User talk:Status/2012/09

The final is upon us! We are down to our final 8. A massive 573 was our lowest qualifying score; this is higher than the 150 points needed last year and the 430 needed in 2010. Even in 2009, when points were acquired for mainspace edit count in addition to audited content, 417 points secured a place. That leaves this year's WikiCup, by one measure at least, our most competitive ever. Our finalists, ordered by round 4 score, are:

1. Grapple X (submissions) once again finishes the round in first place, leading Pool B. Grapple X writes articles about television, and especially The X-Files and Millenium, with good articles making up the bulk of the score.
2. Miyagawa (submissions) led Pool A this round. Fourth-place finalist last year, Miyagawa writes on a variety of topics, and has reached the final primarily off the back of his massive number of did you knows.
3. Ruby2010 (submissions) was second in Pool B. Ruby2010 writes primarily on television and film, and scores primarily from good articles.
4. Casliber (submissions) finished third in Pool B. Casliber is something of a WikiCup veteran, having finished sixth in 2011 and fourth in 2010. Casliber writes on the natural sciences, including ornithology, botany and astronomy. Over half of Casliber's points this round were bonus points from the high-importance articles he has worked on.
5. Cwmhiraeth (submissions) came second in Pool A. Also writing on biology, especially marine biology, Cwmhiraeth received 390 points for one featured article (Bivalvia) and one good article (pelican), topping up with a large number of did you knows.
6. Muboshgu (submissions) was third in Pool A. Muboshgu writes primarily on baseball, and this round saw Muboshgu's first featured article, Derek Jeter, promoted on its fourth attempt at FAC.
7. Dana Boomer (submissions) was fourth in Pool A. She writes on a variety of topics, including horses, but this round also saw the high-importance lettuce reach featured article status.
8. Sasata (submissions) is another WikiCup veteran, having been a finalist in 2009 and 2010. He writes mostly on mycology.

However, we must also say goodbye to the eight who did not make the final, having fallen at the last hurdle: GreatOrangePumpkin (submissions), Ealdgyth (submissions), Calvin999 (submissions), Piotrus (submissions), Toa Nidhiki05 (submissions), 12george1 (submissions), The Bushranger (submissions) and 1111tomica (submissions). We hope to see you all next year.

On the subject of next year, a discussion has been opened here. Come and have your say about the competition, and how you'd like it to run in the future. This brainstorming will go on for some time before more focused discussions/polls are opened. As ever, if you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talk • email) and The ed17 (talk • email) 00:12, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

recently several people edited the page, but you didn't allow anyone to make any changes!!! The article is free. What is wrong with my last edit? I found them perfect... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alxthss (talk • contribs) 21:18, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

But u don't explain me what's the problem. I made ​​the page look more beautiful with photos and organized. And dates with Enrique I picked out and I just put them with the link to another page! The difference is very insipid. I think you should compromise... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alxthss (talk • contribs) 21:36, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The processing of the page is free! I saw some time ago another man who added dates with Enrique too and you cancel it again. And as for the other changes, it's a matter of organization and there is no mistake. In contrast there are many mistakes in the current page! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alxthss (talk • contribs) 21:45, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 72 hours for edit warring, as you did at Dance Again World Tour. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Toddst1 (talk) 17:45, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

Status/2012 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Yeah... so, apparently I was edit warring on Dance Again World Tour when I was actually just reinforcing consensus that was previously reached. This user Alxthss (talk · contribs) kept going against said consensus, and several users asked him to take it to the article's talk page if he wishes for tour dates that are part of a different tour to be included on an article for another tour in which they have no relevance to. I explained it to the user several times on their talk and they basically just told me they would keep adding them regardless. Hahc21 (talk · contribs) (who also reverted him, but was failed to be blocked during this instance by said administration) left him a message, and he blanked his talk page - completely ignoring it - and then proceed to revert, once again. Hahc21 then left a message to Toddst1 (talk · contribs) and he blocked both Alxthss and I. I totally expected it. Myself, Alxthss, Hahc21 and Tomica (talk · contribs) were all involved in this "edit war", yet only me and Alxthss were blocked. So, Hahc21 asked Toddst1 on his talk page if this should be brought to DRN and he just flat out blocked. Okay guys! This is where it gets hilarious! Are you ready for this? The block template states: "During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution." This is where I literally laughed aloud; it was uncontrollable really. There was already consensus reached, yet that user decided to ignore it, and Toddst1 was asked by Hahc21 if it should be taken to dispute resolution. Anyways, as you can see from my block log (which you've probably already seen; and my July archives, if you wanna take a peek) Toddst1 and I have been our fair share of disputes in the past. This is why I wasn't surprised at all he went and blocked me. I know this request is probably against some of the appealing block guidelines (Hahc21 has helped me tone it down the best it can), but I find it to be completely relevant to the topic at hand. I was blocked for "edit warring" to reinforce consensus by an administration who I have had arguments and disagreements in the past. And please, for the love of God, don't treat me like I'm some new user who kept vandalizing articles over and over again and is bitching about the blocking admin. I've been on Wikipedia for a while now, and I know how things work around here (for the most part). I will say that since my last block, which had to do with the way I explained things when reverting other users, I have improved a whole lot. I think I definitely proved that during this dispute, so I do not understand why on Earth I could be blocked. Thanks everyone for taking the time to read this. If you know me, you wouldn't expect anything else.

Accept reason:

Per the discussion on Toddst1's talkpage and below, I'm removing this block. The "invitation" below is a bit over the top, and I too would prefer to see it revoked, but it isn't against policy nor is it a blockable offence. Since it has no bearing on this block, and since the block has already been deemed overly harsh, I see no reason not to lift it. Yunshui 雲‍水 07:59, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Also, I'd like to formally invite Toddst1 to stay off my talk page; anything you say will be reverted by myself, as, quite frankly, I've had enough of you. Statυs (talk) 03:10, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've talked it over with Toddst1, and I'll unblock on the condition that you withdraw the invitation to Toddst1. I don't deal with editors that try to set restrictions on their talk pages. It inevitably leads to even greater problems.—Kww(talk) 04:11, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just curious, what is wrong with asking a user from refraining to comment on your talk page? I simply do not wish to see his comments here. Statυs (talk) 04:28, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You've already agreed that the block was unjust, but I must agree to withdraw a talk page block on Toddst1 to be unblocked? What sense does that make? Statυs (talk) 04:30, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We all have our ways and preferences. Personally, I would indefinitely block every editor that posted "so and so isn't welcome to post on my talk page" messages. I wouldn't get away with it, so I don't. I don't have to unblock editors that have made such statements, though.—Kww(talk) 04:34, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nonsense block. Though I'm pretty sure Status can remove Toddst's future comments even w/out an invitation since it's his talk page. Till 04:49, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Last time I checked, it is perfectly acceptable to "block" editors from commenting on your own talk page. I find that quite silly, seeing as how blocking certain users from commenting on your talk page does not cause any harm to the 'Pedia. Of course, if such a thing was completely unfounded, that's a completely different story, but clearly you can see where I'm coming from? I simply have no desire to see any comments from him on my talk page. This was mostly to prevent what happened during my last unblock request (another argument between the two of us) from happening again. If Jimbo can ask Fae to stay away from his talk page, then I can ask Toddst1 to stay away from mine. You can deny my unblock request because you don't like when users block other users from their talk, but I'm sure I'm not the only one who would find that ridiculous. I stand by my invitation. Statυs (talk) 04:51, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. I won't deny your unblock, I'll just leave it for another admin to process.—Kww(talk) 04:59, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So so sad to see this! I hope your not gone too long. — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 ^[talk] 17:48, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still gonna be around, just not as active; thus semi-retired. I start school again on Thursday so I won't have much time to be on the 'Pedia. Statυs (talk) 17:50, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. I do wish you well! What grade/year will you be in? — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 ^[talk] 23:21, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am entering my 12th and final year of (normal) school. Statυs (talk) 23:25, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the first edition of The Olive Branch. This will be a place to semi-regularly update editors active in dispute resolution (DR) about some of the most important issues, advances, and challenges in the area. You were delivered this update because you are active in DR, but if you would prefer not to receive any future mailing, just add your name to this page.

In this issue:

• Background: A brief overview of the DR ecosystem.
• Research: The most recent DR data
• Survey results: Highlights from Steven Zhang's April 2012 survey
• Activity analysis: Where DR happened, broken down by the top DR forums
• DR Noticeboard comparison: How the newest DR forum has progressed between May and August
• Discussion update: Checking up on the Wikiquette Assistance close debate
• Proposal: It's time to close the Geopolitical, ethnic, and religious conflicts noticeboard. Agree or disagree?

--The Olive Branch 19:31, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

If you're going to change the B&B cast list for whatever reasons you seem fit, then do it for the three other soaps that are on-air please. It looks as if you're targeting one soap for whatever your reasons are and it breaks the consistency the pages share. Musicfreak7676 ^{my talk page!} 02:10, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me? I just happen to be an avid B&B watcher and want to make the list better... Statυs (talk) 02:11, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I disagree it's making it better. And I'm only saying it, do it ALL soaps so it keeps everything consistent. It disrupts the flow of all of lists. Even discuss changes and join WP:SOAPS. Musicfreak7676 ^{my talk page!} 02:19, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there - I agree the changes you are making to B&B cast are drastic enough they should be discussed on the talk page and/or WP:SOAPS please, at least in the cases that you are deleting a lot of info. Also, I'm not sure if some of the sources are reliable for cast lists (soaps.com, etc). Can we undo the changes that delete info and wait for a discussion to be had? Thanks! Kelly Marie 0812 (talk) 02:40, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure what you are referring to. Statυs (talk) 02:41, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I will start a discussion on the talk page. I don't think the deceased cast members should be deleted or the durations since you loose the historical info of current contract characters that have left and come back. There's no "tag teaming" I just happened to notice this and figured I would comment in the same box since it is the same topic. Kelly Marie 0812 (talk) 02:48, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Statυs, Please explain if I'm wrong, but according to Template:Infobox_television#Attributes, what goes in show_name_2 is: '"Also known as", i.e. other names by which the show is known.' Not how it was known, meaning this is for aliases. These are not titles that can be used interchangeably, but are predecessors to the current one. So, preceded_by: should be used. --Musdan77 (talk) 03:25, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

preceded_by: is used for "If Show A was a predecessor of Show B, insert the name of Show A and production years." With Live!, they only got a new co-host and changed the title of it to show this; they are not different shows, but the same. Statυs (talk) 03:28, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

But, you didn't explain why it should be in show_name_2. As I've shown, it doesn't belong there. The description for show_name_2 doesn't say anything about production years because it for current, while preceded_by: is for past. The only other show I can think of that is like it is The Tonight Show starring..., and none of those list the others at all. --Musdan77 (talk) 04:29, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

show_name_2 doesn't really specify anything. Don't think of the years as production years, think of them as the years the show had said title. I'm usually against such years being included, but since the show has had many different titles over the years, I think it's the correct thing to do. It mostly definitely not preceded_by, though. Statυs (talk) 04:32, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the late reply that you left on my talk on 31st August. I'll try to work on the EI and JL tour. Hey i didn't know you were interested in soaps? —ArreJLover 06:59, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's alright. I, of course, meant together. xD I start school tomorrow, so I'm probably not gonna have a lot of time on my hands. :( Yes; I told you that before. I'm not interested in anything bother than B&B, though; and it's really pissing me off at the moment... Zac  07:02, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why is it pissing you off? Oh by the way, I think that maybe, there is still hope for "Dance Again" to be a huge hit in the US..believe it or not..because, it could be boosted by the film and by Glee.. G.T. is not working right now.. —ArreJLover 10:17, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The storylines, of course, I'm getting sick and tired of them. Now, if "Dance Again" was newly released and then Glee covered it, that would be a different story; I doubt it's going to help it any. As for the film, maybe. I don't think it will reach a new peak. Zac  15:16, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

B&B is so boring and repetitive, you should watch DOOL or Y&R (even though Y&R sucks). It's all about Steffy-Liam-Hope and it's getting boring to the point that nobody even cares. True, it's just, songs covered by Glee usually re-enter the top 10 or 15 on iTunes. And Katy Perry's film really boosted her sales. —ArreJLover 06:22, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You may wish to comment on Rayrayzone (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) who's behaviour has been brough to ANI here. He proceeded to your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Restoration (album). — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 ^[talk] 00:51, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Never got a chance to, haha. Zac  01:32, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed the references ^-^ ! — Tomica (talk) 12:44, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks man! Zac [on the go]  13:50, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Lilith Sternin. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 18:15, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have reverted your edit (except for the celebrity section that I didn't add back since there was a consensus).

I have taken a look at the talk page of this article. All the users disagree with you, at least when it comes to duration. You can't just decide to radically change an article to your own needs and disregard the wish of the other users. That's not how Wikipedia works.

Please discuss with the other users and reach an agreement with them before making again these kinds of changes on the article. If no consensus can be reached for the duration, the original version will have to prevail. Thank you. Farine (talk) 22:13, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, there are no drastic changes to the article. I cited content (which you reverted, by the way) and added a little sentence to the lead. The only issue on the talk is the use of duration, and that is not a reason to revert the entire article. Very poor judgement. It is being discussed on the talk page, whether or not to change back to using duration. That's the only issue. One user thinks that deceased cast members should a section (which is repeating information already present in the article, so it's pointless). Zac  22:27, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Have you heard about this? ^_^ Swifty*^talk 03:27, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've heard about it, but I never got a chance to listen to it yet. Also, remember what a single is? ;) Specifically, that song is a charity single. Zac [on the go]  13:22, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Nicole_Scherziner_UK_X_Factor.jpg — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nicole Scherzy (talk • contribs) 15:15, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I can't do anything about it, I'm just a regular user like yourself. Just wait for an admin to come along and delete it. Zac  15:39, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Status,

I have noticed your changes to the B&B cast page and I realize you want to change the entire article. I have read the talk page and saw that no consensus was reached. You are more than welcome to use your sandbox in order to rearrange the article. However, until a consensus is reached the article must be reverted back to its original content. This is your only warning on this subject. Thank you. Hurley2000 (talk) 19:18, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hold fire with the cover.

Sainsburys has a this as a deluxe cover whereas Play.com has this and Leona's competition to design the album artwork is still on going. — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 ^[talk] 17:09, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Also I believe "Collide" was left in because Leona said during UStream it would be a deluxe edition bonus track. — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 ^[talk] 17:10, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless, there is going to be some sort of deluxe cover. For "Collide" being a bonus, I was just going by what the source beside it said. I was not aware of that. Zac  17:12, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ah that's ok. I assumed you were going to upload the cover and i was like NOOOOOOO! haha. Erm yes, i'm not sure what to do about that. I've got a YouTube link to the uStream, i think i'll add that just until we get the track listing. I don't wanna remove the Collide information and then have to add it all back that's all. — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 ^[talk] 17:20, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Haha, no, I wasn't. Just re-adding the note. I noticed a user kept removing it before, since there was "no confirmation" of a deluxe cover. Zac  17:21, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I was gonna leave "Shake You Up" out, simply cause that's original research. We know she worked with Darkchild but we don't know that "Shake You Up" is the single they produced, or that he's even made the track listing. — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 ^[talk] 00:40, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

template says one thing discography says another shouldnt both say the same and as far as i see the template is the correct one not the discography page so i put it back to what the template page says — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.102.31.108 (talk) 16:27, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There; the template is fixed now. Thanks for letting me know. Zac  21:09, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Can I ask what gives you the impression this is a reliable source for sales? It looks pretty questionable, but I'm not too familiar with it. Care to shed some light?--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 01:56, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It appears to be a reputable website. Just found that it is copied from a press release, so reverting myself. Zac  02:00, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Found a good source for 7 million for On the 6 :)--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 02:15, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OMG, thank you so much! I'm finding it so hard to find worldwide numbers for her albums. Zac  02:17, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sure thing! Found another for J.Lo for 7 million :D--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 02:18, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, again! I've updated the discography with them. Sorry it took so long to reply, reconstructed how the notes are done so I won't have to go and change the letters and shit when a new note is added. If you can find anymore, feel free to share. ;) Zac  02:43, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hehe no prob :) Glad I could help! Actually, I found an up-to-date source for J.Lo listing 10 million.--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 02:48, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I saw that earlier, but I wasn't so sure if it's good to use as a source or not. Zac  02:55, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see why not. Its used for professional reviews all the time in GA level articles. Also, About.com is published by the The New York Times Company so I would definitely support its reliability.--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 02:57, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reviews are a different thing. They could have got that number from wherever; I see a lot of that number floating around, but I can't seem to hunt down where it originated from. It could have just been a number that spread around and is deemed as true, you know what I mean? Also, knowing as of when it sold that many copies is important. Zac  02:59, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, its your call!--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 03:06, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've got a question for ya, do you think it's worthy of a note on J.Lo's main article that she has sued her ex-driver for threatening to release "disruptive and potentially damaging" information about her unless she paid him $2.8 million? Zac  03:07, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'm not too familiar with her, so I don't know how publicized (if at all) this was. I think it can go either way. It can be over-looked or you can add a few lines in the appropriate section. As an example, Carey's at-the-time step-father sued her in the first years of her career. Its in her bio books, but we decided to not include it.--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 03:31, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I just decided not to include it. If it turns out to be some big public thing, then it's worth a mention, but right now, it's just a filed case. It may not go anywhere. Thanks. Zac  03:34, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A single is a song sent to radio stations has a music video and has been confirmed by the record label as such, a promotional single is a single release to digital download and may have a music video to promote a movie, charity, etc. it is not always free from your argument on the discography page and has not been confirmed by the label as an official single off the product if you have no source claiming it is an official single then it is a promotional single. you need to stop acting like you own the taylor swift pages. i noticed you ruining a lot of them and you need to stop. its not right of you to confuse people by posting wrong information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.102.31.108 (talk) 16:43, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Promotional singles are songs that are free and they don't have a price. When song is made for digital download means people are able to buy it thus they are becoming singles. Zac's theory is totally fine. — Tomica (talk) 16:46, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Some artists do refer to songs as a promotional single as to promote something else they are doing though, regardless if they are free to buy or not. AARON• ^TALK 16:50, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

exactly so zac is wrong in that aspect and so are you tomica. all singles that aren't released to radio are promotional singles, eg. "Today was a Fairytale" was used to promote Valentine's Day, Safe & Sound was used to promote The Hunger Games and i'd like to point this statement in the promotional recordings section:

Since the advent of broad-bandwidth Internet access and professional tools such as iPool or Haulix, the online promotional distribution of music has been established. Record companies make their music available as audio files and use the Internet as a distribution channel. In contrast to the conventional way of distributing promotional recordings, this kind of promotional distribution is faster and cheaper.

Nothing about free there sorry... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.102.31.108 (talk) 17:19, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia: Promotional recording, or promo, is an audio or video recording distributed for free, usually in order to promote a recording that is or soon will be commercially available. Am I clear now? The first sentence of the article Promotional recording says they are free. Meaning If Taylor made the song available for digital download on iTunes or Amazon or 7digital and didn't refer the song as a promo single (although they rarely name their songs) that makes it a single. — Tomica (talk) 17:23, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong again Tomica: You are picking and chosing here as the next sentence clearly states: Promos are normally sent directly to broadcasters, such as music radio and television stations, and to tastemakers, such as DJs and music journalists, in advance of the release of commercial editions, in the hope that airplay, reviews, and other forms of exposure will result and stimulate the public's interest in the commercial release. Oops your bad...

Online promotional distribution - from Promotional recording

Since the advent of broad-bandwidth Internet access and professional tools such as iPool or Haulix, the online promotional distribution of music has been established. Record companies make their music available as audio files and use the Internet as a distribution channel. In contrast to the conventional way of distributing promotional recordings, this kind of promotional distribution is faster and cheaper. Companies specializing in this type of promotion, such as zipDJ, EatDigital and Potboiler Promotions, have become more prominent in recent times.

Cheaper meaning oops you gotta pay....

Promotion definition by webster

the act of furthering the growth or development of something; especially : the furtherance of the acceptance and sale of merchandise through advertising, publicity, or discounting

No where in the definition does it say it has to be free.

So with that being said a promotional recording can also mean a recording use to promote an album, movie, charity, and other types of media or causes and so on but does not always have to be free. It seems to me both Zac and Tomica need to learn that definition better.

• Sigh... This is an ongoing debate that has been discussed time and time again. A song doesn't have to have to be sent to radio stations or have a music video to be a single. A single is a song that is released separate from an album for sale. It's as simple as that. Promotional singles are distributed for free; the term comes from the old Promo CD singles that say "Promotional only – not for sale". This has already been reached by consensus. Zac  21:26, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Review is complete. It's on hold awaiting changes. — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 ^[talk] 22:07, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To base something as a promotional single based on outdated promotional cd singles not released to the general public when there is more then one way a single is promotional is wrong based on the simple facts of A) Not all promotional cd singles are real and are fan made to make money. B) all promotional cd singles released are of songs that were released to radio and C) there is other forms of promotional singles. I am sorry but that false consensus is wrong and so is wikipedia. And it is not for you to decide when a discussion is over when wikipedia is placing incorrect information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.82.64.34 (talk) 22:08, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lol... Welcome your new user name :P. — Tomica (talk) 17:23, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Zac  23:25, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This makes much more sense. Welcome back Zac! — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 ^[talk] 23:46, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Haha, yes; I couldn't wait until my username change to change my sig. I was getting so annoyed at people calling me Status but default, so I decided to just use my real name. Thanks Unique! May I ask, what is your name? I don't think I've never known it. Zac  23:49, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wow Hello! New username uh? Great :P — ΛΧΣ21™ 23:54, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Everyone calls me Hash. :) — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 ^[talk] 23:56, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Hash :P ! — Tomica (talk) 00:05, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Now that we've got that sorted... i feel like we're a nice group again. I miss that so many of my fav editors have left :( — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 ^[talk] 00:13, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Haha, yes. We've lost some great editors, but we've gained some as well. Zac  01:29, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It is true. Hahc21 who appears to be a good addition to the gang. Onwards and upwards eh?! — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 ^[talk] 01:39, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Haha U know haha From the gang :P — ΛΧΣ21™ 16:19, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I love this. It's so epic:) —ArreJLover 06:12, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I will have to agree. Zac [on the go]  15:18, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lol. Till 06:50, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Who? I don't know him or her. Zac [on the go]  14:56, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have strong suspicions that you are secretly affiliated with a user named Ending-start. Don't lie. —WP:PENGUIN · ^{[ TALK ]} 00:23, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea what you speak of. Pleas keep your suspicions to yourself. Zac  02:21, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As the blogosphere would say... my wig is well and truly snatched. my only gripe is that this is what should have followed evolution. — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 ^[talk] 08:24, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Precisely. This is wholeheartedly "Promise 2". Zac  10:39, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I just realized I said that already... LMFAO. Zac  13:54, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We are currently running a study on the effects of adding additional information to SuggestBot’s recommendations. Participation in the study is voluntary. Should you wish to not participate in the study, or have questions or concerns, you can find contact information in the consent information sheet.

We have added information about the readership of the suggested articles using a Low/Medium/High scale which goes from Low to High .

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

Stubs			Cleanup
	NuvoTV			Need You Now (song)
	M6 Music			Pink Friday Tour
	Arena Stožice			Sophie Muller
	Unk		Merge
	Mise Au Green			List of gymnastics flips
	Disco Inferno (50 Cent song)			Aphrodite (album)
	Ben West (musician)			Young Money (group)
	Black Hippy		Add sources
	Feel the Noise			Barbra: Live
	Tag Team (group)			DanceLife
	No Sleep (Wiz Khalifa song)			Hot Boys
	Anaconda (film)		Wikify
	Hotel Malibu			StayBent Krunk-a-Delic
	Son by Four (album)			Basement Jaxx discography
	Amar Sin Mentiras			UR Chicago
	My Little Girl		Expand
	Jeanette Jurado			Two Is Better Than One
	Stade Charles-Ehrmann			Lanxess Arena
	Second Chances (TV series)			Give Me Everything (Pitbull song)

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 13:16, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hehe! aww thanks Zac! Yes, I would like to get Love? to GA status. I think it needs a deep thorough copy edit, much like I did to Glassheart. I'm glad you want to do it together though. I dont think i'd have time alone. — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 ^[talk] 14:06, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah; I haven't really taken a look at it recently, but I'd think so too. Yes, of course! Amazing work on Glassheart by the way, it could easily become a GA right now and it doesn't come out until next month! Haha! Zac  21:56, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers Zac. I was so bored yesterday so I started with the singles section and before I knew it... it was like 2am and i'd done the whole article. Hopefully the idea is add critical reception and Glassheart should be ace for a GA. But people are funny usually they say don't GA until the promo for the album dies down. :( ... with regards to Love? I worry some of the refs might become dead/already be dead. — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 ^[talk] 22:02, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Haha, I know the feeling! Happened to me many times before! I can't really expect the promo for the album to be too heavy, and besides, I don't even see what that has to do with anything. I'm not much of a fan of having a section for all the times they appeared on a TV show, etc. to promote an album. I don't think it's going to be too much of an issue, since they are from a few years ago, they would probably be available on web.archive. I'll do a check right now. Zac  22:04, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

All the refs are fine. Only 2 connection issues. Zac  22:06, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Final things on Run the World (song) — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 ^[talk] 20:56, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations! — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 ^[talk] 22:48, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot! Zac  22:56, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Since I built the article, I would have appreciated if you notified me about your intention of nominating Lindsay Lohan's Indian Journey for GA. I reverted/modified a few of your edits I found problematic, I'm open for discussion if you disagree. Siawase (talk) 20:58, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've gotten no problems with your changes. Zac  22:16, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've reviewed the article. Perhaps both of you should comment there. Thanks. Till 04:13, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, that GA review flew by in a second. Since you closed the review before I had a chance to comment (I was asleep!) I guess I'll add my comments here. First of all, thanks to Zac for improving the article and to Till for reviewing it so quickly and thoroughly. Second, there's a reason I didn't nominate this article to GA sooner. It lacks context and assumes that readers are already familiar with Lohan and her issues. When I created the material it was intended for the Lindsay Lohan article, so I didn't include background that was already mentioned elsewhere in that article. So when the material was spun out to create this article, it only mentions that BBC was criticized for hiring her, but not why Lohan in particular would be problematic, that they were accused of doing image washing, but not what was problematic about her image to begin with. There might be more similar instances. Likely there is some background info in the existing sources, but summarizing her problems in a neutral and WP:BLP compliant way is delicate and often complex work, and I haven't had time. Siawase (talk) 10:50, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Update: I did a bit of an expansion based on the existing sources to address the issues I mentioned above. I think it's within WP:BLP and WP:GA but it would be great if either of you could look it over. Siawase (talk) 15:57, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I thought about adding some background information about her personal struggles, but then thought that 1) it would be quite hard to condense everything that happened to get the reader to fully understand and 2) everybody, basically, knows of what has happened in her life. I think your expansion just now gets rid of the need to go in such detail, and just gives the reader a little bit of information about it, just in case they weren't aware. I think it looks great. Yes, Till reviewed the article rather quick; I didn't expect that. Cheers, Zac  16:12, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for looking it over. I actually know people who don't even know who Lohan is. Admittedly, it's unlikely they'd stumble on this particular article, but nevertheless, the details of her personal struggles really aren't on the "sky is blue" level of common knowledge. I tried to add just enough to give context to the criticism, and I agree the article shouldn't go further in depth on Lohan's bio, positive or negative. Especially since the documentary was supposed to not be about her. Siawase (talk) 17:04, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You're really going for it with the GAs aren't you :P Haha gotta love Jenny! Did I tell you im going to see her live in October? :P I'll put a review on my page for sure! I usually record some footage too and i'll most definitely take pictures so we can enhance her pages. :) The article looks good. Its good to branch outside music. — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 ^[talk] 19:03, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Haha, well, I haven't ever done a TV network article before, so I have no idea what should be included or not. Don't think it will happen anytime soon. The article was a complete mess before. No, you didn't! Lucky! Yes, we need some new pics on the 'Pedia. It was so great to get the Pop Festival ones, but that's all that we got! Well, that's basically all she does. Haha. I can't believe she considered doing Idol and releasing Love? focusing on her music career. She said now her focus is shifting over the acting (and I guess, television). Zac  19:06, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think people really bought the "On the Floor" concept.. you know classic JLO in 2012. But if she has another album in 2013-14 she needs a new concept. People won't buy an OTF knock off again. I think she should go and be more like J/K-pop stars. Focus on her acting and every so often release a mini-album. I.e. an EP of 8 songs, promoted with two singles. People generally speaking don't seem interested in a full length studio album by the Lopez any more. — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 ^[talk] 19:12, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

On 20 September 2012, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Your Body (Christina Aguilera song), which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that the artwork for Christina Aguilera's single "Your Body" sees her "bodacious curves on full display"? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Your Body (Christina Aguilera song). You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Casliber (talk · contribs) 16:03, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Zach! Sorry for the late reply. I don't check my Wikipedia account often. I'm doing great and hope you are too. Am preoccupied with college work :) Ryoga Godai (talk) 11:16, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You are really good with composition stuff could you make one for the article I have cited, I just really want a good composition section. Regards AdabowtheSecond (talk) 01:58, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"I just really want a good composition section" → .. WP:OWN? Till 05:56, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Till I Go Home, I would appreciate if you were to help also. AdabowtheSecond (talk) 15:59, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, sorry for the late reply. I'm just getting over a head cold and I've been super busy, so I don't have the time to help you. Sorry. Zac  20:13, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, you are receiving this message because you are currently a participant of WikiProject Good articles. Since the creation of the WikiProject, over 200 user's have joined to help review good article nominations and contribute to other sections of the WikiProject. Over the years, several of these users have stopped reviewing articles and/or have become inactive with the project but are still listed as participates. In order to improve communications with other participants and get newsletters sent out faster (newsletters will begin to be sent out monthly starting in October) all participants that are no longer active with the WikiProject will be removed from the participants list.

If you are still interested in being a participant for this WikiProject, please sign your user name here and please help review some articles so we can reduce the size of the backlog. If you are no longer interested, you do not need to sign your name anywhere and your name will be removed from the participants list after the deadline. Remember that even if you are not interested at this time, you can always re-add your name to the list whenever you want. The deadline to sign your name on the page above will be November 1, 2012. Thank-you. 13:25, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Sorry for having to send out a second message but a user has brought to my attention that a point mentioned in the first message should be clarified. If user's don't sign on this page, they will be moved to an "Inactive Participants" list rather then be being removed from the entire WikiProject. Sorry for any confusion.--Dom497 (talk)15:15, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Articles for Creation is desperately short of reviewers! We are looking for urgent help, from experienced editors, in reviewing submissions in the pending submissions queue. Currently there are 2616 submissions waiting to be reviewed and many help requests at our Help Desk. Do you have what it takes? Are you familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines? Do you know what Wikipedia is and is not? Do you have a working knowledge of the Manual of Style, particularly article naming conventions? Can you review submissions based on their individual merits? If the answer to these questions is yes, then please read the reviewing instructions and donate a little of your time to helping tackle the backlog. You might wish to add {{AFC status}} or {{AfC Defcon}} to your userpage, which will alert you to the number of open submissions. PS: we have a great AFC helper script at WP:AFCH! News Good article nominee 04 Aug 2012 – Parental brain (talk · edit · hist) was GA nominated by Carina1205 (t · c); see discussion AFCH script improvements 1.16 to 1.17 Batman still works!

Sent on behalf of WikiProject Articles for creation. If you do not wish to receive anymore messages from this WikiProject, please remove your username from this page.
Happy reviewing! TheSpecialUser ^TSU

• Delivered by EdwardsBot (talk) 09:04, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

on + ... — Tomica (talk) 20:16, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Could you fix the issues brought up here when you get a chance. Thanks. Till 03:35, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

:). Till 04:21, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I know right!?! Omg we're totally obsessed lol. Haha yes I will do. I was waiting for confirmation that its definitely the right deluxe cover cause on some retailers it looks pink and on others it looks purple. Oh well... I'll give it a few more days I think as there was supposed to be a competition for the deluxe edition cover. — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 ^[talk] 12:03, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your db-move tag suggested that we delete this page and move Oops! I Did It Again - The Best Of Britney Spears on top of it, but that page is a redirect. Did you make a typo for the actual album, or are you proposing something different? I've declined your speedy deletion because I'm unsure what you want, so I'd appreciate it if you went back and clarified what you want. Nyttend (talk) 02:32, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, sorry, what I meant was: Oops! I Did It Again - The Best of Britney Spears -> Oops! I Did It Again: The Best of Britney Spears. This is per proper naming guidelines that are used on Wikipedia. Zac  02:34, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We are currently running a study on the effects of adding additional information to SuggestBot’s recommendations. Participation in the study is voluntary. Should you wish to not participate in the study, or have questions or concerns, you can find contact information in the consent information sheet.

We have added information about the readership of the suggested articles using a Low/Medium/High scale which goes from Low to High .

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

Stubs			Cleanup
	School Gyrls (film)			Gangnam Style
	Handsome Poets			Sara Bareilles discography
	Mustard plaster			Sade discography
	Just a Lil Bit		Merge
	Six60			Superman
	The Cherrytree Sessions (Robyn EP)			Critics' Choice Television Award for Best Reality Series - Competition
	Chi (magazine)			Aqualung (musician)
	Christina Aguilera doll		Add sources
	NapsterLive			Brandon Blue Hamilton
	Stand and Deliver (song)			Recovery (Eminem album)
	Genie Gets Her Wish			The Video Collection (Anastacia video)
	D'Mile		Wikify
	Kerrang!/XFM UK Acoustic Sessions			Peter Svensson
	WrestleMania XXIX			Juno Baby
	AOL Sessions EP (iTunes Exclusive)			Diana Simmonds
	The House (album)		Expand
	DNA Productions			Brooke Fraser discography
	Midi Mafia			I'm Not Dead
	Life (Simply Red album)			The Voice (U.S. season 3)

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 12:28, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. I saw the edit you made to Deacon Sharpe a while back, saying you were "cleaning up the infobox." First of all, for occupations, all are to be listed. Former occupations are relevant, but the word "former" is not to be used. A lot of soap articles currently violate that term but I'm working on it. And another thing, when a character has starred on two or more soaps, we don't write out the full series title next to their appearances, we use their abbreviation. We link it next to the durations and then just write it in italics next to the appearances. Just thought I'd let you know in case you were going to be editing soap articles. If you have any questions regarding this, please let me know. Thanks! Creativity97 (TALK) 13:45, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I was hugely confused by your edits. You listed 12 September 2012 as the first release date for "Trouble", when all this stuff was discussed previously it was agreed that the first PURCHASE date is the release date whereas the radio add date is the servicing date. In the UK/Ireland this has even more prominence and airplay has zero direct impact on the charts. A song which is number one on airplay carries no weight as to whether the song is number one on the singles chart as it simply isn't a component of the singles chart. There's no official airplay monitoring. Therefore particularly for where a song's first release is the UK/Ireland the purchase date should be used. As for premieres, well lots of GA/FA articles have the premiere date listed in the release history. — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 ^[talk] 12:32, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Does that mean if a song (in a UK) is sent to radio it's not a single... like this one? — Tomica (talk) 18:22, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not necessarily. With digital tracks (songs that can be downloaded directly from an album) being added to UK radio doesn't directly influence the chart position but if a fan hears the song they might find themselves wanting to download the song. But its not as explicit or clear cut. I keep saying to people WP:DUCK ... if it quacks like a duck it probably is one! Equally each song should be taken on its own merit, i.e. are there reliable third-party and direct label sources which refer to the song as a single? My issue with the Glassheart stuff was all to do with the fact they have radio premieres in addition to purchase dates, the greater preference is given to the latter. — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 ^[talk] 23:00, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]