User talk:Chasewc91/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Sample

Hey can you upload a 27 second sample for "Dance in the Dark" at File:Danceinthedark.ogg? --Legolas ^(talk2me) 10:46, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Works like a charm! Thanks. Btwn, how are you? --Legolas ^(talk2me) 03:21, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

I already went to the new shows in London. They are just simply awesome and so much better than the 2009 shows. You ust get tickets to see her. Sad that no more singles will be released from The Fame Monster though. But her third album sounds like a real grown up sound and super excited. Come to think off it, radio needs some rest from Gaga. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 04:16, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. Did you know that Gagadaily's owner Kirill edits here? Its User talk:Kirillgdaily. Lol. As for "Monster", since Gaga won't be promoting it if its not an official single, they will go with the song as a promotional single as it sounds the most radio-CHR friendly song. "Dance in the Dark" is also one of my favourites, but alas, only get to see it on tours. I wished that Chew Fyu would have remixed "Alejandro", his remixes are just awsome. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 04:32, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

The "Bad Romance" remix is just mind blowing!! Whenever me and my friends get together for a party, we start it with the Chew Fu remix. The starting of "Walk walk fashion baby" itself is awesome. Well, I have to check out Chew Fu though. And linking youtibe in user talk pages is fine. Youtube is not blacklisted so no problem. I'm not sure of Rated R though, didn't like the album that much and the present "mushroom head" Rihanna is not really my liking. Though I might visit her tour. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 04:46, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Don't even get me started on Beaverface. Did ya know that he came 7th on the list of most searched women in internet?? Guess who came first. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 05:20, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

I cracked up seeing the Telephone video, when the female guard says "I told you she didn't have a dick". Gaga really has some balls in her, I mean literally . It seems like Bionic is going down an epic flop though. Wonder what was so wrong. People at pulsemusic are calling her Orangetina, Screamtina, Doubletina etc. You should guess who are these people though—Godga, Beysus Christ, Rihallah, Kellegend, Godonaa, Hairy Undergrowth, Godney, and the best—Herpe$ha. Lol. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 05:44, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Me too, never liked Bashtina that much. My favourites are "Nicole Flopsinger" and "Baldney", honorable mentions to Mooriah Scarey, Kelesbian Fartson, STD$ha, Oink! Guess the last one. He he. I know, the Gaga fans are a little overboard now, wait till one of Gaga's songs flops. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 05:59, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

(Outdent)Oink is none other than Pink. Lol. I think more so than Interscope, Gaga is intelligent to understand the public's reactions towards her. Esp since the Alejandro video, though sparking rumours, did nothing to help the song on iTunes. Hence they realised that a backlash must have been forming from the oversaturation. The rest would actually do Gaga good. She doesnot look too healthy nowadays. I am scared about the Lupus thing. But then again, can't wait for this year's VMAs. "Bad Romance" has a huge chance of sweeping the ceremony. It has to, the best video of the last year. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 06:15, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Seriously, I mean TSwift—already receiving negative reviews as an artist and the girl can't even sing a single note live. Yeah Gaga looked good at the Elton John event. I am just wondering what her new single will be like! Gaga said that its gonna be "the anthem of our generation" and she's gonna release the name on New Year's Eve. So long and so much hype already. Stefanie knows her promotions :) --Legolas ^(talk2me) 06:24, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

"California Gurls" has really destroyed every competition. Wonder if it will break all the CHR records. It already has the most spins in its hands. "You Lost Me" will flop, I'm afraid. There is actually nothing now in this era that could save it, even "Bionic". She doesnot have a "Rude Boy" gem in her album like Ri-Ri had to save Rated R. Wonder how Teenage Dream will be like. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 06:35, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Tik Tok

Hey, regarding Tik Tok leaving them as separate articles would be best (i believe). Ive been digging through rules and guidelines and i have yet to find anything stating parodies must be included in the main article of the original song. The song itself passes notable song and merging would be such a pain. There is no coverage on the song itself, you said i could add a music video section to the article, but all of that would fall under WP:OR because i could not find any coverage on the video that are reliable sources. Rather then merging i would rather a banner at the top of the page to link to each other like tik tok has on Tick Tock (song) by Lemar or maybe even a section called parody and then link to the page. (if i can find enough coverage). (CK)Lakeshade✽talk2me 22:44, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Question

Hi -- do you think the pic here can be used to discuss the song as it is used elsewhwere? Specifically, in IDF Tick Tock, if we have further mention of the song there?--Epeefleche (talk) 22:21, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Tx.--Epeefleche (talk) 23:38, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Lady Gaga Discography

I have re-inserted the peak-positions for larger markets like Japan's and Germany's back into the tables. But I would like to know the reason of your removal here. In case you don't know this, and I am guessing you don't, Ireland's music market is a very small market, Ireland and New Zealand they both have the same exact size of markets; in fact, they both have smaller markets than Austria. Whereas Japan has the second largest music market after US, and Germany the fourth largest market after US, Japan, UK. Please do not remove neither Japan's nor Germany's peaks and replace them with either Ireland's peak or US dance charts, the latter of which is not significant at all. Regards.--Harout72 (talk) 18:50, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm not the one editing based on opinion, you are. Yes, larger markets are more important than the smaller ones, and if there are slots left for smaller markets after including larger and the medium-sized markets, only then the smaller markets should be included. As for how to source the German positions, it's very easy, singles are here, and albums are here. in other words, the page does not have to use one source for both, there is no such policy. As far as how easily the Japanese peaks are found, excluding them only because they are not as easily located as some others is what I call irrelevant. Therefore, we have notes for them, and if you want to source each position individually for example : The Fame No. 6 (link goes immediately next to it [1], The Fame Monster No. 2 (link goes immediately next to it) [2].

By the way, only because is the English wikipedia, it doesn't mean it's more logical to have positions coming from English-speaking territories, even though, some of them represent tiny markets. There is no such policy either, if that's what you are basing your edits on.--Harout72 (talk) 20:51, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

I personally think we don't have enough slots for anything like US dance charts. Replacing it with even New Zealand's peaks, wouldn't be a good idea. We should stick to official main charts of each market. I am more than certain that Eminem's discography page as well as others which have become FAs, have not achieved that due to having as many US peaks as we can list. I believe what matters for becoming a FA is how the general structure is and covering as many markets as possible with only 10 or maximum 11 slots.--Harout72 (talk) 21:00, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Let's use the proposal that I made for the Japanese peaks above, The Fame No. 6 (link goes immediately next to it [3], The Fame Monster No. 2 (link goes immediately next to it) [4]. It's much easier than going to the notes first. I really think Japan is a market that should be included. Italy's market is a bit smaller market that Australia's, I wouldn't replace a huge market honestly with a medium sized market.--Harout72 (talk) 22:21, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

No not at all, I know they are only easy to locate if you have specific instructions posted. The singles could be found here, it's the one on the left, but you would have to search for the peaks. I personally locate the Japanese peaks by translating each week's charts with this google translator. If you give me some time, I could locate the peaks for each single, unfortunately, it takes me some time since I don't read Japanese, and the names of all foreign artists are for some inexplicable reason posted with Japanese letters.--Harout72 (talk) 22:45, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

For the singles I don't mind as I understand we'd need awful lot of notes to point out the peaks, although, I'm willing to go over the Japanese single chart week by week to retrieve the peaks, and we could post the links immediately next to the given positions. But for albums, I would very much mind if the Japan is excluded, and their certifications especially, 2x Platinum there is 500,000, whereas 5x platinum in Ireland or New Zealand is 75,000. You see my point?--Harout72 (talk) 23:11, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Why do you keep insisting on using Ireland, is it because this is the English wiki and Ireland is an English speaking country? There are much bigger markets to cover before that. Wikipedia is all about covering as much information as possible. I am not saying to leave the Japan's peaks unverified. What's could be the harm in sourcing each peak individually, without the footnotes? However, if you really want to use something that can be verifiable more easily then in that case use Italy, here.--Harout72 (talk) 23:45, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

OK that's fine, let's use Italy, but is it not possible to leave Japan's certifications in place, that would make a lot of difference as an information? Also, I would include Germany's certifications to Gaga after you're done re-constructing the tables, just the album-certifications I mean. Although, both UK and Germany are part of IFPI and we already have EU (European continent's certification), I think posting their certifications respectively gives certain type of information as to what percentage of Gaga's entire European sales those two markets alone generate, (it's over 50%).--Harout72 (talk) 00:10, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Lady Gaga Discography - Singles

Hi Chasewc91,

First, I want you know i'm really not good in english, i speak french. So, check this, it is a exemples for other discography who separate singles and featured singles. For Video Phone, it's a single, see the music video of the song and read the informations bellow.

Exemples of discography :

1. Rihanna Discography
   
2. Eminem discography
   
3. Katy Perry Discography
   
4. Kesha Discography
   
5. Beyoncé Knowles Discography
   
6. Michael Jackson Discography
   
7. Leona Lewis Discography
   
8. Jay-Z Discography
   
9. Christina Aguilera discography
   
10. Kanye West discography
    

And more...

Madonna have only one featured single, like Gaga. So, I think when Gaga have a new featured single, a section "As featured artist" can be create.

For Video Phone, read this :

1. Wikipedia article of I Am... Sasha Fierce,

   More than one year after the album's release, "Video Phone" was released as the eighth and final single from the album with a music video and digital download release taking form of an extended remix featuring American electropop artist, Lady Gaga.

2. Wikipedia article of Beyoncé Knowles Discography,

   "Video Phone" (Remix featuring Lady Gaga)

3. Wikipedia article of Video Phone,

   The release was later recalled and in October 2009, Life & Style reported that Knowles and pop singer Lady Gaga were collaborating for a remixed version of the song.

4. Beyoncé and Lady Gaga's top-secret project

Weel, I hope now you know Video Phone (extented remix) is a single and that in the discography, single and collaboration is in different sections.

Once again sorry for my bad english Raphael99 (talk) 21:14, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Sorry if I don't know for the consensus of Video Phone. Concerning the featured singles, I propose to do like in the discography of Christina Aguilera, do you agree?--Raphael99 (talk) 21:30, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Congrats

Congrats on the magnificent version of the Lady Gaga discography article. Superb job. — Legolas ^(talk2me) 03:48, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the counter praise. He he. And I wanna listen to the new snippets pleaseeeee. — Legolas ^(talk2me) 03:55, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

It is kinda slow, but a good thing you know. Let the saturation of Gaga on US radio subside by the time the official demos start leaking. Those demos I have heard actually, they were from the Fame Monster recording sessions. I think we will be getting snippets from the September/October timeline though. She said that she wants to release the album in the first quarter of 2011, so the first single must be releasing around November. Any guesses as to what the first day sales might be? :) Looks like Katy Perry is on a roll again with Teenage Dream. Though I haven't heard it, I only hear good reviews from my friends. — Legolas ^(talk2me) 04:04, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Let them all release their stuff (I just can't at Taylor Swizzle though) then let Gaga come and burn them down. And seriously, 1 million for TS? They got to be barking! Even I can't believe how Wayne ended up selling 1 million, but oh well that was good. I will be conservative and predict a range of 400-450K for Gaga. But again, first single has to be realllllly good. I have to hear "Teenage Dream" to know what is all the hype. — Legolas ^(talk2me) 04:15, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Youtube is blocked at work . By the way, Lady Gaga: Behind the Fame, ugh I can't believe how much she plagiarized my writings in it! — Legolas ^(talk2me) 04:21, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

That's why, keep in mind that when I'm gone, don;t let fans add that book as reference. I would rather wait 10 years so that a reputed scholar like J. Randy Taraborrelli develops a bio on her, than read any more thrifties. — Legolas ^(talk2me) 04:28, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Guess not, that's why I don't trust these new authors. Give me scholars, journalists, academics anyday, I will gulp it up. But I just can't at these people, misusing quotes etc. The whole book was a repetition of "Gaga is a star, gaga is a star". — Legolas ^(talk2me) 04:37, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Its fine actually. By the way, when are you planning to nominate it? Might I suggest a PR first? You can also ask User:Mister sparky and User:Matthewedwards for their inputs. They develop a lot of FLs. My only suggestion would be to correct the usage of en-dash in the article, and adding some more references in the lead. Other wise, everything is perfect. For the certification problem, might I suggest follow Madonna albums discography by keeping the 5 major market certifications and using style-font size 9 point for it? You can check the code at that article. — Legolas ^(talk2me) 04:52, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

(Outdent) Poor Harout. Don;t know why he gets so defensive. We are not being racist like that user in Talk:Lady Gaga. Ugh, the nerves. Btwn, I was talking about listing a dash in the references to make them appear more encyclopedic. I will show you one. — Legolas ^(talk2me) 05:06, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

I just listened to "Teenage Dream". Crap single. — Legolas ^(talk2me) 09:09, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Chase, my apologies for reverting the Cleveland source, without reading the source itself. I thought that it was the original source claiming the combined sale is 10 million. That was decided not to be used. However, this works fine. — Legolas ^(talk2me) 05:17, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

You online? — Legolas ^(talk2me) 05:37, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Yup, was feeling little bored so thought of sharing some news with you. Did you hear that Gaga got 13 freakin nominations at this year's VMA? *Dies* — Legolas ^(talk2me) 05:45, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Me too. I just can't believe it. Though I feel that VP was an atrocious video, but still. Now I really want to read the Vanity Fair interview. She looks gorgeous in some of the pictures. — Legolas ^(talk2me) 06:02, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Do you have the link for it? I actually had searched previously, but couldnot find it. — Legolas ^(talk2me) 06:16, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the direction. By the way, strange thing, it seems like though Gaga has stopped releasing singles from TFM, she hasn't left from radio at all. Look at DITD, and now Speechless and Eh Eh climbing CHR Top 40 with meagre spins. This is crazy and a good indication that radio is downright hungry for new Gaga. Wonder how much will be her bullet when she releases the next song. Will she premiere a snippet of it in VMA? *Fanning myself* — Legolas ^(talk2me) 06:28, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

(Outdent) Also we will have to deal with the recreation of The Cherrytree Sessions which will happen inevitably as reviews have come forward now. — Legolas ^(talk2me) 10:52, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Did you take a look at this? Since you did not reply, asking. — Legolas ^(talk2me) 04:06, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Notability will be established and be very strong if it indeed charts, as we already have reviews for it. There are two other reviews which has come up. — Legolas ^(talk2me) 05:07, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Oh yeah, exciting. And it seems she did some pretty "OMG" stuff at Lollapalooza festival. — Legolas ^(talk2me) 05:16, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Here you go. A little teaser of how crazy she got. And it wasn't Lady Starlight, but the front man of Semi-Precious Weapons. Also, an apparent demo from the next album, called "Hooker in a Church" leaked. — Legolas ^(talk2me) 05:24, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Ya I read that in OMGD. Sounds epic. Looks like we are in for a wonderful album. — Legolas ^(talk2me) 05:37, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Dont incorrectly warn me

Please be aware of WP:NOTCENSORED. I may swear if i want as long as i dont call you a name, which i didnt. So do not incorrectly warn me again. Thank you - (CK)Lakeshade - talk2me - 00:03, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Lady Gaga's infobox picture

Actually, the image that you keep readding has loads of artifacts (especially around the eyes) that wasn't in the original. Blow it up and you'll see. Not much of an improvement. I'll redo it myself when I have a couple of minutes over. Nymf _hideliho! 01:59, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Audio Files

Hi Chase, I really need a bit of help in this department. I would like to include those "Sound or audio file snippets" that are around 20-30 seconds that you could listen to on the albums page. I don't know how to find them, place them or use them for the matter. I have asked Legolas for his help but he isn't familiar with this kinda thing, so he referred me to you, so please help me. Thanks!--PeterGriffin • Talk 04:01, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Ok, but lets say I don't have that or don't know how, is there like a vault on Wikipedia that like has all of the ones that have been uploaded? Like with the Wikipedia commons, we have access to all pictures that have been uploaded, so what about audio files?--PeterGriffin • Talk 17:27, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

lady gaga discography

i don't like the page i'm changing it back the way it was. if we have to keep playing this game fine with me —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wallstowalls90 (talk • contribs) 02:13, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Wallstowalls90, A "very soon" next move in the game, as you call it, is for you to be blocked for WP:3RR--that will happen, regardless of the merits of your alternate layout, if you change it again. Perhaps instead your next move should be to take multiple editors' advice and discuss your ideas. DMacks (talk) 04:49, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Cronology

Hi. Sorry for my bad english (i speak spanish). I wanna know where's the rule of the cronology because i really don't know and i need that to used on Wikipedia en Spanish.--Trivia harrypotter (talk) 04:05, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

PD: Hitmixes need more information, i can't do any more.--Trivia harrypotter (talk) 04:44, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

The Cherrytree

A fine work my lad! I am so so much impressed. Sorry I did not log sooner and missed all the Lady Gaga discogrpahy 3RR drama. Its so much fun always to tackle disruptive editors! — Legolas ^(talk2me) 03:50, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Gaga's album sales.

Hi, I know daily news source says 15 million but the other source says that it is 13 million. On one of her recent shows Gaga was presented with a plaque celebrating her incredible sales of over 13 million albums and 51 million singles. I think this is the source we should keep. Sorry for my english. Thanks.Albes29 (talk) 18:50, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

I really don´t think Daily News is better source that her own label. She got that plaque for 13 million sold from her label in one of her shows. We can´t not trust newspaper info that much.Albes29 (talk) 13:45, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

I think we should do to the discussion page to see what we should do about this.Albes29 (talk) 14:01, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Gaga actually has 2 featured singles. Chillin' and Video Phone (3 if Lick It becomes a single from T.I.'s album). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Within a dream (talk • contribs) 17:32, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

I think we should ask other users because I don´t think a newspaper is a better source than her label. Newspapers not always says the right info and they are not that relible.Albes29 (talk) 10:25, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

I know its not her single, neither is Chillin'. But the only released version of Video Phone is the version featuring Gaga, it is considered a featured single, so change it please. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Within a dream (talk • contribs) 16:28, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

DYK nomination of The Cherrytree Sessions

Hello! Your submission of The Cherrytree Sessions at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Yoninah (talk) 20:47, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

DYK for The Cherrytree Sessions

The DYK project (nominate) 00:02, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Gaga awards

Chase, its time that we clear up this piece of muck and bring it up the standards of WP:GAGA. The recent articles do bother me much, especially Hitmixes which frankly is a redundant. — Legolas ^(talk2me) 04:02, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Monster (Lady Gaga song). I was actually thinking of cleaning up the Lady Gaga awards page. — Legolas ^(talk2me) 07:41, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

RE:Ready GA Review

Hi, could you extend the review for a few days. School has started back so I'm all over the place right now. Thanks!! Candyo32 20:59, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Sure that's fine! Candyo32 22:01, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Bieber

Ive drawn up a new table at Talk:List_of_awards_and_nominations_received_by_Justin_Bieber#Table_2.0. Let me know what you think and correct or inform me if ive made any errors. - (CK)Lakeshade - talk2me - 19:34, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Take It Off

This has been discussed multiple times on different articles. WP:ORDINAL states "As a general rule, in the body of an article, single-digit whole numbers from zero to nine are spelled out in words; numbers greater than nine are commonly rendered in numerals, or in words if they are expressed in one or two words (16 or sixteen, 84 or eighty-four, 200 or two hundred, but 3.75, 544, 21 million). This applies to ordinal numbers as well as cardinal numbers. However there are frequent exceptions to these rules." ... "# Comparable quantities should be all spelled out or all figures: we may write either 5 cats and 32 dogs or five cats and thirty-two dogs, not five cats and 32 dogs.
This means you must right numbers lower then 9 as nine, but if you follow that rule you cannot have 86 and nine, it must be eighty-six and nine. - (CK)Lakeshade - talk2me - 20:47, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

The key in this is it can be either. I write them in words because of rule one about numbers 1-9. - (CK)Lakeshade - talk2me - 20:48, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

hd discography

which dead links? please let me know, thfank you :) Ifiwere (talk) 20:07, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Slow and steady edit warring on Lady Gaga

Please stop your slow and steady edit war you're currently engaged in on the Lady Gaga article. You and SnapSnap (talk · contribs) have been at it for several days, and you have both been causing disruption to the article. Please discuss the genre issue on the talk page and gain consensus. Any further reverts will result in the temporary block of the editor(s) who persists their behavior despite this warning. — ξ^xplicit 20:50, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Lady Gaga's Discography

Hey Chase I was just wondering, in the lead for gaga's discography when talking about "The Fame Monster" you say

"The Fame Monster reached number five in the US, where it has sold over one million copies, and peaked at number one in Australia and New Zealand" Why not include how it chopped the British charts as well, being the second biggest market out there, and even Switzerland's like you did with The Fame. Just a suggestion, becuase in my opinion it will easily increase the readers understanding of how successful this album really is.--Blackjacks101 (talk) 13:06, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

---

Hi Tbhotch, I decided to add the publishers to the refs. For the non-print refs, I had to add the publishers as an extension to that already-occupied field, so could you please check to see if they're done correctly? And could you also elaborate on the "obvious" prose issues? Thanks. –Chase (talk) 17:58, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

I wanted to respond before, but my connection... I've left some comments, but I am here because I won't support it, like Gage said in his vote this is a good work, not an excellent work. I don't know how many votes are needed, but if is missed one get another user. Tbhotch^{Talk C.} 16:24, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

That's kind of rude that you absolutely refuse to support it. I'm changing the article in response to your comments and I'm not sure what else is necessary to gain your support. If you have tips on how to make this an excellent page, please provide them. –Chase (talk) 16:36, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

It's kinda rude that you are trying to gain my support vote, I'm not obligated to give it if I don't want. And one tip is accept the critics of others, even you like them or not. Tbhotch^{Talk C.} 16:39, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Ready GA Review

I've started fixes for the article and see you have tagged unreliable sources. I've given a bit of reasoning on the review page, and would like for you to check that out. Candyo32 17:29, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Also, I've scoured sources for free-use pictures that would be acceptable for the article, but I cannot find any. Candyo32 17:32, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

I think I have made fixes to everything now, hopefully! I also owe a great deal to Cornucopia for fixing up the production/development section. Thanks for all your help! Also, if you have anytime, could you skim and just go through and quickly lightly copyedit three articles I plan on GA-ing soon, Slow Dance (song), Return the Favor, and Turnin Me On. Quoting is one of my weak spots, and I know for sure the latter mentioned uses way too much, especially in the controversy section. I'm think I'm going to start trying to get people to help me with my GA's first before they get to the review and have +multiple issues. Thanks!! Candyo32 00:11, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Okay, that's fine. I am familiar with the peer reviews, but they take so long to before someone picks one up to review. Lol. Thanks for all the help! Candyo32 00:17, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

New Gaga book

Seems like the market is squirming with Gaga releases, every week. This one is horrid. — Legolas ^(talk2me) 03:36, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Ya that one. Really horrid. J. Randy Taraborrelli has already started researching about Gaga, he said in an interview. But it will be good 10 years before he releases the biography. Look how long he took to release Madonna: An Intimate Biography. I just heard Taylor Swift's "Mine". So disappointed. Looks like Teenage Dream is off to a mild start. Btw, did you read that Gaga's unreleased song "Starstruck" has already sold over 600,000 downloads in US? And BDR, I last read was at 450,000. — Legolas ^(talk2me) 03:43, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Congrats! Well thanks to Interscope and their slacking, Gaga's certifications are not going up soon. I think they are waiting for TFM to approach 2× platinum. Then they will round up all the certifications. Can you believe it? "Bad Romance" still certified Platinum? The travesty! "Monster" is seriously fucked up. That's all I can say. BTW, looks like the FLC is going in the right direction. I had to pull up some strings — Legolas ^(talk2me) 03:53, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Ya, next stop, try some FACs. That will be a good experience for you. FLC is nothing compared to the sharks at FAC. That Madonna nomination was a nightmare. But in the long run, you become a much experienced editor, and content adding will be your pro. Are you excited for the VMA's this Sunday? I'm super-duper-truper excited. — Legolas ^(talk2me) 04:08, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

More than nightmare, nominating a bio at this stage will invariably draw oppose, since it will be premature. Gaga is a bio suffering from a lot of RECENTISM, hence I would advice you not to nominate for FAC now, or even in the coming 2 years. Better to go with the song articles. I know you like Hillary Duff also, why not try that bio? Duff has been around for a long time and doesnot suffer the fate that Gaga does. — Legolas ^(talk2me) 04:16, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

No problem. I know it sucks, but BIOs are pretty important and we should respect the basic dignity, which is Duff's album name right? See the stars have spoken. Pop off to clean Duff now! He he. — Legolas ^(talk2me) 04:23, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Congratulations!!! Your very first bronze star. Tell me how you feel. — Legolas ^(talk2me) 03:22, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

sales

r u serious ????????? the record label gave it to her !!!!!!!!!!! they not reliable ?? they know exactly how many gaga sold ...... why you try to argue ???!! you know what ? im going to complaine on you , i brought a source, you didnt , so you stop change it !!!!!!!!!!!!!! look at the video , you cant see ??? the lable know exactly how many gaga sold , not a lame news paper --Bar17 (talk) 23:50, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

VMAs

Im so drunk. :) — Legolas ^(talk2me) 03:44, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

WLTO Commons Question

Hi, I thought the commons has only for non-free images? How would I correctly tag/license the cover art there? -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 | talk2me 23:06, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Cheers buddy. what did you think of VMA's? -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 | talk2me 23:18, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Now that the image is larger its pixilated in the infobox =( -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 | talk2me 00:15, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Suppose its better than the old =). Yes i agree VMAs were boring. The performances were just so and so. -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 | talk2me 00:24, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

VMAs were pathetic, only yummy thing was Gaga's meat dress. Do you have a mail id to mail you Chseboy? — Legolas ^(talk2me) 05:24, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Monster

Source/MTV Japan said, そんなレディー・ガガのアルバム『The Monster』から6曲目となる「モンスター」の着うた（R）、着うたフル（R）が10月1日に発売決定した。. Okay?--211.16.220.8 (talk) 03:35, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

re:Gaga/Elton

Hi there, I see "Poker Face"/"Speechless"/"Your Song" peaking at 13 on Bubbling Under Hot 100, one week total, February 20, 2010. - eo (talk) 11:34, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Delete

Hey, can you please delete Talk:Animal (Kesha album)/GA2? I dont know what that user was doing. I dont plan on GA-ing this article for several months as shes re-releasing it in December and releasing like 4 more singles so GA would be extremely premature. I dont know why he created the page just to comment on it? =S - (CK)Lakeshade - talk2me - 07:04, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Gaga discography

I think an image of Gaga performing would be more suitable for the article. What do you say? — Legolas ^(talk2me) 05:23, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Just wanted to say y'all are simply doing so much good jobs. I'm really proud of you. I have come to say good-bye for now. We will meet again if I return. — Legolas ^(talk2me) 05:00, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Re:"Discussion"

I would appreciate it if you didn't try and teach me what's appropriate and what is not. Your constant enforcement of leaving the Japanese market out based on your claims of poor chart-performance is ludicrous as Eminem does and has charted well with his materials there. You and other editors (I will not name them) clearly seem to have a problem with Japan's market which subconsciously drives you to make incorrect decisions. And I would very much appreciate if you could stop doing that. Lastly, as I mentioned earlier, had I replaced a market with better positions than Japan's, that would have seemed a reason enough to discuss first. US R&B positions do not represent another market, therefore, there is no need to include them although some other discographies do include them. Regards.--Harout72 (talk) 23:44, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

I assure you that your edits will be reverted, therefore, I suggest that you discuss your points first at the talk-page.--Harout72 (talk) 23:50, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Please don't threaten me that you're going to report me. Where is your consensus? You're the one trying to edit-war with me. You must establish a consensus with me first, and then, we shall both agree to use R&B over Japan. Perhaps you should refer to WP:Consensus.--Harout72 (talk) 00:06, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Chase, stop edit-warring with me please. You are a better editor than that, and right now you're not showing that side of yours. You know there was no consensus to use R&B over Japan, so why do you insist on edit-warring? You have to establish a consensus with me also, you know that.--Harout72 (talk) 00:21, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Certifications - Lady Gaga

I've only just noticed you reverted my edit of removing small market certs. I think there are too much, and the bigger market certs (US, UK, GER, AUS) show how successful she reallly is. I really think some need to be removed as i find there are too many AtomicMarcusKitten (talk) 21:14, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

I think 10 is way too much. Most artists like her, their dsicogs have about five certs for each single, overwise it just starts to look weird. It's so much easier to understand when there's less, and it just looks better. Each single has a page where you can put it's certification. But i think NZ, AUT and SWI should definitly be removed, not for albums, but for singles anyway.AtomicMarcusKitten (talk) 21:50, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

kk:))AtomicMarcusKitten (talk) 21:55, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Project discog. and apology

I wanted to apologise if I came across as forceful. The way I see it 90% font size is a good idea but 100% would be the best idea. However progress is more important than stalling and the size can be revisited at a later date if need be. Do you at least understand the reasoning behind the other other changes going on? I don't want to fall out over this with anyone and so I'm willing to accept 90% font sizes if you really cannot bare 100%. It is a step forwards after all... -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 | talk2me 21:47, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Okies we're making grounds now. I'll accept 90%. I've left a comment clarifying my position on the discog talk page. Since your being vocal on your opinion (which is good... we need comments from experience as well as new users) would you mind dropping your opinion at the discussion on font weight and size here: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Usability#Readability issues and small text size. It refers to how the new discog format will automatically center-align everything and it involves a request for things to be left-aligned instead. -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 | talk2me 21:57, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Ifiwere (talk) 05:21, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi, I am currently working on a new template for Hilary Duff discography; I have been looking through pages, and seen the contributions you have made to Dignity. I admire the worked put in (Good Job!... by the way) but i have a few points and contributions i would like to discuss...

• Obviously Dignity peform badly, but Hilary Duff (2004) was certified platinum with sales of 1.8 million in the unites states alone. My Point is in The Dignity (album) page it is stated that the previous album was a critical failure (something i do not argue, but wish it could me re-worded), but it also claims it had moddest sucess. Compared to Metamorphosis the sales were less but in the same year other artist like Madonna's American Life, Confessions on a Dance Floor were both certified Platinum in the US, against Madonna's previous albums. My Point is that sales of 1.8 million can't be considered modest, when a certification is made (higher than a Gold certification) and with worldwide sales of 3 million +. I feel that the the words use to summarize the previous album in Dignity's' page is misleading. for example: If Duff produces a new album it can be stated that her previous album was critically successful, but the sales were a disappointment. To summarize; Hilary Duff (2004) recieved generally negative reviews, debuting at number two but selling more than 1.8 million albums in the U.S. alone.

Sincerly, Ifiwere (talk) 05:20, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Gaga disc

Chase, the article is now littered with overlinking. You should remove this as the article is a FL, and they shouldnt be there. — Legolas ^(talk2me) 09:06, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Oh dear

Looks like we arrived to the same conclusion. — ξ^xplicit 21:09, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Ha! I actually don't know for sure if they're socks. It's just really hard to tell! :P –Chase (talk) 21:12, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

I suppose we're just jealous of... well, I'm not sure. Shame on us! — ξ^xplicit 21:27, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

I guess it's because we're "old fat people, with no lives". I suppose we do have reason to be jealous. –Chase (talk) 21:28, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Reference Titles

Please show me any Wikipedia guideline or policy that indicates that we can change the titles of works. To my mind, they are the equivalent of quotations: whether we like the title or not, it was the author's choice, not ours.—Kww(talk) 21:10, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't think we have any policy that says "quotations should actually match the quote" either. Where would it stop? Why can you decide that a part of a title is irrelevant? Can you add bits? Change the punctuation if you don't like it? Change from British to American spelling?—Kww(talk) 21:17, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm not just being cranky, BTW, I really need to pursue this. This is one aspect of a long simmering dispute between Legolas2186 and myself, and I suspect that he chose this as a test case. His stated objection to using {{singlechart}} is that the titles I produce don't conform to WP:MOS (generally he points at the fact that Hung Medien uses dashes improperly, and I faithfully reproduce their improper use). I argue that the requirement for accuracy outweighs everything else, and that it is not my place to edit titles. He, on the other hand, has been known to change titles from "australian-charts.com - Lady GaGa - Paparazzi" to "Lady Gaga in the world charts", apparently feeling free to write titles himself if he doesn't like the original. You seem to represent a third point of view, and I'm interested in precisely understanding it (even if I disagree with it).

Would it be fair to summarize your point of view as "The title must be a subset of the title presented by the source. Information that serves only to identify the website can be removed. The retained section must exactly match that returned by the source."?—Kww(talk) 21:40, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

You are wrong Kevin. I never said to substitute with go-as-you-like titles. I am takling about en-dashes. Wherever you have seen me placing "Lady Gaga on world chart", please feel free to substitute it with the Hung Medien title. And yes, Hung Medien doesnot use "Australian-charts.com" in front of the title, I cna clearly see that. Chase, in case of Allmusic, the extra braces are the characterisitc of their titles, you can find it in each and every link of them. As for the EP thing, I apologize, I was getting a little side tracked. I have reverted my edits. — Legolas ^(talk2me) 03:53, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

I know it seems unnecessary, but Kevin has a point actually. If an article displays a particluar title, we do accept it. As you point out MTV.com etc etc, those thingd don't come in the title right? Only the irritating reflinks tool selects those extensions, which is what Kevin is basing his singlescharts on I believe, leading to all the erroneous titles. — Legolas ^(talk2me) 04:17, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Thoughts on original research

Hi Chase, I was reading the comments on the proposed merger of the Justin Bieber awards article into the main article. Particularly, I noted your application of original research in the comments. Just want to say that NOR might have been applied incorrectly here, as it deals with material already physically published. If you interpreted NOR in the way that a person should express his or her views with citations given, no that's not needed and extraneously demanding on any person. Its like McCain saying he will reinforce traditional conservative values by quoting sociologists in his speeches. Intuition that something is likely to occur in the future works fine so long it makes sense and is not fringe theory. Some thoughts, thats it. Best, ANGCHENRUI ^Talk♨ 12:32, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Just an additional point here, apologies. Assuming future events will take place is a different thing from original research. Different thinking concepts, one is to do with hypothesizing, the other with work documentation. Thanks, ANGCHENRUI ^Talk♨ 12:35, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

FLC issue

If you have time, could you comment on the source issue here? Thanks in advance. Candyo32 02:14, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

The Fame Monster is an EP??

i'm kinda confused. i thought that The Fame Monster was Lady Gaga's second album but it's coming up as an extended play. I have a strange feeling that this is wrong. Please reply. --184.46.59.108 (talk) 03:44, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

		The WikiJaguar Award for Excellence
		For your recent assistance responding to the discussion around The Fame Monster on my talk page, I award you the WikiJaguar Award for Excellence in talk page stalking efforts Adabow (talk · contribs) 21:01, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Attention

Chase, since you know I am leaving, can I entrust you with the well-being and proper maintenance of the Gaga articles? I hope you have all of them on watchlist? — Legolas ^(talk2me) 09:57, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

lady gaga

the fame monster is an album. it's the fame with eight new songs —Preceding unsigned comment added by Digitalpopstar3000 (talk • contribs) 01:00, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't care!

I really don't care if i get blocked, like i've said already! XDD You're the one being snotty, so ill be horrible back :D Kthnxbye. AtomicMarcusKitten (talk) 19:40, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

mdashes

I can understand why you don't like the HTML formatting that I used, but why remove the notes? —Kww(talk) 00:11, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

I wonder what would be the best forum for discussing that. The Lady Gaga discography seems to be getting a little heated, so it's probably not a good place. I think the footnoted dash represents a very good compromise between the "no reason to mention it at all" camp and the "just pretend it's the Billboard Hot 125" camp. It gets all the information in accurately and points people at the Bubbling Under description without making any controversial statements about exactly how similar the two charts are.—Kww(talk) 00:48, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

The notes just stated the position on the Bubbling Under chart: I had removed the comment about being comparable. I'm pretty much in the "not worth mentioning" camp, but I always like to compromise when I can. It reduces edit-warring. Even if I don't think the chart means much, there will always be editors adding it back in if we say nothing.—Kww(talk) 01:06, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Nelly 5.0

Could you weigh in on the discussion at Talk:Nelly 5.0 about the album cover? cheerz -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 | talk2me 00:43, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

More ultimate proof to descredit Lady Gaga Fame Monster album claims

right here -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 | talk2me 19:02, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Album vs. EP

http://www.ladygaga.com/news/default.aspx?nid=25001

Paragraph 6:

"Lady Gaga is touring in support of The Fame Monster, which was released on November 23rd, 2009, by Streamline/Konlive/Cherrytree/Interscope. The album is the follow-up to 2008’s Grammy Award-winning album The Fame" - Her website

Wouldn't this quote make it official that it is her second studio album? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mmmonsterrr2010 (talk • contribs) 02:22, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

RE:Ciara discography

Hi Chase, thanks for going to my talk page to talk about the issue. First of all, I had contacted FLC coordinator Dabomb87 about the issue and he told me that, he said it would be proper to wait until the FLC closes, and then ample time would allowed to convert to the new style. Also, the user who made the edits only converted the albums tables, with singles, featured singles, ocs, & more still in the old format. Candyo32 23:46, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Recent vandalism on your page.

Hi Chase, since you has been attacked many times by the same editor, I want to ask you to report the IP immediatly. The user is in fact CharlieJS13 (talk · contribs) so you can report him at AIV for personal attacks and block evasion. Regards Tbhotch^{Talk C.} 02:52, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Dance music

Hi Chase. I've seen you and Dan56 are warring over piping Dance Music to either Electronic Dance Music or Dance-pop. In my view the article for Dance music speaks of music which often accompanies a dance and NOT the actual genre which is why we have often chosen to pipe the link to either Electronic dance music or dance-pop which are essentially the two main strands of dance music. I'm not sure if its ever been properly discussed or acknowledged anywhere. -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 | talk2me 23:18, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Re: Dance music

This issue has already come up with User:LilUnique at this talk, and a comprimise edit was made. If u decide to change this, u should make it open to a consensus, since "dance music" is often used by music writers (whose articles are often used as citations/sources for album articles/genres) to refer to (electronic) dance music. Seeing the article "Dance music" and its content, its obvious that is not what is referred to. Which is also why that article has a disambiguation hatnote at the top. But if it is to be changed for the article Flesh Tone, it should be by consensus/discussion, since this issue has been settled in the past once already. Dan56 (talk) 23:22, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Extra album covers

Hey, could you point to me where it says extra album covers violates NFCC, I would like to cite it when removing such covers from articles. Please and thank you! Fixer23 (talk) 08:51, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the prompt reply! Fixer23 (talk) 23:25, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Pink Friday

You need a source to claim that it will be the next single. Just because it was released with the pre-order, doesn't mean a thing. For example, the same thing happened with "Woohoo" But since it was released to radio, it's considered a single. ΣПDiПG–STΛЯT (Talk) 03:51, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

No, really; there isn't. I'm being disruptive? There is no source stating this is a single. And you're jumping the gun trying to add it. ΣПDiПG–STΛЯT (Talk) 03:58, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Did I really claim it being a promo single? No, I didn't. I simply said that it SEEMS like it probably is one. I didn't say THIS IS A PROMO SINGLE SO IT SHOULDN'T BE ADDED. ΣПDiПG–STΛЯT (Talk) 04:00, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

There's no point in doing that at all until there's sources saying so. Just because it was released along with the pre-order doesn't mean that it can just be on there and waiting "until we get official word otherwise." That's not how Wikipedia works to the best of my knowledge. ΣПDiПG–STΛЯT (Talk) 04:03, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Check It Out/Pink Friday

I am not adding this to your page to debate with you, I'm just adding this to educate you. If you took the time to read the Talk:Pink Friday page and responded on there, than you would feel absolutely NO need to write ANYTHING on my talks. The discussion already takes place on the albums talk page, so keep it their. Further harassment will result in reporting and possible freezing. Thank you Theuhohreo (talk) 21:06, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

How's

it going on? What are the low down on the Gaga articles? — Legolas ^(talk2me) 04:28, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Monster - Lady Gaga

Hey is it just me that we should discuss the deletion of Monster again. After reading the past comments that supported the keep of the article they commonly emphasized the fact that they could construct this in to a good article, yet still nothing has really been added to make it become worthy of having its own article. And i personally believe that people will realize this and support the deletion, since nothing has been added to increase the quality of the article. (The single hasn't even charted significantly high which many reviewers thought it would)--Blackjacks101 (talk) 01:14, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Lady Gaga at ANI

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Lady Gaga song articles. Thank you. — Gavia immer (talk) 12:55, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

I've Just Begun (Having My Fun)

Hey! Seeing your comments in the "Monster" AfD, I was wondering if you could support my nomination for "I've Just Begun (Having My Fun)". Thank you! Xwomanizerx (talk) 01:42, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Chase and people who is watching his page

PLEASE if you see either IP starting with 86.1xx.xxx.xx, or recently, or either IP user from the United Kingdom, making personal attacks revert him and report him at WP:AIV as Block evasion CharlieJS13 (talk · contribs), please block him many days, his IPs still active. Charlie is blocked from editing and he won't stop. Tbhotch^{Talk C.} 00:30, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Right Thru Me

[5] Do you really think that 'thru' counts as a preposition in this circumstance? It is not an actual word, so isn't it a special case? Adabow (talk · contribs) 22:31, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

You may want to have a look at [6]. Adabow (talk · contribs) 04:31, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Discussion

Hey :), please help reach consensus and vote here.--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 05:41, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Why Don't You Love Me

Please participate http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Talk:Why_Don't_You_Love_Me_(Beyonc%C3%A9_Knowles_song)#Single.3F Jivesh boodhun (talk) 07:08, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Right Thru Me

Does this rule then apply to "I Ain't Thru"? If so, why isn't it changed? ---- JillFocker777 —Preceding unsigned comment added by JillFocker777 (talk • contribs) 02:55, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) "Through" is not only a preposition, but also an adjective and an adverb, as well as a noun, actually. "Right thru Me" uses the preposition, "I Ain't Thru" the adjective. Yves (talk) 03:02, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Sorry for not notifying you; I thought you were watching the page. :) Adabow (talk · contribs) 07:55, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Parental advisory stickers

WP:NOTCENSORED does not apply to parental advisory stickers on albums. Covers without the stickers are preferred because it is an RIAA practice and thus, generally, they're US-centric and also (and more importantly) because they hide part of the cover. –Chase (talk / contribs) 22:45, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank-you for clearing that up for me. — Hucz ^{(talk · contribs)} 07:31, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Perfect Solution

That's a brilliant solution you made on The Fame Monster article. Thank you.IHelpWhenICan (talk) 02:42, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Peer Review of So Yesterday

Hello Chase! I saw your contribution to Dignity album. I thought maybe you could help me. Can you peer review Duff's So Yesterday for its improvement? Here it is—Link. Thanks.. Novice7 Talk 10:44, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Hey Chase! I've fixed what you pointed out. Anymore errors? Novice7 Talk 04:26, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

The Fame Monster in Chronology

How come now you think it should be in the chronology?

I suggested that months ago (Talk:The Fame#The Fame Monster in Chronology) and knocked down the idea quickly, yet now you change your mind. What gives? Just want to know :)--Cprice1000talk2me 16:57, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Discussion

Hello. Please leave your comments here. Novice7 Talk 12:29, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Circus (Britney Spears album)

Just because it posts one thing you cinsider fake, does not make it all fake. Also, maybe it was't fake; maybe just a small release. Mislabeled, perhaps? Also, consider the Ape Club site. --Cprice1000talk2me 23:12, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

What? 1. I was not referring to "Unusual You" 2. It is not "unpublished" as three sources state it is a single 3. Promo single is impossible, as it is a CD single

You stop removing it from the singles section when sources and consensus has reached it is a single. --Cprice1000talk2me 01:45, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Please

Take a look here. Jivesh boodhun (talk) 18:41, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Mariah Carey WikiProject

Hi! The Mariah Carey WikiProject is now initiated! If you'd like to join, please add your name here. Thank you. Novice7 | Talk 09:27, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6