User talk:IndianBio/Archive 15

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 10

←

Archive 13

→

DCC - The immaculate collection

Hallo, I'm trying to add the DCC format in the formats section of the page because is missing. I've this albun on all media, anf there is the DCC version.

The DCC tape by Philips ( Digital compact cassette) is an old recording format from philips. I'm the owner of this media, original from Sire-WB with the Immaculate collection album on it, is an original tape, not a copy. If you prefer, I can send you a Photo of it, or if you don't trust in me please check in the net and search DCC the immaculate collection or follow this link: http://themadonnacollection.blogspot.it/2010/08/immaculate-collection-dcc.html Now I think that you have seen that this album exist in the dcc format, please restore on the page what have you removed,or tell me to do it thx a lot RK — Preceding unsigned comment added by Razhellkalee (talk • contribs) 12:58, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

@Razhellkalee: the problem is that madonnacollection.blogspot.it is an unreliable blog source nto accepted per reliable policy of Wikipedia. You need to find a better source. —Indian:BIO · ^{[ ChitChat ]} 13:17, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

So is better an incomplete info ? can you complete for me the info ? who can complete the info with the missing DCC info ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Razhellkalee (talk • contribs) 13:44, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

@Razhellkalee: it is your onus to find a reliable info. —Indian:BIO · ^{[ ChitChat ]} 14:20, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

the info is reliable, the proof is a photo of the cassette, but if you dont'let me add the info what can I do ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Razhellkalee (talk • contribs) 17:11, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

"Don't Cry for Me Argentina"

Hi – I've seen your edit to the article and it seems fair enough, I have no problem with it. I just wanted to query something on what might seem a technicality: I'm not sure what Wikipedia policy is on "ownership" of songs, but it has always seemed to me that it should be credited to its writers, not to the artist who originally recorded it. So it seems more accurate to me to have the opening sentence as "'Don't Cry for Me Argentina' is a song written by Andrew Lloyd Webber and Tim Rice... first recorded and released as a single in 1976 by Julie Covington, and covered in 1996 by Madonna for her film version of Evita", or something like that. But I'm not going to argue about it, I just wanted your opinion: I'm far more interested in getting missing factual information into the article, like the charts and certifications tables for Covington's version of the single. Thanks. Richard3120 (talk) 12:49, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

@Richard3120: thanks for stopping by. It was decided strictly that if a song is released as a single, it would be strictly credited to the singer who first released it. Songwriters/composers are only credited when it is a popular standard, like jazz songs, and it was never released as a single by any particular artist. So we first establish that it is a single released by the said artist, from xxx album, written by yyy. That is the norm across all the song articles, even FA ones if you can see. —Indian:BIO · ^{[ ChitChat ]} 13:06, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

"It was decided" by whom? Where? It's clearly nonsense. The article is about the song and all its recordings - not any one specific recording of it. Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:10, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

PS: There is a big difference, I think, between songs like "Don't Cry for Me Argentina" - an old-fashioned show tune that has become something of a standard, in its way - and those songs where there is a single definitive recording. Since, perhaps, the 1960s, the latter have become prevalent, and in those cases it is often more appropriate to write about a specific recording - with the performer's details given precedence, and mentions made of different formats, videos, etc. But, for earlier songs (and I include DCFMA as an old-fashioned song) it is more important to give precedence to the songwriters, and less to any particular performer, even if they were the first to record it. Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:17, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Ghmyrtle, this is not nonsense and has been the norm across all the encyclopedia. You are free to raise a discussion at WP:SONGS. Every song which has multiple cover versions but was first released as a single by an artist, is listed in the beginning. Exceptions are cases when no version can be confirmed as a single release, like all the jazz songs that you monitor. Even "Nature Boy" is edited in that way, which I recently expanded for GA class as you know. —Indian:BIO · ^{[ ChitChat ]} 13:20, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

"Nonsense" might have been a bit strong, but the problem is that "one size fits all" doesn't work. Some songs achieve high degrees of notability because of their writing, and others because of their initial recording. Common sense needs to override consistency. In the case of "Nature Boy", it is - in my view - the initial recording by Cole that is iconic, and so I have no problem with his name being mentioned ahead of the writer. But in the case of other songs, like DCFMA, it is the song itself that is important, not the initial recording (even though it was a "hit") - and so the writers need to be mentioned ahead of the first performer - who, in this case, is relatively little known. I'll take a look at any discussion at WP:SONGS and if necessary raise it there. Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:35, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

PS: I don't see any guidance at WP:SONG#Article content on this, and so far I haven't been able to find any specific discussion of this point. If it exists, can you please direct us to it? Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:41, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

I don't have any strong views on this, but as a good case study of the issue that arises from crediting a song to its original performer, see "Tainted Love" – by that criterion it should be called "a single by Gloria Jones" but it can't be disputed that many, many more people are aware of the song (and will be looking for information on it on Wikipedia) because of the cover versions by Soft Cell or Marilyn Manson. The current version of the article describes it as "a song composed by Ed Cobb, formerly of American group The Four Preps, which was originally recorded by Gloria Jones in 1964. It attained worldwide fame after being covered by Soft Cell in 1981 and has since been covered by numerous groups and artists", which to my eyes looks a far better representation. Richard3120 (talk) 13:55, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

I agree. Another example is "I Heard It Through the Grapevine". First recorded by Gladys Knight, but it can hardly be denied that the Marvin Gaye version is better known. Another example - "(They Long to Be) Close to You" - first recorded by ... Richard Chamberlain (?!). In cases like that, it is the songwriters who should be given precedence. I would argue that the work of songwriters, as opposed to performers, is massively understated in WP generally (despite my ongoing efforts). Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:04, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Ghmyrtle, if that is the case then we need to establish a consensus. And my norm I meant all across the encyclopedia. I don;t recall a specific discussion just I think some admin (Ericorbit) probably who told me about it when I asked his/her opinion on "Fever" since the Peggy Lee version is more famous. DCFMA is a show tune correct, but we need to establish its importance with reliable sources and all. Otherwise the Julie version as a single release gains importance. —Indian:BIO · ^{[ ChitChat ]} 14:09, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

So, we disagree over whether this song is primarily a "Julie Covington single", or a "standard". I think it is quite clearly the second of those - the Covington version may have been first, but it is the song, not her recording, that is more notable, and so in this case the writers should have precedence. I'm not sure how any sources would demonstrate that - if there is disagreement, it needs to be by discussion leading to consensus in each case. Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:24, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

This is not limited to DCFMA. This should impact all such song articles. So I would say instead of bickering over DCFMA, establish a precedence by having a consensus at WP:SONGS so that further issues don't arise. What do you feel? —Indian:BIO · ^{[ ChitChat ]} 14:33, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

If you want to start that discussion, I'll join in, but my view is that there may well always be reasonable exceptions to any such guidance, and I prefer these things to be determined in each individual case rather than by instruction creep. Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:37, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

No I'm not starting the discussion because you would have the better data points for these kind of scenarios and can explain it better. —Indian:BIO · ^{[ ChitChat ]} 14:58, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

My view is that, if you disagree with my wording at the DCFMA article, you raise it on that talk page, and we take it from there. Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:11, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

ARTRAVE

Incorrect my ***, I was not only there, but there are images and videos plus it's mentioned on Breedlove's website that he was there as a supporting act with Lady Starlight. It's you who are vandalizing the article by removing correct information, and you are therefore reported. Thank you. Squidoh (talk) 16:18, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

@Squidoh: first of all maintain civility. Second of all, wikipedia's core policy is verifiability through reliable sources. You did not provide any of it and it does not matter what you have seen as image. It is your burden to provide sources and add it to the article, not mine. So unless you can do it, such additions will get reverted. —Indian:BIO · ^{[ ChitChat ]} 16:34, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Unconditionally

I don't think the song's genre is power pop (with rock) or electronic, because it just attempt at guitar riff. I found other sources which says "much-loved pop ballad" [1] and "Eurodisco ballad" [2]. 183.171.174.133 (talk) 05:53, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Genres are always challenging since they tend to overlap. Unconditionally is definitely a power ballad. Does Wikipedia have any official genre that power ballads fall into? What exactly are the qualifications for pop, power pop, rock, etc? Mitsguy2001 (talk) 02:09, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

List of best selling remix albums

Hey! I wanted to know that how much should be the minimum sales by a remix album to be included in the list. For example can the album Recharged with sales 111,000 be included in the list on the 8th position cause I searched on the web and I found no other remix album between 500,000 and 111,000. Suggestions? Mike:Golu · ^{[ Confidential message ]} 10:10, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Stalker comment: To be honest I'm not even sure why the above article exists: it's going to be next to impossible to get a definitive list ordered by sales, and it's difficult to know when to include an album as a remix album... Blood on the Dancefloor contained five brand new studio tracks, while Love by the Beatles is an entirely remixed album but doesn't apparently qualify for inclusion on this list. If the article is going to be kept I think it would be better to have a chronological list of known big sellers, rather than a sales-based list which will be tricky to ever complete accurately, and would avoid unproven arguments such as "xxxx is the fifth biggest-selling remix album of all time". Richard3120 (talk) 14:57, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

1989 (Taylor Swift album)

Hi! I'm Musiclover123456789! My edit on 1989 it's true. Because you continue to change it? User:Musiclover123456789 (User talk: Musiclover123456789) 18:50, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

@Musiclover123456789: please provide a reliable source except Instagram. —Indian:BIO · ^{[ ChitChat ]} 17:04, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Your signature

Hi IndianBio! I noticed that your signature has some code in it that has been deprecated with recent CSS protocol changes. Therefore, it is possible that with future browser editions, or future mediawiki software, it may not continue to render properly for everyone. So, I've re-coded it for you with non-deprecated code to make it future-proof. This is the revised code:

—[[User:IndianBio|Indian:BIO]] • [ [[User talk:IndianBio|ChitChat]] ]

which renders as: —Indian:BIO • ^{[ ChitChat ]}

If the size is a bit off from your current version, you can play with the font size percentages in the code. Hope you don’t mind me taking the liberty of doing this for you. — Spike Toronto 05:34, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

@SpikeToronto: thanks a lot and no I don't mind at all.:) —Indian:BIO · ^{[ ChitChat ]} 05:58, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Drowned World Tour 2001

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Drowned World Tour 2001 you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of SNUGGUMS -- SNUGGUMS (talk) 15:02, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Drowned World Tour 2001

The article Drowned World Tour 2001 you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Drowned World Tour 2001 for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of SNUGGUMS -- SNUGGUMS (talk) 05:21, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Drowned World Tour 2001

The article Drowned World Tour 2001 you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Drowned World Tour 2001 for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of SNUGGUMS -- SNUGGUMS (talk) 08:02, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Template:Request edit

Hello IndianBio. Regarding your recent edits of Talk:1989 (Taylor Swift album), the following. As you can see in the § Edit request 12 October 2014 section, the template currently states "It is requested that an edit be made to this article that the user below does not want to make because of a conflict of interest." The request is still open. That is because you're using the "answered=yes" parameter, which, as I explained in my edit summary, is not a valid parameter for Template:Request edit. Please read the template documentation and then undo your last edit. Thank you. --82.136.210.153 (talk) 21:52, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

French certifications

Hello IndianBio! Yes, I fixed it a few minutes ago! Thank you for suggesting this update, I hope it correctly works! --Stee888 (talk) 09:53, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

@Stee888: thanks a lot Ste888, yes it works! Phew :) —Indian:BIO ^{[ ChitChat ]} 10:01, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Irish Singlechart template

Hi, I noticed you've just altered the above template so that it links better to the relevant chart (a good thing). However, something that has preoccupied me for a while now is that the GFK Chart-Track site (which the template uses) only goes back to the year 2000. For singles at least, it's possible to find peak chart positions on the irishcharts.ie website, but of course it's not possible to use the template for this - at present the entry has to be inputted 'manually'. Do you think there is any chance of the irishcharts.ie website being incorporated into the template in future? To be honest I don't think it's going to be that easy to do, there's no way of telling which week a song reached its peak chart position, for example. Richard3120 (talk) 16:22, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

@Richard3120: I think you can ping Ste888 (just above this section). He updated the urls and the Certification templates if any new urls are needed. And I agree, Irishcarts.ie should be used for chart placements before 2000. —Indian:BIO ^{[ ChitChat ]} 16:35, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks – I have done it. Richard3120 (talk) 17:46, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Fame perfume image

What is going on with File:Lady Gaga Fame bottle.jpg? This image did not come from the Haus Laboratories website; I remember it previously being uploaded to Commons. Why was it removed there and added here? It is not a non-free logo or packaging; it is the actual product. –Chase (talk / contribs) 16:55, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

@Chasewc91: that image was nonfree right? How can it be in commons? It was deleted from there. A photo of any product by a person who does not own the copyright cannot be released to commons. Hence a non-free image is best suitable for such a case. —Indian:BIO ^{[ ChitChat ]} 17:45, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

The design / packaging of the product is non-free. As are images of the product that might appear on the company's website. However, if a person takes a photo of the actual product (the perfume bottle) and releases it under certain licenses, we are allowed to use those photos. The copyright owner in this instance would be the photographer. –Chase (talk / contribs) 21:23, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

I would like to get this clarified from commons. Do you know of any admin? Those images of Fame and Eau de Gaga were listed for deletion since no OTRS or proper copyright was given and they were found to be Google copy. Do you have any of the perfume bottles? :P —Indian:BIO ^{[ ChitChat ]} 06:10, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

My grandmother owns the Fame perfume. I might be able to get a photo sometime soon. –Chase (talk / contribs) 15:29, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Wow she's such a monster. Hehe. —Indian:BIO ^{[ ChitChat ]} 13:43, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Little monster..... maybe she also has some good pics we could use for articles :P Snuggums (talk / edits) 15:46, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

1989 leak

Hi, you reverted my edit to the Taylor Swift 1989 album page yesterday. I had added some info about the leak, including a link to a reliable source (Vulture). You reverted it claiming WP:UNDUE, which demands that an article "represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources." I don't understand why my information fails to meet this criterion, since articles ran in a number of prominent reliable sources yesterday about the leak:

Entertainment Weekly (http://music-mix.ew.com/2014/10/24/taylor-swifts-1989-has-leaked/)
USA Today (http://www.usatoday.com/story/life/music/2014/10/24/taylor-swift-1989-album-leaks/17846595/)
E! Online (http://www.eonline.com/news/591825/taylor-swift-s-1989-leaks-online-but-prepare-to-face-the-wrath-of-her-fans-if-you-listen-to-it)

If WP:UNDUE asks that an article should reflect the prominence of each viewpoint in reliable sources, I don't understand why a discussion of the leak fails to count, since it is obviously a significant part of the public discourse about the album.

Dd42 (talk) 21:34, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Writer's Barnstar
	For your many wonderful articles and other contributions to Wikipedia. Your ability to keep up with information about current releases and update articles accordingly (currently, I am impressed with Cheek to Cheek) is remarkable. Keep up the great work! --Another Believer _(Talk) 00:45, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

@Another Believer:, you are such a darling :D —Indian:BIO ^{[ ChitChat ]} 09:07, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 29

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Tony Bennett and Lady Gaga: Cheek to Cheek Live!, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Lush Life. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 14:11, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Halloween cheer!

Happy Halloween!

Hello IndianBio:
Thanks for all of your contributions to improve Wikipedia, and have a happy and enjoyable Halloween!
– Snuggums (talk / edits) 21:01, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Send Halloween cheer by adding {{subst:Happy Halloween}} to user talk pages with a friendly message.

@SNUGGUMS, Acalamari, Prism, Bollyjeff, Krimuk90, STATicVapor, and Another Believer: and any other that I missed, Happy Halloween!!! PS: All candy belongs to me :) —Indian:BIO ^{[ ChitChat ]} 07:32, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

SAVE ME SOME! :P Snuggums (talk / edits) 07:38, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Hey, I wanted to share some of that. :P Happy Halloween to you, too, IndianBio! Acalamari 09:54, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. :)) -- KRIMUK90 ✉ 14:46, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Eau-de-Gaga-bottle.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Eau-de-Gaga-bottle.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 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).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 21:23, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Mary Kom-ercial

The Mary Kom article reads like a promotional feature, doesn't it? -- KRIMUK90 ✉ 07:18, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

@Krimuk90:, hush, Chopra will punch yo pretty face off :P Yes it does and I have been eliminating such atrocious wording and tagging sections for WP:COPYVIO. Most of the sources are ad verbatim copied in the article. —Indian:BIO ^{[ ChitChat ]} 07:22, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Haha, yeah! She has much more muscles than me, so I'll easily be defeated! :D She was very convincing as a boxer, I must admit. -- KRIMUK90 ✉ 07:28, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

@Krimuk90:, yes she was, and was probably the only thing interesting in a pretty dab movie I must say. I was always waiting for that "wow" moment, it never came. —Indian:BIO ^{[ ChitChat ]} 07:30, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Yup, I was quite disappointed with the movie too, especially since the promos looked very promising and Chopra was so great in it. -- KRIMUK90 ✉ 08:13, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

@Krimuk90:, as you must have seen I'm trying to save that article from the onslaught of fancruft and copyright violating text from dear old Pks114455, so would appreciate if you can lend your eyes also for sometime. —Indian:BIO ^{[ ChitChat ]} 14:09, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

You are saving the article from what? Huh! You are doing what you do the best, disturbing me. And, now I just saw this section discussing, which was started by Krimuk. You must have told me and not Bio! What do you mean by Komercial? The film was a hit and acclaimed too. Though everyone has a different opinion. I agree, the wow factor was missing as it was no million dollar baby. Bollywood is Bollywood and will never meet Hollywood. The wow factor was Chopra, who gave an earnest performance.—Prashant 14:32, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes my dear, if you had basic understanding of the English language you would know how your developed article fails copyright violation. And I'm saving you the grace of failing this article from GAC, by eliminating nonsense. And I'm glad to know you have groveled at the feet of a good copyeditor. —Indian:BIO ^{[ ChitChat ]} 17:43, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Link to video in template

Hi IndianBio, thanks for calling my edit a good faith edit. It was! I read that the Template:External music video is to be put in the "Misc" section of the template. In this way it's easier and faster to go to the official video of the song. I saw that some singles have the link to the video in the template and others in the EL. Wouldn't it be easier to have just one place? In my opinion the template is a better place because I think that the video is an important characteristic of a single, not just and "external link". --Teoamez (talk) 13:29, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

@Teoamez: no problems at all. I believe that it should vary from case to case. The infobox for this article is already pretty long and I would say that adding the {{External music video}} elongates it further. That is why we could have it in the EL link. And ELs are equally important you know. They are directly related to the article but are not used as inline citations. —Indian:BIO ^{[ ChitChat ]} 13:44, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Sister Cristina covering "Like a Virgin"

Hi The website MadonnaTribe interviewed Billy Steinberg concerning the Italian nun's version of "Like a Virgin". Do you think that it's worth adding to the song's article? Amzer (talk) 17:18, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

I thought it was already added. But this being a fansite won't be acceptable I guess. —Indian:BIO ^{[ ChitChat ]} 17:22, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/Natgeostar1234

Can you keep an eye on him/her who may added unsourced genres on some Maroon 5 wikipages, including It Won't Be Soon Before Long. 115.164.91.137 (talk) 13:10, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Soundscan sales

Hey IndianBio, how's going? About the best-selling albums in the United States since Nielsen SoundScan tracking began you've recently updated, I noticed a minor miscalculation regarding Whitney Houston's album (number 6). Comparing the numbers from the 2013 and 2014 list, you'll see that her album sales have shrieked for 45,000 copies, which is not possible. Can you double check this?--Retrohead (talk) 09:53, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

I used what was there in the source, even I noticed it too. —Indian:BIO ^{[ ChitChat ]} 11:19, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Link errors on Roar (song)

Hello,

In the Charts section of Roar (song), the link for the UK Singles (Official Charts Company) #1 position does not work (page not found). I think this is the proper link, but I have no idea how to replace the wrong link (I'm unfamiliar with that referencing style). The same problem occurs with Scotland but I cannot find the Scottish chart to give you the right link. At least please replace the UK link. Thanks! Dontreader (talk) 23:32, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

I found the correct link for the Scottish chart, here. Thanks again. Dontreader (talk) 23:40, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

@Dontreader: I will take a look. —Indian:BIO ^{[ ChitChat ]} 06:04, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. You have much more experience on Wikipedia, and you do such a great job with music-related articles, so that's why I asked for your help. Please ping me again when you have had a chance to fix the problems. I'm really surprised at how mysterious the UK link seems to me. I searched for it for several minutes using different techniques, and could not find it. The Scottish one might be easier. Dontreader (talk) 06:36, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

@Dontreader: Thanks and I have corrected it. —Indian:BIO ^{[ ChitChat ]} 06:44, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 13

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Tony Bennett and Lady Gaga: Cheek to Cheek Live!, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Bob Cox. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:09, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Love Won't Wait

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Love Won't Wait you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Esprit15d -- Esprit15d (talk) 18:01, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Love Won't Wait

The article Love Won't Wait you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:Love Won't Wait for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Esprit15d -- Esprit15d (talk) 19:02, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Madonna: Like an Icon

The article Madonna: Like an Icon you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Madonna: Like an Icon for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of SNUGGUMS -- SNUGGUMS (talk) 18:01, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Madonna: Like an Icon

The article Madonna: Like an Icon you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Madonna: Like an Icon for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of SNUGGUMS -- SNUGGUMS (talk) 22:22, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

1989 World Tour

The reason why I reverted the tour page was just to add more dates, and a source from USA Today just so that info could be there stored. Then put back the re-direct. Have a good day ~ HappyAppy10

Adding timestamp for archive. —Indian:BIO ^{[ ChitChat ]} 07:30, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Lady Gaga vidcaps

Following the NFCR discussion I have opened a DR at Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2014 November 19#Lady_Gaga_vidcaps. -mattbuck (Talk) 21:18, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Nature Boy

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Nature Boy you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Esprit15d -- Esprit15d (talk) 14:01, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Nature Boy

The article Nature Boy you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Nature Boy for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Esprit15d -- Esprit15d (talk) 16:20, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Nature Boy

The article Nature Boy you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Nature Boy for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Esprit15d -- Esprit15d (talk) 17:42, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Madonna: Like an Icon

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Madonna: Like an Icon you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of SNUGGUMS -- SNUGGUMS (talk) 19:02, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Lady Gaga

I only ever made one incorrect edit. Don't go one my page and scold me for "disruptive" editing and threatening to ban me. I've done more than my fair share of good work on this site, so don't go around and take one incorrect edit as a reason to ban me. ~ shy1520

(talk page stalker) the reference you inserted was fabricated, Shy1520. That is absolutely unacceptable. Snuggums (talk / edits) 06:19, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

In other words @Shy1520:, fall off that high horse that you are riding coz Wikipedia ain't tolerating it. You made a deliberate fabrication, got warned for it. Next time you do it, you will get reported, simple. —Indian:BIO ^{[ ChitChat ]} 13:44, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

artRAVE

Please let me know how my corretion about the artRAVE stage is incorrect? The stage building at the artRAVE [3] is reminiscent to Mount Olympus from Hercules [4], not Atlantica from The Little Mermaid [5].

It is you who is vandalizing that page by deliberately removing correct information, and I notice it isn't the first time. At the top of your talk page, there is a section named "Lady Gaga", and quoting the author, "I only ever made one incorrect edit. Don't go one my page and scold me for "disruptive" editing and threatening to ban me. I've done more than my fair share of good work on this site, so don't go around and take one incorrect edit as a reason to ban me". I have to ask you to stop this foolery, and get your facts straight. Squidoh (talk) 14:08, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

@Squidoh: there is a pillar of Wikipedia known as WP:VERIFIABILITY and WP:ORIGINALRESEARCH. Please go through them and then come and lecture me. Kapish? —Indian:BIO ^{[ ChitChat ]} 14:12, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

@IndianBio: *capisce :) Squidoh (talk) 19:24, 23 November 2014 (UTC)