User talk:Synthwave.94

Welcome

Hello, Synthwave.94! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. You may benefit from following some of the links below, which will help you get the most out of Wikipedia. If you have any questions you can ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or by typing four tildes "~~~~"; this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you are already excited about Wikipedia, you might want to consider being "adopted" by a more experienced editor or joining a WikiProject to collaborate with others in creating and improving articles of your interest. Click here for a directory of all the WikiProjects. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field when making edits to pages. Happy editing! Flat Out let's discuss it 10:15, 15 June 2013 (UTC) Getting Started The five pillars of Wikipedia • Tutorial • Your first article How to: edit a page • upload an image Getting Help Frequently Asked Questions New contributors' help page Where to: ask questions • make requests Request administrator attention Policies and Guidelines Neutral point of view • Reliable sources Verifiability • Citing sources • No original research What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons Simplified Manual of Style • Three-revert rule Copyrights • Policy for non-free content • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism • Sock puppetry Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability The Community Community Portal • Adopt-a-user program Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • Resolving disputes Build consensus • Village pump Signpost • IRC channels • Mailing lists Things to do Be bold in editing • Help develop an article Maintenance • Peer review • Requested articles Join a WikiProject • Translating articles Cleaning up: General • Spam • Vandalism Miscellaneous Categories • Disambiguity • Stubs User pages • Talk pages Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

Synthwave.94, you are invited to the Teahouse

Hi Synthwave.94! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from peers and experienced editors. I hope to see you there! Ushau97 (I'm a Teahouse host) Visit the Teahouse This message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot (talk) 01:15, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

UK Official singles charts

The singlechart template is used to create links to valid chart data. When I edit wikipedia, I have my mind set on the best result, not how much work I need to do to get there. I don't mind that because I enjoy doing research. For me, "the best result" is not just the perfect and most accurate data, but it also includes that my edits follow the current wiki rules and practices, to the best of my knowledge. --Sk4170 (talk) 11:13, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

I can tell you the same thing. I'm not searching peak positions like if I was doing homework, but I'm learning things about songs that I didn't know. I knew Relax was a huge smash hit throughout Europe, but I didn't know it also charted in countries such as Israel, Thailand or even Hong Kong. Two users thanked me for what I did (on Hey Little Girl and on Love Will Tear Us Apart) and for me these "thanks" mean : "Thank you very much for your edit. What you did was helpful and constructive". Moreover I can tell you I'm not lazy when searching reliable references to change unreliable references I added by the past, when creating a full singlechart (on Radio Ga Ga for example) or when changing bare URLs into more complete/full citations (on Man in the Mirror). But thank you for your links, now I see how to find those weekly chart on OCC website and what is a "singlechart template".Synthwave.94 (talk) 11:50, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

You're welcome, glad to be of help! I think you've been doing a great job with the charts. Are you familiar with WikiProject Songs? There you can see, if you want, loosely what's going on in the wiki song article maintenance. Some useful bits of information here and there. --Sk4170 (talk) 15:26, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

It's quite interesting, in particular the track listings resources and the tools. It reminds me I improved a song article a week ago. A song called "Din Daa Daa". There are some good, reliable references talking about the song, but I think that after what I found on the Internet, there is nothing else to say about this song. In fact, the only things missing are some details about the song (recording and format to be more precise), track listings and other songs which sample "Din daa daa" but I'm not sure it's useful to add them all : here's the link where I found every song which samples "Din Daa Daa". Synthwave.94 (talk) 18:13, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

I think the guideline was that the listings on the original single releases on all formats should be included, if available. For instance, for "Din Daa Daa" there are both 7" and 12" from 1983. Also the image seems to be missing. Couple of examples on different ways how sample info is included in the articles: Personal_Jesus#Jamelia_sample, Every_Breath_You_Take#Samples_and_cover_versions. In many cases, there isn't a lot to tell about a song, that's true. Sometimes so little that it doesn't warrant an article. If the song meets the notability criteria, there usually is enough material. --Sk4170 (talk) 20:33, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Alright, I think it would be useful for me. I also think I will join the WikiProject Songs some day. Synthwave.94 (talk) 19:50, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Love Will Tear Us Apart

Hi Synthwave.94. Thanks for the correction. It is not true that everything was in the same URL: I had put the wrong URL, while you have entered the correct one. Thanks again and happy editing. --Mauro Lanari (talk) 18:14, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm glad to learn from you my edits are helpful. Synthwave.94 (talk) 18:30, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

RE:Imagine

Hello,
Firstly, thank you again for your edits on the article, "Imagine." Secondly, I understand your concern and believe that all of your edits were made in good faith. Nevertheless, I was not able to actually check your sources; I primarily focused on correcting the template of the reference (by adding the "quote" parameter.) The reason why I thanked you was the addition of extra sources in your edit (which is always more preferable and praiseworthy, in my opinion.) If the sources are said to be not reliable for the genre classification, I think the best is to find better and more reliable sources. Thank you. Myxomatosis57 (talk) 20:30, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

The problem is I didn't find any better sources for "soft rock"... The references I added were the best I found for this genre. I may look for sources for "Pop rock" instead, because I remember I saw some good references about this genre. I'm glad you see the "positive side" in my edits and not the "negative side" other users are always looking at. If you know song articles which needs some improvement, I'd be very happy to improve them for you. Don't hesitate to post some links on my talk page to make me discover song articles I didn't think about. Thank you. Synthwave.94 (talk) 22:08, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Unblocked

Following an evaluation by a checkuser, I have unblocked you. I'm sorry for the inconvenience this has caused. I do ask you to remember that the reason you drew my attention in the first place was not your choice of articles, it was that you were having chronic disputes with other editors. Should you choose to return and edit, I ask you to pay attention to avoiding unnecessary conflict with other editors. —Kww(talk) 20:58, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Just remember that you aren't permitted to decide what improves an article all by yourself: other editors need to agree. If you wind up edit-warring over your changes again, you'll get blocked again, and it won't have anything to do with whether you are or are not Anthony77600.—Kww(talk) 21:55, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

And what I'm supposed to do to prove my edits are actually helpful ? To edit a song article to show you I'm able to understand what you've been saying ? Synthwave.94 (talk) 22:03, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Go ahead and edit, but if other editors revert you, listen to their objections and respond to them calmly. Change your edits to make them agree that they are improvements. Don't just keep putting your edits back in place.—Kww(talk) 22:06, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Effective communication

I left you a message on the 10th of October to explain an edit that I had made, as a courtesy. You have removed that post but responded to it on my talk page. Now there is a response from you, but no context because the original post was removed. Your habit of deleting talk page comments hampers effective communication between editors and is unnecessary. You have also missed the point that I raised in the first place. It is correct that you didn't remove the band The Shamen, that was my mistake. You did, however, delete bands from the list because the links were dead. That is what you wrote in the edit summary. The point I was trying to make, is that WP:LINKROT specifies that content should not be removed solely because the cited link is dead. Flat Out let's discuss it 00:58, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

I regularly remove comments from my own talk page because I read them and because it is the only alternative I've got instead of archiving. That's it. And yes I understood a dead link shouldn't be removed except if a new link with the same infos can be found. Synthwave.94 (talk) 01:18, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

You are not listening. If someone posts on your page and you read that post and want to delete it (even though it is advised that you don't) then go ahead. But deleting a post that you are responding to leaves one half of that conversation and nobody can follow the dialogue.Flat Out let's discuss it 01:26, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

No one is supposed to "follow the dialogue", especially as this conversation is over now and as we don't need to continue arguing on this tiny detail. Synthwave.94 (talk) 14:32, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Googled sources

I think you have been informed several times by several editors that you can find anything you want by googling, but it doesn't mean that it is good enough for Wikipedia. You need to be more critical and analytical with your 'sources'. This is regarding your suggestion of electronic rock as genre for Depeche Mode and presenting three quite random, clearly googled sources. One of them is extremely poor. For example, why didn't you look up the BBC source and try to present it to other editors for evaluation (WP:V), instead of this dodgy random piece promoting a concert in Spain. However, the very first thing you should have done, was to check the wiki article on electronic rock. The consensus there seems clear. In the media genres and styles are used quite freely and there's often a ripple effect when one article in some widely distributed publication takes more 'artistic freedom' in using one (the "copy/paste" effect). That is why source criticism is important. This is an encyclopedia and as wikipedians we are responsible of following the general practices and consensus and making our edits as good as possible. What I've noticed, many journos use wiki as a source for their articles and I think it adds to the need to be more accurate and neutral in our edits. Didn't want to add this in the Depeche talk page, as I see you're once again in trouble with your edits. I believe you can do better than this. Regards, --Sk4170 (talk) 11:32, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes I understand what you mean. I took the first results I found to show "electronic rock" was not my Pov but I didn't go any further, it's my own fault. I didn't take a look at the article and I didn't know there was a consensus about "electronic rock", which says it is a style and not a genre. But in this case, why does "electronic rock" appear in Devo, Garbage, Pseudo Echo, Bloodhound Gang, Death in Vegas or Justice infoboxes ? And why is there an "Electronic rock musical groups" category ??? I don't get it... Many songs articles still use newspapers articles for genres, but I don't see how you can find a better reference if nothing else exists about one particular song.

Another thing I didn't say yet is that I'm currently "training" on the French Wikipedia in order to improve everything which is related to chart performance and awards (peak positions, but also certifications, chart successions,...) & about cleaning up articles. So I'm going to take a break with my genre changes soon, and I will occasionally change one genre without showing resistance. And you'll see what I'm really able to do on Wikipedia. Synthwave.94 (talk) 13:08, 19 October 2013 (UTC)'t

Wikipedia is not perfect, and editors don't have time to do everything, until perhaps much later - the time gap in reacting to your edits that you were concerned about earlier and wanted a quicker response. I can't comment why some articles are edited in a certain way. I have enough worries with my watchlist, to try and keep them at least somewhat accurate and readable. Genres are a very sensitive and difficult subject. I've also seen categories come and go very fast, there's another minefield. Good luck with your training - although I wonder what kind of training you need as I stated earlier that your work on charts and awards has been very good indeed. It's the other stuff that has been a little difficult. --Sk4170 (talk) 15:03, 19 October 2013 (UTC).

As you say, I've been able to see articles are not editing the same way and the editors who watched them don't react the same way. You may have noticed that I've been editing on a huge number of songs articles, from the 60's until now. I've been surprised to see how different was the reaction of these editors, especially administrators reactions who seemed to neglect the positive side of my edits. One of them described me as a "sock-troll" ! I certainly deserve more than this kind of insult, misrepresentative of who I am really. Anyway, I'm glad to see editors like you are looking at the positive side of my edits. :)

When I say "I'm training", I mean I'm creating my own way of improving articles with new charts I never included on songs articles before because I didn't knew them (Cash Box, Record World and CHUM), with year-end charts I never took care about before and with certifications from official organizations (RIAA, BPI,...). To clean up articles is another thing I'm training at because I didn't do very well before and because a lot of songs articles are in dire need of being cleaned up. I often noticed no one seems to take care about changing dead links or about using a reference template instead of adding a reference like this : <ref>http://www.allmusic.com/</ref> or <ref>[http://www.allmusic.com/album/violator-mw0000206302 Depeche Mode - Violator]</ref>

Something I wanted to tell you for a long time is that you really help me understand how I could do things better on Wikipedia. Thank you very much for your help and your encouragement. Thanks to you, I've been able to improve "Din Daa Daa", which is not a stub any more now. I will do the same for hundreds of articles soon and I'm pretty sure other editors won't be disappointed by my edits. Synthwave.94 (talk) 16:41, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

You have definitely improved "Din Daa Daa", it's totally changed from what it was! There are so many older stubs that seem to be forgotten. I'm more interested in reading them than the very long and comprehensive ones on current hit singles, probably written by people from the label (which is against Wikipedia rules). It's extremely difficult to find sources about older songs and artists, not to mention quality sources, as you may have noticed. A question about "Din Daa Daa". I see there's no image. I think that's something you might want to learn while improving the old articles, how to bring cover photos to Wikipedia, and do it right without infringing copyright and breaking other rules. Cover photos fall into non-free content category on English Wikipedia. I have uploaded a few cover photos for song articles, so feel free to ask me, if you think you need help with it. --Sk4170 (talk) 09:45, 20 October 2013 (UTC)