Talk:Natalie Gauci

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography
???	This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Australia: Music Start‑class

	Australia portal Natalie Gauci is within the scope of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.AustraliaWikipedia:WikiProject AustraliaTemplate:WikiProject AustraliaAustralia
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Australian music.
	Need help improving this article? Ask a Librarian^{What's this?} at the National Library of Australia.
	The Wikimedia Australia chapter can be contacted via email to helpwikimedia.org.au for non-editorial assistance.

There is too much vandalism on this page, Jealous fans are posting un-sourced and un-true negative statements on this page. Any unsourced negative comments will be deleted. 144.139.29.18 (talk) 03:12, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

can we please change the picture. i think an actual photo of natalie would be better and look better than a single cover —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.220.210.38 (talk) 10:08, 20 January 2008 (UTC) Can you change the current picture to a better pic, that is not the best picture of natalie.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.138.47.208 (talk) 23:41, 26 January 2008 (UTC) I know the picture has been changed, but this still isnt a good picture. u can hardly see her face. can it be changed. if possible —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.220.210.38 (talk) 09:36, 28 January 2008 (UTC) WELL SUX 4 U :@ (Violetion (talk) 03:51, 29 January 2008 (UTC))lol u picked an awesome pic!!!!!!!![reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:88697208692.jpg

Image:88697208692.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 19:11, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Song and album comments

In both the Here I Am (Natalie Gauci song) and The Winner's Journey (Natalie Gauci album) there is comment about the lack of popularity of the song and album, yet these facts have been censored from the article on Natalie Gauci here, primary by User:Violetion. I do not completely understand why this is, as the unpopularity of the song and album, in comparison to prior Idol winners, is relevant, factual, provable, sourced, and important to the topic. Whether people from Malta might have liked one of Natalie Gauci's performances, or what one newspaper might have said is borderline relevant, but a large factor, such as the fact that both her debut album and debut single are the least popular debut releases by an Idol winner in its 5 year history is quite significant. This omission is especially confusing given that in the articles on both the song and album they lack of popularity is listed. It appears to me that there is a violation of WP:OWN going on here. Dyinghappy (talk) 20:24, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The members of the Natalie Gauci Official Forum would appreciate if people stop vandalizing this webpage with negative material. If you have something to include please source the information adequately. And stop deleting the informative material which has been included. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.107.73.35 (talk) 10:39, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sourced material seems to have been wiped quite a lot of times from this article. Now it seems that this is no longer just being done by Violetion, now it is by a group of people orchestrating it from a forum. Dyinghappy (talk) 02:25, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dyinghappy, why are you so determined to add all this BS to Natalie's Wikipedia article? It's very obvious you don't like her, we get the point, but why waste your time trying to vandalize her Wikipedia article? It's like a part of your daily ritual. It really makes no sense to me. Do you have something against Natalie? Did she deny you an autograph or something? (Violetion (talk) 12:01, 10 February 2008 (UTC))[reply]

If it was sourced and relevant to Natalie Gauci it would not have been edited. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Samie47 (talk • contribs) 11:53, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think you can call it vandalism when it is adding sourced, neutral text. It is disappointing to see such bias exist, where true and important things are being removed. Everyone has two sides, and both should be presented. Dyinghappy (talk) 13:55, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Even though you are now sourcing your information, it is from an unreliable source. Contact Sony/BMG or Aria and they will tell you, as they have told us, that there was never any unit figures released to the public about the sales. As for the continuous edit about Natalie rearranging popular songs – how does that exactly make her fake? And who else bar you has ever said it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Samie47 (talk • contribs) 09:27, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comprimise? Thats what yuou want? then stop putting fake after her name that has no point!!!

A note to future contributors

I have tried my best to remove some of the WP:NPOV issues in this article, only to have all of my efforts reverted. User:Violetion seems to think that he owns this article, in violation of WP:OWN and has now petitioned on a Natalie Gauci fan forum for an orchestrated effort to control this article.

I am giving up here. This article is never going to be accurate or neutral whilst this is going on, and I am just one person and don't care enough to want to fight it.

Anyone future who might stumble upon this article should be aware of the control and nastiness associated with this article, alongside people who are vandalising the article with messages like "SUX 4 U" who at the same time make false accusations of vandalism against people who try to get rid of them. See WP:VANDAL for what vandalism actually is.

Thankfully other articles on this topic are more accurate, but this may change in time. Just be aware when coming across this, as it seems to be a warzone.

I will leave this article now, as I don't care enough to fight, and I have better things to do. Just a warning for anyone else. Dyinghappy (talk) 14:00, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

2 BAD 2 SAD (Violetion (talk) 09:34, 11 February 2008 (UTC))[reply]

To others, it was a reason to consider Gauci to be fake.??? what is that? u get protection after posting that! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.107.73.35 (talk) 11:47, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It’s ok we will gladly now contribute to this article, without having to fix it up everyday because of your negativity. Go wreck someone else’s page!! Bye!!!

That's pathetic, Violetion, and you should be ashamed. I've requested proection of this article, so you'll need to discuss further changes here. Sorry, no more POV pushing. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂0) 10:59, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]