User talk:Rockmusicfanatic20/Archive 1

Your submission at Articles for creation: Vena II has been accepted

Vena II, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.

• If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
• If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider .

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

Kiteinthewind ^{Leave a message!} 09:02, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Image without license

Unspecified source/license for File:Coldrain - VENA II.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Coldrain - VENA II.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. Even if you created the image yourself, you still need to release it so Wikipedia can use it. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time after the next seven days. If you made this image yourself, you can use copyright tags like {{PD-self}} (to release all rights), {{self|CC-by-sa-3.0|GFDL}} (to require that you be credited), or any tag here - just go to the image, click edit, and add one of those. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by MifterBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. NOTE: Once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. --MifterBot ^{(Talk • Contribs • Owner)} 18:45, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

Unspecified source/license for File:Coldrain - Fateless.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Coldrain - Fateless.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. Even if you created the image yourself, you still need to release it so Wikipedia can use it. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time after the next seven days. If you made this image yourself, you can use copyright tags like {{PD-self}} (to release all rights), {{self|CC-by-sa-3.0|GFDL}} (to require that you be credited), or any tag here - just go to the image, click edit, and add one of those. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by MifterBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. NOTE: Once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. --MifterBot ^{(Talk • Contribs • Owner)} 21:45, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Unspecified source/license for File:Coldrain.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Coldrain.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. Even if you created the image yourself, you still need to release it so Wikipedia can use it. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time after the next seven days. If you made this image yourself, you can use copyright tags like {{PD-self}} (to release all rights), {{self|CC-by-sa-3.0|GFDL}} (to require that you be credited), or any tag here - just go to the image, click edit, and add one of those. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by MifterBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. NOTE: Once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. --MifterBot ^{(Talk • Contribs • Owner)} 22:00, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Genres

Since nobody has yet opposed your genre additions (except for one), I have not generally removed them. However, I would like to ask you to please stop capitalizing every word in genres. The only time you ever need to capitalize one is when referring to Southern music subgenres, Christian subgenres, and whatever the first one you list is. On another note, if your choice of genre listing is removed or it is requested you do not add unsourced genres, I would not advise adding them. I have removed your assessment of Vena II as hard rock, as I find that to be a load of garbage and we can contest it so long as no source supports it.

I hope you understand and thank you for your time. dannymusiceditor ^oops 17:41, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Coldrain - 8AM.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Coldrain - 8AM.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:29, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Non-free rationale for File:Coldrain - 8AM.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Coldrain - 8AM.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under non-free content criteria, but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia is acceptable. Please go to the file description page, and edit it to include a non-free rationale.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified the non-free rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described in section F6 of the criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 01:00, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of File:Coldrain rev blaredown.jpg

The page File:Coldrain rev blaredown.jpg has been speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This was done under section F7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it was a non-free file with a clearly invalid licensing tag; or it otherwise failed some part of the non-free content criteria. If you can find a valid tag that expresses why the file can be used under the fair use guidelines, you can re-upload it, but you must ensure you place the correct tag on it. If no such tag exists, please add the {{Non-free fair use}} tag, along with a brief explanation of why this constitutes fair use of the file.

Please do not recreate the material without addressing these concerns, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If you think this page should not have been deleted for this reason, you may contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you may open a discussion at Wikipedia:Deletion Review — JJMC89 (T·C) 04:55, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

I have sent you a note about a page you started

Hello, Rockmusicfanatic20

Thank you for creating 20180206 Live at Budokan.

User:Doomsdayer520, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:

Thank you for this new article. Note that the Track Listing table is currently incomplete, with blanks in the "Length" columns.

@Doomsdayer520:

Hi, Doomsdayer520

I couldn't find any sources for track lengths when researching for the creation of 20180206 Live at Budokan.

As a result, I just used the template I used for other pages where I have created track listings for a live album.

If there are any other templates I'm able to use that don't require me to use track lengths in a live album, then please let me know. Thank you for your feedback, it is very much appreciated.

Rockmusicfanatic20 (talk) 21:29, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

To reply, leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|Rockmusicfanatic20}}. And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~ .

(Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 20:54, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

Fiction (maxi-single) moved to draftspace

An article you recently created, Fiction (maxi-single), does not have enough sources and citations as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 05:54, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Coldrain - Fiction.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Coldrain - Fiction.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:29, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

Disputed non-free use rationale for File:ColdrainTSE.jpg

Thank you for uploading File:ColdrainTSE.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this file on Wikipedia may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the file description page and adding or clarifying the reason why the file qualifies under this policy. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your file is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a non-free use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for files used under the non-free content policy require both a copyright tag and a non-free use rationale.

If it is determined that the file does not qualify under the non-free content policy, it might be deleted by an administrator seven days after the file was tagged in accordance with section F7 of the criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.

This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 01:00, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 3

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Coldrain, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Japanese (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar 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) 09:25, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Disputed non-free use rationale for File:ColdrainTSE.jpg

Thank you for uploading File:ColdrainTSE.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this file on Wikipedia may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the file description page and adding or clarifying the reason why the file qualifies under this policy. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your file is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a non-free use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for files used under the non-free content policy require both a copyright tag and a non-free use rationale.

If it is determined that the file does not qualify under the non-free content policy, it might be deleted by an administrator seven days after the file was tagged in accordance with section F7 of the criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.

This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 01:00, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Fiction (Coldrain song) (April 4)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reasons left by AngusWOOF were:  The comment the reviewer left was: Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Fiction (Coldrain song) and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Fiction (Coldrain song), click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{Db-g7}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
• If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 01:32, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Hello, Rockmusicfanatic20! Having an article declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 01:32, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 4

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Vena (album), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Digital download (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 12:18, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Coldrain - Fiction.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Coldrain - Fiction.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 02:50, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

Nomination of January 1st (Coldrain song) for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article January 1st (Coldrain song) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/January 1st (Coldrain song) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Elmidae (talk · contribs) 17:24, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 12

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Coldrain, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Nothing Lasts Forever (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 12:03, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

"Placeholder genres"

Hi. It is generally not considered acceptable to say a band known for being a certain genre can therefore have all their releases described, without a source, as being that genre. You will find most editors see this as going against WP:V, and there is no real excuse for being "placeholder genres" as you described it. While I'm not disputing that the EP is probably alternative rock, an editor before you already expressed a concern about an unsourced genre being there, so especially after that, it should be sourced. Bands and singers can make music in other genres while still being known for being another. It's not so important we should be adding a genre as an unsourced placeholder until there are reviews or a general description. We can wait until a source describes the EP's genre, then restore it with that source, so please do that. Thanks. Ss112 11:11, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Coldrain - Fiction.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Coldrain - Fiction.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 02:57, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Coldrain - Fiction.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Coldrain - Fiction.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 02:30, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 12

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited The Side Effects (album), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Fateless (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:12, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 7

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Gone (Coldrain song), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page BPM.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:10, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

RE: Regarding Coldrain and their respective album articles

Hello Rockmusicfanatic20, I understand from what you coming from. Don't get me wrong, I have nothing against you. I just doing it how it should be on standard wiki article. I really do want to keep the links, but many other more notable users will usually undo it regardless of what you try to explain. I did the same thing as you long time ago, but the users always said that don't link the articles when it don't exist in order to minimize the overlinking.

If you want to keep the links simply just create the articles. Regardless, the links will always be removed until the article is created. But from what I see, you have bigger problems to keep the articles rather than create it. When you creating an article, especially for a person, you need a lot of reliable sources to keep the notability of the article so they don't delete it. I've seen this many times and usually it ends up to be gone. On the single's chronology, I have to edit it back because usually the chronology is based on what was previously released and what was released after that rather than what is more notable or what has an article. That's why it's called chronology.

And the reason why I am always adding to the tracklist's note the phrase "of Crystal Lake" along with the artist is because like I said previously: The artist's article doesn't exist, so you have to add the band where he is mostly known from. This is used all the time and is based on the standard wiki article for an album. At least that's I always see people do. When the artist did exist on Wikipedia, then of course there is no point to add the phrase. But because he doesn't exist, we have to add it. And also mostly those who are visiting Wikipedia to search an album, they usually want to know the genres, the singles and most importantly the tracklist. You can have the phrase in the credit section, but people won't go search the credits, they usually checking the tracklist. So that's that. I hope you understand my intentions here. Thanks. --Tobi999tomas (talk) 17:55, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed 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 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:51, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 27

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Matthew Tuck, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Vinyl.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:07, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 1

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited The Enemy Inside (Coldrain album), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Fujisawa.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:11, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Coldrain album genres

Hello, Rockmusicfanatic20. Look I get that you wanna be helpful and point out the genres that summarize the sound of Coldrain's first album and EP, but they're not mentioned in any of the sources I could view in both articles. Genres should be sourced no matter what you feel. And I know from my own editing experiences, which might seem a bit hypocritical, but they're mostly mistakes and I've grown more maturely to handle them. No one likes a genre warrior, man. So please only add genres if you have the sources for them. Thank you....SirZPthundergod9001 (talk) 07:18, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 21

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Animals (Architects song), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page BPM. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar 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) 06:01, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

September 2021

Please do not add or change content, as you did at Bring Me the Horizon 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. Ss112 16:56, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 22

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Die4U, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Ukrainian.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:03, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

October 2021

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to add unsourced or poorly sourced content, as you did at Every Time I Die discography, you may be blocked from editing. Ss112 23:34, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

-- @Ss112: Hi Ss112, I don't like disruptive editing as much as you do. I saw the chart peak on the UK Rock & Metal Albums Chart and added the peak based on what I saw there. To be honest, discography tables can be confusing and I don't know how to add a reference to a grouped reference. You're clearly a much more experienced editor than me as you are probably more aware of how to add a chart reference to another reference. I only want to help articles be more up to date with new peaks. If you look at examples from literally the same day from the same updated weekly UK Rock & Metal charts that I've added to album articles, I do cite the sources. I don't have experience with grouped references.

This threat just feels unwarranted from my perspective but I understand why you may feel like I'm not citing sources. I do cite my sources, I just automatically go to the assumption because I see the grouped reference at the top of the discography table. That this comes under that also. --Rockmusicfanatic20 (talk) 14:35, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

If you take automatic templates as a "threat", that's your issue. I gave you a third-level warning because you had been warned for adding unsourced peaks previously. Ss112 11:22, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

-- @Ss112: It wasn't an unsourced peak as there was already a reference in place and adding a peak to a reference column in the table. When it comes to Bring Me The Horizon's discography. I go to the edit page and it comes up with this for a reference for the rock charts: (<)>ref name="UKrocksingles"/<(>) There's no way I can add anything to that reference and I get warned for adding to that article and I felt that was unfair. I said previously that I wasn't the most experienced editor on this website. Please don't assume that I'm going to know every in and out when I only want to help out and keep things up to date. I've helped out a lot of articles, even resolving the release date for "In the End" edit conflict with solidified references for example which you thanked me for. Me adding "unsourced peaks" which is not true, because there was already a grouped reference in place for the peak. I hope you can understand. Thank you. --Rockmusicfanatic20 (talk) 13:23, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Duration templates in Template:Infobox song

I saw you reverted another editor on The Chapeltown Rag because they removed the duration template from the infobox. As I said in my edit summary, the purpose of Template:Duration is to emit microformats for the duration so it will display in places that collate Wikipedia's data. This function is now provided automatically for the first duration detected in the parameter (per Template:Infobox song#length), so it is redundant to use the template. The infobox says only to use the duration template for any subsequent lengths in the case of widely known edits of the song and so on. Thanks. Ss112 11:22, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for explaining, I will take this into account in future. --Rockmusicfanatic20 (talk) 13:25, November 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 22

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Waiting for the End, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Twitch.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:02, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed 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 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:53, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

So Called Life Draft

Hey I would like to thank you once again for helping improve the Draft:So Called Life page. I've seen the changes and improvements and I could not have done it better myself. As cheesy and corny as it may sound, I still appreciate the help from a more experienced editor like you. Have a good one! - Shout4Serenity (talk) 21:44, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

Hi Shout4Serenity. You're very welcome and I'm glad to be of some help to you with this article. A little tip, to avoid having a draft reviewed to wait for the page to be published for months. You can also just type in the page on Wikipedia you want to create and then click on the red page link to create the page and publish it straight away with no page review. I hope you can get the draft reviewed and published soon on Wikipedia. If I see anything else I can add, I'll do so for you. Many thanks. Rockmusicfanatic20 (talk) 23:48, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

RMNZ

I highly suggest that if you think using RMNZ's official site if the better choice, then bring this up at Template talk:Single chart. I'm getting tired of reverting you. ResPM (T🔈🎵C) 19:25, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

@ResolutionsPerMinute: I've taken my concern up to the Single chart template talk. Thank you for linking. In future, if you have concerns over any of my edits that I make to try to improve an article. Please either go to the talk page on the respective article or either come to my talk page here where they can be up to debate or discussion before removing/reverting the edit. I don't like it when I try to explain my actions in an edit summary and it only makes the page histories on articles look ugly, especially with a few reversions in a row. Thank you. Rockmusicfanatic20 (talk) 20:48, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Shane McMahon

Please, stop. I spoke to a admin, explaining the situation and he said that McMahon should be listed as released. There is why. Per Wikipedia:Independent sources, "Using independent sources helps protect the project from people using Wikipedia for self-promotion, personal financial benefit, and other abuses." In that case, Meltzer (an independent source) confirmed McMahon left WWE, so we don't need a confirmation by WWE, since it's not independent and has personal interest, so no mentality "WWE didn't confirm the info, it's a rumor". Then, WrestlingInc and Wrestling News aren't reliable, but also, they are making an assumption based on a picture, not a confirmation from sources. So, confirmation by reliable sources has more weight than assumption of him not being released. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 19:13, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

@HHH Pedrigree: These same sources tried to claim that Shane was relieved of duties last year. They aren't credible sources. Here's an article from The Sportster [1]. In the article, it says:

"Wrestling Inc. and Fightul are both reporting sources have noted Shane McMahon is that he is no longer involved with the company. There are, however, conflicting reports on this. Wrestling Inc. is reporting that he is no longer under contract even though WWE insists he is “still a WWE talent and under a deal.” Other reports suggest he is rarely, if ever seen at the WWE offices anymore."

This was obviously not true as he ended up returning to WWE TV at the 2022 Royal Rumble event. Days after, loads of sources again try to claim that Shane had been "let go" after a supposedly heavily criticised Rumble match that Shane was involved in the booking of. Great, so WWE would report he's left the company right? He's literally the chairman's (Vince McMahon) son and you don't think for a second that they wouldn't announce his departure? Someone makes a claim from an "inside source." Who's the source? Who's said what? Where's the evidence for the departure? Someone can create false information to create a story by claiming it's from an inside source. Who's verified it? Dave Meltzer? That's your example? He's been publicly known for having a track record of being unreliable. Just because something is reported, doesn't make it automatically true. We should all know that if you claim something, you need to back it up with evidence. All these "reports" FAILED to do that. Mainstream outlets that are typically known as more reliable and credible, ate it up and ran with what they saw without trying to verify the story themselves.

Days after again, a tweet comes out of a New York businessman by the name of Marco Masotti, revealing he's doing a business deal with WWE and their representative is Shane McMahon meaning he NEVER departed the company.[2] People reported a false rumour as a fact and Wikipedia is doing just that also. These "journalists" couldn't admit that they lied and partially made a retraction based on something which was falsely reported in the first place just to try not to tarnish their credibility (if they even had any to begin with). I took issue with that, I cited WP:Rumour and the quotes from that article on Wikipedia guidelines.

"Articles that present original research in the form of extrapolation, speculation, and "future history" are inappropriate."

"Wikipedia is not a collection of product announcements and rumors. Although Wikipedia includes up-to-date knowledge about newly revealed products, short articles that consist of only product announcement information and rumors are not appropriate."

We need to be rectifying the article based on it. You said it yourself, WrestlingInc and Wrestling News are unreliable, but they still previously reported Shane McMahon being "fired" or "let go" as fact.[3][4] WWE or Shane McMahon himself never confirmed that Shane was let go. These independent sources you provided were running a narrative on a now disproved false story. I assume Inside the Ropes is (somewhat) more reliable? [5]. We should never be presenting rumours as facts and these "sources" should know that. Wikipedia should know that. Things like this are why people don't consider Wikipedia to be a reliable source of information either. The site's track record in pop culture is laughable.

I asked you not to add the information back in, providing hidden comments as well. You continuously ignored me about it, adding the information back in anyway. You need to learn that these supposed wrestling "journalists" are unreliable and shouldn't be trusted with sorts of information. If he actually left WWE, it was reported with proof and the company themselves didn't announce it, then fair enough. But it later came out, that the story these independent sources ran were simply not true. Thank you for reading this and I'll be pasting this exact message into the Shane McMahon talk page for everyone else to see. Thank you. Rockmusicfanatic20 (talk) 20:33, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

Dave Meltzer is a reliable source and he confirmed his departure. Sources you gave (unreliable, BTW) are based on assumptions based on a picture (it appears shane stills with WWE because a picture was posted, no sources or information, just assumptions). Don't say reliable sources are false based on "WWE didn't confirmed it", because that's not WP:INDEPENDENTSOURCE. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 21:17, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

With all due respect, you are completely missing the point. ALL these "sources" are unreliable and Dave Meltzer is absolutely not reliable. Did you just completely ignore my point that it was falsely reported literally LAST SUMMER by these EXACT same sources that McMahon was no longer under contract? What's the evidence that Meltzer has that Shane is gone? Where has he heard that? Where is his evidence? How is he able to back up his claim? All the talent that has previously been released in the past year that wasn't announced by WWE never announced that they were released eventually came out to say that they were released afterwards. Fair enough, but Shane NEVER did. I already said this and as a "journalist", Meltzer himself should know that if you claim something, you need to back it up with evidence. These are baseless claims by third party sites, there's more evidence to suggest that he's still with WWE than not with WWE based on the tweet made. Shane McMahon is a representative for WWE, who met up with this businessman and the guy took to Twitter that he was going to partner with WWE. Are you going to try to bait people who look at Wikipedia in reporting a FALSE rumour and printing that as a fact?! No! That's against site guidelines.

Don't trust these "reliable sources" as they made themselves look like fools over this situation. I honestly feel like you skimmed over everything I wrote, because it really feels like you didn't bother to read it at all and I went into some serious depth to cover my points. Every claim needs to be verified, Meltzer's claim wasn't verified, the verification is evidence (Shane McMahon as a WWE representative.) and Shane is still employed by WWE. Let me ask you this. Why would someone not be employed by a company not under contract be representing that same company they've been supposedly fired from? Barely more than a week after he's been fired? He sure seems to be still employed. Every single site here appears to say the same thing, with the pathetically weak retractions in place for people who can't own up to the fact that they lied.[6][7][8][9][10] I should also note to the integrity of Bleacher Report who reported the situation as a RUMOUR. Rumours should never be stated as fact, they never stated it as a fact. They only reported on what others said but never used it as confirmation.[11] Rectify false information, ratify correct information. The Shane McMahon article needs to be rectified, it is currently misleading. Rockmusicfanatic20 (talk) 22:02, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia is based on reliable, independent sources. the sportster, itrwrestling, cultaholic, nodq, belacherreport and wrestletalk are unreliable. Dave Meltzer is reliable. BTW, your unreliable sources: Sportser " a recent tweet suggests ". ITW "Shane McMahon Seemingly" Cultaholic "Shane McMahon Seemingly" wrestletalk "Shane McMahon Still Working With WWE?" NoDQ "Shane McMahon still involved with WWE?" . Non of the sources confirmed he stills with the company, just that, apparently, he stills based on a picture, but never confirmed based on sources. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 22:05, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

At the end of the day, the track record of all these sources are inconsistent. Later reports contradict the original claims of Shane McMahon being released. Credibility has to be called into question. Thus we need others to comment on all of this, but we can't allow the Shane McMahon article to be misleading to readers. This issue needs to be resolved sooner than later. Rockmusicfanatic20 (talk) 22:43, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

Notable cover songs

Please read WP:COVERSONG before adding any cover to any article. Your argument (Respectfully, the cover itself is notable. It's by a very notable Japanese rock band on a notable EP by them that features a cover of "Stuck" and therefore we should add the information into the article. I hate this idea of discriminating against valid and sourced information. If it's by a band with 50 followers and no wiki article then the addition would be worthless to add)) completely misses the mark. It is not about a notable band or an notable EP (or album), or the lack of notability of the band or album on which it is contained, it is about at least one of the following:

• the rendition is discussed by a reliable source, showing that it is noteworthy in its own right. Merely appearing in an album track listing, a discography, etc., is not sufficient to show that a cover version is noteworthy; cover songs with only these types of sources should not be added to song articles, either as prose or in a list.
• the rendition itself meets the notability requirement at WP:NSONGS.

The closest we have is that the reference claims the song was a hit, yet no charting is supplied to support that claim. The reference itself does not meet reliability standards as it has no author and reads like a press release. Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:54, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

Hi @Walter Görlitz:. I always have a mindset that if something is being worthy of added to an article, if it's sourced reliably then it should be added and remain in said articles. I already said I absolutely hate this idea of discriminating against any sorts of information whether that's a song cover or anything else. If something is able to be added to the article, it adds something to the article instead of detracting from it. This is why I have this strong mentality of adding information to this encyclopedia and cannot understand it for the life of me when admins/mods or other users with extended permissions decide to remove it instead just because it's not to the standard that they like. I think this is a massive issue on Wikipedia as I see it happen all the time as I've seen lots of other users remove perfectly notable sources just because they don't fit their narrative or is something they don't agree with.

Not everything will be covered by Billboard or Rolling Stone so you can't expect everything to be by an A-list publisher/website otherwise that'll discredit all the other smaller but still notable bands that still need to get the information of theirs onto Wikipedia and this is why I'm here to help out the articles to bands that I like. It's demoralising and is hurtful to other artists when the information that is perfectly covered is removed just because it isn't extensively covered by an A-list publisher because they don't cover every rock band under the sun. I respectfully think the cover guidelines are completely ridiculous and rather dogmatic in how they are written as they can be interpreted in many different ways and this is why on occasion I will ignore guidelines that I feel are obsurd. What some people consider as notable enough on wikipedia by admins and mods are up to interpretation and the mindset of "It has to be discussed in-depth by multiple A-list websites or that information is not valid enough for this article" is completed ridiculous. This gives some admins/mods the ability to abuse their power based on their own expectations and it is not fair on other users when all they want to do is add valid and perfectly fine sources to articles just for them to be removed. I honestly do suggest in good faith that some of the guidelines should be revised at least and I'd also kindly ask you for me to be able to add the information of Coldrain's "Stuck" cover back into the "Stuck (Stacie Orrico song)" article. Thank you. Rockmusicfanatic20 (talk) 00:28, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

Your mindset is in opposition with the project's. Your claim of discrimination is misplaced. Nothing is discriminated against. It seems that you just do not like the project-wide standard, not the other way around. The project does not require major publications to be used, but rather WP:RSes. If you would like to get COVERSONG changed, you know where the talk page for it is, but you had better understand the terms and not bring your own to the table. Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:42, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

Access-dates

Hello. Please do not change other users' access-dates unless they are blatantly incorrect, like an impossible date or the wrong year (e.g. months, weeks or days ago). I am sure you are aware that other users live in different time zones to wherever you live, so therefore you had no reason to change the access-dates for charts you did not add to/change anything about on Pop Drunk Snot Bread. Secondly, you updated a peak on Obsidian (Northlane album). You had just demonstrated you know to update access-dates so please remember to do so everywhere. Thank you. Ss112 19:09, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

I need your opinion

I apologize that you're involved with all the genre drama going on at Drive (Incubus song) and Butterfly (Crazy Town song), but now I think we might have a bigger problem on the former article. Does this look like suckpuppet behavior to you? (1, 2) I was going to file a sock report, but this evidence doesn't look irrefutable yet, even if they mentioned "Butterfly" on the latter edit summary. What do you think? ResPM (T🔈🎵C) 11:23, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

Hi, I will admit that sockpuppeting could be a possibility in that case. I also acknowledge that most people who WP:GWAR either have no user page for their account or are just a straight-up IP address trying to remove stuff they blatantly disagree with. That sort of behaviour isn't new to me from what I've seen.

... On further inspection, I notice that on revision [12] by IP 178.176.219.45 and user SlamDunk1997 on revision [13] both cite WP:Extraordinary and WP:Bold which indicates that this person is familiar with these guidelines and try to use them as a crutch to justify removing reliably sourced genres, which I heavily disagree with. This behaviour is suspicious to me, for which I am convinced both are the same person. I however am not so sure about SlytheWarrior's edit on 10 May 2022 which I feel is more likely to be a different person, though I could be wrong about this. I've had a look at contributions for SlytheWarrior and have noticed a pattern of removing content related to nu metal and have now gone ahead and removed nu metal as a genre at "Butterfly", though I previously used that as an example in my edit summary which they have gone and removed that as a result. I will apply for page protection on "Drive" as this is needed with all this vandalism and if you can report a suspected sock puppet would be a good idea. Rockmusicfanatic20 (talk) 16:17, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

I have to intervene: even though our edits are similar, I have nothing to do with SlytheWarrior, so a report would be an unfair decision. Thank you. SlamDunk1997 (talk) 16:59, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

I'll have to take this user's word for it now, but the next time I see wordy edit summary attributed to a third registered user on one of these pages, I may take action. This is starting to get out of hand. ResPM (T🔈🎵C) 17:19, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

Your comments to another editor on How to Let Go

Regarding this, directed at @Lk95:, the Official Charts Company publishes an article around 45 minutes earlier on their website containing the debuts in the top 40 of the UK Albums Chart. That's where Lk95 got it from. He wasn't "assuming". Was it properly sourced? No, but he wasn't assuming either. You might want to familiarise yourself with how the OCC updates and when before claiming somebody's being "bold in assuming" something. Thanks. Ss112 16:55, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

Hi, I'm aware of how the Official Charts update. I follow them every week. I didn't see the article when I saw when that user added it and I just thought they were assuming it considering I knew the charts didn't update until 17:45 GMT/BST. I just didn't think about the Official Charts article to be honest but I prefer to wait until the full charts update comes out before adding peaks into articles. Thanks. Rockmusicfanatic20 (talk) 17:48, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

Chart positions that are not final are not added to articles

Edits adding charts like this are pointless when it will just be replaced when the final chart comes out. If it's not where the song will end up (because it never is the final chart peak), this doesn't tell readers anything meaningful. For the same reason while the US Rolling Stone Top 100 songs chart was running we did not add it before it was "final" (WP:RSCHART), the same logic applies here. Thank you. Ss112 01:39, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

For the record, using this didn't "show up in the categories". It's just that the singlechart usage tracking (administrative) category for that template hasn't been created yet and made invisible like most tracking categories that do not show up on actual articles. The template still worked and showed up correctly. Templates are far more convenient than using manual links because if (which you might be aware has already happened multiple times) Billboard (or any other site) changes their URLs again, changing the coding of the template to the new URL fixes all the links on articles that use it instead of getting a bot to fix all the manual citations, which is more laborious as it needs to be organised and programmed. You not being familiar with templates or whatever the issue is doesn't mean the "traditional way" is better. Ss112 00:52, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

It did show up in the categories after I made my initial edit. It showed publicly here in the category section and looked horrible as a result. It shouldn't display like that there so I opted to then use the other (my preferred) method of adding charting positions, to resolve the issue that arose from me using the chart template. I acknowledge and understand why the templates are used but I'm not going to say which way of adding chart positions is better, but I know where my preferences lie.

To address the previous edit on me using the chart update, I'll happily own up to that and admit that it was a mistake for me to add the Singles Chart Update before the fully published weekly update was released. It was actually rather hypocritical on my part in regards to my response to you in the section above on not adding the positions until the charts have been weekly updated fully at 17:45 GMT/BST on Friday. Sorry for any headaches caused. Rockmusicfanatic20 (talk) 02:16, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

That's not the template "showing up in the categories". I just explained what it was to you: The tracking category for the use of that template does not exist yet. Also, if you have an issue with WP:USCHARTS, the protocol is not to be reverting me and having an argument about it in the edit summary of a rock song article. That doesn't change anything. Follow WP:BRD and take it to Wikipedia talk:Record charts about how a song charting on Rock & Alternative Airplay shouldn't exclude the Hot Hard Rock Songs chart. But at present it does. You've shown you aren't exactly the most well versed on charts thus far, so your idea of which chart tracks what doesn't hold much weight to me, to be quite frank. Either way: Don't edit war. Go discuss it with the editors who made the guideline. Thank you. As for you preferring manual citations, that's great, but if I come across said manual ciations on articles for albums that have charted on the UK charts, I'll be changing them to templates for future convenience as I've been doing the past few weeks. Ss112 02:21, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

The explanation on the template and tracking categories is honestly quite confusing to me, but more likely to be some level of ignorance on my part. I don't like edit wars, I want them to be avoided at all costs. I was not trying to engage in an edit war on "The Foundations of Decay" but rather just reverted once and explained my rationale, which I was sure you would understand what I was trying to say about it. If you took any issue up with that, I would just respect it. Now it appears that other peaks on Billboard have updated regarding Digital Song Sales and Bubbling Under. Though I've since had a look and it appears that the song has still not charted on the Hot Rock & Alternative Songs chart, which I would still use Hot Hard Rock Songs as the peak but I won't include it now out of respect for your removal. Though, when I see the flaw in a guideline on this site and I will ignore it when I think it doesn't make sense for one reason or another, such as one chart being added shouldn't exclude another peak based on different methodology metrics used. Unless I'm interpreting this rule wrongly, but if I feel I'm doing this out of improving the article quality, despite it not being in accordance to a guideline. Would WP:IAR be allowed in instances like this? Rockmusicfanatic20 (talk) 03:02, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

I don't think this is a big enough issue to invoke IAR over. Even though the Rock & Alternative Songs chart data is now available and the song's charted on it, I believe the reason we exclude the Hot Hard Rock Songs chart when a song has charted on the Rock & Alternative Airplay chart is because most of those charts listed at WP:USCHARTS, including the Hot Hard Rock Songs chart, include airplay data (per the chart's page on Billboard, if you hover over the i, it states the chart includes "radio airplay audience impressions based on monitored airplay"), so if a song has charted on a bigger overall metric (Rock & Alternative charts incorporating all songs considered rock, hard rock and/or alternative by Billboard), we exclude the genre-specific charts. Ss112 08:36, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

Eponymous

Please don't add "eponymous" to an album article if the title of the album and the name of the artist(s) are in the first sentence. The issue isn't whether it's eponymous. The problem is that it is redundant and very bad writing. "Eponymous" means "named for". It's unnecessary to say "Korn is an album named for Korn by Korn". Adding it just creates a problem that others have to fix. I understand that it is often added to articles, but most of the time it is done incorrectly and then copied from one article to another. Over a period of years I have removed it from hundreds of album articles. So far, only you and two other editors have reverted it. And all three have been immediately reverted back by another editor. Several editors have thanked me, including two on my talk page, which you can see now if you look. Please don't revert again before carefully reading WP:BRD. When someone removes something from an article for good reason that is explained in an edit summary, it is inappropriate for you to revert it back without first discussing and getting consensus on the article's talk page. That is disruptive editing. If it happens repeatedly it can result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Sundayclose (talk) 13:44, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

I was just about to leave a message on @Drmies: talk page before you left a message on my talk page about this, so I've just gone ahead and tagged them into this here as well. I've gone into extensive viewpoints in the past to hammer in my own argument to try to get them across, but often get glimmered over in various points and details that fall on deaf ears so I'll counter each of your points that you have brought up as concisely as I can.

• Argument 1 - "Eponymous" means "named for"'

My Counterargument: Eponymous has two technical definitions, being named for something ((of a person) giving their name to something) and being named after something ((of a thing) named after a particular person or group.) Korn's debut is being named after the band and not being named for the band. It would be poorly written if we used the wrong definition of the word, sure. But in the case here, the album is named after the band. I wrote this with the knowledge that the album is named after the group.

• Argument 2 - It's unnecessary.

My Counterargument: The reader can figure this detail out by figuring it out themselves but that doesn't mean it shouldn't be included. They absolutely can but I'd argue it's still a detail that is worth pointing out. We could leave the readers to try to figure out what number album it is (third, fourth, eighth or the debut), but it's a lot easier for this to be stated so the readers don't have to work things out themselves by counting the number of albums a band/artist has released. These are still details that we should let the reader know what they are. Why do new articles have titles for the chart tables to specify they are weekly or yearly charts or certifications for the record? It's unnecessary, but that doesn't mean it isn't worth pointing out and doesn't mean it's not relevant information either. It's still relevant information. If the information is relevant, keep it. They included that in for making it look more presentable. I believe this is the same for when there's an eponymous album, presentation of the sentence and structure also matters. It's still relevant information whether it's unnecessary or not, it's not irrelevant. Taking it out to me is as pointless as adding it (if that's also part of your argument.)

• Argument 3 - Adding it just creates a problem that others have to fix.

My counterargument: How? Adding it doesn't create a problem. Removing it, however, does create a problem because that as a result is what causes the issue at play. It also astounds me how one word being included gets under the skin of editors such as yourself. If people feel like it should be included, then more likely than not, that means that information should be included. I also don't understand this mentality of removing something from an article if it adds to it. If something adds something to an article, then it shouldn't be removed from it.

I would also like to add that combatting arguments with "these amount of people agree with my edits" is a poor way to argue your points, as it is often used to try to invalidate other people's arguments. This is also a bad precedent to set as it encourages mob mentality. I will agree that we shouldn't use "self titled" for albums as it is often a very half-arsed and lazy way of saying eponymous, which is the more appropriate word to use. If it's not written correctly, correct it, don't remove it. I would like you to consider everything I've just said before going ahead and removing these from other articles without thinking about this in future. Thank you. Have a good day. Rockmusicfanatic20 (talk) 14:51, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

Yo, found this discussion based on your comment on Sundayclose's talk page.

Could you provide an example of a use of "eponymous" that you think is helpful to the reader? It would be easier to assess your arguments that way. Thanks. Popcornfud (talk) 15:02, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

I will echo Popcornfud's request. I'll also briefly comment that, despite all of your points, they do not resolve the issue that use of the words "eponymous" or "self-titled" is entirely redundant, which is very poor writing. And I'm certainly not the only editor who feels this way. The very few instances of out of hundreds in which I have been reverted were immediately restored by other editors. If you feel strongly that either term should be in an album article, feel free to seek support on the talk pages for those albums. I'll also point out that there are a few instances in which the terms are appropriate. For example, if an article states, "After a long hiatus, Band XYZ released their eponymous album in 2022". But in that case the use is not redundant because the name of the album is not explicitly stated but implied by the term "eponymous". All of my removals of the terms have been when there is redundancy because the names of both the artist and the album are included, rendering "eponymous" needlessly redundant. If we were reading a reputable encyclopedia with editorial oversight, such as Britannica, such redundancy would be removed before it was included in the article. Thanks for your comments, but I don't see any convincing argument that you have presented that would justify that redundancy, but I'm happy to discuss further. Any further discussion needs to be on the album article's talk page so the entire Wikipedia community can see it. Thanks. Sundayclose (talk) 15:53, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

Hi @Sundayclose: and @Popcornfud:. Sorry for this to be a really late reply, I've been really busy and haven't had much time to think about this at all. After sitting down about how it could be implemented, this is what I've come up with. Baring in mind, this definition of eponymous is being named after something, not for something. Google lists two different definitions for the word, I will be using the former in these examples, not the latter. I will provide the summary for three eponymous releases: Korn, Slipknot and Paramore and implement them in different ways each time. Instead of the standard, "Korn (printed and stylized as KoЯn) is the eponymous debut studio album by American nu metal band Korn." How about...

Idea 1 - "Korn (printed and stylized as KoЯn) is the debut studio album by American nu metal band Korn. The eponymous album was released on October 11, 1994, through Immortal/Epic Records."

Idea 2 - "Slipknot is the debut studio album by the American heavy metal band Slipknot. It was released on June 29, 1999 by Roadrunner Records, following a demo containing a few of the songs which had previously been released in 1998. The eponymous album was later reissued in December 1999 with a slightly-altered track listing and mastering as the result of a lawsuit."

Idea 3 - "Paramore is the fourth studio album by American rock band Paramore. It was released on April 5, 2013, through Fueled by Ramen as a follow-up to Brand New Eyes (2009). Recorded between April and November 2012, the eponymous album was described by the band as being a "statement" and a reintroduction of the band to the world and to themselves."

The main idea is to not use "eponymous" in the opening sentence, but rather use the word at the first opportunity where it's more appropriate. To further reiterate my point, using it in the opening sentence will feel more forced in rather than being in a fluidly written sentence. Using eponymous in the articles isn't redundant, but rather it's where we use it to where it could be considered redundant. These general ideas are here for just that. Let me know what you think. --Rockmusicfanatic20 (talk) 16:41, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, but I'm afraid in every example of "eponymous" there I only see redundant words.

1: "Korn (printed and stylized as KoЯn) is the debut studio album by American nu metal band Korn. The eponymous album It was released on October 11, 1994, through Immortal/Epic Records."

2: "Slipknot is the debut studio album by the American heavy metal band Slipknot. It was released on June 29, 1999 by Roadrunner Records, following a demo containing a few of the songs which had previously been released in 1998. The eponymous album was later reissued in December 1999 with a slightly-altered track listing and mastering as the result of a lawsuit."

3: "Paramore is the fourth studio album by American rock band Paramore. It was released on April 5, 2013, through Fueled by Ramen as a follow-up to Brand New Eyes (2009). Recorded between April and November 2012, the eponymous album it was described by the band as being a "statement" and a reintroduction of the band to the world and to themselves."

(There are other ways that the copy in these examples could be improved, but I'm keeping it focused to the "eponymous" issue here.) Popcornfud (talk) 16:48, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

I agree completely with Popcornfud. The idea that "eponymous" is not in the first sentence misses the real problem. The problem is redundancy, whether the redundancy is in the first sentence or the second sentence. If the meaning can be understood without use of "eponymous" (as is the case in all your examples), it is entirely unnecessary. The entire article is about the album, so eponymous isn't necessary anywhere in the article. If the article is about the artist instead of the album, use of the word might be appropriate. Look at the example that I gave you earlier. If the article is about Band XYZ, then an appropriate use of the word might be, "After a long hiatus, Band XYZ released their eponymous album in 2022". There is no redundancy because the album is not named, and instead is implied by the use of "eponymous". On the other hand, it would be redundant to say, "After a long hiatus, Band XYZ released their eponymous album, Band XYZ, in 2022". "Eponymous" and "Band XYZ" refer to the same thing, thus are redundant. Sundayclose (talk) 20:52, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

Table captions are required on Wikipedia

Hello. Please don't remove table captions, as you did at Chop Suey! (song). I didn't add them to this article, but they have been required on Wikipedia for the last two years per MOS:TABLECAPTION, as well as a consensus that was reached at an RfC at WT:ACCESS in 2020, both of which are part of Wikimedia's policy on WP:ACCESSIBILITY. Even where they are considered redundant for readers who are not visually impaired. Thank you. Ss112 23:00, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

Hi Ss112, I generally don't remove table captions. If you notice, I also add them if you see me add chart sections to newer songs and albums for their articles. I do find them to be completely pointless and redundant but they give new song/album articles from 2010 and onwards, a distinctly modern look and presentation compared to older song articles and that is what I feel separates them. It's more of a presentation thing for a modern look and that's always how I've understood it. While being pointless and redundant, I generally don't remove them except for when I feel they look out of place for chart templates that are a lot older on song/album articles that are over a specific age as there isn't a difference template-wise at that point otherwise. This is just the way I see it. Thanks. --Rockmusicfanatic20 (talk) 00:22, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:SigridxBMTH - Bad Life.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:SigridxBMTH - Bad Life.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:47, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

YouTube view counts

Hi, the view counts from music videos are considered a trivial detail that is not of encyclopedic value. You will not find them in any of the featured articles about songs on Wikipedia. This kind of detail is only notable if the video breaks some record, after which reliable secondary sources report on it. Since the view-count reflected on YouTube will always increase, the one add you add to the article will quickly become outdated, so it can not be sourced to it. Thank you for your contributions but please take note of this. Regards.--NØ 13:44, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

And regarding this type of trivia being against site guidelines, you can see WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Please cease these additions immediately.--NØ 14:09, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

Hi @MaranoFan:, thank you for your comments. First off, I have to say about the hundreds of articles I've seen that have the music video views recorded in their respective music video sections in all categories of standards on Wikipedia. This isn't out of the ordinary and is usually very common. Most editors, some moderators included have no issue with them being added and/or updated. It's only usually a certain few who are against the inclusion of music video views.

No one adds the specific amount of views to the nearest 100. This will be outdated within mere days, hours or even minutes for some videos making it this specific to be rather pointless. To that extent, I would agree with you. However, I always round to the nearest logical figure if you care to look at my history (usually to the nearest 5 or 10 million when it comes to hundreds of millions of views). Very rarely do I update it when the video collects one million views within a collective timeframe. You make a case for it just being a "trivial detail" but the definition for trivial per google says "of little value or importance." View counts are not of little value, labels always consider numbers and chart positions as well as streams and plays on YouTube. These matter to artists and bands also to appeal to a mainstream crowd. Any amount is of importance to them in the millions, no matter how many watch the music video. Even the fans find it to be meaningful and significant, especially when they reach new milestones, for example the first million, 2 million, 5 million, 10 million, 50 million, 100 million etc. It has a lot of value and the fact that you can consider that to be trivial is nonsensical, arguing it does just completely devalues its importance. Thus, it's an important detail to mention in each article and due to it being rounded to a certain figure, it won't be required to be updated every few days but rather every few months.

Okay, so maybe doing it simply "As of September 2022, the song has 250 million views on YouTube" is not that helpful as it doesn't look comprehensive enough to include but it can be written in a way to where this information isn't left out. It can be written in a helpful encyclopedic way since it holds value, and unlike what you directed me to...

This is also NOT an "excessive listing of unexplained statistics" so it doesn't apply to these indiscriminate rules. One, it's not excessive. Excessive would be listing it to the very last view, which it is not. This lists it to the nearest appropriate million, which is not excessive. It's also not "unexplained" as it is already explained by the context of the section it's in. It would be unexplained if it were in the composition or commercial performance section for example, but it isn't. Maybe it could be structured and worded better which feels more fitting for the section, fair enough. I can do that and will do that in the future and I always will do this because it always adds valuable information to the music video section on their respective pages and also adds extra significance when third-party sites note a milestone of a billion views on YouTube. It adds new substance to the section to make it feel more noteworthy of reading.

This discussion has made me revise my thoughts on how to write these in future to make it fairer and look more encyclopedic as a result of a compromise that we can both find. As a result, we both want to do the best to add new meaningful information to Wikipedia and I respect that you are also trying to regulate what's noteworthy. I will add the information back to "Deja Vu" but will only do so under the revised version. Thank you. Rockmusicfanatic20 (talk) 16:36, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

I would also like to acknowledge your edit summary which I initially forgot to mention in my extensive response. I never "ignored" the note you put in, but rather challenged it by explaining my own rationale, including acknowledging it in my own edit summary. I could also say you ignored what I said from when I asked you not to remove what I added back in but did so anyway. That is a big double-edged sword. Me challenging an edit is not "edit warring", it is only considered so when it uglily takes up the page history so that language isn't practical or appropriate in these circumstances. Please also consider that in future when dealing with users in these similar circumstances. Thanks. Rockmusicfanatic20 (talk) 16:49, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

Please summarise your arguments more briefly when replying to this. Your take that this type of statistic adds "new substance to the section to make it feel more noteworthy of reading" is entirely subjective and one I and countless other editors disagree with. The guideline I linked does not fit this particular situation to a T but the part about statistics needing to be put into context using third-party sources applies here. If you cite Billboard for example, and say "[XYZ song] received 290 million views, the tenth-most among female artists in 2021", this statistic becomes relevant and adds value to the reader's understanding. However, blanket stating "[XYZ] has 290 million views on YouTube" does not add anything to the reader's understanding as there is nothing to put that number into context. The way you are mass-adding it to articles about songs that you like comes across as spammy. No featured article on Wikipedia is incorporating this statistic without third-party sourcing and I challenge you to produce one example if that isn't the case. Please refrain from further destabilising the "Deja Vu" article which is a current candidate for that status, or I will have to seek administrator help the next time you do so anyway while ignoring the note.--NØ 17:08, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Coldrain - Fiction.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Coldrain - Fiction.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:08, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

Sid Wilson

Hi RMF,

I have removed your addition of Sid Wilson's birth date. The blog post given cites Kelly Osbourne's Instagram post as proof of birthday. Per WP:SOCIALMEDIA, self-published sources may not be used if they contain claims about third parties. If you can find an Instagram post made by Wilson himself citing his birthday, for example, feel free to add it. Rift (talk) 19:58, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

November 2022

Your recent editing history at Bring Me to Life shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war; read about how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Binksternet (talk) 18:23, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

My edits on "Bring Me to Life" and "My Immortal" were never about changing content to how I think it should be. If you noticed and read my edit summaries, you would know I'm the one trying to discourage an edit war by asking people to NOT remove sourced genres. Another editor fairly added it in, not me, I'm just defending that addition because some may see it as controversial. However, this is something you and other editors and trying to engage in and start by removing valid and sourced content. I'm the one to ask people to stop removing perfectly validated and reliably sourced genres. I don't even personally agree with the emo label for the genre. But do I think it should be removed? No, that's because that then becomes WP:GWARRIOR which you yourself have heavily condemned IP's from doing on this site in the past, which makes it incredibly hypocritical that you support someone like Lapadite in this behaviour and come up with flawed excuses to defend those actions just because they are another respected editor who has wrote featured articles. They are the ones removing sourced and valid content, not me. At least it should be in the composition section if it's not included in the infobox, because that's just undermining and discrediting a fairly added article which is a standard that you of anyone on this website should adhere considering your likeliness and influence on other editors on what standards (or double standards in this case) are acceptable or not. Rockmusicfanatic20 (talk) 19:09, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

Your genre warring

You've been warned and reverted multiple times for WP:GWAR and not seeking consensus on these articles (that I'm aware of). If you continue genre warring, edit warring, and violating other WP policies and guidelines, such as WP:ONUS and WP:CONSENSUS, it will be reported to WP:ANI. Lapadite (talk) 03:00, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

MY genre warring? Do not get this twisted and turn this on me now by trying to gaslight the situation. This has been the argument I've used the whole time for YOUR genre warring. A genre warrior is someone who adds a genre with no source or reference or someone who removes a genre and its source just because they don't like it. I have done NEITHER of those in this situation. I've repeatedly asked you to stop reverting my edits of adding this genre with its source back in. As you can see above, I've already complained about your behaviour. It was a genre that was perfectly well-cited on both occasions. I wasn't even the person who initially added these genres in, I don't even agree with the addition of it, but what I will do is DEFEND the person's addition of the genre because it should be protected against other people trying to remove them based on their own personal feelings because it goes against the narrative that they want to try to portray in the article.

In the end, I got so fed up to the point where I didn't even add the genre of emo (and alternative rock which was also sourced) back into the infobox, instead just putting the genre with its respective source back in the composition section because it's clearly up for debate in the infobox, but surely perfectly reasonably sourced genres can just be left in the composition section as a fair compromise? You have clearly demonstrated in your attitude here with your reverts a few minutes ago that you cannot even accept a simple COMPROMISE because you'd rather discriminate and remove valid information even when you don't like it. This is a poor standard for an editor that should be held up high in regard like yourself. You do not realise how much of a dangerous precedent you are trying to portray on Wikipedia with your behaviours and attitude. Before you even attempt to change your tune to the edit warring now, because I know you will. I was the one asking people not to revert edits, but it persisted anyway. I wasn't even the one to start up an edit war, but you and Binksternet kept engaging in it and I tried to de-escalate it by explaining in detail and countering each new silly excuse for removing perfectly sourced valid information as well as concluding my summaries by asking you to not revert the edits. Ask me this, why is it not okay for random IP's to remove sourced genres but it's perfectly okay when you do it? It's a disgusting double standard and the WP:GENREWARRIOR rule is NOT excluded to you. If you admit to your double standards and stop doing it, then I'll be happy for us to just call a truce if you can accept the proposed compromise so I won't have to go to the WP:ANI and report you for this. I do not want this situation to further escalate. Thank you. Rockmusicfanatic20 (talk) 03:57, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

Familiarize yourself with WP's policies and guidelines, or stop editing in disregard of them. I don't know if there is a WP:competence issue here or general WP:DISRUPTIVE tendencies. If you didn't get it or care to listen to what was stated in at least 5 edit summaries between myself and user:Binksternet, for the last time: Read WP:ONUS and WP:CONSENSUS – You need to seek CONSENSUS to add the disputed label, a style that is an outlier among reputable sources and not musically representative of the songs as per the musical descriptions from the majority of reliable sources. If a media article listed either song among their "best progressive metal songs", it would also not be included in their WP article as this is also an outlier; WP:FRINGE, WP:UNDUE. --Lapadite (talk) 05:25, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

OrphanReferenceFixer: Help on reversion

Hi there! I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. Recently, you reverted my fix to Halestorm discography.

If you did this because the references should be removed from the article, you have misunderstood the situation. Most likely, the article originally contained both <ref name="foo">...</ref> and one or more <ref name="foo"/> referring to it. Someone then removed the <ref name="foo">...</ref> but left the <ref name="foo"/>, which results in a in the article. I replaced one of the remaining <ref name="foo"/> with a copy of the <ref name="foo">...</ref>; I did not re-insert the reference to where it was deleted, I just replaced one of the remaining instances. What you need to do to fix it is to make sure you remove all instances of the named reference so as to not leave any .

If you reverted because I made an actual mistake, please be sure to also correct any reference errors in the page so I won't come back and make the same mistake again. Also, please post an error report at User talk:AnomieBOT so my operator can fix me! If the error is so urgent that I need to be stopped, also post a message at User:AnomieBOT/shutoff/OrphanReferenceFixer. Thanks! AnomieBOT⚡ 02:46, 16 November 2022 (UTC) If you do not wish to receive this message in the future, add {{bots|optout=AnomieBOT-OrphanReferenceFixer}} to your talk page.

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed 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 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:34, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Year-end charts

Hello. Please be aware that WP:USCHARTS applies to all types of charts, weekly and year-end charts. If a song did not chart on the year-end Hot Rock & Alternative Songs and Rock Airplay charts, only then can the other year-end rock charts can be added. Also, if the charts are already linked in the weekly charts section directly across/above, the charts should not be linked again. Please also decapitalise any all-caps words in citation titles. Thanks. Ss112 07:23, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

Still using flatlists

Hello. I'm confused as to why as recently as last month you were still changing/using hardcoded flatlists in the infobox on articles. Bowling is life informed you in July of last year that interpuncts display correctly on mobile now (which I pushed for after Bowling is life reverted me on the issue, by the way, so it was a little funny you were manually reverting me on Post Human: Survival Horror when I asked for the change), so if that was your initial reason, you can see for yourself they display correctly on mobile now and there is no need to hardcode list formatting in the infoboxes any longer. Simply listing with bullet points displays correctly in most parameters. Thanks. Ss112 12:04, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

Hi Ss112, it's great that this issue has now been addressed; and you are completely right, but in more recent times I've just been doing it out of force of habit if I'm being honest. It's now about breaking those habits and becoming a better editor this year. I hope you had a good new year; I'm looking forward to editing with you in this new year of 2023. Rockmusicfanatic20 (talk) 18:03, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

Billboard Japan is not Billboard and linking redirects

Hello. Regarding this edit (and the subsequent one you made) to This Is Why, Billboard Japan is not the same as Billboard. By piping the link to just say Billboard, you're implying it's the American publisher when it is not so please don't do this. Also, there are plenty of redirects for component album charts. It's not helpful to have a link pointing to Billboard Japan Hot Albums when it doesn't have an article, nor point the Oricon rock and international charts to just the Oricon Albums Chart article, which doesn't have any information about those charts. This is why linking component charts is not common practice. Thanks. Ss112 11:17, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

Hi again, thank you for your comments. However, I want to point out that Billboard, while American based is an international organisation, of which Billboard Japan is the same company, (in name, branding and purpose) of the same conglomerate targeted specifically for the Japanese population. For example, MTV and Rolling Stone which both have UK branches from the same company, this is no different and a lot of people would assume that Billboard is not just an American thing when they see that they all cover chart positions in the same company for Japan, Vietnam, Taiwan etc. Even the Paramore Billboard page has countries not based in North America covered in their chart positions (Japan, Germany, Australia and the UK) even though they all have their own designated charting company for their respective region.

Regarding hyperlinks, I would also like to point out that the Hot Hard Rock Songs link does not have an article. Yet, for where it's needed by not having charted on the Hot Rock & Alternative Songs chart, that is always linked from where I've been, which in my view, would make it a double standard for that to apply for US Billboard charts but not apply for Japanese Billboard charts when these links do exist. It is the main Billboard Japanese chart for album sales/units after all. Perhaps you are right about it in the case of linking the Oricon Albums Chart for Rock and Western charts as there isn't any information there as the links do not exist in that regard, but I did so out of consistency, which I'm also vocal about Wikipedia lacking at times. It's not up to me to create chart articles for main charts such as the Hot Hard Rock Songs and Japan Hot Albums chart but those links do exist and should be used where applicable. Rockmusicfanatic20 (talk) 14:25, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

It is different. It is a separate website we are citing and this piping is something I have seen only you introduce. The Hot Albums chart is not covered on Billboard's main website. You'll also note Billboard does not have German, Australian or UK sites whereas billboard-japan.com is a website so this is not a comparable situation. Billboard Japan should not be piped to just say Billboard; it's not done elsewhere and I don't know why you're trying to preserve a practice only you have engaged in. It appears there is now multiple editors who disagree with your practice, hence why I brought up.

Then you shouldn't be linking Hot Hard Rock Songs where it is included either. I never insinuated it was "up to you" to create articles on the charts. To clarify, I didn't mean you linked redirects of these Japanese charts, you just piped them to Oricon Albums Chart, which is not helpful anyway because if those component charts had articles created on them you weren't linking to those redirects (whether they exist or not) regardless. Ss112 01:45, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

Rockmusicfanatic20, I asked you in February if you could not pipe Billboard Japan to Billboard. You've done it again here. Please stop doing this, it implies the American Billboard outlet publishes the Japanese albums chart and it doesn't. Ss112 07:06, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

Hi Ss112, I was not piping it to Billboard, the link I provided went to Billboard Japan, the sister organisation of Billboard, of which I understand now as you stated in your previous comments. I would like to clarify that this was not to pipe another link, but the fact it was a Japanese chart that was already stated. I found it redundant to include Japan in that again. We wouldn't say "Chinese Album Sales (Billboard China)" or "US Top Alternative Albums (Billboard North America)" so I don't see why a country which has already been stated in its row to be said again, it feels pointless. Was just hoping to clear that up with you, thanks. Rockmusicfanatic20 (talk) 19:42, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

Certifications without peaks

I am not going to fight over this, since I don't care enough, but you should know that you are editing against consensus. WP:DISCOGSTYLE represents the community consensus and it says very clearly here: we want to list only those certifications which were earned in the countries for which we're showing chart peaks.. This makes perfect sence since otherwise the discographies will go out of hand - there are songs and albums with dozens of certifications - you will always see just the ones for which there are peaks. So know that you are choosing to go against the community, and that you are doing so knowingly. Have fun editing. --Muhandes (talk) 20:21, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

Hi Muhanes, thanks for talking to me about this. Though, I will have to say that the guidelines you refer me to, the very first example shown is the PMB Brazilian certification, of which there are chart peaks for that country, especially in many newer articles. However, if you were referring to the discography tables rather than song articles, then I will agree to an extent as if all the peaks in the tables have certifications then it would be overkill to include others, but when the showcased peaks don't have most certifications or none to show for it, then it makes no sense whatsoever to not include certifications in regions where the song/album has been certified. If we ignore it at that point, especially if the song/album doesn't have a respective article then we absolutely have to include it as we cannot ignore this information.

In the Babymetal discography page, there is no Australian peak for "Kingslayer" but you didn't remove the ARIA certification but did so for the PMB certification. By your own explanation and logic, you should have removed the ARIA certification but you didn't. This to me shows a bias and a double standard against non-western certification boards. I feel this is wrong and I think you should acknowledge this, and in all honesty, this is discrimination. I'm not going against a "community consensus" to include information for where a song/album has been certified in a certain region. On the Bring Me the Horizon discography page, there were no certifications for "1x1" aside from the PMB one, and you still removed it. Once again, I understand it if all the peaks shown had certifications for the song, but when there are literally NO OTHER certifications for it. It honestly does feel like you are removing this information to harm the article. Please keep this in mind in future, as you can be a better editor than this also and not have any bias of inclusion against the regular certification boards. I hope you can take this on board and see my perspective on this matter, many thanks. Rockmusicfanatic20 (talk) 21:14, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

I am talking about discographies only, that's what WP:DISCOGSTYLE is about. Yes, ARIA should also be removed if there are no peaks, but I believe there were peaks for Australia on the albums table. I'm not sure what bias you are talking about, I have removed RIAA, ARIA and BPI certifications from many discographies. If I didn't it is either because I didn't notice or because there were peaks on another table and there is no clear consensus about that.

Now that I explained the WP:CONSENSUS to you, you have a choice. You can work together with the community on improving Wikipedia or you can continue to blatantly work against the consensus. It's up to you. You can't say you don't know. Muhandes (talk) 16:00, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

YouTube view counts... continued

Hello. I'm writing this message regarding your comments in retaliation to my edits removing the view counts on three articles. I do not recall making any "compromises" with you about what information should be retained in said articles as you stated in all three of your edit summaries,[14][15][16] I was cleaning up a bunch of information that isn't notable enough for article inclusion since it wasn't covered by a WP:SECONDARY source, which WP:INDISCRIMINATE clearly states "To provide encyclopedic value, data should be put in context with explanations referenced to independent sources." which also applies to view counts. This is not a matter of making compromises, if it goes against guidelines, it's not suitable for notation. Furthermore, direct links to YouTube cannot be used as a source as it does not explain how it is a significant milestone; the type of sources that should be used are music press articles with titles such as "X song has reached X views on YouTube". Just because something is true, it doesn't automatically make it significant enough to be noted in an encyclopedic article.

Also, regarding another comment you made about these view counts being "significant" for them, the whole INDISCRIMINATE rule applies to all bands, so regardless of whether you think this doesn't apply exclusively to bands that you like, your preference is irrelevant if it is not in compliance with the guidelines. Put simply, I'm on board with what User:MaranoFan stated a few discussions above "Inserting "[XYZ] has 290 million views on YouTube" does not add anything to the reader's understanding as there is nothing to put that number into context." along with everything else he said about your opinion on what view count is considered "significant"; If I'm being honest, I don't know what else to tell you since he has gone over every single reason as to why your editing style is not acceptable. And side note: I will continue to remove information that does not meet the notability guidelines in articles if I come across it. Quite frankly, I (and numerous others) are getting sick and tired of having to explain why your edits are not complicit with Wikipedia's guidelines. If you continue editing in a way that only you seem to think is acceptable and work against the guidelines, I will take up a discussion at the noticeboard. Magatta (talk) 19:02, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

Hi Magatta, Thank you for your comments. I can see you've pointed out MaranoFan's previous discussion/argument. On review of that, I will say I articulated my argument poorly on inclusion. However, on close inspection of the guidelines again, I have determined that YouTube views are absolutely NOT against the guidelines. Arguments will be provided, but it's also a shame how you have gone back on a previously compromised agreement about YouTube views.

In January 2022, you previously removed music video views from all Bring Me The Horizon articles, where you argued at the time: "music video should have at least over 250 million views in order for such information to be noted in articles." I combatted this by allowing you to remove all the others except "Throne" and "Drown" at the time. My argument for those two is in response to the milestone of information to be included in these articles would be the 100 million benchmark which I explicitly made clear in both those articles because you argued notability. [17] [18] I respected the other removals you made, as I never added the others back. You clearly accepted this as a compromise as you went to editing those articles afterwards while NOT removing the music video views, even though you knew I added them back in. [19] [20] Of which you absolutely cannot claim now that you had no knowledge of that or didn't notice it, as you evidently did. When "Can You Feel My Heart" reached 100 million views and I added it, someone altered it with a false amount of views and you CORRECTED it. [21] So for you to now go back on this is violating said compromise, of which I'm very disappointed about as we were both evidently in agreement and satisfaction of it as an accepted compromise. You cannot claim that you didn't as the evidence of that is there.

Though I do know viewpoints can change over time, so while your opinion may have changed and mine has also changed somewhat, the discussion with MaranoFan has made me think about the encyclopedic value and presentation better, as I no longer blanket state and provide direct YouTube citations to them instead which strengthens their position and place in the music video sections. While it is often stated that views have to be to a reliably secondary source, which is great on top of the acceptable primary source that YouTube is in this scenario. WP:PRIMARY states that a primary source may be used on Wikipedia ONLY "to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge." To state the YouTube views "As of XYZ, the music video for "ABC" has over DEF views on YouTube" does exactly this, it's a straightforward descriptive statement of a fact that can easily be verified, and no one does this by making any further knowledge than anything which is already provided.

For context, it absolutely works in an encyclopedic way as further secondary sources for stating a song has reached a milestone, this can further contextualise how many views it has had and will further gain only by updating it to a rounded view count every few months, as updating it by every million is absurd if it's a music video with a high view count. You may argue the WP:INDISCRIMINATE guideline again, but the guideline specifically states "Statistics that lack context or explanation can reduce readability and may be confusing... articles with statistics should include explanatory text providing context." YouTube view counts are statistics, but they absolutely provide context to the sections they are in. The data provides text with the additional context of how it is relevant to the music video in question as it showcases the popularity of the song over the years and how it fares in current-day YouTube. I refuse to believe that no one will not wonder that when reading the article and the music video section. It provides additional weight to the section, and anything which is relevant should absolutely be included.

Nothing on this website specifically states against the inclusion of YouTube views, as primary sources are allowed for circumstances like these and is also a statistic with context, it absolutely doesn't NOT have any context as it clearly does by it being demonstrated. However, I see a bunch of editors including YouTube views in articles which clearly shows that people feel it should be included. If the popularity of including certain information, and can be written in an encyclopedic way shows, I think it's ludicrous to ignore it. All the evidence I show with these guidelines allows for nuance, meaning it is up to interpretation whether you think something violates guidelines. I personally think it doesn't, maybe that's down to guidelines that contradict each other, so, in this case, I would argue to invoke WP:IAR and WP:Compromise, otherwise this comes down to a complex way of saying WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT for the sake of removing it from my perspective.

I feel let down that you feel I'm only editing in the way I see fit, and I apologise if I have ever come across that way. I only want to do what everyone else wants to do, improve and add to articles on this website, but I don't see what good that does when it involves removing valuable information that provides context for statistics that apply to its designated section. As for the views not violating guidelines, this compromise can still apply so I will add them back. However, in future, they will be up for discussion if anyone wants to bring them up in any other articles other than the ones we've just discussed. Many thanks, I look forward to editing with you again after this month-long hiatus that I just had. Kind regards. Rockmusicfanatic20 (talk) 22:14, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

All I'm going to say is unless I have explicitly stated that I agree with you to keep the view count (in the guise of "OK we can retain these edits because you made a point about notability"), which I clearly never did, don't make blanket accusations about how I "clearly accepted" your edits or how article content should be retained as a "compromise" without providing clear evidence, in which misinterpreting my previous edits, like you did just now, is not solid, unambiguous evidence. You say you feel "let down", but clearly you have no idea how other editors feel about your editing, hence the numerous discussions on your talk page. I'm merely trying to point out the fact that I conducted further research on the notability of view counts and came to the conclusion that there are only notable if they are covered by an independent source, as I stated in my previous comments. Since no featured song articles contain such information unless it's covered by a independent source, which was also pointed out by MaranoFan, there's no reason why non-featured song articles shouldn't be written in the same standard. Magatta (talk) 18:06, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

You knew I made those edits to put them back in after you removed them. You even corrected someone's false information of views on "Can You Feel My Heart" which I specifically linked to you. You would have removed them again already if there wasn't a compromise proposed and acknowledged. I can't be misinterpreting your edits when there can be no other reasons for you to not remove them after a fact if you didn't accept a compromise. Why didn't you remove them again for a year and a half even though you were acknowledgement of those edits if there wasn't a compromise that you were okay with? It's okay to admit that your views on them being included over time have changed, (of which I speculate as to why you went against it) and so has mine to a degree, especially after discussions with MaranoFan that made me consider these things shouldn't be blanketly stated.

I had a lengthy look at these guidelines and I found inconsistencies that contradicted each other in the guidelines, I don't write the rules so by the guidelines, they are fine for inclusion. You mention featured articles which don't have them included and I would ask... why should they not also include this information? I think they would benefit from having them included! It doesn't detract from the article's quality in the slightest, and I feel this would improve upon that even further.

Others may disagree with my editing and come to me on my talk page, but I also disagree with their editing to varying degrees and I have the right to defend my editing style. I am very aware of how some others might feel about how I edit, but I have grown and matured as an editor a lot over time. I used to get way too emotional and way too defensive when I honestly shouldn't get all worked up about it. The context in which I felt I said I had been "let down" was that because I was disappointed about me recognising a compromise that we had that you broke. Respectfully, that isn't relevant to other discussions on my talk page as they are all contextualised by different scenarios differently. My recent hiatus helped me deal with that about myself. I never like this idea of removing stuff they don't like despite it being referenced, but I do feel there are a lot of experienced editors who are like that. All of us want what is best for Wikipedia and the articles on it, and that is in all of our best interests and we should all try to acknowledge that as such. Will there be destructive vandals? Yes. But they are very few and far in-between. I respect you as an editor, you have done a lot in your spare time that I thank you for. Though, I may not always agree and disagree with your removals/inclusions. Rockmusicfanatic20 (talk) 20:20, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

October 2023

Your recent editing history at Drive (Incubus song) shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war; read about how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Binksternet (talk) 15:35, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

You're the one who actively sought an edit war here and participated in it, while I tried to de-esculate while due process is being carried out, asking you not to revert it. Send the warning of an edit war to your own talk page. Thank you. Rockmusicfanatic20 (talk) 15:42, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Binksternet (talk) 16:02, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

October 2023

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring, as you did at Drive (Incubus song). Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Aoidh (talk) 16:07, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Drive (Incubus song). This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Binksternet (talk) 04:26, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

"You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Drive (Incubus song). This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement."

Are you hearing yourself? You have done exactly this! Instead of continuing in this, just let the RFC play out and let the result of that carry out as it reaches a consensus. I asked you to start the RFC, but you didn't, so I forced my hand to do so. All I get is you not waiting for a consensus to be reached. This is like removing a president from office before an impeachment trial can take place. I would also like for you to see, before you got me an unwarranted block that someone on the talk page said: "I would find the article more interesting and useful if discussion of RS comments of influence and genre were added. Not in the lede and with no info box category were added." This insinuates that they find it hard to vote for what it is they are voting on in the RFC without knowing what it is in the lead infobox in the article, as he clearly doesn't find it helpful. I reverted your edit so I can help these people in their discussion per their request. You got me blocked for that. Also, to note, WP:GWARRIOR states "If a disagreement arises over how a source categorizes an artist, album or song, do not edit war over it. Instead, take the issue to the talk page, and start an RfC, if needed." I have done that, yet you are still removing the content and not letting due process be properly carried out. Please, this removal is harmful and does nothing to help the process. I am perfectly fine with it being removed, but not like this without a consensus as WP:Consensus is important also. Previously citing genre warriors as a consensus is not an appropriate consensus to make. You have an argument that I respect, but experienced users like yourself should not be exempt from these rules. It is not a good precedent to set. Please just let the process carry out first and remove nu metal as a genre if that consensus is made after the RFC conclusion. That is all I'm asking, and I'm asking you to please respect that. Throwing warnings at me, and getting me blocked for trying to keep the peace is not respecting that. Thank you. Rockmusicfanatic20 (talk) 12:45, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 72 hours for edit warring, as you did at Drive (Incubus song). Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Aoidh (talk) 13:10, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

I have blocked you for continuing to edit war after the previous block expired. Even if you think your edits are correct, it is still edit warring to repeatedly revert to your preferred version once it is known that there is a disagreement about the material, especially when WP:ONUS is not met. This edit summary says Removing this only harms that and doesn't let people come to their own opinion first however, that's not how an RfC works and proposed content can be discussed without it actively being included in the article. If necessary to view how it would appear in the article diffs can be provided, like the one I just linked. - Aoidh (talk) 13:19, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

I thought for edit wars the three revert rule in 24 hours applied? That was two. If he stopped engaging in it and reverting when I asked him not to, we wouldn't be here now. That is all I asked for. I just wanted peace. I felt he was disrupting the article. Again, you can't remove the president from office without an impeachment trial to conclude first. All that ONUS states just says that controversial content should be discussed to reach a consensus, of which is happening at the moment, so I don't understand why this is being brought up. By all accounts, Binksternet has also been actively engaging in an edit war and started it so at least be consistent and block or at least give him a warning as well, please. This isn't about my preferred version or anything like that, I already said I'm fine with the content being removed, but just to wait for the due process and conclusion. By previous RFC's I've been involved in per my experiences, this is how it's worked each time. Have those RFC's been wrong then? So I feel this is completely unfair. At least block the page completely for editing in the meantime so nothing else can be disrupted. I'd rather contribute to pages on my favourite bands than be tangled up in this. From my point of view, it looks like I have been blocked for simply trying to keep the peace. Thank you. Rockmusicfanatic20 (talk) 14:30, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

I encourage you to read Wikipedia:Edit warring, the last sentence of the lede, for example, says The three-revert rule is a convenient limit for occasions when an edit war is happening fairly quickly; it is not a definition of "edit warring", and it is absolutely possible to engage in edit warring without breaking the three-revert rule, or even coming close to doing so. The section on WP:3RR also notes about 3RR that The rule is not an entitlement to revert a page a specific number of times. As for the president and impeachment, it would be a good idea to reread WP:ONUS (The responsibility for achieving consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content., meaning you need a consensus if you're going to include it) and WP:STATUSQUO (To eliminate the risk of an edit war, do not revert away from the status quo ante bellum during a dispute discussion...Ultimately, the responsibility to achieve consensus on disputed contents falls on the editors wishing to include the material.) This is not a president, it is content on a Wikipedia article that was added and removed, so consensus should be reached before reinserting it. Continuously adding the content when it's known that there is a disagreement about its inclusion and no consensus to include it is not keeping the peace, it is edit warring. As for the way previous RfCs have worked, without knowing what RfC you're referring to I can't comment on that, but it's likely that it was an RfC to change existing content, which is why the content was in the article for the duration of the RfC. - Aoidh (talk) 14:46, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

Of course, this isn't about a president but it's a good analogy which is why I brought it up regarding trials and process. There's a clear disagreement about the inclusion, but there's yet to be a consensus about removing the information either (despite previous genre warriors being cited as a consensus which isn't a good idea), hence the RFC and why I started it. People felt it should be removed, so I started that RFC so people can discuss whether to remove it in the meantime. I however don't agree with just straight up removing it before the conclusion of an RFC, as that renders the point of the RFC pointless. As long there are active discussions, that's what I care about the most. I want to blanket state my intentions as I believe in the process of it being removed, and I do feel there's a slippery slope to having WP:ONUS have the consensus to include the information rather than remove it. I might suggest a revision and discussion of those rules with other admins as that way nothing could be included, otherwise that rule can be cited to remove something one doesn't like, despite it being something cited. I would probably bring that up as a potential concern. Another question I would like to ask: Why isn't there a standard for RFC's? What's so different between changing content and removing something? Why does the same not apply to wait until the conclusion? I just want things to be clear and understand this, as things have been so inconsistent (and double standards) in my time on Wikipedia. It feels like everything is always changing. I just want a better understanding of things because I'm getting so many mixed signals from all over the place. Rockmusicfanatic20 (talk) 15:19, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

as that renders the point of the RFC pointless is reasoning that I don't understand. How does that render the RfC pointless? "Should X be included" is a valid discussion whether or not X is presently in the article. Why would it being in the article or not affect the RfC? The question and discussion are on the talk page. There also are standards for RfCs, but disputed content being included in an article until its conclusion is not part of that standard, as there are other ways to determine whether content should be in the article while the RfC is ongoing (e.g., WP:ONUS, WP:BRD, WP:STATUSQUO) because that's not an RfC-specific issue but a dispute resolution issue in general. The president analogy is a fairly apples-to-oranges comparison, but to use your president analogy (while keeping in mind that consensus is not determined by vote), this isn't an impeachment since the content is not in the article and no consensus for it exists (meaning this "president" in your analogy isn't in office as they have not been elected), but more analogous to an election to see if the president should be in office in the first place. A president typically doesn't hold the office until after the conclusion of the election, and such disputed content is typically not included until consensus for its inclusion has been established. There's no inconsistency here that I see since each RfC is about a different issue with different circumstances. Let the RfC run its course before trying to reinsert the disputed content. - Aoidh (talk) 15:44, 8 October 2023 (UTC)