User talk:Lk95

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

June 2015[edit]

Information icon Hello, I'm Flyer22. I wanted to let you know that I reverted one of your recent contributions —the one you made with this edit to Charlie Puth— because it didn’t appear constructive to me. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Flyer22 (talk) 10:15, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Reference errors on 10 July[edit]

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:23, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Citing Hung Medien using accents[edit]

Earlier, you edited Runnin' (Lose It All) and added the singlechart template for Switzerland, either ignoring or not seeing the message left there reminding users that citing said template if a song title or artist name has an accent in it, it will not work. I remember you did this on the Bad Magic article a few weeks back too. Given the timespan of your edits, you're clearly in some kind of hurry, but please remember in future that you have to manually cite the website in these cases (i.e. using Template:Cite web). Thank you. Ss112 16:21, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Use manual referencing[edit]

Please start using Template:cite web within reference tags instead of using the albumchart template which has NOT updated instead of copypasting the URL into your edit summary or I will or another editor will revert you. It's not difficult and you've already been warned. Ss112 09:46, 28 September 2015 (UTC)


Hello, Lk95, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of your recent edits to the page Pharrell Williams discography has not conformed to Wikipedia's verifiability policy, and has been or will be removed. Wikipedia articles should refer only to facts and interpretations that have been stated in print or on reputable websites or in other media. Always remember to provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is likely to be challenged, or it may be removed. Wikipedia also has a related policy against including original research in articles. Additionally, all new biographies of living people must contain at least one reliable source.

If you are stuck and looking for help, please see the guide for citing sources or come to the new contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Here are a few other good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask a question on your talk page. Again, welcome.  Iknow23 (talk) 00:09, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

October 2015[edit]

Information icon Hello, I'm Iknow23. I noticed that you made a change to an article, Pharrell Williams discography, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so! If you need guidance on referencing, please see the referencing for beginners tutorial, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. In Discography tables, singles, albums articles, etc...Verifiable sources MUST be visible on the article page. "Cite your sources: <ref></ref>". Readers cannot be expected to have to review an article's ENTIRE edit summary OR hidden comments within the article for possible references. Thus, don't forget to provide an INDIVIDUAL source if the column header source doesn't support your update. ALSO FOR CERTIFICATION CLAIMS. Iknow23 (talk) 00:24, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Information icon Please do not add or change content, as you did at Mýa discography, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. Iknow23 (talk) 10:34, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Please stop adding unsourced content, as you did to Same Old Love ‎. This contravenes Wikipedia's policy on verifiability. If you continue to do so, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia.
Do not change sourced material unless you provide an updated verifiable source visible on the article page. "Cite your sources: Cite error: There are <ref> tags on this page without content in them (see the help page). ".
Iknow23 (talk) 05:14, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Stop icon You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you add unsourced material to Wikipedia, as you did at Selena Gomez discography.
Do not change sourced material unless you provide an updated verifiable source visible on the article page. "Cite your sources: <ref></ref>".
Iknow23 (talk) 05:17, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

German peaks[edit]

In future, adding URLs to your edit summaries and commenting out every source you use isn't sufficient enough sourcing. You have now gotten around to adding the German peaks and quite frankly, it's annoying to see that you think copypasting a URL in your edit summary is enough. Cite the URL in ref tags manually, as Iknow23 suggested. Ss112 16:48, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I noticed that too after a short while so I changed it by adding the URL to the peaks. I don't think this message is necessary, as I've already fixed that about two hours ago but thank you anyway. -- Lk95 18:27, 6 November 2015 (CEST)
You are still commenting out references when you've already been warned. Do not copy and paste a URL between <!-- -->. Nobody can see that and it's lazy. Copypaste the URL between visible ref tags: <ref></ref>. You know how to do this because you've done it before. That also goes for adding chart positions in wikitables. Use manual markup (i.e. ! scope="row"| US Billboard 200<ref></ref>). Thank you. Ss112 01:39, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

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) 17:11, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Reference errors on 15 December[edit]

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:19, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

"Edit jumping"[edit]

I really am not meaning to come onto your talk page and make baseless accusations about your editing habits, so bear with me. I understand that we both follow several countries' charts at the times they are released and update Wikipedia with that information. Generally I'm fine with this because we're both ultimately contributing to the same project. But earlier, with the Swiss peaks--and this has happened before, which is why I am saying it now--it has really apppeared as if you have too quickly jumped to the place I was up to editing to have actually checked every artist's discography and song pages to see if they have been changed yet.

So if what you are doing is checking my contributions page to see where I'm up to in order to jump in ahead of me and update things first, I really would advise you to stop as this is against Wikipedia guidelines (to doggedly follow an editor's edits and either excessively contest or interfere with their editing in some way). If this isn't the case, I apologise but this has happened several times after I have checked the edit history of a page, more than enough to seem like mere coincidence. Thank you. Ss112 16:40, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

I'm sorry but I genuinely had never checked your contributions list before. I always try to update Swiss peaks on the German version of wikipedia first and subsequently update peak positions on the English version. So if you or another user have already beat me to it, there's of course no need for me to perform changes anymore but if you hadn't already I'll go ahead and update them. I don't see the issue here. I'm not stalking your contributions site, if that's what you mean? And I check any new position with utmost care before I update them on here. -- Lk95 19:43, 20 December 2015 (CET)

Date formats[edit]

I don't know if you notice or care, but copypasting the UK albumchart template with the same date format for both British and American artists is improper. British and many other nations use date-month-year, or dmy (13 February 2016) as opposed to America, which uses month-date-year, or mdy (February 13, 2016). Please make sure you adapt this for every album article you add templates to, otherwise it's lazy and work for others to do. Ss112 17:14, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

You are still failing to adapt date formats, as you did at Taking One for the Team. Learn the date format of the article before you add the template. Ss112 15:15, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Cite your sources[edit]

You have been warned multiple times to cite the sources you are looking at for your edits and you still refuse to. From now on, cite the webpages you look at for the new peaks you add or you will be reverted, warned and possibly even blocked for repeat occurrences. You know by this now. Ss112 20:12, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

German template[edit]

Also, can you please look at using the Germany4 version of Template:Albumchart and the Germany2 version of Template:Singlechart? You know as well as anyone else that the German template you use all the time doesn't link properly. Those versions require you to actually add the ID number (in the URL from, which you obviously use). Please look at the page and think about using them in future, otherwise the templates you add redirect to the home page. Thank you. Ss112 15:19, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Reverting my edits on the German Wikipedia[edit]

There was absolutely nothing wrong with my edit at de:Megaloh; your subsequent edit had literally no difference except you spaced it better and added the Austrian peak. That was not worth a revert. Don't revert people for no valid reason just because you're mad or you'll be reported. I have a friend who can speak German and I will report you there if you persist. Ss112 15:29, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

You also did it at de:Santigold several days ago only because I put the Swiss peak in the "wrong place". It's petty and you need to get over it. You don't have exclusive rights to editing chart positions on the German Wikipedia. Ss112 15:32, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
Yes, I very well gave a reason in the summary bar for reverting your version. I don't claim any "exclusive rights" you speak of, I just happened to update several charts on the German Wikipedia quickly because I had the time to. When I'm busy I don't have time to edit stuff anyway so there's absolutely no reason I could be mad. I reverted you because you repeatedly didn't stick to the format template which is lining up the chart row to the middle. Call me petty but it's honestly annoying to always correct it afterwards and it sticks out like a soar thumb for the following editors. I found no other way to make you aware of this than to revert it. -- Lk95 17:01, 16 March 2016 (CET)
"Repeatedly"? It was once (as from what I can tell the Santigold edit was because I put the Swiss chart after the American position). It's clearly unintentional and a minor error which doesn't need reverting. If I did it on every page I edited on the wiki I might understand, but one instance can be corrected without the need to undo another's edit. Ss112 16:44, 16 March 2016 (UTC)


Multiple wrongs don't make a right. Troye Sivan is an Australian artist and date for Australia is dmy. As for the other chart positions' date formats, the Czech chart updater is a serial offender for date rigidity and US chart updaters (besides myself) usually don't care either way. Like your reasoning, I was in a hurry and that was my way of showing you that the date was wrong because I have warned you about it before (see above on your talk page). I don't hold grudges. Ss112 18:14, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

New Zealand and Australian charts[edit]

Not once before have I seen you edit any New Zealand peak. I think you clearly know I do that when they update, and you've stalked my edits and tried to take over what I do as an attack against me. Let it go. I am very close to reporting you after this, it's gotten ridiculous. Stop before you go any further because you're upset at me. Nobody owns the right to update charts but when you've never done this before (and you're adding unsourced peaks to discographies), it's very obvious. Ss112 04:23, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

It's not forbidden for me to update charts. I indeed haven't done these before but I can now or is anything wrong with my other edits as well? I only added one unsourced peak by mistake (which you had all the rights to revert), all the others are correctly sourced. And again, I've never stalked you. Just updating a plain chart, nothing more and nothing less. I'm not mad in any way. -- Lk95 05:36, 25 March 2016 (CET)
Of course you're going to say that. You're still trying to keep up the charade of being civil. When an editor starts doing something they've never done before, like you just did, it's really telling. You've never displayed interest in New Zealand charts at all and how you even discovered what time they update is a mystery unless you've looked at my edits in the past. Stop following what I do and engaging in disruptive editing tactics against me, it's obnoxious and against Wikipedia policy. Ss112 05:06, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
Per WP:HOUNDING: "Wikihounding is the singling out of one or more editors, and joining discussions on multiple pages or topics they may edit or multiple debates where they contribute, in order to repeatedly confront or inhibit their work. This is with an apparent aim of creating irritation, annoyance or distress to the other editor. Wikihounding usually involves following the target from place to place on Wikipedia." While you didn't follow me today, this does apply to following edits. It's very coincidental you singled out the NZ charts to start updating. Ss112 05:24, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
Is there any particular reason you have now taken to updating Australian certifications on Wikipedia, or is this merely another thing to interrupt something you know I do? It's funny that you raised the "tit-for-tat" thing elsewhere on your talk page, because it seems like that's what you do when you decide to start doing something you've never done before. Is this about you taking me updating the German Wikipedia personally, like somehow updating Austrian chart positions on their native Wikipedia (the German Wiki) is an action against you that you feel you need to get back at me for? I don't understand, but it seems very much like it. Ss112 09:06, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
You seem to be a bit paranoid because I didn't even know you updated certifications until now. As I told you before, if charts update earlier than they normally do and I have something different to do at that time, someone else usually updates them and I have no problem with that (see Austrian charts). I'm not sure why everything you see me doing on here is to you like a "revenge" thing on my part or something because it's not. When I see things that aren't updated on here yet even though other sites already reported them, I update them (I also added German and UK certifications in the past week). Simple as that. No hard feelings. -- Lk95 11:22, 14 May 2016 (CEST)

─────────────── I'm sure it seems like paranoia, but from where I sit it isn't. Several weeks ago it seems you suddenly decided to deduce what time the Australian chart updates/Noise11 publishes its data for seemingly no reason, as from doing it regularly I know you'd never done before. I don't know how else you would have found out what time these sites update without looking at the edit history of the list of number-one singles of 2016 in Australia, and doing that, you would have seen that I regularly edit the page. So now you're using a site sourced on that page by me to go around and update certifications before I or anybody else can, and considering what we have edited in the past at the same time and had some issues with, from where I sit, it's a little hard to believe it's just a sudden random interest in Australian chart data. Ss112 10:31, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

I also update the German version of the site you mentioned and as I've been updating the site for several months now I found out where to get that data from because there were already links provided that redirect to Noise11. To find out at which time the new article would be up, I browsed through the history of said article. I just recently found out that they also include certifications as I hadn't read the articles in their entirety before but instead used ariacharts for updating. -- Lk95 13:02, 14 May 2016 (CEST)

Disambiguation link notification for May 7[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of number-one hits of 2016 (Germany), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Wizkid. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:07, 7 May 2016 (UTC)


You removed a reference with one edit and with the other two changed certifications. Please remember to provide an edit summary with all your edits, like I do, to explain your edits because it makes the probability that any given edit is reverted. (Or better, add a reference...)--Launchballer 11:35, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

UK charts[edit]

Just want to let you know, when the host says "Coming up", it doesn't necessarily mean the next song up, because clearly you have a trigger finger ready to go on the page when they say that. I'd be wary. Ss112 15:50, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Take Her Up to Monto/Note[edit]

In future, do not restore your edits after you've been reverted and told Hung Medien doesn't work when using the single or albumchart templates if the artist or album has an accent or other special character in their name/its title, as you did at Take Her Up to Monto. I also don't understand why all of a sudden you've chosen this week to start updating Belgian and Dutch charts—I could guess the reason, but i assure you you don't need to worry about doing this in future. This week was an exception; I've got it covered, as I always have. Thanks. Ss112 14:19, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Yes I noticed that mistake though I thought it was just a matter of removing the accents from their names instead of adding manual templates. I know how it works now. I actually didn't plan on updating both charts today but since I noticed they hadn't been updated yet I decided to do so. I check them every week like lots of other charts. -- Lk95 16:34, 15 July 2016 (CEST)

Australian certifications[edit]

Thanks for copying my entire style. Now you're directly citing ARIA because you can't find Noise11 articles. It seems you're really intent on interfering wherever you can on the English Wikipedia, doing things that you know others do at exactly the same time, and I find it disruptive and vindictive. You have said in the past "I look to see if it's been updated already", but the fact is that you don't give anybody else time to update anything because you're rushing around doing it at the same time or a minute after it's updated. Ss112 08:19, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

No matter what I've done on Wikipedia, you've come along any time I've been late or anything and copied exactly what I do. You never cited sources on the English Wikipedia until I asked you to. You never adapted date formats until I asked you to. You never inserted line breaks when adding a ref into a wikitable until I did. You never used the proper German single or album chart templates until I pointed them out. You never started adding Billboard 200 manual references until you saw me do it. You never tried to update any Australian information on Wikipedia until you decided for some reason to come along and do it before me. You copy everything I do and I find that you are intentionally interfering with what I do. You can claim you don't all you like, but your past and present actions say differently. You seem to always do these things after some perceived slight against you. Oh no, I updated the Australian page on the German Wikipedia before you. Now you better come back and update all the certification information you can possibly find here. Like, come on dude. You know I do that every week and you're disrupting it. Ss112 08:27, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
You tell dozens of users what to do and revert them on a daily (I see that on article histories), I'm not an exception. Why shouldn't I actually take your hint when it actually helps me improve my edits? Yes, you did tell me those things. That doesn't change the fact that I updated German charts, Swiss charts, etc. before I saw your name on chart-based edits on here (before you insist on telling me I only did that after you started, I didn't). As I told you before, I check various weekly charts (including Australian, Belgian, etc.). When I opened ariacharts today, it had already been updated for like 10 minutes (I know them or noise11 provide new data at about 8am UCT) and usually someone added all the new certifications already. If not, then I do. Also, I look at how certifciations from previous weeks were linked so that you or somebody else don't revert me afterwards. If that was you that linked them, then yes, I copied that style. Besides, I don't think about whether it was you who invented that style or somebody else. Why claim a "style" anyway? I'm pretty sure someone else at some point in time standardized the style of chart/certification templates already. Plus I'm not by any means salty about your edits on the German wikipedia. It actually takes off some work load of my hands. -- Lk95 11:11, 30 July 2016 (CEST)
Those things I listed that you picked up were not said as if you doing them is a bad thing, I was just pointing those out to link them to you copying my style in order to do things "correctly" before me. It's nice when people take up what I ask (unless I think they're directly wrong, then you are right, I "tell" them so—but I don't have the power to force anybody to do anything, as I'm one user and it's Wikipedia), but when I don't say anything to them about, for instance, the Australian chart, and—not directed at just you, as multiple others have what I term "interfered" with me updating them—they then clearly see how I have done things and sometimes mere seconds before I save the edit, have done it already—that, edit conflicts and such, is annoying for anybody. They could have good intentions like you say you do, but it's hard to know, and oftentimes it's done incorrectly and that's even more frustrating. It's not necessarily the "style" that I'm trying to claim, it's the actions that suddenly another has taken it upon themselves to do and then has to one wonder, "well, why?" (Edit: I acknowledge that you told me why and thank you for explaining that, and what I'm saying may seem like paranoia, but when from where I'm sitting the process doesn't need improving upon and others then try to, it's frustrating is all.) Ss112 09:30, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

Copying my references[edit]

Please stop copying my exact reference style. It's really annoying to see you doing it as a replacement for me, and I'm not going to warn you over it again. I'm not acting as if it's copyrighted material, but I have never copied another user's style, and nor should you. Write the reference up yourself, using your own phrasing. I frankly don't care that you said "why should I not try to imitate your style, considering you've reverted me for [whatever]?" I wouldn't revert you for doing your own referencing; I'd be relieved. Write it up yourself. There's no one right way to do it, so there is entirely no need to copy exactly what I've done. Ss112 16:40, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

So if I didn't copy this style - and how should I know that you came up with this reference style? I don't follow your every step - there would be no consistency among album articles at all and it would look out of place. What other reference style would I come up with? It would most likely be the exact same if I had to write them up on my own. There's not much diversity. Besides, I don't usually update French album positions as I assume you do this every week. -- Lk95 18:49, 17 August 2016 (CEST)
So you copied it from somewhere, despite later saying you assume I do it every week? That seems a bit contradictory. I came up with the exact wording of the reference you used earlier on multiple pages. The actual title of the site is "Le Top de la semaine : Top Albums - SNEP", so that's a point of difference. I've seen others shorten the publisher parameter to just "SNEP". I'm wary about all of this because people have been accused of sockpuppetry for less. Some editors actually do monitor particular sets of pages very closely (as in, every change made to them) and if they see the exact same reference used in exactly the same manner by two different editors, even though a CheckUser would show us living in two different places, it looks fishy as hell. (Frankly, sockpuppetry is using multiple accounts in a disruptive manner, but some may still look at the same style used by two users and wonder.) Ss112 17:05, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
Yes I did. And I know that because your name is showing up on most music-releated articles that involve recent chart changes so it doesn't seem far off to assume you're responsible for them as well (it's visible on article histories so it's not hard for me to look that up). I see your point though, it's certainly not my intention to do this because I only meant to edit them with the reference/style to be as accurate as possible, not in the sense to copy your style. I apologize if it came off as such. -- Lk95 19:24, 17 August 2016 (CEST)

Again jumping in ahead of me[edit]

I'm pretty sure in the past I've asked you to not be an annoying editor and jump in ahead of somebody by updating the rest of a chart before they can do it themselves. You just did it over on the German Wikipedia, where I was updating Billboard chart positions. I know you do that some weeks, but you literally started doing it the same minute I did. I know you're going to say "Dude, I didn't, I do that every week", but when I have looked, in the past you've done it later. In future, if I start doing something there before you, don't be disruptive and try to do it first. It makes you look desperate for edits or something. Ss112 09:25, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Stalking my edits, yet again[edit]

I'm getting really tired of this. Is there a day that goes by where you don't stalk my edits to look for something to do yourself first? There is no way that you could have discovered already that "Starboy" had gone to number 1 in France yourself, unless you were either looking at its English page for some reason hours after you last edited it, or, due to all the "coincidences" over the time we have been editing much the same music topics, that you added it to the German Daft Punk article by having looked at my edits. Frankly, you'll probably find some excuse as you normally do, but this needs to stop. This has happened too many times for me to be just "paranoid" or for you to be claiming it was just coincidence and that you just so happened to check the French chart in the middle of the week coincidentally right after I was doing it (in fact, the timestamp tells me you added that nine minutes after I edited the French number-ones page on the German Wikipedia. I find it extremely hard to believe that that could be merely coincidence considering the French chart probably updated hours ago, and especially after this has occurred at least two dozen times over the past two years). There is no reason for you to be looking at my edit pages this much to find things to edit. Do your own thing. Ss112 22:22, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[edit]

When updates later and you re-add the peaks, please do the better thing and just restore them without reverting my edits. In future, if you see that somebody has added the German peaks without having updated, you can revert them as that information is unverifiable. The German Wikipedia is a different matter and a project that is much laxer on referencing and music articles in general, but here, verifiability is key (perhaps there's a bit of leeway when the timeframe for the actual chart to show the data is certain—like the UK chart, but with the German charts I'm not sure as it seems to change every week now). Sorry for having to revert you a bunch of times, it just seemed the easiest option to get the message across. Ss112 17:43, 7 October 2016 (UTC) has already updated, that's where I got the chart positions from. My problem is that I don't know how to add a proper link or use manual referencing when I could only access these peaks through other Hung Medien sites ( for example) but Germancharts themselves don't provide any data beyond the Top 10 on their home page. I thought it would be confusing for future edits to add a note with a link that leads to the song's page from a foreign Hung Medien site. From my experience, that has only happened once or twice since I started editing so I don't think it's a recurring event. -- Lk95 19:53, 7 October 2016 (CEST)
I guess it could be a little confusing, but I've provided temporary Ultratop links for the German album peaks now. It shows the data, even despite not being Germany's chart porta and it will only be there for a short while after all. Ss112 19:17, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open![edit]

Scale of justice 2.svgHello, Lk95. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Waiting until charts actually update[edit]

In future, please only add German peaks to Wikipedia when the chart has updated, unless you add the additional source you're getting the new peaks from. Several minutes ago, I checked the Metallica album page, and the German peak of number 1 was not there yet. It just updated, but there was no guarantee of when the chart would do this, and you could not have known when it would. I know you think nobody sees you, but I do also see you updating singles peaks before the chart pages have actually updated, but I just don't want to rollback your edits that many times. I don't think you need to be told, as you've been editing Wikipedia since the late 2000s, that information added to Wikipedia needs to be verifiable at the time you add it. It isn't going to hurt you to wait. Ss112 15:05, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

Album chart templates[edit]

Just letting you know, if you're copypasting or just simply whenever you add album chart templates to pages, you're adding invisible spacing onto the end. I don't know if the place you're copying from has that spacing or what device you're using is doing it, but if you click (or tap) past the end of the template, there's invisible spacing that shouldn't be there. Ss112 14:13, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for telling me, it's probably from the page I copied it from. I try to avoid it in the future. -- Lk95 15:25, 10 March 2017 (CET)

Billboard 200[edit]

So what is this, you updating all the pages on the English Wikipedia as some sort of payback because I do it on the German Wikipedia because you see I didn't update the pages in time? Seriously, man. The page barely updated half an hour ago and you're already over here having done them all. Are you just trying to rack up your edit count by whatever means necessary? I'm afraid it really seems like it. Ss112 20:36, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Can you for once not target me for things I do on here? It's annoying and sometimes I'm scared to edit anything just because it makes your name pop up on my talk page again. If I really cared about my post count I would do many more things on here. Also, if your edits on the German wikipedia bothered me I would've expressed that a long time ago. Just because I update 2 or 3 Billboard positions once in a blue moon doesn't mean I'm angry. Can't you just accept it? It's really not as deep as you think it is. You know my behaviour by now and that I only do this when I see some chart positions having been up for a while (it updated an hour ago before I saw it btw). -- Lk95 23:03, 26 March 2017 (CEST)
I never said you couldn't edit anything, so if you actually are "scared" to edit anything lest you think you will receive a message from me, that's completely unnecessary and I'm sorry that you feel that way based on my previous messages to you, but I just wonder about your motives sometimes. Ss112 21:08, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Citing the correct article[edit]

Per your edit on Witness (Katy Perry album), please cite the correct URL. This article you linked to says nothing about Katy Perry. It's clear you got the peak from Offizielle Deutsche Charts' Facebook page, so I linked to that for you. Ss112 14:32, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Thank you! For a minute I thought the article said the same as the Facebook post. -- Lk95 16:35, 16 June 2017 (CEST)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message[edit]

Scale of justice 2.svgHello, Lk95. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Year-end charts[edit]

Look, I'm sick and tired of playing this back-and-forth game with you. You must think because year-end charts aren't weekly updates that they're yours to compete to do with somebody. You don't do the weekly Swiss chart updates on the English Wikipedia because they're covered, so why are the final Swiss charts of the year any different? Are they "yours" to do because you noticed it updating two minutes before I did? I know the German Wikipedia has far less things to do on it than the English Wikipedia, but I don't actually think you want to "compete" for things to do with other users. Weekly charts, year-end charts would generally be covered by the same editor. Ss112 14:01, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

WP:Communication is required. Ss112 14:23, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
And I'm tired of discovering something that could be updated on Wikipedia but holding back because someone else feels solely entitled to do it. You didn't even say anything when I did the Austrian year-end charts even though you do them every week so I thought I do the Swiss ones upon discovering them. You don't need to revert my correct edits, I'm literally responding to you right now. I think it's best to quote you in your own words right now: "If someone has started updating a country's charts before you, I think it's quite rude to come in and start beating them to the punch by taking it over, espeically when you clearly know (as I bet you looked at the previous peaks you missed) that I started updating the UK's peaks this week. Now you're rushing to do it before me. I find it quite disruptive and rude, and obviously you have no care that you are coming off as rude." That's what you're doing to me but for some reason suddenly think it's okay. I admit when I did something wrong but I fail to see my mistake today. You just wanted to do them to claim them as yours and got angry as soon as you saw I did them? -- Lk95 15:31, 31 December 2017 (CET)
Yes, and you've done that already by jumping to do the Austrian and Swiss year-end charts because you think they're different. Weekly and year-end charts are part of the same thing: They're published by the same companies for the same countries. Year-end charts are really no different. Why just because they're year-end are they suddenly "yours" to do? You feel entitled to do plenty of things on the German Wikipedia (and here, like certifications) that I don't question, but when I bring things up to you you think it's a problem that I "claim" things—perhaps, because we don't need two people "competing" to do the same thing. Year-end charts are always published close to when the weekly charts for those countries come out, so anybody who pays attention to charts would notice them like I did. Also, responding to me doesn't mean keep going on with that now I've just pointed it out. Ss112 14:39, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
I know they are part of the same thing but what is so bad about the fact that I discovered them and subsequently put the information on Wikipedia when I saw they haven't been updated yet + knowing they could've been there for a while without anyone else noticing they were being published? No, I actually don't feel entitled to do all these things. If someone else did it before me, then so be it. I rarely revert people unless it's wrong or they added lackluster information. -- Lk95 15:56, 31 December 2017 (CET)
Because I thought it was an unspoken thing that they're covered even if not done instantly. The revert(s) were only to get you to notice. I didn't know what device you were using—I read all the time that mobile users don't get notifications from talk page messages and often can't notice them if they're using the app and all that. Ss112 15:23, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Please source singles[edit]

Per this edit, please source every single added to Wikipedia, even if it's just to the iTunes page. Thank you. Ss112 03:44, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Please do not create redirects unless the material is sourced at the article you're pointing said redirect to. At the time you created My Dear Melancholy, the material was not sourced at The Weeknd; regardless of whether it had been announced by him on his Twitter at that point or by a news source, it was not present at the article. If you do this in future, your redirects can and will be nominated for speedy deletion for being WP:OR. Thanks. Ss112 19:35, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

File:Berlin lebt Cover.jpg[edit]

Hi, I'm RonBot, a script that checks new non-free file uploads. I have found that the subject image that you recently uploaded was more than 5% in excess of the Non-free content guideline size of 100,000 pixels. I have tagged the image for a standard reduction, which (for jpg/gif/png/svg files) normally happens within a day. Please check the reduced image, and make sure that the image is not excessively corrupted. Other files will be added to Category:Wikipedia non-free file size reduction requests for manual processing. There is a full seven-day period before the original oversized image will be hidden; during that time you might want to consider editing the original image yourself (perhaps an initial crop to allow a smaller reduction or none at all). A formula for calculation the desired size can be found at WP:Image resolution, along with instructions on how to tag the image in the rare cases that it requires an oversized image (typically about 0.2% of non-free uploads are tagged as necessarily oversized). Please contact the bot owner if you have any questions, or you can ask them at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content. RonBot (talk) 17:14, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

Creating redirects[edit]

Since you seem very intent on creating as many redirects as you possibly can (and it doesn't take much to realise why you started), you need to learn to start researching a bit more before redirecting really basic song titles like Chlorine (song) to the newest album to have its track list announced. This is naive behaviour, because you seem to think there's been no other song ever to have the title "Chlorine" or that there's no other valid place the redirect could point to. Well, that presumption is incorrect, so that redirect of yours has now been repointed to Chlorine (disambiguation), where it should stay unless the redirect ever becomes notable enough to be made into an article. Also, just in case you were unaware, don't think creating all the redirects in the world will stop any editor from having their name or "credit" first if they want to make the article themselves. They can create it in their user space or as a draft, and plenty do, and it's actually encouraged by plenty here. If users really want to, they'll create something at "Levitate (Twenty One Pilots Song)" or some other misspelt or incorrectly disambiguated space. It happens all the time and as you seem to visit my contributions page quite often (and there's plenty of evidence for that), you'd know that already since I've tried to "educate" my fair share of users on the topic. Users are not reprimanded for creating articles in the wrong place, because page movers and admins give them the benefit of the doubt for actually creating content and/or making a "mistake", even if they do it repeatedly. I suppose you think the chances of somebody creating an article over the top of your redirect is higher than if you don't make one, so I'm sure me telling you that won't stop you when the track list for the next big event album is released. I'm just saying for future reference, take a bit more time to scope disambiguation pages or other valid targets for the basic redirects you make if you intend to keep on doing so. Ss112 01:09, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for the advice, I tried to apply this to the creation of the Queen redirects. I'm aware that editors that actually create the article (under a different name) are more likely to get the article, I witnessed it when some of the Scorpion redirects I created suddenly were handed to other editors. -- Lk95 8:48, 10 August 2018 (CEST)
Well, it wasn't so much advice as me trying to tell you that an editor can create as many redirects as they like—the editors who want to create the article can basically create it wherever they like and are not obligated to create it under someone else's redirect, and nor are they blamed for not doing so (just a fact, that's not a judgement call on my part—I've stopped caring as much). Ss112 07:20, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

Please find better things to do[edit]

For the good of everybody on Wikipedia, especially yourself, find better things to do than hang around on articles where you've been reverted looking for further attempts at condescension like this. Nobody wins in Internet arguments; the person who appears to get the "last word" ultimately looks worse because it shows how bothered they are and how much time they have on their hands. I thought you would have known that by this point. Ss112 14:22, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Reverted even though my edit was in alphabetical order while yours wasn't? If anything, I should've reverted you. You only wanted to be the first one to add the German peak for some reason, probably because I decided to create redirects now. I defend myself whenever I feel something unfair is going on. If it comes down to me having the last word then so be it. -- Lk95 16:36, 24 August 2018 (CEST)
Is that your theory? Oh Good Lord. That kind of paranoia is not going to lead to anything good. Ss112 14:51, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
Not a theory, just a hunch, because you did these things multiple times in the past. But go ahead, make others look like fools as usual. -- Lk95 17:05, 24 August 2018 (CEST)

Speedy deletion nomination of First Time High[edit]

Speedy deletion nomination of First Time High[edit]

Hello Lk95,

I wanted to let you know that I just tagged First Time High for deletion. This has been done under section G6 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an unnecessary disambiguation page.

If you feel that the page shouldn't be deleted and want more time to work on it, you can contest this deletion, but please don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions.

Eddie891 Talk Work 22:21, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

Please read WP:EXISTING[edit]

Before adding links to navigational templates—they are only for existing pages. Thank you. Ss112 10:28, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Flip the Switch[edit]

A tag has been placed on Flip the Switch requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G6 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an orphaned disambiguation page which either

  • disambiguates only one extant Wikipedia page and whose title ends in "(disambiguation)" (i.e., there is a primary topic); or
  • disambiguates no (zero) extant Wikipedia pages, regardless of its title.

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such pages may be deleted at any time. Please see the disambiguation page guidelines for more information.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 13:25, 12 October 2018 (UTC)