User talk:Muhandes

TUSC token e80b809c8cc344eed212d9db46506234

I am now proud owner of a TUSC account!

Fastenal

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Maybe this should be posted in edit warring? regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Fleetham (talk • contribs) 09:20, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

RIAA: Latin type certifications

This is with regards to your recent edits at Dreaming of You (album). The levels for Latin type of certifications in USA were amended in the beginning of 2008, they were reduced from previous Gold=100,000, Platinum=200,000 to Gold=50,000, Platinum=100,000, see this [here]. And, when an older release gets certified or re-certified in USA, RIAA applies the newer certification-levels to it (for all types, not just Latin type). Actually, both RIAA and SNEP do the same, they both apply the most recent certification-levels when a record reaches present certification-levels regardless of its release date. So, for Dreaming of You, it should read 35x Platinum (Latin type)=3,500,000.--Harout72 (talk) 15:32, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing this out, I didn't know the older certifications were corrected. If I understand the source correctly, this is not only for new certifications - it says "All titles certified under the Latin program prior to January 1, 2008 received automatic amendments to their certification levels". I correct the template to ignore the release year. Can you supply a source for SNEP doing this too? --Muhandes (talk) 15:45, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Well, the template needs to be designed in a way that it treats these levels correctly. For example, if a Spanish sung album as MIS MEJORES CANCIONES: 17 SUPER EXITOS has received its 6x Platinum in 2003 for shipments/sales of 1,200,000 (see the previous levels here) but has not been re-certified after the change in levels, then it automatically will read 6x Platinum=600,000, if the template ignores the previous levels, and that would be incorrect. I'm not sure if the template will work correctly without further improvements. But if another Spanish sung album as Ones has received its Platinum-award in 2003 for 200,000 units, and has been re-certified in 2010 for 5x Platinum (500,000 units), in this case, the template will serve its purpose correctly. By the way, I'm not sure if you're aware, but levels for Digital Downloads in USA were Gold=100,000, Platinum=200,000 before September 2006 (See this before the change and see this after the change).

For SNEP, just like RIAA, I have not come across any sources that immediately emphasize how they operate. But if you look at ABBA's The Definitive Collection album (for example) which was released in 2001 but received its Gold certification from SNEP in 2009 for shipment/sales of 50,000, you will see that SNEP does the same thing. Now as we know, SNEP's levels for albums in 2001 were Gold=100,000, Platinum=300,000 and they were reduced from Gold=75,000, Platinum=200,000 (this was changed in 2005 at the same time as the levels for the Singles) to Gold=50,000, Platinum=100,000 in July 2009. Hope all this helped.--Harout72 (talk) 00:59, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm afraid I do not fully understand. This statement says "All titles certified under the Latin program prior to January 1, 2008 received automatic amendments to their certification levels", wouldn't that mean that originally 50 MIS MEJORES CANCIONES: 17 SUPER EXITOS received 3 Platinum for 600,000 and in 2008 it was amended to 6 Platinum? --Muhandes (talk) 06:15, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

You are interpreting the statement correctly. But the trick is to always look at the issue date of certifications. In other words, Entre a Mi Mundo has received 6x Platinum before the amendment for 1,200,000 units (see where it reads Certification Date and immediately under that 12/17/2002), after the amendment, with newer levels, it automatically means 12x Platinum still for 1,200,000 units, even though they have not updated the posting. So in order for the template to work correctly, it has to be designed in a way that it is able to determine the figures by reading the certification-date. If it detects that the date of the certification is from after February 2008, the template should automatically use 2x platinum with 200,000. If it detects that the date of the certification is from before Feb. 2008, the template should automatically use the older levels with corresponding figures, 2x platinum with 400,000. Let me know please if this was helpful.--Harout72 (talk) 07:31, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Again, I'll have to take your word for it, as it goes contrary to my previous understanding, which was that the words "automatic amendments" mean that the the database was updated. It's easy to implement, all I need to do is make the template take the date from the certyear parameter rather than the relyear one, for France and US. We'll have to manually go over all uses and add the certyear parameter. But if you are 100% certain this is how it works, I'll do that. --Muhandes (talk) 08:04, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Also, regarding Digital Downloads, I currently don't support it by the template, if the need arises I can change that. --Muhandes (talk) 10:53, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I'm very certain about this, RIAA doesn't update every posting unfortunately when a change in levels occurs. Let me give you one other quick example of their updates, Elvis Presley's single "Hard Headed Woman" was originally certified Gold in 1958 for shipment/sales of 1 million units, then, not long after RIAA reduced the singles-threshold in 1989 from Gold=1,000,000, Platinum=2,000,000 to Gold=500,000, Platinum=1,000,000 (see this article for previous levels), RIAA updated quite a few of their original postings including Presley's "Hard Headed Woman". Note that they have only updated it by applying the newer certification level, Platinum, still representing 1,000,000 units, the date of the certification is changed. RIAA seems to update only the postings of those artists, another single/album of whose is receiving a new certification, see here Presley's other singles have received certifications on the same exact date they updated the level for "Hard Headed Woman".--Harout72 (talk) 15:41, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

I already implemented the table this way, and corrected all entries. I'll do France tomorrow. --Muhandes (talk) 15:45, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Hello Muhandes. I don't know if you saw on my talk page, but I've noticed that there was a certification for Spanish-language albums for the Hispanic market in the United States and for Puerto Rico. Apparently, certifications for these albums have existed before it was recognized by the RIAA. I've noticed for example in a citation that Romances, it states that it got a 9x platinum in United States and Puerto Rico. Another example I found was that Cuenta Conmigo by Jerry Rivera was triple platinum in Puerto Rico. Have a look and tell me what you think. Magiciandude (talk) 04:07, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Note that Billboard are careful with their text. They don't say it is double platinum, they say it is 'described by Sony as "double platinum"'. It is also very clear from the article that RIAA did not certify it, nor did it mean at the time to certify anything below 500,000 units, until they caved in and started the Los Premios de Oro y De Platino program. So I think this is self certification, and should not be listed in certification tables. If the sales figure is mentioned it can be listed of course.

There seems to be quite a bit of it going around. I don't remember the album, but I saw one where Sony awarded their artist a gold album for "worldwide sales", another clear sign that it is self-certification. If you are having problems with editors pushing these self-certifications we can take it to WT:ALBUM or WP:CHARTS. --Muhandes (talk) 06:06, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Alright I was just making sure. Magiciandude (talk) 13:29, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Paramount Country Club logo.png

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Paramount Country Club logo.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude2 (talk) 06:06, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Re: Fever (Kylie Minogue album)

Hi. Sorry for the late reply. Actually, that wasn't a mistake. I didn't mean to be disrespectful or anything, I'm just not fond of this template, I found it rather clunky, so I much prefer the previous format. Also, I feel its usage was imposed, similarly to the chart macros. SnapSnap 23:22, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't see why you think its usage is imposed. There was a discussion in WT:ALBUM and objections were raised and addressed, as far as I can tell. Do you have any specific objections which were not addressed? I'd be happy to try to address them. You are in any case free to use or not use it as you see fit - no one is imposing anything. The template is simply an effort to standardize on the looks, sources, and categorization of certifications. The same could be achieved through very hard editorial work, if one prefers it. --Muhandes (talk) 23:35, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

The template as a whole is fine. I personally prefer the [[Certifying body|Country]] format over the one used in the template, but that's just me. Also, is there any particular reason why the word "platinum" should be capitalised? SnapSnap 00:32, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

I see what you are saying about [[Certifying body|Country]], I'll add that option to the template. As for capitalizing the award I just copied the common practice. I can only guess that it's done this way to distinguish "platinum" (the material) from "Platinum" (the award). English is only my third language, so if someone with authority says it's wrong I'll easily change it - see, that's another thing easy with a template, to change all the instances at once. --Muhandes (talk) 17:14, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm glad you took [[Certifying body|Country]] into account, this makes me enthusiastic about the template. Since English is not my mother tongue either, I might as well take the capitalisation matter to WT:CHARTS. I also think parameters such as |date= (when the certification date is available) and |accessdate= could be integrated into the template. SnapSnap 18:17, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

 Done You can specify format=2colthin for [[Certifying body|Country]], see Fever (Kylie Minogue album) for how it looks. You can specify |date= for the certification date (|accessdate= was already supported). I hope you'll find this template useful. --Muhandes (talk) 12:37, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

It looks great now, thanks. Some links need fixing though, such as CAPIF, IFPI (which happens to be the certifying body for Belgium as well), CRIA and RIANZ, and the link for Germany is missing. Also, do you think you could replace hyphens (-) with ndashes (–) in the |title= field? SnapSnap 22:11, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean by "links need fixing", the link to CAPIF for instance seems fine to me. Can you be more specific? As for Belgium, the List of music recording certifications gives the " Belgian Entertainment Association" as the authority, I believe they are the local IFPI representative. I fixed Germany, and replaced the hyphens with ndashes, thanks for noticing these. --Muhandes (talk) 04:38, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

What I meant was that links like IFPI, BVMI and CAPIF are redirects, that's why I said they needed fixing. Belgian Entertainment Association redirects to Ultratop, which is the chart provider for Belgium; the certifying body, however, should be listed as being the IFPI. According to the latter article, Ultratop was "created on the initiative of the Belgian Entertainment Association (BEA), the Belgian member organization of IFPI." SnapSnap 17:31, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Well, there is nothing wrong with redirects, but I'll go over and move them. As for Belgium, the authority granting the certification is the "Belgian Entertainment Association", which is the local chapter of the IFPI. The fact that it redirects to something else is what should be corrected (and I'm going to correct it right now). --Muhandes (talk) 18:32, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

 Done and I also created Belgian Entertainment Association. I'll create ZPAV some time later this week. --Muhandes (talk) 14:26, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

reverted edits on List of music recording certifications

hello,

I reverted the edits you made in the Russian column; here you can see the change I made. Regards.--♫Greatorangepumpkin♫T 10:41, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you write that the thresholds are since 2003, when this source clearly states the current thresholds are since 2010 and other thresholds were active from 2006 to 2009. Moreover, your source does not even list the thresholds, which is the purpose of the citation in this table. Am I reading the source wrong? --Muhandes (talk) 12:08, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I misunderstood the note. I thought it says the date of establishment of the certification itself, but not of the threshold. Regards.--♫Greatorangepumpkin♫T 17:00, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Oh, I see. The table name is "Thresholds of certification for albums, by country or territory", so both the citations and the notes all apply to the threshold. Cheers. --Muhandes (talk) 17:08, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Wharton Reef Light

Orlady (talk) 12:03, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

MJ tours pages

I really think the Dangerous World Tour and HIStory World Tour articles should have some edit protection. What do you think, and could you do this? LowSelfEstidle (talk) 20:05, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

I haven't been watching these pages for some time, since there seemed to be enough other editors watching them (I have 8,000 other pages in my watchlist which aren't so well watched), so I can't really say if they need protection at this time or not. I'm not an admin, so I'm afraid I couldn't do it myself anyway. You can make a request at WP:RFP. Sorry I couldn't help. --Muhandes (talk) 20:45, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Betty Boop on sex symbol

The linking of betty boop is sufficient. We don't need context because it introduces pov.Curb Chain (talk) 08:44, 26 April 2011 (UTC) And if you can reply on my talk page, if necessary.Curb Chain (talk) 08:45, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Romances Spain cert

Hello Muhandes! I'd like you to take a look at this ref. Someone added that it was 8x cert instead of 5x cert in Spain. It also mentions that Romances is the eighteenth best selling album of all time in Spain. I need to know this is reliable or not. Thanks. Magiciandude (talk) 21:09, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. The same user also changed the Spanish cert for Amarte Es Un Placer. Magiciandude (talk) 21:16, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I'm having second thoughts. The source did not look reliable, but I'm not sure how reliable the original source was. As I really have to go to sleep now, I opted to revert myself and have a second look tomorrow. --Muhandes (talk) 21:19, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Alright thank you. Magiciandude (talk) 21:20, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

I had another look and indeed it does not seem to be very reliable. It is based on two forum posts which do not state their sources clearly (at least in a way I can understand) one of which is even blacklisted by Wikipedia. Rather than revert all edits by that editor I have made a comment at their talk page and lets see what they say. --Muhandes (talk) 10:43, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Hello, this figure of 800,000 copies sold, I think it is totally true, I have been collecting information from Luis Miguel for more than 10 years, and by that time it came on television to say he had sold between "Romances" and the collection "All the Romance"1.2 million copies, so do not think the source is wrong, since they have been extracting the data from official sources and present. You can find many sites where they say that sales exceeded a million copies, so the number of platinum and 500,000 copies x5 would be wrong. Franlm14 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 12:08, 1 May 2011 (UTC).

What you collected is considered Original Research and cannot be included. You "think it is totally true" and frankly - maybe so do I. But Wikipedia is not about what we think, or even about what is true. It is about what can be verified through reliable sources. You say "since they have been extracting the data from official sources", but you do not say which sources, and neither do them. Maybe they go by the artist or the label? These are known to exaggerate figures. "it came on television" is not much of a source either. I'm sorry, but if no better source can be provided, these do not seem reliable to me. --Muhandes (talk) 12:16, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

All these data are taken from PROMUSICAE, what happens in Spain, access to the lists is prohibited by law, the lists are not public. so we have to rely on information filtering, but would not reliably good x5 then platinum, also would be a wrong number, but then I do not care, put whatever you want I do not care. --Franlm14 (talk) 12:30, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

I really don't see how or why access could be prohibited by law. However, if a list is not public, then it cannot be used, as sorry as we are for it. The data is available through the weekly charts for some years back, and if that's the only public source, then we will have to limit ourselves to it. I'm sorry that you do not like or care for the outcome, but I wish you will choose stay and continue to contribute, with reliable sources per Wikipedia guidelines. --Muhandes (talk) 12:35, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

deletionism

Please comment why you feel an article should be deleted, when u tag it. I fixed the problem you had with Iiyama Vision Master Pro 17 computer monitor, and you just flaged it again. Its really easy to flag for deletion, but it takes a long time to write an article. The least you could do is write why you think it should be deleted. ZyMOS (talk) 06:11, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

I apologizes i didn't see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Iiyama Vision Master Pro 17 computer monitor ZyMOS (talk) 06:17, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Indian Institutes of Technology

Hi Muhandes,

I have provided the link for the bill that clearly states the required changes in the Act for the conversion. That bill is already passed in the Loksabha and pending in Rajyasabha. The bill includes all the new IITs and IT-BHU. Please note that that is the current state which should be shown in Wikipedia. Officially, none of the new IITs are officially IITs yet because they are not yet included in the Institutes of Technology Act-1961. Therefore, new IITs and IT-BHU should be treated at the same ground since their fates are at the same level. Given that, either we should say that there are seven IITs and nine proposed one (including IT-BHU) or just say total sixteen IITs. The former requires quite a lot of editing, so I preferred to stay with the latter. However, excluding IT-BHU from the proposed IITs list is misleading in the sense that it gives an impression that the ground of IT-BHU is different from other new IITs, which is not correct. Regarding what you think about the conversion, please note that wikipedia is not a place where you should be personal about providing information. We need to provide the current state in a manner that reflects the information in its true form. Your edits do not achieve that. In my edits, I never said that IT-BHU is an IIT. I have clearly mentioned that it is currently a faculty under BHU. The issue is, either you count all the new IITs and IT-BHU to say that there are sixteen IITs or you exclude all the new ones and differentiate between existing and proposed. May be you already know it; till the new IITs are included in the act, they cannot award B.Tech. degrees since they are registered under societies act. Like IIMs, they can only award diplomas. Therefore, as an IIT, the new IITs do not really meet the criteria of being called IITs. Also, I don't know why you feel the conversion of IT-BHU will take years when whole political body (ruling and opposition) along with the big shots like Rahul Gandhi, APJ Abdul Kalam and Pratibha Patil have given their supports for conversion. Now its just a matter of time which is also running out and Govt. must pass the bill as soon as possible, as the first batch in some IITs are about to pass out soon. Hope this clarifies the issues and the reasons I did the edits. Thanks for leaving the message. Good luck, Abhijeet 1998 (talk) 15:54, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Some more clarifications about what you mentioned in your message to me. There aren't any list of requirements to be met anymore for conversions. The requirements have been already finalized before drafting the bill since the bill must mention the legal requirements. For details, please go through the bill. If you want chronology of all events that happened before the bill was drafted, please read the posts at http://www.itbhuglobal.org which is the webs site of IT-BHU alumni who have played crucial role in making this conversion a reality. Secondly, there is no ceremonial requirement after the conversion. Once the bill is passed, only thing remaining will be changing the sign boards and the official letter heads (I am not sure what you meant by ceremony. The one mentioned in the front page of IT-BHU is regarding convocation,i.e., awarding degrees. The reason they have delayed is so that the new graduate students can be awarded the degrees of IIT. Also, it is the prerogative of the institute to award IIT degrees to the alumni, like what Roorkee did after its conversion). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Abhijeet 1998 (talk • contribs) 16:03, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm afraid I lack the time to look at all this now, but I will look at it tomorrow. If reliable sources are found, I will amend the article. This is not to say that you can't edit the page yourself, on the contrary, be bold! However, reliable sources are required for everything. --Muhandes (talk) 17:38, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Just, letting you know that I have left you a reply on my page, in case you have not added my page in your watchlist :). Thanks, Abhijeet 1998 (talk) 17:44, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Wyborn Reef Light

The DYK project (nominate) 00:02, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Jaffa Port

it is located in Old Jaffa. פארוק (talk) 22:28, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

You probably mean Old City (Jaffa). --Muhandes (talk) 22:33, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

yes פארוק (talk) 23:09, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

yo stop bothering me