User talk:Hometown Kid

CLICK HERE TO LEAVE ME A MESSAGE, WHATEVER YOU WANNA TALK ABOUT, IT BETTER IT GOOD, SIGN YOUR POSTS, AND BE POLITE, THANK YOU!!!

User talk:Hometown Kid

Hello, Hometown Kid here, the new kid in town (wikipedia) lol. As you can see here, all the messages that I get for my contributions, some of them good, some of them ok, and the rest a bunch of bull crap which was sent from eo, but got rid of them. I finally realize there is no use for the united world chart on song articles, i figured that it's useless. I really need some help making the Danny Fernandes article, I know it has been deleted a lot of times, but we need to find reliable information on him without plagiarising from other sites, if you wanted to help then do so, but I am trying to make a request to unprotect the page so that I can craete it.

Dangerous

The song is Canadian hip hop mixed with R&B. Leave it at that. Blackjays1 (talk) 07:31, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. Regarding your edit(s) to Lady GaGa, it is recommended that you use the preview button before you save; this helps you find any errors you have made, and prevents clogging up recent changes and the page history. Thank you. Xeltran (talk) 15:19, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Please learn how to use the preview button? Thanks! -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 15:27, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

United World Chart

The point isn't that there isn't an article: the point is that the chart is unreliable. You could build a great, accurate article about the UWC, which would read something like The United World Chart is a chart that claims to report worldwide sales for songs. However, there is no evidence that it actually has access to sales data or uses sales data. No retailers or marketers are known to use the UWC in making decisions, and its figures are not reported by any reliable news sources. It appears to be used only by blogs and fansites. UWC charts would still be deleted from all articles. We point you at the AFD so that there is a record of our reasons. I still don't understand what your objection is. Why do you want to report the contents of an unreliable chart?Kww (talk) 21:29, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

I take out lots of charts, not just UWC. Whenever I see an article that references UWC, BrasilHot100, or the Bulgarian Top Singles, out they go. If you could find a reliable, well sourced worldwide chart, that would be great. If there was such a thing, I'd be all for reporting it. There isn't, you've been told there isn't, so putting it back in over and over and over is vandalism, because you are knowingly placing false information into Wikipedia.

As for me interfering in your conversation, no Wikipedia conversation is private. If you want privacy, take it to e-mail.Kww (talk) 21:52, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Whatcha Think About That

An article that you have been involved in editing, Whatcha Think About That, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Whatcha Think About That. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? raven1977 (talk) 23:59, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Edit summaries

Hello. Please don't forget to provide an edit summary, which wasn't included with your recent edit to Crush (David Archuleta song). Thank you. Aspects (talk) 16:59, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

I was using the Crush article as an example of not using edit summaries. Since you left a message on my talk page saying you do that later, you have provided an edit summary for only six of your 70 edits. You need to provide an edit summary for every edit you make. Aspects (talk) 00:56, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Please start using edit summaries. Aspects (talk) 22:58, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Crush (David Archuleta song)

If you feel that "hot shot debut" belongs in the article, you need to provide an explanation for the term so that readers understand what the article is saying. Also, the Billboard magazine needs to be linked only once in the table. Any more than once is overlinking. Aspects (talk) 00:59, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Overlinking Billboard (magazine)

In a music chart using different Billboard charts, Billboard (magazine) needs to be linked only once. Any more than that and it is overlinking, such as what you recently did to Light On. Aspects (talk) 22:59, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Please note as well that when you link Billboard, it does not direct to the magazine. You should pipe these as [[Billboard (magazine)|Billboard]]. And as said above, you only need to link the first reference of Billboard. --Wolfer68 (talk) 16:23, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

I have reverted the overlinking to Billboard on both Light On and Spotlight (Jennifer Hudson song). You have been asked before to not link to Billboard since that is an article about outdoor advertisements not the magazine that publishes the music charts. Also you have been asked before not to overlinking Billboard. It only needs to be linked once in the chart. Please take the advice from both mysefl and Wolfer68 and stop wrongly linking and overlinking Billboard. Aspects (talk) 14:34, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Do you even read your user talk page? This edit, [1], less than forty minutes after I left you a message does both of the things I just talked about. Aspects (talk) 15:08, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

So you read your user talk page and you still continue to do the same edits, [2], over and over that other editors have told you not to do and why? That's worse than not even reading your talk page. Aspects (talk) 17:05, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

The point of Wikipedia is not to make edits you "think you can get away with," it is to work collaboratively with editors around the world to make the articles the best they can be. Now that two different editors have told you the way you are making your edits are wrong, will you please stop linking to [[Billboard]] and overlinking articles in the same table? Aspects (talk) 17:13, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Please read the article for Billboard that you keep linking to, [3]. The article is for outdoor advertising. If you are going to link to the magazine Billboard you need to link to Billboard (magazine). This is the organization that releases the Billboard charts. You just need to pipe the link like this [[Billboard (magazine)|Billboard]]. Aspects (talk) 18:16, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Fall Out Boy - "I Don't Care" citation tags

Please, stop removing the "citation needed" tags, those aren't only dates, as you said they were in your edit summary. They show the need of a citation to confirm the peaks on the unsourced charts. - JWhitt (talk) 00:01, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Bubbling Under Hot 100 Singles

The Bubbling Under Hot 100 Singles is in fact a component component chart. Component chart does not list all of the component charts. The Bubbling Hot 100 Singles is a chart which is used to calculate a more primary chart, in this case being the Billboard Hot 100. Please do not add this chart or any other component charts to articles. Thank you. DiverseMentality^(Boo!) 21:07, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Well it's still valuable information for song article, in case a song doens't chart on the Billboard Hot 100. It shows how how far or how close a song is from charting on the Billboard Hot 100. Hometown Kid (talk) 7:42, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Per WP:CHARTS, you should only add component charts if the song doesn't reach any significant Billboard chart. DiverseMentality^(Boo!) 02:29, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Reckless Abandon (album)

Thanks for the message. Do you have an image file of the album cover? If so you can upload it at this page. And please leave my recent edits in place - they are correct English and the tone is more suitable for an encyclopedia. – ukexpat (talk) 00:57, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Chicken Fried

Please don't link the chart names on Chicken Fried or any other song article. WP:CHART clearly shows that the chart names should not be linked in the table. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 15:40, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Heartless (Kanye West song)

I must ask you not to remove sourced material without explanation, especially in the way you did, by replacing valid citations with links to fan-written blogs. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 08:22, 30 November 2008 (UTC))

December 2008

Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed content from Human (The Killers song). When removing text, please specify a reason in the edit summary and discuss edits th at are likely to be controversial on the article's talk page. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the text has been restored, as you can see from the page history. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. JD554 (talk) 18:58, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

You removed content by removing the two charts for Netherlands (which are both well cited). You also added the Canadian Hot 100 but it is not cited. Not all the charts are called Billboard xxx as you can see by following the following links: Hot Adult Top 40 Tracks and Hot Modern Rock Tracks. As you can see, they are produced by Billboard but it isn't part of the charts' names. Also adding {{sort|US|U.S.}} doesn't produce a link but allows the sorting to working properly by ignoring the dot. So, I will remove the Canadian chart as it is uncited and therefore violates Wikipedia's policy on WP:V and I will restore the charts for the Netherlands which are well cited. I will also remove Billboard from the chart names where it doesn't belong. I really don't see the point in having the Pop 100 and Hot Dance Club Play charts as they are only minor charts compared to the Hot 100 and Hot Modern Rock Tracks, but I'll concede to leave these in providing you don't remove well cited information. Doing so, is a violation of Wikipedia's policies and may result in your account being blocked. --JD554 (talk) 20:00, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we would like to remind you not to attack other editors, as you did on User:Hometown Kid. Please comment on the contributions and not the contributors. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. This is specifically regarding your comments about User:Ericorbit JD554 (talk) 15:47, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Shake That

Please provide an adequate citation per WP:RS illustrating that "Shake That" charted at number 6 on the Bubbling Under R&B/Hip-Hop Singles for Eminem discography. Until then, it really won't matter how many times you may have told me to stop removing the r&b/hip-hop songs chart position for Shake That. Do U(knome)? ^yes..._{or no} 23:48, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:Eminem Relapse CoverArt.png)

Thanks for uploading File:Eminem Relapse CoverArt.png. 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 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 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:04, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Simple Plan single

Please do not post unverified information claiming a new single for Simple Plan. If you are able to produce a reliable source, then of course please feel free to improve the articles. If not, please await some further announcement by the band.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:50, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

I've looked at the ref you have provided. It nowhere says that No Love is a single, merely that they have been playing it a lot. That does not equate with a single. In addition, CHUM-FM is what I believe they call chartspam. Please remove it yourself, or I suspect someone else will, given the number of eyes that look at these articles, I don't think it will stand. Thanks.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:54, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

User:NiceHotShower

You may have notices a message from User:NiceHotShower has disappeared from your user page. That user has been blocked for impersonating an administrator. --Tagishsimon (talk) 06:31, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

मैं तुम्हारी मदद की ज़रूरत है. (I need your help)

फूलों के कई क्षेत्रों में एक कब्रिस्तान से घिरा हुआ है. चर्च में एक बूढ़ा आदमी उस रात चले. मध्य रात के और एक और बूढ़े आदमी पियानो बजा रही थी. उनकी पोती वहाँ था. वह सोलह गया था और एक सुंदर सफेद कपड़े पहने हुए. वह रात में आया है. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.57.82.53 (talk) 06:19, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

This is in hindi http://translate.google.com/

Translated in english: Flowers in many areas is surrounded by a cemetery. An old man in the church that night away. And a middle of the night and the old man was playing the piano. His granddaughter was there. She was sixteen and wearing a beautiful white dress. He has come in the night.

Hometown Kid (talk) 08:43, 12 March 2009

March 2009

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on My Love (The-Dream song). Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. —slakr^\ talk / 04:21, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

New account: Hometown Kid sockpuppet

I noticed that the account Hometown Kid sockpuppet (talk · contribs) has been created. Is it yours? If someone is impersonating you, please let me know as soon as possible. Thanks. Wronkiew (talk) 03:48, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I have blocked the account. Sorry this took so long Papa November (talk) 21:21, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Andrew F

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Andrew F, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process because of the following concern:

Non-notable musician, fails WP:V and WP:NM.

All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because, even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. — Σxplicit 03:36, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Deletion tags on images

Please don't just remove tags without addressing the issues. They are being put there for a good reason: you are not specifying which article the non-free images are for use in.

Please read the fair use rationale guidelines and the documentation for {{album cover fur}} to make sure that your images don't get tagged for deletion in future. If after reading both of these, you are still unsure about anything, get in touch with me and I'll try to help. Papa November (talk) 12:34, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, other people have fixed lots of image uploads for you in the past so I think now is a good time for you to learn how to do it. I will certainly help explain things if you get stuck. Papa November (talk) 14:53, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image (Image:Beforeiselfdestructalbum.jpg)

⚠

Thanks for uploading Image:Beforeiselfdestructalbum.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 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude (talk) 03:42, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:Keri hilson knock you down cover.jpg)

Thanks for uploading File:Keri hilson knock you down cover.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 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 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 07:15, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

To Credit or Not To Credit?

That is the question...my argument in defense of crediting is that neither Wikipedia nor any of its pages is (or ever was) owned by any private corporation. I believe Wikipedia even has a policy on these things (WP:OWN). Therefore, no matter what any record company says, I think all contributors should be credited on Wikipedia (after all, we enforce capitalization rules that they don't)

(BTW, feel free to put this in the debate consensus section-want to get the community's opinion) Tom Danson (talk) 17:39, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Well then I guess we should credit everyone that contributed to the single. Should we credit the producer and writers? Should we put Mike Jones featuring Nae Nae, and J.R. Rotem? Hometown Kid (talk) 14:47, 28 April 2009 (GMT)

• Not the producer and/or writers-just those who provide vocals. The credited should be the ones that give vocals (I made an error in my previous statement, so this is the correction) Tom Danson (talk) 19:24, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

• So, if there were to be single with just one artist and there were some background singers, should we include all of the background singers with their names. They provide vocals too. Hometown Kid (talk) 15:27, 28 April 2009 (GMT)

• • If a singer does lead hook vocals, (s)he should be credited regardless of what the label says (they don't own Wikipedia or any of its articles). As for the background vocals beyond that, then the label would decide. Tom Danson (talk) 06:08, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Region of Shaba

An article that you have been involved in editing, Region of Shaba, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Region of Shaba. Thank you.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Frozenguild (talk) 12:35, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

T.I. discography

I'm not an admin so can't block anybody. However, I notice that an admin has now protected the article. If this kind of thing happens again from an anonymous IP it is best to request the article be protected - this can be done at WP:RPP. --JD554 (talk) 08:24, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image (File:KarlWolf-05-big.jpg)

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:KarlWolf-05-big.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. FileBot (talk) 23:13, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

wats up bro —Preceding unsigned comment added by Trapstar707 (talk • contribs) 17:52, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Add RB chart to Alicia Keys Discography

Hello hometown: Please add a RB colum to the Alicia Keys Discography page. AK has had many #1 on the RBcharts. AK is more of a RB artist. Beyonce has the RB column on her discography page so I think RB colums are allowed. AK's positions on the RB charts easily verifiable from BB. I dont know how to do charts that is why I havent done it. I dont wanna ruin the page. Thanks 64.26.99.120 (talk) 21:30, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I can't add another chart to the table because Explicit is going by the MOS:DISCOGS rules saying that there should be 10 maximum charts for discography pages. I added the Canadian Albums Chart there and he took it off after because there's already 10 charts there. So you should try explaining that to him since I'm not an administrator. Hometown Kid (talk) 20:05, 17 October 2009 (GMT).

If the rule is 10, why does beyonce discography have these 14 charts?

US / US R&B / US Dance / AUS / CAN / FRA / GER / IRE / NL / NZ / SUI / ISR / NOR / UK ? 64.26.99.120 (talk) 16:49, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

I read the DISCOGS page. The rule isnt 10. The SUGGESTION is 10. We are right to add RB chart per MOS:DISCOGS#Ignore_all_rules.

Therefore, if there is a reasonable justification for deviating from the above guidelines to most accurately or appropriately document an artist's body of work, then ignore all the rules and go with what's best for the article. It is our goal to provide information in the best way possible, so a strict adherence to the guidelines listed above may not always be the best way to accomplish our goals.

Just as Taylor Swift has US & Canada country charts on her disco page. 64.26.99.120 (talk) 16:58, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Personal attacks

Please do not leave edit summaries like this, calling someone a retard. Not only is it a personal attack, it is an offensive term to use as it refers those those with mental disabilities. Comment on content, not on the contributor. — ξ^xplicit 21:57, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I just got heated up. Hometown Kid (talk) 18:02, 3 December 2009 (GMT)

March 2010

Looks like you got heated up again, judging from your edit summary from Rihanna discography. You were more likely dealing with a malicious act than mental retardation, but in any case it's always better to remain cool and respond appropriately. In neither case is using the word "retard" appropriate.

The appropriate response there was to revert all of the user's edits on the article, ideally in one operation. You can do that by going to the history page and selecting the vandal's last edit and the edit before the vandal's first one. You then Compare selected revisions, then click undo (this is an opportunity to check what you're doing), then save the change. When you do, of course, you include a civil edit summary, referring at most to the vandalism, not the vandal. This is also a good way to get all the garbage they left behind.

It's kind of odd seeing that rudeness from a user whose Talk page starts with, "BE POLITE". Stay cool! — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 19:23, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Album reviews

How's it going, Kid? Just thought I'd give you a heads up; sites like RapReviews aren't considered notable on wiki. If you post a RapReviews article for Illmatic (for example), it will get removed because there are more well-established sites, magazines and newspapers, such as Allmusic. There's also a limit of 10 reviews per album. I added a RapReviews article to Fire and Glory, because I couldn't find any other reviews for it (that's a rare exception). Here's a list of notable reviewers (WP:ALBUM/REVSIT). Blackjays1 (talk) 17:50, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

I decided to put back those RapReviews reviews. Not too sure about the DX one though, I don't think it's notable enough. Blackjays1 (talk) 10:39, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Why you don't think it's notable enough. I think they should stay just in case, because the reviews seem professional and really summarize and critique the albums properly. Ignore the user ratings on it. Hometown Kid (talk) 18:41, 3 March 2010 (GMT)

Why you don't think it's notable enough. I think they should stay just in case, because the reviews seem professional and really summarize the albums properly. Ignore the user ratings on it. Hometown Kid (talk) 18:41, 3 March 2010 (GMT)

I'm not worried about the ratings. It's just that some Wiki users and admins are strict about it. I used to think it didn't matter what site to put there. But not long after Not 4 Sale came out, there were 10 reviews, and one day a user removed 7 of them. That's why I was saying it's probably not notable enough. Blackjays1 (talk) 03:13, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

You know what you're right. I've been looking at some various amount of reviews and ratings on HipHopDX, and they seem to be too inconsistent. One badly reviewed/rated album from all the other critics would somehow get a positive review/rating by HipHopDX. So you're right, the HipHopDX reviews isn't notable enough, we should start removing it from all wikipedia articles that have them. Hometown Kid (talk) 16:06, 10 March 2010 (GMT)

Orphaned non-free image File:Gucci mane wasted.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Gucci mane wasted.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) 06:41, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Edits to Justin Bieber and One Time

Although, Pop Songs is an airplay chart, since it is the only genre chart used for pop, it is recommended according to the general consensus to use the chart since no other genre alternative is available. Thanks!! Candyo32 (talk) 19:21, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Tony Yayo's sales

Hello, Hometown Kid. I removed the sales figure you restored to Tony Yayo discography [4]. You were right, someone pulled a fast one with the RIAA certification, but someone also pulled a fast one earlier with the sales figure - the cited source doesn't mention album sales. I thought you'd want to know. Fool me once... Yappy2bhere (talk) 05:12, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Discography format

Despite what you think, the consensus is that independent and major label releases should not be separated in discography listings. For examples (chosen at random), see E-40 discography, Public Enemy discography, EPMD discography, Fall Out Boy discography, Insane Clown Posse discography, Bone Thugs-n-Harmony discography, The Black Keys discography, etc., etc.. The type of label makes no difference; it's the type of album (studio, live, mixtape) that needs to be categorized. Look around and you'll see that I'm right. I can see that you're an enthusiastic editor here and that you love music—me too. I'm not interested in edit warring over this with you. Peace, TheJazzDalek (talk) 12:02, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Undaground Legend

I find it really unlikely such an obscure album could go platinum. I removed that claim from that article, and it's not the first time I've done it there, either. Do you have any proof that album sold a million? Şłџğģő 16:58, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

I didn't claim that the album went platinum, it's a fact. It's on the riaa site (http://www.riaa.com/goldandplatinumdata.php?table=SEARCH). Search Lil Flip in the artist field, and under format choose album and you'll see the certifications. The album did go platinum according to the source, it doesn't lie. Hometown Kid (talk) 12:18, 7 March 2010 (GMT)

Make sure you don't insert specious claims like that without sourcing from now on. Thanks. Şłџğģő 05:33, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

The source was already there in the discography page. It was there in the first place, and before they were altered by some of the IP Users, so I went to the source and corrected them. Hometown Kid (talk) 12:18, 8 March 2010 (GMT)

Drake discography

The Drizzy Effect is not an official mixtape so "I Get Paper" is best left as a non-album song since unofficial mixtapes are not notable. Hot Revolver would be a good example as it was featured on 2008's Drought 6 but is known as a non-album single because that's not an official mixtape. Just a head's up. Str8cash (talk) 05:37, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Manafest epiphany.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Manafest epiphany.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).

PLEASE NOTE:

• I am a bot, and will therefore will not be able to answer your questions.

• I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used once again.

• If you recieved this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.

• To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to somewhere on your talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 09:41, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

T.I.'s seventh studio album

Hello, please do not change the name of the album to King Muzik. The sources you provided did not pass Wikipedia's reliable source policy. If you find a reliable source such as MTV, XXL Magazine, Vibe Magazine, Billboard, etc, feel free to add it and it will be good enough to justify the name. But until then you should make sure that your sources are reliable. SE KinG. ^{User page.} _Talk. 21:02, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Nas damian marley distant relatives cover.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Nas damian marley distant relatives cover.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).

PLEASE NOTE:

• I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions.
• I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
• If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
• To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to your talk page.
• If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 23:22, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Nas damian marley distant relatives cover.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Nas damian marley distant relatives cover.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).

PLEASE NOTE:

• I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions.
• I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
• If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
• To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to your talk page.
• If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 00:44, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Billboard Charts

It might interest you that there is an interesting discussion ongoing at Record Charts/Billboard Charts/Chart Names. Also i am going demote usher's song papers to a song because the single infobox is clearly reserved for fully released singles. Although released it was dubbed a promo. Lil-unique1 (talk) 01:30, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

New billboard chart policy

As per consensus at WP:record charts there is a new guide to using Billboard Charts available at Billboard charts guide. Mainstream Top 40 (Pop Songs) (formerly known just as Pop Songs) is no longer deemed a component chart - there is no evidence to support this motion.Lil-unique1 (talk) 19:37, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Just to let you know, per consensus on WP:USCHARTS we have to call the Pop Songs chart - Mainstream Top 40 (Pop Songs). Candyo32 (talk) 19:19, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Please check WP:USCHART to see the correct chart names to use on articles! Candyo32 (talk) 23:18, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

PLEASE I HAVE ASKED YOU SEVERAL TIMES. REFER TO WP:USCHART, several charts have been voted by consensus not to use Billboard or the name has been changed also. Candyo32 (talk) 00:51, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Juno Awards / Drake / "I'm Still Fly"

Next time you question what is or isn't a nomination, you had better check primary sources first, especially before you make edits such as this. Dl2000 (talk) 01:38, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

I just thought it wasn't nominated, because it was a single and Rap Recording of the Year is usual for albums. It was announced already, just before Album of the Year. Drake's So Far Gone won the award, not "Still Fly". Hometown Kid (talk) 20:43, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Billboard charts

I've noticed that you seem to be edit-warring over the inclusion of the word "Billboard" in the chart names in more than one article. I did a quick check, and can't see that you have made any posts to any talk page discussing the issue. There was a fairly long discussion on WT:Record charts, and the consensus was to remove "Billboard" from everything but the Billboard Hot 100 and Billboard Hot 200. If you object, please discuss it, don't just revert things.—Kww(talk) 05:36, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

User/vandal

Since uve edited this article, I am asking if ull help deal with this editor. User:90.51.164.24 has been changing sourced content on Usher discography and Here I Stand (Usher album), as well as 90.22.246.70 who could be the same editor since their edits are exactly the same and were made not too far apart from eachother. Dan56 (talk) 19:39, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Sorry man, I'm not a wikipedia administrator, so therefore I don't have the authority to block anyone. For now just keep reverting that user's edits and he should stop eventually, if he doesn't than an administrator will deal with that user. I know that most of these IP users are no good, so if that user doesn't the vandalism then he should be blocked in no time. Hometown Kid (talk) 18:23, 31 May 2010 (GMT)

Sales

Did you "guesstimate" when you edited this or are you getting this info from a reliable source? Blackjays1 (talk) 07:00, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Yeah I guesstimated, revert it, never mind it. Hometown Kid (talk) 16:24, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Albums

Please don't use the "reviews" field in {{Infobox album}}. We don't use it anymore. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 16:24, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Distant Relatives

How does it being issued faster make the chart source more accurate? Dan56 (talk) 13:13, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure, but it makes sense since they both use Nielsen Soundscan, nothing really different when it comes to the methodology of their charts, it's just the top-25 charted albums thaT will cause a difference in chart data compared to Jam!, but billboard is the most reliable, all top-25 charted albums in Canada have been often used as references to source them rather than Jam!. Hometown Kid (talk) 09:28, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

If your not sure, then why did u use that for your reason in changing it. Id assume it being faster could mean they were clumsier, but neither of us would make sense then. I think Billboard made the mistake. But regardless of what we think, Jam is according to wikipedia "currently the only media outlet that publishes a comprehensive collection of the official Canadian record charts as compiled by Nielsen SoundScan and Nielsen Broadcast Data Systems". And its a Canadian website. So that makes sense. Dan56 (talk) 16:48, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

July 2010

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. When you make a change to an article, please provide an edit summary for your edits. Doing so helps everyone to understand the intention of your edit. It is also helpful to users reading the edit history of the page. Thank you. Candyo32 00:54, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Rick Ross discography

Please refrain from removing the sales column based on what you think as you have stated in the edit-summary. That said, there is no such policy which states that Sales columns should be created only if sales-figures could be found for all albums within the table. Regards.--Harout72 (talk) 22:46, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

September 2010

1. Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. Before saving your changes to an article, please provide an edit summary for your edits. Doing so helps everyone to understand the intention of your edit (and prevents legitimate edits from being mistaken for vandalism). It is also helpful to users reading the edit history of the page. Thank you. Yvesnimmo (talk) 14:12, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
2. Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. Before saving your changes to an article, please provide an edit summary, which you forgot to do before saving your recent edit to Nicki Minaj discography. Doing so helps everyone to understand the intention of your edit (and prevents legitimate edits from being mistaken for vandalism). It is also helpful to users reading the edit history of the page. Thank you. Yvesnimmo (talk) 20:06, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
3. Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. Before saving your changes to an article, please provide an edit summary, which you forgot to do before saving your recent edit to Flo Rida discography. Doing so helps everyone to understand the intention of your edit (and prevents legitimate edits from being mistaken for vandalism). It is also helpful to users reading the edit history of the page. Thank you. Yvesnimmo (talk) 20:06, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
4. Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. Before saving your changes to an article, please provide an edit summary, which you forgot to do before saving your recent edit to Bruno Mars. Doing so helps everyone to understand the intention of your edit (and prevents legitimate edits from being mistaken for vandalism). It is also helpful to users reading the edit history of the page. Thank you. Yvesnimmo (talk) 20:13, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

   Please, please, please include edit summaries. These are very helpful to other users and will ensure your edits don't pass off as vandalism under bots and users. Yvesnimmo (talk) 20:13, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

   In your past two hundred edits, less than ten included edit summaries that weren't the default one of section edit. Please use the edit summary. Thanks. Yvesnimmo (talk) 20:28, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

5. Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. Regarding your edits to Nicki Minaj discography, it is recommended that you use the preview button before you save; this helps you find any errors you have made, reduces edit conflicts, and prevents clogging up recent changes and the page history. Thank you. Yvesnimmo (talk) 14:00, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

I Am Not a Human Being

Thanks for helping with the cleanup. You caught me between deleting the recent vandalism and restoring the apparent good edits (including your earlier one removing the unsourced singles). I've noticed that this article has been hit quite heavily by IP edits - some good, some not so good. I don't have the background to sift through the recent activity to pick out any additional vandalism. If you have the time to review the last day or two's changes, the article could use a good pair of eyes. Thank you. -- Tom N (tcncv) talk/contrib 01:02, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

No problem, I'll keep patrolling the article. Hometown Kid (talk) 21:11, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Drake discography Billboard ref

Hi, Kid. Thanks for digging up a source for "Successful", and for including a note in your summary for this edit to Drake discography; unfortunately, I can't figure out what you mean. What space, where, should I click in? I presume you mean somewhere on the Billboard page at http://www.billboard.com/#/charts/r-b-hip-hop-songs?chartDate=2009-10-03, but I don't know what "little space" you are referring to. Give me a hint and I'll revert my re-reversion of your reversion to my reversion of— aw, heck, I've lost my place. (So I've lost my place, and can't find your space.) You can answer here; I'm watching your page. Cheers, — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 04:01, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Where you see "Successful", at the #3 position in the white space where the song title and artist name is. Click on that space and the other chart positions will show up under the song title, and artist name at the bottom right. Hometown Kid (talk) 11:47, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, what the hell kind of stupid freaking horse-hockey is that! Good Lord, I hate the Billboard site. How are we supposed to know to click there? The cursor doesn't even change to a finger/hand. Holy crap. So, tell me: how did you know it was there? (I'll go over in a moment and fix up the Drake article as I said. I just haven't gotten to it yet.) — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 23:37, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

I visit the website regularly, especially every thursday when the chart is updated, that's how i know. Hometown Kid (talk) 10:05, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

So, you accidentally clicked on the (apparently non-clickable) area once? — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 14:36, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Yeah that's how it happened. Hometown Kid (talk) 10:43, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Sean Combs/It's All About the Benjamins

Hey there, I'm looking in Joel Whitburn's latest Top Pop Singles book (plus I remember it charting)... "It's All About the Benjamins" did chart on the Hot 100... two weeks at #2. Billboard did some weird thing at the time where A/B sides charted together (at the same position) but then they would only list the lead song on their chart. So for a few weeks "Benjamin" was listed, then other weeks "Been Around the World" was shown. Let me check Billboard books on Google to see if those issues are there. - eo (talk) 15:03, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

OK here we go... [5] issue is January 10, 1998, you'll have to scroll down to page 84 (lame) and then the following week, it switched to "Been Around", shown at #5 [6] (page 82), ultimately with that title hitting #4. I'm glad Billboard doesn't do this shit anymore. - eo (talk) 15:14, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

October 2010

1. Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute to the encyclopedia, but when you add or change content, as you did to the article Nicki Minaj discography, please cite a reliable source for the content of your edit. This helps maintain our policy of verifiability. Take a look at Wikipedia:Citing sources for information about how to cite sources and the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Yves (talk) 13:58, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

   Hi there. All peaks on the page prior to those added today were sourced and verifiable. Let's try to keep things that way. Thank you. Yves (talk) 13:58, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Similar comments for the Newsboys discography article. The template that is being used is the preferred method for recording information about albums. If you need help understanding how to use the template feel free to ask on the article's discussion/talk page or my talk page. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:25, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Please do not add or change content without citing verifiable and reliable sources, as you did to Nicki Minaj discography. Before making any potentially controversial edits, it is recommended that you discuss them first on the article's talk page. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. Yves (talk) 20:05, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Please do not add or change content without citing verifiable and reliable sources, as you did to Drake discography. Before making any potentially controversial edits, it is recommended that you discuss them first on the article's talk page. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. Yves (talk) 20:05, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Please do not add unsourced or original content, as you did to Nicki Minaj discography. Doing so violates Wikipedia's verifiability policy. If you continue to do so, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Yves (talk) 19:12, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

May I ask why you do not source your edits? How is one supposed to know what you are adding is verifiably correct? Yves (talk) 19:12, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't think I need to explain myself in EVERY single edit, most of them are pretty obvious like when I'm just updating a chart position and so on, it's just a waste of time. Hometown Kid talk) 15:17, 24 October 2010 (UTC),

How totally #%@*!&* rude and thoughtless of you! How dare you presume to waste my time? You seem to be talking about your lack of an edit summary, when that wasn't the immediate question, but your attitude on that score just really calls for a response.

Look at this edit of yours on Nicki Minaj discography. What got changed? Well something got changed from an — to 9, and there was a 9 right before it, and a 23 before that. Now I can scroll through the page looking for 9's and 23's. It happens that you edited the section this time, rather than the whole page, so I can confine my scavenger hunt to the "As featured artist" table. Also, it seems that whatever song it is is on the Freeze Time album.

Found it! It's "2012 (It Ain't the End)". And the second 9 is in the last column, which is – let me check – the UK! This is great progress, because now I have the information which is the bare minimum you should have included in your edit summary: song and chart. Now I can verify the position 9 there. I can't tell if you're not making a mistake, or vandalizing the article, because you've left the edit summary empty, just like the vast majority of vandals do.

Having clicked on the [14] link I jump down to the refs list and find a Zobbel citation. My heart sinks. Going to the Zobbel page, my fears are confirmed: the page is from June of this year, and contains no mention of "2012".

Now I'm back to examining your edit summary for some clue about why you changed it. But being non-existent, your edit summary is clueless. A clueless edit summary implies a clueless edit, so I then take the additional bit of time to revert it. Of course, I explain my reversion, but my reversion and your original edit both appear in the history and on others' watchlists, so you've wasted not only my time, but yours and everybody else unlucky enough to watch an article you edit.

I cannot stress strongly enough my unhappiness that you could work on Wikipedia for so long and still not think it even minimally polite to do what is an obvious and easy way to communicate with the others here. We're supposed to be working collaboratively here, in case that hasn't occurred to you. And your statement about adding peaks, that "it's just a waste of time", is just classic selfishness. The 10 seconds you "save" by not entering a basic summary is a waste of a good 1–2 minutes per edit for other editors, multiplied by every one who looks at your edit, PLUS the waste of your time spent on the original edit, since reverted.

Now, Yves was actually asking this time about sourcing, which you have also failed to do, and not for the first time. I hope you don't think providing a reliable source is a waste of time. If you do, I'll crank up my efforts to see you blocked for the benefit of Wikipedia. Verifiability is a fundamental part of Wikipedia, and if you don't want to abide by it, you should cease editing. — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 03:07, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

You are not listening. After a message like this, I don't think it would be very wise to make the same edit and still not source it. Do you not understand Wikipedia's policies on verifiability? If not, that's perfectly fine, but you should not contribute with unsourced edits without doing so. And feel free to ask and JohnFromPinckney or I will surely be more than happy to explain it. Yves (talk) 16:56, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Edit summaries

Hi there. When editing an article on Wikipedia there is a small field labeled "Edit summary" under the main edit-box. It looks like this:

The text written here will appear on the Recent changes page, in the page revision history, on the diff page, and in the watchlists of users who are watching that article. See m:Help:Edit summary for full information on this feature.

Filling in the edit summary field greatly helps your fellow contributors in understanding what you changed, so please always fill in the edit summary field. If you are adding a section, please do not just keep the previous section's header in the Edit summary field – please fill in your new section's name instead. Thank you. Yves (talk) 20:06, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Please try to use edit summaries. You have already been told in the past. Users have gotten blocked because of lack of edit summaries, and I don't think that's what you want. Thanks. Yves (talk) 20:06, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Since when was the lack of edit summaries a violation, honestly that's retarded. Hometown Kid (talk) 16:41, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

It's not a violation, but not using them is not communicating, which is a violation. And I don't understand how this is related to mental disabilities. Yves (talk) 20:46, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Using edit summaries are great for explaining what you're doing, especially if an edit can be controversial if not explained well. It helps other editors by not having to review your edits on a regular basis. It's strictly a courtesy, and there's no violation of any policy or guideline. On a side note, nice job being on top of peak positions for songs. I've seen you plenty at Miguel (singer) and you always beat me to it. — ξ^xplicit 19:31, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Bruno Mars

Please stop repeatedly adding unreliable sources to articles. Thanks. Yves (talk) 20:46, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

It's not an unreliable source. Your reason stating; "a website that calls the Billboard Hot 100 the "Billboard Top 200" is not a reliable source" ain't sufficient enough, how does that make the source unreliable. This source is being used multiple articles such as Eminem discography, How I Got Over, Rick Ross discography, I Am Not a Human Being, I Am the West, Chiddy Bang: The Preview, Thank Me Later, Wake Up!, Flockaveli, Man on the Moon: The End of Day, The Darkside Vol. 1 and a few more. It's a useful source, so stop repeatedly removing it because that source is going stay where it belongs. Hometown Kid (talk) 16:59, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

That's all WP:OTHERSTUFF. And being WP:USEFUL is not a valid reason for its inclusion. The website does not have a good record for accuracy and fact-checking: in fact for the album review of the exact same record, it incorrectly lists "The Lazy Song" as "Lazy Day" twice, "Our First Time" as "First Time", and "Marry You" as "Marry Me", as well as referring to the Billboard Hot 100 as the "Billboard Top 100". No indication is given to official sales figures, and only official figures from record companies or Nielsen SoundScan are used. Yves (talk) 21:27, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

So because of typos and errors is the reason for you thinking the source is unreliable? Also about the sales figures, you're right indeed, but I'm pretty sure that they're getting that data from a useful source, I don't think they would actually make up the weekly sales figures before posting them, they seem to be accurate even though they're not indicated. Hometown Kid (talk) 18:09, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes. Errors like these show inaccuracy, carelessness and a lack of concern for reliable fact-checking. A reliable news source should have its articles thoroughly reviewed. If they have typos in chart names and song details, who's to say they don't have typos in sales figures? One doesn't know that. Yves (talk) 22:17, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 33#HipHopDX, HipHopDX is not considered an unreliable source. All publications and websites make mistakes from time to time (have you seen Billboard in the past few months?). Mistakes do not correlate with unreliability. — ξ^xplicit 22:32, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for the help on the Snow page! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Whimedywhama (talk • contribs) 23:07, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

No problem. Hometown Kid (talk) 19:17, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Third strike album cover.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Third strike album cover.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).

PLEASE NOTE:

• I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions.
• I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
• If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
• To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to your talk page.
• If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 05:37, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Third strike album cover.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Third strike album cover.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).

PLEASE NOTE:

• I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions.
• I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
• If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
• To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to your talk page.
• If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 05:35, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Born again.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Born again.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).

PLEASE NOTE:

• I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions.
• I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
• If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
• To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to your talk page.
• If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 05:36, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Rick Ross Discography

Do you mind explaining why you insist on reverting the sales figure of Teflon Don to the older figure and using the older source as well. Whereas the newer source clearly states 453,000, see here. Please do not revert it again without discussion, and do not discuss in edit-summary as you have done here, but rather on the talk-page. Regards.--Harout72 (talk) 22:28, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Facebook

Hey do you have any Facebook account? I wanted to see you and be your buddy ;)--180.191.54.108 (talk) 16:51, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Chipmunk (rapper)

Hi, I have opened a discussion on the talkpage to discuss your desired edit there, thanks. Off2riorob (talk) 22:06, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Melanie Fiona

Melanie Fiona is an RB artist. I think in her charts there should be a US RB column (instead of or in addition to ?). This is a better representation of her success or failure. Her song It Kills Me was #1 for a 2months/8wks on the [US RB charts], but currently only indiactes that the song peaked at #43: that is the general hot 100 chart. Other RB artists like Keyshia Cole, Beyonce, and Alicia Keys have the RB column. Please help do this. Thanks. 69.140.210.255 (talk) 14:43, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Done. Hometown Kid (talk) 15:28, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Tracy Chapman discography

The BVMI certifications are awarded alternately, so Gold, Platinum, 3x Gold, 2x Platinum, 5x Gold, 3x Platinum, 7x Gold, 4x Platinum, etc. It is very possible that an album once got 3x Platinum, but then has sold much more later and then awarded 9x Gold. This is in fact the case here. Observe this link: Template:Cite gold platin The album won Gold and Platinum on 1988 when released, followed by 3x Gold and 2x Platinum in 1989. Then it won 5x Gold and 3x Platinum in 1993. In 2001 it was probably re-released, and collected 7x Gold and 4x Platinum. Only in 2010 did it win its final 9x Gold. Impressive. --Muhandes (talk) 06:55, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Usher discography

You need to link to a specific chart. [7] is not good enough. Adabow (talk · contribs) 23:26, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Keri Hilson

Hi there, I've noticed you've edited Keri Hilson articles before. Feel free to edit and help out on her new album's article No Boys Allowed and the single Pretty Girl Rock. ozurbanmusic (talk) 10:18, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Rick Ross discography

I have reverted all your recent three edits. As you can see, I've spent a lot of time cleaning up and providing individual sources for all the charted materials. Please do not insert any new peaks without providing sources for them. If the peaks cannot be verified, they should not be inserted. Regards.--Harout72 (talk) 04:20, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Please refrain from inserting unsourced chart-peaks. All peaks must be verifiable. Please, see WP:V.--Harout72 (talk) 04:25, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Please do not vandalize pages as you did with this edit to Rick Ross discography. If you continue to do so, you will be blocked from editing.--Harout72 (talk) 04:32, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

This is your last warning. The next time you vandalize the article as you did with this edit to Rick Ross discography, you will be reported and very likely blocked from editing all together.--Harout72 (talk) 04:39, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Excuse me, you must be crazy or something. I'm not gonna let remove valuable information. There's people who actually look at the billboard charts weekly and add or update chart positions they see from sources they look at from billboard.com. There's other ways of going about this, removing the unverified chart positions isn't the solution, you should put like an asterisk or something beside each unverified chart position to show that they're not verified by the sources provided. Also another reason why the chart positions aren't verified by those sources is because of the recent design of the billboard site. Before we used to be able to view the Bubbling Under Hot 100 and Bubbling Under R&B/Hip-Hop Singles charts and a lot chart of history data has been lost since then, but there's other sources that show some of the billboard chart positions. I've seen those chart positions before because I look at the billboard charts every single week that it's updated and you obviously don't so stop removing what you haven't seen. Obviously you should be the one that has to be blocked, I'm restoring valuable information, while you're removing it. Hometown Kid (talk) 23:42, 15 December 2010 (UTC)