Talk:Gasolina

What is gasolina?

What does gasolina mean in the song? Looking at the english lyrics, it probably his sperm, but others say it means they like his car. Can anyone clairify(On my talk page please, I will probably forget about it later)? The Republican 23:28, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

At least here in Colombia I have never heard Gasolina as a slang for cum. Instead, a girl that likes the gasolina is a "gasolinera", someone that prefer hanging out with boys that have car, credit car and enjoy sucking their money in fancy restaurant, movies, clothing etc etc etc. thats what i always have understand about that song. In any case, reggaeton sucks --ometzit<col> 16:44, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Gasolina in many Latin American countries is slang for cum (sperm). I don't have a verifiable source for this, however. — Yom 14:12, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Once daddy yankee said it meant when a girl said to get some gasoline as slang to go take a ride in a car.

Please sign your posts on talk pages per Wikipedia:Sign your posts on talk pages. Thanks! Hyacinth 17:29, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, whichever it means, the "interpretation" section currently contradicts itself repeatedly. 70.19.163.104 23:34, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

The meaning is pretty obvious, but the interpretation section sounds condescending "Though its significance is well known in Puerto Rico, few Spanish-speaking North Americans understand it." I would venture to say that everyone in North America could grasp as to what Daddy Yankee was trying to say by saying "ella le gusta la gasolina"- it's really not that obscure of a reference. This should be fixed. Arspickles17 02:00, 8 December 2006 (UTC)Arspickles17

who were the dancers in the music video?Jclf19k 07:28, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I think it means sex, like how people say "want some hot coffee." Its like slang for sex. Patrolman89 (talk) 20:12, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Daddy Yankee-Gasolina.jpg

Image:Daddy Yankee-Gasolina.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 07:17, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Deletion of Papa A.P. version

Following the removal of the Papa A.P. section by Kartel King, I notified him that I did not agree with his changes made without discussion. I left this message :
"Hi Kartel King! I've reverted your change because you've removed a entire section without discussion. This can be considered as vandalism (by the way, the Papa AP section is sourced). Please, explain your opinion on the article talk page in order to find a conscensus, but refrain from removing this section. Sincerely, Europe22 (talk) 21:40, 19 October 2008 (UTC)"

I reverted twice his changes, with the comments : "rv : restore the cover version by Papa AP" (1) and "Sorry, you remove a entire section without discussion" (2).

He answered on my talk page :
"Hi Europe22! I've reverted your change because you added a entire section without discussion which seems to be for no other purposes except promotion, see Notability. Please explain your reason for this section's inclusion on the article talkpage and refrain from making any further reverts. Sincerely, Kartel King (talk) 22:58, 19 October 2008 (UTC)"

He reverted my changes twice with the following comments : "rv" (1), then "Please refrain from taking ownership and marking major edits as minor" (2).

I think we should keep this section because :

1. This version was released in single.
2. This version has been ranked in several countries and was even a top 20 in at least four countries.
3. It was certified in a country.
4. This section is well sourced.
5. It seems to me that the purpose of an article is that it is as complete as possible, including info on the notable cover versions.

As a result, it meets WP:NM and can be included in the article. Europe22 (talk) 23:40, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

This section does not meet WP:NM and should not included in this article. It has not been well sourced and there is not one reference which states it is a "Cover" version legally released with permission from Daddy Yankee and wether he recieves royalties for it. Sourcing cannot be used as anecdotal evidence for WP:OR and as a result until an appropriate source specifically stating this can be provided, there is no place on this article for the section. Kartel King (talk) 00:29, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. The fact that this version was released without permission from Daddy Yankee is not a good reason because WP:NOTCENSORED. Removing Papa A.P. section appears to me as a violation of WP:POV. The song meets WP:NM on its own (released, charted, certified) and even if it was not the case, the notability guideline do not regulate the content of articles, but only the notability of a subject and if a separate article is warrented. Europe22 (talk) 06:24, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

PS: Even if I think they are not needed to assert notability, sources are added in the article. Europe22 (talk) 19:01, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

To sum up the problem : I added a cover version on this article, as this version was recorded by a notable artist (Papa A.P.), released as single, charted in several European countries (a top 20 hit in four of them), certified in one of them. All this was sourced and I added other ones from interviews of the singer. However, Kartel King removed the section three times and justified this deletion per WP:OR, WP:OWN, WP:NM and the fact this version was released illegally (although this assertion is not proved). For my part, I think this version is notable enough to warrant a section in the article, and removing it because of its supposed illegal release is not a good reason per WP:NOTCENSORED and WP:NPOV. As Kartel King removed for a third time this section without explanation and as I don't still agree with his arguments for deletion, I prefer to request a third opinion. Europe22 (talk) 10:05, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

To sum up the problem: I removed an illegal version on this article which was recorded by a then unknown artist and released in Europe before the official release of the legitimate gasolina. This illegal version was recorded by a person known as "Papa A.P." whom until this dispute, did not even have his own article (That is of course until Europe22 made one). Europe22 however, has insisted on having this section included in the article re-adding it three times, and in one instance removing new information added to the article by myself, and justified this with WP:NOTCENSORED which has no relevancy at all to his argument, and the essay WP:POV which in my opinion he is in violation of. Europe22 has not one reference which states it is a "Cover" version legally released with authorisation from Daddy Yankee and wether he recieves royalties for it. The sourcing Europe22 used cannot be used as anecdotal evidence for WP:OR and as a result until a reference specifically stating this assertion can be provided this section is not warranted. The notability of "Papa A.P." is akin to the notability of someone who cheated in a marathon and one first place. So as Europe22 re-added this section for a third time without explanation and does not want to seem concede to this fact I think we should have the input of a third opinion. Kartel King (talk) 05:21, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

@ Kartel King : You say I re-added the Papa A.P. section without discussion. It's wrong. I even left a message on this talkpage at that time and you simply deleted my change without adding a comment. In addition, you refuse my sources ; you removed again the reference I put in the article because it does not confirm your assertions. Most of your argumentation is that this version would be an illegal one. You seem to be shocked by the supposed illegality of this version, but even if it is the case, this is not a criterion per WP: NOTCENSORED : "Beyond that, "being objectionable" is generally not sufficient grounds for removal of content." You say that I created Papa AP article, that's true, as this artist meets WP: NM. Europe22 (talk) 09:32, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

@ Europe22: I suggest you stop commenting on me and speaking on my behalf and instead stick to speaking for yourself and presenting your side of the argument. You also do not need to continuously repeat yourself, I'm sure if I was an uninvolved editor wishing to help in this dispute redundant comments would more than likely irritate me. P.S. If you want to leave me a comment I have a talkpage which can be used. Kartel King (talk) 17:27, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Sorry. My comment above was a reply to your previous message and contains other precisions on the subject (such a quotation from WP policies and guidelines). It was therefore logical this message was left here. After all, a talkpage of the article is made for that. Europe22 (talk) 18:12, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

(Unindent) Third party input: You're both correct.

• Europe22, I think the fact that the Papa AP version enjoyed brief popularity in Europe does mean it could get its own article - and it looks like you've already got a start on writing it. Just make sure to link back to this article, and it should be derivatively titled, i.e. "Gasolina (Papa AP version)". It doesn't rise to the standard of needing a disambiguation.
• Kartel King, you're right that extensive information on the Papa AP version doesn't belong in this article. But if Europe22 does write his own article, that article should be linked from the blurb in "Uses."
• "Illegal" is incorrect usage of the term. An unauthorized cover may be civilly-actionable (i.e. could get you sued), but there are (so far) few laws making it a crime to violate copyright - and none that I know of that would apply here. Give the RIAA time and that may change, but it hasn't yet. arimareiji (talk) 20:47, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your opinion Arimareiji. However, the article Gasolina (Papa A.P.) article was created by another Wikipedian who removed the section from this article. According to WP policies, (illegal or legal) cover versions should be included in only one article, the article about the song (unless the article is very long). I propose to restore the Papa A.P. section under the title "Unauthorized cover version by Papa A.P." - if Kartel King agrees - and to delete the other article. Europe22 (talk) 21:22, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Could you provide links to the relevant policies? Not doubting you, just curious about the exact wording. arimareiji (talk) 21:42, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

I think this policy ensues from WP:NM : "Most songs do not merit an article and should redirect to another relevant article, such as for a prominent album or for the artist who wrote or prominently performed the song. Songs that have been ranked on national or significant music charts, that have won significant awards or honors or that have been performed independently by several notable artists, bands or groups are probably notable." (this phrase seems to say that all versions should be included in one article, and that an article should be about a song, not a single). Even if it's not clear, merging a cover version in the article about the orginal one seems to be a tacit rule on WP. For example, see this page (the second section) : User:GassyGuy/Multiversions. Europe22 (talk) 22:19, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but I disagree... I would read the phrase as pertaining only to notability. I still think it merits its own article. But if it's an unwritten rule not to give "covers" their own page, the more suitable location is Papa AP's page. ("the artist who wrote or prominently performed the song") Especially if, as was inferred previously, performing this song was what got Papa AP recognition - then it becomes an integral part of his page. arimareiji (talk) 00:15, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Hey arimareiji. Thanks for your input into this dispute and offering an unbiased opinion on the issue. On the subject of the legality of an unauthorised copy you sound very knowledgeble which I could stubbornly argue with you over, but I must admit I do not know if there is a law making it illegal to violate copyright. I would just like to ask how you came to be aware of this as I would be interested in learning a bit more on this technicality. I mean if I was a famous artist and I had to personally take someone to court everytime they did a copy of one of my songs I would probably not bother with the hastle, but if it was illegal that would be a different story. P.S. I also do not think Papa A.P. or his copy of gasolina merit their own article even if he did have another charting single in Europe22's home-country of France, as it was riding off the success the copy gave him which hardly makes him deserving. Kartel King (talk) 04:46, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, 1) I work in a business that deals with copyright, 2) I'm a frequent torrent downloader, 3) I'm eternally curious (especially with respect to things that might affect me). Thus I'm aware of the many attempts the 'AAs (RIAA, MPAA, etc) have made to try to make copyright violation criminal rather than only civilly-actionable. In some cases, they've succeeded - i.e. FECA, which makes it a criminal offense punishable by up to ten years in prison to camcord a movie in a theater. But in the case of producing a derivative work, it's only a civil offense. (See also Plagiarism#Other_contexts)

If I misunderstood and you meant "how did I find this article," it's listed under Wikipedia:Third_opinion.

Please note that I don't mean to diminish the impact by rewording it from "illegal version" to "copy." Let the facts speak for themselves. Opinions vary about whether illegality connotes moral offense and/or shame, but I believe it's fairly universally shameful (i.e. lame) to copy someone else. Just repeat what he did and let people decide for themselves - overstating the case only diminishes the impact, IMO.

Last but not least, please remember that disliking something, finding it morally objectionable, etc is not a basis for trying to exclude it from Wikipedia. Even if you accept the argument that Papa AP is only notable because he committed "theft," (in quotes because it doesn't fit the legal definition) he's still notable. And even if you accept the argument that his version of Gasolina constituted "theft," it's still notable because it achieved transient popularity.arimareiji (talk) 06:16, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Thankyou for taking the time to make a detailed reply, which I have to agree with. Kartel King (talk) 02:23, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Kartel King, why have you removed the two interwiki links ? And can we restore the Papa A.P. version ? Europe22 (talk) 09:11, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

As I explained in the edit summary I was removing the red links as they were not added to the article properly. And no per Arimareiji's reasoning. Kartel King (talk) 02:34, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

I've deleted the "3rd opinion requested" template from this page, because one has been provided. If the dispute continues, see WP:DISPUTE for the next steps in the process.
Please keep in mind that most of these process steps assume that both parties are willing to accept outside input. If that's not the case, the last steps in the process will make it officially binding - but getting that far is a nasty affair for all concerned, and wastes a lot of time. arimareiji (talk) 16:21, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

For reference, I blame you guys for the fact that I now keep hearing echoes of the "Macarena" refrain in my head, with Macarena replaced by Gasolina. So be civil, and don't do this to anyone else. ^_~ (Blame my ignorance as an outsider, in never having heard Gasolina) arimareiji (talk) 18:13, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Lmao, I could see how that could happen :P. Thanks for all the help Arimareiji and taking the time to become involved in our dispute, it's much appreciated. Cheers, Kartel King (talk) 02:34, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

I repeat my questions: Kartel King, why have you removed the two interwiki links ? And can we restore the "unauthorized version by Papa A.P." section ? If no, why ? Europe22 (talk) 19:29, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

I've already explained why I think that would be inappropriate and given an alternative. Also I've put in a link for what to do if this dispute continues instead of reaching a compromise (such as the one I gave). Sorry for the curtness, but I'm not a big fan of repeating myself. arimareiji (talk) 21:58, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Europe22 hasn't anyone ever told you it's rude to be impatient? I'm sorry if I chose to have a real life and enjoy my weekend as opposed to possesing over wikipedia waiting for a reply from you. I have now answered your question where you first asked it, btw you would not need to have asked it had you read the edit summary and viewed the history of the two revisions. Kartel King (talk) 02:39, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Kartel King, if I repeated my questions, it is simply because Arimareiji had left a message after mine. As a result, I thought my questions could pass unnoticed. That's all. Europe22 (talk) 17:31, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

A new edit war

My comment on Kartel King talk page after his deletion of Papa A.P.'s version :

Please Kartel King, don't give me a lesson. You have disappeared from WP when you have seen that nobody has sided with you (arimareiji, Garion96), after a long edit war in order to first remove the Papa AP's version (you had even blanked the Gasolina (Papa A.P. song)), then after having unsuccessfully asserted that it was an illegal version and tried to include your POV in the article. Now, you try again to remove this section (as these edits prove it [1], [2] and [3]), probably because you think I'm not ready to defend this article again. If you continue to remove this section without a new good reason that you should have previously explained on the talk page, I will ask for an arbitration and a checkuser of this IP adress : 190.53.244.15. I have already tolerated for a long moment your disagreeable comments in October 2008 (see Talk:Gasolina and Talk:Gasolina (Papa A.P. song)), and I don't want this starts again. Thank you. PS: I've also left this comment on the Gasolina talk page. Europe22 (talk) 20:56, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

My reply to the new edit war Europe22 has decided to start:

You have no clue Europe22! I did not disapear from wikipedia at all, my internet was disconnected and I was not able to make edits! And even if I did have my internet still running for the four months it was disconnected, the edit dispute over Gasolina was finished and it ended with you making a seperate page for Papa A.P.'s copy and even making a article on the artist himself whom barely meets notabilty. Obviously you have leanings towards him as you are from France and are fond of his copy which was released first and managed to chart higher than the official version. You are in fact a promoter for him being a fan and are editing through your bias which has led to all this drama. Now this has long been over and now that Elcangri386 has decided to re-add the section which was long ago decided to be taken out and put into the article you created, you have pounced on the opportunity, almost as if you have been waiting for this day, and are now making threats against me as you feel like you will now be able to conquer. You are not at all editing in the best of interests, and are not editing in the spirit of wikipedia which is quite evident in your message you have left me and your sudden reappearance out of nowhere. As an afternote though, do not make threats against me such as requesting a checkuser as you will lose. Kartel King (talk) 02:34, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

My reply :

Kartel King, don't attribute to me your own intentions. I'm not a fan of Papa A.P.'s version, no more than another song, but it clearly meets several criteria of WP:NM (charted in six countries, certified silver in one of them). It's rather you who show a incredible doggedness to remove this version because you consider it as "illegal" or "plagiarized". Please, read again WP:GAME and WP:NPOV. Btw, I was not the only one to blame you for this (see Talk:Gasolina, Talk:Gasolina (Papa A.P.) and User talk:Kartel King). Now, if you think that I sent you threats in my previous message, feel free to ask for an arbitration. Europe22 (talk) 07:52, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

KK's reply :

You know I am right, just answer this are you from France? Because if you are then everyone can see I am right. I have read them and now you should read them and think about your actions. Do not play dumb because this goes against policy, and you very well know the outcome of our last dispute ages ago, so do not use this opportunity to do wrong. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kartel King (talk • contribs) 08:10, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

The Papa A.P. version can be merged in this article or get its own article, it's not a problem for me. Europe22 (talk) 08:03, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Well then stop edit warring as this is what we decided a long time ago befor El cangri decided to delete your page and move it here. I have restored the page so you have no reason to war with me, I did not know he had deleted your page until just then when I restored it. Kartel King (talk) 08:37, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

The fact that I'm French or not doesn't change the inclusion or not of the Papa A.P.'s version. Also, I could say that you are a big fan of Yankee Daddy, but this wouldn't lead us nowhere, and this would only be judgments of intention, in violation of WP:AGF. For the rest, I thank you for your advice. You restored the Gasolina (Papa A.P. song) article a few minutes ago, I think it's a good thing (this was the final decision given by Arimareiji in October). For my part, there is no longer a problem. However, if El cangri386 absolutely wants to merge the cover version in this page and if you remove it again, then I will participate in the edition of this article as I already did. Europe22 (talk) 09:03, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

So what you are really saying is there still is a problem on your part, you're just waiting for the go ahead by El cangri and then you are going to tag team me as you have been already doing. If there is no longer a problem on your part, then stay out of it. What ever problems me and El cangri have are between us and you do not need to become involved, El cangri doesn't need you to handle his problems for him he is more then capable of handling them himself. Anyway, take care and remember the spirit of wikipedia, cheers Kartel King (talk) 09:37, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

If I participate in this article, it is because I'm interested in its content and NOT just because I'm happy to help or be helped by somebody else in an edit war. If I had wanted to merge the Papa A.P.'s version in this article, I would did it between November and February, when you didn't participate in WP. You try to reintroduce the same highly-critical POV as in October, but you fail again to prove it. Thanks again for your advices, but I really think that you already should apply them to yourself. Cheers, Europe22 (talk) 10:27, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, you would have if you wanted to be in the bad books of the other two parties who became involved at our request. I do not believe I am inserting highly critical POV either, just facts. But thanks for keeping a calm head and remaing civil with me, hopefully we do not have too many problems in the future. Cheers, Kartel King (talk) 10:46, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Kartel King, you're the sole wikipedian with whom I was in edit war for a so long time, although I've edited several hundreds of articles for 14 months, then frankly, I don't believe it's me who need the more to correct my behavior - even if I recognize I'm not perfect, of course, as everybody else. I remained cool and conciliatory the first time (in October) in spite of your desagreeable comments and your edits made without discussion (see this talk page, Talk:Gasolina (Papa A.P. song), and your talk page. And I think your comments on El cangri386 talk page are not very "cool", don't assume good faith and even contain what seems to be threats, see [4] and [5]), but as I saw that you tried again to impose your point of view without any argumentation, I was forced to be more determined this time. And for your highly-critical POV, even Arimareiji ("If you continue to revert without discussing, insert highly-critical POV material based on personal animus, and make unsupported claims that Wikipedia policy supports your actions in doing so, it can quickly lead to sanctions"). and Garion96 ("the biggest problem I have seen with wp:npov are when I look at your edits when you want this article (and related articles) to adhere to your own point of view"), the other two wikipedians who participated in the discussion in October, had noticed it, so don't pretend to be surprised. For my part, I find your behavior fails several WP policies (WP:NPOV, WP:GAME, WP:AGF, WP:IDONTLIKEIT, WP:ATTACK and probably WP:SOCK) and would deserve a sanction, and that is why I provide links to other pages in order to facilitate the work of administrators if I decide to ask for an arbitration. But I won't do it if you change your behavior. Cheers, Europe22 (talk) 17:14, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

My Reply: There was no need for that for that reply and instead of parting on good terms you decide to inflame the situation by insulting me. I take back what I said about you remaining civil because quite frankly you havn't making your blank, unfounded accusations against me threatening to get arbitration and a checkuser with no acceptable reason for doing so, and constantly trying to test my patients. I have not made any threats and this is something you should be an expert on as you are the one who has been making the threats (see your comments). And as for me pretending not to be aware of having a highly POV the two diffs you provided were with the highly POV influence of you! Arimareiji left that message before I even spoke to him and Garion96 only became involved as he was getting frustrated with me. In fact I think you knew him before I did, so don't make me out to look like an uncompromising SOB. Because anyone who bothers reading the whole history of the previous discussions will see otherwise and how you are trying to defame me. For my part, don't make threats against me and give me ultimatums, because I can do the exact same thing to you buddy, your not exactly a flying angel so get off your high horse please! I have no idea why instead of parting on good terms you decided to insult me and egg me on to fight you, but I guess that says more about you then it does me. Kartel King (talk) 02:13, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

My comments don't contain threats, but I simply referred to WP policies, and I think that your behavior violates several of them. Now, I repeat, don't hesitate to ask for an arbitration if you think that I neglected any rule of WP (you complain about threats and insults ; btw, I think that there will be no other solution than asking for an arbitration, but after all, it will be useful for each of us), and I will accept to be sanctionned if I deserve it. In your previous comment, you provide no specific fact, you just criticize my behavior being unable to prove your assertions. And about Garion96, I asked him an advice because it was the first administrator who told me when I started to participate in WP and because, as I wasn't familiar with edit wars, I didn't know what I must do to solve the problem. I didn't ask him to defend my opinion. See my message on Garion96's talk page and his reply.

So what is this? I'm just not supposed to edit this article at all now? Look at Respect (song) for an example of what I was trying to do. There were two versions of this song, both popular, and is being talked about in one article. I didn't think the version by Papa A.P. was notable for its OWN article, but is worth noting in the Gasolina article, especially since one of the original writers of the song is Daddy Yankee himself. I don't see an issue of merging the article with Gasolina, but I guess if others (OTHER than Kartel King) who also feel that what I'm doing is bad, then I guess I can't stop it. But that wasn't the issue to begin with. I originally started editing this only for organizing some of the contents (like release dates, subheads, etc.) It looked like a mess and all I did was simply clean it up a bit. You can summarize and make up a title for a section all under one word if not a lot is being mentioned in the article. El cangri386 ^{Sign! or Talk} 17:36, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

My Reply: Honestly why do I bother leaving you messages if you do not read them? I hate repeating myself, and you keep making me do it as you never read what I write to you. I told you to read previous discussion because if you HAD you would not be writing your message! Please just scroll up on this page and read what happened and what Arimareiji (the third party that became involved) decided was best. Please just read for once. P.S. just because you think you are tidying up an article and making it look better, doesn't always mean you are. I'm just trying to go off featured articles as they are the best we have, I suggest you do the same as all articles should have the goal of becoming featured. Kartel King (talk) 02:41, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

I understand your concern, El cangri386, and I also think that the version by Papa A.P. should be included in this article (traditionally, on WP, cover versions should be developed only in the article about the song, unless the article is very long). But as you can see on this page, in October 2008, I asked for an third opinion and eventually the wikipedian who tried to resolve the edit war (arimareiji) decided that the cover version should get its own article, and you can see that Kartel King was very opposed to the merger of the cover version (at the beginning, he didn't even want that version by Papa A.P. was developed on WP, neither in the main article, nor in the specific article). You should discuss with arimareiji about this merger. Personally, I agree. Europe22 (talk) 21:47, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

My Reply: Again Europe22, you never learn! Stop speaking on my behalf you persist on doing this and it is unacceptable! I still don't think he is deserving of his own article as he only became notable after plagerism. But just because I feel this way does not mean I do not concede to his notabillity (barely), otherwise I would still be blanking his page and his version. This is the way I feel about any person who is un-noble (ironic wording), wether it be someone winning a race by cheating, winning a competetion by cheating, etc. They are all alike. Kartel King (talk) 03:07, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

My goal was not to talk about your behavior, but rather to show what led us to this situation (in addition, I don't think you are in a good position to give such advice...). You talk about "plagerism" once more, but you fail to prove it. And even if Papa A.P. plagiarized the Daddy Yankee's song, it is not a good reason to delete his section of this article. But all this was already the subject of our discussion in October... Europe22 (talk) 18:53, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

You really need to find out what plagiarism means and I am in a better position then you so don't insult me. His plagiarism was not the reason for excluding the section from the article, and you very well know that! All this was discussed back in October and you know the results so stop trying to make me look bad, I do not appreciate it at all and I have been very patient with your constant putting of words in my mouth which do not represent my views. Stop doing it! It's not hard, Kartel King (talk) 02:09, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Merge ?

El cangri386's comment on arimareiji's talk page :

Hey arimareiji. I've got a major concern about two articles I'm dealing with on Wikipedia, which are Gasolina and Gasolina (Papa A.P. song). I've had a concern with a cover version of a song having its own article, when I felt it would be right to instead merge it with Gasolina since the writers of both version (one of them being Daddy Yankee himself) are the same. I've even used Respect (song) as an example for the subject of original artists and notable covers. I discussed this with Kartel King and Europe22 and this has turned into a major edit war that has lasted for a long time now. I was referred to you by Europe22, asking for a third opinion on my edits to both Gasolina and Gasolina (Papa A.P. song). I've redirected the Papa A.P. version to a section in the original Gasolina article (which I'm afraid will be reverted sometime later on again by Kartel King). Please reply soon. We need a third opinion! :) El cangri386 ^{Sign! or Talk} 21:59, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

P.S. I was referred to you because you were also in a little argument with Kartel King once before and you, Kartel King and Europe22 discussed over this situation and decided to leave the Papa A.P. song to its own article. El cangri386 ^{Sign! or Talk} 22:13, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

arimareiji's reply :

I couldn't find any specific policies when I did a quick search, but there does seem to be community consensus for merging cover versions. Honestly, I suspected that might be true when I recommended a split back then, but thought a temporary split might serve as a bandage long enough for 1) Europe22 to dig up and write good material in peace, and 2) tempers to cool. Given that there's been ample time for both to occur, the best solution is the one you already implemented - re-merge.
The trouble is that, as you've already seen, Kartel King is apparently still bent on venting his personal opinion of Papa AP rather than sticking to sources. I'd recommend an RfC about it to bring in more eyes - but honestly, at this point it's up to Kartel King. If he's willing to bend to the existing consensus or find sources to back his wording (which would probably change consensus), that would be the best possible solution. If not, then it's probably going to turn into a WP:3RR issue of variable speed, and it'll have to be taken up there. Sorry I couldn't be more help. arimareiji (talk) 00:03, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

El cangri386, I think you should follow Arimareiji's advice : to ask for a RfC. Europe22 (talk) 18:53, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Arimareiji, I would appreciate it if you did not talk about me in that manner as I have said nothing to insult you. I have stuck to sources and I have made sure Europe22 has stuck to sources which had not been until I intervened. It is quite obvious you are against me and I knew of this when we left discussions back in October, you know how I proved you wrong. And the fact plagiarism is a NON-legal term, yes I know you remember because you are still hostile towards me. It's okay though, I don't expect everyone to willing accept they have been proven wrong and not hold a grudge, although as I am a bigger person and if the roles were reversed I would not hold a grudge. Arimareiji, what you fail to notice is that there is not ONE source for yours, El cangri386's and Europe22's POV on it being a cover version, so even if there was a policy it could not apply as no where in the sources does it say it is a cover. I will not concede to biased logic, although I will mention that I have no problem with the current wording provided by Europe22 as he has removed his POV from the section once and for all. Kartel King (talk) 02:22, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Request for comment

The general rule of thumb is that cover versions of a song, even if they become more popular or better known than the original, all go in one article about the specific song. The article about the Papa A.P. version should be merged into this article. TheJazzDalek (talk) 20:40, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

There is no policy or rules that specifically states this. A third opinion was not needed Elcangri386 posted it before I responded to him and has since not edited this article. I came to a compromise with Europe22 and we all left the article the way it was. Concensous was not to merge this article back in October, it should not be merged. Kartel King (talk) 05:46, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Having read more about the two songs, I don't see why two articles are needed. Daddy Yankee released his song in the US, then Papa AP released a cover version in Europe and had a hit with it there. So what? That sort of thing happens all the time, throughout the history of pop music. Throwing around words like plagiarism and ripoff and steal is ludicrous. Besides, there's not enough verifiable content from reliable sources in Gasolina (Papa A.P. song) to justify a whole 'nother article. TheJazzDalek (talk) 19:15, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Certification

Europe22 removed claims of platinum certification in the US and Australia, and rightly so. A check of the RIAA and ARIA databases show that the song was never certified (platinum or even gold, for that matter). Please do not re-add the claim without a verifiable reference from a reliable source. TheJazzDalek (talk) 12:37, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Incorrect Date

According to Wikipedia in Spanish, this song was released on February 7, 2004. Therefore the earlier date was incorrect and take me the liberty of correcting it. Biruxx (talk) 01:57, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

@Biruxx: Wikipedia, no matter what language, is not a reliable source as anybody can edit it. See WP:IRS. Erick (talk) 15:23, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Gasolina. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090715043100/http://www.disqueenfrance.com/fr/monopage.xml?id=259165&year=2005 to http://www.disqueenfrance.com/fr/monopage.xml?id=259165&year=2005
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080417014832/http://www.ultratop.be:80/fr/annual.asp?year=2005 to http://www.ultratop.be/fr/annual.asp?year=2005
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120404175659/http://www.disqueenfrance.com/fr/page-259376.xml?year=2005 to http://www.disqueenfrance.com/fr/page-259376.xml?year=2005

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:23, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Release date – radio in October 2004

ResolutionsPerMinute, here's a Billboard source that says the single "impacted radio in October." It also says that radio station WPYO in Orlando, Florida, was playing the song in September, likely sourcing it from the album which was released in July. Binksternet (talk) 17:25, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

@Binksternet: Thanks for pointing this out. I stopped checking Billboard for release dates around mid-2002. This date is plausible, so I'll add it to the Release history section. ResPM (T🔈🎵C) 17:54, 31 July 2022 (UTC)