Talk:Richard Cheese

Bad attribution

The copy of Gin and Juice I've seen attributed to him was a completely different artist doing a very non-lounge (catskills/bluegrass?) version of the song. Does he really have a cover of Gin and Juice?

Rycanada 13:32, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

He does, though the oft-incorrectly attributed version is by The Gourds.

• iTunes has several versions of the Richard Cheese Gin and Juice recording. --AStanhope 21:57, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Songs in "Style" List

Am I the only one who thinks that this list has really gotten out of hand? At what point is this going to become a complete list of all of his songs in no particular order? UnhandledException 21:25, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Yep. A sample has become a discography. — RevRagnarok ^{Talk Contrib Reverts} 23:08, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

What should be done? Should they all be deleted since they just seem to spawn growth? Ideas, anybody? UnhandledException 01:38, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, there WAS a category that was deleted in June, I didn't see it before (only had Personal Jesus anyway). I think that would have been good. What about we put two sample songs (the first being from the band that the CD title spoofs) under each CD, and then make sure that any extra data gets pushed to the specific CD (like the specific song links, looking at Tuxicity there is only the band name). Example (in Discography section):

• Tuxicity (2002)
  • Chop Suey! by System of a Down
  • Hot for Teacher by Van Halen

— RevRagnarok ^{Talk Contrib Reverts} 02:03, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

A ha! Found it, the category was renamed to [[Category:Richard Cheese and Lounge Against the Machine songs]] (if somebody knows how to link without making this page in the category let me know). So, while fixing the discography, we can go tag those songs also with the proper category. — RevRagnarok ^{Talk Contrib Reverts} 02:36, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Put a colon (:) in front of the word Category in the link. UnhandledException 02:12, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

A complete and accurate track list of released songs and albums is available at richardcheese.com/rtracks.html . The bootleg recordings are kind of irrelevant and unverifiable, in that they don't OFFICIALLY exist as sanctioned recordings, except in the possession of a few individuals. So, I think the bootlegs should not be listed at all; they're not really extant for all. -- RC (yes it's me) 71.102.69.42 (talk) 07:57, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Big Cleanup

Well, I was bold and did as I had proposed. I also played with AWB and we now have 58 songs in the category instead of 22. Enjoy, bedtime was 2 hours ago... — RevRagnarok ^{Talk Contrib Reverts} 03:50, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Well done, even if it does make you sleepy today. I'm really curious to see what is on his Christmas album coming out in a couple of months or so... If I had extra money at the moment, I would have paid the $75 he's charging to put something in the liner notes... UnhandledException 18:10, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanx. Glad you liked. — RevRagnarok ^{Talk Contrib Reverts} 19:34, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Recent Vandalism

69.164.190.77 recently vandalised this article. When I viewed its other contributions it seems that it has been vandalising other articles. Can somebody with authority please block him? --Sfrostee (Sfrostee (talk · contribs))

This is not the place to ask. Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard is a good start, then read the top of the page. — RevRagnarok ^{Talk Contrib} 14:43, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

I just changed an deleted

Changed the bold font of his real name to a "red" link and deleted a seriously pointless link; http://www.metafilter.com/comments.mefi/22800

Lounge Against the Machine

Isn't "and Lounge Against the Machine" only included in the band's name on "Tuxicity"? Tim Long 23:17, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Richard frequently uses the name "Lounge Against The Machine" to refer to his band. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Richardcheese2 (talk • contribs) 10:54, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject class rating

This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 14:52, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Inspiration? Predecessors?

Is there any record claiming how Cheese supposedly "came up with" this idea? I know, for example, that the New York-based Lounge-O-Leers were working the same gimmick as early as 1997. 206.218.218.57 (talk) 15:48, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Richard Cheese discusses his inspiration at richardcheese.com on the FAQ page.

new wikipedia category

There should be a category for bands that cover songs in a particular style, like Richard Cheese(lounge), Me First and the gimme gimmes(punk), and Hayseed Dixie(bluegrass). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.236.96.46 (talk) 04:06, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Comments?

Please do not post defamatory, inaccurate hearsay on this page. This is not a page for gripes and complaints. FACTS are welcome; RUMORS, ACCUSATIONS, and LIES are not.

That said, I truly appreciate the diligence and attention to detail that many Wiki visitors have shown to this page. [comment suggesting user is RC removed by Exploding Boy (talk)] Best, RC —Preceding unsigned comment added by Richardcheese2 (talk • contribs) 10:56, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Admins' noticeboard

I dropped a note here for administrators to review this. rootology (T) 04:37, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

• We've got some real serious WP:RS and WP:BLP issues here. The blogs that are sources are quite marginal if they're acceptable at all, and the incident is being given undue weight in the article. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 06:03, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, can everyone please stop posting this "Coverville 500" section? It's inaccurate, hearsay, sour grapes, and above all, completely irrelevant. And yes, this is actually Richard Cheese typing this.

Email me at my website lounge@richardcheese.com if you want verification. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.102.69.42 (talk) 13:17, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Richard, if it is indeed you, the onus is you to provide verification, which you can do by logging in as Richardcheese2 (if that was you) and emailing Wikipedia, as instructed on your talk page.

Regarding verifiability, it seems to me that reports by a dozen new media types just might make for verifiability. Not sure how BLP would come into play, although I agree that the section was being given undue weight. That's often the case though, with new controversies. Look how the Michael Richards article exploded right after his infamous tirade, and how it's now settled. The point is, when a performer assualts people during a stage act, if that is indeed what happened, it's pretty notable and belongs in their article. Exploding Boy (talk) 15:37, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

If there's a reliable source describing the incident, yes. Our rules for reliable sources are stricter, not weaker, in the case of derogatory information about article subjects (and certainly saying someone spat an audience member is derogatory). With Michael Richards, that also shouldn't have been usable until it moved from blogland into the MSM. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 15:51, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

I can't edit as RichardCheese2 because that account is evidently blocked. I don't know how to fix that. I am not a Wiki expert, and I simply don't have the time to defend every false accusation that is posted. What happened to "innocent until proven guilty"? What happened to "the right to face one's accuser"? These anonymous posts full of exaggerations and one-sided accusations are simply abhorrent. And, your use of words like "assault" is completely irresponsible and reckless. You are repeating lies and giving them creedence. I'm sorry, but a dozen "new media types" ranting about something IS NOT VERIFICATION. 12 people doesn't automatically make a fair or impartial jury. These posters are biased, vengeful, and they are trying to paint me as a villain when THEY are the ones who BROKE the law and VIOLATED my rights and the rights of the song copyright holders.

There were hundreds of other people in the audience, and none of them posted complaints. This is all just a big case of sour grapes, a smear campaign orchestrated by a handful of self-righteous law-breaking inconsiderate egomaniacs who are resentful that they were stopped from illegally filming a copyrighted performance.

The REASON why we don't allow our shows to be filmed is because we don't own the synch rights to the songs we perform, so we do not have the right to be filmed performing them. If someone films us doing so, we get held responsible and liable. I told everyone in the audience to stop filming numerous times, and most of them blatantly ignored my pleas. I had to physically stop people from filming our show. Those individuals who continued to violate my rights were irresponsible, disrespectful, and foolish, and they willfully jeopardized MY rights and livelihood.

The people who have been whining and blogging and posting insulting comments and making obscene threats are the people who I busted for filming illegally. They were committing a crime and violating my rights, and because I tried to stop them, I get painted as a monster.

Comparing this to Michael Richards is apples and oranges. I am the victim here, not the lawbreakers who ruined my show.

This is not a "controversy." THERE IS NO STORY HERE. You can't just allow people to go online, exaggerate facts, manufacture lies, stretch the truth, make accusations, and then call it a controversy. Is it a 'controversy' when people are allowed to just make up lies and then demand that they be proven otherwise? The proper word for that is LIBEL.

THIS IS YELLOW JOURNALISM, and anyone with an ethical brain should stand up against this kind of irresponsible posting.

I mean, seriously, this is ridiculous. I have been accused of assault and battery (which didn't happen), I have been accused of breaking someone's camera (which didn't happen), and I have been accused of numerous other absolutely ridiculous and false things. Obviously, one cannot believe everything one reads, but it is irresponsible to allow rumours to be printed as facts. That is why these people need to be stopped from posting these LIES.

I posted several notes begging these people to stop, and begging Wikipedia staffers to step in and fix it. I cannot be expected to defend myself against every crackpot slanderer out there, and I certainly don't have the brains to figure out what a GFDL or a BLP is.

Please just help me out by stopping these posts of hearsay and revenge. I am an innocent victim here, I am just trying to do my work and get by, you know?  :-( —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.102.69.42 (talk) 07:52, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Richard -- to verify that User:Richardcheese2 is you-the-performer, send email to mailto:infoen@wikimedia.org from your richardcheese.com email address verifying that. You still will be discouraged from editing the actual article, however. Anyway, the posting here is limited by our requirements for verifiable, reliable sources, and noisemakers on blogs don't rise to that level. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 15:56, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

I would add that simple instructions for verification were left on your Richardcheese2 talk page, and on the talk page for your current account.

A few additional points. First, please take it down a few notches. I understand that you're upset about reports of whatever happened, but you'll notice that the section you object to is not currently in the article. Nobody's comparing you to Michael Richards or claiming you assaulted anyone. Second, there are no Wikipedia "staffers." We're all volunteers here, and we all have different opinions. We use talk pages to discuss articles for that reason. Third, GFDL is the Free Documentation License; you can read the text here. BLP refers to Wikipedia's biographies of living persons policy.

Finally, if you would like to continue contributing to Wikipedia, you are welcome to do so anonymously. Otherwise, please provide verification that you are who you say you are, or stop claiming to be Richard Cheese. Your Richardcheese2 talk page is here, with specific instructions on how to provide verification. Thanks. Exploding Boy (talk) 16:11, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

I verified, thank you for your time and understanding and patience and support. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.212.69.25 (talk) 23:12, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Musician Additions, Factual Revisions, Tour/Recording Updates, and re-organization

I added some new information to the various sections, including information about our new albums and tour plans. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Richardcheese2 (talk • contribs) 13:39, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Official Updates To Richard Cheese Wikipedia Page

Richard Cheese here. We've revised the page with updated musician names, titles of forthcoming albums, tour schedule for 2011, and record label info.

Thank you for your support.

--RC richardcheese2 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Richardcheese2 (talk • contribs) 12:32, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Royal Wedding

Richard Cheese's new album is called "Live at the Royal Wedding". His official site, Facebook page, Twitter feed etc present this as a genuine event at Buckingham Palace, when all evidence suggests otherwise (no mention in other media, and just look at the "setlist"... Too Drunk To Fuck? Really?)

I don't know how best to address this in the article, without causing undue embarrassment for the artist. As much as I'd like to phrase it as some kind of "parody" (rather than a lie), I can't cite this because the artist is claiming it as fact. I opted to remove paragraphs speculating as to whether he played or not; once the album is released next week, I'm sure there'll be more evidence to help with clarification.

(My two cents: Appalling behaviour to encourage pre-orders of an album based on a concert which didn't really exist. Poor show, Cheese.)

It's a live album of some sort, with upper class/snobbish reactions to be heard from the audience. If not the Royal Wedding, some related dinner event or something. -- unsigned — Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.241.98.71 (talk) 13:17, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Just read these notes from 2011 -- of course the album was a parody. Duh. It was a fictional live performance, the entire recording was created in the studio and the live audience was created using sound effects. My fans didn't think it was real, either; they're not dumb! Richardcheese2 (talk) 07:18, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Star Wars song

He's most well-known among some for his Star Wars version of Manilow's "Copacabana", which probably could have been a minor hit, except that it's never had a real commercial release due to potential legal problems. It doesn't seem to be discussed on this page or the "Copacabana (song)" page... AnonMoos (talk) 14:18, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Finally figured out that it's discussed at Mos Eisley Cantina#Parody song, which should be linked from this article and the "Copacabana (song)" article... AnonMoos (talk) 15:27, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

He did about four or five Star Wars themed comedy songs/skits under his real name in the late 1990's before he became Richard Cheese. The Phantom Medley from 1999 was the other big one. He did later rerelease these tracks as Richard Cheese on his 2015 album, The Lounge Awakens, along with covers of some other people's Star Wars themed (and other space related) songs, including Weird Al's Yoda. Why there's not an article for Mark Jonathan Davis outlining his comedy career from before he was Richard Cheese, or even a reference to it in the history section, is anyone's guess.68.42.32.128 (talk) 03:53, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Hello. "He did later rerelease these tracks as Richard Cheese" is not exactly accurate. These songs were released as bonus tracks on the Richard Cheese album, but they are still by Mark Jonathan Davis. I am working on a Mark Jonathan Davis page, too. Thank you. Richardcheese2 (talk) 12:29, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Promotional tone

Hi Mark, I see that you undid the edit where I've been trying to reduce the promotional tone of the article. I would recommend that you propose edits here instead of editing the article directly. Maybe it would be helpful for you to read the Plain and simple conflict of interest guide. --Slashme (talk) 13:25, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Okay, sorry, not trying to be difficult. I am not intending to be "promotional." Can you please put the article back the way I wrote it and then tell me which parts are "promotional" in tone in your opinion?

Also, I really don't understand why Mark Jonathan Davis is being redirected to Richard Cheese. I, Mark Jonathan Davis, am an actor and writer, and I have had an extensive career in the entertainment industry prior to creating the Richard Cheese character in 2000. Yes, Richard Cheese is one of my more famous roles, but prior to Richard Cheese, I did many voices in Warner Bros. animated TV programs and movies, was a regular on-air personality on the KROQ Kevin & Bean Morning Show in Los Angeles, and appeared on NBC's Friday Night, Comedy Central's The Man Show, and CBS's The Late Show With David Letterman. I also portray another singing character named Johnny Aloha, and a Johnny Aloha CD was released in 2010. So, because I have done many things other than just Richard Cheese, can you please help me put the Mark Jonathan Davis Wikipedia page back so it is its own entity?

Thanks. Richardcheese2 (talk) 07:09, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

There are a few issues here that I'll try and separate:

Copyright violation

If you take a look at the page history of Mark Jonathan Davis you'll see that User:wiae noticed that the page was a copyright violation of your website, and User:Mz7 responded by expunging the infringing revisions from the page history. I know what you're going to say: you wrote that, so you have the right to put it on Wikipedia. That doesn't work: at the bottom of your website, it says "(C) Copyright 1982-2017 Mark Jonathan Davis", not "Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License". Even if you have confirmed your real-world identity, we can't just take copyrighted material. --Slashme (talk) 09:03, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Okay, I added "Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License" to my markjonathandavis.com website, and I re-created the Mark Jonathan Davis page with different writing. Richardcheese2 (talk) 07:39, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Redirect vs separate article

I think it's quite plausible that you as person are independently notable, as is the Richard Cheese character. However, in the absence of a properly written Wikipedia article referenced to reliable, independent sources (i.e. not your own website!), redirecting it as it is at the moment is probably the most useful state for our readers. --Slashme (talk) 09:03, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Self-promotion

First off, thanks for actually identifying yourself and interacting with us. That makes it possible for us to have an open discussion. I also get that you're doing your best to figure Wikipedia out. With that said, have you read Wikipedia:Autobiography? I think I've directed you to it before. The "TL;DR" version is "We have biographies here, not autobiographies. Avoid writing or editing an article about yourself, other than to correct unambiguous errors of fact."

When an article has been written with a promotional tone, it's like a steak that's fallen in the toilet. It takes a lot of work to clean it up, and it probably still won't taste right. That's why we sometimes take the "blow it up and start over" approach! --Slashme (talk) 09:03, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Considering AfD

I am considering an AfD for this and all related articles - clearly part of a massive autobiographical walled garden with essentially no sources even with that issue being pointed out (see comments by Slashme I see nothing that supports any notability.Peter Rehse (talk) 16:09, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi PRehse, my point of view is that the general topic has some notability, but doesn't warrant a separate article for each of Mark Jonathan Davis's characters/personas. The other problem is that the continual promotional editing by the subject of the articles gives us a real problem with the balance and tone of the articles, so that WP:TNT might be the only option. I would unhesitatingly support redirecting/merging all the articles on the topic either to this article or to the MJD article. I am in two minds about just deleting everything, but I am seriously beginning to consider requesting admin intervention to help Richardcheese2 to get the point. --Slashme (talk) 09:00, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Slashme If it was clear cut I would have done it already - I too think that one article is best but we also have the refusal to provide any sources. All we have is a list of material which once would think there is some outside references discussing it. This is one of the most egregious abuses of wiki self promotion I have seen in quite a while.Peter Rehse (talk) 09:11, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Gentlemen -- Thanks for your comments. I would like to make it clear that it is not my intention to self-promote; I updated the Richard Cheese Wikipedia page -- which has been out of date for many years == with the current and accurate information. I hope you understand that I am not 'refusing' to provide any sources, I simply do not know how to provide sources for this stuff, both technically (because I am not Wikipedia savvy) and factually. For example, how do I provide a source for my band's discography or our tour history or our TV appearances? The Richard Cheese & Lounge Against The Machine band has been performing for 17 years, we've released 20 albums, we've been on national TV shows and so forth. That in itself should be justification for keeping the page on wikipedia. And, I would think that the information on the official website (richardcheese.com) for the band should be satisfactory documentation. If it's not, then please tell me how I'm supposed to provide sources for all this stuff? I honestly don't know.

Meanwhile, I created the Mark Jonathan Davis Wikipedia page because I am an established actor with a variety of verified screen credits. I am registered with the Screen Actor's Guild. I have been a guest star on several primetime programs. My name appears in the credits of numerous TV series, movies, etc. Richard Cheese is just one of the things I have done. So why can't the Mark Jonathan Davis page exist on its own?

I realize that I am a 'newbie' to the ways of Wikipedia, but I don't think it's fair to presume that I am intentionally attempting anything malicious, dishonest, disingenuous, or self-serving. I am not trying to be egregious at anything; I just wanted to update the Wikipedia pages to include current and accurate information. Instead of assuming the worst, perhaps you can please tell me what specific things I need to write to make this acceptable?

Thank you. Sincerely, MJD Richardcheese2 (talk) 06:24, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

At the very least I would expect one article (advise MJD) and not articles on each persona and every song. References don't support that level of notability. There is just too much unsupported duplication to come to any other conclusion.Peter Rehse (talk) 14:23, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

I completely agree with this point of view. The way I see it, is there's a person (MJD) who has a number of personas of various levels of notability, but it serves our readers best at this point if we have all these terms point to one article. It can be maintained better that way, and we can address the various aspects of the topic in one place. I don't really care whether the article is called Richard Cheese or Mark Jonathan Davis. I'm leaning towards Richard Cheese, though, because of WP:COMMONNAME. For example, Slim Shady and Marshall Mathers both point to Eminem. --Slashme (talk) 13:48, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

SlashmeIts like an itch that just won't go away. Still no sources on any of the articles - do I or do I not take this to AfD. Seems more than enough chance has been given and I don't see inherit notability.Peter Rehse (talk) 19:51, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

PRehse, I have added some references on this page, however it is still largely unreferenced. Bakilas (talk) 07:20, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

About that autobiography...

I've reverted the claim that Davis offered a refund to Kickstarter backers in October 2018, the claim that Covid delayed publication, and the announcement of a new working title [1].

(Redacted) Yappy2bhere (talk) 22:21, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

Much of what you just typed is just your opinion, and you made a number of subjective assumptions and baseless accusations. Comments like "perhaps to salvage some of its hype" are completely inappropriate. Such insinuations have no place here. And re-posting that Kickstarter comment thread is irrelevant to the edits you made. I see from your talk page that haughtiness and hostility are your consistent m.o. It is obvious that you are more interested in stirring up controversy and bullying strangers than improving pages.

And so I add my voice to the chorus of people who think you should be banned from editing.

Stop making personal attacks, stop making belligerent edits, and stop chasing me around and undoing all the diligent work I've done. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:8001:9442:6d00:40d9:c028:a0e7:8185 (talk • contribs) 08:37, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Yappy2bhere - none of that material belongs in the article unless it is supported by secondary sources. We shouldn't be using kickstarter pages or publishers' websites to support that sort of assertion - if secondary sources haven't picked up on the book, cut the mention of it from the article entirely. Girth Summit _(blether) 09:37, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

None of it is in the article. I updated the autobiography text added by Richardcheese2 [2] and added sources [3]. 2603:8001:9442:6d00:40d9:c028:a0e7:8185 added new text citing the book's promo site. I reverted the edit because it was supported with primary sources and because the claims weren't prima facie credible. [4]. I added this section and explained my reservations about the sourcing. (Except in re primary sourcing, which should have come first.)

Book is gone [5]. I'm still not sure why, or what you mean by "that sort of assertion". My revision to the article said "book, funded, undelivered, due date," supported by the Kickstarter project page and the book's promo site. Can you elaborate, pls? Yappy2bhere (talk) 10:57, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Yappy2bhere, I meant the inclusion of any reference to the book at all. If all there is to go on is a kickstarter page and a promo page, inclusion would likely be WP:UNDUE. We shouldn't be digging through historic versions of a Kickstarter project page and posting what we find here - that's WP:OR based on an archived unreliable and primary source. I'm actually minded to redact most of the stuff you posted there as a possible BLP violation (it's claiming that Richard Cheese wrote those words to a fan, but the source is highly questionable). Girth Summit _(blether) 11:21, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Discography Update

The Richard Cheese discography is missing a few releases.

These albums should be added to the list:

"The Royal Baby Album" (digital only) (2013) (Coverage Records)

"Cocktails With Santa" (2013) (Coverage Records)

These albums are verified on Spotify and listed on iTunes:

https://music.apple.com/us/album/cocktails-with-santa/1508584518

https://music.apple.com/us/album/the-royal-baby-album/1506696017

There is also a compilation album missing from the list:

"Mucho Queso Collection: 17 Complete Albums by Richard Cheese" (digital only) (2021) (Coverage Records)

Here it is on Bandcamp:

https://richardcheese.bandcamp.com/album/mucho-queso-collection

And, there is a new Richard Cheese compilation album being released on July 30, 2021 which should be added to the Compilation Albums section:

"Snappier Than Ever: The Original Songs" (digital only) (2021) (Coverage Records)

The album is currently on pre-sale on iTunes:

https://music.apple.com/us/album/snappier-than-ever-the-original-songs/1575769661

Also, I think the Discography section should be moved so it precedes the Film Work section.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:8001:9442:6d00:7437:241a:924f:df7 (talk • contribs) 23:50, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

Bandcamp is user-generated content: "[W]ebsites with user-generated content should never be used as sources". iTunes is an online retailer: "It can be seen as inappropriate to directly link to a site where one can purchase the subject in question." Per WP:WikiProject Albums/Sources, which has lists of reliable and unreliable sources. Yappy2bhere (talk) 04:02, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

STOP. HOUNDING. ME.