User talk:DamionThorn

Cathy Dennis 'Into the Skyline' release date
Hi, I reverted your change of the release date for this, as you did not provide a reliable source for the date change. Unfortunately, your own recollection of buying the album on a particular date does not meet the reliable source standards for wikipedia. If you still had a receipt showing you purchased the album then, and were able to post a photo or scan of this, maybe that could suffice. From a quick google, there doesn't seem to be any e.g. Billboard magazine references to an album release or review from around the date you mention in 1992. If you had or could find a magazine or online publication showing that the album was released then, or an album review from around that time, then the change could be upheld. As it stands, the best evidence that can be sourced currently is that the album was released in January 1993, based on its UK chart entry date.Nqr9 (talk) 00:52, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Incorrect. It was released on September 29th, which is how I wrote a review of it for my school newspaper the first week of October 1992, just weeks before Shep Pettibone's next major collaboration with Madonna. As "You Lied to Me" was released to North American radio in September of 1992, how the heck would the album only have been released in January 1993...and how would an 18 year old get a copy months prior to release? I detest incorrect release dates on Wiki pages...which is why I corrected this one. As Cathy Dennis is one of my favourite artists of all time, I think I know the release dates of her albums ;)
 * Sorry, but even if that is true, you have not provided a verifiable source, so I am again reverting your changes. It doesn't matter that "You Lied to Me" was released that early; it was out at the same time in the UK as well.  It doesn't make sense that an album by an artist with Cathy Dennis's profile then would have an album released 3.5+ months earlier in North America than in her home country, where the first two singles from it had been released in 1992.  Please do not change the release date again unless you can provide a reliable source that supports your claims.Nqr9 (talk) 13:36, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

You're ridiculous. Please stop correcting info with incorrect information, for fuck's sake. I think I know when I bought an album...meaning every single one in my collection. Please leave the date at the correct date. which was September 29, 1992. Albums were released within weeks of single releases back then, and I don't think I had psychic abilities to write a review of an album three months before your ignorant self thinks it was released.

And the copyright of the album is 1992. Not 1993. Meaning it was clearly released in 1992. On the 29th of September, in fact. Please stop making Wikipedia incorrect.
 * It doesn't matter if you remember that you bought the album then; information added to wikipedia needs to be verifiable, and ideally sourced to a reliable source. Information added that does not meet these criteria is subject to being removed, as I have done, and will do yet again with the information you've just re-added.  You may be correct regarding the album's earlier release date in North America.  But you have provided no information that can be *verified* to show that this is the case, such as e.g. an album review from an American or Canadian publication around the time you claim the album was released there, or a source showing that the album charted in Canada in 1992 (it did not chart at all in the US).  Furthermore, an album's publishing and copyright dates do not necessarily indicate that the album was released that year.  Many albums released in January/February/sometimes even later in the year will have the preceding year's date as the copyright and/or publishing date.  This is not, in itself, proof that something was released that year.  There is no need to get personal.  You're a new-ish editor to wikipedia; I'm just explaining to you why the information you've added is liable to being removed, because you have provided no verifiable evidence that it is factual.Nqr9 (talk) 09:29, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

April 2018
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Cathy Dennis discography. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Repeated vandalism can result in the loss of editing privileges. Several attempts have been made to explain to you why a reference/some verifiable evidence is required to change the release date/year for Cathy Dennis' 'Into the Skyline' album, but you continue to ignore this and add the info back after it has been reverted. Please stop doing this; your actions now appear to constitute vandalism. You have not provided any evidence that the album was released in 1992 in North America.Nqr9 (talk) 10:31, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Cathy Dennis discography, you may be blocked from editing. Please stop changing the release date/year for the Into the Skyline album without providing a reliable source for the change. I don't want to have to report your account for vandalism, but if you keep changing the release date without giving verifiable evidence as to why it should be changed, I may need to.Nqr9 (talk) 05:22, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did with this edit to Cathy Dennis discography. Septrillion (talk) 03:04, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

This is your only warning; if you vandalize Wikipedia again, as you did at Into the Skyline, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. You have been warned numerous times not to add an unverified release date for this album to this page and the Cathy Dennis discography page, but continue to do so. I have now reported your account to an administrator.Nqr9 (talk) 07:16, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours for persistently making disruptive edits. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page:. Widr (talk) 07:25, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Apology
Hi, you appear to be correct in that Cathy Dennis's "Into the Skyline" did have a September 1992 release date in North America. Someone found this album review from that month, suggesting this was the case - https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=ZSU9AQAAIAAJ&q=%22Into+the+Skyline%22+Cathy+Dennis+1992&dq=%22Into+the+Skyline%22+Cathy+Dennis+1992&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjYprq_nbraAhUmAsAKHWp1Dd4Q6AEIRDAH. However, another site has the release date as the 22nd; I think it's best to leave it as just September 1992.

I stated earlier on your talk page that the September 1992 date may have been correct - the issue remained, however, that you did not provide any verifiable evidence that the album had an earlier North American release date. This is why I reverted your edits. In future, if you change or add new information to a wikipedia article, you best include a source, so that your changes can be verified by other editors. There's a guide on how to cite sources on wikipedia here.Nqr9 (talk) 20:51, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

September 2019
Please stop adding unsourced content, as you did on Mixed Up (The Cure album). This violates Wikipedia's policy on verifiability. If you continue to do so, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia.  Rob van  vee  06:23, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

I do not edit anything without a source, so I am not sure why you would be putting mistakes back on pages when I have clearly put my source for any edit I have made....and all my edits are always 100% accurate.
 * AS has already been told to you in the comments above from other editors: it is only 100% accurate when a reliable source says it is, not because you think it is!  Rob van  vee  05:21, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

As I already stated, all my changed have been sourced. If you think BILLBOARD is an inaccurate source of information when it comes to charts, you should not be editing anything. Any change I make, anyone can look up and verify, as per the notes I leave when I make a change. And every change I have made has been proven accurate. Notice the apology on this page that I received. As music is my life, I want to be sure Wikipedia is accurate and will continue to do so. ESPECIALLY when it comes to inaccurate chart positions and album credits.
 * Incorrect! Most of your edits are without any sources whatsoever. You really need to read Referencing for beginners because merely leaving an edit summary is not considered sourcing. My advice: take some time to learn how to do this properly and you will avoid those bright orange and red warnings on your talk page, which usually results in a block which it seems you would prefer to avoid. Also, please sign your comments using 4 (~).  Rob van  vee  19:26, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

I have stated my sources on every edit. And again, if the source is BILLBOARD, that name alone is the source....and all my edits have proven to be accurate. So I have no idea what your issue is...especially when accuracy is clearly my motivation. If I change a chart number and state it is as per Billboard...VOILA. Done. If I make an edit based on the credits of the actual album itself...which anyone can check...Voila. Done. If my source is the CD in my hand...that should be way more than enough as the info would be the on any CD out there.
 * Again, you are extremely mistaken but I have given you the tools you need to source properly and your unwillingness to learn will be your downfall here. At least it can't be said I didn't try. Good luck, you are going to need it.  Rob van  vee  05:40, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Again, I am well aware one must source all changes and that is specifically what I have been doing, and all my changes have been 100% accurate. So I am not sure what you keep going on about. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DamionThorn (talk • contribs) 07:57, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

June 2021
You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you add unsourced material to Wikipedia, as you did at Icona Pop discography. Muhandes (talk) 12:27, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

/facepalm
Yeah, how dare I want to correct a page to show the accurate chart position as per Billboard magazine! Instead, my accurate info is reverted for no reason, rendering the page inaccurate again.

/facepalm — Preceding unsigned comment added by DamionThorn (talk • contribs) 03:32, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Multiple editors have tried to explain this to you in the past, so I wont waste my time to do it again. Just accept that these are the rules here. Correct facts are less important than verifiable ones, so please don't add material without inline citations. --Muhandes (talk) 13:05, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

In all these years, not one of my dozens and dozens of edits have ever been incorrect. Not even once. As I would never bother to take the time to change something unless I saw an obvious incorrect piece of information. I even have an apology above. it's ridiculous that you revert my corrections to INCORRECT data, when anyone can look up chart positions themselves. It's called billboad.com...one of the most known chart sites in history. Beyond idiotic that anyone would revert my correct information to incorrect information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DamionThorn (talk • contribs) 00:40, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Against my better judgement, I will swallow the insults and go down this rabbit hole one more time. This is not going to be short.
 * I never said you are adding incorrect information. In fact I assumed your data is correct. The issue is verification, not correction. This is the edit you made. Let's deconstruct.
 * You changed "All Night" peak position on the Dance/Electronic Songs chart from 13 to 1. The source used by the article is this: I don't know if this is the correct source, but this is the only source available. If you follow that link you will see (at least today, June 21, 2021): All Night, Icona Pop, Peaked at #13 on 8.10.2013. Your edit is against the source. I am not saying your data is incorrect, but it is undoubtedly unsourced.
 * You changed the peak for "Just Another Night" on the same chart from 41 to 36. The same source says: Just Another Night, Icona Pop, Peaked at #41 on 3.29.2014. Again I am not saying your information is incorrect. I am saying it is unsourced.
 * You added a peak for "Emergency" on the same chart. That song does not appear on the source. Again, not necessarily incorrect, but definitely unsourced.
 * You removed the peak of 34 for "Get Lost" on the same chart. The source says Get Lost, Icona Pop, Peaked at #34 on 8.9.2014.
 * So to summarize, you changed four facts, and I assume your data is correct. However, you did not provide a new source and the existing source contradicts your data.
 * Saying "I am correct" does not help, because I never claimed otherwise.
 * Saying "the source is billboad.com" doesn't help, because that is not a source, it is a website. You need to be much more specific so your data can be verified.
 * Saying "[your actions are] beyond idiotic" doesn't help, because insults rarely encourage cooperation.
 * I apologize if this is long, I hear your frustration and I thought that explaining the reasoning would help. If you remain civil, I'd be happy to continue this conversation and get to the bottom of this. I'm sure you will be satisfied the results, and I may learn something new (that wont be hard, I know nothing of the subject). However, if you intend to continue your behavior ("idiotic" is considered an insult), you will simply get more warnings from more editors, leading to another block. Best regards and happy editing. --Muhandes (talk) 11:26, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

LOL!!! Once again, all my edits were as per BILLBOARD magazine, yet you reverted them all back to INCORRECT information. So good job. Always helpful to have people who prefer to have misinformation on a website. Congratulations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DamionThorn (talk • contribs) 19:14, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
 * So you are saying I spent all that time and you didn't even read my message? I should have known this is not worth my time. Instead, like previous editors said, consider yourself warned. I don't think any admin would have a problem seeing that not only were you given ample warnings, but also an in-depth explanation of the policies and guidelines you need to follow. --Muhandes (talk) 05:47, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

Again, you are defending reverting corrections to chart stats, as per Billboard, to incorrect chart stats, making the page inaccurate. Rather than having left my corrections, as per BILLBOARD. Go ahead an explain THAT...again...good job. I only make corrections to music pages, every single one I have made in the last, like, decade have been 100% accurate, I wouldn't take the TIME to correct something unless I knew the proper information...and then you go and undo it to make the page incorrect again. /facepalm You can give up now, as you have wasted your time from the start....starting with undoing correct information that you can look up yourself on BILLBOARD and rendering a page inaccurate.

January 2022
You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you add unsourced or poorly sourced material to Wikipedia, as you did at Life (Simply Red album). ''I'm sure you will find an awkward excuse like "I am right" or "the source is billboard" this time too. I give you another warning just because it has been some time. Stop. Now.'' Muhandes (talk) 17:49, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

Um, there are two different dates on the page...why are you not correcting THAT? Oh, you didn't...*I* did...and once again, you think incorrect information is preferable. /facepalm

Amazing how I keep updating pages with actual correct information that you can find online very easily and people revert it back to misinformation without substantiating why they feel incorrect information is better.

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. 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 to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:10, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. 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 2023 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 to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:42, 28 November 2023 (UTC)