User talk:IndianBio/Archive 12

Archive 5

←

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

Question:

Are you a sockpuppet of User:Legolas2186? I think you are because you come from India and edit Lady Gaga and Madonna articles. }IMr*|(60nna)I{ 10:16, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Mr Gonna Change My Name, before you make accusations like that please I would ask you to go and read on WP:SOCK. I do not like people who slander others like this and I hope you take this seriously. Else I would have to bring this to WP:ANI. —Indian:BIO · ^{[ ChitChat ]} 10:19, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

I feel sorry for the GARs and accusations. It's a pleasure to be nice at Wikipedia while avoiding conflict. I had actually not checked much of those two articles (LoveGame and Paparazzi (Lady Gaga song)) since I went to their talk pages a quarter-way into my read of both pages, so I would not do a GAR again unless I doublecheck an entire article. You're younger than Legolas, so I won't verbally attack you anymore. I apologize for the mistakes. }IMr*|(60nna)I{ 10:30, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

@Mr. Gonna Change My Name Forever: and I apologize too, because I realized that in the talk page of the WP:GARECENT, I came off very rude. I really have this bad habit of coming across rude sometimes without realizing that you were acting in good faith :( I hope you forgive me too. And please do the GARs, I hope they would better the article and I also found many dead links. —Indian:BIO · ^{[ ChitChat ]} 10:33, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Okay, I'm happy now! =D }IMr*|(60nna)I{ 10:34, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for putting these behind us and happy listening to Metallica. :) —Indian:BIO · ^{[ ChitChat ]} 10:36, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Talk:LoveGame/GA2 MFD

Are you withdrawing your nomination for deletion at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Talk:LoveGame/GA2? If so, can you put that on the page there? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:18, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

@Ricky81682:, yes please. —Indian:BIO · ^{[ ChitChat ]} 06:44, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

WikiProject Welcome

I had a feeling you'd join at some point given how you've often edited her articles. Just wanted to be the first to welcome you in. Enjoy :D! SNUGGUMS (talk · contribs) 20:20, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

@SNUGGUMS: thanks dear. And I'm excited. —Indian:BIO · ^{[ ChitChat ]} 05:52, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

No problem :) SNUGGUMS (talk · contribs) 05:53, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Prismatic World Tour & List of highest-grossing concert tours

Hello, I have many boxscores for Katy Perry and her new tour, but they're not available online and are not free because they're from Pollstar and you have to be a pro member on pollstar.com to see those boxscores. However, some members leaked them on the net. You can find them here : http://atrl.net/forums/showthread.php?t=595216 But how can I post those boxscores if there is no really source especially this forum and the photos ? Thank you. --Maximunicorn (talk) 17:54, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

@Maximunicorn:, please do not add false boxscores based on unreliable fan and forum sites like atrl. I have reverted your edit on The Prismatic World Tour. Please wait until Billboard Boxscore for next week comes up. —Indian:BIO · ^{[ ChitChat ]} 18:48, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

This are not false boxscores. They're true and reported by Pollstar. Only people with a pro-account can see them every week. Lady Gaga's pollstar boxscores were reported one week before Billboard, and they were true : you can check her show in Edmonton to see. Pollstar is like Billboard. --Maximunicorn (talk) 18:52, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

@Maximunicorn:, if Billboard is reporting the scores after one week, then what is the harm in waiting for a week? Surely they will be accessible and not subject to subscription like Pollstar. —Indian:BIO · ^{[ ChitChat ]} 18:55, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Billboard sometimes doesn't report all the shows because it depends on the promoters : if they want their numbers to be released publicly, or not. Pollstar is a private company, so the numbers are supposed to be private. Also, Pollstar reports their numbers usually on Thursday, while Billboard reports their numbers on Wednesday. For example, this is a Lady Gaga boxscore for Edmonton, reported on June 6 by Pollstar : http://i.imgur.com/1YyOtsH.png?1 And this is what Billboard reported on June 18 : http://i1247.photobucket.com/albums/gg633/MaxTycoon2/edmonton_zpsc12d914a.png (http://www.webcitation.org/6QQgmDW12). As you can see the attendance is the same, the gross has just been re-adjusted between Pollstar and Billboard, but it's not always the case. --Maximunicorn (talk) 19:06, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

@Maximunicorn:, the way I see this is that if there are Boxscores which are reported by Pollstar and not reported by Billboard, then it is fine to list them, however, you need to find a link which says so, even if that is not accessible to the general public. Am I making it clear? Wikipedia links do not always have to be free to the public. But if and when Billboard releases the same boxscores, the Pollstar link should be replaced. —Indian:BIO · ^{[ ChitChat ]} 02:03, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Hello, why did you revert my modifications on the page "List of highest-grossing concert tours" ? According to Pollstar's reports, Lady Gaga grossed $183,900,000 with the Born This Way Ball. I put reliable sources (from Pollstar). I don't know why you always revert those modifications, you should read the sources before deleting. http://www.pollstar.com/news_article.aspx?ID=803742 & http://www.pollstarpro.com/files/charts2013/2013YearEndTop200NorthAmericanTours.pdf Pollstar re-adjusted their numbers for the year-end chart. Unlike the mid-year report Gaga sold 200k tickets and grossed $22,5M in North America(not 179k and 19M). --Maximunicorn (talk) 20:32, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

@Maximunicorn:, my edit summary was enough to explain it. Your addition of the Pollstar link resulted in broken references and red-links to the reflist at the end. I don't know what you did but the information was wrongly added. Make a request at the talk page I would say. —Indian:BIO · ^{[ ChitChat ]} 02:43, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Is Radio.com a reliable source?

I would agree that this may not technically qualify as a reliable source because it does not corroborate the claim -- it is rather a specific example of what the article is discussing, like Last.fm. 183.171.166.227 (talk) 04:03, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

IP user, in what context are you asking? —Indian:BIO · ^{[ ChitChat ]} 08:12, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Dark Horse (Weekly Charts)

Hi, IndianBio. I would like to thank you for your edits to Dark Horse. I just wanted to let you know I wasn't trying to clog up the article (I discovered this issue a few weeks ago when I added in all the Billboard Digital Charts). I thought it might be important to note that it peaked in two different places in the Australia digital sales charts according to different sources (Billboard - #6; ARIA #5), and kept the Belgium chart because it showed the success throughout Belgium, instead of just the region of either Wallonia or Flanders. I am sorry for any inconvenience, and I really do appreciate all your edits to the article! :) Moonchïld9 (talk) 20:08, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

@Moonchïld9:, I appreciate your explanation of the edits and I'm fine with this. Just that we have to understand that "Dark Horse" is already a monster of a hit for Katy Perry and probably will become her biggest selling single surpassing "Firework". It has massive chart representation already with over 30 chart entries, multiple from her parent territory, US. Anything more is just piling up of garbage jargons, and will actually relegate the article as fancrufty. That was my point in removing those extra Billboard charts from regions where there are already official certifying body. Hope this makes it clear for you. —Indian:BIO · ^{[ ChitChat ]} 05:19, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply! I agree with you; I'll only add those charts to articles with few charts on them (assuming similar circumstances apply). Moonchïld9 (talk) 05:32, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

You are welcome dear. —Indian:BIO · ^{[ ChitChat ]} 05:36, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Gaga pic

Dear IndianBio, Thank you for finding and posting Lady Gaga's recent picture. I was wondering if you could also update the list of best-selling worldwide, the best-selling music artists, etc. since her numbers are higher than the bracket she is currently posted in ($80 million). I would have done it myself but I don't know how, and you are doing a great job. Maybe the net worth as well? Hasn't been updated since 2011. Thank you much. keep up a good work. Sincerely, Oki. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oki Anna (talk • contribs) 21:18, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Oki Anna, Gaga's certification falls short of her sales claim and that is why she is in such a lower bracket. —Indian:BIO · ^{[ ChitChat ]} 05:50, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Why?

Why to revert my changes on The Fame? Tracklisting is really wrong as Disco Heaven and I Like It Rough are international bonuses. And I know how not to mess pages up but the album is complicated on its own by its releases. Not every country has a easy to find, popular or whatever you name it music stores like Amazon or Universal Music like Japan, Germany... Yes mine wasn't good at all but it needs to be changed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dkisnis (talk • contribs) 16:06, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

@Dkisnis:, you added a bunch of bare urls to the article, including unreliable sources like Discogs which are not accepted in Wikipedia, strictly not in a good article like The Fame. I suggest you strongly learn to format references through the {{cite web}} template and then post your additions to the article. —Indian:BIO · ^{[ ChitChat ]} 16:10, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

@IndianBio: This time I won't say what I said about Discogs. Okay. But... How about winnowing them and keep iTunes ones? You know... If you checked them all you could see the second release of the album with Disco Heaven as 15th track on stores like Mexico and Russia. If I only use them, can I bring back my arrangement? Because it needs to be more correct... Edit: And of cource I know that. Duh. Was a bit lazy let's just say. Reflinks thing does that, right?. I can use it too. Dkisnis (talk) 16:42, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Girl Gone Wild

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Girl Gone Wild 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 SNUGGUMS -- SNUGGUMS (talk) 17:01, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Beyoncé (album)

Hello! I recently nominated Beyoncé for good article status and I was wondering whether you had any time to look over the article for consistency (spelling, grammar, sources, etc.)? If you can, it would be greatly appreciated! Best, —JennKR | ☎ 17:01, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Hey JennKR, I would gladly help out. —Indian:BIO · ^{[ ChitChat ]} 17:03, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Madonna

Hello. i'm the IP that has done the image switching on several Madonna's articles that you have reverted. My only wish was to better up those articxles adding images that would go with the article's text positioning or images of a Higher quality (on the 'Addicted' case) i do not wish to get into an edit war with you or anybody else. Please tell me what can I do in order to succesfully have those changes. Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.144.63.182 (talk) 18:07, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Girl Gone Wild

The article Girl Gone Wild you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:Girl Gone Wild 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 SNUGGUMS -- SNUGGUMS (talk) 22:22, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Cover art for "Impressive Instant"

Hello! I just found this cover art for Madonna's promotional single "Impressive Instant" here and I was wondering if it were possible to upload it for the article. I mostly contribute to the French Wikipedia which doesn't allow any kind of fair use and I don't really know the rules concerning uploading images on this Wiki. Thanks Amzer (talk) 00:12, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, I would love to do it. —Indian:BIO · ^{[ ChitChat ]} 05:35, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Girl Gone Wild

The article Girl Gone Wild you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Girl Gone Wild for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of SNUGGUMS -- SNUGGUMS (talk) 00:01, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

"Beautiful" title discussion

Hey! I know I pinged you a few weeks ago when I bumped the discussion here, but I'd like to notify you again since it's been about 2.5 weeks with hardly any comment from other editors. Please drop by and weigh in if you have time! –Chase (talk / contribs) 04:03, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Working 9 to 5 just to stay alive

Hi Cedric, sorry for showing up here unexpected, but I read on your user page that you like "Ghost / Haunted". Finally, I meet a person who appreciates it! pedro | talk 16:30, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Prism, yep love that break and the video is ooh-la-la. —Indian:BIO · ^{[ ChitChat ]} 08:00, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Marry the Night Revision to Cover Artists

Hello IndianBio,

You recently undid a cover edit I made, here is the page history. I am new to Wikipedia editing and I looked at the page you linked, the notability for inclusion, and I could not understand exactly where I went wrong. Could you clarify what you meant there?

Thank you for your time,

Darkmer

Hi Darkmer, the following should explain you. Notability is something which is reported by the third party media. A relatively unknown singer, uploading a cover of a popular song on YouTube, which is not reported by any news outlets like BBC, Rolling Stone, NY times etc, fails notability. One should ask the question, why should this cover version be included? What is there in it that would not matter to the encyclopedia if omitted? Has any news outlets reported on it (positive or negatively)? If it is yes then it can be included. —Indian:BIO · ^{[ ChitChat ]} 05:22, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Hello again! Thanks for clearing that up for me I understand now what you meant. I'll keep that in mind.

artRAVE's pictures

There's new HD pictures from the artRAVE in San Diego. Can you upload it please? Biagio2103 (talk) 05:15, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

@Biagio2103: I'm onto it. —Indian:BIO · ^{[ ChitChat ]} 05:22, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

IB, have you come across any good performance pictures for the "Gypsy" article? (BTW, this seems like an easy article to get to GA status, at least compared to G.U.Y. and DWUW.) ----Another Believer _(Talk) 14:16, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

@Another Believer:, this and this are both from the "Gypsy" performance. —Indian:BIO · ^{[ ChitChat ]} 14:20, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Wonderful! I added the first to the Gypsy article. :) ----Another Believer _(Talk) 14:28, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Nice. I will soon start "Gypsy" for GA. —Indian:BIO · ^{[ ChitChat ]} 14:36, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Born This Way: The Collection

The article Born This Way: The Collection you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Born This Way: The Collection for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of SNUGGUMS -- SNUGGUMS (talk) 20:02, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Hey

Hey mate. Seems this is going to get problematic. I see you've already been involved with this editor. Can you take a look at Celine Dion albums discography. Issues with NPOV/Ownership/stubbornness and just difficulty implementing the guidelines on LOBSMA etc. Cheers.--PeterGriffin • Talk2Me 19:46, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Although Petergriffin9901 calls me "this editor" we have a long history. And I see he hasn't changed. I don't know the article LOBSMA but just looking for a short time at the sales in different countries of MC and CD I see that some MC fans must have been there too :) Going back to MC and her articles, I will give few examples:

• Mariah Carey - the oficially sourced certifications table gives us the total of 11,000,005 copies shipped and the so called "reliable" source says 15 million sold. How come this source for total sales is reliable?
• Music Box - the oficially sourced certifications table gives us the total of 19,835,382 copies shipped and the so called "reliable" source says 32 million sold. How come this source for total sales is reliable?
• Merry Christmas - the oficially sourced certifications table gives us the total of 8,879,000 copies shipped and the so called "reliable" source says 15 million sold. How come this source for total sales is reliable?
• Daydream - the oficially sourced certifications table gives us the total of 15,505,400 copies shipped and the so called "reliable" source says 25 million sold. How come this source for total sales is reliable?
• The Emancipation of Mimi - the oficially sourced certifications table gives us the total of 7,494,252 copies shipped and the so called "reliable" source says 12 million sold. How come this source for total sales is reliable?
• Memoirs of an Imperfect Angel - the oficially sourced certifications table gives us the total of 659,308 copies shipped and the so called "reliable" source says 2 million sold. How come this source for total sales is reliable?

Going Back to Celine Dion - she has less articles on the internet about sales and most of them come from the press releases of Columbia Records. It's her label - the only official source of informations as this label sells her CDs. The press releases are published on Dion's website and in other places like the Reuters. There are of course also other sources which I added to the article (Celine Dion albums discography). Since January 2013 press releases from Columbia Records and Sony Music Entertainment say that Dion has sold 220 million albums. There are also many other articles. How come these all sources are unreliable?

I see that on the MC's Emotions page and her disography page, Sony Music Japan is used for claim of 8 million copies sold worldwide. How come this source is ok for Petergriffin9901, but for Celine Columbia Records and Sony Music are not ok?

I have added many, many sources with the 220 million figure.

I also disagree that I can't add a source from celinedion.com, especially when there are also other sources.-- Max24 (talk) 23:59, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

I have no idea what any of this has to do with the issue? My problem lies with all the unreliable sources you keep using, as well as the discrepancies with List of best-selling music artists. Carey (who has more certifications) also has sources for 220 million. My point is, we try and implement the same rules. That aside, you don't even have references for 220 million records, only albums which is far from the truth. And yes, I've had the displeasure of having known you for a long time. Bio, on the other hand, hasn't yet had that distinct pleasure :) PS. Not that I'd waste my time, but no albums whatsoever add up certifications to the sales listed, especially albums 20+ years old. Dion's albums would fall under the same issue if not worse--PeterGriffin • Talk2Me 00:50, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Peter and Max, what is the main issue I still could not find out? Yes, we do try to implement the sales from List of best selling music artists page and make it inline with what the parent article says with reliable sources. As for the album sales, Max, most of the albums from 1980s and 1990s have a lower certification range corressponding to their sales because, many countries did not have certifications unlike albums of today. And yes Peter is right that we cannot use Press releases for citing any sales at all. —Indian:BIO · ^{[ ChitChat ]} 04:59, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

The main issue is that he would like to leave 220 million albums (not too mention with a plethora of Dion's website and other non-reliable sources) and like even Dion's own article page, I'm trying to implement 200 million records as on LOBSMA etc. He keeps making this a Carey-Dion comparison because of past issues, but it's something I myself have implemented on Carey'a pages and try to do so in every possible circumstance.--PeterGriffin • Talk2Me 05:18, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

@Max24: Max, I do not believe you should do that, I believe you should make it tally with what the list says, with third party sources, not first party sources like Dion's website. But anyways, you removed a lot of false certifications from Carey's album and discography pages. Thanks for doing that as it really improved the credibility of the album pages. Please continue to do so in Celine's pages as well. (On a different note, archive your talk page for fuck's sake :D ) —Indian:BIO · ^{[ ChitChat ]} 05:33, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Hi, now Celine Dion albums discography is sourced like this for 220 million sales. Aside from press releases there are a lot of third party sources. And as it goes for LOBSMA article when I try to add certification and/or sales for the countries mentioned there I don't get the numbers that are put there for Mariah Carey. And a lot of Celine Dion sales info is missing. I just never worked on the LOBSMA article and almost nobody elese care about Celine on Wikipedia. Celine is way ahead od Mariah in certification and sales. I just don't have the time to fix it all at once. Now I started working on formatting Celine Dion albums articles by adding certifications tables and formatting chart tables. It all takes so much time. When I finish and we will have a ready answer. We will have certification tables in all Mariah and Celine articles with sales. I will add all this and prove that Celine is far ahead of Mariah - she just doesn't have an army of fans here. Then you will see that LOBSMA has flaws and I will gladly help to improve it; just give me more hours in a day :) .-- Max24 (talk) 10:43, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

(→) If you can find out all the certifications for Celine and prove that those listed at LOBSMA are under that, then please post it in the talk page and let Harout72 update them. Don't forget to post these numerous sources listing the 220 million claim also. Its wonderful that you are doing it for the Mariah and Celine articles. Take your time and gather all information regarding Celine. —Indian:BIO · ^{[ ChitChat ]} 08:56, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. I will do as you say :) -- Max24 (talk) 11:01, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

@Max24: This has nothing to do with "fans". Harout has no affiliation with any of those female singers and I can assure you the certifications info in the page is 99% accurate. You're in for quite the surprise (or shall I say disappointment) when you find out Dion indeed has less certified records than Carey :) All the more so, both of them are in the category where 200 should be listed. Additionally, if you want to place 220 for Dion, I suggest you find third-party (only) sources for records, not albums as that is obviously inaccurate. PS. The certifications listed on the LOBSMA page only account for certifications we can readily verify online (they are the same era so it shouldn't be an issue) not made up or inflated certifications from books we both know you don't have in your possession ;) For instance, I know for a fact those NZ certifications you post for Dion's albums are complete lies. Anywho, good day and good luck.--PeterGriffin • Talk2Me 00:31, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Also Max, I'm not trying to make your life difficult, but you can't use book sources with no pages numbers (especially for an FL) for sales. It comes off as disingenuous and fake. I'll give you time, but if you can't verify them, I will remove them.--PeterGriffin • Talk2Me 00:33, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

You know, this hostility betweek you two will end up in destructive editing instead of constructive one, I feel, there by not only affecting the Celine Dion and Mariah Carey articles, but all the others as well. Please take these fan like wars out of your editing, and no more discussion in my talk page please. I'm archiving this section. —Indian:BIO · ^{[ ChitChat ]} 07:09, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

A thought

Hello. I have noticed that you spend a good deal of time editing articles about Madonna and Lady Gaga: their bios, their songs, their achievements. Yet A look at the main Madonna page (edit history section) shows that all but one of your edits to her page are reverts of other people's work, which suggests you may think these are "your" articles and no one else can add or subtract to them. Wikipedia is for everyone. We need to allow other people their opportunity to contribute without instantly jumping in to remove their work. Look at your contributions section: you write on Madonna and Lady Gaga every day. Give it a rest.Catherinejarvis (talk) 16:01, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

@Catherinejarvis: yes I revert edits which do not conform to WP:BLP and fan additions, so get over it. And just because you did not even care to look at how I delve my time in removing all the fan fluff from Madonna and Lady Gaga's articles and how I fight those vandals, I do not know how to reply to your accusations. I also do not know how in what world you thought that I would encourage WP:OWN (did I revert any of your edits?) but just to be clear, we are removing big amount of fluff from Madonna's fan-bloated legacy section. You are welcome to help out but don't interract with me personally henceforth. —Indian:BIO · ^{[ ChitChat ]} 05:35, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

What It Feels Like for a Girl

Honestly, I don't understand why you are constantly changing my edits, because even though you claimed that Allmusic and Music Notes are not reliable, both are featured as sources to good articles on Wikipedia and they are not wrong when they claimed the song's genres, not this time around (Some articles don't even cite sources to the genres and you claimed that two sources are not enough? C'mon!). Other thing, definitely the song is an adult alternative, dance-pop, electronica and pop/rock track, this is totally evident on the track and you know it. It's the perfect definition and both sources agreed too, not only that, but the problem is that you want to have the right, just because I improve the article so much that is intact, and you wanted to edit, but instead of fighting over something that is picture clear, you can help by editing the cover section or contribute to other Madonna pages here on Wikipedia. If I was wrong, I would definitely stay quiet and wouldn't fight for something is right, but it is evident that the song genre is correct and if you have sources that prove wrong, then you should take my sources, not now that I cited two real sources. Please, undo your edit, because it's clear to see that my sources are correct. No hard feelings! FanofPopMusic (talk) 05:10, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

@FanofPopMusic:, I have read your summary here and let me clarify them one by one.

• even though you claimed that Allmusic and Music Notes are not reliable, both are featured as sources to good articles on Wikipedia – I did not claim that AllMusic and Musicnotes are unreliable. I claimed that the genre sources listed there are unreliable.
• Other thing, definitely the song is an adult alternative, dance-pop, electronica and pop/rock track, this is totally evident on the track and you know it. – I'm afraid I don't know it. I don't see other source than the AllMusic and Musicnotes being listed that describe the track as alternative, and the other genres listed. I do not go by what I think, but reliable sources report. I'm no one to judge journalist, critics and authors.
• but the problem is that you want to have the right, just because I improve the article so much that is intact, and you wanted to edit, but instead of fighting over something that is picture clear, you can help by editing the cover section or contribute to other Madonna pages here on Wikipedia – Have you even seen my contributions before even coming close to saying that I don't contribute? Please take such accusations somewhere else, not worth it.
• it is evident that the song genre is correct and if you have sources that prove wrong, then you should take my sources – I just explained to you that AllMusic and Musicnotes.com, although pretty reliable sources, are unreliable for their genre listing. There are extensive discussions found at WP:RSN, listed here or go through all the discussions here.
• now that I cited two real sources – See above.
• Please, undo your edit, because it's clear to see that my sources are correct – This is not about who's edit is correct, this is about coming to WP:CONSENSUS about the most reliable genre that can be found from professional sources who are not downsized or who's genre listing are maliciously received. I have not researched about the article yet, the Music era is far from my development interests at present and I have thanked you already for your marvellous development of the article. Enough said, this is what it is. You are free to call a WP:RFC if you feel my explanations are not what you can accept. —Indian:BIO · ^{[ ChitChat ]} 08:43, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

@IndianBio: The funny thing is that I clearly researched the whole Music era and the reviews from the album and the two sources that I've found were basically equals concerning the song's genre, especially "adult alternative", and Allmusic doesn't claim Madonna songs as alternative very often, just in this case, because the song REALLY IS. You just said that you don't know the song's genre and yet you took my edits (with two sources) just 'cause you thought that the song is not what I claimed it was, this doesn't make sense at all. How can you say that the genre is not what I claimed it was, since you didn't resarch (I did) or know about the genre itself? You shouldn't take it at all, since you're unaware of the song's genre. It doesn't make sense to reach a consensus, because the two sources are enough, Allmusic may be wrong when it comes to describe an album genre, but the source is to the SINGLE, and they analyzed it very accurately, same goes with Music Notes. That's why I don't feel that is necessary to discuss over something that is obvious, two sources who claimed the same genres are not wrong or inaccurate, they both agree, so the song has these genres (I just look Madonna articles and many just cite one source - sometimes is just Music Notes). FanofPopMusic (talk) 14:29, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Album review or single review, both AllMusic and Musicnotes.com are not considered reliable for sourcing the genre. And you are clearly going into WP:OR territory with the AllMusic claims and your thoughts. That is not acceptable. I strongly suggest you go through a consensus as you are not changing my mind on this and the community as well. —Indian:BIO · ^{[ ChitChat ]} 14:32, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Pre-FAC touches

Hey bro, before I take Katy Perry to FAC, could you perhaps look through it again for anything other editors would nitpick at during FAC? She's going to be nominated very soon, but I felt a (relatively) uninvolved set of eyes could be beneficial. I have a few more refs to add for "Artistry", but my main concern is prose and organization. Hope there aren't any outstanding flaws before nomination. I really want this to be top-notch. One thing that I've been on the fence with since its successful GAN is this: is there enough information available to warrant a "legacy" section for her or is it perhaps too soon in her career? SNUGGUMS (talk · contribs) 02:40, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Hey Snuggums, so the big time has finally come around eh? I wish you the very best of luck in taking the California Gurl for a bronze addition. Maybe I will tweet her and tell her once the FAC passes. And I'm onto it the prose check. —Indian:BIO · ^{[ ChitChat ]} 07:08, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, and here is the FAC. SNUGGUMS (talk · contribs) 19:52, 25 July 2014 (UTC)