Talk:My Head & My Heart

New chart update
My head & my heart has entered the Greek Charts this week at #89. Source: https://www.ifpi.gr/digital_iel.html

Please update the charts on the page thank you. Aridabestbro (talk) 16:12, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Monitor Latino
I would like to know if there is a way of seeing the song's performance in the charts from Monitor Latino. I created an account but it seems that in order to see the song's performance I have to pay $40, which does not make sense.

--Jvaspad (talk) 21:52, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Revert Deletion
, "GayTimes" is not considered a noted source. And at a baseline, "So am I", "Sweet But Psycho", "Freaking Me Out", "My Way" videos are sexier than this one. Have some taste. Sucker for All (talk) 03:08, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Gay Times has been printed for several decades and is considered a reliable source used in several articles. There is no consensus made that it is unreliable or should be deprecated. As for the "sexy" comment, it is explicitly stated by Max in an interview reliably sourced in the corresponding section prior to its release, and is not an opinion or view of mine; see WP:NPOV. Please be more civil when discussing on the talk page, as there is no need to be critical of anyone. I am glad you have brought this discussion to the talk page, but I will temporarily restore the previous version until we can form a consensus together per WP:BRD. Please do not revert until then. Thank you. — Angryjoe1111 (talk) 05:48, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I will revert them. Many things have been stated by Max in interviews. "Sexiest video ever" is something that was coached from her interviewer. I suggest you revisit WP:Notability with regard to that Ru Paul contestant singing Ava as being "notable". Ava's team has never committed to support for "mermaids". Find a more reliable source. Kastra remix has had bigger reach. Sucker for All (talk) 21:09, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
 * The first point of WP:BRDD specifically states to not reinstate a bold edit until consensus is reached here. I would advise you to revert your previous edit until we both come to an agreement. The comment, Sexiest video ever is something coached from her interviewer is based on WP:OR, as it was something Max said on her own accord. WP:N has nothing to do with the RuPaul contestant's video; only whether subjects are notable enough to warrant an article. The one sentence about the video should be included per WP:BALASP, since it is not mentioned again throughout the article and is acknowledged by other sources. How are you sure that Ava's team has never committed to support for mermaids? Is this based on WP:OR assumptions again or WP:COI? You have constantly stated that Gay Times is not a reliable source, but have not provided any reasons for why this is. If you insist that it is not reliable, take it to WP:RSN for consensus with other editors there. The comment that, "Kastra remix has had a bigger reach" is not related to this conversation and is again based on WP:OR. If you have any suggestions for a compromise, feel free to discuss here. Thank you. — Angryjoe1111 (talk) 02:16, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
 * The edit isn't bold. Just saying basically no money was raised for mermaids, and unnecessary details are unnecessary Sucker for All (talk) 20:42, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Just a word of advice: the spirit of the rule trumps the wording of the rule. The spirit of BRD is "if someone makes an edit and it gets reverted, talk on a relevant talk page and come to a consensus to prevent edit wars and encourage consensus-building", so arguing about whether an edit is bold or not (the wording of BRD) is pointless. Instead of getting caught up in semantics trying to justify if your edit was bold or not, try to address the valid points made. Thanks! D🐶ggy54321 (let's chat!) 20:53, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I forgot to sign, ping didn't go through. D🐶ggy54321 (let's chat!) 20:54, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I believe I have. No money was raised for mermaids, so the topic lacks WP:N Sucker for All (talk) 21:05, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
 * If you are willing to compromise, we can leave the "sexy" comment and the Mermaids charity removed, but keep the RuPaul contestant's video along with the Gay Times citation intact. Is that fine with you? — Angryjoe1111 (talk) 02:50, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
 * hit.com.au looks about as credible as blogspot, and the article says "my Sexiest video's yet to come" without a direct quote, so no, I don't (doesn't every female celebrity claim their next video's gonna be their "sexiest yet"?). Why the youtube clip explaining the behind the scenes of the video, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C_npfHgRuEg&feature=youtu.be for sweet relief musician's fund, gets no mention doesn't make sense. But you want a little industry plant like Bimini in the article? Yeah, it's better like this or with Gay Times removed entirely (objectively though, the song's kind of an anthem) Sucker for All (talk) 04:11, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Hit Network is actually a radio network with several stations spread around Australia, which leads credence to its credibility as a primary source, since they directly interviewed Max. This is similar to other networks such as iHeartRadio and Capital FM. As stated earlier, I am willing to remove the "sexy" line as long as the citation remains intact. I personally do not include YouTube citations unless it directly links to the music video or corroborated by a secondary source. The Sweet Relief Musicians Fund is also not backed up by another secondary source, which was your initial complaint about Mermaids in the first place. The comment that Bimini is an "industry plant" is based on your own opinion and does not adhere to the neutral point of view that the article should contain. I still have not been given a reason for why the Gay Times citation should be removed from the article besides your supposed dislike of the website and comments towards Bimini, which are both affecting the article's broad coverage. If you still agree with my compromise to leave the sentence about Bimini intact while removing the "sexy" comment and Mermaids charity, I will add the revised text back into the article. If not, feel free to discuss your idea of a compromise that is reasonable for me to agree on based on the discussion so far. Thank you. — Angryjoe1111 (talk) 07:25, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

You still have not participated in building consensus and instead disregarded my above comments in order to insert your own edit without consulting me here first. As I stated earlier, the performance video covers the scope of the article, which informs the reader about the extensive subject regarding the music video. The performance video itself doesn't need to be "popular" to be included in the article; only notable, which is supported by the three secondary sources implemented, which you disregarded. The existence of the performance video does not need to be compared to Max's other YouTube videos based on your comment here; this is unnecessary and irrelevant to the discussion since the lack of commentary about her other videos would also not warrant its own music video section on the respective song article without reliable sources, and is also original research. I willingly removed the charity and Max's initial statement about the music video in hopes that you would be able to come to an agreement to keep the performance video in the article, which was met with silence and my supposed consensus-related edit being tendentiously reverted based on WP:SOURCEGOODFAITH and WP:REMOVECITE. Instead of reverting my edits and only discussing through edit summaries, keep my previous edit intact and discuss your reasons for not leaving the sentence here using Wikipedia guidelines. I am trying to assume good faith in seeing your view about justifying the exclusion of the performance video, but your actions consisting of using WP:OR as explanations, not following WP:NPOV to use your personal opinion about Bimini Bon-Boulash to back up your decision, and lack of regard for my constant attempts to communicate unless it is to revert, are beginning to become disruptive. Are you open for a third opinion from an external party to form an agreement? — Angryjoe1111 (talk) 07:09, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Your sources are just blogs. The official "behind the scenes" music video creation for a song has more to do with the actual track than a performance video by an outsider. If you want to add a detailed discussion about the making of the music video, that's relevant. But short of a link from, say Resident Advisor or Pitchfork or Rolling Stone or a significant real, respected source, the video just isn't relevant. Sucker for All (talk) 14:32, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
 * If you want verification from other users that those sources are worth mentioning, fine. Your argument of adding tons of wikipedia pages that don't really back up your argument that those 3 sources are relevant is just misdirection to present your argument as robust. Sucker for All (talk) 14:39, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Can you indicate which sources from the ones I added are considered blogs? There were several sites that appeared on Google which I deliberately did not include such as CelebMix and WordPress, since they both violate WP:BLOG and are unreliable. Besides World of Wonder, which can be considered as a primary source, Gay Times has generally been used on Wikipedia without any resistance from other editors. If you have any issue with its reliability, bring it to WP:RSN to discuss why you believe it should not be used across Wikipedia. Dummy Magazine may be tricky to decipher whether it is reliable; the contributors page gives no indication about their reliability, but their about page seems to indicate that they provide music news similar to Stereogum and Idolator. Regarding your first point, what constitutes as a "real, respected source"?. My intention is not to thoroughly expand on the performance video's existence in comparison to the music video, but to acknowledge that it was released to promote the song similarly to the acoustic performance detailed before it. Just having one reliable source would confirm its inclusion in the article; there is no reason to compulsorily include a source such as Rolling Stone or Billboard unless I could further expand on the topic as it was the case with the official music video. Regarding your second point, I do not understand your comment that I am "adding tons of wikipedia pages that don't really back up your argument that those 3 sources are relevant". I never intended on causing any misdirection to claim my argument as "robust", nor divert any reasons away from the three sources I added. My point to request for a third opinion was not to justify including the three sources (I just gave a rationale for my reasons to include them earlier on the second sentence), but to determine if it would be fine for the performance video to simply be acknowledged in the article. This would fulfil the section's scope and balance in proportion to the official music video and its corresponding section. — Angryjoe1111 (talk) 16:43, 13 May 2021 (UTC)