Misplaced Pages

This is IndianBio's talk page, where you can send them messages and comments.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45Auto-archiving period: 30 days

Lady Gaga

but it is noot "as of now," the sixth best selling song, wouldn't it be better if wikipedia didn't contradict itself?

FLC favor!

Hey IndianBio! How are you? Dealing with problematic users, I see... If you have some trouble with them and I do not see it, just ping me. Anyway, I would like for you to do me I favor. I nominated Jake Gyllenhaal filmography for featured list; do you have some spare time to read it and comment on its FLC? I would be very grateful. Cheers! — Tomíca 13:34, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks @Tomica:. Would love to comment on the FLC. Will do it tomorrow if that's fine with you. —Indian:BIO · 13:37, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, sure. Whenever you are free. Not rushing anywhere! :) TY! — Tomíca 13:39, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Just to ping you. (I am sorry If I am boring)  ;) — Tomíca 16:40, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Hey IndianBio! How are you? Some spare time again? Mind checking Ricky Martin albums discography and comment at the FLC. Thanks again! — Tomíca 14:10, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

@Tomica:, today won't be possible for me, can you please remind me once tomorrow? Thanks dear, —Indian:BIO · 14:13, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Not a problem at all, not rushing anywhere. And yeah, I can remind you ;), Cheers! — Tomíca 14:16, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

ARTPOP Critical Reception

Seeing as how we've had issues with STATic in the past (converting the Venus (Lady Gaga song) page to one of a promotional single was a chore), I thought I'd bring the issue to your attention. The consensus listed on the ARTPOP page is factually inaccurate; Metacritic is the only source that those who argue for the "mixed to positive" consensus are willing to cite, even though Metacritic forms a conglomerate of reviews for the sole purpose of using them to form a weighted, calculated score and consensus. In the matter of this album, the consensus is "generally favorable". You've brought up the fact that there are more mixed reviews listed on the cite, but I'd like to combat that statement with multiple points: 1) Focusing on the number of categorical reviews is overly simplistic; It doesn't tell the whole story. It's also not the approach that Metacritic, the source where this information is coming from, adheres to. Picking and choosing information from a source and ignoring others doesn't make any sense. 2)Even if you were to go by the standard of focusing on the number of reviews in each category (again, an act that Metacritic, the source being cited, does do practice), twelve of the reviews that are listed as "mixed" are literally one percentage point below being listed as entirely positive and cannot simply be passed off as mixed. They consist mostly of 3/5 star or 3 and a half/5 star reviews, otherwise known as positive reviews with reservations. If those reviews are discounted, the vast majority that STATic has been claiming to exist in the mixed section evaporates. 3) You stated that "people who follow music related news can simply blurt it out for you", referring to the idea that the consensus is mixed; I realize that gossip sites and the blogosphere has had a field day with the dip in critical acclaim for Gaga (it's always fun to tear down those on top, I guess), but you can't go by what gossip sites say; yes, the acclaim is less than her previous works, but the trend is still generally positive, as proven by the consensus listed on Metacritic and the consensus reported by an actually credible journal (the Huffington Post source I listed on the ARTPOP talk page that states that the consensus was positive from the multitude of critics that they sourced and linked to). As dealers of fact, it is our job to ignore the noise of the blogosphere and report on what is sourced and provable; in this case, the critical consensus is generally positive. There has been some talk that I'd like the consensus to simply read "positive", but that's not the case. I recognize that the reaction has been more ambivilant than her previous works, and have advocated for a disclaimer being listed after the (sourced and factual) consensus of "generally positive". The reception page should read that the album "recieved generally positive reviews, although the response was much more ambivalent in comparison to Gaga's previous work", as this addresses the obvious issues that users have raised as well as reports the consensus as it truly is according to sourced fact. I'd very much like your help on righting this issue as you seem to recognize that STATic has a generally domineering personality and doesn't like his authority questioned (as evidenced by the multiple complaints on his talk page) and has ignored the facts in lieu of his own synthesized narrative based on his own research, which violates the WP:OR guidelines. Reece Leonard (talk) 17:48, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Hello @Reece Leonard: thanks for the wonderful analysis. Don't worry about Static as he/she is simply a nobody when you are editing in lieu of Misplaced Pages guidelines. Now about this critical reception issue, I think the best thing now is to go for WP:RFC. I did a similar thing previously regarding the listing of "Venus" and "Dope" as official singles against their promo status, and well, Static lost the appeal. So don't think that just because someone tries to act all mighty and plays the "senior editor" card, that your logic will go unnoticed. I think a bigger venue is needed. —Indian:BIO · 17:56, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing me in that direction. I'll definitely open up an appeal. If you do agree with the evidence I've cited above, feel free to make a short post in the ARTPOP talk page saying so, as that would further erode his case. Could you direct me to the forum in which you voiced your opinions on the "Venus" and "Dope" pages? Reece Leonard (talk) 20:24, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

The instructions at Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment will give you all details as to how to raise the comment. Once you have raised it, I will comment there. —Indian:BIO · 05:04, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

I've started a discussion on at this location: X Reece Leonard (talk) 19:41, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

@IndianBio: So... ? Reece Leonard (talk) 15:20, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Ys, I'm waiting to see what others comment in the RFC. —Indian:BIO · 15:24, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

@IndianBio: I know you want to wait and see what other people post in the thread first, but I've seen other disussions shut down because one of the participants didn't choose to list a summary. Would you be willing to give your summary? Reece Leonard (talk) 21:04, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

@IndianBio: Could you please step in at the RFC? I'm now fighting off two users (one who's admitted they dislike the artist at hand and another who's apparently been accused of bias multiple times) who are refusing to listen to reason. Reece Leonard (talk) 00:38, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Dedh Ishqiya

A month and 10 days have passed, its high time we start working on the article. —Soham 10:27, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Sure, how do you propose we do it? Sandbox the article? —Indian:BIO · 13:09, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes that might be a good way. Right now the article is a mess. I just got reverted. —Soham 13:13, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Fan boys I guess? Well let's sandbox it then. —Indian:BIO · 13:25, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Where to start— User:Soham/Dedh Ishqiya or User:IndianBio/Dedh Ishqiya. Does not matter which you choose. Lets opt for a clean start. —Soham 13:35, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Started. —Indian:BIO · 13:47, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

• Started. —Soham 13:55, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

• Bio, I suggest we first c/e the existing shit then add good content to it. When we finish our work, we'll replace the existing content. Then a DYK and after that a GA nom. Hows that for plan? . —Soham 09:37, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Sounds good Soham. First let me format the references. —Indian:BIO · 12:12, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Mate I'm in a bit of a dilemma here. I have enough sources for a separate article for the OST to Dedh Ishqiya. Should I create one or keep in the parent article? I am confused so need your opinion. – Soham (talk) 15:11, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

@Soham: does it pass WP:NALBUMS for a standalone article? —Indian:BIO · 15:13, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

• Yes it does, by "enough sources" I mean it passes WP:GNG. – Soham (talk) 15:18, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Then I think we can split the article @Soham:. Mind you, do you have the recording info from the album booklet? That will create a much better background and recording information for the article. —Indian:BIO · 15:40, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

• Oh Yeah, thats a must. – Soham (talk) 15:43, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Let me know which sandbox you use it then. —Indian:BIO · 15:45, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

TRPoD, again

Hi, can you comment here? Thanks. --krimuk 04:09, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of I Don't Give A

The article I Don't Give A you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:I Don't Give A for comments about the article. Well done! Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Calvin999 -- Calvin999 (talk) 11:01, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Puzzled

If you kept removing non-free images I uploaded in the past to the "Roar" article, how come you reverted my removal of non-free images there and on "Dark Horse"? I'm quite puzzled.....

XXNUG, the ones you uploaded before did not have a non-free use rationale which is of utmost importance in non-free using images and sounds. These images which you removed have those rationale and is being discussed in the article. If you believe that they are not passing NFCC criteria, you should nominate it for deletion as guided here, rather than remove them from article. —Indian:BIO · 14:48, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Pure Heroine

Regarding this edit, the RIAA source doesn't show a Platinum cert for PH; where did you see the cert listed? Adabow (talk) 11:12, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

@Adabow:, I got it from Billboard Feb 27 issue, page 6 actually. They are fast with the RIAA certifications which take a little bit of time reflecting in RIAA's database (I had a similar issue with "Roar"'s certification). —Indian:BIO · 11:16, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Awesome, thanks. Adabow (talk) 11:17, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Hey

I'm back!! :D Jorn 07:06, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Awesome and welcome back buddy. To update you, we have I'm Going to Tell You a Secret and "Die Another Day" pending GA submission. We need to copy edit them and submit just. Can you help me with those @11JORN:? —Indian:BIO · 07:26, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Oh thanks. Are they on your sandbox or on their own articles? Jorn 20:22, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

@11JORN: They are in their own articles. —Indian:BIO · 05:53, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 2

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Misplaced Pages appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Artpop (song), you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages ABC and V (magazine) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:14, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Artpop (song)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Artpop (song) you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of WikiRedactor -- WikiRedactor (talk) 17:11, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Congrats! --Another Believer _(Talk) 20:30, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Madonna (album)

Hi IndianBio,

It's at WP:RFD with a disambiguation at Erotica (album). It's a tricky one because to me the thing is it is WP:TWODABS and can be dealt with by hatnoting the two, but there is a third at the DAB at Erotica (disambiguation) but Erotica (album) is a redirect to the Albums sectionof that DAB, and a redirect to a section of a DAB is a bit unusual. I am sure you have a better knowledge than I do on this, and perhaps you could contribute to the discussion at WP:RFD as I think it is a tricky one to deal with appropriately. I certainly noticed the GA status and did not want to do anything to disrupt that. Si Trew (talk) 10:42, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

I think Erotica (album) would be a perfect hatnote. —Indian:BIO · 10:57, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

The problem is Erotica (album) if you look at it is an {{R to section}} and it is unusual to redirect to a section of a DAB, either redirect to the whole DAB or create another DAB, since that would only have two entries to the two blue link entires for the two albums and perhaps the third for the Peruvian jazzman then that really doesn't deserve a DAB so it is quite a bind. People searching for things should be able to find them and my ultimate judgement is does this make it easier or harder for someone to find? I am not saying I am always right, just that is where I make my judgement and absolutely correct to bring it for discussion. Si Trew (talk) 12:22, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Artpop (song)

The article Artpop (song) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Artpop (song) for comments about the article. Well done! Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of WikiRedactor -- WikiRedactor (talk) 20:31, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

March 2014

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to W.E. may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• In 'W.E' Is Revealed|date=2011-03-07|accessdate=2011-03-07|first=Eric|last= Ditzian|publisher=MTV (MTV Networks}}</ref>

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 15:36, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Inappropriate edit summary

IndianBio, calling TheRedPenOfDoom a "loser for consensus" as you did here comes off as quite inappropriate and can easily be taken as an insult. Please don't make edit summaries like that again, and don't just removal requests for protection for such reasons as the one you listed. That is all. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 07:37, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

@XXSNUGGUMSXX: I did not mean to call him loser, its my autocorrect which did it, I meant to type "Just because you have lost at consensus...." and suddenly the autocorrect and saved it. —Indian:BIO · 07:38, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

If that's the case, be extra sure to check for autocorrect errors before saving. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 07:40, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

@XXSNUGGUMSXX:, buddy, do you not read that it was a sudden save that led to this? —Indian:BIO · 07:42, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

I did, which is why I said to take extra caution. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 07:43, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

@XXSNUGGUMSXX:, duh! —Indian:BIO · 07:45, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of A Very Gaga Holiday

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article A Very Gaga Holiday you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of J Milburn -- J Milburn (talk) 13:51, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

The Red Pen of Doom

My hatred for his actions is growing deeper and deeper, and I don't know why he threatened Krimuk on his talk page (an action u gratefully undid). Does the time look good enough to report him? If yes, I think u can do it as my previous two attempts at blocking him have failed. Kailash29792 (talk) 14:45, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

@Kailash29792:, He's moving towards his own doom anyways, revert his disruptions at every point when he moves against consensus. —Indian:BIO · 14:51, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

He compared the release of a film to the birth of a child. LOL! How ridiculous is that? And do you realise, he has a few statements that he makes which stands the test of time. :P He has been rattling off the same string of shit for days now, without even bothering to read what the other person has written. And thanks Indian Bio for the revert on my talk page. Much appreciated. :) -- KRIMUK90 ✉ 16:43, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

File ANI. Shit's getting out of hand. —Indian:BIO · 17:37, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

• You gentlemen may wish to read WP:NPA, and your attempts at trying to get TRPoD blocked by tag-teaming against them are very unwise. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 18:02, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

@Lukeno94:, may I know your reasoning for all the disruptions the particular user has been doing the last few months? You think that users are supposed to take someone with ridiculous claims and utter day light disruption of WP:CONSENSUS seriously at all? Personal attack? Just because Krimuk said he has been rattling the same shit? Newsflash, he has. Luke, sorry to say but sometimes I think people should really up the tolerance level. We are all contributors here trying to build an encyclopedia professionally, while one rampant user does what he/she feels like, disregarding WP:CONSENSUS, disregarding WP:V, disregarding WP:RS, disregarding WP:MOS (the list can continue). Its like the pink elephant in the room. Coming to your concern about tag teaming. Just because editors have been dragged through this whole fiasco and their time has been wasted like anything and they are planning to move to ANI, they are suddenly conspirators? Lukeno, I'm not aware how much you are enlightened with the issue, believe me, no one is even remotely interested with TRPoD and his/her WP:IDHT tactics. So 2003. —Indian:BIO · 18:14, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

• I'm not looking to debate the issue at hand, but I was just warning you that what you are trying to do is a bad idea. Tag-team ANIs, where the tag-team have shown their hand and intentions very publicly, rarely end up going the way the tag-team want. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 18:20, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

• And here in lies my comments for your warning, @Lukeno94:. Who exactly is "tag-teaming" here? The section begins with user Kailash expressing his disappointment and frustration about the disruptive user, where I replied that "He's moving towards his own doom anyways", meaning the block is eminent on his own head. Next Krimuk90 talked about some ridiculous (disturbing nonetheless) examples the user has been sprouting and laughed it off. I would say he did the exact same thing TRPoD has been doing. I replied, after sometime, to file the ANI, because some other issue which I'm sure you are not aware off judging by your barging in. Let me assure you, no one has enough time to tag-team against an user who's every claim has surpassed the known level of disruptions crossing which is AIV or ANI. Good night. —Indian:BIO · 18:28, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

• The three of you have given every hint of colluding in an effort to try and get TRPoD blocked. This talk page thread is one thing, but I've seen similar things in previous ANI threads and such from you. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 18:33, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your concern Luke. I am not sure how you could have seen anything similar from me in a previous ANI, because I have never reported or commented about him there, and I don't intend to either if he agrees to co-operate. There is no "tag-teaming" to get him blocked, but an avenue to vent our frustration when someone is openly flouting consensus. But yes, it is very heartwarming to see someone stick out for TRPoD. I am sure he will appreciate it. Cheers! -- KRIMUK90 ✉ 01:37, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

• I can't remember who I've seen teaming up in ANIs against TRPoD, but I know I've seen IndianBio there, and I've seen Kailash involved in TRPoD-related arguments. Whilst I may not agree with all of TRPoD's methods, I generally agree with their position, since that is generally one of rejecting original research and/or unsourced edits. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 15:19, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes, he does a lot of good work, but in this case he has gotten it wrong, which is fine. We can't win all our battles, right? See this long discussion; everyone has objected to his string of edits we are currently at war on. -- KRIMUK90 ✉ 15:27, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

For the last time Lukeno94, we are not interested in what great work TRPoD has been doing, he has been disrupting the filmography tables for a long time and if he continues against consensus, he faces block. Simple. —Indian:BIO · 06:21, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

• I will comment on it as soon as I get some time. – Soham (talk) 14:02, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

March 2014

I will not edit academy award for best actor page again but please explain to me how that is vandalismRararawr21 (talk) 17:38, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

@Rararawr21:, you have continuously edit warred with users trying to build a better version of the page, reverted them instead of being asked continuously to discuss in the talk pages and refused to bog down untill slapped with a WP:AIV. Please do not come to me with the "newbie" tagline as I do not believe it for a second as your actions say that you have been around more than Jennifer Lawrence has fallen down on the red carpets, isn't it @Krimuk90:? —Indian:BIO · 06:17, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

LMAO. That's a wonderful comparison Indian Bio! :P -- KRIMUK90 ✉ 06:29, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Academy Award for Best Actor reverted

Hi there,

Thank you for reverting the edits for the Best Actor Oscar. I and SoapFan12 changed it to the format you replicated because we wanted it to eventually meet Featured list criteria. I'm planning to submit this for consideration in November as soon as I finish up with a few more Oscar ceremony list. Please continue to protect this list. Thank you very very much.--Birdienest81 (talk) 19:06, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

I don't think you will face any further problem from him @Birdienest81:. —Indian:BIO · 06:18, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Die Another Day (song)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Die Another Day (song) you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of XXSNUGGUMSXX -- XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 19:10, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks

...for some copy-edit on Something to Remember :) Anyway, I've just found an interesting article written by Bruce Baron for Goldmine magazine in 1999 (trascripted by buysellmadonna.com). It wrote much about Madonna's songwriting history from the very beginning of her career. She was actually recruited as a drummer in the Breakfast Club in 1979, not a vocalist or guitarist. Maybe we can add some to her biography on Misplaced Pages. Bluesatellite (talk) 10:40, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

@Bluesatellite:, Wow, quite a hugeamount of material, need to digest all of them and try to find an active link from goldmine if possible. We can surely incorporate them in her biography as well as many of the songs I guess. —Indian:BIO · 10:54, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Hey, thank you for the barnstar :) Haven't you go to bed yet? It's already bedtime here in Indonesia. So, what's your next Madonna project? Bluesatellite (talk) 16:08, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

@Bluesatellite: I think I will concentrate on the MDNA area cause that's seriously lacking. —Indian:BIO · 16:22, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Hey, look at this, with that publication issue numbers, we no longer need an active link to use it here. By the way, I want to share you my trick of finding sources. This fansite news archive is really useful. For example, take a look at the section "30 November - Magazine fined for misleading title" on that fansite link, you see the source is Ananova (already deadlink of course), and then go to http://archive.org/web/ and copy-paste that dead link.... and we got it! God bless the person who created wayback Machine :D Unfortunately, mad-eyes.net started in 2001. If they made this fansite in the 1990s, we could have got a lot of useful information for Bedtime Stories and Ray of Light. Bluesatellite (talk) 18:42, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

@Bluesatellite: but what if some user wants us to send them scans from the magazine? I believe the general perception is that when I add a magazine link without an internet version, I must be holding a copy of that magazine in my hand. By the way, thanks for the links, they are really useful. I did use some of them in the "Die Another Day" article which recently passed GA. —Indian:BIO · 03:53, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Die Another Day (song)

The article Die Another Day (song) you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:Die Another Day (song) for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of XXSNUGGUMSXX -- XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 06:41, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Actually it passed. Dunno why the bot said "failed". Kailash29792 (talk) 06:44, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

That's weird. —Indian:BIO · 06:56, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Request to review a GA nominee

Greetings IndianBio, can you please review the Wizkid article? It didn't pass the initial nomination. I renominated it few minutes ago. The reviewer who reviewed the article left me this note. I fixed all of the issues the user outlined. I turned the article from this to this. I removed all of the intext citations and grammar errors from the article. I believe it is ready to be review. versace1608 (talk) 06:40, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

@Versace1608: Thanks for the notification. However, at present I'm pretty bogged down with some projects of my own and won't be able to make out time rn. If you want a quick review, you should ask someone else, I'm afraid. Wizkid I would be very interested in reviewing, but it will take time. —Indian:BIO · 07:12, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

That's fine. I'm in no hurry. You can take a look at it when you have time. versace1608 (talk) 15:05, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Artpop Edit

Sorry, but why was my source inappropriate? It came straight from Gaga's mouth. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jakelly64 (talk • contribs) 15:47, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

@Jakelly64:, the source you added is a YouTube link from an unofficial account, not from Gaga's or Interscope Records', hence it could not be accepted as a reliable source. —Indian:BIO · 15:49, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Ok. I think I might've found a better one. Let me know what you think. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jakelly64 (talk • contribs) 15:53, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Yeah it works, thanks. —Indian:BIO · 16:10, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Cite web

Hi, Thanks for the comment regard citing web references. I never have done that before. I have given a try on page Swades, . If you can check the way I have done it correct would be appreciated. Regard the planet bollywood I found the source from here and followed the same for the rest of the stars. While its not a WP:RS I assume its ok to remove that too? Also can you also teach me how to check the realible source so that i wont be doing the same mistake again. Thanks. Daan0001 (talk) 19:02, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

@Daan0001: thanks for taking the initiative to learn how to use the template and congrats, you are doing it fine only. :) —Indian:BIO · 06:39, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks I feel happy. It's fun doing it through the tool box :))). Daan0001 (talk) 12:09, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

About #SELFIE

Hi, IndianBio. I am Anony03271991. Firstly, I would like to say that I am very impressed with your extensive edit history. That being said, I would like to discuss with you the article of "#SELFIE" (Selfie (song)) and explain my edits.

Okay so firstly, you wrote under "Commercial performance":
In the United Kingdom, "Selfie" debuted at number 115 on the UK Singles Chart and moved to number 42 the next week. The song debuted on Hot Dance/Electronic Songs at No. 19 with "Selfie". With uncredited vocals by Alexis Killacam, the track bows with 9,000 downloads sold (up 250%), according to Nielsen SoundScan, and has passed 1 million YouTube views since its Jan. 29 posting. The single has peaked at number 28 on the US Billboard Hot 100, while also charting in Belgium, Netherlands and Sweden.

This is what I wrote:
In the United Kingdom, "Selfie" debuted at number 115 on the UK Singles Chart and moved to number 42 the next week. The song debuted on Hot Dance/Electronic Songs at #19 and has since peaked at number five. The song has also charted at #28 on the Billboard Hot 100, while also charting throughout Europe.

You are saying that I added unsourced content, yet if you look on Billboard's Hot Dance/Electronic Songs chart, you will find that the song has peaked at #5: http://www.billboard.com/charts/dance-electronic-songs. I will admit that I was in the wrong for deleting the references that were already there. Meanwhile, Alexis Killacam has already been mentioned and the YouTube viewing figures (which stand at 17 million) should go under the music video section, which should not mention how much it is gaining momentum on pop radio in Dallas. .

Again, I would like to apologize for deleting the references that were already there. I am seriously not here to make waves. I just want to do my thing while, of course, following the guidelines of Misplaced Pages.

Thank you and you have a nice day. :D

- User:Anony03271991

@Anony03271991: thanks for understanding why your edit was reverted. The chart peaks will be updated shortly, The Chainsmokers don't have a Billboard chart history page yet so that needs to be created as well. —Indian:BIO · 06:40, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

New RIAA certification?

Just before I redo an edit and get reverted again, I think it's best I discuss my edit to Roar. As per this RIAA article, a platinum award is given on shipping 1,000,000 units. So wouldn't 6x platinum mean shipments of 6,000,000 units? If I'm wrong, then what is the new threshold? --WonderBoy1998 (talk) 12:13, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

@WonderBoy1998:, No, per RIAA, now streaming are included as part of the certification. Hence although "Roar" sold 5M +, her streaming resulted in another 1 M to be added to get the 6 million certification. Check out songs like "Bad Romance" and "We Found Love" and their US certifications. —Indian:BIO · 14:05, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Oh, now I get it. Thanks for the explanation --WonderBoy1998 (talk) 14:34, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Question

Correct me if I'm wrong, but it is the standard for tour pages to have a list of opening acts in addition to having such acts in the tour table, right? For some reason IP 67.246.148.98 doesn't seem to agree with this. Maybe you could explain on the IP's talk page given your work on the article for ArtRave: The Artpop Ball? XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 21:03, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

@XXSNUGGUMSXX:, sorry to say the IP user was correct. This new format of putting the opening acts and the boxscore together is being implemented across the tour articles as we chat. Hence having a separate Opening acts or Boscore section is considered redundant now. —Indian:BIO · 04:47, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

In that case, I have some cleaning to do on Hello Katy Tour, California Dreams Tour, The Prismatic World Tour, and Neon Lights Tour..... XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 04:50, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

@XXSNUGGUMSXX: hehe, yes they need to be updated. Good luck with that as it takes a lot of time though. Holla if you need any help. —Indian:BIO · 04:52, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

My one question is regarding Neon Lights Tour where two opening acts do not have specified dates: what to do with those? XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 05:01, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

@XXSNUGGUMSXX: check the Billboard boxscores for them, they have the Opening Acts for each date when they report the money. —Indian:BIO · 05:04, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Will do, thanks! XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 05:06, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

@XXSNUGGUMSXX: the reason I reverted you on Neon Lights if you see I did not allow the content to be added, but kept it hidden. The reason being, writing synopsis is a really pain in the behind for anyone I believe and this synopsis seemed pretty on spot. So what we can do is find sources conforming to what the synopsis says and then we are good to add it back. Remove those for which no sources can be found. Does that sound good to you? If not you can revert me back. —Indian:BIO · 13:46, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

It does sound good, though I'm quite puzzled as to how not including sources for a synopsis doesn't go against WP:OR. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 13:47, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

@XXSNUGGUMSXX:, you misunderstood me, I am not saying that we do not add sources. I'm saying that we find sources which validate what the synopsis says and add that source as citation and put back up the section. Whatever content in the synopsis is not verifiable by any existing reliable source, we prune it. —Indian:BIO · 13:55, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Now THAT makes sense. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 13:58, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

MCHG GA

You wanna pop over there and let me know if there is anything to be done? Thanks STATic message me! 06:54, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Hello STATic, I have responded there. Sorry the page somehow slipped from my watchlist. —Indian:BIO · 07:05, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

"Sexxx Dreams"

Also, given the confusion with the other (misspelled) "Sexxx Dreans" article, I went ahead and created a stub for "Sexxx Dreams". I don't think this is problematic since the song has charted. --Another Believer _(Talk) 15:27, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

@Another Believer:, grrrrrr, one step at a time please. I have to overwork now. :( —Indian:BIO · 15:39, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

OK, sorry. I understand. In this case, I just wanted to differentiate "Sexxx Dreans" from "Sexxx Dreams" so the contributor could add to the right page. Thanks. --Another Believer _(Talk) 15:56, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

@Another Believer:, was pulling your legs —Indian:BIO · 15:59, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Between the overworking and leg pulling, be careful not to hurt yourself! --Another Believer _(Talk) 16:00, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes yes of course, you still know that ArtRave is yet to be finished. :( —Indian:BIO · 16:01, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Artpop Edit

I'm sorry, but I fail to see why that source is not reliable. It came straight from Gaga's mouth through the official video section of the Today Show website. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jakelly64 (talk • contribs) 17:13, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

@Jakelly64: that source was not from the Today show, neither it was from any other third party reliable sources. Anyways, the sources have been added now and the song is a single. So no worries. —Indian:BIO · 17:16, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Well...I respectfully disagree with your first statement, but I find your second statement pretty exciting. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jakelly64 (talk • contribs) 17:39, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

@Jakelly64: you can respectfully disagree but adding a copyright violating source, not from official website is a no-no. —Indian:BIO · 17:42, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

I didn't know it violated copyright. And it at least seemed like the official Today Show website. But, as you mentioned earlier, it doesn't really matter now. Have a nice day. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jakelly64 (talk • contribs) 18:25, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Something to Remember

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Misplaced Pages, as you did at Something to Remember. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Administrators have the ability to block users from editing if they repeatedly engage in vandalism. Thank you. —Indian:BIO · 18:45, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

I was not 'vandalizing' this article. I was attempting to correct it. The category of 1995 greatest hits albums is not appropriate for this album. While I agree with the article that it is a compilation album, Misplaced Pages defines as follows: A Greatest hits album is a compilation album of successful, previously released songs by a particular music artist or band. The album contains songs that were previously only released on an album and never released as a single and therefore can not be considered 'successful'. The album is a collection of ballads, not a collection of hits. I believe the category 1995 compilation albums would be more appropriate, as in the article for Rod Stewart's album If We Fall in Love Tonight containing the category 1996 compilation albums. MCMCTT (talk) 19:41, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Please actually justify your edit

Please provide a valid rationale for why and encyclopedia article should contain an unattributed POV assessment of "good collections" rather than presenting the specific values. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 16:38, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

@TheRedPenOfDoom: The associated source, BH, lists the first weekend as one of the all-time top 25 weekend grosses. If you want you can edit it to represent the exact value, but saying that the collections were good is not POV, they were its a fact. —Indian:BIO · 16:41, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

"good" is a value judgment and of course ALWAYS POV and completely vague and non encyclopedic. If you want to reflect " one of the all-time top 25 weekend grosses." then insert that specifics; but to replace specifics with meaning generality and to edit war over reinserting such non encyclopedic content just because you dont like me is disruptive.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom

@TheRedPenOfDoom: do the honors and I already said that. —Indian:BIO · 17:03, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Scheiße (song) Page

I don't understand why Fanclip paragraph isn't conform.... Why you don't understand here : imdb.com/title/tt3512324/ Moreover, this fanclip is written on the newsletter of littlemonsters dot com Guena LG and Helen Green approved this fanclip too on twitter

78.243.68.88 (talk) 15:30, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm just gonna say it final time. IMDB is NOT a reliable source, neither is Twitter, little monsters and all. Either provide a third party reliable source asserting the notability of this source, else I will report you for continuous violation of WP:RS and get your IP blocked. —Indian:BIO · 15:42, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

So check the video credits at 5:35 www.youtube.com/watch?v=pELMBAo2pgs "Scheiße" by the permission of Universal Music Vision by the kind permission of Sony/ATV Music Publishing France Do you want the contracts with Sony and Universal ? But there are non disclosure agreement With 10 000 views on the video and twitter, and littlemonster, and Misplaced Pages France, and IMDb, and the website of the association, and the contracts, and Allocine dot fr.... The first fan made with agree of an artist, I think it's not nothing — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.243.68.88 (talk) 16:32, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

• If a newcomer has a problem, please explain in a polite and friendly way, IndianBio. Threats of "getting them blocked" aren't helpful. You're both edit warring. To put a stop to that for now, I've fullprotected the article for three days while the two of you hopefully work it out on Talk:Scheiße (song).

• @78.243.68.88: you're not in any imminent danger of being blocked, but please note that edit warring is not allowed. Please read the policy about it here. IndianBio, since you're an experienced editor, I assume you're already aware of it? Feel free to ask me on my page, both of you, if you have any questions. Bishonen | talk 16:39, 24 March 2014 (UTC).

Random YouTube video with notation holds no candle when reliability of source is concerned. I'm not interested in contracts or other paraphernalia, I'm only interested in the notability and verifiability of the content through third party reliable sources, none of which can be done and the only source comes from your IP address. This is fancruft, fan-generated and I suggest you cease and trying to add the content. Because you cannot, Misplaced Pages's core policy stops you to do so. @Bishonen: the IP is neither new, nor am I breaking AGF here by threatening a "brand new" IP. I cannot count the numerous time I have reverted and explained the above through the different range of IPs this user is using/has used to add the said unverifiable content. There has to be a limit somehow. Thanks for full-prot the page though, some respite. —Indian:BIO · 16:45, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Really? I'd better count them, then. Do you mean this addition of a related external link on 10 February? Or this unrelated line from November 2013? Or this, also unrelated, from September? They're the only IP edits to the Scheisse article that I can see you've reverted over the past year; I don't have time to look further back. The first-mentioned external link might be the same individual, though I don't think it has to be. I don't see any reason to suppose the November and September edits are by 78.xx. More urgently, why has nobody edited the article talkpage since July 2013? Angry edit summaries and bitey usertalk templates really are no substitute for civil discussion. Bishonen | talk 17:14, 24 March 2014 (UTC).

I'm not bad faith, I added the link in Reference (around 10 february), but on Misplaced Pages France, they told me to add a paragraph not the link, so i added a paragraph here and no link to youtube ! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.243.68.88 (talk) 17:19, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Maybe because I changed my house.... It's not my fault, so please don't judge this and menace me. So, tell me what sources are "good" ;) But I think you're wrong. I don't think it's the first article on a "fanmade" on wikipedia, didn't it ? But it's a first fanmade with the agree of a big company and an artist. Because it's the first time, it's not possible to write on a wikipedia page ? ;) So I think it's "notable"... You think I spent my time to do that if it's wrong ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.243.68.88 (talk) 17:09, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

IP user, as I explained before also, you are providing unreliable sources like IMDB. You have been continuously saying that the so called video is under the record company's agreement and by their permission. But where is the proof of that except you (primary source)? Coming to the notability clause, what is exceptional about this video? Has the media commented about it? Has it been represented in the media, newspapers, journalistic writings? The answer is again no unless such sources can be found. Lastly, the undue addition policy. There would be literally zillions of cover videos and songs of "Scheibe" across the internet and some of them maybe approved by the record company also. But what gives the precedence to add them to the article? I suggest you go through WP:RS, WP:V, WP:N, WP:CRYSTAL and WP:UNDUE policies. —Indian:BIO · 17:24, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Please check copyright.... Just that.... I loose my time with you I talk on Scheiße Page. And check here (but for you it's not "notable", as you want) http://www.videostatic.com/watch-it/2014/02/15/lady-gaga-fanclip-schei%C3%9Fe-ludovic-martin-picard-dir 78.243.68.88 (talk) 17:37, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Try all you might, until you can provide WP:RS, there's no point in being salty with me, I do not make the policies around here. —Indian:BIO · 17:40, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

As you want ;) 78.243.68.88 (talk) 17:42, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Re: 4

Thank you very much! It took some time, but I got there :P —JennKR | ☎ 17:25, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

@JennKR:, I know its you who promoted Madonna to GA and the article surprisingly looks quite good. What are your thoughts on working the article for FAC? —Indian:BIO · 06:27, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

It's definitely in good shape, but I think it suffers from quite a lot of puffery—the first paragraph needs considerable toning down and the legacy section reducing. I think this sort of expansion is common to female pop singer GAs, and the main reason why Beyoncé was reassessed. What are your thoughts? —JennKR | ☎ 14:58, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

@JennKR:, absolutely, the article needs the POV and the fancruft toning down essentially. I believe the lead is more or less fine, but the legacy section s just something isn't it? lol. —Indian:BIO · 15:18, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 26

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Misplaced Pages appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited We Belong Together, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page It's Like That (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:53, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Your Behaviour

Well. I see I'm going to actually have the displeasure of conversing with you. Oh goodie! Do me a favor, keep your fancruft and other obnoxious messages to yourself. If you want to discuss a source or an issue, then come talk to me like an adult. Since you took the obscenely long routed initiative to "assess" the EW source, I have provided another supporting her half billion new worth; courtesy of The Daily Telegraph. I believe that more than suffices. Now please get back to those Madonna articles and what not. Cheers.--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 08:04, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

@Petergriffin9901:, you must be forgetting the WP:NPA clause of Misplaced Pages. Be nice to users else do not post here. You know how WP:ANI works I presume? Comment like that once more, you will see how fast the report is generated. —Indian:BIO · 08:47, 27 March 2014 (UTC)