Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 01:25, 29 December 2008

Welcome!

Hello, Alkclark, and welcome to Misplaced Pages! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Misplaced Pages
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Misplaced Pages:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!  -- JHunterJ 00:16, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Edit summaries

When editing an article on Misplaced Pages 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, especially for big edits or when you are making subtle but important changes, like changing dates or numbers. Thank you. -- JHunterJ 00:16, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Misplaced Pages:Image use policy
• Misplaced Pages:Image copyright tags

Three-revert rule

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on 4 Minutes (Madonna song). Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute 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. Stifle (talk) 13:17, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

KYLIEX2008 Set List

Hi. Is the set list changing quite a bit? I haven't kept up on it (waiting for the DVD so I can see it properly) so I have no idea if loads of songs are being left out. If it's only a few songs, I think that can be documented towards the bottom (like little numbers indicating the song wasn't performed on such and such date). After the tour ends, we should be able to organize it better. Pinkadelica 05:31, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Give It 2 Me Image cover

My image for the song "Give It 2 Me" was no reson to be deleted. I will re-upload it. JoFerg 09:05, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Kylie The One

Done. Good catch. -- Underneath-it-All (talk) 04:54, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

X (Kylie Minogue album)

http://www.metro.co.uk/fame/article.html?in_article_id=132120&in_page_id=7:

The performance was in sync with her new album released in US stores today, Album X, which has already sold nearly one million copies worldwide.

86.1.249.35 (talk) 10:50, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

You reverted again, stating "reference provided cannot be used as validation b/c no actual numbers are given and we cannot assume that just b/c it was "nearly" a million in April that means its at or over in July".

The first part of your summary doesn't make sense to me, because the reference is only being used to support the statement "almost one million copies worldwide"—correct me if I'm wrong, but you seem to be suggesting that statements including words such as "nearly" shouldn't be included, which I don't understand. The second part is irrelevant because the beginning of the sentence reads "As of April 2008, X had sold...". There is no implicit assumption about subsequent sales. 86.1.249.35 (talk) 13:53, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I just read your comment on my talk page, which for some reason Misplaced Pages did not make me aware of. I am not inserting into the article a claim that X has sold one million copies worldwide; I am inserting a statement that X had sold nearly one million copies worldwide as of last April. The Metro is a news source, and Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources recommends the use of third-party sources, so a statement regarding sales of X from Minogue's record company or management team is not necessarily preferable to what the Metro reports. 86.1.249.35 (talk) 14:10, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Taking Chances Tour

You have reverted my edit saying that I don't have the neutral point of view. Let's see... The differances between your version and mine are:

1) you have placed one concert as Middle East
1) I say that Middle East is not a continent and that's why it should be a part of Asian concerts

2) you say Dion will perform over 100 shows
2) I say 125 - and that's a fact

3) you have hiden set list
3) I leave it open

So tell me where my point of view is not neutral? As there is no continent Middle East, as Dion will perform 125 shows (at least), and as there is no rule that say the set list must be hidden, I am reverting your edit. Oh, and the Quebec City concert was added long ago, so I don't undersatnd you saying "added Quebec City show". Max24 (Max24) 21:16, 15 Septemeber 2008 (UTC)

Ok, you must have seen that form all your changes to the article from last month, I have lef most of them because I did like them. I have only reverted the 3 things mentioned above. I see you are ok with the Asian concert, so I can live with the "over 100 shows". Anyway, the most important thing for me was the set list. The way you have made it last month, it was not good. There was "#" before the first song and there was a big gap between the set list and the references. But in your latest edit it's fixed, so I'm ok with that. Thank you! However there is a small thing I must fix. In the internet explorer I'm using, the first picture is placed on the right, under the info box and it causes a big gap in the middle of the article. So I'm changing that, and I'm changing some pictures which I think will be better.

P.S. if you could do some fixes to Celine's earlier tours, I would be very happy :-) Max24 (Max24) 08:05, 16 Septemeber 2008 (UTC)

I Am…

Hey noticed you redirected this page - I think instead it should have been done with the move function, all the article's edit history is still at the incorrect "Sasha" title. - eo (talk) 15:39, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

No problem, Ill do it. - eo (talk) 15:46, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Blond Ambition World Tour dispute

I tried to reach a concensus about the tour title here and all I received was abuse from KM*hearts*MC (talk). I have proven the tour title:

• The official European tourbook says on the front cover Blond Ambition World Tour
• The official tour posters from Italy and the UK have Blond Ambition World Tour 90 depicted on them.
• The North American tourbook has a sponsor page on page 36 clearly depicting "Madonna Blond Ambition World Tour 90 - Presented by Pioneer: Bring It Back Alive"
• The official laserdisc release was name Live! Blond Ambition World Tour 90
• The user KM*hearts*MC is trying to use newspaper articles as proof of the title, but in my opinion official tourbooks, official tour posters, official tour laserdisc release and official sponsorship from Pioneer all clearly depicts the tour as Blond Ambition World Tour 90 which ALL have been released by Madonna and her companies and are the reliable sources for the tour title NOT newspapers.

JWAD (talk)

I have also added in new Los Angeles and Japan tour posters here to the article which clearly show that the tour was known as "Blond Ambition World Tour" in Europe, Japan and the United States, the countries it covered. I expect the tour title know to be changed back as I think I have proved my point! JWAD (talk)

Funhouse Tour

I note you "cleaned up" this article - in doing so, however, you removed all the inline citations. Please be careful when removing - there's generally a reason for them being there! In this case, the article had had to be knocked down and rewritten to include only confirmed dates, and this is surprisingly hard to maintain without the footnotes. Shimgray | talk | 14:48, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

It isn't "absurd" to footnote - it's good practice! Footnoting information to reliable sources is never a "violation of the manual of style"; I have no idea where you got this idea from. Accuracy and reliability is the core of what we're doing here, and always have been. The article did not have any neutrality problems I could see - could you identify these? The date issue is pretty much irrelevant - either works, and I just didn't feel enthusiastic enough to put them back in.

An early version of this listwas cited very generally to a forum post of dates, which was itself sourced to a list that had been removed from the site. I've been trying to avoid this sort of error creeping in - we had someone write in complaining about it - and so I've been trying to cite the dates to specific sources. The major source for most dates, of the three sources given, is this one; I'm a bit leery of using it as a single source because it opens us up to the problem of the original version, that of relying on a dubious source. We've no way of determining the reliability of it save by checking with more reliable sources (the venues or the promoters themselves) - and if we're going to doublecheck with more reliable sources, it makes sense (and is more useful to the reader) to link those.

As for the accuracy without specific footnotes... note that since they were removed, a date has been added that isn't cited by any of the three articles linked at the bottom. . This is exactly the sort of thing that I put the footnotes in to avoid!

I hope this explains why we need the specific footnotes for specific details. Shimgray | talk | 00:03, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Tina!: Her Greatest Hits

My friend, even not being the biggest fan of Tina Turner, I know that her album was released all over Europe, including my country. The album also charted on many official European charts. I have reverted your edit. You can find the confirmation on all European Sony BMG websites as well the charts where the album is still charting. Max24 | talk | 10:11, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

You're wrong. Tina! was solely released in North America. Sony BMG is not Turner's record label, so why would they release her al? Additionally, there is no mention of Tina! being released on Sony BMG or EMU website. Being an "import" doesn't mean it was released in that country. KM*hearts*MC (talk) 22:56, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Sticky & Sweet Tour

Hello, I have seen your edits to S&ST article as well as other tour articles and I think you do a really profound job. Could you please look at the description of the show at the S&ST article? KM*hearts*MC (talk) 22:56, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

I simply merged the references. I had no idea they were from a fan site. Please take a little time to actually look at people's edits. If you continue to warn people carelessly, I will take it to the attention of an administrator. Best wishes. ☆ CieloEstrellado 16:20, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

The $12 million was here when I accessed the page. They probably edited it later to remove the figure. So you're right, the $12 million figure has to go from the Misplaced Pages article, because it's been removed from the cited source. But it was there when I looked at it.

The figures for total gross and tickets sold were cited by me from this source which I later removed because I saw an URL that looked like Madonna's official site citing the same figures. I didn't know it was a fan site. My bad.

The third source I used is this one, listed what I thought to be the number of tickets sold during Madonna's two concerts in Santiago. In reality it was merely a forecast. But the number is indeed there if you know Spanish: Si se cumplen los pronósticos, la estadounidense llevará cerca de 140 mil a sus dos presentaciones.

In short:

1. I added one source (La Tercera) which was reliable and had the information up when I cited it. The source later changed the information.
2. I added one source (EMOL) which was reliable and had the information up when I cited it. I replaced this reliable source with a fan site page I thought was Madonna's official site.
3. I added one source (El Mercurio) which was reliable, but had speculative information, which I thought were facts.

All of my edits were done on good faith. My advice: Don't threaten people with administration intervention unless they are vandals. ☆ CieloEstrellado 02:51, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

I won't waste time with your laughable psychological analysis of my actions. Believe whatever you want to believe, if that makes you feel superior. The only reason I'm replying to your message is because you said I had been warned and blocked due to similar situations in the past. I really don't remember ever been blocked for a similar situation in Misplaced Pages, so please do provide some evidence to back up that blatant lie. In fact, glancing over your Talk page, it appears that it has been you who has been warned for misbehaving on Madonna-related articles. Cheers. ☆ CieloEstrellado 01:17, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

License tagging for Image:Pcdeu eutour.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Pcdeu eutour.jpg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Misplaced Pages uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information; to add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Misplaced Pages.

For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Misplaced Pages:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 11:05, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image (Image:Justifed stripped.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Justifed stripped.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Misplaced Pages under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Misplaced Pages. 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 Misplaced Pages (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 Misplaced Pages 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. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? J Milburn (talk) 12:04, 23 December 2008 (UTC)