Jonclay
re: Erasure EP's
I think these two songs can stay, as they charted independently in some areas. "Stop!" charted separately in the U.S. on the singles chart, while Crackers was on the album chart. "Take a Chance" charted on U.S. Airplay charts separately also. - eo (talk) 11:46, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for May 27
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Ali Reza Mansourian, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Iranian (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) 12:28, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
I've reverted your change (the uk chart position to 3) the discography should be based on a per-release basis see the following: Wikipedia:DISCOGSTYLE#Per-release, Iris had 4 releases in the UK - the original in 98 only reached number 50 it was released on Reprise records. In 1999 a second version entered, released by Hollywood Records it got to number 26, In 2006 a third version on Warner Records charted - The discography currently only lists this under the other A side "Stay with you" it reached 39, Finally the version you refer to (possibly a single side re-entry of the 2006 version but the OCC lists them as different releases) got to number 3.Different band discography's approach the problem in different ways Queen for instance lists both entries for Bohemian Rhapsody separately yet ignores the 1992 re-entry. Journey, combines the 1981 and 2006 chart positions but explicitly states this to avoid confusion. The Righteous Brothers discography lists all releases and positions of "Unchained Melody" - I'm open to discussion on the best way forward for the Goo Goo dolls but it should take place on the article talk page. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 17:12, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
Captain Hollywood Project
Please refrain from reverting without trying to discuss the issue, or at least leaving a brief explanation in the edit summary. There is no reason to include UK's No.67 and No.61 separately for "Only with You" regardless of the fact that it originally peaked at No.67 and then a year later peaked at No.61. We are to include the highest peak only. We should only have two separate peaks if each release belongs to a separate version (remix). Such, however, isn't the case as both peaks belong to the same version(Link redirected to OCC website).--Harout72 (talk) 19:17, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
Hi Harout72. From my sources etc. (Guinness/Virgin hit single books taking info from the official charts) the two entries were actual seperate releases (i.e. a re-issue) rather than a re-entry as a previous poster mentioned. Fair enough they maybe the same recording but have had this argument before over just including one chart position. See the Goo Goo Dolls discography entry above ours regarding Iris; the problem being is it peaked at a high of no. 3 many years after it's 1st release but in the end I think we agreed to include all re-issues.
- Thanks for discussing the issue, yes I understand that they have re-released it and I see that the cover picture(Link redirected to OCC website) is different also, but there really is no need to include more than one peak, unless of course we are dealing with different versions.--Harout72 (talk) 19:44, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
- OK if this is the best way to make up the discography then perhaps I should not argue but was just afraid of confusion over peak/release year etc. as per my mention of Iris by The Goo Goo Dolls where the song made it's peak a few years after it's initial release. Cheers. Jon.
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) 16:39, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
It is Thanksgiving in the US, so thank you!
I am just a regular editor and nothing official like an administrator or Wikimedia contractor...I am an editor probably a lot like yourself. One important thing for me is to express thanks to other editors in a personal message to their talk page. This is not a template. I am just leaving this note for you to express my appreciation for your recent participation in voting for Arbatration Committee Members. Your vote is a great thing and with as many people participating as possible there is an excellent chance that we will have good representation on this committee. The Very Best of Regards,
ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!
Hello, Jonclay. 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)