User talk:Legolas2186/Archive 12

Archive 5

←

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

Amazon on Bad Romance

I used the Amazon.com MP3 store link to source my addition of the second digital remix EP for "Bad Romance". It is no more a retail link than the links to the iTunes Store that are used to reference any other digital releases. I've reverted your revert because it is a reliable source, regardless of it being to the Amazon MP3 Store.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 07:36, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

I have reverted back, please take the issue of Amazon being an unreliable source with WP:RS. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 07:44, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

How is Amazon not a reliable source when iTunes is?—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 07:53, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Because Amazon chooses to sale a product irrespective of the owner's agreement, while itunes only sells licensed and copyrighted products released to them. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 07:56, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

The Amazon MP3 Store and the iTunes Store hold prety much the same content. You can find all of the releases by Lady Gaga from the iTunes Store on the Amazon MP3 Store. Considering that there is an album cover, a track list, a series of remixes previously released in other nations on CDs and other digital releases, I believe we can use this as a reliable source, at least until the same content appears on the iTunes Store, afterwhich the link can be replaced. I am going to be bringing this up on the article talk page as well. Also, my additions are certainly not what is considered vandalism. I suggest you read up on that before baselessly accusing me of performing vandalism.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 08:01, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

As I said before, please take up the issue with WP:RS if you believe that Amazon is a reliable source, persisting to add an unreliable source is indeed vandalism. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 08:04, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

There is nothing on WP:RS or WP:V that states that using what one editor construes as an unreliable source is vandalism. If anything, this is a content dispute and edit war. I will be bringing this up on WP:RSN.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 08:06, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

No. Amazon is largely considered unreliable like Digital spy. As I said go to WP:RSN and gain a consensus there instead of asking and wasting my time. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 08:09, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

A thread has been started.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 08:12, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Good. Don't forget to inform me the outcome as this will impact otehr articles also. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 08:14, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

I will. And in the future, you should assume better faith of other editors. I certainly know what I am doing. I certainly know what I was doing was not vandalism. And I certainly know this project's guidelines and policies. I've been a member of this project longer than you have, and for approximately two and a half years I had administrative tools.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 08:17, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

(Outdent)You having administrative tools doesnot matter anything at all to me. If you persist on adding unreliable sources, its vandalism and against WP:RS, simple as that. I know when to assume WP:AGF. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 08:19, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

It is not vandalism. And it is not against RS just because you think it is. And you should be involved with the RSN thread. I'm not going to tell you what the results are.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 08:26, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Fine, I'll comment. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 08:28, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

I would appreciate if you did not repeat what you did here in the future. Bad Romance - The Remixes Part 2, Bad Romance (The Remixes, Pt. 2) - EP, Bad Romance - The Remixes Part 2. Clearly, Amazon.com's MP3 store is a reliable source for information on digitally released music.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 05:29, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

You have not been involved at all on the WP:RSN discussion. Another link reference has been used in its place. You do not get to control what can and cannot be used as a reference. In the future, if the Amazon.com MP3 store has an album listed, it will definitely be appearing in the artist's discography as well as the iTunes Store. The WP:RSN discussion has been coming up with the conclusion that Amazon.com can be used as a reliable source when it comes to digital music downloads.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 05:48, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Ganguly

In the process of tweaking. Wiki ed isn't working :( —Aaroncrick (talk) 06:15, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Have a good time. I'm not sure, it shouldn't matter. Do you use Wiki ed? It's very annoying how it's not working! —Aaroncrick (talk) 06:38, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

And WTF is WP:PERSONDATA? —Aaroncrick (talk) 06:39, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

YM did write A captain’s legacy. —Aaroncrick (talk) 09:12, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

RSN on Musicnotes.com

Hi Legolas, I have posted a summary of the discussion so far at RSN. Unless you want to add anything further, I'll mark the thread resolved with the following conclusions:

1. that Musicnotes.com should not be linked (because it is a commercial site which we would then be endorsing)
2. that their sheet music is not a reliable source for describing a song as recorded and released
3. that it can be used with attribution only ("the song's tempo, as given in the Alfred Music Publishing sheet music, is x beats per minute", etc.).

If you're agreeable to the above, and given that people look to FAs for guidance on best practice, could you please update the 4 Minutes (Madonna song) FA accordingly? Thanks, --JN466 14:25, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

The Fame Monster

I appreciate that you're constantly watching Lady Gaga's pages. But "The Fame Monster" did not reach #1 after the two albums were merged. It reached #2. The Fame Monster should show the highest peak of which it itself reached which on the UK Albums Chart was #2. It's difficult to explain what I mean, if Monster reached #1 after the albums were merged then it would be fine but the album reached #1 before they were merged. Yet it shows on both pages they reached #1. Do you understand what I'm trying to say?

PS. I agree with your standing on not having a sales column just having the certifications and a link to "List of Music Recording Sales Certifications" to give people the choice if they care or not. Could this be made a rule? Jayy008 (talk) 18:37, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes of course I understand what you mean. And yeah, the sales thing should be made a rule. Saves a lot of time from the fancrufty sales additions. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 04:22, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Taylor Swift discography

Hey! You helped with Taylor Swift discography and I've been trying to control what good faith editors are doing. But they have ruined the promotional singles section of the discography. Please try to explain to them that every remix or promo single that was eventually turned into a single should not be added. Please do it soon because in the way this is going, it seems I'm probably not going to be able to have a FLC with. All my hard work is going to go to waist. Please help. -- ipodnano05 * ^{leave@message} 22:06, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Comic

Hi, I see your not assuming good faith again. Luckily for you I'm no troll. What I have done is watchlisted more pages because of your sneeky activity of revert, redirects and other activity which when challenged you have no answer for. I still await diffs on the Lady Gaga template discussion by the way. All that said there is no I'll feel. Happy editing! Regards, SunCreator (talk) 08:03, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Please see WP:NPA and stop name-calling others. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 08:05, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

You just called me a troll, sending me a link to a banned user (so you are threatening me), then at the same time you claiming NPA. Think about that for a moment. If you want to have me checked against some user I never heard of then go ahead. I have something like 9000 edit, I have no time to play multiple accounts. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 08:25, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

No Im not threatening you, however your trolling my edits seemed too familiar with that banned user, especially your affinities to edit the same articles. I would just appreciate, per WP:WQA that you don't troll through my edits. I don't have any personal angst against you, and seriously I have no intention to call others sneaky, I'm too busy to do so. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 08:28, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Re:Contributions

Yes, it does seem like a similar case. The contributions consist of both Gaga and Chess. That is why I suspect it, but I do not want to accuse the user as a sockpuppet, because that may possibly get me into trouble also. Perhaps if this persists, which I assume it will, you may wish to bring forward some administrative action. • вяαdcяochat 09:22, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Never mind, just in a days work for the Gaga articles. Did you see Dance in the Dark? I just lmao seeing that it is being discussed for the redirect. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 09:26, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Hehe. I just took a look. The article is completely unsourced, with tags everywhere. What is the purpose of creating such an article if you can not verify its content. • вяαdcяochat 09:33, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Don't know. It seems that fans are hell-bent on creating all the Gaga articles. Look at "Alejandro" for eg. It's getting increasingly difficult to maintain these articles. I might leave them altogether one-day. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 09:56, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Please add your input at here

Hello, I think you may be interested in joining the discussion HERE. Thank You.—Iknow23 (talk) 11:01, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Apology: Poker Face

Sorry Legolas the article was so long I guess I missed it. It DOES mention Poker Face here is what it says "Joe McElderry, who reached number one last week with The Climb, dips to number two, with his debut single selling a further 69,792 copies to take its 20-day tally to 716,358 – good enough for fifth place in the 2009 rankings, which are topped by the aforementioned Lady GaGa’s Poker Face, on sales of 882,059. A complete analysis of the 2009 rankings will appear in next week’s Music Week."

I pasted that from the page as I've read it again, sorry about that! Let me know if there's any other problems. Jayy008 (talk) 23:21, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Reliable sources?

You recently (and yet again) removed references to the Canadian Lady Gaga 'Hitmixes' CD EP (as you have previously with other European CD releases). You stated that Discogs is an 'unreliable source'. It most definately is NOT! It is used extensively on many other artist discographies throughout Wikipedia. It meets every catagory of 'reliable sources'. Discogs is simply a repository of worldwide physical record releases. It merely lists details and images. On this particular CD there are complete scanned photos of all the artwork! You seem to have the opinion that Lady Gaga is your own personal project. I am not knocking your knowledge of the subject (although the entries for each song are, in my opinion, far too long and obsessive - some of them are longer than most entire Wikipedia subject pages!) but you seem to only allow updates that you agree with or have made yourself. As a result the discography is hopelessly out of date and incorrect due in main to your continual inteference. Your unwillingness to let anyone else contribute is severely damaging this articles neutrality and above all, it's accuracy.

Davidkt 18:47, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Hello David. I understand your concern, however it is not my preference that I'm subjecting it to. Discogs is considered generally unreliable throughout the music section of Wikipedia, including GA reviewers, FACs etc. And I would ask you to assume good faith in reply to the allegations that you are making. There are thousands of admins who also keep an eye over these pages, and if you have a problem, please take it up with them with the way I edit. User:Ericorbit maybe can help you there. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 03:51, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply Legolas and my apologies for sounding a bit strong ;) I still fail to understand why Discogs is considered unreliable when it clearly shows the CD or release in question. After all, isn't the point of references being to verify the claim being made? Maybe that is something the wider Wiki admins should reconsider?

For the benefit of the Lady Gaga discography maybe you could help to expand it to include the (now rare) 'Hitmixes' EP and the German CDs. It does seem to overly favour the digital (download) releases as opposed to the physical - probobaly because of the afore-mentioned difficulty in reliably referencing them. Anyway, no hard feelings I hope and best wishes!

Davidkt 13:55, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Hello again David. For the Hitmixes EP, no reliable source could be found. Even Interscope and Gaga's official websites also donot show any info about them. An article was created on it, but was swiftly deleted. Hence I really donot know how to add HitMixes when reliable sources fail to justify it. And which German CDs are you talking about? --Legolas ^(talk2me) 03:08, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Just saw this in my watchlist. The ep is available for purchase and people own it. Heck discogs has full scans of it [1]. Even if you don't believe in discogs as a reliable source, the existence of the album is all that is necessary. Just source the liner. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 03:14, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm. I agree with you Stephen. I think that's a fine way of sourcing the EP. Thanks! :) --Legolas ^(talk2me) 03:17, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Hello again Legolas. Sorry for the delay in replying - been working nights! Anyway, the 'missing' CD singles not currently noted on the discography entries are:-

Poker Face - 4 track German CD 1. Poker Face (Album Version) - 3:57 2. Poker Face (Space Cowboy Remix) - 4:53 3. Just Dance (Robots to Mars Mix) - 4:37 4. Poker Face (Video) - 3:39

Lovegame - 2 track German CD 1. Lovegame (Album Version) - 3:32 2. Lovegame (Robots to Mars Remix) - 3:12

Lovegame - 7 track German 'The Remixes' CD Same track listing as the French iTunes remixes (bonus track version)

Paparazzi - 2 track German CD 1. Paparazzi (Radio Edit) - 3:28 2. Paparazzi (Chu Fu Ghetto House Radio) - 3:48

Paparazzi - 8 track German 'The Remixes' CD Same track listing as the French and German iTunes Remix EP

Bad Romance - 7 track US 'The Remixes' CD 1. Bad Romance (Chew Fu H1N1 Fix) - 7:13 2. Bad Romance (Kaskade Remix) - 4:20 3. Bad Romance (Bimbo Jones Remix) - 3:58 4. Bad Romance (Skrillex Remix) - 4:23 5. Bad Romance (Grum Remix) - 4:50 6. Bad Romance (Richard Vission Remix) - 5:22 7. Bad Romance (Hercules & Love Affair Remix) - 5:12

I own them all and can vouch for their existence :) All are listed again on Discogs, Amazon etc. Same unreliable sources issue again but all should be entered in the discography IMO. Hope this helps. Best wishes. Davidkt 18:07, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Umm. Actually these donot belong to the discography page at all. These are more suitable for the respective song pages. Try iTunes, I'm sure these remixes will be listed. Most of them are already listed in the articles when I checked. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 03:28, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it was the individual song pages that I meant. These physical releases are not currently listed under the 'track listing' entries. They certainly should be. I shall leave that up to you! Davidkt 21:05, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Sticky & Sweet Tour

Sorry again for the delay, but I've finally gotten up the rest of the review for Sticky & Sweet Tour. You can see my comments here; nothing major, and I'll pass the article once they're dealt with. Cheers, Mm40 (talk) 12:27, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Reliable Information

Hi I'am also from India.......Where are u from in India??

abt. Vijender Beniwal being Jat,is this reference goog enough-- http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/life/Vijender-doesnt-think-Mallika-hot/articleshow/4666918.cms ??

btw. im new to wiki,,,so if i want help sometime than would u help me??

Thanks Jat (talk) 04:48, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for adding reliable source. Always feel free to ask for any help that you need. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 04:50, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Alejandro

Does this track merit its own page as it has, at least for now?? Imperatore (talk) 07:19, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Nevermind. Music video casting source suggests it's the next single. I guess I'm out of tune with things lately lol. Imperatore (talk) 07:21, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Message from WikiProject Children's literature

I have recently proposed some extensive changes to the layout of project pages in WikiProject Children's literature. The changes can be viewed in my sandbox, and are summarised on this talk page. The proposed changes include major reformatting of the main project page, the creation of five new project sub-pages, and moves to two existing sub-pages. Please look over these proposals, and join the discussion. strdst_grl (call me Stardust) 10:37, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia commons , Image upload???

Hi, I was wondering how to upload google images and other images taken fron randon websites with proper measures , so that it does'nt get deleted??? Any tips ? Regards -- Last Emperor (talk) 13:49, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Try contacting the person that owns the copyright of the image. Ask him whether he wants to release it under CC-BY-SA-3.0 license. Then upload the image to Wikimedia commons with license as {{OTRS pending}}. Next, send the conversation of the release with the owner to permission-commons@wikimedia.org in the format available at WP:CONSENT. Then wait, untill a trusted user comes and updates the image from the mail that you sent. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 03:31, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Ping

I am very good thanks, off on holiday this week and just about to visit family in Scotland in a few days. Hows things with you? :) JWAD ^talk 17:13, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Like a Virgin

Hi Legolas, sorry about the late reply, I totally forgot about this. Anyway here is what I obtain from the article, there is a lot more information but it mostly describes the recording process of the Like a Virgin album and not about a specific track. I left some comments in bold to be more specific, I believe I already wrote in your talkpage what I found about the song in the book The Billboard Book of Number One Albums, well thats all I could find, I will let you know if I found something else, hope this can help. Regards.

• In mid-1984, Madonna met up with Nile Rodgers inside New York City's Power Station, the 48th Street facility that is now Avatar Studios. Place of the recording

• Jason Corsaro not only ensured that a Sony 3324 24-track digital tape recorder was obtained for the recording, but he also bought a Sony F1 two-track for the 12-bit mix. Corsaro was the engineer, apparently he persuaded Rodgers to 'go digital'.

• "I was sure the digital medium was going to be the future. Things were changing back then, and the Madonna record was a particularly good example of this. I got six or seven test pressings from different mastering houses and they all sounded very, very different. That's why digital was great. It always sounded the same". This is what Corsaro said about the digital thing

• The recordings adhered very closely to the cassette demos produced by Stephen Bray. This actually is already on the article, about how similar the song was to the original demo

• Once the rhythm tracks met with everybody's approval, Rob Sabino laid down his keyboard parts, playing mostly a Sequential Circuits Prophet 5, as well as some Rhodes piano and acoustic piano, while Nile Rodgers also played a Synclavier. I don't really know if this song is considered a rhythm track

• Madonna, meanwhile, although not required to contribute guide vocals for the Like A Virgin album, was present every minute of the sessions, observing and opining on all that was going on. "She is amazingly smart, very capable and very focused," says Corsaro.

• Since Studio C's main room was very bright and usually added a little too much high-end to a vocal, Corsaro preferred to track Madonna's lead parts in the small, wooden, high-ceilinged piano room at the back, placing gobos around her while using the top capsule of a stereo AKG C24 tube microphone, with a Schoeps mic preamp and Pultec EQ. There were 3 rooms in Power Station, a big live room for rock, a room for jazz and a room for R&B. The third one is Studio C

• The mix took place towards the end of the project, with Madonna present throughout, sitting next to Jason Corsaro behind the Studio C SSL. Corsaro: "Nile was there most of the time, but she was there all of the time. She never left".

Frcm1988 (talk) 04:17, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Ok I will try, but my editing speed is way slower than yours, problably I will finish by tomorrow night at about this hour, well right know is almost midnight here, so probably its noon were you are. Frcm1988 (talk) 04:36, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes this info definitely goes to that section, perhaps with this it could be renamed to Recording and production. I know, the article is so big, I haven't realized initially about the amount of info that is available. Sadly is nearly the only song about the group that have such amount. Im going to need a lot of copy editing when I finish, I hope the user that was going to help me returns soon :(

I actually did look for the Billboard in Google Books, because they used to publish charts like the Euro Hot, but unfortunately I don't think they have made available all the magazines from mid-1996 to early-1997. Maybe they will keep updating the issues available in the near future. Iam talking about User:Escape Artist Swyer, I believe you review one of his nominations, he is a member of the Guild of Copyeditors(altought I believe that wikiproject is dead), we decided to make a complete featured topic about the whole Spice Girls' discography a while ago, with all the singles and albums., so we need at least half of the content to be featured. And now that you mention CarpetCrawler, I believe I found him in another wiki. hahaha Frcm1988 (talk) 05:09, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Hahaha, the other day my friend and I were looking for some episodes from the anime Saint Seiya and he ended up in a wiki from the anime Detective Conan, and I started to look in the page because of the identical layout of Wikipedia, and found that there was some user with the same name [2], and well it turn out it is him, he wrote that he is former editor of the English Wikipedia. Frcm1988 (talk) 05:25, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Hahaha, so you leave him a note? Congratulations on your GA, pretty soon you are going to get a 100!!! haha, the good thing is that other users are using the layout to develop the song articles, I am particulary impress with the Miley Cyrus articles, they are very high-quality IMO. I do have a copy of the book along with the one with the number one albums, I order them from Amazon a while back. It really have good info about most of the songs, unfortunetly some of the songs don't talk about the song at all and focus more on the artist's biography. Why are you asking, you need info about a particular song? Frcm1988 (talk) 05:46, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Sorry Legolas, I couldn't respond to you yesterday, but I already send you all the scans for the 4 songs you were asking plus "Vogue", "Music" and her first three number-one albums. I send it from a hotmail account, perhaps you have it blocked because of spam. Let me know if you didn't get them so I can re-send. Regards. Frcm1988 (talk) 17:41, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi Legolas, so did you received the scans? Frcm1988 (talk) 04:20, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Ok I will send them again. Frcm1988 (talk) 04:29, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

I re-send the 2 emails already. Frcm1988 (talk) 04:35, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Haha, sure no problem, let me know if you need anything else. Regards. Frcm1988 (talk) 05:13, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Ok I added the information to "Like a Virgin" the best way I could, and also the references. Feel free to change it if you come up with a better arrengement. Regards. Frcm1988 (talk) 06:56, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Hey there!!

LOL, Hey there! ;) Hope everything is going well over at Wikipedia. I haven't been here in a long while. Been busy with a billion other things, including college now busting me, and now I've got my chica! ;) Over the summer, I had a summer job which was interesting. How are you doing with articles on Madonna and Lady Gaga? I see you've done a ton more work! Also, how are you doing? Anything new since I've last talked to you? CarpetCrawler^{message me} 06:58, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Well well well. Looks like somebody remembered me! How very fortunate I am. It's good to see you back here. Hope everything is fine with your chica! Madonna and Lady Gaga articles are as exhaustive as they can be. Well nothing new with me. I am planning to shift to New York probably. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 08:22, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Oooh cool! Why are you going to shift to New York? CarpetCrawler^{message me} 08:15, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Job related purposes. That would also mean that my time here on Wikipedia is totally gone. Wonder what would happen to the Madonna wikiproject. One question. Why did you decided to retire from here. I appreciate your work in Detective Conan, but you could shift between both. Like I do between Wikipedia nad pulsemusic. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 08:22, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

CfD nomination of Category:Lady Gaga tours

I have nominated Category:Lady Gaga tours (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) for renaming to Category:Lady Gaga concert tours (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs). Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 07:19, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Eden Gardens

The crowds so loud even with 25-30,000! Shame the capacity is going to be dropped to about 80,000. —Aaroncrick (talk) 09:15, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Wh-wh-wh-what? Didn't get you. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 09:17, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

The Test match going on there - only ground that gets a crowd for Tests in India. —Aaroncrick (talk) 09:29, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Oh he he. I am at office, hence not watching the match (instead going about new articles). --Legolas ^(talk2me) 09:33, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Oh, shouldn't you be doing work?? :S —Aaroncrick (talk) 10:10, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Waiting for a new project to come. Hence the rest period for two weeks. :D --Legolas ^(talk2me) 10:16, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

I was meaning work at your office? What you're paid to do. :P —Aaroncrick (talk) 10:21, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

I meant that only. Do you seriously think I will be out of projects in WP? *Dead* --Legolas ^(talk2me) 10:24, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Oh, lol, that's fairly easy then :) India can't get the last wicket! —Aaroncrick (talk) 10:28, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

(Outdent)Ya, seeing it on Sify. The scores only. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 10:37, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Madonna albums discography

• Interviewer: Excuse me, can I ask you some questions?
• Madonna: Yes, of course
• I: It is true that your album American Life got platinum certification?
• M: Yes
• I: Well, according to Madonna albums discography on Wikipedia, your album American Life only sold over 675,000 copies, How could RIAA bring you Platinum certification with sales minor 1,000,000 copies.
• M: Excuse Me?

Obviously, this interview is false, No reporter would use wikipedia as a source. But his questions are true. I'm not a reporter but my question is:

How Madonna has gotten a Platinum RIAA certification (RIAA Certifications Search) with sales over 675,000 copies (According to Madonna Albums Discography), when RIAA certification and, FL, List of music recording sales certifications say (not exactly like this): "Any Album must sell at least 1,000,000 copies to receive a Platinum Certification?

That's my question, and it is for YOU Legolas.

I'm sorry to tell you this but, sales *and* certifications, in this case, are the same damn thing. Tbhotch^{Talk2 Me} 03:10, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

RIAA certify albums and singles based on shipments to retail markets, not actual sales to consumers like Nielsen SoundScan. RIAA tracks everything even if it didn't sell. Frcm1988 (talk) 05:42, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Exactly. Hope Frcm has explained it enough for you. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 03:32, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Sorry about vandilising the page please I wontt mess it up a gain. Another chance???? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lucille 123 (talk • contribs) 06:07, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

The Fame Monster

Sorry about the late reply, I didn't know you replied on your talkpage, would you be able to reply on mine in future? Mine is less busy than yours lol. Can you also tell me how to make an archive because mine is getting too long!

I will bring the certification only (no sales column) up for discussion on Record Charts or Certification page??

Also do you think that, The Fame Monster should remain #1 on it's page because it didn't reach one, The Fame did. It's so confusing how she's done this album. Nobody knows exactly what it is lol. Reply when you can, Jamie. Jayy008 (talk) 15:38, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Hello Jamie. Nice to know your real name. :) Inorder to make an archive, just cut the contents of your talk page, which you want to archive, and paste in a new page called User talk:Jayy008/Archive 1. Now on the top of the archive page, paste the following templates {{talkarchive}} and {{archive-nav}}, where the number signifies the archive page number. Now in the mail talk page, paste something like {{archive box|[[/Archive 1|1]] •}} which will link you to the archive pages from the main talk page.

I sincerely believe that only the certifications should be kept in the column in the main article pages. However, for album discography, sales column can be kept as only the major market's certifications are put up and generally their sales are also available, via OCC or Nielsen. As for Fame Monster, I believe the album should have its own peak, ie for the combined chartings, Fame monster should take the peak of The Fame, after November 29, its release date. Will you do it? --Legolas ^(talk2me) 03:29, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks so much. I can start fresh now because there's alot of vandalism notices at the top, from what I used to be like lol. Yep, I agree, in discographys the sales should definitely be kept. As for the Fame Monster, I will do it next Monday because in the Mid-Week update today, the Fame Monster is heading for #1 in the UK, which would mean nothing need be done. If it changes on the Wednesday or Friday update, I will make the changes if not, I will leave it. Thanks again for all your help Legolas! Jayy008 (talk) 15:22, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Re: Queen of Pop

I don't understand what you mean with PEACOCK. There's nothing wrong with adding more reliable sources to make a statement stronger. Daily Mail source is not clearly stating "She's dubbed the Queen of Pop by the media", only the article's title using Queen of Pop.Baratayuda (talk) 06:42, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

They themselves are the if you understand the term. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 07:48, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

SexyBack

It would be an honor if you could give your input on the song's PR, since you're a song pro and stuff. :) I was gonna ask for your feedback, but wasn't sure if you and I were still in "cool" terms, since I wasn't able to get the reviews for "Ray of Light". I thought maybe you would say no and laugh at my face... for some reason. If you can help me out, you don't know how big of a deal it would be. I'm good, how 'bout you? Little trivia for ya, I created the Will & Grace episode in which Madonna guest starred, if you want a have a good read. ;) --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 17:12, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

OMG, why did you think that we are not on good terms? Lol! Gurrl you are so wrong :) I will give my two cents in the PR, sometime later today, or maybe tomorrow. I read the Dolls and Dolls episode, its so funny. I remember Madonna was so bad in that! --Legolas ^(talk2me) 04:11, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Cause, I didn't get the reviews for "Ray of Light". I thought you'd be upset and stuff, and be 'How dare you come here and ask for my greatness of help.' Either this ran in my mind, or I had a dream about it. IDK. Thank YOU, and take your time, but don't really take it cause I've had the PR open for a while now, don't want it to close this soon. She was okay, but there was something odd about the way she was in the episode. You know, I'm surprised that her appearance on the show is not mentioned on her article. I was looking for it so that I could link the episode article, but never found it. Oh well, I guess. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 15:10, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

I think compared to her American Life debacles, the W&G apearance fared less in terms of notability, hence no mention of it in the article. Maybe the actual American Life article can have a mention of it. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 09:04, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I think it should, I mean when I was doing my "research" it was stated that her appearance was to promote American Life. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 17:06, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

RE: Rated R

Hi Legolas, how are you? I was wandering if you could do me a favour I editing Rated R (Rihanna album) talkpage, in reply to something and I changed the page. I go back a few hours later and my edit in the history isn't there, but my edit is still there on the page. Also there's something on the discussion page like a box about the disambiguation page and everything is gone. Can you take a look please. Jayy008 (talk) 17:25, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Oh it's fixed, I don't know what happened. Thanks in advance. By the way, Gaga is still #1 in the midweeks so I don't think I'll need to change it. Jayy008 (talk) 17:34, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Haha. Quite a tricky spot you were! Thanks for your midweek helps on the Gaga articles. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 04:11, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Indeed lol, you're welcome. I guess nothing need be done now :) Jayy008 (talk) 00:29, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Disputed non-free use rationale for File:Illremembermusicvideo.jpg

Thank you for uploading File:Illremembermusicvideo.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this file on Wikipedia may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the file description page and adding or clarifying the reason why the file qualifies under this policy. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your file is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a non-free use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for files used under the non-free content policy require both a copyright tag and a non-free use rationale.

If it is determined that the file does not qualify under the non-free content policy, it might be deleted by an administrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. FASTILY_sock^(TALK) 02:59, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Madonna images

Hello, Legolas. Why are images on most of Madonna articles (biography and tours) placed in right side? I think it's monotonous. Baratayuda (talk) 09:51, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Per MOS:IMAGES, Images should look into the article, not away from it. Most of the Madonna images available, look from right to left, hence we have no choice but to keep them right in order to maintain a choesion within the article. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 09:57, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Sorry for wasting your time. Why did you undo my edit? It's obviously a comment from Allmusic's reviewer, Stephen Thomas Erlewine. I don't see the neutrality issue with that.Baratayuda (talk) 10:21, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Because there is already a comment like that from Rolling Stone, which is more reliable than Allmusic. And yeah, the issue of neutrality comes here. The article glorifies Madonna's achievement a little too much, we need to reduce that if we want it to pass FAC. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 03:09, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Modern Talking

Hi, I removed the nomination, it was made by an indefinitely banned user. Best Hekerui (talk) 11:55, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Bad Romance

Hi Legolas. Can I ask why you removed "Bulgarian Airplay Chart" from Bad Romance. I know it's only a top 5 chart, but it's archived and listed on Wikipedia:GOODCHARTs, so I thought it was noteable as it reached #1?? Jayy008 (talk) 00:30, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

I apologize, I thought that there was no archive hence I removed it. Sorry again. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 03:10, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

No problem, thanks for adding it back! Jayy008 (talk) 16:34, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Just Dance chords

Hi Legolas. I removed the chords because they are blatantly wrong, even if a reference cites them, the key signature and chords cited by the same reference are contradictory. I understand that we strongly rely on references for article writing but just because a source says something is true doesn't make it so. Biased churches, slanderous newspapers, human error etc would all produce wonky articles if we took the strength of their word so we shouldn't blindly accept whatever we read as the truth. I don't know if there's a WP policy on the matter but I'd hope "Use Common Sense" would exist somewhere in the rulebook, IndigoSeptimus (talk) 08:48, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

I understand your concern, however, untill and unless another reliable source points out likewise, we cannot simply delete a sourced content. Wikipedia goes for verifiability, rather than truth, as explained at WP:V. If reputable sources writes that Jesus' skeleton is found, WP will report it, although it may not be the truth. Hence, I ask you, do you have a source to prove your chord progression point? --Legolas ^(talk2me) 09:01, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps unreputable sources, such as chords websites, do more consistently state that other chords progressions are more correct, as well as none of them stating the current chords to be accurate whatsoever. I don't know whether you're particularly into music or not but if you were you'd know that those chords are not only wrong but they're ridiculously contradictory and mentioning them in the article only portrays Wikipedia as a clueless cruftground to anyone with a musical ear. WP:IAR makes it clear that rules should never prevent editors from improved the pedia, and that's all I'm trying to do. I wouldn't replace the chord progression with a version that is poorly sourced but I would think it much better to remove obviously suspect information from the article to maintain respectability, IndigoSeptimus (talk) 20:38, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Please try to find a reputable source first. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 03:15, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

A source proving that a different chord progression is correct or that the stated chords cannot possibly be correct? Cos they're two different things. IndigoSeptimus (talk) 23:37, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Madonna

Hi Legolas, It's taken me a while to respond to your question, and I'm sorry it's taken so long. I've read through the article for the first time in a long while, and I am very impressed. I think the structure is excellent, the balance is appropriate and the writing and sourcing is all of a high standard. I very much like that the personal life is woven through the article. I don't like "personal life" sections because there is usually no attempt to relate the personal life to the career. I think that aspect of it is handled superbly. Madonna's professional and personal lives intersect and that's well reflected in the article. Because the article is so strong, I think it's now time to go through it in detail, and I would suggest basically a sentence-by-sentence review of it. The more people you can get to look at it, the better, as different people will see different things. From my own experience, I know that after I've gone through the same article dozens of times, I no longer see it clearly and miss little things, and so getting as many different eyes on it, would be the best thing. I don't see any major problems, but I do see minor things throughout the article, where phrases could be reworded or perhaps (in some cases) shortened to make it flow better or to make it easier to follow. I would be happy to go through it section by section with you and help you polish it, either here, or the talk page, or even a sandbox if you like. Let me know if you'd like to, and if there are any other editors who might like to take part - that would be good. I can't guarantee that I am always going to be available - some days I don't get much free time to spend on Wikipedia - but I'm always willing to help you or discuss anything with you. Rossrs (talk) 12:56, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

I would be happy to collaborate with you on this. Please feel free to point out any discrepancies that you see, any sentence which you feel needs tweaking. Go ahead and start with it in as much free time as you get. I'm planning to nominate the article through FAC after two-three weeks. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 03:42, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Right Round

Hi there! I noticed that you've gotten many MANY articles promoted to GA status, and have reviewed many as well. I'm new to this whole thing, and I'm trying to be careful and diligent in my review process, but it's a little intimidating. I would be extremely grateful if you could look at the article Right Round, examine my comments, and see if I'm being too strict about how the lead should be written. My concern is that it contains too much detail, including information that isn't sourced until later in the article. I'm not clear on whether that is acceptable in this situation or not, and I'd appreciate help from someone that has done this as much as yourself. Thanks! Torchiest (talk) 21:27, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

The Fame Monster/ref.

The reference i added for the Christgau review is additional to the original review ref.; Christgau has grading standards that are higher and more distinct than other publications' letter-grading systems. He gave this album an A- and i added an excerpt from his site's grade/keys page to explain how he sees an album at his A- level standard. Dan56 (talk) 00:37, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Whats da problem with the formatting I used for that reference? And u changed the title incorrectly; there is a dash after "1990" (check the reference's link). Dan56 (talk) 21:12, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Madonna - Sticky & Sweet

Hi. I'm not sure if you're the one updating the Sticky & Sweet Tour CD/DVD/Blu-ray page, but I'm concerned about some misinformation floating around on there (perhaps you could get through to the author if it's not you?). I try to change it, but it keeps getting changed back. 'Sticky & Sweet' will be released as a CD/DVD version and as a Blu-ray version. However, in the US, the Blu-ray edition will NOT include the audio CD (it will in France, which is what's cited, but it's not coming to the US). I feel it is inappropriate to indicate on the page that the Blu-ray will come with a CD. Furthermore, the first citation is from Madonnatribe.com, which is NOT a reliable source. The proper way the article should read, assuming we're not using fansites or shopping sites as sources, is that Sticky & Sweet will release on DVD, Blu-ray and CD without indicating the inclusion of the audio CD in either package. This is consistent with the official Warner US press release posted on Madonna.com. Thanks for your attention. JRoman1976 (talk) 22:28, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

I will take a look. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 03:02, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi there I have updated the S&S page with information from an official Warner Music France sales sheet. It only so far details the formats and tracklisting for the DVD and Blu-ray. I know that the evidence I have provided is on a Madonna fansite, but it is an actual scan of the sales sheet and there is a similar one circulating in the UK from Warner Music UK, so I can 100% say that it is official. I understand if you want to revert it due to the evidence reference, but it is an actual published Warner Music France document (similar to providing references from publications such as books). JWAD ^{Communicate|Nicely} 10:12, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

I personally think it would be more appropriate to go with the Warner Music Group (US) press release. The Blu-ray edition does not include a CD in the US. As the page stands now, it is severely misleading and directly contradicts what will actually be released. Especially to those who casually happen upon the article and are interested in this release. 130.76.96.21 (talk) 15:42, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Legolas2186. You have new messages at Dabomb87's talk page.
Message added 03:46, 9 March 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Dabomb87 (talk) 03:55, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

007 On You

I'm not 100% sure why you removed it from Lady Gaga's discography page. It was even stated on Esmée Denters' page, as well as her album, Outta Here. I have another source, maybe this one will be a bit better than the last, the one I used really didn't have that much information, and I was about to change it to the one I just listed.
hEyyy XxMjF (talk) 05:20, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

We are pop slags is a website run by teenagers. No need to explain more. Digital Spy can be used definitely seeing its reliability has increased. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 05:26, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Speechless (Fred Frith album)

Hello, Legolas2186. You have new messages at Bruce1ee's talk page.
Message added 08:25, 9 March 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

--Bruce1ee^talk 08:26, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

The Fame Monster

Hello Legolas, how are you today? I think you've made a mistake on Lady Gaga, you added back Poland certifications which are for "The Fame" not "The Fame Monster" did you mean do this? If so then that means all the certifications for the Fame be included in the certifications on the Monster EP too? I think that would be a mistake. Also in your edit, you removed Australia for no reason, if this wasn't an admin like yourself, you would have posted on somebody's page for vandalism. Jayy008 (talk) 20:29, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi Jason (am i right?). The Polish certification is for TFM only as per thi link. TFM has been released separately in Poland. As for the Australian certirfication, I removed it since it did not have a permanent link to it, as once the album goes down, it would be impossible to source it. Now the present link added is this one, which is permanent and absolutely fine. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 03:35, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

It's Jamie :). I see thanks, I was using GOODCHARTS so that means both The Fame Monster and The Fame are 3x Platinum, which is good. Yeah, I didn't know that the other link was to the charts page, I assumed it had the same link, my bad. Jayy008 (talk) 19:06, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Eh, Eh

Hi Legolas, just passing by to say hi, and to let you know that there is another format of this single, today my order from Amazon arrived from France, and the physical single have a different track listing than those mentioned in the article:

1. "Eh, Eh (Nothing Else I Can Say)" (Album Version) – 2:56
2. "Eh, Eh (Nothing Else I Can Say)" (Pet Shop Boys Remix) – 2:49
3. "Eh, Eh (Nothing Else I Can Say)" (Random Soul Synthetic Mix) – 5:27

Don't know perhaps you could add this to the article, I can`t find sources for this, I only know that Amazon sell it, but don't know if that source is reliable, since could be spamm because is promoting the site to buy it there or something. Regards. Frcm1988 (talk) 04:38, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you Frcm. As a matter of fact, a discussion at WP:RSN consensed that Amazon can be used as a source for tracklisting stuff. Hence this can definitely be added. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 04:44, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

OK, I added the single and the Amazon reference. Regards. Frcm1988 (talk) 04:57, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks a lot Frcm. :) --Legolas ^(talk2me) 04:59, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Eh, Eh (2)

The National Top Digital Downloads Chart is not a Billboard component. It is a chart published by Jam! Canoe, and it has been published since 2004, LONG before the Canadian Hot 100 existed. These data are also incidentally used by Billboard for their own separate chart, but Jam! and SoundScan create the national sales chart of Canada and publish it on jam.canoe.ca. The rules of WP:CHARTS do not apply to the National Top Digital Downloads chart, since it exists in its own right through a different outlet than Billboard, whereas the Billboard US Digital Songs Chart does not. -Chele9211 10 March 2010, 17:08 (GMT)

Please get it verified at WP:CHARTS. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 03:16, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

hi lego

hi,

i was just thinking should we move page Vijender Singh to his full name Vijender Singh Beniwal coz by only 'Vijender Singh' people think thathe is Jat-Sikh but actually Jat-Hindu,,so we should add his full name????

whats ur opinion on this???

thanks-- Last Emperor (talk) 16:01, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

No. Vijender Singh is popularly known as this name, not Beniwal. Per WP:BIO, the media notable name should be used, that is why people like Madonna have their article as Madonna and not their actual name.--Legolas ^(talk2me) 03:21, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Alejandro

Hi Legolas! Unfortunately, The Fame Monster booklet only gives lyrics and production/recording info for the songs. Sorry! –Chase (talk) 22:07, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

PR

Yeah, thanks for your comments, I appreciate it. Sorry I didn't reply, I was busy looking after Kirsten Dunst's article, as it featured on the Main Page yesterday, and you know the trouble being on the MP causes. Anyways, yeah, I tend to look at the FAC. Can you look over Brad Pitt's? --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 17:23, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

The Fame

Hi Legolas, for some reason, I don't think the user is going to listen, keeps reverting your edits. (Adding back sales column) Jayy008 (talk) 20:15, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Dressyouupmusicvideo.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Dressyouupmusicvideo.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

PLEASE NOTE:

• I am a bot, and will therefore will not be able to answer your questions.

• I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used once again.

• If you recieved this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.

• To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to somewhere on your talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 10:39, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Loveprofusionmusicvideo.JPG

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Loveprofusionmusicvideo.JPG. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

PLEASE NOTE:

• I am a bot, and will therefore will not be able to answer your questions.

• I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used once again.

• If you recieved this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.

• To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to somewhere on your talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 12:22, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Intothegroovemusicvideo.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Intothegroovemusicvideo.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

PLEASE NOTE:

• I am a bot, and will therefore will not be able to answer your questions.

• I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used once again.

• If you recieved this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.

• To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to somewhere on your talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 12:53, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Gamblermusicvideo.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Gamblermusicvideo.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

PLEASE NOTE:

• I am a bot, and will therefore will not be able to answer your questions.

• I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used once again.

• If you recieved this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.

• To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to somewhere on your talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 13:36, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Telephone

Hi Legolas, a user keeps vandalising the artwork, I keep reverting but I can't keep up, I went straight in with an "Only Warning" because the users been blocked in the past, please keep an eye. The user in in between my edits in the history (can't remember his exact name). Jayy008 (talk) 18:26, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Also please help, there's an ongoing discussion on the talk page about whether the music video should have it's own article, obviously I disagree because the video's been out a day it's by no means iconic. But all the comment where it says "disagree" have been deleted, seems like someone is trying to fix the vote, I can't find who's done it. Jayy008 (talk) 01:33, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Commented. Can't believe the amount of fancruft that had been added. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 05:37, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Me neither, it's really irritating me, somebody has already made the article, I think it should be overruled, it's only been out a week. Jayy008 (talk) 17:09, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

In fact, I think the page should be blocked for a month (until the release is done and buzz has died down) so only admins can edit it for a while. Jayy008 (talk) 17:23, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Madonna Sticky & Sweet DVD.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Madonna Sticky & Sweet DVD.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

PLEASE NOTE:

• I am a bot, and will therefore will not be able to answer your questions.

• I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used once again.

• If you received this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.

• To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to somewhere on your talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 17:10, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Youllseemusicvideo.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Youllseemusicvideo.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

PLEASE NOTE:

• I am a bot, and will therefore will not be able to answer your questions.

• I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used once again.

• If you received this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.

• To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to somewhere on your talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 19:00, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Comment on Taylor Swift discography

Can you please comment on Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Taylor Swift discography/archive1. -- ipodnano05 * ^{leave@message} 21:54, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

I responded to one comment on Give It 2 Me and think I answered most on Taylor Swift discography. There is one that I don't understand. -- ipodnano05 * ^{leave@message} 05:33, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Hey, I don't understand why the links don't work. I also don't understand the last comment about the work or something. -- ipodnano05 * ^{leave@message} 05:56, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Replied there. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 05:59, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Replied back. -- ipodnano05 * ^{leave@message} 06:01, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

I think I addressed everything you brought up. -- ipodnano05 * ^{leave@message} 06:25, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Why?

Are you deleting Pulp Fiction stuff in Telephone video? The source is Rolling Stone. This is vandalic. --Daviddavid0100 (talk) 05:12, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Please don't come and accuse me of vandalism, when a bunch of users are adding fancruft in the article. I was about to update the RS article in the music video section. WP:LEAD doesnot need to be cited if its present and sourced in the article body. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 05:14, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Ok. But, when you're deleting reference info, i think that's vandalism. In the other hand, please, add info about Pulp Ficiton in the article body. I mean, the conversation between Beyoncé and Gaga at the Pussy Wagon is the same conversation that Vincent Vega and the other one (i can´t remember) has driving the car. And Vincent is playing by John Travolta. BTW, Rolling Stone ensures that. In the reference. Greatings! --Daviddavid0100 (talk) 05:26, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Done already.--Legolas ^(talk2me) 05:28, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Italics in work param of cite templates

Hi, Legolas

Regarding your edit summary on your recent reversion (of my reversion of your reversion of...) at Poker Face (Lady Gaga song), where you said "Online sources are NOT to be italicized, please see {{cite web}}, this is how their italicization is avoided in the work parameter": Well, I have seen {{Cite web}}, and nowhere does the documentation there recommend the use of italics markers to negate the automatic italicizing of the work parameter.

I have also looked at the Discussion page, particulary the would-have-been-canonical discussion at Template talk:Cite web#Italics for web site name and use of work= parameter which, sadly, failed to resolve anything or even come close to a consensus on anything. I don't see anywhere on the discussion page that the method you're reverting to is either recommended or even mentioned.

It seems that if there is any consensus at all, it is weakly in favor of italicizing the Website name, as an agreed-upon citation format for WP. (That there is only a shaky consensus here means it's hardly an agreed-upon format.) That's apparently why the cite templates italicize work. Now, adding '' italics delimiters in the work parameter can't be the answer (to the question I haven't mentioned yet), because when the cite template gets changed (if it does), suddenly all the refs with manually-inserted italics will be italicized, contrary to what everybody expects.

But the real problem (the unanswered question I mentioned above) is a lack of clarity and consensus among editors about what a web citation should look like in the first place. And I see from the Template talk:Cite web page that the discussion overflowed to Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Citation discussion, where it appears that nothing definitive has been decided (although I have barely begun to read though it all).

Personally, I: (1) don't like the work to be always italicized, because we're supposed to put the Website name there (whatever that is), and an italiced Website name looks dumb to me; (2) don't like the insertion of italics delimiters in work, because it's breaking what the template is trying to do for us, and could bite us later; (3) believe that if the {{cite web}} template is broken, it ought be (discussed and) fixed there, not on the zillionty pages where it's used; and (4) think that the work parameter on {{cite web}} shouldn't be The New York Times or MTV, because that's a newspaper and a TV channel/network, respectively, and our refs are showing that we got the info from a Website, not, say, a newspaper or a TV network (although either one may have published the Website).

I'm going to not re-revert your reversion to my etc., etc., even though I'm unsatisfied with your explanation, but I wish this would all get worked out sometime soon. A lot of the work I do is fleshing out bare URL refs with fuller citations, and I typically use cite templates for that. :-(

Now I'm off to read that big centralized citation discussion. Best regards. — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 11:43, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Telephone

Hi Legolas, is it you removing Dance/Club Play and Latin Pop songs from Telephone? I can't find the culprit, I thought they was allowed because they're not components. Jayy008 (talk) 15:12, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Also somebody has recreated the page as "Telephone (video)" Jayy008 (talk) 18:39, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Oh my my, this fancrufty additions are really getting out of hand. Well I'm back and will sort things out. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 03:23, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Award

		The Good Article Medal of Merit
		I think it's kind of obvious, due to the ammount of GAs you have contributed to that you deserve this. -Jakkinx|Talk|Sign! 08:59, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

OMG! That is so freaking awesome! --Legolas ^(talk2me) 10:08, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Second this. Hope to get to the FAC this weekend as I've been rather busy doing other stuff. Looks like it's going well :) Been to the IPL yet? -- or are you intending to go? Bangalore had a good win! —Aaroncrick (talk) 10:21, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

I was hoping when you would come online. Did not get a chance to go to IPL yet, as my parents are going to come this weekend and soon I will be going on a long leave. (Don't even want to think the state of the articles after I come back *shudder*). --Legolas ^(talk2me) 10:27, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Needn't worry, real-life is far more important than this rabble. And yeah, Eden Gardens is only holding 45,000 because of renovations -- looks quite strange seeing the building behing the demolished stands. —Aaroncrick (talk) 10:35, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

I know. I deserve this vacation after work and everything I have done here in Wiki. Let the fans have their nice time. I also saw the demolished building picture in Bengali news, seems pretty strange. Btw, do you have any plans of catching IPL live? ie Coming to India? --Legolas ^(talk2me) 10:40, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

One Day :) Not in the near future unfortuentely. —Aaroncrick (talk) 20:46, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

I corrected the problems you listed for "Say Say Say"

Hi, I feel that I've corrected the problems you listed with "Say Say Say", can you check the article to make sure that all your concerns have been fixed, so then maybe you could support the article as a Featured Article? Thanks, Crystal Clear x3 [talk] 14:38, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Canvassing

Please read WP:CANVAS carefully. Your request here is completely improper. --Andy Walsh (talk) 16:19, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

I know very well what CANVASSING means. I expected him to give some comments, like User:Ipodnano05, and then oppose or support. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 03:28, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Youd sink so low to praise MANdonna.--69.84.127.115 (talk) 07:27, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Telephone images

God damn it man it's like you can't allow me to make any changes to any article on Lady Gaga.

1. The image File:Telephone1.JPG violates various aspects of WP:NFCC. It is three separate stills from the Telephone video put into one single image, while stating that it is one frame from the video.

   Doesnot, if you see the video, it is one frame from it where it shows the three shots together.

   I see the scene in the video now. However, it was modified on Wikipedia to fix an aspect ratio which is part of the video.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 05:37, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

2. The image File:Telephone Thrust.jpg has the correct copyright information, is in line with WP:NFCC, and is more relevant to the article than three film stills cropped from the YouTube/VEVO upload.

   Fails WP:NFCC. Image is suitably referred in text as Gaga dancing in an US flag print bikini.

   Does not fail WP:NFCC. In fact, it completely complies with WP:NFCC very much by accompanying descriptive text within the article itself.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 05:37, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

3. The alternate album cover File:Telephone Lady Gaga.png can be allowed on the page. I have provided enough context for it and it is still relevant to the article as a whole.

If you have problems, bring them up on the talk page before reverting me again.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 05:21, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

No, it cannot be, since Gaga in a bob cut is replaceable text for the image now. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 05:24, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

That does not make any sense. I have provided enough context in the article for both album covers. Your sending it to WP:FPD is superfluous and tendentious.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 05:30, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

You can accuse me as much as you can, won't ring my bell. WP is strict against such abundant non-free cover usage, and as such it fails WP:NFCC in every context. You need to have a rationale as strong as The Fame Monster, which you donot have I'm afraid. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 05:32, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

The context within the article as well as the rationales within the default album infobox uploads are sufficient. You are just trying to keep me from making helpful edits to the article that you don't find useful. And there is no difference between the fair use rationales on either of the covers for the album than there are for the singles, unless you are referring to text existing within the article itself which is not part of the fair use rationale.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 05:37, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

LOL, as I said before, such accusations really don't ring my bell at all, I have many uber fans complaining about my complying with policies for a long time. Deal with it. As for the rationale you provided, doesnot change the fact that the image is describable by words, hence failing WP:NFCC#8, the image doesnot add anything to the reader's understanding of the article, when another cover art, which is difficult to express even by Alternate text, is present, hence fails WP:NFCC#3a. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 05:43, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

You are interpretting the policy as you see fit. There are two versions of the album art. I have expressly stated this in the article. Their fair use rationales are very clear. There is no text in the article for which would suffice for the description of the digital album artwork vs. the CD/Remix EP artwork. Therefore, my addition of the additional artwork is inline with NFCC. Just saying "US flag print bikini" or "bob cut" does not suffice when images can be used to accompany the text, which is the primary reason that the fair use policy exists.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 05:49, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

(Outdent) I would disagree with you on that since every other user here knows what I have done in respect to Wikipedia, so your accusations doesnot make sense. I know very well that there is no text in the article, but that doesnot change the fact that the image is replaceable by text and can be added to the body. "Lady Gaga in a bob cut" is a clearly understandable prose for the image. Hell it doesnot even take more than a single line to describe the image. Smilar with Gaga dancing in a "US flag-printed bikini, with her hair loose". As I said, provide a strong rationale like present in The Fame Monster, I would accept. Else, goodby and don't troll on my page. Keep it on the talk page. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 05:56, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

This is most certainly not trolling.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 08:19, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Your removal of the Lady Gaga "Telephone" video split tag.

As for your removal of the proposed splitting articles tag and your comment "strong consensus opposing split" [3], there is absolutely no consensus against this article split, let along a "strong" one. As a matter of fact, a MAJORITY of editors in the discussion are in FAVOR of the split. Please do not make out of consensus edits and do not misrepresent other editors opinions in the future. Thank you.--Oakshade (talk) 06:14, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Consensus is clearly towards not splitting the article, as none of the user's who said agreed could counteract their agreement being challenged. Hence, the removal. If you feel like keeping the tag for a week, then keep it. Won't change the final decision. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 06:18, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Editors not "counteracting" argument challenges. If I don't "counteract" a challenge to my argument it's usually because I found the "counteracting" challenge weak and not worth responding to. WP:LASTWORD doesn't mean anything.--Oakshade (talk) 06:22, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Do you seriously believe what you just said? LOL. I'm done with you. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 06:23, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Since you really didn't bother counteracting my argument, under your logic, my argument stands in your opinion. Thanks for the agreement.--Oakshade (talk) 06:40, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Hope you did not miss the word LOL. Anyways, I appreciate if you don't post here, instead continue on Talk:Telephone (song). --Legolas ^(talk2me) 06:44, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Telephone references

I placed those references on each separate line because each French iTunes release is its own single. I referenced the individual singles that way. When you moved it to the "French iTunes Singles" line, those references served no purpose and weren't supporting anything.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 08:16, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

I have reverted a part of your edit. You blindly reverted without seeing that their were en-dash and formatting issues. Please be careful next time. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 08:30, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

I tried to keep the en-dashes. I'm also not sure what else I missed.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 08:31, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

You need to type &ndash, then a ; to keep the en-dashes. Check my revert, you'll get to know what else was missing. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 08:32, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Kala (album)/archive2

Many thanks for your comments, all actioned now I think :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:49, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

No problem, will take a look later today, right now it's 08:59 by the clock on my computer so I'd probably best start doing some work :-( -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:58, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Re: Telephone

If you nominated it for deletion, then the discussion you started will figure out what to do. Please don't send messages like this to users, it's canvassing. On a side note, if you want to know if I'm online or not, look at my contributions; I hadn't edited for three hours when you left this note. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 17:30, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

re: Thank you

I appreciate the vote of confidence. Perhaps I just need a break. Keep it up, you too! :) Nymf _hideliho! 00:03, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

The Monster Ball

Hello. Long time no speak. Anyway, I just wanted to tell you that I went to the Monster Ball last night. I was very very impressed! The outfits, stage props and special effects were jaw dropping, and Gaga performed exceptionally well. I also took some photos and video footage of some performances. I will upload them on the net soon. • вяαdcяochat 04:51, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Are you Australian? Did she have any coke cans in her hair? —Aaroncrick (talk) 00:35, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

You or an anon anon?

Is it you editing your comments while logged out, or a different (really anonymous) anon user? — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 23:32, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

LOL! Definitely not. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 05:42, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:The Fame Monster.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:The Fame Monster.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

PLEASE NOTE:

• I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions.
• I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
• If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
• To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to your talk page.
• If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 00:47, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Gunsmoke

Hi. I'm looking for support of List of Gunsmoke television episodes, which I'm hoping to achieve "Featured list" status. Care to take a look and possibly offer support? Thanks. Jimknut (talk) 17:24, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

No I'm afraid. I would advice you to not ask for support comments as the admins see this as canvassing. A similar thing happened for me when I was promoting Give It 2 Me. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 05:41, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

GANs

Hey, you've got a fair few articles up at GAN. I'm wondering if you want detailed feedback on any? If you're just looking to get it passed or a few pointers towards FAC, I can probably take most of your songs and albums off the list which would reduce the backlog a bit. Obviously, if you want more detailed feedback, that's not a problem, I'm just raising ideas to ease the backlog! If you'd let me know either way with a talkback (I'll probably review a few of them anyway!) I'd appreciate it! Best, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 02:44, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

No probs. If you wanna reduce the backlog, go ahead. The articles will pass anyways. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 05:11, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't doubt they will! Hence my suggestion- clear the easy passes. I'll get on it and leave you a list when I'm done. Thanks, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 05:25, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Of course dear :) --Legolas ^(talk2me) 05:27, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Right! I've done:

• Drowned World Tour (you've got a dab link to fix there)  Done
• Celebration (Madonna album) (external link to check)  Done
• Paparazzi (Lady Gaga song) (some comments on the review page, nothing major)  Done same pathetic user trolling around.
• Eh, Eh (Nothing Else I Can Say) (no problems)
• Material Girl

I'll do some more later, but I need to eat first! Best, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:05, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm so happy *teardrops on my guitar* :) --Legolas ^(talk2me) 03:11, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Hello, Legolas2186. You have new messages at HJ Mitchell's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Telephone photo

Really? It's a sentence that gives people the context for why the mentioning the photographer is important. It's a single from the album, and Slimane did the photography for those two covers, the one for Bad Romance, the one for Alejandro, the one for Dance in the Dark, and the one for Telephone. Unless you can give a better reason, do not bother to remove it again.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 03:41, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Better reason is, its undue. Whether he did the photography for other singles, should be present in the album article and not the single. Donot try to make unnecessary fancrufty edits. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 03:44, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

And yes, User:Crystal Clear x3 also disagrees with you, so cut the crap. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 03:47, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

He does not disagree. He removed what he thought was unsourced. And now it's all sourced. This is still all an attempt for you to control the content of the articles as you see fit. This is why the FFD is still ongoing. This is why you have asked another user to watch my edits.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 03:49, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Of course I have, you have a tendency to add WP:UNDUE things to any article you edit. Hence, your edits need to be monitored. Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia like you think it is that you will add your crap. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 03:53, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

What's "WP:UNDUE" about saying that the man also photographed the covers for the album and other singles? "WP:UNDUE" is about giving the same coverage. It's not about whatever you think it is about.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 03:54, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

I think I know better than you regarding what is WP:UNDUE and what is not hon. Its undue because this doesnot pertain to the single, and is suitable for the album or those singles for which Slimane took the photograph. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 03:57, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

The policy of not giving undue weight is meant to prevent an article from focusing too much on a single point of view. Stating that the man also was behind the artwork for the album and the other singles from that album is not giving undue weight to anything.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 04:01, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

If you state the line, you are giving weightage on the man's other contributions, which deviates from this single. As I said, I feel that line pertains more to the album article, as the photo was not singularly shot for the single, but for the inlay of the album.--Legolas ^(talk2me) 04:06, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

It's not "undue weight" but more context as far as I am aware. And I actually cannot find that particular image in the booklet I have, but I only have the digital booklet from the iTunes release. So I have no proof for everything else you have said.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 04:08, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't think it was present anytime at the digital booklet. This cover, along with those for Alejandro, Dance in the Dark promos etc, plus some images from the BR video were included in the expanded version of TFM. Hence we cannot say that it was shot exclusively for so and so single. It was just later used as the promo cover, same with Alejandro and DITD. However, we can just state that it was shot by Slimane. In general, infobox images are not sub-titled, hence a simple line is more than enough. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 04:12, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, when I work on such, I usually include what version the album art is from. "Deluxe", "Version B", etc.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 04:14, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

(Outdent)I'm not denying that the single cover was shot by Slimane, however, we cannot say that it was exclusively shot for the single, when it was included in the album inlays a long time before. This was used as the promo cover, when ARIA confirmed "Telephone" as the second single. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 04:18, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

My reference citing the promo single's jacket does not state that the photograph was solely for the single. It's just citing the promo single's jacket was photographed by Slimane.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 04:32, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

that's what the liner notes reference is for, since it was first present on the album inlay. Check the reference. This cover is not released physically anywhere that you can cite a tree link for it. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 04:35, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

What the hell is a "tree link"? It's ""Telephone" promo single cover". How the fuck is that not allowed? The jacket for the promo single explicitly states that the photo was done by Slimane. This exact version of the image does not appear in the album booklet. This exact version is used for the single's jacket.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 04:39, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Was teh promo single ever exclusively released in physical? And maintain decency when you post here and don't be a dick. A treelink is exactly what is present in the album inlay. Adding a caption to an image doesnot change the fact that the image was taken for the album inlays, and not for the single. It was used much later by ARIA, who juxtaposed this image with Beyonce's Sasha Fierce image from IASF to create an album cover. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 04:43, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Again, using a reference that cites the promotional single's jacket does not imply that the photograph was only meant for the single's cover. It supports the statement that the photographer took the photo and it was used for the single. It is just an additional reference. There is certainly no policy that forbids it.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 04:46, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

I am really surprised to see that you are edit warring on what context? A reference is already present citing Slimane as the photographer in the album liner notes. Why are you hell-bent on adding an extra reference, and that too a no-existent tree link? --Legolas ^(talk2me) 04:50, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

There is no "tree link". It has no "name" parameter if that is what you are talking about. It is a single separate reference from the album liner notes. Why are you fighting against that?—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 04:55, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

If you want to cite the album liner notes, why not add the alredy present reference? Why are you adding a separate reference, which is making it a tree link? Explain. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 04:59, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

It is a separate reference because the jacket for the single explicitly states the fact that we are trying to reference. And you have yet to explain what the fuck "tree link" is.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 05:41, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

I did not remove this cover. It was removed by another user and I simply reverted to his version because LilUnique-1 is arguing that both covers should not be used, etc.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 03:28, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

OK, I apologize because amongst all the edit warring, I thought it was you from one of the edits. I have restored the actual version prior to the discussion and let the consensus decided now. I would advice you or others 9including me) not to do anything with the cover arts. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 03:30, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, I've put the text that you and I agreed upon somewhat back for the CD cover.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 03:31, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. However, I did not understand the later part of your chat. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 03:32, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Lady Gaga Telephone Cover Discussion

As you have made comments to the discussion previous can you please vote on this non-consensus binding survey. Official Telephone Cover Conflict Resolution.

Thanks Lil-unique1 (talk) 01:02, 23 March 2010 (UTC)