User talk:GenieOFbritney

hellomoto! .... --GenieOFbritney (talk) 20:20, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

New picture of britney

Hey you noticed that someone edited the whole Britney Spears page? I did that and i am planning to edit again with more info cause when i checked some of the old citings and some had already expired though do you think you could find me a picture of Britney Spears for her front-top(main) image?? I found this amazing video of Britney Spears (dont be critizing the title of the video, the Xtina stans made a youtube account to bash britney and this is it's counter attack ) click http://youtube.com/watch?v=6ap4zsIuf70&feature=channel I love her brown hair cause it makes her look younger or would you stick with her normal picture on her page? If you like her in this video then can you please get me a picture of her with brown hair in circus tour.I tried but it is really hard to find one

P.S. spears is singing circus live in this video--BlackoutBritney (talk) 03:44, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Britney Spears discography

You're seriously damaged. Are you Julie the Hater? I don't think it's nice from a fan to bloat its artist's sales, it's lame. Bye. --Lopeztonight (talk) 09:04, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me?

I was using your same right sources but they told me I couldn't...sorry if you don't like it, but that are the rules. I don't bloat her sales. I'm just following the rules. ONLY third party sources can be used. I hope you understand. --GenieOFbritney (talk) 15:36, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Can't use Wikipedia mirrors as sources 2

http://www.rottentomatoes.com/celebrity/britney_spears/biography.php says that it is based on Wikipedia. That means Wikipedia cannot use it as a source. Celebspin doesn't admit it, but the article it has is also a copy of an older version of the Wikipedia article. Compare the June 2006 Wikipedia article with the Celebspin article, which is dated June 2006.—Kww(talk) 22:07, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Protection

Hey mind helping me? You see when i went to change the album numbers from spears discography, I noticed that its "Semi-Protection" no longer protected it and that means other users could vandalize Brit's success so can you teach me how to put it back in "Semi-Protection" Thanks BlackoutBritney —Preceding undated comment added 00:05, 25 March 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Britney Spears

hey you know GenieofMusic? I gaved up on that tramped. Since he will change Britney's album sales everytime I change it back, I created a new account P.S. If GenieofMusic ever changes the album sales then just change it back and make sure you put the correct citing. The website is called=http://8notes.com/biographies/Spears.asp

Thank You and may GenieofMusic burn in heck -BlackoutBritney AKA TotalBlackout —Preceding undated comment added 01:19, 24 March 2010 (UTC).[reply]

P.S We both know that Circus sold over 4.5 million copies. Billboard use to have the evidence but since they just cleaned out old pages (because of new decade's arrival) I can no longer find a source for its true album sales. Please send me a cite when you find anything Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by BlackoutBritney (talk • contribs) 02:01, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unusual You

I deleted it because it was NEVER a single anywhere. First, it was never announced by Spears's official sites or even acknowledged by them (it doesn't appear anywhere in The Singles Collection boxset, for example). Second, it did not chart anywhere with the exception of Billboard's Pop 100 when the album was released, a component and minor chart. Third, the pic is from Candies, which further proves that its unofficial, since i doubt they would use it instead of the Mark Liddell shoot they used in previous single covers such as "If U Seek Amy" and "Radar". And last, the CD is on Ebay here and in the description says "You are bidding on an unofficial copy of the 'Unusual You' CD Single". The truth is i would have loved this song to become a single as much as you, but it didn't. And since it didn't chart in any major charts, it is not notable enough according to Wikipedia. I will redirect it again to the Circus album page, if you undo it, i will have to nominate the song again for deletion. Xwomanizerx (talk) 16:55, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ultratop.be is the main site and has different version such as swisscharts.com and australian-charts.com, it's basically the same as britney.com which has a site for every country. If you read what I wrote above about the cover being fake, you'd see it makes sense. And about "Kill the Lights", I wanted to make all the Circus singles articles reach GA before getting into KTL and seeing if it needs its own article or not (in my opinion, it should also redirected to Circus). Again, Unusual You is not a single, so if you keep insisting, I'll have to nominate it for deletion. Xwomanizerx (talk) 20:43, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Britney Spears

I am trying to have that user blocked if he continues, as he is persistent. I hope we can edit in peace as we both have common goals...:)..You shouldn't however remove a warning, especially if you haven't even discussed it yet. I was planning to remove it my self, but it's okay. The pages look much better now!...:D--PeterGriffin • Talk 03:58, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Britney Spears articles protected

Petergriffin9901, Genieofmusic, GenieOFbritney: In light of the recent edit-warring, most Britney Spears articles are now at full protection for one week. The three of you need to go to a talk page, argue this issue out, and settle it. The edit warring must stop. If any of you fail to discuss the issue and proceed to edit war after the protection is lifted, you can expect blocking editors to be my next step.—Kww(talk) 22:58, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Stop arguing with him" is not what I said, and not what I meant. Go argue. Talk with him, and show why you think your sources are better than his sources. Come to an agreement. Wikipedia is supposed to be about discussing disagreements with other editors and coming to agreements, not just reverting until one of you gives up.—Kww(talk) 02:31, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Personal attacks

Your comments about Genieofmusic, asserting that he is vandalising Britney Spears articles because he is a Christina Aquilera fan, are personal attacks, and, as such, are prohibited by WP:NPA. While you are discussing the dispute over proper sources, stay civil.—Kww(talk) 23:06, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Genieofmusic

Hello, I am aware of this current threat and have already spoken to an Admin about the problem. Hopefully action will be taken, as he doesn't even attempt to explain his side on the talk page.--PeterGriffin • Talk 03:17, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

He has been blocked for a period of 3 days. Hopefully this first real warning will teach him to reason with other editors. Let's hope afterwards, his vandalism will subside.--PeterGriffin • Talk 03:27, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Britney discography edits

This edit and this edit were absolutely unacceptable. You changed figures to contradict the sources, and even went so far as to change the article titles to mismatch with the actual article titles and make them appear to support it. You know better. If I see anything like that again, you will be blocked.—Kww(talk) 22:36, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

First, you absolutely did do something wrong. You changed a figure without making sure the source supported the figure, and tampered with the article title. If you have a good source for the different figure, that's fine ... go ahead and change the figure and provide the new source. Never change a figure to mismatch with the source.—Kww(talk) 22:50, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Looks fine.—Kww(talk) 23:05, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Circus Sales

Hey mind helping me find a source that says Circus sold over 4.5 million or at least 4 million because the the sales are outdated! thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by IconSpears (talk • contribs) 09:07, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Britney Spears biography

Yeah, I'm a big Britney fan too, so you can't say to me that Britney.com is unofficial, because it is not. It is controlled by her label. I do think the sales in Britney.com are the real ones, the other numbers in BritneySpears.com or other pages are just inflated. And the certifications are actually shipments. I will leave those edits if you format the source to how it should be, and not throw some random link between < ref > again. What I will not leave is the part about her new album. It's not accurate information, (a "surprise" could be tomorrow, next year or in fifty years; and she's constantly working with a lot of producers, so I don't know why Tiesto should be the only one mentioned) and one like is not reliable (ustream). Finally, I suggest instead of constantly editing you use the preview button before saving the page. Thanks, Xwomanizerx (talk) 22:23, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free media (File:Unusual_You.jpg)

Thanks for uploading File:Unusual_You.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 media 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 all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Melesse (talk) 03:48, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Britney Spears' album sales figures

I have once again removed the claimed figures from In the Zone and Britney (album) as you had reverted my edits without providing proper sources for the claimed figures. The source here which you insist on supporting albums sales for various Britney Spears albums is clearly unreliable and should not be used as Live Nation is promotional site in nature, please see WP:RS. Besides, sources must directly support the claimed statements. In other words, editors/readers do not have to perform certain searches within the sources provided in order to verify the claimed informations. Please do not revert again without discussing first. Regards.--Harout72 (talk) 06:59, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In case you don't know, Live Nation is an official source. PLUS, Britney Spears wiki page uses that source. Check by yourself. There is a moderator in that page and he allowed those links when they were first used. He prevents vandalism and bad edits, but as that source is reliable it is being used.--GenieOFbritney (talk) 13:10, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have not had the time to look at all the page yet which use Live Nation as a source, but those statements need to be removed along with that source. And please do not support figures with Spears' official site either as it's not a third party reliable source, see WP:RS. By the way, this source here is similarly not reliable as its purpose is promotional, but I will leave that in place since it does contain the figure for verification purposes. However; you should try and locate another source. It's best to support figures with articles coming from news services or music industry related organizations such as MTV, VH1 etc..--Harout72 (talk) 16:41, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry but it looks as if you are trying to say that BRITNEYSPEARS.com is not reliable. That's her official website and it's used in many spears pages, including the confirmation of singles, news, press releases. Sorry to sound rude, but you can't just delete every Spears' sales because they are promotional. Go to Gaga, Beyonce, Michael Jackson, Xtina's page and delete their sales. ALL of those are promotional!

I have already contacted the moderator to see what should be done, but as I told you, he allowed those sales before.

Again, I wish I had the time to look at every source that is being used on every page, but I don't. Britney Spears' site cannot be regarded as reliable, it is not a third party source. See our WP:RS, the section which says Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason self-published media—whether books, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, blogs, personal pages on social networking sites, Internet forum postings, or tweets—are largely not acceptable. This includes any website whose content is largely user-generated, including the Internet Movie Database, Cracked.com, CBDB.com, and so forth, with the exception of material on such sites that is labeled as originating from credentialed members of the sites' editorial staff, rather than users. Promotional sites, especially, should not be used because they often inflate sales figures to attract more consumers.--Harout72 (talk) 01:34, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:16, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]