User talk:Alptns90
List of best-selling music artists
[edit]
Please refrain from adding Jennifer Lopez onto the list as her certified sales do not suggest anything above 35-40 million in actual sales. There has been a long discussion on Lopez's record sales which you can find here. Regards.--Harout72 (talk) 18:30, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
March 2011
[edit]
Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. Before saving your changes to an article, please provide an edit summary, which you forgot to do before saving your recent edit to Love? (album). Doing so helps everyone understand the intention of your edit (and prevents legitimate edits from being mistaken for vandalism). It is also helpful to users reading the edit history of the page. Thank you. — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 [talk] 13:01, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
Happy First Day of Spring!
[edit]
Just wishing you a wonderful First Day of Spring 2011! Mifter (talk) 20:24, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
To spread this message to others, add {{subst:First Day Of Spring}} to there talk page with a friendly message.
JLO
[edit]As I explained in the edit summary, none of the sources you provided match the criteria laid out on the talk page. Sources must be from a major/nation/international organization, specialized music organization, musicologist or music critic, or encyclopedia. Fan sites, blogs, and the like are not considered reliable and will be removed immediately, as per WP:CONSENSUS for this article. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 23:31, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
Re:
[edit]I see you're back, and you're already removing content again on Jennifer Lopez discography. The songs are being released as PROMOTIONAL SINGLES on the iTunes Store. Quite similar to what was done with Speak Now, The E.N.D. and Teenage Dream. Unless there's an OFFICIAL SOURCE stating "I'm Into You" is an official single, it isn't. Reports by blogs are not RELIABLE on Wikipedia. ℥nding·start 18:11, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
- I'd like to know when I did that. ℥nding·start 18:04, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
Your additions of the Croatian and Icelandic single charts are in breach of WP:BADCHARTS which explicitly states that single network radio charts are not to be used in articles. — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 [talk] 21:00, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
- In the Netherlands there are two single charts, Dutch Top 40 and Single Top 100. The latter only measures sales of singles while the former measures sales and airplay. Per WP:USCHARTS we only list the highest aggregation of charts. Thus effectively the Single Top 100 is a component of the Dutch Top 40. If a song charts on both charts its the Dutch Top 40 which should be used as it is a more accurate and fair representation of a single's success in a particular country, regardless of which peak is higher. — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 [talk] 15:23, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
- The Dutch Top 40 is not a single network chart. It published by IFPI and Media Markt as shown here. The Croation and Icelandic charts you tried to add where specificially ONE radio station data. The Dutch Top 40 combines all record sales in the Netherlands with all airplay. Radio 538 is simply one of the largest radio stations in the Netherlands... they report the official chart in the same way that the UK's biggest station: BBC Radio 1 reports the UK chart, but is not the publisher of it. Just because other articles use the Top 100 doesn't mean its correct to do so. People often opt for the Top 100 because the website from hung medien is easier to use. — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 [talk] 20:16, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
You should review WP:GOODCHARTS. It hasn't got every good record chart listed, but, if a chart is listed there, there is a consensus that it can be used. Take special note of of what it says about the Netherlands charts, as it applies to your current argument.—Kww(talk) 16:31, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
Croatian/Iceland singles charts
[edit]The Croatian chart is both a single network chart and generated by user votes. It's now listed on WP:BADCHARTS. The Icelandic chart you keep adding is a single station airplay chart, and shouldn't be used except in extremely special cases: it's been permitted in some articles about Icelandic artists. Jennifer Lopez may be many things, but she isn't from Iceland.—Kww(talk) 17:17, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
Again, you removed "Louboutins" from the main singles list, WITHOUT an edit summary (I'm beginning to think you're not aware of what an edit summary is), and moving the song to "other charted songs". Let's get this straight, yes, it's been determined it's not a single from Love?, but IT IS indeed still a single - it was sent to radio and released digitally. ℥nding·start 15:20, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
Hungary Dance Chart
[edit]What was this about? Please provide an edit summary whenever you remove material or revert another editor, so that other editors can understand your reasoning. The Hungary Dance chart is an accepted chart (there wouldn't be a {{singlechart}} to correspond to it if it wasn't) and the reference provided supports the position.—Kww(talk) 18:05, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
- I'm glad to see you're finally using edit summaries. Good for you! I'm glad you're getting the hang of this! If you need any help with anything, feel free to come to me. ℥nding·start 19:18, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
- I was in the same boat as you when I first joined. No problem, and I'm sorry if I was a bit hard on you before. ℥nding·start 14:39, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
Hello, French Singles Chart in 2009 and until January 24, 2011 = French Physical Singles Chart, She Wolf was released just in digital in France, so that's why She Wolf is not at lescharts.com. --Thestreamer (talk) 16:26, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
You really should verify the charts with the link provided, and talk if there's a discrepancy. The French digital chart macro provided you with a link to http://lescharts.com/weekchart.asp?cat=si&date=20091017 which shows the "7" position. Why did you replace with with an album link and then remove it when the original figure and source were perfectly accurate? Why did you revert my original reversion of your removal when I provided the link showing the material you had removed was accurate?—Kww(talk) 16:41, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
Accusations
[edit]Edits such as this one are completely unacceptable.—Kww(talk) 16:08, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
JLO discog
[edit]If the users leaves a message on the talk page (like I asked him), please take part in the discussion. ℥nding·start 17:43, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
re: Jennifer Lopez "On The Floor" Canadian Chart List
[edit]- This source which currently supports Lopez's positions for Canada, does not support position for "On the Floor". Surely, it will have it, but at the moment it doesn't. I'll leave the Canadian No.1 position for "On the Floor" on there for now, unsupported. But in the meantime, you might want to go over WP:Verifiability, which states The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth: whether readers can check that material in Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true.--Harout72 (talk) 22:04, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
Altptns90, when this kind of thing happens, it's best to find a source for your data. You always need to check the source used for the column. If that doesn't include the new data, add a reference next to your figure. It's not on the main Billboard summary page for Jennifer Lopez, either: http://www.billboard.com/#/artist/jennifer-lopez/chart-history/339297?f=793&g=Singles doesn't have it.—Kww(talk) 22:29, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
It's OK to use. When the data is in a good source, but not in the source of the column, then add the reference. Not just "1", but 1<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.billboard.com/charts/hot-100#/charts/canadian-hot-100?chartDate=2011-04-23|title=Canadian Hot 100 .....—Kww(talk) 13:00, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
- While it may be true that there are other discographies with unsupported positions as you mentioned on my talk, that doesn't mean they should be kept there unsourced. I personally watch as many pages as I can, but I haven't gotten to the pages of Spears and Gaga yet. You could bring it up on their discussion pages. Let's bear in mind that newly charted positions do not immediately appear in the sources provided, it may, in some cases, take a week or two for the sources to have those. But in the meantime, as Kevin mentioned above, place the source next to the newly charted position as it's been done in this edit.--Harout72 (talk) 16:32, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
- Please see my discussion on Austria at Talk:Jennifer Lopez discography. We are to consider the sizes of music markets and top-5 positions, not only No.1. And both Sweden and the Netherlands clearly qualify to stay as both are bigger markets and have enough top-5 positions.--Harout72 (talk) 17:27, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
It looks like people are discussing it on the talk page, Alptns90. I won't edit the article unless you can show me that there is something that is incorrect. I don't get involved in deciding which countries should be listed.—Kww(talk) 19:52, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
Not my intention, was just reverting back. Seems like this was finally solved. Saddened I couldn't be involved, I started back with school today. It looks good now. Now, I think the albums should match with the singles. Maybe I'll work on that this weekend. ℥nding·start 21:51, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
- I have explained this already to you, the US Dance chart is not a sales chart and it should not be included on there.--Harout72 (talk) 15:45, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
- See the talk page for Jennifer Lopez discography, help me understand how to use that source for Dutch positions.--Harout72 (talk) 06:46, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
Talkback at Dan6hell66's talk page
[edit]
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Epic fail!
[edit]Sorry about my rollback at Jennifer Capriati career statistics - am working from an iPad and tapped rollback by accident. Nothing wrong with your edits! Apologies! Stalwart111 10:58, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
Numbers
[edit]Can you check numbers in here, please? I did it and it seems that total figures at the bottom are not OK, but I am not sure because it's a lot of numbers to calculate all together :) so I have to ask someone else to check it. (I didn't change anything, I just calculated in my head.) Thanks in advance. I am maintaining this article on BS Wiki and, of course, I don't want for some mistakes or discrepancies to exist in any Wiki. -- KWiki (talk) 19:49, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:07, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:10, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!
[edit]
Hello, Alptns90. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
ArbCom 2017 election voter message
[edit]Hello, Alptns90. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)