Talk:I Want It

Untitled

Please can people not add store charts onto this page. The only charts important are the national official Charts for UK and Ireland.Nightfactoy (talk) 18:38, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Video

Why is the video of the REMIX eligible for inclusion on this page, but no the official video for the song? Makes absolutely no sense! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.158.172.137 (talk) 22:14, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Date of Entry to Chart

check here to verify; http://www.polyhex.com/music/chartruns/chartruns.php

If you have a better source then please verify it, or else we must go on what is already verified.

It is very relevent to the article as it gives the date the single, which the article is about, entered the chart. Please DO NOT remove again, or at least only change the date if it is indeed wrong, or there will be further action taken. Thank you.ChanelleHayes (talk) 17:03, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

If the single is released on 12th May then it's Chart position is ascertained on the following Sunday (18th May 2008, not 24th). This information is based on the Release of the song being on the Monday after the previous chart Sunday (11th May 2008). So there is no need to put the Chart entry date on the page, keeping it clear of confusing info. Can people please just leave the page as it is as there need be no further additional info (especially erroneous) on the "I Want It" page.Nightfactoy (talk) 18:38, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Because a single is released on the Monday does not mean it will chart the following Sunday. It is possible that a song will chart a few weeks following release, and that has happened many times in music history. I really don't see why this is such a big issue to you, the information was about the subject, you are just being pedantic and ruining a perfectly good article as you have done with all the others you have edited, articles which others users have criticised you for also. ChanelleHayes (talk) 19:04, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

OK, since you have changed the date now to the correct one, not 24th, I will leave it as it is now. What I am trying to do is keep the page ordered and free of erroneous info. Also to keep it simple and clear for readers to understand. A song will chart the following week only if it didn't reach the charts on the previous week, but this one did reach the charts in the first week. Meaning it to be of even more importance to get the date right. I think you can see from the standard of articles that I have edited that I have shown good tact and consideration in developing the pages, that is my aim anyway. Nightfactoy (talk) 19:17, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for leaving the information up. I wrongly put the date as the 24 instead of the 18 and I personally rectified this when I realised. All you had to do was change the date and there would have been no problem. I don't think it makes the page any less clear for readers, in fact if anything it makes it even more clear and more reliable for readers. I see from your previous edits of articles, and I mean no disrespect when I say this, but it does appear that you remove anything that you find unflattering or not positive regarding Chanelle Hayes even if the information is actually accurate, and this has been noted by many other users who have questioned you on it on the relative discussion pages. Clearly I am not the only person who thinks you are a little more than generous to Chanelle. Yes, it is ok to be a fan of someone, but it is also ok to be fair on articles where a slightly negative or critical point of view is printed. Wikipedia is a resource for millions of people around the world, and they wish their information to be as accurate as possible. If you feel a comment has been made wrongly then edit or remove as appropriate, but it is not necessary to remove anything that is true whether it is flattering or not. Believe it or not, celebrities such as Chanelle are exactly the same as everyone else; human. They make mistakes, they do things wrong, they are not perfect. ChanelleHayes (talk) 19:24, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

It is important to keep the page balanced and accurate in what it says. People sometimes seize on negatives and insist on that info being shown on the page when in fact it does not rate highly in Chanelle's activities, and gives an unbalanced view. You will see that Chanelle's page has attracted lots of graffiti and users come up with all sorts of poor excuses for adding their own subjective opinions to the page. All of which I and others have done our best to discourage and undo. The fact that this page and others goes out around the world only adds further support the idea of protecting the pages from subjective and erroneous, unbalanced editing, as per the Wickepedia guidelines. Nightfactoy (talk) 19:32, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

How can you possibly say the pages are balanced when you actively remove anything negative, even if it is true? I agree that any pages on Wikipedia should be accurate, and that is the most important thing and that is also what edits are for, but it is not fair to remove something you don't agree with just because it is unflattering. I would call the edits of yours that I have seen thus far regarding Chanelle (The only subject you do edit on might I add) are anything but balanced, so I find it highly amusing that you constantly bring up the "unbalanced" argument when it is you who is the most unbalanced editor of the lot.ChanelleHayes (talk) 19:38, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

You are not understanding. By balanced I mean putting information in that needs to be there, in keeping with the size of the page and other info in there already. All info, no matter how "correct" doesn't need to to go in the page. Just the important things, in relation to other important things on the page, in a balanced way. You seem to be blowing things up out of all proportion. The pages are fine as they are unless Chanelle does something else worth adding. If you want to go on a personal attack against myself then that would be very boring and tedious, and a waste of my time and yours. I suggest we leave the pages as they are and stop bickering.Nightfactoy (talk) 19:49, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on I Want It. 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/20080510151457/http://www.energyfm.net/phfactor.htm to http://www.energyfm.net/phfactor.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080417041918/http://www.musicweek.com:80/story.asp?sectioncode=22&storycode=1033886&c=3 to http://www.musicweek.com/story.asp?sectioncode=22&storycode=1033886&c=3

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} 22:15, 23 February 2016 (UTC)