User talk:Apoxyomenus/Archive 4

Fan editing

Hey @Apoxyomenus: there's a Paulina Rubio fan that dislikes Thalía so he keeps deleting sales and certifications from her articles saying that the sources are unreliable. You, @88marcus:, and I have already explained to them that their is nothing wrong with the sources in the articles but he keeps reverting our edits and is now accusing us of vandalism. I think we since they won't stop edit warring with us, despite us trying to explain stuff to them, we should go another way about handling this. FanDePopLatino (talk) 17:57, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

@FanDePopLatino: I think this user thinks like: "If we can't use in the Paulina's article, you can't use in Thalía's too". The problem begun when you erase the 1 million copies sold claim in the Paulina's Border Girl article, because it's from the website "Los 40 Principales" which is listed here: Wikipedia:Record charts as a site to avoid for charts. It seem that he takes that as a personal attack to Paulina's performance (since all the inflated sales were erased in her articles) since the 1 million claim is near to the performance of the album worldwide. But the problem is that he erased some sources that can't be viewed as unreliable, the Brazilian magazine Quem, which listed the Thalía's 2003 album with 750,000 sold is one of them. I tried to find the same info in other websites but I couldn't find.--88marcus (talk) 18:37, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

@88marcus: he actually removed everything from Thalía's articles before I removed the source from Los 40 Principales. I add content such as charts and sales to Paulina's articles too but this editor uses sources such as fan websites or primary sources to inflate sales for Paulina. I like Paulina but I know that fan websites are not reliable sources so I don't use them. It's like if this editor wants to use wikipedia as a fan blog for worshipping Paulina and hating on Thalía. FanDePopLatino (talk) 18:48, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

@FanDePopLatino: now I see, you're right. This is happening for so long. I like Paulina too, and it was me who begun to post her albums's sales years ago, from reliable sites, I even searched for info in archived sites like El siglo de Torreon, to avoid some of her fan sites's claims like: La Chica Dorada sold 3,5 million and 24 Kilates 2,3 million and so on. It seems that when the user JohnFromPinckney eliminated the certs of 24 kilates and El Tiempo es Oro it gets worst, but all that he did seemed right, even now, as an example the La Chica Dorada which is listed as having Platinum+3x Gold in Mexico, but the Torreón article is not saying that, it's saying that she has a platinum record and 3 gold records in Union Americana(?), and about the claimed sales the other article is not specif if the 450,000 copies sold are from Mexico or worldwide.--88marcus (talk) 19:32, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

@FanDePopLatino: @88marcus: I noticed. I guess one of the steps y'all can follow is a consensus in each article in which he made an edit (and I can participate into all of 'em). That's an appropriate way to start, but is longer. Wikiprojects like WikiProject Latin Music are almost inactive, so I guess the participation would be just between we four, but it's enough. The short-way if he continues with his edit-warring and disruptive editing, since he reverted two or three users (FanDePopLatino, 88 Marcus, or in some cases, me) and 'cause he also seemed like Wikipedia:IDONTLIKEIT with anything relating with Thalía, could be directly handle in WP:ANI. I also agree with almost everything with both of you guys, except his edition in Border Girl is right: Los 40 Principales could be a WP:BADCHARTS in charts matters, but beyond that is acceptable as a source per WP:RS in music articles, including sales claims and available sales/certifications from that album are close with that figure, as Habitame Siempre is with the half million. Cheers, --Apoxyomenus (talk) 19:48, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

@Apoxyomenus: @88marcus: well if Los 40 Principales is a reliable source for everything but sales then I don't have a problem with adding that back on the Border Girl article but even if I do, I don't think that the other user will stop reverting all our edits on Thalía's articles. If you guys think that's fine then I will add everything back for both Thalía and Paulina but if the other user reverts all the edits on Thalía's articles again then we should report them. What do you guys think? FanDePopLatino (talk) 20:05, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

@FanDePopLatino: I mean, his edition what I can agree with, is only with Border Girl. His revertion with all Thalia's articles are disruptive. And we don't need to restore the others Rubio's articles with all of those poorly sources and questionable certifications (e.g. RIAA if we have available their database: example La Chica Dorada or Brava). --Apoxyomenus (talk) 20:12, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

@Apoxyomenus: sorry I guess I didn't word my statement correctly. What I meant to say is that we can add back everything he removed from Thalía's articles and also add back the sales for Border Girl but just for that Paulina album. If after we do that the other user continues to remove the content from Thalía's articles then we should report them. FanDePopLatino (talk) 20:40, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

@Apoxyomenus: and @FanDePopLatino:, I agree. Only the edition in Border Girl was wrong. To me it's ok now.--88marcus (talk) 22:25, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	Your ability to find a remarkable amount of reliable journalistic and academic sources really amazed me :) Keep up the good work, cheers. Bluesatellite (talk) 00:31, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

Many thanks, @Bluesatellite: =). Cheers, --Apoxyomenus (talk) 01:47, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

Notice of COI discussion re another editor

There is currently a discussion you may be interested in at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard#Santiago Lodré and all the Paulina Rubio related articles. Normal Op (talk) 22:40, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

Por Amor France sales

Hi. I couldn't verify the France sales of the album Por Amor (AALM) even though tried to find an archived link in some websites. Maybe you include the wrong link, I never found nothing about the Por Amor sales there only about Amor a la Mexicana single sales.--88marcus (talk) 16:54, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

That source did use to have the sales but unfortunately it wasn't archived. If you look here it shows that that site was available a long time ago and it sourced the sales but it's unavailable now and ukmix is a forum so it can't be used in wikipedia. I used that forum to find out more about Thalía's sales and chart performance, that's how I was able to find the Korean chart and sales for her English album and was also how I found the Mexican sales for her 2002 self titled album. That information is true but since the sources are old it's hard to find an archive of them. FanDePopLatino (talk) 20:18, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

Sorry for the late response, @88marcus: and @FanDePopLatino: I was off during this weekend. Por Amor sales in France was there, but url wasn't properly archived. I've tried Archive.org or Archive.today without a success. I did a quick advanced research on Google with publications in French such as Le Figaro but I couldn't find anything (yet). However, i'll remove those sales since is inverificable by now; was a mistake but I usually post any kind of refs in talk page first instead add them. BTW, please guys try to use a proper format for references (date=, work=, publication=, author= etc) and use italics when applicable (albums, tv shows) etc, quotation mark (" ") for singles and homogenize titles ("La vie en rose" vs "La vie en Rose" in a same article; "Amor a la Mexicana" vs "Amor a la mexicana" etc). Best regards, --Apoxyomenus (talk) 23:58, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Ok. I searched in the archived page of the website and I only found the positions of some albums and nothing about sales of any album there. Even the other website Infodisc doesn't list Thalía's album in their data about album sales not even with less than 30,000. Too bad. I'll follow your advices about the editions in Wikipedia's articles. Thanks. ;) --88marcus (talk) 00:32, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Guinness World Records

Hello Apoxyomenus, do you have access to which year of Guinness World Records that wrote Whitney Houston as the most-awarded female artist of all time? The source used in the article is secondary source, not direcly from GWR. I'm afraid it's a fan-made record which actually never existed. I personally feel that Beyonce is more awarded woman. Bluesatellite (talk) 01:11, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Hi @Bluesatellite:. Secondary sources such as Billboard (2012) specified Houston obtained that GWR on August 15, 2006 with 411 awards (pag. 8). Although with this "limited preview" of the GWR book edition her name is nowhere (Craig Glenday; 2006 → even this one as well). In some sources but with lower quality like this one and other books (example), it's cited she got that record on 2009. Due some titles receives an update from GWR, even if their holder are the same, I tried to search book previews, press notes or an article related in 2009, but I couldn't find anything. Even advansed searches from 2006-2006 or 2006-2009 e.g: Craig Glenday; 2009 etc with same results. I also tried of course, the online version of GWR which categories everything/records/news. Websites like this one (2009) gave attribuiton of that info to her official website.

A short description of information's trajectory: In her Wikipedia list of awards & nominations article that info was originally added on December 26, 2006 without a reference (as "the Most Awarded/Popular Female Artist of All-Time" and is the same title used in her official webpage WhitneyHouston.com). Info remained there and a reference was only added four years later in that list on July 5, 2010 with this article from Miami Herald (MH) posted on 2007 (be advised that press article was published almost 1 year later from our unsourced info). In lead ("introduction") of our list that record was added on August 1, 2011 and August 6, 2011 and reference from Miami Herald (MH) remained in the "2006/GWR" section. Actually that source from MH is the same used as of today and that's more than ten years. I also noticed Whitney's awards information from her website (which is at the same time a copyrighted Sony's Entertainment property) looks like a "copy+paste" of our list and have virtually the same format.

Sometimes an unsourced info is added by many IPs and users, although there are actually references outside. GWR page doesn't include all their records and although some records actually exists are difficult to obtained an online proof. But is not wrong think with this case it's a result of a fan-made record probably originated in Wikipedia and now have tons of reliable and verified sources thanks to circular reporting and that's part of the woozle effect. At least, have a questionable background. We may only make sure if we ask directly to GWR enquiries. Regards, --Apoxyomenus (talk) 05:50, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Wow, it's a very detail research. I think for now it's best to remove the claim until someone could provide archived links or scans of Guinness World Records itself, not from secondary sources. I'm afraid this false information would continue to spread, especially since it's mentioned on the first paragraph of her article. Thank you very much for your time, as usual you're always very good in finding sources. Bluesatellite (talk) 08:41, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

@Bluesatellite: You're welcome. Not a problem at all. I also agree, you can remove that info (in her main article, the list of awards and I think is given in her list of records or discography) but you must explain why in a talk page rather than only an edit summary. Probably, someone can add additional research and could provide scans etc. If don't, a consensus could help to avoid that and prevent of future edit wars or "vandalism" but will depends in a final result. These step maybe will be enough, but a hoax (or a possible hoax) of over 10 years its really difficult to "erase" in some fans and reader's minds. BTW, I think (I haven't did a research) is the same history of the GWR belongs to MJ as the "most awarded performer in music history", due may of his articles hasn't been properly patrolled during years and years, and "irrelevant" (such as polls) and unsourced awards (probably fictional awards) has been there until BrothaTimothy recently has been working on that list. However, in his case its more convincent that he really obtained a hundreds of awards compared to Houston or above other musicians. Cheers, --Apoxyomenus (talk) 21:59, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:25, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

FAC: Love for Sale (Bilal album)

Hi. Could you spare some time and review my nomination of this article? Thanks. isento (talk) 22:52, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Correct usage of {{certification Table Bottom}}

Hi Apoxyomenus. I noticed you are adding sales figures to certification tables, like you did here and here. Please note that when you are adding a sales figure, you are most likely removing a previous footnote marker. You therefore may need to correct the use of {{certification Table Bottom}} at the end of the table, since the footnotes at the bottom of the table should match the footnote denotations used in the table itself. You can see the corrections I made here and here. Of course, this is not always needed, depending on other certifications used in the table. If you need any help with that I'll be happy to assist. As always, your contribution is greatly appreciated. Enjoy your editing. --Muhandes (talk) 10:16, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

@Muhandes: OK not a problem. Good to know minor details like that. Regards, --Apoxyomenus (talk) 22:21, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Rollback abuse

Can you explain this revert? LSGH (talk) (contributions) 01:50, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

@LSGH: Yes, this is the explanation. It's not a "rollback abuse", it was only a missclick. Regards, --Apoxyomenus (talk) 01:58, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

My wiki posts

Hey, if you research the subject matter you will find that these songs have outdated certified units. I’m updating them based on predicted sales units as of now. I can change my wording if that’s okay? Kai875 (talk) 01:59, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

my tweaks

Hi, I’m confused how my edits were vandalism when they are factual sale eligibilities. Kai875 (talk) 02:06, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Hi @Kai875:. Welcome. I saw Tbhotch replied you. Keep in mind any addition need a reliable source. You can't add anything based on your own conclusion with assumptions like are "old figures" or certifications "are eligible to be updated". Of course, not all sources in the Internet can be added with us; you can see a non-exhausit list here. In addition, all your updates with Carey's sales are wrong since we work by de facto with figures based on certifications/sales available and other factors (like tenier), and not with the next available claimed sales which are ipso facto, inflated. Regards, --Apoxyomenus (talk) 03:37, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

But doesn’t this also mean that some of the information is wrong? if you cite sources to back up eligibilities would that be fine? because some artists choose not to update songs or albums for years so if someone wanted to know precise sales they would get inaccurate information? thanks for your help Kai875 (talk) 13:07, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

@Kai875: For sure, there are many examples of titles with "outdated" certifications. But is not our job, certifications must came from their official entities when are available, like the RIAA database. If they say 2x Platinum is 2x Platinum. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. And we only refer those available sales if came from authority sources like Nilesen/Billboard in the United States. If you have additional questions, please refer to use article's talk page or music Wikiprojects like Wikipedia:Wikiproject Music, Wikipedia:Wikiproject Albums or Wikipedia:WikiProject Record Charts. Regards, --Apoxyomenus (talk) 23:21, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

@apoxyomenus

Hey Apoxyomenus shouldn't pitbull be a top selling artist since he has 65 million records. he has said in multiple interviews. Oscarotero3 (talk) 08:42, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Hi @Oscarotero3:. Any addition requires a reliable source. I don't know his available sales/certified units, so you should consider ask in the talk page of the list of best-selling Latin artists since 60 million seems an important (and high) figure for him. Looks like almost those sales came from songs with digital+streaming units. Maybe there are other lower claims and it could help to make comparisons. Regards, --Apoxyomenus (talk) 18:40, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

1989 (Taylor Swift album)

Hello, as cited here, this album was certified in two formats: CD (which was Gold, then Platinum) and DAL ("digital album", which was Gold). I reverted your edits back to the previous version. Best regards, HĐ (talk) 03:40, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

@HĐ: No problem. I noticed it in your edit summary. BTW, thank you for improve and removing fancruft stuffs in her articles. I've noticed she have had that problem with several of her articles, including those with GA/FA status. Regards, --Apoxyomenus (talk) 03:58, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

If you happen to notice fancruft, please start discussions on talk page to raise awareness. I believe not all Taylor Swift WikiProject editors could keep an eye on all of them. Thank you for your work. HĐ (talk) 04:13, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

TR WP

Hi, please check notifications from TR Wikipedia related the your source request. Kingbjelica (talk) 13:37, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

@Kingbjelica: Oh, thank you very much for let me know. "Ping" template didn't work. Cheers, --Apoxyomenus (talk) 16:52, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Nomination of List of artists influenced by Madonna for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of artists influenced by Madonna is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of artists influenced by Madonna until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

Noah ^💬 20:58, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 15

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Cultural impact of Madonna, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page CBS Records. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar 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) 05:53, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Uruguay charts

Hey I found this page archive with the official airplay chart in Uruguay before the site stopped. This was the country's official airplay chart and it shows on the side of the page how the chart is calculated. Do you think we can start using it or should we discuss it somewhere else first? Also @88marcus: what do you think? FanDePopLatino (talk) 14:45, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

Hi, @FanDePopLatino:. Appears to be good as they said airplay charts were based in the report of 30 national radio stations and used by other 40 tv channels/radio stations. They also mentioned the name of CUD (the official certification body in that country) in their web. On the other hand, not sure if CUD had charts for singles at that time in their own website. I would recommend start discussion in Wikiprojects Latin Music or Record charts to have additional opinions and have that info backed as maybe it can be incorporated into GOODCHARTS. Cheers, --Apoxyomenus (talk) 15:30, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

@FanDePopLatino: seems reliable. But I agree with Apoxyomenus about start discussion in Wikiprojects Latin Music or Record charts. ;) .--88marcus (talk) 15:46, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

@Apoxyomenus: & @88marcus: ok let's do it then. Since it's a latin chart, let's do the discussion on Wikiprojects Latin Music. FanDePopLatino (talk) 16:01, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

Adding digital album charts when the main album chart is already present

Hi there. I just noticed you added the Portuguese digital albums chart to the year-end charts table on Madame X (album) when the main albums chart was already present. As digital sales already contribute to the main chart, this is generally considered redundant and shouldn't be included. Also, I see you've added listings to year-end charts that include compilations when the main year-end chart for those countries is already present. I debated removing these myself as compilations don't chart on most main album charts in the world anyway so I don't really see why we should care where an album is placed if compilations are taken into account at year's end for that country, but don't be surprised if other editors consider them redundant and are more bold in removing them. Ss112 04:44, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

@Ss112: That's fine. I had my doubts with the Portuguese "Ditigal chart". Regarding "albums and compilation charts", at least for Hungary that's probably the actual name ("Hungarian albums and compilations) for their year-end chart, and they divided it by "rank" & "sales" as translation suggests. BTW, other articles such as Map of the Soul: 7 specified "rank" & "sales".

I know, there is editors that could delete those chart. Perhaps if an editor start to delete them massively need to be backed by a specific/general consensus for that since opinions might vary. There is in the way, other things less obvious that can be overlooked. Regards, --Apoxyomenus (talk) 10:09, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia Español

Hola, gusto saber si puedes ir a la pagina del usuario MadonnaFan para denunciar vandalismo en la pagina de Selena Quintanilla por que sus ventas no dejan de ser vandalizadas. A mí me bloquearon por la más mínima edición ahora. Necesito que le avises de las ventas infladas. Link: https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usuario_discusi%C3%B3n:MadonnaFan#Asunto_de_ventas_infladas_de_Selena, las paginas donde necesita limpieza por vandalismo extremo agregando cifras inexistentes. https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amor_prohibido_(%C3%A1lbum_de_Selena) No se puede engañar a la gente. Gracias — Preceding unsigned comment added by AlexanderShakifan29 (talk • contribs)

@AlexanderShakifan29: Sorry for the late response. I've seen he already helped to delete all of those inflated sales. --Apoxyomenus (talk) 18:59, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Youtube

I edited Shakira's page that she had also inspired Britney and Katy Perry, however the problem is that the only sources I have are YouTube videos, one was from an interview with Britney that was carried out and names Shakira as her influence however not a page spoke of it and I could only rescue that video. On Wikipedia it explains that "The videos can also be used as a convenience link to material originally posted elsewhere." The videos were aired on television but no one spoke about them I ask you to find a solution. AlexanderShakifan29 (talk) 19:45, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

@AlexanderShakifan29: Please see WP:RSPYT. There is nothing I can do for that situation; you must wait to have that information backed by a third-party source. --Apoxyomenus (talk) 23:19, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Shakira

ApoxyomenusHola, tengo unas cuantas dudas respecto al artículo de Shakira, y es nunca o casi nunca las ventas se han actualizado, por ejemplo, sucede que con Laundry Service, desde el 2004 revistas como Billboard, The Economist, Los Angeles Times o la BMI afirmaban que ese álbum había vendido más de 13 millones de copias en un tiempo de tres años, en Estados Unidos vendió 3,3 millones en un año, sin embargo ese número se ha mantenido estático durante 17 años, me sorprende que siquiera haya variado a 13,1 o 13,2. Las veces que intenté modificar la cifra a 14 o 15 (tanto en las versiones en español como en inglés) fueron todas revertidas. Asumiría que se debe a que las actualizaciones de certificaciones son escasas y tal vez el día que se actualicen aumenten, o algo más improbable sería que las cifras no han aumentado tanto como para llegar a una certificación, aún así, no he encontrado fuentes confiables que mencionen cifras superiores a esa, pero que el número de 13 millones no haya cambiado por tanto tiempo me parece algo desconcertante teniendo en cuenta que esa artista fue un fenómeno en los 2000.--Editor universal (talk) 21:11, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

@Editor universal: You have used Chartmasters.org (listed as a website to avoid). Tenier matters (for example for gaps between claimed sales vs certifications) but usually doesn't mean an immediately update for worldwide sales. And you're right, if we use the "newest" claimed sales (anything larger than 13 million), that gap is notorious. Keep in mind, other reliable sources still using the 13 million claim. --Apoxyomenus (talk) 23:24, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

Even chartmasters.org claimed Laundry Service at 12,630,000 copies, so the 13 million figure seems quite realistic. The figure Editor universal cite is an "Album Equivalent", not the actual albums sold. People often get confused of "album sales" and "album equivalents", hence reading comprehension is important. Cheers. Bluesatellite (talk) 01:43, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: List of best-selling albums in Turkey has been accepted

List of best-selling albums in Turkey, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as List-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider .

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Bkissin (talk) 13:25, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Apoxyomenus (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Seems I share IP with someone else, but I definitely don't have multiple accounts. This is my only one. Could you please help with that issue, @RoySmith:. Thanks in advance. Regards, Apoxyomenus (talk) 12:20, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

Decline reason:

This account is not blocked. If you are unable to edit, please exactly follow the instructions which appear when you attempt to do so. Yamla (talk) 12:25, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:28, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 30

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Segundo Romance, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page El Informador.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:04, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 18

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Thalía (English-language album), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Nandito Ako.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:00, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Cultural impact of Madonna

Hi, in the article Cultural impact of Madonna you use a reference "Negrón-Muntaner 2004", but you have not defined the reference. This means that nobody can look the reference up, and places the article in Category:Harv and Sfn no-target errors. Could you fix this please? DuncanHill (talk) 05:15, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

@DuncanHill: Done. Thanks you for let me know it!. Cheers, --Apoxyomenus (talk) 05:31, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

No problem, and thank you for the speedy fix. All the best, DuncanHill (talk) 05:36, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for cleaning up after me

I meant to change an "an" to an "a", but somehow did this. I had no idea and I still have no idea how it happened. Sorry about that and thanks again for cleaning up after me. Keep up the good work. SchreiberBike | ⌨  03:26, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

@SchreiberBike: Hey no problem. I know it was a mistake. Thank you very much for keep an eye and for your contributions in Wikipedia. Cheers, --Apoxyomenus (talk) 03:48, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 9

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Madonna studies, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Stuart Hall and Loyola University.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:03, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

Luis Miguel Romance China and Taiwan sales

Hello my friend! what do you think about this source? "(...) su último trabajo 'Romance', en China y Taiwan. 'al parecer no les importó mucho lo que se decía en mis canciones. Se vendieron 500 mil discos en castellano. Es asombroso. Dudo mucho de que a mi se me ocurriera comprar un disco en chino" https://books.google.es/books?hl=es&id=oJMwAAAAYAAJ&dq=taiwan+%22luis+miguel%22&focus=searchwithinvolume&q=chino Franlm14 (talk) 17:06, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Hi, Franlm14 The whole text says it was sold 500K units in Orient. But that term could be ambiguous. Personally, I don't have problem with having that info in "summaries" or maybe, the best place could be "commercial reception". Perhaps, you can bring that request in article's talk page and let see what others think. Cheers, --Apoxyomenus (talk) 22:40, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Thank you! Franlm14 (talk) 00:27, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 19

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Ray of Light Foundation, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Palestine.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:06, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

Graphics Lab - Madonna Concerts Map

Hello, Apoxyomenus. A reply to your request at the Illustration workshop has been made.
If you are satisfied, please copy/paste the following code and add it to your request: {{resolved|1=~~~~}}

You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{GL Illustration reply}} template.

DeVosMax [ contribs • talk • created media ] 03:49, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

Year-end lists Future Nostalgia

Hello, I noticed you recently trimmed Caution's year end listings citing a recent consensus. Thank goodness, I've only just seen the discussion but gosh they were getting ridiculous. However, I've noticed that Future_Nostalgia#Year-end_lists for example gets around the long table with a long prose list. I'm wondering if this is helpful/in the spirit of the consensus and would appreciate your opinion. ≫ Lil-Unique1 -{ Talk }- 21:42, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

@Lil-unique1: My personal view: having a bit of prose in those sections is fine when WP:CONTEXTMATTERS and need to be consise and without too much details. In Future Nostalgia, this apply to me with those outlets that ranked this record as "2020's best album" (till Vogue India), which is a feat. The rest, is kind of WP:INDISCRIMINATE, mainly the second paragraph. --Apoxyomenus (talk) 22:09, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

Cultural impact of Madonna

Hey! According to WP:RECORDS, Cultural impact of Madonna is now the longest article on Wikipedia of any type, a remarkable 514,000+ bytes. 30,000 words long! Almost all of this content has been added by you in over 1700 edits. I have a lot of respect for the amount of work you've put in, but doesn't that statistic suggest that the article has overshot its optimal length? Madonna has undoubtedly had a considerable cultural impact, but a little trimming is needed in order to keep to WP:SUMMARY style. Ganesha811 (talk) 05:44, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

Hi, @Ganesha811: Thanks for let me know it. It's certainly an ambiguous feat. Let me tell you I asked for help and suggestions few weeks ago at its talk page, or ideas about a possible split without failing WP:CFORK for one or more of these topics. We know writing about a person is subjetive, even including "historical figures". In Madonna terms, as far I can tell, there is enough material derived of her critical/academic discipline Madonna Studies and beyond. The current situation with the article, even if is long, present only a part of "chronological dating" (years/decades/centuries) in most of sections, in order to show how views are reinforced or changed as is something usual with socio-cultural themes as well. And of course, from an intertional perspective WP:WORLDWIDEVIEW that I can inject. I'm from the idea, that at least one/two sub-articles can be created and in my point of view, a sub-article would be just as similar to other off-topics of musicians such as Michael Jackson (Philanthropy of Michael Jackson for example) "accepted" in Wikipedia's standards. Or another similar example could be Cultural impact of Elvis Presley and Cultural depictions of Elvis Presley.

Research is fine, but exhaustived and when is back-to-back. That's what I did. So in the meantime, I'm still thinking, taking a brief break and waiting for fresh ideas about article's size. A help would be also welcome, whatever to condense prose, word choices, or delete/discuss possible fancruft. Cheers,

--Apoxyomenus (talk) 19:10, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

I appreciate that you understand the issue and have been thinking about it. Reading over the article again, I think the devil's in the details - it's simply *too* exhaustive to the point that the reader will become exhausted trying to get through it! I'm not sure there are any obvious splits that can be done. I hope when you get back from your break, you can look over it with a fresh eye and bring it back down in length. Ganesha811 (talk) 19:47, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 30

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of Madonna records and achievements, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page CRIA.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:05, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

Please avoid edit conflicts

Hi. Please avoid editing articles that have Template:In use tags on them. Finally Enough Love: 50 Number Ones is currently being actively edited by me. Thanks. Ss112 14:35, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

@Ss112: It didn't have the template when I open to make my edit, but I submitted later when you put it. Anyways, no problem. --Apoxyomenus (talk) 14:40, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

It was there from my first revision but who knows, maybe it glitched. Either way, thanks for adding more sources. Ss112 15:13, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

@Ss112: Sure. Not a problem at all. My pleasure. Thanks --Apoxyomenus (talk) 20:30, 4 May 2022 (UTC)