User talk:Musiclover66

Retired

This user is no longer active on Wikipedia.

Welcome

Welcome!

Hello, Musiclover66, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{help me}} before the question. Again, welcome! Monterey Bay (talk) 04:06, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Question from Bobjonespie

Hey there,

I'd just like to know what text QueenJules put on the I'm Into You page that was marked as vandalism.

--Bobjonespie (talk) 03:13, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you from Bobjonespie

Thank you for answering my question. I was just curious because this user was posting random comments on my talk page --Bobjonespie (talk) 18:04, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

An Invitation to Join WikiProject Jennifer Lopez

You have been invited to join the Jennifer Lopez WikiProject, a WikiProject on the English Wikipedia dedicated to improving articles and lists related to Jennifer Lopez. If you are interested in joining, please visit the project page and add your name to the list of participants. Thank You. ℥nding·start 08:09, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Welcome to the Jennifer Lopez WikiProject!

Welcome to the Jennifer Lopez WikiProject! We are very pleased to have your help with the project. If you have not done so yet, it is strongly recommended that you add all the Jennifer Lopez pages to your watchlist. If you have any inquiries regarding the project, or any articles relating to Jennifer Lopez, please direct them to the project's talk page. Alternately, you could also bring up a discussion on the article's own talk page, or message a fellow participant, but we would prefer all participants engaging on the project's own talk page. If you find yourself inactive with the project for an extended period of time, feel free to remove yourself, or just add yourself to the inactive participants section. Thank you. ℥nding·start 20:05, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Luke Bryan

Wild Weekend peaked at #17 on the Bubbling Under Hot 100 and got no higher; this position is sourced in the article. Precedent is that it's okay to list songs that peaked in the Bubbling Under but didn't get to the Hot 100 proper, as long as the Bubbling Under peak is sourced, and figures like 117 are often used as shorthand for "this song got to #17 on Bubbling Under" both on-wiki and off. I've added a footnote to make it clearer. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 00:34, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

What are the long Talk page music lists?

Hello, Musiclover66

I've noticed (and appreciate) the work you've been doing on music-related articles. Now I've also noticed the multiple unexplained music lists on your Talk page (above), and I'm wondering what they're here for. You don't seem to be using them as part of a discussion with other Wikipedians, but you appear to be trying to keep older lists updated while you occasionally add new ones.

I'm afraid you might be misusing this page. Have you taken a look at the policy notes at WP:WEBHOST? That section of the "What Wikipedia is not" policy advises us not to use user pages as our own Web site or for self-promotion. Do you think you might be violating that policy?

Thanks for taking a look. Regards, — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 15:16, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Hi, again, and thanks for your reply on my Talk page. Thanks also for removing most of the lists above. I still suspect you're misusing your Talk page so don't be surprised if somebody else complains, but I'm not going to beat you up or report you because of it. Your idea of, e.g., a flash drive is a good one, though, and it might help you outside WP, too. Cheers, — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 16:16, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

We Found Love/Fly

Digital download release takes presidence over radio release. Take California King Bed and Man Down. Man Down was sent to US radio before CKB, making the former the fifth single and the latter the sixth single. But Man Down got digital release after CKB, thus making CKB the fifth single and Man Down the sixth single. Calvin • ^NaNaNaC'mon! 19:04, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

I am confused as to what you're trying to say. I know digital download release takes precedence over radio release, but Fly was released to radio and digital before We Found Love. Fly has been digitally released since the album was was released, and on radio it was released to rhythmic on August 30 and mainstream September 20, both of those dates are before WFL's release. MuSiClOvEr (talk) 19:34, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

We Found Love was digitally released on September 22, 2011. Fly will be released on October 17, 2011. We Found Love comes first. Calvin • ^NaNaNaC'mon! 19:35, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

In the UK. But the chronology is a US chronology, and in the US Fly has already been digitally released. If it was a UK chronology the date would be written like this, 17 October 2011 instead of October 17, 2011. MuSiClOvEr (talk) 19:37, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

The Fly article says differently, in fact, it doesn't even say it's been released in the US. It's not a US chronology, it's just whatever is released digitally first. Calvin • ^NaNaNaC'mon! 19:42, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Ok, please don't be impatient, I just really don't understand...Fly has been released to radio and digital in the US, it does say that in the article. So how can you say that it hasn't been released in the US when it's been released to the two main formats?

And just to be clear...in the edit summary you said, "Digital release takes presidence. I am sure, otherwise I wouldn't put those notices.." But I remember in the WFL article when you re-added the component charts and put in the notice, then I said you can't do that per WP:USCHARTS...Obviously you were wrong that time, even if you were sure... MuSiClOvEr (talk) 19:45, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Yeah, RADIO not DIGITAL in the US. You just said Fly has been digitally released ("US Fly has already been digitally released") in the article, I said no it hasn't, and I'm right. it doesn't. We are talking digital here! The digital release date of We Found Love takes precedence over Fly's US radio release. I don't know how else to say how it. I only thought I was right about the component charts because no one has ever said "you can't add this if it has charted on this". We learn through mistakes. And can you stop adding or changing your comment and let me reply? You've edit conflicted me three times! Calvin • ^NaNaNaC'mon! 19:52, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Don't get all defensive. I'm not trying to say "I'm right and you're wrong", I'm just trying to get an explanation for something I don't understand. You said "digital release takes precedence over radio", it was unclear to me what you were saying, it makes sense now. But Fly is digitally released in the US, on US Digital Songs it is #56, which is a chart of only songs that have been digitally released from the official US charts on Billboard.com. And on US iTunes it is also #56, which is a digital chart. Those are the two most reliable sources I can give you for that. For the last time I'm not trying to accuse you of anything. I just think you might want to take those sources into consideration.MuSiClOvEr (talk) 20:01, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

But you contradicted what you said, so I pointed it out to you to make it clear. iTunes chart is not a reliable source. And nothing you give is reliable unless you find a reliable or critical source saying that Fly was digitally release (in the US or anywhere else in world) before September 22. Just because it's charting on the US Digital songs chart, it doesn't mean it was released before September 22. It could have charted this past wednesday or 6 weeks ago, we don't know, that's what I'm saying, you need a relable or critical source saying that Fly was digitally released. You need a digital release date. Calvin • ^NaNaNaC'mon! 20:09, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

OK, I'm sorry I know I didn't make it clear. But it has been digitally released in the US since the album's release date, November 19, 2010. Look at the US Billboard charts dated December 11, 2010, under Biggest Jump. Fly debuted at #76 that week, and also at #47 on Digital songs. December 11, 2010 is a date before September 22, 2011. If you want a digital release date, it is November 19, 2010, because that is when the album was released and it was a track on the standard edition. The reason there is no digital release date in the article, is the same reason there is none for Cheers, it's simply an album track that was later released as a single. MuSiClOvEr (talk) 20:20, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Digital release generally means that a song is a single, and Fly wasn't released as an official single last year. It charted on the strength of downloads, causing it to chart on the Digital Songs chart. Cheers had never charted before it was released to Radio in August, Cheers is a Radio singles, just like Raining Men was. Calvin • ^NaNaNaC'mon! 20:27, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

When Fly was released as a single though, after its radio release date, it re-entered the Digital Songs at #45 on the chart dated September 17, which is also before the 22nd. MuSiClOvEr (talk) 20:32, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Charting on the Digital Songs chart doesn't make it a digitally released single. Any song can chart on the digital songs chart, regardless of whether or not it is a single. Calvin • ^NaNaNaC'mon! 20:54, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

I am familiar with how the Digital Songs chart works...So what you are trying to say is that Fly is a radio released single but not digitally released?MuSiClOvEr (talk) 20:59, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

In the US, yes. Calvin • ^NaNaNaC'mon! 21:30, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

T-Pain

Here, it was said that "Raining Men" was an official single simply because it was released to radio: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Raining_Men_(song)

Also, here "Go Girl" discusssion, it was agreed that once a song is released, an artist can not change it, because it didnt perform to their standards: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Like_a_Surgeon_(Ciara_song) Therefore, if a song is released as an official single, it will forever be an official single. An artist can not erase a single from their history because it failed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.79.88.109 (talk) 23:45, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

OK that is better, but still not enough. These pages have been like they are for months, possibly years, without anyone protesting about why there are official singles in the promotional singles box. Looking at your editing history, I don't see that you have a whole lot of experience with Wikipedia. So I don't feel like I can just trust that you know what you're doing; sure that rule is true in most cases but this states that there can be exceptions. Do you have the official adds date for each one of those songs to US radio? Because I know some of them charted on the Pop Songs and Hot R&B/Hip-Hop Songs, but any song can chart on those charts from unsolicited airplay; that is airplay without an adds date.

And also, if you insist that you're right, I will expect you to go through and change every one of those songs' articles to official singles, as well as adjusting any information on their pages, T-Pain's main page, the discography page, and RevloveR. You should either do the entire job or not do it at all. MuSiClOvEr (talk) 00:32, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm expecting an answer here. I will keep undoing your edit unless you give me a radio adds date. MuSiClOvEr (talk) 22:11, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Rick Ross discography

Was there a specific reason for hitting the undo button in this edit? Clearly you could have provided the source without trying to revert my edit. Such editing can be viewed as edit warring regardless of the insertion of the source.--Harout72 (talk) 06:03, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Not really. just a quicker way of putting the 72 back along with a source. I'm sorry if my intentions were unclear to you or if that was against the rules in any way. MuSiClOvEr (talk) 16:11, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Rumour Has It

User: Cockiness is right. It is NOT a single. There is no reliable source citing that it is a single. There is no radio release date or purchasable date. Calvin • ^TalkThatTalk 22:09, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Rap music existance?

Musiclover66,


Rap is not a genre. Hip hop is the proper term for rap. At least rap is no longer a genre. Hip hop is the only term used for rap music these days.

Although this is not a huge notice, you may have noticed that the edit you made for What Would You Do? (City High song) reverts hip hop back to rap. Rap seriously is NOT a genre. Hip hop is the proper term.

The next time you make edits to a page that says hip hop, you will get your one and only warning, then you may be blocked. Each time you edit a page that says hip hop and change it to rap, your edits will get reverted - and that will cause you your one and only warning that I mentioned before, then you may get blocked. Thank you. Ian Streeter (talk) 18:18, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

You cannot just say something is no longer a genre without a source to back up your claim. It's just like me saying pop isn't a genre and removing it from every page that says it is a pop song. I have every right to revert that unsourced claim and no one in their right mind would block me for it. Stop your edit warring and make an attempt to back up your opinion or YOU will be the one getting blocked. MuSiClOvEr (talk) 19:57, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Hip hop is the proper term for rap. If you want to use "rap" as the word, check yourself and think "Wait a second - change it to hip hop" - and then change it to hip hop. THAT'S what I was trying to point out. PS,
Everyone can agree that pop is a genre. I don't mean to mean "rap" like "pop". Ian Streeter (talk) 20:33, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

lol ok. sorry for the offensive...if you'd have pointed that out to me before I probably would have been a little more willing to believe you though. MuSiClOvEr (talk) 20:40, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Musiclover66. You have new messages at Calvin999's talk page.
Message added 20:34, 13 November 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Calvin • ^TalkThatTalk 20:34, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

User:Musiclover66

Add more vandalism edits to your user page! They are so funny! Ian Streeter (talk) 20:42, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

I'll get to it. It took me like an hour just to find those four lol. MuSiClOvEr (talk) 20:44, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

I need MORE. At least five more. Ian Streeter (talk) 23:28, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

User:Musiclover66/sandbox

Is it OK if I take your "Faster" text and post it to the ACTUAL page "Faster (Matt Nathanson song)"? Because right now it is a redirect to Modern Love (album). I will add sources for charts and more info to the lead text. Ian Streeter (talk) 22:24, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Yeah that's fine. I was just using it as a test to see how to make a page. MuSiClOvEr (talk) 22:26, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Happy Birthday!

Andie (talk) 12:08, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. When you recently edited Sirius XM Hits 1, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Turn Me On (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 11:20, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 12

Hi. When you recently edited Sirius XM Hits 1, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Turn Me On (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 10:44, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 19

Hi. When you recently edited Sirius XM Hits 1, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Karmin (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 10:05, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 21

Hi. When you recently edited Sirius XM Hits 1, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Mark Foster (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 09:57, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Musiclover66. You have new messages at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Jennifer Lopez.
Message added 01:34, 5 May 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

— Statυs (talk) 01:34, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Sirius XM Hits 1

It is absolutely a copyright infringement when we reproduce the entire weekly chart as is. The fact that it is on Sirius website or in forums does not give us the right to reproduce it in Wikipedia as is. Plus the "bubbling under" and the going out of charts singles... Even if we do have a feature on Sirius chart as a whole, which is ok provided we prove its notability, these are constantly and perpetually updated weekly charts. So any one week chart may be important for THAT specific week's purpose, but immaterial after a new chart is released and yet another chart and so on.. Another grave concern of mine is the publicity nature of such charts and the advertising aspect of it. Such comprehensive detailed chart is considered purely promotional rather than informative. Such presentation is inadmissable and should be avoided for a more objective restrained coverage of what Sirius chart and (many other Sirius charts) are... What we can possibly do though is create a summary page for the successive #1s in which the top song from date of establishment of the chart until today are documented and once we have them all, update them weekly by adding the new #1 to the list just like we have on specific country-oriented charts like Sweden or UK or Billboard etc. See for example List of Danish number-one hits etc. Please do not introduce full charts from now on and try creating a resume page for the #1s instaed. One final suggestion. If Sirius keeps archives of the consecutive charts, what you can do is put in the external links section besides th main page, the direct access to the actual archives section of the chart for easier reference by those who visit this page in Wikipedia werldwayd (talk) 17:34, 9 July 2012 (UTC) werldwayd (talk) 17:41, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

That page is just fine so as the page format like List of Danish number-one hits or List of number-one singles (Iceland) from day of establishment of te chart until this week. Then we can rely on you that you visit the page weekly or whenever new chart is published to add the new #1 to the data. For now, you can develop the list on the page itself. No need for a new page. A good guide is what we do here on the countdown page of Much Music Countdown (MuchMusic) for example which is a similar case to Sirius chart werldwayd (talk) 18:55, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

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) 16:46, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Musiclover66. 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

Hello, Musiclover66. 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)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Musiclover66. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 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 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed 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 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:14, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed 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 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:25, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Happy Birthday!

Wishing Musiclover66 a very happy birthday on behalf of the Birthday Committee!   Chris Troutman (talk) 20:20, 6 January 2023 (UTC)