User talk:Legolas2186/Archive 10

Archive 5

←

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

→

Archive 15

Silly

Newest requests go at the bottom. — ξ^xplicit 05:45, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 05:55, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Pokerdance

Who is Pokerdance?? Chasewc91 (talk) 22:08, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Hello? Why are you ignoring me, I just asked a question... Chasewc91 (talk) 19:31, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Ah never mind, I saw the reply on my talkpage. Chasewc91 (talk) 19:34, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Re:Alternate

Done. Sorry it took me so long, I wasn't online at the time the message was sent. • вяαdcяochat 04:54, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanky do. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 05:07, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Cool, i've got an account aswel. Haven't really been active on it though but I read threads. http://pulsemusic.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=viewprofile&user=bradcro • вяαdcяochat 10:59, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

TiK ToK is so hot!!! Its like when Gaga came out with "Just Dance". Hey why didn't you attach your pic in your profile? It'll be cool! You saw my pic? 11:03, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

I know. It is such a rad song! It is getting so close to the top ten on iTunes in Australia. It was unheard of in Australia but I requested the radio stations to start playing it and they did after a while. Now it is getting so popular. I'll try and find a photo and put it as my avatar. • вяαdcяochat 11:07, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Ahh I know. Its so good. By the way Sexy Bitch is super cool! Also did you hear Rihanna's "Russian Roulette"? Forgot to ask, liked my pic :P ? --Legolas ^(talk2me) 11:19, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Yeah I saw it :) I just uploaded a clear one of me now as my avatar, lol. You can check it out. I've heard Rihanna's new song and I really don't like it at all. What about you? • вяαdcяochat 11:26, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Even I don't really like it. Its not what I expected. By teh way did you listen to "Bad Romance"? Lol you are a cutey!--Legolas ^(talk2me) 11:30, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

My avatar is so embarassing, I need to find a better photo lol. Bad Romance is pretty cool. It is growing on me. I hear the whole horror-monster influence in her vocals. • вяαdcяochat 11:35, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Madonna singles

I was just trying to improve Madonna articles. You removed everything I worked so hard on and I give up. You even removed sections that were already there before, but I just happened to format because YOU thought they were not necessary. Where were you before I came along to reformat them? I just wanted a more unified format for all Madonna singles. Some of them have the information in the article already, but you deemed it lacking sources. I hope you're happy. -ShadowBoxer

Most of the Madonna articles suffer from this poor formatting and absence of references. If a thorough tough edit is done, most of these articles will be deleted for absence of references. Hence when some editor is coming around to do any work, it is always expected of them to improve these articles by adding more references.What you were doing was formatting the versions to tables, which I found completely lacking in source and that is not your fault. Official versions are those which are releasd and hence a catalogue source needs to verify it. Now since such online sources consists of Amazon and others they are deemed unreliable. Hence its better to remove such sections wherever you see them, deeming as unencyclopedic. If I may so, it is I who have been promoting the Madonna articles to GA or FA for the past few months. Before that they were complete crap. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 06:29, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Hoedown Throwdown

Hello! Thank you for reviewing Hoedown Throwdown. But I have two questions: "The whole first paragraph is unreferenced. And completely full of fancruft." and then "Ann Donahue of Billboard says that by chance she found out "exactly how Cyrus' legion of preteen female fans is learning the dance: YouTube onscreen, phone to ear, someone on phone offering encouragement amid occasional peals of laughter." --> WP:UNDUE". What do you mean by that? Please reply and thank you for your time. -- Ipodnano05 (talk) 22:20, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

I think I have addressed all of the remaining issues with the article. Please see. -- Ipodnano05 (talk) 00:21, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

The Best of Both Worlds (song)

Hello, I nominated the article The Best of Both Worlds (song) for Good Article status. The reviewer told me that the information about the music structure is needed and I do not have access to that. Not to sound demanding or pushy, but the reviewer recommended you. Can you please add the information to the article, as I cannot. Please reply and thank you for your time. -- Ipodnano05 (talk) 05:32, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Here you go. Musicnotes has the link and denotes the structure of the music, chord progressions, beat rate, and Montana's vocal range. Hope this helps. Ask me if you need anything else. In the meantime I'll take a look at Hoedown Throwdown. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 04:09, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you so much, but when I open the link nothing is shown. -- Ipodnano05 (talk) 04:26, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

I think you need to update your browser. Nevertheless, here are teh details that you can get from the sheet music. Voice, range: A3-D5, Key: C Major. Metronome: q = 130 bpm, chord:- C5-G5-D5-F5. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 04:30, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

I cannot thank you enough :) -- Ipodnano05 (talk) 04:32, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

No problem at all. Even I really appreaciate teh way you are developing the Miley Cyrus and teh Hannah Montana articles and keeping them away from Disney fancruft. Keep it up! --Legolas ^(talk2me) 04:36, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you very much for noticing. I actually use the Madonna and Lady Gaga articles that you revamp and do so well on as references. -- Ipodnano05 (talk) 04:39, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

No problem. -- Ipodnano05 (talk) 04:48, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

October 2009

Please refrain from changing music genres without providing a source and without establishing a consensus on the article's talk page first. Continued genre changes to suit your own point of view may result in a block. Thank you. Do not remove sourced genres as you did here at Just Dance. Chasewc91 (talk) 01:08, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Living person's image

Hey Stifle, I was looking for a free image for the BLP article Ipsita Roy Chakraverti but couldn't find any image. However I came across this news link where there is an instant that the lady is showing a method of a certain prayer. My question is can that image be uploaded since its being used to display a particular instant? Same is with the image on this newspaper? --Legolas ^(talk2me) 08:29, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

No. Whether an image "displays a particular instant" or not, we look behind the rationale to see the main reason why an image is displayed on a page. If the reason is to identify the person, then either the image must be free or there must be no reasonable prospect of a free image being taken. As Ms. Chakraverti is not a hermit or recluse, or incarcerated, or missing, or dead, a free photograph could be taken of her. Stifle (talk) 09:32, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Stifle. And LOL!! LMAO at Ms Chakraverti being hermit or recluse, or incarcerated, or missing, or dead. :) --Legolas ^(talk2me) 09:39, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Would you look at the contribution of this user? I have a feeling it is a sock of the blocked indef User:ElPilotoDi. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 10:24, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Possible but not very likely, as Stripparhulla is not in the habit of uploading images which violate the NFCC, yet. Stifle (talk) 11:33, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Lady Gaga

Hi Lego - I passed along the request to Glenn Francis as well. -->David Shankbone 18:05, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you David. Really appreciated and thanks to Glenn as well. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 03:55, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Guess what..

"Bad Romance" has hit number one on iTunes Australia and Canada despite only being released yesterday! • вяαdcяochat 09:37, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Wowww. But in US that stupid Taylor Swift song is blocking it from going #1. Although with sales of 220k and airplay of 12mill, she can debut at the top of the chart in US also. What are its chances for debuting at #1 in Australia? --Legolas ^(talk2me) 09:45, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't think it will debut at number one because the chart runs from Sunday to Saturday, when the song was released on a Tuesday. Perhaps if it sells really-really well, then it is possible but otherwise, I think it will make a fairly high debut anyway, probably somewhere within the top twenty. • вяαdcяochat 08:14, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

OK. Anyways I hope it can climb top 5 and then maybe peak the chart later. The "fireflies" song by Owl City topped this weeks Billboard Hot 100. I'm so happy for them but wished that Paparazzi would go top 5 atleast. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 08:19, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

That reminds me, I better check this weeks Hot 100. Wow.. Owl City getting a number one! He is just a kid who made tunes in his basement who gained popularity on MySpace. Before "Fireflies" he was considered alternative. Anyway, if "Bad Romance" stays atop of iTunes it will certainly reach number one on the ARIA Charts next week. • вяαdcяochat 08:31, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Per your edit at WP:MUSIC/CHARTS

Hello, if "ARIA is not to be used in charts", why is it still listed in WP:GOODCHARTS? —Iknow23 (talk) 01:31, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi Iknow, how are you? Well let me explain the edit I made. The reason ARIA was removed from the project page tables was because at a talkpage consensus, it was decided that "Australian ARIA singles chart" doesnot really mean anything phonetically since its expansion would be someting like "Australian Australian Recording Induistry...." Hence it was removed. Now the sourcing guide always represents the provider or the vendor for these charts. Hence ARIA being the vendor for Australian charts are represented there. It doesnot mean that we should use ARIA in the chart names. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 03:33, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I think I understand what you mean. ARIA is still a source that can be used, hence in WP:GOODCHARTS, just DO NOT show "ARIA" in the Chart name cell of the Record charts. Yes?

But ARIA will show in the reference citation, right?

Sorry if I ask too many questions. I've been called Mr. DETAIL, lol :) —Iknow23 (talk) 03:44, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Exactly. You can and have to use ARIA as the source for Australia. However don't include ARIA in the chart cells of teh articles. As for the references, it would depend if you use ARIA in the ref formatting or not. For eg: if I use a reference like <ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.aria.com|title=Australian Singles Chart|accessdate=2009-10-29|work=[[Australian Recording Industry Association]]}}</ref>, this would come in the reference as |"Australian Singles Chart". Australian Recording Industry Association. Retrieved 2009-10-29.|. You got it? --Legolas ^(talk2me) 03:50, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes. One could use the "ARIA" acronym in the ref format or the full text "Australian Recording Industry Association" —Iknow23 (talk) 04:08, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Another thought:
"ARIA was removed from the project page tables ... because [of] a talkpage consensus".
Shouldn't you also add text to the project page indicating that the same, "Australian ARIA singles chart" should NOT be used in music page articles Chart name cells either? Just wondering... —Iknow23 (talk) 21:14, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Maybe. I will put up a discussion at the project talk page. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 03:34, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Back again

Ya Stifle, User:ElPilotoDi is back in the form of sock Thela Brown. Uploaded the same bunch of pictures for which he was blocked previously. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 04:57, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

I'll look into it. Also, I've nominated File:S&s-intothegroove.jpg for deletion as the stage and background depicted are copyrighted. Stifle (talk) 09:14, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

I didnot understand the reason for this nomination. Then every image of live performances from Flickr should be deleted because each and every one of them depicts some portion of teh stage or backdrops. And as for copyrighting, since the copyrighters chose to display them in public performance they cannot be kept as copyrighted as anybody in public domain can take a picture of it. Will you please explain what is wrong with this one only? --Legolas ^(talk2me) 09:53, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Not everything on a stage or backdrop is copyrightable. A plain stage certainly isn't. This one has pictures of people and other designs on it.

"[S]ince the copyrighters chose to display them in public performance they cannot be kept as copyrighted as anybody in public domain can take a picture of it" — this may appear to be common sense, but is legally inaccurate, and such images certainly can't be released under the free license required for Commons. If you were to take a photograph of a book cover in Borders, would you expect to be able to reuse that under a free license? How about a photograph of each page in the book? The copyright holder certainly chose to display the book in public, and anyone can take a picture of it, but it's not legal to then use that for your own commercial purposes. Stifle (talk) 11:11, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation. I have one other question. The Template:infobox concert tour doesnot have a place to write about alternate text for images. Since you are an admin, can you incorporate the feature into the template? --Legolas ^(talk2me) 11:49, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

It's not protected, so anyone can add it. Which is just as well, because I've no idea how to do so. Stifle (talk) 13:48, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Good to hear from you

Hope all is well. I've been good. Good luck with the FLC. Aaroncrick (talk) 10:37, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Nice to hear from you too. Its been pretty boring here with me continuously developing articles on Madonna's tours. Before EOD I hope to nominate Re-Invention World Tour. By the way, would you like to work on Sourav Ganguly to take it to GA? :) --Legolas ^(talk2me) 10:44, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Yeah :) Would be good to do something different. You planning on doing doing something? Aaroncrick (talk) 10:47, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

The cricket part is something that you will know better, Im quite at a loss there. I will be able to contribute on the main structure as a biography and integration of personal life as a part of it. As I can see that article alongwith Ishant Sharma is quite fancrufty. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 10:53, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

You'll be fine. Indian articles are not too bad on a whole. Did you see a champions league match in Bangalore? Aaroncrick (talk) 11:00, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Yup. I watched both the opening ceremony and the first match at Bangalore. Came home at 2 am. Brrrr. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 11:40, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Cool - shame Bangalore lost. Weren't at the game that was postponed. That would have been interesting to say the least. Aaroncrick (talk) 11:45, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Ganguly is gonna be a big article 100kb +. Do you want to expand copy-edit the early life bits (as you would know more than me) and I can do bits on his international career? Aaroncrick (talk) 23:52, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Discussion on Lady Gaga

Deleting other people's talk is a rude thing to do, and calling them troll and their edits crap is totally uncalled for, and unacceptable for going against WP:AGF. Also, it shows that your motivation is your being a fan of Lady Gaga and being offended by the comment, and not the enforcement of Wikipedia's rules. --uKER (talk) 15:29, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Musicnotes.com

Hi!!! I downloaded the program that allows access to a song's composition. I found the tempo, vocal span, key, but cannot seem to find the chord progression. Where is it? Please reply and thank you for your time. -- Ipodnano05 (talk) 20:30, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

O.K. I think I get it, so in this one the chord progression would just be A - Bm7. Is that right?? -- Ipodnano05 (talk) 06:14, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Yup :) --Legolas ^(talk2me) 06:17, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. -- Ipodnano05 (talk) 06:22, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry to bother you again. I am revamping Breakout (Miley Cyrus song), but cannot seem to find much about the music notes. On musicnotes.com it only says its key. What do you suggest I do??? -- Ipodnano05 (talk) 00:13, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

The Editor's Barnstar

		The Editor's Barnstar
		For some fine work on the article, Poker Face (Lady Gaga song). Cirt (talk) 09:28, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Most impressive WP:GA - Nice job! It would be neat to see a WP:FA at some point on something from {{Lady Gaga}}. ;) Cirt (talk) 09:28, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

GA king? Aaroncrick (talk) 09:31, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Ha ha. I came in late!! But thanks Cirt and Aaron. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 04:28, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Lady Gaga pics

Did you try emailing the publicity representative for Lady Gaga directly, and asking for a picture to then be confirmed via WP:OTRS? Also, you can try searching through the 389 or so options here [1]. Cheers, Cirt (talk) 09:37, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Replied at your talk page. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 04:28, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

I am having trouble locating on the web an email address for a contact person, publicist, something like that, to see if they would release by free-use a high quality publicity photo of Lady Gaga so it could be uploaded to Wikimedia Commons, ideally under a Creative Commons Attribution Sharealike license. Any ideas on how to find contact info for such a person? Cirt (talk) 21:43, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

I think our best shot would be the official website http://www.ladygaga.com else wait for User:David Shankbone to upload an amazing photo. :) --Legolas ^(talk2me) 03:21, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

I could not find contact info for an official representative at that website, but let me know if you do find it, and I will attempt to contact them. But yes, otherwise David Shankbone (talk · contribs) usually does great stuff. :) Cirt (talk) 14:24, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Good topic

Actually come to think of it, {{Lady Gaga}} would be a great goal for a WP:Good topic. Cirt (talk) 09:48, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Nah, don't get him started... We need to do Ganguly :) Aaroncrick (talk) 09:59, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

He he. Aaron's right. If I get started I won't stop untill its probably FA:) --Legolas ^(talk2me) 04:28, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

One step at a time aye! Silly me; I've get random urges to bring something to GA/FA/FL then found another article and only get bits finished. Aaroncrick (talk) Review me! 04:32, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

He he. Lemme get Madonna's Confessions era to GT, then its off to Ganguly for sure. I hope I can create a new direction for musical tour articles with the Confessions Tour so that future editors can consider it as a perfect muse on how to construct musical tour articles. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 04:39, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

That's fine. You want do personal life stuff? Aaroncrick (talk) Review me! 04:43, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Parts about his early career, as you would know more about him living in Kolkata. Especially articles on India cricketers get fancrufty. Aaroncrick (talk) Review me! 04:52, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Okay no worries, good luck! Cirt (talk) 21:34, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lady Starlight

Please review the "Source Analysis" table that has just been added to this AfD; it may make you reconsider your !vote. Thanks, Dale 11:29, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Will do. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 04:28, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Re: Template jargon

In order to make this work as a parameter, you'll need to change how some of the parameters work, and adjust all current uses of the template accordingly; probably a lot more work than is necessary. The easiest way to do this would be to include the alt-text with the image code, as follows:

[[File:Imagename.ext|size|alt=ALT TEXT HERE]]

If you do this, you'll need to remove the alt parameter from the template to avoid confusion. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 16:55, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

OK. thanks a lot Hersfold. Knew I could count on you. :) --Legolas ^(talk2me) 03:19, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Citation Template

Hi Legolas, I will try to help you replace the citations when I have free time. Happy editing. Regards. Frcm1988 (talk) 17:56, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Hey no hurries. Take your time. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 03:19, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Bedtime Stories

How is the alternate image I added to Bedtime Stories (Madonna album) an innapropriate image? The cover along with its design are mentioned on the article! Just because you don't like it doesnt make it crappy or irrelevant! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thela Brown (talk • contribs) 12:59, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Because it is against policy ElPilotoDi. Please read WP:NFCC. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 03:19, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you!!

hey, how are you?? and wow thank you so much for my barnstar! tis my first yay! *grins like a cheshire cat* theres still alot of work to do with madonna singles, but i made a lil start lol Mister sparky (talk) 11:58, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Re:BR

According to PulseMusic, it reached number one due to a high amount of airplay. Without the airplay, I don't think it would have a chance really. I'm happy for her anyway. • вяαdcяochat 05:32, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Yeahh even Im happy too. Though I expected TiK ToK to top the chart this week, but oh well, next week Russian Roulette is surely coming for the tops. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 05:38, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

"TiK ToK" would of made it if "Bad Romance" or "Favourite Girl" didn't interrupt it holding the number one spot on iTunes. It is back on top again though, ahead of "Russian Roulette" so it has a higher chance next week. By the way, "Bad Romance" has no way of reaching number one on the ARIA Charts. It slipped to four on iTunes with Ke$ha in the lead followed by "Down" at number two and "Meet Me Halfway" at three. • вяαdcяochat 05:45, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Hope that "Meet Me Halfway" doesnot hold on to #1 next week. Lets hope its either Down or Ke$ha. Gaga might have chance after the video and the physical singles are released simultaneously. As of present, her chances on the Hot 100 also looks pretty slim. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 05:49, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Haha. The Black Eyed Peas are a chart-dominant nightmare for everyone. Ke$ha's song is to good not to go number one though. I think it is safe according to iTunes Australia because Jay Sean is the middle of the two songs separating the competition. • вяαdcяochat 05:56, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

But one unpredictable thing about ARIA charts is the exclusion of Airplay and inclusion of physical single sales which actually doesnot reflect the true nature of the chart. Hence physical single sales wise Gaga and BEP are monsters too. Hence anything can happen unlike US or UK. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 06:06, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Oh. I thought the way the UK Singles Chart was complied, is identical to what ARIA do, no airplay, just physical and digital sales combined? Digital sales are very dominent in Australia right now though.. The amount of retailers selling physical singles is decreasing rapidly. • вяαdcяochat 06:14, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

UK changed it last year. Though I must say Gaga's popularity is decreasing in UK, look at the performance of "LoveGame" there. I think Australia will very soon eradicate physical sales completely and involve airplay by Nielsen BDS in it. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 06:28, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

The article, UK Singles Chart must be incorrect because it states "Around 6,500 UK retail outlets contribute sales data, as well as most UK online digital download stores. Unlike in the U.S., no airplay statistics are used for the official UK Singles Chart." Anyway, I hope they include airplay on the ARIA singles chart. Change is needed. Whether ARIA would agree with that, I don't know. I just don't like them as an organisation though, especially the secrets behind their certification method. • вяαdcяochat 06:36, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

(Outdent)Secrets behind their certifications? What kind of secrets? --Legolas ^(talk2me) 06:42, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

It has been reported that the certifications are based on how many copies are shipped to the retailer, meaning that it doesn't matter how well the record sells. Thought not 100% confirmed, this is what a lot of people have been saying. It is even in the article (second paragraph) of section, Australian Recording Industry Association#Criticisms. • вяαdcяochat 06:53, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Actually thats how even certifications are tracked by RIAA also. And yeahh it has always seemed a little fishy to me that the shipments are certified rather than the actual sales. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 06:57, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

So RIAA do it as well? There are no actual certifications based on the amount of records sold? • вяαdcяochat 07:08, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Celebration

Hello, Legolas, have you heard David Guetta's remix of Madonna's "Celebration"? It's good. I feel that the extra lyrics by Akon give it more of a club-friendly sound.--12345abcxyz20082009 (talk) 17:35, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Hey I've heard it and it sounds good. But alas! I think its too late to serve these remixes now when the song has gone down the charts. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 03:37, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Let's Get Crazy (Hannah Montana song)

Hello! I addressed the few issues with the article Let's Get Crazy (Hannah Montana song) for Good Article status. Can you please see everything is alright to pass?? -- Ipodnano05 (talk) 23:30, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Vijender Singh

Hi there. Nice work on this article. May I please point out from your recent edit that the portion of the text talking about his influences is mentioned in the 'Foray into boxing' section. It is a repetition and hence I was not quite sure why you added it in the first place. Please take the necessary action. Cheers, Mspraveen (talk) 06:04, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Dance In The Dark

Have you heard? Something really odd is going on with Gaga. If you search on iTunes Sweden or iTunes Ireland for "Dance In The Dark" by Lady Gaga it comes up as a single and you can purchase it but elsewhere in the world, no results are found. I've read in some forums that the label made some mistake.. It is really strange. People claim that Universal Music Sweden said that it would be a promotional single for the "The Fame Monster" before its released. • вяαdcяochat 06:59, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Ohh... but Interscope is Gaga's main label and they should greenlight any such release! I haven't heard the song but have read that its a marvellous song, sumthing different than regular Gagapop. However, if it is wasted as a promotional single like BDR, then I don't know where this era is moving. As it is there is enourmous confusion regarding the Fame Monster being a re-release, EP or sophomore album. I'll go crazy reverting The Fame article. As far as reliable sources we know, Billboard is considering it as re-release, hence we have to keep it that way. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 08:00, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Interscope Records is wholly owned by Universal Music Group and its not uncommon for them to handle promotion when it comes to international releases. UMG issued a number of press releases and promotion for Janet's Discipline even though her main label was Island Records. The main label has to work in connection with the parent company and its distribution channels. Her current Number Ones for example is a joint venture between Universal Music Enterprises (UMe) and EMI Music and is being released under (at least) 4 different labels worldwide: A&M Records, Hip-O Records, Universal International, and Polydor Records. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 09:42, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

I have heard the song. I love the verses but the chorus is just so weak, repetitive, bland and annoying. The critics love it though, but I don't think much of it at all. The only track I actually enjoy with a passion from The Fame Monster yet is "Alejandro" which is probably one of the best songs she has ever done so far, in my opinion. "Bad Romance" is really average.. I don't hate it but don't love it either. • вяαdcяochat 06:30, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Dance in the dark will be a grower unlike Bad Romance which I don't know whether I really like or not. But Alejandro is so smoking, I have to hear the album version though, people at pulse are going crazy for it apparently. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 06:34, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Are you going to buy The Fame Monster? If it comes as a standard disc with the 8 new tracks I will, but if it has all the songs from The Fame on it, I won't bother because I already have them all. I will just buy all the new tracks on iTunes instead. November 20 is when it comes out in my country according to Universal Music Australia. • вяαdcяochat 07:02, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Agree with you. Will only buy the 8 track EP. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 08:16, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

The Fame Monster

Is there a way to display that, I mean. It is being described as a separate album. It has a different title, etc. I was about to like it to the same album. I dunno, it's kinda hard to distinguish that there's another cd being released soon :\--Huper Phuff ^talk 08:59, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

We need to wait to see if BB considers it as a re-release or a separate album. If BB considers it as her sophomore release, then it can be added to the discography, if not then Im afraid it can't be. We need to follow musical artist biography MOS in these cases. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 09:01, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Billboard already stated The Fame Monster is a re-issue of The Fame, not a separate studio albums and all singles and sales will be credited to The Fame. Chart 'Monster' Ask Billboard: Going Gaga For Album Re-Releases. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 09:28, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

You well?

? 4-2 to Aussies :) Aaroncrick (talk) Review me! 09:45, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

An extra day! disappointing lol - only going for GA 100. One day you'll have 100 FA's! :) Aaroncrick (talk) Review me! 09:54, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

GAN will be flooded with your arts again. Aaroncrick (talk) Review me! 03:33, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Label categories

Hi, I see you keep reverting my edit by adding back "Category:Universal Music Group albums" to The Fame. This category has its own appropriate label subcategories in it. Moreover, Universal Music Group is one of the big four record companies globally, hence it releases about 1/4 of the world's music through its hundreds of labels. It would therefore be a completely long, useless, never-ending, and terminally incomplete category if it were to ever be compiled. This is why right now only the Fame is there, along with the new pearl jam album ( I will be sorting out pearl jam soon). If it were to ever be completed by using the logic you are employing, that is by including it on The Fame, this category would be tens of hundreds of pages long. But it clearly is not- only 2 albums so far. The Fame is already rightfully categorized under its labels Interscope and Polydor, which in-turn are subcategorized under the "Universal Music Group albums" category. Imperatore (talk) 08:36, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry that was a mistake at my part. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 08:54, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

It's alright. I invite you to check out List of Universal Music Group labels, a page which I did major expansion on and which I oversee. Here you can see how the company is structured, if you are interested. Always great to chat with fellow Gaga contributors :) 08:58, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

I just realized you are from India. Since I'm always looking to improve the Universal labels page, I want to take this opportunity to ask you if you know if "Universal Music India" has a unique Indian market label (example: India Records) that can be added right underneath Universal Music India on the list. Thanks again. Imperatore (talk) 09:09, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Non-free use of File:Wale Gaga Chillin.jpg

Thank you for uploading File:Wale Gaga Chillin.jpg. However, there is a concern that the use of the image on Wikipedia may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. Details of this problem, and which specific criteria that the image may not meet, can be obtained by going to the image description page. If you feel that this image does meet those criteria, please place a note on the image description or talk page explaining why. Do not remove the {{di-fails NFCC}} tag itself.

An administrator will review this file within a few days, and having considered the opinions placed on the image page, may delete it in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion or remove the tag entirely. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. Chase wc⁹¹ 22:06, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Hello

Hello are you online?

citation formatting

Hi Legolas. I heard from Ipodnano05 that while using the citeweb template, you explained that one should list the source in the work parameter and the owners of the source as the publisher. I was wondering if you can link me to the style guide where this is explained so I can make sure to format these correctly in the future. I was looking at FAs like Changeling (film) and Michael Jackson for examples of correct uses of the citeweb template, but they more or less resemble the way I've been using it (EX. The Last Song (film)), with the source in the publisher parameter. There are variations between those as well (for example, Changeling puts npr.com as the work and National Public Radio as the publisher in this citation: "Elizabeth Blair (October 24, 2008). "Behind 'Changeling,' A Tale Too Strange For Fiction". National Public Radio. Retrieved October 24, 2008. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= and |date= (help)"; and the main contributors there are all admins), so I'd like to know the real exact way. Thanks in advance! Liquidluck (talk) 02:49, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Well what I do is what is generally accepted. Normally if the source itself is teh publisher like Slant Magazine, then I put it in publisher else, find out what the publisher or the owner is and put it in the respective parameters. It makes sense also don't you think. There is no exact rule of doing this but {{Cite web}} does state to add the source as work and owner as the publisher. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 03:27, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick response! I think I understand now. Liquidluck (talk) 08:24, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

The Fame

Could you please explain this edit where you removed sourced content by a reliable source about the standalone album? Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 03:38, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

It wasn't removed but relocated to the appropriate place rather than the LEAD. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 03:47, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing it. On a greater scale, wouldn't you agree that that source confirms that The Fame Monster is its own album and therefore warrants its own page? I see that there was an AfD a month ago which resulted in redirecting the page for the re-release based on the reliable sources available at that time. Seeing that this is a page for the new album, not a recreation of the page for the re-release, then there doesn't seem to be any consensus for a redirect. It seems that people are prematurely redirecting thinking it is still a re-release. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 03:51, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm just in the area and commenting on this. The tracklist for the Monster edition for disc 1 is identical to the main 2009 edition, so it's been given the same page. That doesn't mean you can't add the infobox, however, directly before the title of the section; this is acceptable, I believe. CycloneGU (talk) 04:00, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Well The Fame Monster is the standard edition, so it technically should have its own page. The version featuring The Fame is a bonus according to MTV and Interscope. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 04:04, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Please do not use Rollback when in a content dispute. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 05:14, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Donot lecture me when and when not to use a tool, when you are clearly going against consensus and vandalising the pages. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 05:16, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

That is your opinion, and I disagree for mey own reasons. That is what makes it a content dispute. I could use rollback if I wanted to revert your blatant disregard for reliable sources as well, but I'm not because this needs to be discussed first seeing that you are so vehemently against it. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 05:22, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

The Fame Monster is the current edition of The Fame, not a standard edition. The main disc is exactly the same no matter which 2009 version you purchase. Therefore, I believe it does belong on the same page. MTV isn't what I'd call a legitimate source for determining whether an album deserves to have its own page on Wikipedia. I'm choosing to agree with Legolas' handling of The Fame Monster, even though I do have my own item immediately below this thread that I myself am pushing for at this time. I should add that they are special editions I'd like to see; not necessarily for their own pages, but for basic inclusion. (I'm not about to create a new page for a special retrosexual edition, which does in fact exist.) CycloneGU (talk) 19:28, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm told that there is a marked difference between the two. Not knowing much about either, is this true? If they are markedly different, I could argue that two pages would be warranted. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 21:08, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

The Fame

Why on Earth are you eliminating my edits on The Fame? I spent a lot of time looking up and referencing these after reading about them this evening, and they are legitimate editions of the album. They deserve to be listed to ensure the article is complete. They deserve and, IMO, have to be included. I do see the other edits, so I presume it's a mistake. CycloneGU (talk) 03:50, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

You are adding unreliable sources. Blogs and last.fm are not accepted in wikipedia. Please see WP:RS. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 03:52, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

last.fm is the only source I have on the times of the tracks other than personally looking at the track times in iTunes. I am not referencing last.fm for the tracklist, I am referencing legitimate sources for the two tracklists. No one else lists the limited editions because they probably deem them unnecessary, but it doesn't mean they don't exist. Clearly they exist. If you prefer I add the tracklists and not reference the blog, I'll be happy to do that. CycloneGU (talk) 03:58, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Since it is a new version or edition as you say, if a reliable source cannot be provided, then it really cannot be added to the article I'm afraid. Lemme search for it also. I'll get back to you. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 04:02, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Alrighty, I'll stand by.

Also, I had omitted colons for readibility; my replies start in one column, yours in another. If this turns into a mucho-reply discussion, it makes reading easier on the later replies. =) CycloneGU (talk) 04:05, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

I would appreciate that you don't do that as I can arrange my talk page as I prefer. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 04:14, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Good point. I'll still stand by. =) CycloneGU (talk) 12:33, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Also, just found something interesting. The UK and Irish Edition of the album hasn't been referenced, yet it's allowed on the page. Thus, I would argue based on this that the U.S. Special Edition, without me providing a source, should also be allowed. Note I'm not a Lady Gaga fan myself, I just occasionally add versions of albums or additional information (or corrections) where I find them needed. If this UK/Irish edition is being allowed, then my edit should be reverted and I'll get back to work. If the latter cannot be done, the UK/Irish edition needs to be removed from Wikipedia. In fact, other than the original album (probably the correct AllMusic link), the only sourced edition is The Fame Monster - and yes, I do know AllMusic lists the bonus track editions in two instances. At least I am trying to provide a source. CycloneGU (talk) 12:41, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Bad Romance video

Have you seen the "Bad Romance" music video? I love it! • вяαdcяochat 05:30, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Oh yeah. Gave me the chills. By the way can you please comment at Talk:The Fame#The Fame Monster album? Getting out of hand with the annoying fans. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 05:36, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Hey. "Telephone" and "Video Phone" are about to get the first spins on an Australian radio station. If you are quick enough you will hear them on http://2dayfm.com.au through the live stream. • вяαdcяochat 07:50, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

It is up on YouTube now anyway. Just search in for "Telephone" Lady Gaga and "Video Phone" Lady Gaga and Beyonce and they will show up. • вяαdcяochat 09:19, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

True Blue (album)

I don't see any huge issues. Most likely, you'd only need copy editing/formatting details, but that shouldn't be hard. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 11:36, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you :) --Legolas ^(talk2me) 05:29, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Blond Ambition Tour

Hi. I'm trying to improve and expand the article Blond Ambition World Tour and since all the expantions and improvement you have done to articles such as Confessions Tour and Sticky & Sweet Tour I tought maybe you could help me. I tried importing an image from http://ro.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blond_Ambition_Tour but I messed up in the licensing issue. So that's why I thought perhaps you would be interested in helping me import those images to en.wikipedia and expanding that article. If you're interested just let me know. Thank you :-) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.191.62.172 (talk) 18:57, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Already asked an administrater about this. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 05:29, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

So does that mean you will help me? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thela Brown (talk • contribs) 13:28, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Billboard Brasil

can charts from Billboard Brazil be used in articles? --SveroH (talk) 20:42, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

We don't use it as there is no way to archive the charts on the webpage, hence any position next week becomes invalid. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 05:29, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Sticky

I know, it looks so damn great, I'm so happy you're doing this, she really deserves it. Congrats! Right now, I'm busy with school mostly, when I have free time I add a thing or two at the Romanian Wikipedia - check out the Blond Ambition Tour and the song Like a Virgin. I'm pretty proud of them, LAV is even nominated for FA. If you ever need help with Madonna or GaGa, contact me and I'll try to help you, if I'll just find the time. Alecsdaniel (talk) 14:39, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Sly and The Family Stone

Hi Legolas; there is very little needed at Wikipedia:Featured article review/Sly & the Family Stone/archive2; are you able to peek in at what's left? It's mostly one non-reliable source that needs to be replaced, and the article needs review by music people for anything else that might be needed. If you know anyone else who might help, would you mind pinging them? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:23, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Alternate text is grossly missing. That is needed immediately. File:Sly-autumnrecords.jpg should be positioned right per MOS:IMAGES as left profile images are kept at right. Book references need {{harvnb}} Harvard citation template. Most of these album covers don't have a fair-use for usage on this article and fails WP:NFCC#8. These are all I could find at a basic glance. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 05:31, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Ack, I hate following the same conversation in two places :) Since you responded on my talk, I responded there. Harv citation templates are never required; I'm worried about where you got that idea? Can we keep the conversation in one place? There's already more on my talk. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:44, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

He he no problem. Actually the harv citation template idea was proposed to be at the FLC of Madonna albums discography. Hence from that time I have been adding the Harv templates to teh Madonna articles. Also I noticed that most of the main page Featured articles have the harv template if they are using book references. That's why I said so. :) --Legolas ^(talk2me) 05:48, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Sandy's point was merely that there are other citation formats you can use besides Harvard. See The MLA Style Manual. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 05:54, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Oh.. thanks Book. I would really luv to have something easier as I have always found the harv templating kind of clumbersome don't you think? --Legolas ^(talk2me) 05:57, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

I always use template:citation. Its as universal as you can get. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 06:04, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Ya I have started using that for book references nowadays. :) --Legolas ^(talk2me) 06:15, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Drowned Girlie

No I don't have any other pictures of her except for those I've already uploaded. The pictures I've used for Blond Ambition are under the fair-use claim. I think you could get free images of her in any tour from fansites like allaboutmadonna.com or so. E-mail them and ask to talk to one of those who have uploaded pictures on the site. Maybe some of them will agree. Alecsdaniel (talk) 08:44, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Awww shucks!! I was looking forward to it coz I have so much information about the tours but without pics they are of no use. But oh well I'll try allaboutmadonna.com. Hope they'll agree. By the way did you see the Madonna albums discography and Madonna singles discography? I think the latter is also ready to be a Featured List I think. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 08:48, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

They look so good, I'm almost gealous. Congrats! Regarding the pics, also try madonnalicious. It will take you some time, but you seem like a person that has patience. Alecsdaniel (talk) 08:57, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

PS: I'm so glad my pictures were so useful. Alecsdaniel (talk) 09:01, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Lol!! Me patient?? Im so opposite of it! Haven't you seen? I develop one GA article per day. It is actually very difficult for me to be patient when there is so much of material for development in my hand. !!!! --Legolas ^(talk2me) 09:05, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Well I don't have the patience to search for sources .. especially for reliable ones so .. I'm less patient than you :-P. Alecsdaniel (talk) 09:48, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

thought you'd get a kick out of this

[2] ....even months after you and Tikkuy patched things up it seems there are some people who can't let go and still love to play the role of the victim. Ah well. Hope all is well. - eo (talk) 13:40, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Hung Up

Hi, I've seen that you reverted me on this article. I'm currently replacing "Template:Succession box one to two" for Wikipedia:WikiProject_Succession_Box_Standardization; after its completion the template will be deleted. May I also point out that per MOS:APPENDIX#Standard_appendices_and_footers succession boxes are to be located between the "External links"-section and the "Categories" section. Please would you consider this and revert yourself at least regarding the format of the succession box. Best wishes. ~~ Phoe _talk ~~ 20:43, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

As the last article with the template and because of an absent answer by you, I have replaced the succession box again, however have not moved the sections. Greetings ~~ Phoe _talk ~~ 00:40, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

The Fame Monster (Again)

Posts on CycloneGU's talk page copied here for thread purposes.

Why are you reverting legitimate good-faith edits on The Fame Monster still? Grk and I are keeping an eye on the page to remove improper edits and information, but your edits I am finding to be disruptive as you are removing information that has been sourced and verified, removing entire blocks of information at a time and replacing them with pre-scripted words that you've written that completely differ from what's in the article beforehand.

This album will be released on Nov. 23 in North America, and by then there will have been a lot more editing still to be done. Instead of removing all of the information, trust that Grk and I know what can go into the article. I revisit the article regularly and I will rewrite prose if necessary, as well as remove any attempts to add unverifiable information (i.e. see "Telephone" constantly being listed as the second single with no valid source). I leave messages on talk pages to let people know of improper edits (which are usually taken with a friendly air, I'm nice about it). I'll keep an eye on the article at least until then (I start my new job that day *LOL*), but for now it appears you and Grk are edit-warring here, and I think this really needs to stop. Grk knows what he's talking about, he's more aware of the information than I myself am. Let him do what is right for the article, and if you think it's not right, discuss it with him instead of constantly reediting it after disappearing for two days. It's not your way or the highway, and there are more appropriate ways to handle this then just constantly replacing your version in place of any that another editor might have placed (including myself, I believe you placed the exact same information on your most recent edits merely two days ago).

Also, one more thing. You insist that my attempts to add other editions of The Fame into that article are not properly sourced. I still contend that the Irish edition is not at all sourced and needs to be removed from the article as well. If that is not removed, then my sources should be more qualifiable than absolutely no sources and I will restore those editions.

I hope I did not offend you with this msg. This was not my intent and I hope you don't take it as such; in the end, I don't care what happens with the article, I just want it properly written and sourced like anyone else. I just disagree with your methods. Good day. =) CycloneGU (talk) 16:30, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm extremely sorry. In the midst of all the discussions regarding whether Mister should be a separate release, I completely forgot that you had asked me something. Well, it seems you can easily add the tracklist in The Fame. Don't need to source it. :) And why do you think that I'm disrupting The Fame Mosnter? I was only putting back the information in the LEAD, which were deleted by Grk, instead of re-wording the grammar. You should see my work in the other Gaga articles to know that I do conform to a specific structure which makes articles more or less GA worthy. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 03:36, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

No offense was meant - I just share his frustration. I witnessed the discussion on his page earlier today and I think I'm siding with him on this one, because he's been sourcing his material and removing unverified information himself. I've been doing the same. I was a little hot-headed after seeing your edit which looks identical in part to the edit from two days earlier, despite new information being added over those two days. (He actually e-mailed me complaining, and I considered getting popcorn and subscribing to his talk page. LMAO)

I know you mean well, everyone who has no vandalistic intent does (that should be a word, I don't think it is yet). I think we're letting the frenzy of the last few days get to us. It's died down a bit now, so I think we can get back to improving the article again now (until Nov. 23 when everyone knows better again; Rihanna and Beyonce albums will be nuts as well). At least the Telephone edits have stopped, in general, haven't had one of those all day. =)

As for your msg. at my talk page, I'll go back to adding those articles. I was actually shocked that The Fame was locked the day after my edits and was like "What'd I do?" until I saw the history and talk page, which is really where I began voicing my opinion on the mess. Thank goodness for the MTV source saying it should be its own album (and Gaga's own site, a reference which got deleted about five times). If not for that, we'd still be bickering and I'd be on the re-release side. Too bad AllMusic hasn't caught up yet; I've submitted a correction to them.

BTW, did you know The Fame Monster is already leaked on the Internet? Single disc, 8 tracks. Go figure. CycloneGU (talk) 03:54, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

No problem. now we can all behave like Wiki-adults :) But seriously? Monster has leaked?? Woohoo, Christmas came early today. Have you heard all the tracks? Which is your favourite? I love "Alejandro" ar present. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 03:59, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Yup, it's leaked. I just found it myself. I haven't listened to it yet either, though I did have plans to download it in Bearshare next week in any case (I pay for a subscription, there's more behind it *LOL*).

Send me an e-mail if you're interested in more info on this, however. It wouldn't be proper for Wikipedia. CycloneGU (talk) 04:03, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Actually we can write anything we can as long its our user talk pages. So you can shoot anything you want! :) I was going for the deluxe one with Gaga's hair but oh well. I'm not filthy rich though... But I think releasing "Telephone" so soon will hurt "Bad Romance's" chance of hitting no. 1 in US though. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 04:08, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

It would be stupid to release the second single now. They won't do it until January, that's my guess. Earliest late December, after Christmas songs go away. (BTW, please reply here, I've got your page on watch. =) ) CycloneGU (talk) 04:10, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

I did read on pulse that "Telephone" has already started gaining huge spins at CHR. Radio will soon reach a GAga saturation point. And lol.. so sweet that you have watchlisted my talk page. I generally don't watchlist talk pages as my article watchlist has extended beyond 300 now, with all the Gaga and Madonna projects. :) --Legolas ^(talk2me) 04:15, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Not watchlisted; rather, I've kept it open. =)

Send me an e-mail, I'll reply about the leaked file thing. You'll understand why. CycloneGU (talk) 04:16, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

(Outdent) Will do soon. At present lemme do some clean up work for FLC and GA. Will contact soon. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 04:21, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Standing by. Wanna go to bed. =) CycloneGU (talk) 05:02, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

What's the time there? It's 10.30 am here. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 05:04, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Just past midnite. CycloneGU (talk) 05:06, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Wow. Please go and sleep. don't you have college/school/work tomorrow? --Legolas ^(talk2me) 05:11, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Actually, no. I have been unemployed five months. Though in a week I start my new job. I was waiting for your e-mail so I could give my planned reply to it and go to bed. =) CycloneGU (talk) 05:15, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Hey I jsut realised that I don't have your mail-id. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 05:20, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

You don't have to. Go to my User page. Check the toolbox. I verified my e-mail with Wikipedia so people can e-mail me. You have the option to do that as well if you want users able to contact you. =) CycloneGU (talk) 05:23, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Madonna albums discography/archive1

One thing left that you need to fix. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:26, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

User:ElPilotoDi sock

The above user's sock User:Thela Brown is going on doing the same things, uploading the same images which were deleted, and replacing already existent images with his/her own. Started those same things for which the user was blocked. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 05:02, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Sigh... blocked indefinitely. Stifle (talk) 09:12, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Christmas Tree

Sorry, but I think it is notable enough according to WP:NSONGS. It was released as a single and it charted on a national chart (Canada). --PlatinumFire 13:45, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

One of the primary notability criteria for WP:NSONGS is to have third party notability in terms of critical reception, background etc which is grossly missing here. Hence a redirect, merge or delete is more applicable here. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 03:24, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Re:TiK ToK

Thanks. I have actually listened to the whole entire album and it is pretty damn good! The last couple of songs leaked yesterday. Can't wait to buy it this weekend! Oh and I watched the music video for "Video Phone" which I was also very pleased with. Would you happen to know any reliable sources that can be used to describe music videos. I haven't found anything for "TiK ToK" which is a shame. • вяαdcяochat 09:05, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Hope The Fame Monster helps in zooming the album to #1 in all the other territories where The Fame didnot reach #1. I have to watch "Video Phone" though pulse is pretty negative about it. For the "TiK ToK" music video, a general description doesnot need to be sourced. You can link it to MTV for sourcing. However if you have to state that so-and-so appeared in the video, that needs to be soruced. Hence if you want to say something like that, its possible you may not find relaible sources for it. So better to refrain from it and jsut add a summary of the video's plot. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 09:12, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Hey. The standard EP edition of "The Fame Monster" was not released in Australia. Only the version that had the new tracks with the entire "The Fame" came out physically. Instead, I just bought the new tracks on iTunes today. I am really happy with them! Fantastic album :) • вяαdcяochat 05:01, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

:)

Great Work! Aaroncrick (talk) Review me! 06:08, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

So what are you working on nowadays? --Legolas ^(talk2me) 06:10, 18 November 2009 (UTC)\

Not a lot.. been lazy and busy :) Aaroncrick (talk) Review me! 06:13, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Hey Again

I learned that the sudden availability of The Fame Monster in Warez circles is attributed to the Italian version of iTunes; the album was (mistakenly or not) released there on Nov. 16. I have the Canadian iTunes and haven't changed my store around, but can you possibly find and source this for the article? I changed the article to say "released Nov. 18" now since today is Nov. 18, but perhaps we can add the iTunes release. CycloneGU (talk) 15:20, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Christmas Tree (Lady Gaga song)

It may interest you to know that, since you !voted in the AfD, a series of new citations has been added to Christmas Tree (Lady Gaga song). You may wish to re-evaluate the article and possible reconsider your !vote, but this is not necessary. Dale 21:17, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Huh? New citations? Humor me please. I still say delete. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 03:29, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Ugh

This made my stomach turn.

Since I was passing through, I obviously did my duty upon seeing crap like this and stopped to - well - fix a lot of this crap. Check the current version, though there was a lot of unsourced information. Mind helping me fix up this one? Album is On A Day Like Today by Bryan Adams. I think Adams deserves to have a featured list, so maybe fixing the bad articles and improving the others slightly - as well as making sure everything's listed - would go a long way. Cheers! CycloneGU (talk) 02:57, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Yup sure. We can search in google books, i'm sure plenty information will come up. :) --Legolas ^(talk2me) 03:27, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Sal Cinquemani

"I can admit when I'm wrong. On almost every Lady GaGa page on Wikipedia I'm quoted as calling The Fame "drivel," "obscene," or "trash"; I might have even used the word "monster" to describe the lady herself."

I almost fell out of my chair laughing when I read this. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 14:26, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Correct?

[3]? Aaroncrick (talk) Review me! 07:21, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Harajuku Lovers Live GAN

I've fixed the issues you brought up over Harajuku Lovers Live. Would you have another look at the article? Thank you. -- EA Swyer ^Talk _{Contributions} 19:00, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

"No Way" Source (The Fame Monster)

What's your opinion on that one? Leave it for now since the album releases today NEway (iTunes just posted it without the song and with a different track), but I'm trying to confirm what site is putting that song in. CycloneGU (talk) 05:41, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

I think we'll keep it at present. By the way do you know who's continuously italicizing the online sources and adding Digital Spy? --Legolas ^(talk2me) 05:46, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm heading to bed ATM. I'll check the history later. CycloneGU (talk) 06:22, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Sock?

I'm rather insulted by this. Just because you're angry that your friend almost got blocked for violating 3RR, it doesn't give you an excuse to go around making false accusations about me, such as how I'm a sockpuppet. This is the third time you have accused me of sockpuppetry (once at User talk:Kww and once you referred to me as one of those accounts on my talk page), and it's really starting to make me angry. I don't know what your problem with me is, since I really haven't talked to you that much around here. But I advise you stop, because it's incivil and rude. Chase wc⁹¹ 06:07, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

A check user will reveal whether you are a sock or not, however I'm more than 100% convinced that you are. If you don't change your previous 3RR ways, you are nothing better than a banned sock. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 06:14, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

You can think what you want, but I'm more than 100% convinced that you are way wrong. I honestly think it's pathetic that you want to accuse me of sockpuppetry when I haven't done a thing to you and I'm obviously not. I'm done defending myself, and you think what you want. But checkuser would show that this is the only account I use. Chase wc⁹¹ 21:35, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Song infobox

Regarding the Lady Gaga song infobox, you are supposed to list details, not link to article subsections. That's what the table of contents is for. So no links to release history or certification history sections. If you have been doing that all along, you should know it's the improper procedure, and to correct it in the future. 11:38, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Too expensive

In an edit you made, you removed the part about Gaga saying that she wanted a separate release because the re-release would be too expensive. I added it, sort of haphazardly where the source was being used, because there was a complaint about it being unsourced on the talk page. It is mentioned in the lead, but nowhere in the body of the article. There were two reasons why Gaga did not want the re-release: price and because it was a new artistic work. We don't really talk about the price aspect at all. If you have an idea where and how to place it, go ahead; if not, I will be adding it sometime today after classes. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 13:45, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

May I chime in? We cannot discuss the price on the page, but we can quote Gaga's comment that it would have been too expensive (or more expensive, whichever).

May I also add that you removed my iTunes source for the bonus disc? I have replaced it, as this is confirmed by iTunes to be correct. I'll try to swing by a CD store and look at the back cover myself sometime this week or weekend, for visual confirmation. CycloneGU (talk) 22:03, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

There was something wrong with the iTunes link that you added coz lunk checker was showing it as dead. That's why I removed it. Also Grk, that part about the expensive wasnot unsourced. The source was present at the end of the quote. Not each and every line needs to be sourced actually. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 03:41, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Maybe we need both an American and Canadian link, then.

As for the other edit you ask about on the talk page, the majority of articles use the format I used in the reviews section. It's become an accepted standard on Wikipedia in addition to that in WP:ALBUM. It is very infrequently that I see source numbers in that area, as direct linking to the review right from the infobox instead of clicking a source at the bottom of the article after clicking a link that only goes to the bottom of said article...basically, the method I've used is more convenient. I like opening things in new tabs so I can keep reading and go to the next tab after, and many others do as well. If you have an issue with my formatting, let's bring it up on the talk page and I'll list a ton of articles there as evidence of this second accepted standard. Who knows - we might change the standard. CycloneGU (talk) 04:15, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict)We donot promote link rot like that! Thos ealbum articles you are talking about has the old format because this new format of keeping the reference one time is new and needs to be implemented across all articles as per WP:ALBUM. Sorry but frankly its not a GA or FA standard to have bare urls lying in an article. There is no point in bringing it up at the aLBUM project talk page because discussion regarding this was done many days ago and consensusly the new formatting was introduced. All the reviewers for GA and FA prefer this format. Imagine if one of these links are blacklisted, then what happens? --Legolas ^(talk2me) 04:24, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

An album review by a reputable newspaper or online review site (i.e. AllMusic) blacklisted? If the link is blacklisted, we link to it either way at the bottom of the article.

Further, if what you quote is the new accepted standard, I find that absolute rubbish. It's less convenient for a user to click a number next to a word, find their way to an article, then have to backtrack to the infobox to find the next item of interest. It's much easier to open the reviews of interest one at a time by going to right-click, open in new tab for each in turn, then reading the article from there and on to each review.

In other words, if the more user-friendly method is now the standard, I'll be going by that talk page very soon. Your version is good for an encyclopedia; it's horrible for online. Leave sourcing to the prose, in my opinion; it belongs there. CycloneGU (talk) 04:29, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) I knew it was sourced, I am the one who added the reference. The problem is that it was only mentioned in the lead, not the body, and when I attempted to add it to the body, you removed it. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 04:30, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

I see that you have restored it. Thank you. It must just have been a minor oversight on your part. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 04:38, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Leave it as per the standard. If you feel its not good for MOS, bring it up in their talk page but I doubt your version will be accepted again. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 04:32, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

I'll fight for it, though. The one at WP:ALBUM is VERY inconvenient for online use, and I think it deplorable that it's being implemented. CycloneGU (talk) 04:34, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Lady GaGa Connecticut Tour Dates

Hello - I noticed today that you removed my edits to The Monster Ball Tour, after I added two dates, citing the dates as unsourced. While you're right in one aspect - that I didn't source the dates - it strikes me as quite counterproductive that you removed them, considering you could have just gone to Lady Gaga's website, seen that the dates were real, and put in a source for them yourself. Even if that's asking too much - and I would hope it isn't, considering what a decorated editor of hers you appear to be - you also could have just left the dates, after seeing that they were real.

Such strict editing - removing easily verifiable facts just because they're unsourced - can't possibly be good for Wikipedia. Anyway, I'll be going to see her in Wallingford, even though you seem to be sure that show doesn't exist. Hope to see you there! Zookman12 (talk) 21:05, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

I can ask you the same thing. Why didn't you add the dates in the first place? Its not a job of fellow editors to check each and everything which is unsourced that they are verifiable or not. Also, I'm going to the monster ball on December 1st at Boston. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 03:44, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Dan56

What r u talkin about? All I did was revert the edits made to b4 the review citations for The Fame Monster. I warned the other user, CycloneGU, about link rot, but he reverted my edits; I didnt blank nuthin. Dan56 (talk) 04:23, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

The article history page doesnot lie my dear. Be careful the next time, CycloneGU may have done it in good faith but yours is unacceptable. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 04:27, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

The Monster Ball Tour

What makes Digital Spy unreliable? Dt¹²⁸ let's talk 22:12, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

A website run by two 14 yr old kids is logically unreliable. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 03:39, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

"A website run by two 14 yr old kids" excuse me? Dt¹²⁸ let's talk 16:47, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

OK

I want to know once and for all what your and Bradcro's problems with me are. This other user accused me of being this Pokerdance person at a completely unrelated AfD. I'm sick of you and your "buddies" ganging up on me; this is extremely incivil, immature, disrespectful and uncalled for. I will seek administrative action if you and your friends continue with your gross incivility. If you seriously believe I'm a sockpuppet, take it up at SPI where Checkuser will show that you are wrong, but you can stop harassing me on my talk page and other places on the project. Chase wc⁹¹ 15:24, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't even bother with you untill you 3RR on the Gaga articles. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 03:39, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

I've never violated 3RR on a Gaga article, in fact I really don't even edit at those articles that much. In addition, I've only violated 3RR once which was on accident, and I quickly reverted the fourth edit. I don't get why you like to accuse me of doing things that I've never done... first socking, and now violating 3RR? Whatever. I'm done here, you and your friends are essentially bullying me by accusing me to be a sock, and I've really had enough of it. I'm done here, just don't bother me about socking anymore. Chase wc⁹¹ 21:32, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Bad Romance

Why is Amazon a bad source? For Germany and France it's the only place that I can find that says about the CD Single releases. It is a large company even bigger than HMV in the UK so I don't know why HMV is allowed to be used and Amazon isn't? Jayy008 (talk) 12:22, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Because Amazon is a retail website. Wikipedia doesnot promote retailing. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 03:39, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

But what if it's the only place that says the relevant information? Jayy008 (talk) 15:54, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Get Together

What's the problem with the Bubbling Under Hot 100 on the song? Although this is not the most important music chart on the United States, is an important chart and is important to report that was in place 6 to enter in this. Tbhotch (talk) 00:07, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

The problem is not with the chart but with the link provided. It is dead now. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 03:39, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

How to nominate for Speedy Deletion

Hey Legolas, how do you nominate an article for speedy deletion. I've been looking through guidelines and all I can find is the criteria. I know the article meets the criteria per WP:NONSENSE, so what's the process? -- ipodnano05 * ^{leave@message} 02:37, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

In Wikipedia:SD#General, the templates like {{db-g1}}, {{db-nonsense}} are used to place on the top of the article which is supposed to be speedily deleted. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 03:39, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you very much, goodbye Hannah Montana 4. -- ipodnano05 * ^{leave@message} 23:33, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Lady Gaga: The Fame Moster

Hi. I saw that you changed the way to put in the chart of The fame Mosnter the countries where it charted together with The Fame. I think that in the way you did it is not very easy to know exactly in with countries that happened. Putting the A next to the reference is not easy to see the difference, people can think that it is a reference and not a note. Sorry for my english, I hope you understand what I want to say. Thanks--Albes29 (talk) 11:51, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

monster ball

wasn't you supposed to be in boston at the concert, how is that you are editing right now? i guess you couldn' go after all 190.233.2.243 (talk) 04:09, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Was faboulous. Came back! --Legolas ^(talk2me) 04:52, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

MONSTER BALL

OMG.. Awesome! This is your second time right? I am going to the Monster Ball on March 18. I've heard that it is much better than the Fame Ball. • вяαdcяochat 04:53, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Ha ha. You caught me!! Just came back! Its so good man! I don't wanna give you any spoilers but try to take the middle seats positively. And wow finally you are going to a Gaga concert. He he aren't you gonna take Dance-pop with you? :P By the way here are some snaps of the tour http://www.flickr.com/photos/43312810@N04/4140403886/in/set-72157622890395436/ --Legolas ^(talk2me) 05:03, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Cool! I actually bought the tickets a few months ago, yet it is in March. The U.S. dates were announced much later than Australia, yet they take place this year instead of 2010? Probably because of Fame Kills, that kinda screwed things up a little. I have a really good feeling about the show anyway. • вяαdcяochat 05:07, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Ok I have to give you this poiler. She performs in a human sized gyroscope!! Can you f-ing believe it. And those boots from the walk-walk-fashion-baby of BR video also appears. I think I'm quite drunk now :) --Legolas ^(talk2me) 05:16, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

TUSC token b5ed3522fd8db54631deb53da5c972c2

I am now proud owner of a TUSC account! --Legolas ^(talk2me) 12:06, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Speechless (Lady Gaga song)

On December 2, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Speechless (Lady Gaga song), which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Ucucha 18:17, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Lady Gaga Bad Romance

Why is HMV allowed? It is a Retail site just like Amazon but Amazon is bigger and more reliable for EU, US and Japan Jayy008 (talk) 21:57, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Speechless (Lady Gaga song)

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Speechless (Lady Gaga song). We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Speechless (Lady Gaga song). Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:05, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Invitation to discussion

Hello, I thought that you might be interested?
Wikipedia talk:Record charts#Is it really needed? (18 Charts)
For completeness of discussion please make any comments there.—Iknow23 (talk) 02:41, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Speechless (Lady Gaga song)

Hey Legolas, my name's Hunter Kahn, I had posted over at the AFD for Speechless (Lady Gaga song). Since the official Billboard site now has info about Speechless charting, I added it to the page. I don't normally contribute very often to song articles, however, so I was hoping you could take a look and make sure I did it correctly... — Hunter Kahn _(c) 13:37, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

You did the right thinG! Way to go girl! --Legolas ^(talk2me) 04:59, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Query

Sehwag is a freak! Do we spell out "No. 3" now. In music and tennis articles we used to use #3 or No. 3 ect, however now it's "number three", or am I incorrect? Aaroncrick (talk) Review me! 21:28, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Go with that then. I'm great, yourself? Aaroncrick (talk) Review me! 03:41, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Improper rollback

Rollback is only to be used to revert blatant vandalism. This wasn't vandalism. Chase wc⁹¹ 22:09, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Please don't lecture me on how to use Rollback sock. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 03:26, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

If you use rollback incorrectly again I will report you. And please stop referring to me as a sock. You're being very childish and rude. I have already told you I'm not one. If you don't believe me, take it up at SPI. Chase wc⁹¹ 21:51, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Suggestions for the Madonna singles discography

I have added some comments for your consideration. Take a look. Jimknut (talk) 01:27, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks a lot Jimknut. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 03:27, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

what are you talking about?

I added an improvement. Unless of course you want a rambling mess? Is it really the policiy of wikipedia to add voluminous info from random reviews? 99.153.133.185 (talk) 06:22, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

It is not vandalism to remove a direct quote if it does not enhance the article. Besides I left part of the quote in place. Sometimes less is more. This is definitely the case for that article. go and get a second opinion if you do not agree. Or how about using the talk page. That's what they are there for, right? 99.153.133.185 (talk) 06:32, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Fine, take it to ANI and see where it gets you. If you can't tell the difference between stylist tweaks from real vandalism, then you it is wikipedia's loss when your rudeness drives off contributors. You honestly think that each character should have a "critics say..." section based on one reviewers opinion? This is why the topics here become impossible to read since the minor opinions start to dominate the articles such that they become unreadable. A good article is well balanced and does not necessarily carry all minor opinions. 99.153.133.185 (talk) 12:30, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Re:Alternate Text

Yeah sure. I don't have much time now, but I will try and do it later today. Also, from tomorrow, I will be away approximately for 2 weeks. During that time, if you have any spare moments, could you please check up on "Tik Tok"? There is no pressure to do so, but I usually find a lot of unconstructive edits made daily to that article. Thanks :) • вяαdcяochat 21:31, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

ANI

Hello, Legolas2186. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Chase wc⁹¹ 22:20, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Rollback (second comment)

Hi Legolas2186, I'm Protonk, an admin. I've been alerted to your use of rollback through the linked AN/I thread and have investigated your recent reverts. By and large I conclude that you appear to be misusing the tool. Especially disconcerting is your response here when originally questioned about the reverts. The expectation we have for rollback is that you use it only for reverts of unambiguous vandalism or other exempt cases (BLP, copyright violations, there are very few other exceptions). Having said that, I understand that maintaining these articles is stressful and can leave you to distrust new editors. I won't repeat my comments on AN/I, but I invite you to participate in that discussion. Hopefully we can resolve this amicably. Thanks. Protonk (talk) 22:57, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Legolas2186, I have removed your rollback at this time (noting that I did not see Protonk's comment above when I did). Rollback is an easy come easy go tool, and seeing as there is evidence of it being misused I feel it would be best for you to take a break from it and try something like twinkle. Should you in a few months be able to prove you can use the tool appropriately, I would be happy to re-grant it. Cheers, Tiptoety ^talk 23:07, 7 December 2009 (UTC)