Jump to content

Talk:Pieces of Me (Ashlee Simpson song)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

one-sided, no discussion of actual music, instruments, rhythm, lyrics etc.

Talk:Pieces of Me/Archive 1

Questions for Everyking based on recent revert history:

  1. Why is it necessary to tell the reader three times what the inspiration for the song was?
  2. Why is it necessary to include quotes of Simpson bubbling over the song?
  3. Why is it necessary to include the week-by-week chart movement of the song?
  4. Why is it necessary to include quotes from so many reviews?
  5. Why is a blow-by-blow account of episode four of The Ashlee Simpson Show an important part of this article?
  6. Why is a blow-by-blow account of episode seven of The Ashlee Simpson Show an important part of this article?

--Carnildo 02:10, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)

  1. Where is it stated three times? Please document the cases of repetition.
  2. It is probably not "necessary," but someone looking up information about this album may find it informative.
  3. I doubt that it is "necessary." The article would be above stub-grad without it. But if it is accurate, it just makes the article more informative. On the same token, it would be interesting if the article on the 2004 presidential election included a chat of polling data from major agencies throughout the election year.
  4. Why not? Why not? The more the better, so long as they are factual and by prominent critics.
  5. It seems to be stated in the artice to me. It was the subject of an episode of her reality show... The article is quite informative. I'm learning a lot. Being much older than the typical Wikipedia user, I hadn't even heard of her until this dispute came up. Now I know a lot!
  6. Same as above.

--172 04:31, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)

  1. I removed two of the three in my edit.
  2. Look back to Everyking's latest reversion, and tell me with a straight face that all those quotes by Ashlee are neccessary.

I said that it is not necessary. At the same time, it is not necessary to remove them. They are integrated into the text well enough. 172 05:31, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)

  1. Have you seen the week-by-week movement version? "On its first week on the charts ending September 3, the album ranked third [1]. On the second week, ending September 10, the album ranked second [2]. On the third week, ending September 17 the album fell to fifth [3]. On the fourth week, ending September 24, the album fell to ninth [4]." Such a dense presentation of raw data is a great way of obscuring information, as anyone reading it will have their eyes glaze over. The current presentation, of "opening point, peak, leave the chart" gives the important information, without drowning the reader in data.

If it bothers you so much, just don't read the chart data. No one's holding a gun to your head when you click on an aritcle demanding that you read all the supplements, after all. 172 05:31, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)

  1. See above. Too much data is a great way of hiding information.

If you think that certain matters are downplayed, expand these areas. Deleting factual content is not the answer, though. 172 05:31, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)

  1. I cut that paragraph down to half a sentence.
  2. I cut that paragraph down to the other half of the sentence.

--Carnildo 04:40, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The current version of the article does not contain redundant information and is more streamlined (especially in the chart-position section), which is why I reverted to it. Madame Sosostris 01:03, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)

chart stuff

[edit]

Any added chart text I add here has already been trimmed from Autobiography sales and chart positions, so it's no longer duplicated. iMeowbot~Mw 04:04, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Would it be possible to combine this with the chart movement parts from the "Single" section? --Carnildo 04:47, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Yep. I'm going in little steps so that references don't get lost. There's so much redundancy in all these articles, it's easy to lose track. iMeowbot~Mw 04:52, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)

"It's your single, and you better get it right." --> "It's your single, and you better figure out a way to do it."

Can I do nothing? I can't even describe the commercial in one sentence? Everyking 07:29, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Excess detail

[edit]

Hmm, I think this article has quite a bit of excessive detail; for example, we don't need to know that the song is the second track on the album or that Simpson wears a white "punk" shirt and a pink dress in the video. Extraordinary Machine 20:34, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I did perform a cleanup of this article a while back ([1]), but Everyking reverted me without explanation. I just realised that I accidentally removed the mention of the Teen Choice Award win, but all of my changes were undone, including ones which only changed formatting. Could Everyking please explain why those edits were reverted? Thanks. Extraordinary Machine 20:43, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You know, describing removing big chunks of verifiable info as "clean up" is really insulting and irritating. I don't agree with removing any info on grounds of notability, because I think it's all notable and useful. How about this: find anything that isn't referenced or is referenced very poorly and we'll talk about that, and we can remove stuff that can't be properly verified. I would far rather have a discussion based on references than on your personal views about appropriate article length. Everyking 04:30, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that the info is verifiable doesn't necessarily mean that it should be included. Per WP:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_an_indiscriminate_collection_of_information, "That something is 100% true does not mean it is suitable for inclusion in an encyclopedia." Anyway, I've just created a new version of the article at Talk:Pieces of Me/Sandbox; I think it's less excessively detailed than the current version and is more in line with the featured articles about songs (see WP:FA#Music). It would be helpful if you were to list specific problems with my edits rather than just say you'd rather discuss something else. Extraordinary Machine 14:04, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think my offer to discuss the inclusion of information based on verifiability was a reasonable compromise that could suit both of our philosophical positions. Everyking 19:43, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
But the verifiability of the info isn't what I'm concerned about; it's the level of detail in which the info is presented and whether all of it is relevant. (Although, now you mention it, the ARIA chart trajectory will probably have to go unless it can be verified.) Extraordinary Machine 14:16, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Are you paying attention? If info is eliminated for not being verifiable, that is functionally equivalent to your request to trim the article; the key difference is that it avoids the shitstorm of controversy that results when incompatible inclusionist and deletionist philosophies clash, as we've seen on this very article in the past. Everyking 04:25, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Look: "A January 2005 television commercial for season two of The Ashlee Simpson Show depicted a store employee comically singing the song." Now, I know that's true because I saw the commercial myself, but verifying it would probably be impossible. At the same time, and related to the absence of an available source, is the arguable non-notability of the commercial. So, you see, you could remove that uncontroversially; but if someone could find a reasonable cite for it you would agree to let it remain. To sum up: you cannot reach anything close to an consensus on rewriting articles based on your own idiosyncratic philosophy. You can work cooperatively to improve articles based on existing policy, and at the same time achieve something that is broadly in line with your philosophy. Please tell me all that makes sense to you. Everyking 04:40, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You are taking two unrelated issues - verifiability and detail - and saying that if there isn't a problem with the first then there isn't a problem with the second. WP:NOT is existing policy, and it explicitly states (as I mentioned above) that "true" does not automatically equal "relevant" or "notable". I do realise you think all verifiable info is "notable and useful", but logically (and policy-wise) it can't be; Wikipedia isn't an "everything-and-the-kitchen-sink" compendium of all human knowledge. How does a mention of the song's use in a non-notable television commercial contribute to the reader's understanding of the topic and its significance? I think user:Carnildo summed this issue up pretty well above: "Too much data is a great way of hiding information". Also, I don't know if this was your intention, but your message has a rather commanding tone to it; for example, please don't tell me I "cannot reach anything close to an consensus" and "would agree to let [verifiable info] remain". Extraordinary Machine 21:13, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I refuse to dignify this with a response. Please read what I wrote earlier, because you don't seem to have understood it at all. Everyking 10:36, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have read this article several times now and I think it requires a major clean-up. For one, why is every sentence in the "chart performance" section referenced? There are also many sentences that are fairly choppy, some of which have three or four words. I counted over twenty redundancies: is it necessary to provide a citation that the song is track number two on Autobiography? Do we need to know that it was nominated at ten different awards ceremonies only to lose other musicians (which also include citations galore)? The article, as a whole, needs a much-required copy-edit, the image should not have a logo in it, and the chart trajectories need to be converted to image form. See other featured song articles for help (Cool (song)). —Eternal Equinox | talk 22:49, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

All the citations are necessary (verifiability), all the information is necessary (comprehensiveness), the article reads fine to me (this complaint is coming from someone who is always getting accused of poor and weirdly verbose writing), I don't know what logo you're talking about, and finally I don't mind if you want to convert the trajectory to image form. Everyking 06:41, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Why are people scared of the excessive detail boogie man? The level of detail in this article is what I would expect if I was paying someone to update an otherwise easily forgotten stub. --Supercoop 16:37, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There are too many citations. Who is going to care whether the song is track 2 on the album or not? I find that amusing. Additionally, MTV's logo should not be displayed in the image; we do not warrant the permission to have it on Wikipedia. (Before changing the chart trajectory to image format, please locate another international chart so that there are more than one.) —Eternal Equinox | talk 19:57, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Everyking, I did read and understand your message; I just don't agree that all verifiable info should be included in any article, and I don't consider that a "compromise" either. As WP:NOT states, all the info is not necessary. Supercoop, I think sometimes stubs are "easily forgotten" and stay stubs for a very good reason (I'm not talking about this article): there's only so much you can write about a certain topic without delving into unnecessary detail. Extraordinary Machine 11:56, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I find it infuriating to be told that I hold views that I do not hold. I wish you would respond to the stuff I actually wrote about the functional equivalence and compromise value of verifiability as a standard, instead of stuffing words in my mouth and carrying on an entirely different conversation. Everyking 06:14, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In a message above you said, "I don't agree with removing any info on grounds of notability, because I think it's all notable and useful", so I apologise if I misinterpreted that. I've re-read this discussion again, and I still don't understand how keeping and removing info based on verifiability is a "compromise" between our positions or "functionally equivalent" to my proposal to trim the article. I'm aware that some of the article is unreferenced, but that has nothing to do with my original point. There's a reason why I want to trim the article, and referencing isn't it; it's what I feel is an excess amount of detail, as I've said above. If what I've said is going to cause a "shitstorm of controversy", then that's all the more reason to discuss it, since obviously there isn't consensus on this issue yet if it is still going to cause controversy. Also, I'd like to know what your response is to the WP:NOT policy. Extraordinary Machine 18:26, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What bullet number are you trying to appply under 'Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information'; I read list from 1 to 9 and didn't see any that was applicable to this information. 1 not a faq, 2 not quotes, 3 not travel guides, 4 not memorials, 5 not news reports, 6 not phonebook entries, 7 not a schedule guide, 8 not an instruction manual and 9 not an internet guide. --Supercoop 19:54, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
My response is that none of the info is "indiscriminate". And my quoted remark was pretty clear: I oppose removing notable information, not I oppose removing any verifiable information. However, in the case of this article, I wrote this thing and I am quite confident that the information is all reasonably notable. You obviously disagree that it is all notable. My compromise suggestion was to trim the article based on the principle of verifiability rather than notability, since this would avoid a conflict between our interpretations of notability while at the same time probably resulting in a reduction in the article length (which is what you say you want). I find it incomprehensible that you won't accept this; the only reason I can think that you wouldn't is that you want to fight it out over the principle of notability and aren't interested in a pragmatic solution. Everyking 00:40, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Supercoop, I was referring to the statement "That something is 100% true does not mean it is suitable for inclusion in an encyclopedia", although point two ("Lists or repositories of loosely associated topics") could apply to the list of television performances. Everyking, supposing after I remove all unverified/uncited material from this article, I still felt the level of detail was excessive. I hope you would be willing to discuss the issue of notability then, because I think it is important and would like to discuss it (not "fight it out") with yourself and other editors so that consensus can be reached. Extraordinary Machine 16:44, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't believe the level of detail is extensive enough; I'd have nominated it for FAC if I thought it was. So I don't see how that's compatible unless approached through the principle of verifiability. I think it's funny that you want the level of detail reduced but seem comfortable with the existence of song articles in general (although I did once catch you trying to merge all the Hilary Duff song articles together, which would have been an atrocity). If you accept Pieces of Me should have an article, is it such a leap then to accept that it should have a comprehensive article? Everyking 12:55, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You went noticeably quiet on the Hilary Duff singles "atrocity" when I suggested we move the discussion to the WP:MUSIC/SONG page; regardless, that's irrelevant to this discussion, and the main reason I've accepted the endless stream of very short articles on questionably notable songs and singles is because almost everybody I asked to discuss the issue with refused to, at least not civilly or without reverting me inexplicably. It doesn't really matter where the info is, as long as it isn't extraneous and is presented concisely and in compliance with the policies and guidelines. If an album article had as much detail as this article but at the same time no single articles branching off from it, I'd still think it had excess detail. You said you didn't think this article was detailed enough for WP:FAC standards, but note that the current roster of featured song articles don't contain this level of info, and other editors have identified them as "the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community".
Here's an example of what I mean when I'm talking about the detail in this article: in the opening paragraph of "Chart performance", the reader learns that "Pieces of Me" is the second track on Autobiography. What is the relevance or notability of this? How does mentioning it contribute to the reader's understanding of the topic? Why will the reader care about and benefit from this info? Extraordinary Machine 22:06, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently your view of notability is not a popular one, if people are always reverting you and being uncivil to you. Some of us want to write an encyclopedia here, to add more information to this resource, and find it more than a little annoying to have to spend time arguing with someone who's trying to pull us back in the other direction. Everyking 05:13, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A policy like fair use or NPOV can be unpopular with many editors and often causes incivility and revert wars, but that doesn't mean it's invalid or that there's something wrong with it; note that I invited other users to the WP:MUSIC/SONG discussion page (including yourself) several times, with no success. I've only seen a few other pop music articles (all of which later became the subject of an RFC and were cut down) with as much detail as these Ashlee Simpson ones, and I don't consider that a good thing. I don't know if you've read some of the featured song articles, but if you think they aren't detailed enough then you could submit them for featured article review. I'd also appreciate a response to my question about why the position of the song on the track listing of Autobiography is mentioned. Extraordinary Machine 14:46, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
But your definition of notability is not a policy. I think most FAs are insufficiently detailed, but I am more concerned with just keeping someone like you from removing information that's already been added by others than I am with trying to exhort others to expand content. Everyking 22:45, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And by the way, which were these other articles that were "cut down"? Everyking 22:47, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I know that my "definition" isn't policy, but the basic idea is the same. If you think most FAs are insufficiently detailed, and bearing in mind that many other editors believe they are representative of Wikipedia's best work, then to me that indicates your views on the notability of info and appropriate comprehensiveness and detail of articles are at odds with the views held by the majority of the community. I don't mean this as an insult; I'm just pointing it out. You can read about the articles that were cut down at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Pop music issues. Extraordinary Machine 23:10, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I am pretty sure that the insufficient detail of most FACs reflects insufficiently high standards, as opposed to active deletionism ("Too much information! I'm melting, melting..."). In fact, as someone who follows FAC a good bit, it seems like when objections do arise due to detail, it's an issue of length—people want to see the info summarized and the extra detail split out into a subarticle, not removed from the encyclopedia entirely. I can't imagine more than a tiny handful of users really want articles to be cut down the way you do. Everyking 04:04, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comparing deletionists to film villains is not appreciated. I also visit FAC often, and I have read nominations where objectors have suggested that some of the detail be trimmed but haven't suggested it be moved to subarticles. If you believe there are "insufficiently high standards" then you can express such concerns at the WP:FA, WP:FAC and WP:WIAFA talk pages, but please don't berate me for wanting to bring articles closer to those standards. Extraordinary Machine 15:10, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I was rather fond of the comparison. Anyway, you realize that your argument at this point appears to be that this article is above FAC standards that the quality needs to be reduced to match the lower quality of other FAC articles? I mean, this is probably not what you actually want to argue, I realize, but that's how your argument appears to be constructed right now. Everyking 03:45, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
My argument was that you shouldn't berate me for wanting to bring articles closer to the current FA standards. I didn't say I agreed with you that they were insufficient, because I don't. Extraordinary Machine 12:25, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't even agree with that much. If I let you have it your way and chop up the article, will it then be FA ready, in your view? Am I right, basically, in thinking that your view is that this article is too good for FAC?
So that we can break the stalemate here, and not just bicker at each other, I have a suggestion: how about you edit the article to remove one detail that you feel is the least notable thing in the article, and then we can discuss that point, and if we reach a resolution on it we can move on to another detail, and then another. Everyking 22:57, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
For the second time, that's not what I meant; I don't have a problem with the current FA standards, and I think that this article is too comprehensive in some areas and not comprehensive enough in others.
I think with every detail I want to remove from the article I'll just be repeating myself, but here goes: I've just removed "the second track on Autobiography", because I don't feel this is a significant or notable fact in the context of "Pieces of Me". If it was put in that position on the album for a reason (and if that reason was cited) I would keep it, but as it stands it reads like trivia to me. If readers want to know that info, they can go to the article on the album. Extraordinary Machine 19:40, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I was really hoping you'd remove the bit about the dancing dude in the commercial and not the track number, which is information that I actually feel is important. But anyway, your reply this time says something new and very interesting: not comprehensive enough in others. Like what? This is baffling to me. You feel the article needs expansion in some respects, but instead of getting to work on that expansion, or at least talking about it, you launch this effort to remove existing details, despite encountering bitter opposition every step of the way. Which is the constructive route? Tell you what: you significantly expand this article in some respects, and I'll be significantly more receptive to your pleas to trim other details. Everyking 03:52, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Would you object to me removing the bit about the commercial? Also, there is a track listing on the album article. I don't think it is comprehensive enough with regard to discussion of the music in the song? We learn that the guitar riffs are "melancholic" and "stringy" and that it has a tempo "between fast and slow", but there's nothing on things like chords, octaves, vocals and instrumentation outside of the guitars. What's there is good, but after looking at the featured articles I think there's potential for expansion. I really don't know what to write, since I know extremely little about music theory and am worried about unintentionally introducing original research into the article. Regardless, I don't really think it would be important in which order I removed and added info. Extraordinary Machine 23:03, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It is important, because if you can add a bunch of detail then subsequent misjudgment can be more easily tolerated. If you are going to just hurt the article and produce nothing of value, then obviously I'm not likely to be very receptive to your contributions. Everyking 03:31, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not trying to "hurt the article and produce nothing of value", and I've already told you why I haven't written about the music of the song. Misjudgment? I'm trying to make this more like Wikipedia's featured articles; there are far more suitable and frequently visited talk pages for you to voice your concerns about the current FA standards at, and I've directed you to them above. Anyway, I've taken out the bit about the commercial. Extraordinary Machine 16:05, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Second track issue

[edit]

I don't really know much about music but I think there is some meaning in the track placement artists choose for their songs. I'd think the first and second songs tend to be those that are expected to do best. If there's a song that's different from others on the CD (e.g. a remix or an instrumental piece) it tends to be placed at the end. But I'm frustratingly unable to find any references on this. Haukur 14:04, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I found a howto which says: "First you must decide on the order of your songs. Yes, the order matters. A lot. ... Some people will take the two best songs and put them first and second on the CD. The idea behind that is that some people will judge the album by the first two songs." [2] I also found a book with some thoughts (Katz, Bob (2002). Mastering Audio. Focal Press. ISBN 0240805453 - browsable on Google Books).
Of course the lead should summarize the article and only contain the most important information, which may not include the track position on the CD. Haukur 15:12, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's worth noting, considering what a heinous revert warrior I am that they are now looking to impose new and extreme arbitration penalties against me, that I haven't restored the track listing info, or edited the article at all after EM's last couple changes, and far from campaigning to get it back in, I haven't even continued the discussion and I've been pretty much content to let it drop. Everyking 04:29, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is true that EM has been removing too much material from music articles, but honestly, I consider the indication of this song appearing as Autobiography's second track rather excessive. 64.231.66.47 02:50, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
To me, it's just like providing the track length or something like that. But I'm not going to argue over the point any more; it can stay out of the article. Everyking 03:50, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Above IP comment is by Eternal Equinox (talk · contribs), who has a history of harassing other users, followed me to this talk page and is currently the subject of a request for arbitration (see Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Eternal Equinox). Extraordinary Machine 20:25, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, if you read above, EE had posted on this page a while back, and moreover this IP comment is basically supporting your position (although with a general criticism attached). Can that possibly be harassment? Everyking 08:23, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
After he left his first message on this talk page EE told me he followed me here, and he has a history of following users with whom he's in disagreement to other pages; his criticism about me above is most likely because I ran into conflict with him about "his" Cool (song) article. See Wikipedia:Harassment. Extraordinary Machine 15:58, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good Article

[edit]

I noticed this apparently used to be a Good Article but was removed from the list. The notice says there are "suggestions" here, but I don't see any. Does anybody know why it was removed? Everyking 20:07, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind, I figured it out; the "suggestions" was this stuff: "one-sided, no discussion of actual music, instruments, rhythm, lyrics etc." Well, actually the article does discuss the music and the lyrics, and the instruments are mentioned when the people who performed on the track are listed. Rhythm? I don't know, but in general these supposedly missing elements are pretty obviously already present in the article.Everyking 20:12, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Pieces of Me. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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 IITalk to my owner:Online 10:40, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Pieces of Me. 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:

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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 09:17, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Pieces of Me (song). 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:

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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 19:28, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Pieces_of_Me_(Ashlee_Simpson_song)&oldid=1260087477"