Talk:My Life Would Suck Without You

Discussion from userified page User talk:Cameron Scott/My Life Would Suck Without You

Release dates, notability

Please be on the lookout for various release dates via different sources around the world. It would be nice to construct a chart displaying the release dates for these outlets (different countries, iTunes, etc.). Article deletion should not be an issue now that the single has been officially released, and appears in numerous third-party, reliable sources. The song will now be hitting the airwaves, and chart positions and additional information should be added to the article as soon as possible. Thanks so much! Looking forward to cooperating on this article. -Another Believer (talk) 20:20, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

The AFD clearly called for the single to pass the section of WP:NSONGS requiring it to chart, win an award, or be covered by multiple artists. None of these things has come to pass.—Kww(talk) 20:42, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

I concur, let's at least wait until it charts. --Amalthea 20:53, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

True, but it's a confirmed (read: already released) single by a notable artist that will undoubtedly chart within the next couple of weeks. Mediabase is already reporting fairly heavy airplay, and the single's been digitally released today. I'd be extremely shocked if it didn't chart on some Billboard chart by the end of next week. If it's gonna be concluded eventually anyway, wouldn't WP:COMMONSENSE apply? SKS2K6 (talk) 20:54, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I very, very much appreciate your assistance and opinions Kww and Amalthea, but before redirecting/deleting, can we please just have a little bit of time to improve the article? I just started the article, and I there is little doubt that this article will be just re-created once again in a few days. Please give this article a chance. Thank You. -Another Believer (talk) 20:56, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Common sense says that you don't create the article until it charts. That aside, if people want to overturn the AFD, they need to go through DRV, not just try to repeatedly create it until people get tired of tagging it as a repost. Knowingly ecreating articles that have been deleted via AFD without correcting the problem that caused it to be deleted is disruptive editing.—Kww(talk) 21:00, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

I wasn't involved in the AFD debate, but no article on anything has to pass any sub-guideline if it passes WP:N, which the NSONGS section clearly indicates in the first paragraph. The rest of that section only is a guide as to what songs will generally pass, it is not in itself criteria for passing. As to the current state of this article, it would not pass N (AKA the general notability guideline), but having an article in Rolling Stone is a pretty good start on getting it there (especially in light of the links in the story to 2 other Rolling Stone stories on the topic). Aboutmovies (talk) 20:58, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

As I said above, if you want to overturn an AFD result, {{WP:DRV]] is the place to go.—Kww(talk) 21:00, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

BTW, you are reading that paragraph in WP:NSONGS backwards. It doesn't say "If it meets WP:N, the rest doesn't apply, it says that you have to meet those criteria as well.—Kww(talk) 21:05, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Kww, I apologize for any confusion. I am not familiar with the old delete requests, and I just happened to start this article today. Forgive me--I am not as familiar with policies as I wish I were. However, it seems impossible to improve the article when I am not even given TIME to edit and improve it. If this is the process, then fine. I meant no offense, and I was simply asking for more time to improve an article that is clearly just going to be re-created in the next few days. -Another Believer (talk) 21:02, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

You recreated an article after being presented with a deletion log showing that it had been deleted multiple times, and then didn't read the discussion indicating why it had been deleted?—Kww(talk) 21:05, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

← Hmm, I for one am not going to edit war over this. I would also not quite call it a G4 recreation: the single is released now, there are certainly new sources out there (and the interpretation of the specialized notability guidelines and their relation to the general notability guideline varies quite widely, Kww).
I strongly favor developing song articles in the album article, and I don't think that this song has the "significant coverage" required, but if you think that it does then it won't hurt me if you work on it here.
Anyway, check [1], maybe you can use one of the sources there. --Amalthea 21:12, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm not arguing that there aren't different good-faith interpretations of the relationship between the GNG and the SNGs. The AFD for this article specifically called for it to pass the SNG.—Kww(talk) 21:19, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

(edic conflict) First, the issues raised in that AFD were often crystal ball related, thus no longer apply, thus recreation is proper. Second, I'm sorry by I saw an even split on the matter of keep and delete/redirect, which is not consensus. Lastly, WP:N trumps every sub guideline, see in N in the lead where it says "A topic is presumed to be sufficiently notable to merit an article if it meets the general notability guidelines below, or if it meets an accepted subject-specific standard listed in the table at the right." That is or, not and connecting the two parts. I understand many people have failed to understand this going by many discussions at the Village Pump and the RFC on notability guidelines, but that has always been what the notability guidelines are about. N is the maximum restriction, other guidelines exist to bring in more articles, not less. Aboutmovies (talk) 21:20, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

re Kww: WP:MUSIC#Songs doesn't require a song to chart, it too only asks for notability, and for enough material to warrant an article.::: re Aboutmovies: AfD debates are looking for rough consensus, which is very differnt from a headcount. I've seen debates with 7 keeps and one delete that were deleted, and confirmed at DRV. --Amalthea 21:26, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, consensus is not a strict vote. But there needs to be strong arguments. There crystal was the only strong argument for deleting, and that has been addressed. The other arguments about needing to chart and such are simply misplaced. Under that interpretation (which it appears you follow) songs from the 1800s could never have an article as the Grammys and the Billboard Top 100 did not exist (thus why plain old N applies). Now I know Kww also thinks that not having subjects pass both the GNG and SNG would lead to unsourced articles, but that is just plain incorrect. Passing N means it is sourced, and the SNG here requires that the item (i.e. charting) that allows for inclusion must be sourced (that's in the lead to WP:MUSIC). Further, the policy of V trumps any guidelines, thus unsourced articles could be deleted on those grounds by the removal of any unsourced content, thus gutting the article of any substance that could possibly lead to notability. Aboutmovies (talk) 21:47, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

I guess the "hang on" request doesn't actually provide extra time to improve the article prior to deletion. This is unfortunate. I hope I did not ruffle any feathers, and I will have to take a look at the deletion review process. Since the song is likely to "become notable" (I believe it already is, but others appear to disagree) in the near future, I am certain the article will re-appear soon. Thanks for guiding us to proper links and through the proper channels. Best wishes! -Another Believer (talk) 21:51, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Tried to talk to the admin concerned, who was not willing to enter into any discussions, just telling me to go to WP:DRV. So I have, comment here. Don't let this one drop, it looks like a case of "over-admining" here. jenuk1985 (talk) 21:55, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, jenuk1985!

{{hangon}} works well for a lot of CSD tags, but not so well with {{db-repost}}. As for Aboutmovies point, you can't have it both ways: either the SNG is an additional or alternate criteria, or it isn't a criteria at all. If anything it allows that couldn't pass WP:N gets deleted because of WP:V, then it doesn't allow any more articles to be created, and if anything it excludes can be created anyway because of WP:N, then it doesn't prevent anything from being created. Might as well just delete it and move on with our lives.—Kww(talk) 22:03, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Not quite: I'll give you some examples: I have a list of people who have served in the Missouri legislature. Under WP:N this does not alone allow for inclusion as the coverage is not substantial of an individual legislator. But under WP:BIO, it gets in under the politician subsection, but it is sourced. But in now way would this article pass WP:N on its own. Now take the athlete part of WP:BIO. A few months back there was a long debate where the people proposing delete eventually came around on the point. We had someone who was a soccer player and did not pass the athlete part. But he was well covered as he had a great human interest story, thus he did pass WP:N. Or an even more obscure way to look at it is this: Take Peter Jacobsen, he clearly passes N and BIO, but he also has a band, thus BAND could apply, but he might not pass BAND, so does that mean the article gets deleted? Or take Ronald Reagan, he would fail ATHLETE, so does that mean delete even though he passes the main BIO and N guideline? There are a ton of articles that fall into similar situations where they pass one, but not the other, thus need for both. Aboutmovies (talk) 22:17, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

It may be worth noting that the song was not available to download from Amazon on the 16 January as stated in the article. The 16 January is the date it was added to the internet, NOT the date that the download was available on. Someone might want to change that. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Beautiful&Dying (talk • contribs) 16:48, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Amazon.com lists their release date as January 16. Do you have a source that says otherwise? SKS2K6 (talk) 17:31, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Worth noting?

Would it be worth noting that Brooke Hogan already made plans to cover the song the day it was released? Note: This comment has nothing to do with the notability debate described above. This is a completely different topic for discussion. -Another Believer (talk) 05:54, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Cover image

For some reason, the original cover image was removed when the article was re-directed to User talk:Cameron Scott/My Life Would Suck Without You. The original cover image is: Kelly Clarkson My Life Would Suck Without You single cover jpg -- just enter the "." before "jpg" -Another Believer (talk) 00:57, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Non-free images are not allowed in user space, per the non free conctent policy. File:Kelly Clarkson My Life Would Suck Without You.jpg was already deleted, but File:My Life Would Suck Without You KC.jpg was just uploaded in good faith. If that one too is deleted before this article is moved back, it can just be re-uploaded again. --Amalthea 01:04, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation! Actually, I edited the above jpg title I mentioned (added "single cover"). This is the version I uploaded when I started the article yesterday. As you said, if the version I uploaded is deleted, I will search for other ones or re-upload the image. Thanks again! -Another Believer (talk) 01:07, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

FWIW, there's now also File:My Life Would Suck Without You.jpg with the (for a fair use album cover) proper 300x300 resolution. --Amalthea 12:50, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

New article

To repeat myself from the DRV: My Life Would Suck Without You (song) just sprang into existance, a version of the article that is less sourced than the userfied one, but has far more content. I will not redirect it again since consensus to allow recreation seems clear enough, and since the content (or sources at least) from the userfied version should now be merged into that one. --Amalthea 02:33, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

• Merging this one will be a good idea once the DRV is over. I don't want to merge this over and wait for someone to get a wild hair up their ass (pardon the expression) and delete it again. ;) Protonk (talk) 02:39, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Move?

I noticed the lower case 'w' of 'without' in the title. If nobody objects, I'll move the article to 'My Life Would Suck Without You' to fix that. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 20:58, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

It shouldn't be lowercase. I don't know why it got moved there.... SKS2K6 (talk) 00:56, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

It's how it was created some weeks ago[2] but I'll fix it this (Sunday) afternoon. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:57, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

I'll take that bit back; I've just spotted the move earlier today. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 02:00, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

I have moved it now. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 15:16, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Why I removed content regarding the comparison of "My Life" to other Idol songs.....

1. My opinion is that this comparison is actually quite trivial. It's already pretty much established that Kelly Clarkson is one of the most successful Idol contestants. To say that she went #1 with a followup, non-"coronation" song is interesting, but it's not exactly notable. But again, this is my opinion, and not fact, so feel free to disagree and say why.  :)
2. My main problem is that it's unsourced; see WP:SOURCES.
3. Judging by the commentary, it appears to be original research.

Now, with all that said, if there's a source that explicitly stated this, then I'm all for including it in the article, but I don't see the need to be so descriptive. It can easily be summed up as With this single, Kelly Clarkson was the first Idol winner to have a second #1 single after their first "coronation" release.

I hope that makes sense. But again, feel free to express your opinion here. (Also, I deleted the Top 40 mention because she's #1 on the Hot 100 anyway. Any other charts are essentially component charts, no?) SKS2K6 (talk) 20:38, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Completely agree. Whether this is an AI song or not really means nothing. The wording reeks of fangush. This is not a Kelly Clarkson news source and saying "Billboard will surely say something tomorrow" is not enough of a reason to re-insert it. - eo (talk) 20:43, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

I can not find an "official" source that flat out says this, but "A Moment Like This", "This Is the Night", "I Believe", and "Inside Your Heaven" are the only songs by Idol contestants to go #1, and they were all coronation singles. Do we really need a source that this is the first non-coronation single to top the chart, when we know for a fact that those are the only four by Idol contestants to go number one on the Hot 100 before this? It's self explanatory, and including it is in now way biased, it's just listing one of the notable accomplishments of the song. As for the Mainstream Top 40, we are not supposed to list component charts in the chart tables, but it is perfectly acceptable to do so in chart performance summaries. WIKI-GUY-16 (talk) 20:45, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

What about non-coronation songs that have topped other charts? There are lots of those, should we insert it into all those song articles? Just don't want this to become a list of Kelly Clarkson chart accomplishments rather than an article about the song itself. The Top 40 Mainstream thing I would personally stay away from, but if it must be included in the article it should definitely be mentioned in the text, not the table. - eo (talk) 20:49, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, there have been non-coronation songs that have topped other charts, but those have been component charts, and component charts aren't as notable as the Hot 100, hence why that wouldn't be mentioned. If this is such a big problem I'll just wait until tomorrow, because I know Billboard will comment about it in their chart beat section. WIKI-GUY-16 (talk) 20:54, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

The issue seems to be whether or not a non-coronation song hitting #1 is notable in the first place. Why does it even matter? AI-alumni songs have been all over the charts for years now, not to mention any song hitting #1 that has nothing at all to do with AI. - eo (talk) 20:58, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

User:WIKI-GUY-16, the onus is on you, as the editor to insert this information, to source it and prove it. It is not up to follow-up editors to disprove otherwise. And please explain why this information is notable enough for inclusion for a general, non-Idol-focussed encyclopedia. It's such a limited group of people that it's somewhat trivial. It would be significantly different if, say, Kelly Clarkson was the only artist to go #1 from Idol, or if other winners have failed miserably afterwards. But Jordin Sparks has done incredibly well, single-wise. And so has Carrie Underwood. So such a comparison, I feel, doesn't really belong here. SKS2K6 (talk) 21:45, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

When did this become an american idol fansite? Are you all still going to be argueing over who's the top idol alumni years after the show is cancelled? Clarkson, jsut like Underwood, Sparks, Aiken, and all the others are artists, whether they got themselves first noticed on a TV show, or not. who did what after Idol means nothing. Why don't we start a who was the best guest star on REba and Saturday Night Live while we're at it too? it would be jsut as notible as all this Idol nonsense. 76.109.42.17 (talk) 07:59, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Edit warring

Is there edit warring going on? Please stop. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 20:41, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

I've said my piece and am now staying away from it, but I think everything can be summed up in the section above this. :P SKS2K6 (talk) 21:35, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Genre

Can we just leave it be? Or will it be continuous to the point where this article will be semi-protected? SKS2K6 (talk) 18:00, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Electropop genre

I have removed electropop from the infobox and per WP:BRD, I am bringing the discussion here. Arlonelle and their IP addresses 96.242.204.196 and 96.242.202.220 added electropop to the infobox and when removed added hidden notes that amount to original research, "The genre is electro-pop because of its charging synths, its steady beat, disco rhythms, and cymbal-crashing drum background." When removed based on original research, they added sources that did not say the song was electropop. When removed based on sources not backing up the genre, they simply reverted without an edit summary or discussion here. Until such time that a reliable source can be found to say the song is electropop, the genre should not be added to the infobox. Aspects (talk) 14:27, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, I was reverted without discussion here and with the following edit summary, "Did not read sources. Sources do not specifically state it but have descriptions of genre". I did read the sources and something both I and the reverter agree upon is that the sources do not state the electropop genre. I have removed the sources that do not state the genre, removed the hidden note of original research and added a hidden note asking to discuss here before adding electropop back to the infobox. Aspects (talk) 21:02, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Agree? I did not agree on anything. If you had read the sources, the electropop genre would be described. It looks loike you have not read it as you say?

--Arlonuelle (talk) 00:29, 8 April 2009 (UTC) If "charging synths, disco rhythms, and cymbal-crashing drum background" does not indicated the electropop genre then what more would you consider because someone decided to remove the genre and your taking it off after it is added because it is from original research? You people at Wikipedia make no sense to me with your incompetent methods at removing what is right there in research.--Arlonuelle (talk) 00:40, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

My question is, what makes it electropop and not just current pop? Reviewers could use the same descriptors and just label it pop in the year 2009. I mean, the electropop article states that "Electropop is characterized by an emphasized electronic sound — often described as cold and robotic — and by minimal arrangements. This was mainly due to the limitations of the analog synthesizers and recording techniques used at the time, but has since become a stylistic choice. Electropop songs are pop songs at heart, often with simple, catchy hooks and dance beats, but differing from those of electronic dance music genres which electropop helped to inspire — techno, house, electroclash, etc. — in that songwriting is emphasized over simple danceability. They often feature alienated deadpan lyrics with a futuristic sci-fi edge." Using that description, this song doesn't necessarily fit. Now, of course, what constitutes a song genre changes over time: what may have been a hip-hop single in 1990 may be a mainstream pop single in 2009. But with all things considered, no professional music reviewer has definitively stated that MLWSWY is an electropop single. Since it's debatable, why should we add it into the genre box without consensus? SKS2K6 (talk) 03:43, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

(response to Arlonuelle):The agreement I was talking about was with the reverter, 71.172.203.107, who left the summary that the sources do not label the song as electropop but still added the genre back. I have read the sources and that is how I can keep telling you that they do not say the song is electropop. The quote "charging synths, disco rhythms, and cymbal-crashing drum background" is not a quote from any of the sources provided, so I must assume that this is your own description of the song since this is kind of what you put in the hidden note. This would be original research on your part. As a side note because of this discussion, I think for the mean time it is best for the genre to be the general pop and remove all other genres. Aspects (talk) 17:56, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

I reverted once, and don't want to go into an edit war, but now the genre hinges on this description by music site Rhapsody that states that the song is "electro-flavoured". User:Arlonuelle, is there a reason why you keep editing outside of your account? SKS2K6 (talk) 21:22, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

It's started again. Thoughts? At this point, it's still questionable (is www.angryape.com a reliable source?), but...what do other editors think? SKS2K6 (talk) 05:45, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Well of the six sources for electopop, only two of them even list the term. Rateyourmusic has users rate and review their music, so that is definitely not a reliable source. So that leaves angryape as having the best chance at being a reliable source and looking through the website, I do not think it is a reliable source. I will be deleting the genre, sources and the review from angryape from the article. Aspects (talk) 20:30, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

It's techno /club music to 100% to as it's also to 100% pop. I would say genres: Pop, Techno. --N00bh4ck3r (talk) 19:45, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

I think calling it techno would be easily challenged, so you need to back up the genre by providing a reliable source. Also you added what you think here and then using the following edit summary "added after discussion", do not actually comply since one person talking to themselves is not a discussion. I am going to remove the genre until such time that a reliable source is found for the genre. Aspects (talk) 19:56, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

But the bass-line and beats sound techno-like, you can hear it out if you know techno music. It's at least club music, euro-dance or techno. --N00bh4ck3r (talk) 00:01, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

It has more an electronic/synth beat then a pop rcok song usually has. With it's disco tinged beat and big chorus. It uses electonic beat and a small guitar riff. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hamad ameri (talk • contribs) 11:59, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Without a reliable source to back this up, it is nothing more than your own original research. I am removing the genre since there is no source. Aspects (talk) 22:57, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

??

"...and transcends into a melody of synthesizers, guitars, and synthesized drums." What does this mean? AuntFlo (talk) 07:21, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Readdition of electropop genre

If you listen to the instrumental of the song, you can clearly tell that the song is of the electropop genre. Also, there are sources that back it up: [3] [4] [5] --Pokerdance (talk) 01:58, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

They're not exactly considered reliable sources. It's not that I'm against adding the genre; it's just no reliable source has stated so. SKS (talk) 02:43, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

One wasn't reliable and wasn't included in the article, I noticed this after I left the original message here. The two music blogs were fairly reliable and have been included. --Pokerdance (talk) 03:41, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

None of these are reliable sources, so I am removing the genre from the infobox. Aspects (talk) 05:08, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Then what would you consider a reliable source? A music blog is about as reliable a source you will find for a genre. Re-added. --Pokerdance (talk) 22:00, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Billboard is one. Any major newspaper is another. Same with magazines like Rolling Stone or Entertainment Weekly. But as per Wikipedia's policies on sourcing, blogs generally aren't. SKS (talk) 23:36, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Before you guys go into an edit war....

User:Pokerdance, please review what constitutes a reliable source on Wikipedia. As I stated before, blogs are not accepted reliable sources for facts, generally speaking. And that includes music blogs. And to everyone, please do not enter an edit war. Thanks. SKS (talk) 19:47, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Honestly, I don't even get why we have to get into the point that it needs sources to be backed up with. Listening to the instrumental - or even the original - version of the song, you can clearly tell it is electropop. --Pokerdance (talk) 04:32, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

But it's clearly debatable, as you can see in the above. And the thing is, Wikipedia's not about getting it "right"; it's about getting it verified. When something has an aspect of subjectivity (that is, it's not clearly defined), there needs to be reliable sources that back up the fact. For example, stating that "My Life Would Suck Without You" is a song in English is a clearly obvious fact that anyone can attest to and no one could argue. Saying that a song is of a certain genre is a bit less clear, mostly because the genre definition can change and migrate over time. For example, the electropop article states that electropop songs are "characterized by an emphasized electronic sound — often described as cold and robotic — and by minimal arrangements". I would argue that this song is clearly not cold not robotic, and its arrangement isn't exactly minimal. The only thing electropop about it is the fact that it has an electronic drum loop. And if it's based on solely that, then I would just argue that the song is pop. Regardless, I'm not an expert, so I could totally be wrong...but then, so can these people on the blogs. Because it's debatable, a reliable source has to say so, and it's up to the editor(s) who insert(s) the information to prove it. SKS (talk) 05:00, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

(in response to Pokerdance) Your main argument seems to be "Listen to the song, it's electpop," which is nothing more than original research when not backed up by reliable sources. Neither source provided fulfills the requirements to be considered a reliable source. Both articles are written by random users of the websites. The websites are not "credible published materials with a reliable publication process;" and the authors are not "generally regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand." Aspects (talk) 16:56, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:My Life Would Suck Without You/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Petergriffin9901 (talk · contribs) 00:40, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

• References need a lot of work. Many are not even formatted...
• Prose need work. Try and get a good copy-editor
• I'd try and research some more information on the songs musical composition etc. It's really the most important section of the page.--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 22:54, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

• I left a notice on the editor's talk page regarding the review. It's been over ten days and he hasn't even attempted to address the issues. I'm Failing the article.--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 23:53, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

• I do apologize, I know it has been a ridiculous amount of time since your post on my page, I do fully intended to start work on this article but have become somewhat consumed with work and studying. I will try over the next month to slowly start work on it but I am at this point very busy. Most of the edits I have been doing since your post have been of a minor nature or other projects that I had started previously. Once I have done a fair bit of work I will nominate it again but I might try to draft in a little bit of help also. Thanks for your patience in this matter. BrotherDarksoul ^Blether 12:36, 02 February 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on My Life Would Suck Without You. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100125020024/http://www.mtv.de:80/charts/Single_Jahrescharts_2009 to http://www.mtv.de/charts/Single_Jahrescharts_2009

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 18:33, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on My Life Would Suck Without You. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20050311224444/http://www2.uta.edu:80/hunt/charts/kclarkson.htm to http://www2.uta.edu/hunt/charts/kclarkson.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 11:58, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified (February 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on My Life Would Suck Without You. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120404161057/http://www.samesame.com.au/features/7469/Kelly-Clarkson-is-STRONGER-and-absolutely-adorable.htm to http://www.samesame.com.au/features/7469/Kelly-Clarkson-is-STRONGER-and-absolutely-adorable.htm
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.rollingstone.com/rockdaily/index.php/2009/01/13/kelly-clarksons-my-life-would-suck-without-you-hits-radio
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.promusicae.org/files/listasradio/historial/TOP%2020%20RADIOS%2009_08.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090130015445/http://www.sonybmg.com.au/cd/releaseDetails.do?catalogueNo=88697463392 to http://www.sonybmg.com.au/cd/releaseDetails.do?catalogueNo=88697463392

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:12, 9 February 2018 (UTC)