Talk:Good Years (Zayn Malik song)

Please
@ & Kindly remember that we are all on the same team. Starting with that in mind, WP:BRD means we don't restore any reverted edits w/o consensus. Ideally a discussion should be opened on the article talk page. But in some instances it's Ok to make an attempt to settle what may look like a trivial disagreement with a quick chat on a user talk page IF there are no other involved parties and it seems like something that can be easily resolved. But if anyone objects then it should go to the article talk page. In any event when an editor reaches out in good faith to try and resolve a disagreement, even if it is perhaps not done in the preferred manner we should treat the effort with courtesy and proceed to the appropriate venue. Now that we have all that out of the way... -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:43, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

Discuss the problem here

 * Thanks, but looks like it was already solved by my putting the Template:R from unnecessary disambiguation tag on the redirect.  Ss  112   02:41, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
 * . Thanks, it was the removal by S112 of my discussion starter on their page that escalated this particular item. So I did try to talk about this, but was ignored. This was further aggravated by a vandalism notice put on my talkpage (I am right you are wrong, so therefore you must be a vandal...) The good thing that came from this is Ss112 asked for you to review and I am grateful for that. Thanks.


 * AS Ss112 has put the redirect notice back now, there is no further need for heated discussion, although further discussion is welcome if Sss12 thinks he has a better solution to the problem. --Richhoncho (talk) 10:12, 4 December 2018 (UTC)


 * @ and PS. I was specifically asked to stop using the r from name tag, because it signifies that the target is at the right place (i.e. a song article is at the target, not an album), which in this case is incorrect. The purpose of tagging the way I have (over 100s of articles) is that the album article acts as a disambig page, and clarifies which redirect is correct and which are superfluous. As I said, somebody else's recommendation, not mine.--Richhoncho (talk) 11:10, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
 * PPS Perhaps Ss112 would like to decide what he wishes to add to the other articles where he has undone my r tag. Otherwise I shall assume he has made a mistake and re-add my tagging. --Richhoncho (talk) 11:25, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Can you please stop tagging me as if I don't have this page on my watchlist? Thank you. You using the tag across hundreds of articles does not mean it's correct to do, or that your personal philosophy behind what the tag means is correct. You still misunderstand exactly what Ad Orientem has said above—when your edits are disagreed with and have been reverted, stop restoring them. That doesn't mean I have to discuss with you what the alternative is. You know quite well I didn't "make a mistake" in removing your mistaken tags, so don't restore them. The redirects don't need a tag on them to begin with. How are you still not getting it? A user who reverts you is not compelled to discuss with you to find a "solution" just because you want one, but that also doesn't mean you can then restore your edits. Propose it here and wait for input from other users—i.e. get consensus.  Ss  112   11:54, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
 * And here is the root of them problem, Ss12 must be right so everybody else is wrong, you think it's Ok for you to change another's edit, but woe behold anybody who does it to Ss112. I keep offering olive branches and you keep sweeping them away. It's like those paranoia posts of yours on my talkpage - I must be following you, no, I am not and have never followed you. Now instead of getting hot under the collar can you offer a reasonable solution? --Richhoncho (talk) 12:10, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
 * That characterisation is ironic coming from you, who has just stated that because you've tagged hundreds of articles the same way that that means it must be right and essentially said "If you don't talk to me you must be mistaken, so I'm going to restore my edits regardless". Offering olive branches, oh please, do get over yourself. You're no peacemaker. Regardless of your concerns with it, the correct tag is "R from unnecessary disambiguation" and I've already added it to those redirects. If I'm "hot under the collar" it's because this "issue" was a non-issue to begin with and you're still going on about it when I already offered a solution, which you have again chosen to ignore like I never said it. As far as I'm concerned, that's end of story, case closed, goodbye. You can continue rambling on as you do here if you wish.  Ss  112   12:27, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
 * And also pointed that it was under advisement from a long-term editor. I hope we're not as alike as you seem to think we are. --Richhoncho (talk) 16:10, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
 * When have I ever said we're alike and why would I do that? Oh, wait... please don't tell me you think your characterisation of me versus my characterisation of you equals a comparison on my part—I don't think it takes a superhuman level of intelligence to figure out that I disagree with your petty dig and that I didn't need to state so. Your inability to get this reads like a non-sequitur to the preceding discussion that you think is some kind of insult. ...But, of course, that's your style based on your talk page.  Ss  112   20:40, 4 December 2018 (UTC)