User talk:Alptns90

Please refrain from adding Jennifer Lopez onto the list as her certified sales do not suggest anything above 35-40 million in actual sales. There has been a long discussion on Lopez's record sales which you can find here. Regards.--Harout72 (talk) 18:30, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for

Happy First Day of Spring!

Just wishing you a wonderful First Day of Spring 2011! Mifter (talk) 20:24, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you live in the Southern Hemisphere and are entering the season of Autumn not Spring then I wish you a happy First Day of Autumn 2011!
To spread this message to others, add {{subst:First Day Of Spring}} to there talk page with a friendly message.

As I explained in the edit summary, none of the sources you provided match the criteria laid out on the

I'd like to know when I did that. ℥

start 18:04, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

Your additions of the Croatian and Icelandic single charts are in breach of

In the Netherlands there are two single charts,

WP:USCHARTS we only list the highest aggregation of charts. Thus effectively the Single Top 100 is a component of the Dutch Top 40. If a song charts on both charts its the Dutch Top 40 which should be used as it is a more accurate and fair representation of a single's success in a particular country, regardless of which peak is higher. — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 ^[talk] 15:23, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

The Dutch Top 40 is not a single network chart. It published by IFPI and Media Markt as shown here. The Croation and Icelandic charts you tried to add where specificially ONE radio station data. The Dutch Top 40 combines all record sales in the Netherlands with all airplay. Radio 538 is simply one of the largest radio stations in the Netherlands... they report the official chart in the same way that the UK's biggest station: BBC Radio 1 reports the UK chart, but is not the publisher of it. Just because other articles use the Top 100 doesn't mean its correct to do so. People often opt for the Top 100 because the website from hung medien is easier to use. — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 ^[talk] 20:16, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You should review

Again, you removed "Louboutins" from the main singles list, WITHOUT an edit summary (I'm beginning to think you're not aware of what an edit summary is), and moving the song to "other charted songs". Let's get this straight, yes, it's been determined it's not a single from Love?, but IT IS indeed still a single - it was sent to radio and released digitally. ℥

What was this about? Please provide an edit summary whenever you remove material or revert another editor, so that other editors can understand your reasoning. The Hungary Dance chart is an accepted chart (there wouldn't be a {{

I'm glad to see you're finally using edit summaries. Good for you! I'm glad you're getting the hang of this! If you need any help with anything, feel free to come to me. ℥

start 19:18, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

I was in the same boat as you when I first joined. No problem, and I'm sorry if I was a bit hard on you before. ℥

start 14:39, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

Hello, French Singles Chart in 2009 and until January 24, 2011 = French Physical Singles Chart, She Wolf was released just in digital in France, so that's why She Wolf is not at lescharts.com. --Thestreamer (talk) 16:26, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You really should verify the charts with the link provided, and talk if there's a discrepancy. The French digital chart macro provided you with a link to http://lescharts.com/weekchart.asp?cat=si&date=20091017 which shows the "7" position. Why did you replace with with an album link and then remove it when the original figure and source were perfectly accurate? Why did you revert my original reversion of your removal when I provided the link showing the material you had removed was accurate?—Kww(talk) 16:41, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Edits such as this one are completely unacceptable.—Kww(talk) 16:08, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If the users leaves a message on the talk page (like I asked him), please take part in the discussion. ℥

This source which currently supports Lopez's positions for Canada, does not support position for "On the Floor". Surely, it will have it, but at the moment it doesn't. I'll leave the Canadian No.1 position for "On the Floor" on there for now, unsupported. But in the meantime, you might want to go over WP:Verifiability, which states The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth: whether readers can check that material in Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true.--Harout72 (talk) 22:04, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Altptns90, when this kind of thing happens, it's best to find a source for your data. You always need to check the source used for the column. If that doesn't include the new data, add a reference next to your figure. It's not on the main Billboard summary page for Jennifer Lopez, either: http://www.billboard.com/#/artist/jennifer-lopez/chart-history/339297?f=793&g=Singles doesn't have it.—Kww(talk) 22:29, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's OK to use. When the data is in a good source, but not in the source of the column, then add the reference. Not just "1", but 1<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.billboard.com/charts/hot-100#/charts/canadian-hot-100?chartDate=2011-04-23|title=Canadian Hot 100 .....—Kww(talk) 13:00, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

While it may be true that there are other discographies with unsupported positions as you mentioned on my talk, that doesn't mean they should be kept there unsourced. I personally watch as many pages as I can, but I haven't gotten to the pages of Spears and Gaga yet. You could bring it up on their discussion pages. Let's bear in mind that newly charted positions do not immediately appear in the sources provided, it may, in some cases, take a week or two for the sources to have those. But in the meantime, as Kevin mentioned above, place the source next to the newly charted position as it's been done in this edit.--Harout72 (talk) 16:32, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please see my discussion on Austria at Talk:Jennifer Lopez discography. We are to consider the sizes of music markets and top-5 positions, not only No.1. And both Sweden and the Netherlands clearly qualify to stay as both are bigger markets and have enough top-5 positions.--Harout72 (talk) 17:27, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like people are discussing it on the talk page, Alptns90. I won't edit the article unless you can show me that there is something that is incorrect. I don't get involved in deciding which countries should be listed.—Kww(talk) 19:52, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not my intention, was just reverting back. Seems like this was finally solved. Saddened I couldn't be involved, I started back with school today. It looks good now. Now, I think the albums should match with the singles. Maybe I'll work on that this weekend. ℥

I have explained this already to you, the US Dance chart is not a sales chart and it should not be included on there.--Harout72 (talk) 15:45, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See the talk page for Jennifer Lopez discography, help me understand how to use that source for Dutch positions.--Harout72 (talk) 06:46, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Alptns90. You have new messages at Dan6hell66's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Sorry about my rollback at Jennifer Capriati career statistics - am working from an iPad and tapped rollback by accident. Nothing wrong with your edits! Apologies! Stalwart111 10:58, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Can you check numbers in here, please? I did it and it seems that total figures at the bottom are not OK, but I am not sure because it's a lot of numbers to calculate all together :) so I have to ask someone else to check it. (I didn't change anything, I just calculated in my head.) Thanks in advance. I am maintaining this article on BS Wiki and, of course, I don't want for some mistakes or discrepancies to exist in any Wiki. -- KWiki (talk) 19:49, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current

Hello, Alptns90. Voting in the

2016 Arbitration Committee elections

is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The

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)[reply]

Hello, Alptns90. Voting in the

2017 Arbitration Committee elections

is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The

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)[reply]