User talk:Ss112

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

Please be civil, and don't leave condescending messages or template notices about my lack of an edit summary or what you thought was a "test edit" (bots are obviously exempt). If you have been asked to stop posting here, please respect that request. I only ask this of editors who have made it clear they cannot engage in civil discussion, or if it is evident nothing productive will come from discussion.

divide ÷[edit]

what do you think about moving the page for ed sheeran's ÷ album to "÷ (Ed Sheeran album)" since all his other albums with symbols are like that.. and if you search "ed sheeran" in the search bar, it helps put his album in the suggestions. just an idea. --Jennica / talk 09:05, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

@Jennica: I agree, it's not really consistent with his other albums, which is why I was fine with keeping it at ÷ (Ed Sheeran album). However, naming conventions for an artist's album don't necessarily have to match, even if it is convenient that it shows up in the search bar when one types in Ed Sheeran—perhaps even now that ÷ (Ed Sheeran album) is a redirect, it will still show up and users will be directed to the right place. Others (such as the admin who moved it) think it's unnecessary disambiguation, as there appears to be no other album that has been named explicitly using the division symbol. There are of course other albums titled x, if not using the multiplication symbol, and it appears + was disambiguated because people may potentially confuse for it Justice's album Cross (), even though that's titled with a dagger. I just think if it were moved again, it'd be reverted. Ss112 09:16, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
oh ok. that works. it pops up in the search bar now. --Jennica / talk 09:24, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
Another question. On an album page, if it says "this album was certified 11 times Platinum".. which is correct? that wording or: "The album was certified 11× Platinum"? or either one perhaps? --Jennica / talk 09:51, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
@Jennica: Yeah, either one is fine, just so long as it's consistent in prose. Some people prefer to type "times" out. (Obviously the certifications section can't be changed, as it's automatically generated, so that doesn't really apply to the consistency in prose.) Now that I think about it though, you rarely do see "11×" written in prose. I think when most users develop articles, they feel it's more proper to write "times". Ss112 10:31, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

RE: Bryson Tiller discography[edit]

Sorry about that. I was looking on the BPI's Twitter where they have confirmed the certification, so I assumed it would have been added to their official site as well. I wasn't intending on vandalizing the page by any means, but I'll double check the BPI official site in future. Impressive instant (talk) 17:59, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Polish chart[edit]

Hey. Just a quick question. See the Polish charts listed here . How reliable is that one? Karst (talk) 12:24, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

@Karst: It appears to be Lista Przebojów Programu Trzeciego, owned by the state-owned national Polskie Radio, so it's definitely reliable (along with the ZPAV charts, of course). Ss112 13:09, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
Thanks! Karst (talk) 13:32, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

singer-songwriter[edit]

So I changed all the singer-songwriters on Mariah's pages to "singer and songwriter". I swear I did it yesterday to Shape of You.. but now it begs the question, is Ed Sheeran really considered a singer-songwriter? I can sort of see how he would be "considered" more of one because he plays guitar. On the singer-songwriter article, it doesn't really list any modern artists. If Madonna and Mariah Carey can't be considered singer-songwriters, I don't think Ed should. What do you think? The term is thrown around a lot and I have been taking notice on more pages that have it. °o°--Jennica / talk 02:35, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

@Jennica: Yeah, it's a really unclear area. I think stick with what was on their other single articles to begin with. If the use is inconsistent, maybe go with the one that seems to be most common on that artist's articles (or what their article says) and apply it across the board. I recommend using what was on the single articles to begin with because they're frequently edited and have had years of edits made to them and are popular so are usually monitored as well, so what's there is usually by some consensus somewhere along the line. Ss112 02:57, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
And here it is: Talk:Ed_Sheeran/Archive_1#Singer-songwriter_vs_Singer_and_songwriter. And nothing was solved lol. That's the same editor who was fighting for Mariah to get the singer-songwriter title. Looks like it would need an RFC if we wanted to pursue it --Jennica / talk 03:06, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
@Jennica: I was half thinking (or maybe hoping) I had imagined the singer-songwriter definition dispute, but there it is, plain as day... Jeez. Yeah, it really appears to divide people. If you feel strongly about getting a solution, I'd say an RfC is the way to go. Ss112 03:10, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Providing additional sources when unsure of the first source[edit]

Ss112. You made a comment about KIX Country being a reliable source in List of 2017 albums, so there was no need for an additional source. I would like to comment on why I added a second source, and also why tomorrow I will be undoing your edit. I know nothing about KIX Country myself, and have not heard of it in 3 years of reviewing and adding citations. What I did notice on the website for the KIX Country was that it did not provide a date or an author, which I interpreted it to mean that it was not a periodical news source, but published reviews whenever it suited the radio network. To me, that was acceptable for one source, but cried out for an additional reputable source. Notice that I did not delete the first source, I just backed up the source to improve notability of the referenced citations. I do agree that one source can be sufficient. The fact that I provided a second citation just means that in this case I did not find it sufficient, and wanted additional buttressing. Mburrell (talk) 03:49, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

@Mburrell: I'm trying to assume good faith here, but you're speaking as if all edits to List of 2017 albums must go through you. Also, I don't like the ultimate point of "I will be undoing your edits in future." It accomplishes nothing to tell me this on my talk page. I get what you felt you needed to explain, but the "I will undo your edits" thing is entirely unnecessary and essentially a threat. Ss112 03:54, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
Also, saying you have not heard of a source, so therefore implying it might not be reliable or notable is not a valid argument. The fact that you have not heard of a source does not make something disreputable. Nobody can possibly have heard of everything. Ss112 03:57, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
One, I did not say would be undoing your edits plural. I said I would be undoing one edit. Nor do I imply that all edits to List of 2017 albums must go through me. However, you stated that one reference was sufficient, and that there was no need for additional references. I told you why in one case why I disagreed with you, and why I would be restoring a deleted reference. I did not try to pick a fight, I did not set down the law, I just thought it would be a courtesy to let you know why I was going to revert one (and only one) of your edits. If you took my statement as a threat, I apologize, but I think if you read it again in a non-judgemental way you may see that no threat was implied or stated.
I also did not say that because I have not heard of a source that it might not be reliable. I did say that it might (not must be or is, but just might) not be notable, but I did not remove it. I just added a second reference, to buttress notability. I am puzzled by your belief that one citation is so sufficient that two citations are unacceptable. I ask that you assume good faith actions by all editors until proven otherwise. I have been assuming good faith edits by you, and I ask for the same treatment. If I post a comment on your talk page, please also assume good faith instead of assuming a threat. Mburrell (talk) 01:25, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
@Mburrell: Because on many articles, when there are multiple sources essentially saying the same thing, the extras are usually removed when one will do. It's not very puzzling; it's common practice. Also, I find it very hard to take "tomorrow I will be undoing your edit" in any way other than a threat of future action. My use of the word "threat" is not intended to paint you in a bad light, but that's essentially what it is. I didn't question any of your other edits or actions to the page, but the way you came here and said that (you had to time to message but not to undo my edit yesterday?) sounded like WP:OWN to me. I'm not going to argue about it any longer, so if that's all you intend to continue when you see this, please don't bother responding. This was a pointless discussion in the first place. Ss112 01:43, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

I need your help[edit]

Hey Ss112, i come on your talk page to discuss something. I have no idea why there is a source for the album Sremmlife 2 on Rae Sremmurd's discography where it's just a blue link which you can click on and see it is on the album. Plus i don't think that i ever seen a ref on the "Other charted songs" section for an album (especially if it is there own album). Apparently Magnolia likes to undo any edit i make that does not have a source to it. And I always add stuff that is always right. but it just keeps getting reverted by him. Basically i am writing on your talk page because this is going on for quite a while now, and i don't know what to do at all anymore on wikipedia. I would like your opinion on what should i do because he already reported me for this. JustDoItFettyg (talk) 21:13, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

@JustDoItFettyg: I don't have any power to do anything. I'd recommend you find an administrator to bring the issue up with. I don't agree with Magnolia's nitpicking of everything you add to Wikipedia, but I'm powerless to stop him from doing it and I've seen the monitoring of other editors excused when the monitored editor has a history of problematic behaviour (making no judgement on you, I'm using the words of others after another editor I know complained about Magnolia to WP:ANI). There's not much else you can do but to raise your case with an administrator to try to get some resolution to Magnolia's issues with you. Ss112 21:25, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
@Ss112: The only admin i know of is EdJohnston, i don't know any other admin's but him. (I mean to be honest i think i just might quit wikipedia at this point just for this). JustDoItFettyg (talk) 21:42, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
@JustDoItFettyg: Then perhaps you can message EdJohnston that you're having trouble and feeling singled out, instead of quitting Wikipedia because of a dispute with another editor. I understand it's frustrating, but it's not worth leaving altogether over. Ss112 21:45, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
@Ss112: Can you please fixed André 3000 discography page, because i saw on my watchlist that Magnolia removed the heading "Other charted songs" to "Other songs" again and replaced "Promotional singles" to "Promotional non-album single". I would fixed it but if i do he will revert it and probably report me. JustDoItFettyg (talk) 20:30, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
@Ss112: I got another question to ask you. Is it totally ok to remove all the songs from a tracklisting from a album and just have one song that only charted. Ex: This edit? JustDoItFettyg (talk) 00:04, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
@JustDoItFettyg: No, because that is a proposed guideline that only applies to discographies. You can revert Magnolia if you disagree with him, so you don't have to message me here asking if his edits are okay. From what I have just seen, he is misinterpreting something that isn't even a policy or guideline. His decisions are not unquestionable; no editors' edits are untouchable. If an editor links to a policy or guideline, read that, decide if it's relevant, and if you disagree, you can revert them. If you are reverted again, then I would start a discussion either on the talk page or the user's talk page. Ss112 00:31, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Page move query[edit]

RE: Page move[edit]

Hi. I have now completed your move request. Per this diff, I wanted to clarify what you wanted done because both redirects ended up in the same place (and it would make no difference, which is why I contested it). But I looked at the talk pages/edit history and I see what you meant, so I've moved this now for you. st170e 11:42, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Re Ngaiire edits[edit]

Hi Sean,

Thanks for your interest in the Ngaiire page. I've had a crack at improving the neutrality and removing material that might be promotional, I do have a bias that will affect the article however.

Would you do me the favor of checking it again and telling me what sections require further attention? Thanks for this Werafa Werafa (talk) 22:27, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Sean, I understand the points you make, and am still new enough at wikipedia to need the correction. I'll review it further with this in mind Werafa Werafa (talk) 04:15, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

that IP user[edit]

He's warring again, though I did report him. Hopefully by the time you read this he's already blocked. He also has responded to you on the SOY/÷ talk page / as well as my talk page. --Jennica / talk 03:52, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

It got moved I guess they found out who it was. yes--Jennica / talk 22:05, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
@Jennica: Yeah, I notified Someguy1221 about it and wrote on both case pages. They still haven't blocked any of the accounts, though. Ss112 22:08, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
And checkusers was declined. I wonder what happens next.--Jennica / talk 22:09, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
I wish the rules on this site were a tad stricter. I can't believe the IP user was able to even move the entire Bebe page. --Jennica / talk 20:10, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
@Jennica: Wait, what page did they move? Ss112 20:30, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── I mean when they blanked the Bebe album and made it a redirect. I thought it was the same thing as a page move. --Jennica / talk 20:33, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

@Jennica: Oh. Yeah, it's ridiculous. I really don't like how admins see things like this as arising from "content disputes", as if we accused this IP of sockpuppeting based solely or even mostly on the fact that we disagreed with some "precedent" of ordering singles alphabetically. There's evidence and I even said it goes beyond that, but still, there's nothing done. The only block they've faced is the registered account they abused Kellymoat with. Other admins would've blocked their IPs by now. I suppose it's just chance the kind of admins you get who pay attention or are already vaguely aware of the issues. Ss112 20:40, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
Do you think this could be the same IP user? --Jennica / talk 15:49, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
@Jennica: I'm sure it is them. You can tell from the attitude-filled edit summaries. I really don't understand their persistence and why they edit with such a poor attitude to everything and everyone. It's like some people come here solely to vent frustration and feel superior to others. Like, I get that people get irked from time to time by what they see as things being reinstated they disagree with, but like, they need to take a breather. Get some air. Maybe find a hobby or a constructive pursuit. They need to realise it's not the end of the world because something on a website isn't the way they want it. Ss112 16:04, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
I don't know if you're still following the IP user but another instance of him might be on the Green Light song.. see the edit history. Edit warring with AnotherBeliever and citing WP:SYNTH as a reason. EDIT: Nevermind, they have been blocked :-D--Jennica / talk 05:09, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Oh well, they've been blocked now for sockpuppeting, but I'm sure they'll be back in half a day to edit more pop music articles. Their behaviour is honestly just so persistent and ridiculous ("I will report you if I have to!", "you have to assume good faith", "if I'm a sock prove it", "you're now officially vandalizing this page" gave me a laugh). They need to give up. Ss112 05:56, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
I didn't even realize that this was the same guy. Kellymoat (talk) 22:57, 4 March 2017 (UTC)


The good news is, after this latest round of IP blocks, and two more sock accounts, it should be easier to have him blocked in the future if he needs it.
We have the 73.81 range (example - 73.81.147.192 ), the 2600:387:3:805: range (example - 2600:387:3:805:0:0:0:61 ), and the 156.12 range (example - 156.12.252.171 ).
Kellymoat (talk) 22:27, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Disruptive editing by IPs[edit]

There are these IPs are making disruptive editing to Wikipedia. The first one making edits like this [1] [2] [3] [4], these kind of edits got reverted by several other editors for this, I have reported these edits to Laser brain in awhile ago and this IP got blocked for this. And now it appears this editor is using other IP address by making the same disruptive edits, like these just recently [5] [6] [7], I have reported these edits at WP:ANI but have yet got a response. What your opinion on this? TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 04:25, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

@TheAmazingPeanuts: I'd say report any offending IPs to WP:ANV. If you believe there's one person behind it all, then you could file a case at WP:SPI. You're right, they do seem to be linking phrases unnecessarily and changing up bits of text unnecessarily. Ss112 10:30, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
I never try this before, but I open an investigation on it here, you can help me out, if I made any mistakes. Thanks. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 06:06, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
Unfortunately, my case has been declined, I guess you can't report an investigation on a IP if being connected to a user account. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 14:18, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

List of number-one hits / Ed Sheeran[edit]

Maybe you want to look at my proposal/suggestion(s) at Talk:List_of_number-one_hits_(Germany)#Ed_Sheeran:_historical_record Cheers, --Rava77 (talk) 21:35, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Edit Warring[edit]

How am I edit warring...I undid your edit literally once because the lead looked unorganized before you changed the wording. I appreciate you helpin out with technical stuff as of recent but I'm not just clicking undo for the hell of it. BlaccCrab (talk) 12:32, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

@BlaccCrab: I was just saying to prevent an edit war. Ss112 12:33, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

a favor?[edit]

If you are good with tables can you tool with El Disco Duro? the chart performance section. that person obviously has not read the MOS at all and has included Youtube and Twitter charts [which I didn't even know was a thing]. If not, it's okay. I tried to do it already and it was unsuccessful. --Jennica / talk 00:32, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

@Jennica: Cut down on the Latin charts per WP:USCHARTS (which applies to any table of charts, not just wikitables with single chart templates). It was overstuffed. There's some other minor wording and formatting which I'm working on. Ss112 01:02, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
thanks a lot for fixing that up. sometimes, i don't know where to start when things are that messy. I have another question. For Square One (Black Pink single) - is this the correct term for the article, "single"? --Jennica / talk 20:35, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
@Jennica: Yeah, I've seen those pages before. It's a bit weird with K-pop (and J-pop) acts because they release what they call "single albums", which are basically singles in terms of length but usually contain two or more songs. They don't consider them EPs because they use EPs at other times too (and I don't think they're long enough to be EPs), and we can't exactly call it a song either because Square One isn't a song. So it's kind of like a "what do you do?" situation. Ss112 20:47, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Your opinion[edit]

I left a reply to an editor at User talk:Lemongirl942#Rap music articles. You may wish to comment. Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 11:15, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Skewed links again[edit]

I can't remember what page I asked you about this but the links in the Charts area are all messed up on Number 1 to Infinity. I looked through both our talk pages for where I asked you but can't find it. SMirC-medium.svg.. do you mind cleaning them up? sorry if these requests are bothersome O_O--Jennica / talk 08:12, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

@Jennica: The occasional request is okay, dw! Yeah, you asked for Number 1's (Mariah Carey album) and I thought at the time maybe I should have fixed this too! Ss112 08:15, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
thanks!! if i ever see it again, i'll remember it's one of those albums. yes--Jennica / talk 08:24, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Sock[edit]

Have you ever seen anything like this? His abuse is so extensive he has his own sub article. 8-O The sock I get blocked regularly told me he thinks it's unfair that I keep doing it and how I'm a "kapo in a not-that-far past in some prison camp". Crazy that people want to keep coming back. I never knew they made pages like that though. Some of the IPs look like the vandal we saw --Jennica / talk 12:22, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

@Jennica: Whoa, that's extensive. And yeah, it's also crazy that they're probably not even the most prolific of sockers on WP. I just have never understood it either, really – why keep coming back to a site when you're so prolific you have your own page, are easily identified and are clearly not wanted? Rarely do these individuals target a different topic, they keep coming back to the same, so they are usually discovered. I just can't comprehend this compulsion to contribute to a site where a community of editors has made it clear you're not welcome. Especially going to the extent of using proxies or even travelling elsewhere physically for years, and it's like what for? So you can be discovered and extensively reverted again? They either love the notoriety or wasting others' time. Ss112 12:34, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
yeah haha, i can't wrap my head around it. I guess they don't have anything better to be doing. I found the sock I follow because he reverted me for some dumb reason. So I checked his history but I started piecing things together and found out he had a few blocked sock accounts. His new account had gone undetected for around 3 years. he mainly edited on Altan (band) and a band called Malicorne. I have tried to pair down the articles he's edited on. We do not need a week by week itinerary on these bands and he can't wrap his head around it. m( He thinks me trying to get him blocked is wrong. I just have to laugh. --Jennica / talk 12:39, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
@Jennica: There are definitely just disruptive vandals, but far more common these days seems to be music or topic-related vandals who love a band or act so much they feel they have to keep coming back to make "improvements" to their page even though they'll be found. Last year, I discovered there's this German sockpuppeter with a sizable history (including use of proxies) who comes back to build articles every time Eric Clapton releases an album, using a tonne of unreliable, crappy sources (some I'm convinced they set up themselves) and it's just like, how much of a stan are you? Hahahahahaha. Tracking these people sometimes is like playing Whac-A-Mole. Ss112 12:54, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
Also, just looked at that band and that extensive Facebook-referencing you removed. That's so ridiculous to put on here, hahahaha. Some people believe every little fart these people make is notable... Ss112 12:58, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
omfg. fart. and I know right? I consider myself a huge fan of musicians but I am not so blinded that I have to be like that. And yeah, some of the edits I made to the page apparently personally offended the sock in a way. a quote: "You love destroying others' works (see Altan - 19,584 bytes deleted on 30 November 2016‎ in only one click only because it "does not seem notable"!?!). I hate your policing. You hate others' freedom to edit the way they do... What else to say? Yes! You're a pain in the ass! Get a(nother) life!" Like I said. I just have to laugh I'll get him again xmas though it is sort of crazy they can't just block his IP or something. :-/ --Jennica / talk 13:03, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
@Jennica: Exactly! Nothing wrong with loving musicians, but they take it really far and so personally, as if Wikipedia is some sort of personal shrine to display their love of an artist, when it's for everybody to improve. You should tell him to make a fan site where he can talk about every extra instrumentalist the band employed for two minutes on a stage :P Also, noticed you got an article promoted to GA status, good job! Ss112 13:11, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── - haha @ the fansite thing. and thanks! I don't know if I'll do another one since I didn't think I would have to re-write so much. I don't really play with the writing side of wikipedia so it was sort of a challenge. Maybe sometime down the road... --Jennica / talk 21:08, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Alessia Cara's new single How Far I'll Go[edit]

Excuse me, hello. I'm Lucas. Firsly, I'd like to appologise for however wrong word I'll write here, because I'm not a good English speaker at all. Well, how you know, Alessia Cara recorded a song for Moana's soundtrack and it was released to promote the movie, automatically it was put for individual sales and streams. On her page here in Wikipedia it's not added as a official single, but recently it starts to play on US AC radio and also Canada AC radio. It is on "Others songs" space. Don't you agree that we should put this as an official single? I hope you understand what I'm trying to explain. Thank you for your attention. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Certificationsaccess (talkcontribs) 23:00, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

1000 refs[edit]

So I know you said you keep tabs on some k-pop stuff so maybe this is a trend on those pages. This editor wants to put like 50 links under one ref. Let's Not Fall in Love is one of at least 10 examples I came across. What do you think? --Jennica / talk 21:39, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

@Jennica: Yeah, I've seen that a few times before. I think it's way excessive to flood articles with repeated sources adding up downloads or sales. I think it's a bit of a violation of WP:SYNTH to add all these numbers up and claim in text that "this is the definitive amount of sales". They should be trying to find one source that talks about the cumulative figure, not add unnecessarily to an article's text by supplying 52 links under one reference. Ss112 22:42, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
Apparently one source alone doesn't exist --Jennica / talk 03:31, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

No More Tears (Enough Is Enough)[edit]

Who is fighting? No one is. The only reason why the first table has 1979/80 is because some of those peaks were in 1979, and others were in 1980. They could be two separate tables, as the song clearly peaked in some countries in 1979 before others did in 1980, to clearly show which chart the song peaked on in which year specifically. We don't need to have 2016/17 because the peak for both charts is 2017. If the Dance/Club songs had a peak in 2016, but the Dance/Electronic was 2017, then yes 2016/17 could be used, but as I said, the peak of the song on both of the charts is this year, not last year, so it is completely unnecessary to include 2016 in the header for the chart.  — Calvin999 10:59, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

@Calvin999: I understand where you're coming from, but pop music chart standard these days seems to be that the chart run is indicated by the year span. For instance, if a song started charting on one chart only in 2015 but didn't reach its peak until 2017 (unlikely, but not impossible), would we simply include just "Chart (2017)"? It seems like an oversight. Ss112 11:01, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
Yes. The table says peak position, and it wouldn't have reached it's peak in 2015 and 2016, would it, only in 2017. If you wanted to show its peak in 2015, 2016 and 2017, you would need three tables, because you can't include three peaks on one table spanning three calendar years.  — Calvin999 11:09, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
@Calvin999: I think you and I are talking about two different things and I think this is going nowhere. I'm merely saying current music articles seem to indicate the years it charted in (but not necessarily achieved a peak in) by the year(s) next to "Chart", and nobody seems to have any opposition when all peaks were achieved in the current year but it still shows "2016–", even if it began charting in the last. I don't think there's any right or wrong about this, and I don't even think there's consensus on it. Ss112 11:12, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
When referring to GAs and FAs, it's completely down to how the editor who improved it decided to do it. But to me, it seems illogical to include 2016 when its peak position, as the table indicates, is 2017 for both charts. If one was 2016 and the other 2017, then yes it could be 2016/17 or two separate tables. It's the same with manual or pre-loaded references, it's down to the editor which style they use.  — Calvin999 11:16, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
Fair enough, it's not that big of a deal to me, just saying what I see. Ss112 11:18, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

In reply to your comments on mburrell's talk page[edit]

Hey, Ss112. I got your message on my talk page, asking me questions about which definite articles articles to sort by, and which to ignore. I know of no rules that say the article needs to be sorted by definite articles or to ignore definite and indefinite articles. I know that several sorting processes outside of Wikipedia ignore definite articles and indefinite articles, so that is what I have been doing. I see no difference between English definite and indefinite articles and foreign language definite and indefinite articles. Although this is an English language encyclopedia article (different type of article), this is not a article that is only for English speaking users, so I have continued applying the same rules across the board.

When I edit the changes, I do all the current changes en-mass, so that I do not know who has made what edits (although I can detect styles, like a Danny0503 edit). I was not trying to insult your knowledge, as I had no idea that you had made the edit. I was just explaining the change. Also, when I restored the citations to Los Campesinos! reference, some other user had stripped the old references and used iTunes, and then you came back and restored one reference but used a new accessdate. Again, not knowing that it was your edit, I just restored the original citations and the original accessdates. There was no insult to you, but when one overeager editor strips information for no good reason (a good reason being a change of released date, or such), there is no reason not to just return the old information. Please don't take it as a slam on you.

Last, Los Angeles is a proper name now, and so the Los is not used as a definite article but part of the full name. But if I look at bands that use The as part of their band name, for example, The Beatles, I find that libraries and such sort it under B, rather than T. Even Wikipedia has a default sort of Beatles, The, when you go into the edit data. It can be argued that when you go into the edit data for Los Campesinos!, there is no sort data that changes the way it is listed. That would be a valid argument. However, an argument on English vs. foreign definite articles is just an English-centric argument and can go either way. Please keep in mind that none of my edits are intended to be personal, and please stand back a bit and see what I might be thinking before getting angry. mburrell 01:25, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

@Mburrell: Thank you for explaining, even though I thought you would do so at your own talk page. I wouldn't say I was particularly "angry" about it, even though it may have seemed that way. Perhaps just somewhat confused and a bit annoyed. Ss112 03:21, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
Just a side note. I am very confused by the convention of talking back and forth across talk pages. I am most comfortable when you post to my talk page, and I post to yours. However, I see you use the ping tool, which I always forget about. In truth, most conversations are not about us, but about building or improving an article, and would best be done on the article talk page. That is fairly public though, so I understand why it might be preferred to keep it closer to the vest. Mburrell (talk) 20:49, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Mind of a Genius Records[edit]

Ambox warning yellow.svg

The article Mind of a Genius Records has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Company is not notable, there virtually nothing written about it in independent sources and notability isn't inherited from signed artists. I have heavily edited, so PROD rather than AFD

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Flat Out (talk) 23:42, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

@EvergreenFir: and @Flat Out: You might want to send these notices to Muzr1009 (talk · contribs), who actually created the content. I merely created the redirect. I know to a certain extent these notices may be automated, but if I had thought the record company were notable, I would have created the content myself, but I didn't, so I only made it a redirect to its most notable artist as I figured it may be a valid search term. Ss112 04:57, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
@Ss112:, thanks, I made that mistake twice today. My apologies for spamming your talk page. Flat Out (talk) 05:09, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Tell me how I die tag removed[edit]

I was of the opinion you reverted my edit on your talk page because you didn't find the discussion which was the reason you stated in the edit summary. So I reverted your revert since the discussion was there a few minutes later.

I apologise if you found that disruptive.--Tobiasinator (talk) 17:18, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Primary source[edit]

I'm wondering how when there are only primary sources that that makes something automatically notable. I mean there's not even an article on the Portuguese Albums Chart. Lists of number ones songs and albums should only exist if there are independent and reliable third party sources that refer to number ones on these charts or to the achievement of reaching number one, which are few and far between outside of the most major charts. It's so overkill. --StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 04:13, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

@Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars: Then we'd have to get rid of most lists on Wikipedia of number-one singles and albums, as most use the actual chart archive for references. No editor seems to have a problem with Billboard being used as a source for number-one peaks on its own charts. That's not an independent source, and nobody tags those for "primary sources". Also, I didn't say "only primary sources" make something notable. I said that the Associação Fonográfica Portuguesa is notable because it is the recording industry association in Portugal, therefore to an extent, the number-ones on the official Portuguese charts are notable. If you believe that a list of number-ones in Portugal is irrelevant overall, that's not something to tag the 2017 list for. Ss112 04:57, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
Well, looks like you've already started tagging several less-cared-about Billboard lists for notability and only using primary sources. Well, if that's what you're going to be doing now, then be prepared for a bunch of music editors having a go at you. Ss112 05:01, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

French streaming charts [Panda (song), Black Beattles, Trap Queen, One Dance, Work (Rihanna song), Watch Me (Whip/Nae Nae)][edit]

If you did not understand, I just want to tell you that since september 2014, French charts is divided into two weekly charts: Donwload charts and Streaming charts. They are both official and the most important charts rankings in France. Dani tefe (talk) 15:38, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Long Live the Chief[edit]

Ambox warning yellow.svg

The article Long Live the Chief has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

No indication that this up-coming album is/will be notable. Refs just show the singles exist

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Peter Rehse (talk) 15:59, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Tireless Contributor Barnstar Hires.gif The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
You're a legend! - TheMagnificentist 15:00, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
@TheMagnificentist: Thank you! Ss112 15:05, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Tireless Contributor Barnstar Hires.gif The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
I certainly don't want to be at odds with one another. I very much respect and appreciate your contributions to Wikipedia. I hope we can find ways to work together and not step on toes. We're all here to make Wikipedia the best possible encyclopedia. Thank you for your many contributions. --Another Believer (Talk) 16:01, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Question[edit]

There was this editor who add these sources here in this article, are these sources reliable for genres? TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 07:03, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

@TheAmazingPeanuts: I'm not sure about HotNewHipHop's reviews being a reliable source for genres, and I believe something better could be found. As for Metacritic, the bar at the top containing the genres seems generic and like it would fall under the consensus not to use the sidebars on AllMusic or iTunes as a source for genres. I get that editors want to put alternative hip hop in there because it pretty much is, but I think a better source saying so is out there. Ss112 00:28, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
I agreed on this, I believe there are more reliable sources can be found for the genre of this album, so I remove them from the Infobox. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 18:39, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Deletion of redirect in "Love Incredible"[edit]

Hello Ss12, can you help me? So, I'm willing to expand the article of the song Love Incredible by Cashmere Cat and Camila Cabello, I saw that you redirect the article to Camila Cabello main article. Can you revert the redirect to the expansion of the article? Please! LikeGaga (talk) 18:13, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

@LikeGaga: I can't delete articles, and there would be no point in deleting the article if you want to expand it anyway. You can just create the content over the redirect by editing here.

Nav[edit]

Hey, do you mind if you can help me add chart info for Nav, I recently made the article since I think its now time for him to have one, thanks. Bloomdoom2 (talk) 03:47, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Unreliable chart?[edit]

A user made this edit [8], I'm not sure if the chart is reliable or not and as you are always on top of this you might be aware of such, hence my question. Thank you MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 15:51, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Fair Use in Australia discussion[edit]

As an Australian Wikipedian, your opinion is sought on a proposal to advocate for the introduction of Fair Use into Australian copyright law. The discussion is taking place at the Australian Wikipedians' notice board, please read the proposal and comment there. MediaWiki message delivery MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:08, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

This message has been automatically sent to all users in Category:Australian Wikipedians. If you do not wish to receive further messages like this, please either remove your user page from this category, or add yourself to Category:Opted-out of message delivery

Solution?[edit]

I was just thinking, would one solution be to simply move a redirect page to draft space? I never did this before because I thought editors weren't supposed to redirect to the draft space, but this would retain the article history, right? ---Another Believer (Talk) 02:12, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

@Another Believer: It would retain the history, but the redirect to the draft space may be deleted (as, like you, I'm not sure if that is accepted). In the meantime though, somebody may just recreate the page if it's been moved and they don't see one. Ss112 02:49, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Help[edit]

Hi Ss112, There is an editor name Moonsdebut8 who keeps adding fake charts to Shether and Remy Ma discography. I already try to revert his edits but he keeps adding it back. Is there anything you can do to help? JustDoItFettyg (talk) 23:35, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Another question[edit]

Editor DrStrauss added this tag to the article, called the critical reception section "very long", but I look at other articles such as Lemonade (Beyoncé album), Born Sinner and Kiss Land, that had the critical reception section at the same rate as Culture (Migos album). Why is the tag is necessary for Culture while these other articles doesn't have the tag? TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 13:13, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

@TheAmazingPeanuts: I'm not sure why. I don't agree with some of the tags they have added recently. Perhaps you should ask. Ss112 19:22, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
Maybe I should. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 13:30, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
  • @Ss112: please see my talk page, I have explained it to TheAmazingPeanuts there. As you had 98 pages awaiting patrol, I filtered it to get all of yours done!  :D I was going to make a note here: a couple of the critical acclaim sections seem a bit POV e.g. "heaped on further criticism" is a weasel word. If either of you have any questions, I'm more than happy to help! Regards, DrStrauss talk 21:33, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
PS - TheAmazingPeanuts: standard practice when talking about other users is to inform them using {{ping|USERNAME}} DrStrauss talk 21:35, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
@DrStrauss: I merely created the redirects for all of the pages you reviewed using the Page Curation tool. I disabled notifications for pages I created being marked as reviewed months ago after receiving excessive amounts of unnecessary notices for pages I didn't even know had content on them being marked as "reviewed" and being notified as if I were personally responsible for what was currently on them. Other users expanded these pages; I didn't create the majority of the content on them. It would be a bit hard to keep track of all of the pages I created redirects for that others then created content over, as they would all overwhelm my watchlist if I kept them there, so how critical reception sections are worded on some of these articles I have no track of. Ss112 02:44, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Track listings for singles[edit]

Hello, Ss112. I truly believe that singles with only one version shouldn't have track listings, as the information is already covered in the info box. For example, in September Song, there's no other versions, no radio edits or remixes, just a single track. The length of the track is already shown in the info box, that track list is just absolutely redundant. Hayman30 (talk) 11:53, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

@Hayman30: I know that you believe that, since my watchlist has been active over the course of a few days with you going on a section-blanking spree, but as I said, it feels like an oversight to not have one. Most singles have a track listing section. Another editor will most likely add the single-song track listing back, and then as you feel it's redundant you'll probably revert it and then be fighting over its inclusion, which feels pointless and could easily be avoided by not worrying about it. As for the articles you've removed said track listings from, have you thoroughly checked that there are indeed no other versions? I mean, I don't understand the implication that the original single-track download suddenly becomes notable enough to include if there are indeed other versions of the single with more tracks. Ss112 11:57, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
It's unnecessary, that's for sure. I'm just bored and it's neither constructive nor unconstructive, but it's truly redundant. And yes, I'll stop doing it, I don't want to be reverted every time I do that. Hayman30 (talk) 12:33, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
@Hayman30: I reverted you twice for it just to tell you it's not necessary to do it on every article you find, as editors would probably restore or re-add them anyway. Ss112 12:34, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Reliable source?[edit]

Hi User:Ss112, wondered if this [9] is a reliable source? If it is nu-disco and funk can be added to genres on Slide (Calvin Harris song) page, thanks.--Theo Mandela (talk) 07:49, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

@Theo Mandela: Yeah, Fact magazine is a reliable source as far as I'm aware, so you can add the genres if you like. Ss112 07:53, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
Nice, but in the source itself, how should "Fact Magazine" be written? As in "FACT", "factmag.com", "Fact", etc.?--Theo Mandela (talk) 07:56, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
@Theo Mandela: "Factmag" is just the name of the website. You could write that if you want, but I'd just type it as Fact in the "work" parameter of the reference you add. No need to typeset the name in all caps. Ss112 07:59, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
Could you add the source, if you don't mind? because you'd know what to put.--Theo Mandela (talk) 08:11, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
@Theo Mandela: I'll type out how I'd format the genre parameter for you and you can add it to the article, but I prefer not to add or really worry about genres at all on Wikipedia, because they are the subject of much contention. {{hlist|[[Nu-disco]]<ref name="Fact">{{cite web|url=http://www.factmag.com/2017/02/28/singles-club-calvin-harris-frank-ocean-coldplay-chainsmokers/|title=Singles Club: Calvin Harris, Stormzy, Chris Martin and more|work=[[Fact (UK magazine)|Fact]]|last=Ravens|first=Chal|date=28 February 2017|accessdate=11 March 2017}}</ref>|[[funk]]<ref name="Fact"/>}} Just select that and copy it into the genre parameter. Ss112 08:16, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
On it, thanks.--Theo Mandela (talk) 08:25, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

iSpy[edit]

I see your point on the other iSpy article, but wouldn't make sense just to put a disclaimer on that article for people that are looking for just the song itself. Also to note that in the article title it specifically says "song". Bloomdoom2 (talk) 23:48, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

@Bloomdoom2: If you think it should just have a disclaimer, then you should request a page move. However, there are other songs with articles titled "I Spy". Ss112 23:50, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
@Ss112: I saw that too, but I think (and is most likely true) that the Kyle song is the most notable "iSpy" song. Thanks for the instructions, I'll look into it. Bloomdoom2 (talk) 23:53, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

I Got You (Bebe Rexha song)[edit]

Can you tell me if this chart is notable? I Got You peaked at 27 on Kiss Top 40. — MUST BE Love on the Brain. 14:30, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

@Love on the Brain: The Wikipedia page for the radio station doesn't seem very notable; it isn't referenced. Personally I wouldn't add it, because it isn't the official Romanian chart. (I don't particularly know what is, but Kiss FM isn't.) Ss112 14:32, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Track listing references[edit]

Right, I hadn't thought of stating the source of track listings rather than putting the ref in the header , i'll remember to do that for my album articles from now on. You'd never have thought that i've been Wiki-ing for 7 years, hah Drneroli (talk) 21:59, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

@Drneroli: It's alright. I also meant to cite WP:CITEFOOT, which says "Citations should not be placed within, or on the same line as, section headings." Ss112 22:02, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
Right, i'll keep that in mind, if you have a moment could I have a hand in regards to a notability check of one of my other articles, Lego Feet Drneroli (talk) 22:06, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Talk:The Great Momentum[edit]

I have restored and expanded this album article so you might want to re-assess it for WP:ALBUM. Cheers, De728631 (talk) 15:39, 19 March 2017 (UTC)