I thought I'd just see what you think first. Jayy008 (talk) 18:32, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

All the numbers are sourced in Celine Dion articles. Petergriffin9901 is sockpuppet, blocked many times, had been on probation, Mariah Carey fan. Jayy008 made changes to Celine Dion articles without even reading them. All the U.S. sales was in the articles all the time but he changed the numbers to certification levels. He also removed twice French certification for Dion chante Plamondon despite the fact that it is all the time on the official SNEP website easily to find. So yes, I'd like to know what you think too. Max24 (talk) 19:44, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

I did read the link prodived, and it didn't say the sales, you've only now added the sources now I reported you. Also when I click the French certifications it comes up with a white page, so do not tell me "I don't read things". Jayy008 (talk) 19:58, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

PS.

		The Admin's Barnstar
		For always helping sort vandalisers all the time when I pester you lol Jayy008 (talk) 19:58, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

The link was to www.disqueenfrance.com - official website of SNEP. If it was white it means only that they changed the website look. Insted of removing the sales you should update the link. And this is what I did now. It took me 5 seconds. And you do not read things, as the U.S. links were all the time in the articles. Max24 (talk) 20:12, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

It seems I was slightly hasty Eo, thanks in advance but we've worked it out. Jayy008 (talk) 20:26, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi guys, sorry I wasn't online so I didn't get a chance to look quickly enough but I'm glad to see you've worked it out. And thanks for the star! - eo (talk) 11:03, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Billboard

Hello there i was just wondering when is the billboard chart published? its just the billboard website appears to show kelis "Acapella" as still being number one but other users are saying that this not the case this week? Lil-unique1 (talk) 18:03, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Hey there.... the charts come out on Thursday but on Mondays they release a "Chart Highlights" column in the Chart Beat section which gives a sneak peak of stuff happening on a select number of charts. Club Songs is usually one of them. I left a link in the Club Songs article and the number-ones list. Hope that helps. - eo (talk) 18:06, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Wavin' Flag

You are incorrect. If you took the time to check the Young Artists for Haiti page you would see that Wavin' Flag counts as a featured single for any artist who has a chronology box (Nelly Furtado, Avril Lavigne). It does count for Nikki Yanofsky as well. Both Billboard and OCC and their staff have repeatedly confirmed that charity singles where artists have a solo count as a single for them. For example, the Sugababes in the UK have seven number ones - one of these is the Band Aid 20 Xmas charity single where they are featured. OCC counts this towards their number ones, just as all charts do. Therefore, Nikki Yanofsky replaced herself at nunber one - I Believe is her solo single while Wavin' Flag is her featured single, but it counts nonetheless, as per common practice in the industry. Chele9211 (talk) 15:56, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't believe I am incorrect here. This is not a case in which two or three artists get together for a one-time duet. Charity songs in which a whole slew of artists come together have never counted toward the individual artists' chart totals: it's never been done in Billboard, nor any of Joel Whitburn's Billboard books, or any chart historian's totals that I've ever seen in over 30 years of chart watching. This is why you never see LaToya Jackson credited with a number-one song (USA for Africa) or Dan Akroyd (USA for Africa) or Vince Vaughan (Artists for Haiti), etc. etc. etc. Billboard does not chart the Canada Single as "featuring Nikki Yanofsky" therefore it is misleading to credit her in the Canadian Hot 100 article. - eo (talk) 16:57, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I understand that from the American Billboard perspective, but first of all there is no example in the Canadian Chart because it has never happened before, and the practices of the American component of Billboard don't apply because Canadian employees at Nielsen, not Billboard, compile the Canadian Hot 100 which has almost completely separate chart practices from the American side. I don't know about the self-replacement but 'Wavin' Flag' is very much considered a Nikki Yanofsky featured single, just as it is a Nelly Furtado featured single, or an Avril Lavigne featured single. It counts as a number one for Nikki, and all the other featured artists on the track. Chele9211 (talk) 17:19, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

I disagree with that. It's still Billboard, whether they are compiling the US charts or the Canadian charts. The song is not artist-credited as "Young Artists for Haiti featuring A, B, C, D, E...." and it isn't included on a Nikki Yanofsky album, the song is not released as a promotional tool for her or her music. She simply contributed vocals to a song attributed to Young Artists for Haiti. And that's the point, its a charity single: artists forgo the royalties, the credit, the everything because it's for charity. It's not a case of self-replacement at all. - eo (talk) 17:25, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

No, it isn't Billboard. They merely host it and their employees have little to do with the chart itself let alone whether a charity single counts. There is no precedent of how to deal with charity singles in the chart because none of them have ever reached number one. As I said, perhaps the American Charts don't credit the artists but if you know anything about the OCC and UK Charts you'd see that every artist on the Band Aid series of Charity singles, and the I Got Soul War Child single, have that credited under their name as one of their featured singles. For example, I Got Soul went top ten last year and Pixie Lott sang on it - this is considered one of her own top ten singles. Do you even live in Canada and/or have any contact in the Canadian music industry? Chele9211 (talk) 17:34, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Whether I live in Canada, or the UK, or am involved in the music industry doesn't make any difference. The Billboard Canadian Hot 100 does not list all of the individuals on their chart for this song - nor any charity song, nor has the US Hot 100, nor the UK Singles Chart. I have never seen nor read any instance that gives a number-one credit to all the artists who have ever participated in Band Aid or Band Aid II or Band Aid 20, other than a mention that they were a participant... and the same goes for any large group brought together for a charity. "Do They Know Its Christmas" is a UK number-one song for Band Aid (the entity), not every single person individually. This Wikipedia article is about one specific chart: The Canadian Hot 100. There is mention within this article about two Black Eyed Peas songs that succeeded each other, and those two songs are unquestionably, completely performed by and credited to Black Eyed Peas, both released from Black Eyed Peas albums, both clearly shown on the charts as "Black Eyed Peas". There is no way that "Wavin' Flag" is a Nikki Yanofsky song. If next week a song by Nelly Furtado jumps in at #1, she is not credited with self-replacement, either.... "Wavin' Flag" is no more credited to Furtado than it is to Yanofsky. If someone wants to place it into Furtado's Wikipedia discography page that's one thing, but I don't see any mention by any chart columnist or statistician who claims that Yanofsky has replaced herself at #1 because of this single. - eo (talk) 17:53, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

As I said, I am unsure about the self-replacement, but regarding what you've said about Band Aid and the UK Singles Chart - all those artists did get a number one single credit. This is found in MW and other UK music publications from the time the song was released and the OCC considers the Band Aid songs to be a part of the singles chronology for those who participated. Do They Know It's Christmas is a number one song for the Sugababes, for Dizzee Rascal, and so forth. Anyways, it's a stupid pointless thing so it doesn't really matter. It's only a chart and in the end and nobody cares about Canada or the Canadian Charts (I mean this as in I don't care, so I'm just going to leave the article as it was) Chele9211 (talk) 17:58, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Wow, okay. For the record tho, I do care about Canada. - eo (talk) 18:00, 18 March 2010 (UTC)