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.

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

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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))[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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.

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)[reply]

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 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 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)[reply]

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 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]