Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed maintenance templates from Billboard Brasil. When removing maintenance templates, please be sure to either resolve the problem that the template refers to, or give a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry, as your removal of this template has been reverted. 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. Victão Lopes ^{I hear you...} 17:17, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Vitor, could you please explain your removal of the Platinum certification in Canada? Me and Zylo1994 are very confused about your reasons for doing so. Especially as you seem to be the user who added that certification on the 12th of April. Thanks Cjeam (talk) 21:32, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, so you mean that certification is only for the album called 'The best damn thing' and not for the song from the album? Cjeam (talk) 22:19, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I'm sorry about that. It didn't produce a template at that location on the page that I could see, so I assumed it was just gibberish/vandalism. I wasn't aware of it's actual purpose. My apologies for the removal and the mistaken warning. MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 20:25, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Cosmetic Executive Women requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about an organization or company, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for organizations and companies. You may also wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles - see the Article Wizard.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag - if no such tag exists then the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate and adding a hangon tag is unnecessary), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. PoeticVerse (talk) 04:11, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop adding the Brazil chart to Baby (Justin Bieber song). The only music chart from Brazil allowed on Wikipedia is from the ABPD per WP:GOODCHARTS. Candyo32 (talk) 16:03, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Last warning, Im reverting your addition for the following reasons. 1) The chart currently follows Chart Macro, Your revision is of the old chart. 2) Brazil Charts fall under Bad Charts, it states "Brazil Hot 100/Hot100Brasil: This chart's article was deleted by deletion discussion as a non-notable chart with dubious methodology." 3) Under Good Charts it states the following "The singles charts at Billboard Brasil are acceptable, but not archived. These charts can be included only by referencing the physical magazine, not the online chart." Your reference is not to the physical magazine. If you add it again it will be considered disruptive editing and may violate 3RR and could be blocked from editing. (CK)Lakeshade✽talk2me 22:12, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A few things on this controversy:

• First, edit warring is bad. I'm not going to fiddle with any of the blocks just because Vitor Mazuco was arguably right.
• Second, Crowley Broadcast Analysis is a reliable source of information: the equivalent of Nielsen for Brazil. Their charts are quite reliable, and are the basis for the Billboard Brasil charts.
• Third, I've never liked it when editors find links to these internal PDFs and use them. They are basically leaks of private information. Crowley does not publish a top 20 for public consumption. Vitor should have waited until the information was published in a public source, not a random PDF.
• Finally, the bit about mixing chart macros and old references is meaningless. The macro is specifically designed to be mixed with manual references. There's just no way for any macro to anticipate every case, especially with Billboard's site being as buggy as it is. There's nothing wrong about mixing manual and macro charts.—Kww(talk) 12:10, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, but and now? What will happen? You will adopt the Crowley in the charts? Vitor Mazuco ^Msg 12:30, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I never had an issue with the chart, all i wanted was a source explaining that the chart was allowed which you didnt provide, you just kept saying "its allowed". If your going to add something be prepared to back it up, Lil-unique wasnt even involved in this conflict but he managed to provide me with 3 discussions involving this here. All i needed was the discussions or some form of approval and i would have dropped the issue. I wasnt inclined to take you word for it considering you kept linking me to a page that you created which didnt discuss if it was a legitimate chart. (CK)Lakeshade✽talk2me 16:12, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See Here is from Folha de S. Paulo this is a simple test for to show the Crowley is a official and content with credibility. It show the Crowley Charts, and this website, shows all the weekly charts, but only show the Top 20. For me the just problem, is that the official website. And i look This site that show the Crowley Charts. Vitor Mazuco ^Msg 19:13, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thats not what im saying, you could link me to 500 websites if you wanted, what i needed was a discussion on Wikipedia regarding that charts and if they were proven to be factual and allowed in articles. I know they are an actual chart but i didnt know if they were to be used or not. The brazil hot 100 has dozens of googable websites but its been discussed and the result was its not to be used. I didnt know if The CBA was discussed or not, thats what i wanted :) (CK)Lakeshade✽talk2me 19:58, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]