User talk:Danionek

Hi! :)

Can u help me
With Hannah Montana fotwver soundtrack article? I try to add singles w its proper references and they automatically revert me — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.7.254.142 (talk) 12:56, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Well, sorry, but I just don’t care anymo’ bout Hannah Montana singles. The show’s discography’s, soundtracks’ & songs’ articles R lil’ bit messy, since some information, 4 example bout some songs’ release as singles, hasn’t sources or has dead sources Also, I don’t know how 2 distinguish singles from promotional singles (’Cuz I thought the songs released by Apple Music, &/or something like Amazon Music or Spotify, R only promotional singles, & 2 be singles they must be sent 2 the radio), so due 2 references only 4 the song’s releases on streamin I thought the songs R only released as promotional singles, which can’t be in an infobox w/ singles, but this is my opinion, which may be wrong.

Update “Most viewed videos in 24hrs list”
Can u add the song “Paagal” by Badshah to the “Most viewed videos in 24hrs list” John.smith39 (talk) 06:30, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 11
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Pebe Sebert, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Hugh Moffat. 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) 06:19, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

What Makes a Woman
There was an extensive discussion at Talk:Sour_Candy_(Lady_Gaga_and_Blackpink_song) which concluded that The Music Network is not a reliable source to say something was a single. It's much more likely that "What Makes a Woman" is a countdown/promo single. There's been no mention of the song by Perry as a single and it isn't being promoted as such. Please do not add this to the article again. WP:BRD - you've been reverted. If you disagree, the burden is now on you to discuss on the album's talkpage. ≫  Lil- Unique1  -{ Talk  }- 14:00, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
 * KK. I can admit I was the person who started the whole Sour Candy thing, as I was probably the 1st who started 2 change the song’s status after The Music Network did the same thing. So basically good 2 know this magazine isn’t counted as 1 of the reliable sources, what I understand & I won’t change the song’s status again with What Makes A Woman & different song in the future. Thx 4 ur notice, have a nice day :> Danionek (talk) 15:21, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 17
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Chasing Rainbows (Big Freedia song), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page High Road.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:15, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

hey
can u add miley's come get it bae peaks on mc discography page idk how do do it — Preceding unsigned comment added by Highwaynmbr3 (talk • contribs) 21:20, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi! Honestly, I don't really know if I can, because Miley Cyrus is uncredited on the song's many released formats, as she's only credited on G I R L's Napster release for some reasons, so she's also uncredited on probably every music chart the song peaked (I checked as example billboard hot 100; She wasn't credited). I remember that in the past users couldn't add peaks from the American & Canadian music charts for Right Round on Kesha's discography article, because she wasn't credited as the featured artist of the song on these countries' releases, so she wasn't credited on the charts either. Because of these whole (un)credits in the songs on different countries or even music platforms, I don't really know how to treat such things so I'm sorry, but I can't help you. By the way remember about signing your posts next time! Danionek (talk) 21:49, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Positions album certification on china
Why did you removed it, it was a certification by QQ music, by the official china page, it's a table based on certifications, then why you made it on this page if you are not going to include the actual certifications Ridiculous Moonlight Entm (talk) 15:43, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I wasn't the user who removed it. Danionek (talk) 16:27, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

Stop editing ariana grande records sold
Don't vandalize the article please, in the sources clearly say she's been certified for 52.5M records and 7M album and updated sales in the U.K. are up to 19.5M, which doesn't calculate 89.5M records It calculates 79M records sold Moonlight Entm (talk) 16:58, 20 December 2020 (UTC) Danionek (talk) 17:30, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Again, I'm not the user who did that. Could U please check next time who "vandalize" it?

Hi
Helllo, i see u added peaks on hannah mntana page, but where ar the references for Kids Charts and POP chart? the links u added don't have that chart. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sagitarius, Not a Libra (talk • contribs) 14:56, 11 February 2021 (UTC) Danionek (talk) 15:03, 11 February 2021 (UTC) --Sagitarius, Not a Libra (talk) 15:17, 11 February 2021 (UTC) thankss Danionek (talk) 15:46, 11 February 2021 (UTC) thank u its all clear :) i found it weird since you know how messy are HM articles, and Mileys also, specially on fake-positive entries!--Sagitarius, Not a Libra (talk) 15:54, 11 February 2021 (UTC) Danionek (talk) 16:45, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi! The references for the peaks on the Kid Digital Song Sales and Pop 100 charts are just under their shorter names in the tables! (BTW, remember to sign your messages next time!)
 * yes! but when you clic on them, on billboard pages, t appears as hot 100 peaks:!
 * I understand what you're writing about. In general, you shouldn't be influenced by what is written on the chart selector button, but by what is written in the URL. For billboard Hot 100, HSI appears in the URL, as it's properly referenced in the column for this chart; for Kid Digital Song Sales, it's KDT ; and for Pop 100, it's POP . The chart's name on the button is broken, possibly because these 2 charts are discontinued so they don't even appear on the billboard website. You can also compare the peaks of the same song that appears in these 3 charts, for example The Best of Both Worlds peaked at number 92 on the billboard Hot 100 (HSI), 24 on the Kid Digital Song Sales (KDT), and 71 on the Pop 100 (POP) as it's properly written on the magazine's website in the Hannah Montana's chart histories. I hope I could explain it!
 * çççoh okey ig et it!
 * No problem! And yeah, they are messy, but recently I found I could finally improve em so I'll be working on em in the next few days (maybe)! :>


 * Yeah, just months ago, non-singles were refered as tracks and viceversa. finally i could find out what songs were singles, thats why i added them to wiki page discography!

Hello.
On videography articles, should un-released music videos should be added? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sagitarius, Not a Libra (talk • contribs) 14:51, 14 February 2021 (UTC) I see you're probably writing about the Britney Spears videography article, and, in my opinion, the music video for Outrageous could be included in the article, but with the note it was never released. Danionek (talk) 15:06, 14 February 2021 (UTC) Danionek (talk) 16:27, 14 February 2021 (UTC) Danionek (talk) 16:27, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi! IDK if there's a rule on Wikipedia you may or may not add unreleased music videos, so in my opinion, if I can express so, this is for debate.
 * Thanks! Do you know if didscgogs promotional releases should be added? Anyone can upload content there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sagitarius, Not a Libra (talk • contribs) 16:12, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
 * U mean Discogs? Well, according to this, Discogs is generally unreliable as it can contain user-generated content.
 * Also, the side EIL. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sagitarius, Not a Libra (talk • contribs) 16:14, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure about eil.com, 'cuz I never used this site, so I didn't even know what EIL you meant at 1st, so I can't write if it's a reliable source, 'cuz I can't find anything about it.

Thanks
Thanks for ur help! Theres this user called binksernet wich sais i an invovled in a war editing... wich i am not. i added some things refering to sales and he deleted and i didnt try to add them back. is he a bot? thank u!--Sagitarius, Not a Libra (talk) 16:18, 15 February 2021 (UTC) He also has started to revert my edits of unsourcered songs from discgogs on Britney discograph page and songs by britney.! thanks

Also, he has changed Who Said single status as a track without explenation — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sagitarius, Not a Libra (talk • contribs) 16:34, 15 February 2021 (UTC) Danionek (talk) 18:03, 15 February 2021 (UTC) Danionek (talk) 20:18, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I could write No problem but I can see your account has been banned, oops. XD
 * Danionek, if this editor keeps coming to you requesting changes, please ignore the request. Per WP:PROXYING it's important not to make edits for banned users. Thank you, -- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 15:34, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
 * K, thank U for ur notice! I figured it was this banned user, so I wasn't even interested in replying to him and helping with his edits, especially after checking the edit history of an article about Hannah Montana, where this whole edit war happened. (LOL) The only thing I changed connected with this whole situation is probably the article about The Best Of Both Worlds, because in my opinion Who Said is a single, because it wasn't released differently from other Hannah Montana singles. Anyway, thanks for removing his requests, although I didn't find it necessary, but I don't want to help his sockpuppets anymore. :)
 * You can just remove the requests from your talk page without answering if you'd like.-- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 20:37, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

POV (song)
Hey! Just a heads up: please stop adding "POV" as a single from Positions (album) until there are reliable sources that state this. Even though Gary Trust writes for Billboard, his Twitter account violates WP:SOCIALMEDIA. Per SOCIALMEDIA, self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves. If Trust wants to write an article for Billboard saying that "POV" is a single, he can do so, but we can’t cite his Twitter account. Knowing this, please halt trying to add "POV" as a single until reliable sources say it is a single. Thanks! D🐶ggy54321 (let's chat!) 12:11, 24 March 2021 (UTC) Danionek (talk) 12:25, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I would love to include your stylization in the ping, 'cuz it looks awesome, but, sadly, there's no option :C OK, thx for your notice! Have a nice day! :3
 * Thank you You’re welcome, you too! D🐶ggy54321 (let's chat!) 12:25, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

Kesha discography
"seperate" is incorrect, "separate" is correct. Jellysandwich0 (talk) 18:40, 14 June 2021 (UTC) Danionek (talk) 18:43, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
 * KK, thanks for correcting!

Please provide explanations for removing sources
Hi. When you remove sources from discography articles, it would be appreciated if you left an edit summary. Oftentimes your edits appear indistinguishable from IP editors who blank these sources before the column-header sources have updated. It would also be helpful if you left a summary for the majority of your edits. Thank you.  Ss  112   17:18, 30 November 2021 (UTC) Danionek (talk) 17:58, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
 * OK, got it!

Popular song
Regarding this edit. There is a user who is regularly making sock puppets to evade their block that changes song information to be incorrect on purpose. They mix this in with the occasional correct edit. When they are caught all of their edits are reverted. My edit there was one such reversion. If you are satisfied with the source then thank you for replacing the edit. HighInBC Need help? Just ask. 23:22, 15 December 2021 (UTC) Danionek (talk) 19:19, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
 * No problem! I just saw later that it was a banned user. Pretty cool at least this 1 edit was good :>

When I'm Gone single chart parameter order
Hi. I don't know why you're making edits solely or incrementally to move where I (and other editors) have put rowheader=true when using Template:Single chart. I was the first person to add the template to the article, and I added it before access-date. Therefore leave it that way. Thank you. There are better uses of your time then re-arranging such things.  Ss  112   19:19, 18 January 2022 (UTC) Danionek (talk) 19:40, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Hello. I just put it in the order given in the Single chart page. Maybe this is just my "thing", because whenever using, for example, Cite web templates, I want to use the order given on the page. I had no idea someone would have a problem with it to even write to user's talk page (LMAO). There is really no difference, I just use the given order, but if you absolutely feel the need to use your own order, because you added it first, so be it. Honestly, there are better uses of your time than reading and writing these types of messages.

Disambiguation link notification for May 20
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Lady Gaga discography, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page GLF.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:03, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

Changing a manual citation to a template
Here's another "one of these types of messages": Please stop micromanaging charts added by me and other editors. You didn't start either Hold My Hand (Lady Gaga song) and Top Gun: Maverick (soundtrack). I might understand if you did and were holding citations to a consistent formatting standard, but you didn't. For some reason you've neglected to explain in any edit summary that I can see why you're making edits like this and rearranging citations. That change to an album chart template from Finland being a manual citation is not beneficial and has been reverted because: That's two cons for using a template for Finland versus no pros that I can see. As long as you keep making these sorts of edits, I will keep "wasting my time" writing messages to you about it telling you to stop. If it makes you feel better, feel entirely free to waste your time replying to this message with a really clever twist on the wording I've used again, "LMAO". Thanks.  Ss  112   15:22, 10 June 2022 (UTC) Overall, I'd like you to just chill out a bit. I know there was a misunderstanding between us in our previous conversation on my talk page, again because I thought I was correcting something. I didn't like the way you wrote to me, which is why I wrote back in the sarcastic way that you also pointed out to me now. I know how to waste my time, which is why I'm answering you what it looks like from my perspective, whether or not you want to read it. Rather, we both are here not to have some unnecessary conflict, especially over little things like that. I accept constructive criticism, so I'll try not to make any mishaps that you bring to my attention (because after the last time you did, I avoid making mistakes with changing the order of parameters, as long as everything is correct, which I hope is visible). Danionek (talk) 16:12, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
 * 1) As long as Template:Album chart uses the ifpi.fi website, if a title of an album has parentheses in the title, it cannot be linked to correctly. This is a glitch that affects titles on ifpi.fi. I do not know why it is this way, but it is.
 * 2) If that chart position is ever cited in the prose, it can't be cited if it is a manual override in the album chart formatting (denoted by the M after the chart position). Any album chart that has a manual override cannot be cited with a refname elsewhere on the article.
 * Hi! I understand everything you wrote. I just made another mistake because I have to admit that I just discovered how exactly this "M" parameter works in the Album chart template, because I have hardly ever seen it before. It just seemed to me best to use this template, even with this parameter, wherever possible, even before the relevant chart page is updated. I'm just going to stop making edits like you pointed out because you know everything was fine before, but I thought I might be making it better. (And yes, I can see that the Finnish chart site isn't working as well as we'd like it to :P)

GRAMMY revision
I am writing to ask what possessed you to revert my edits that corrected Grammy to GRAMMY.

Let me be clear - Your edit VIOLATES US COPYRIGHT LAW

The US trademark is not Grammy --> It is GRAMMY with an R inside a circle to represent that is registered as a Trademark in the by the United States Trademark and Patent Office.

Part of US Trademark law stipulates that any misuse of the term (e.g. spelling it Grammy when the trademark is GRAMMY, will result in a loss of protection. The Trademark clearly shows it spelled in all caps as GRAMMY

'''So what on God's Green Earth made you, a Polish Citizen without a Law Degree decide to undo 2 hours of work? Why? Why? Do you have any idea what you're doing? Or what you're editing?'''

Not only do the annual Press Guidelines admonish the press to spell the award as GRAMMY, not Grammy, so does the US Government. (Since you'll claim that documents from the Recording Academy are not admissible under some Rosicrucian Wikipedia rule, let me bring up evidence from multipule live Trademarks according the US Trademark and Patent Office

https://tmsearch.uspto.gov/bin/showfield?f=doc&state=4810:3dqqnr.2.24 also

https://tmsearch.uspto.gov/bin/showfield?f=doc&state=4810:3dqqnr.2.25 explicitly spells the word. Guess what, it's GRAMMY ''Word Mark: GRAMMY

Goods and Services IC 041. US 100 101 107. G & S: Educational services namely, conducting classes, seminars, conferences and workshops in the field of music and music education for students; educational services namely, conducting classes, seminars, conferences and workshops in the field of music and music education for educators; entertainment services, namely, live music concerts; providing a website featuring news, information, and resources, namely, links to the web sites of others in the field of music education. FIRST USE: 20000300. FIRST USE IN COMMERCE: 2000030 ''

The description of the award also explicitly spells the term as GRAMMY

''https://tmsearch.uspto.gov/bin/showfield?f=doc&state=4810:3dqqnr.2.8 The colors gold, white, and black are claimed as a feature of the mark. The mark consists of detailed image of a metallic gramophone in gold, white, and black facing left sitting on a black base facing left with the sides of the base angling in as they go up towards the bottom of the gramophone. Directly beneath the gramophone are the words "RECORDING ACADEMY" in a black thin stylized font, directly beneath the words "RECORDING ACADEMY" is the word "GRAMMY" in a black thick stylized font and directly beneath the word "GRAMMY" is the word "AWARDS" in a black thick stylized font. Apart from indicated herein, the color white in the mark merely represents transparent background and is not claimed as a feature of the mark.

https://tmsearch.uspto.gov/bin/showfield?f=doc&state=4810:3dqqnr.2.9''

Seriously, what justification do you have in your revision? Because you're wrong. Greenshinobi (talk) 05:01, 7 July 2022 (UTC) Danionek (talk) 11:22, 7 July 2022 (UTC) Danionek (talk) 06:18, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Looking at your recent edits and responses from other editors, I can only repeat that your edits are against Manual of Style/Trademarks rule. But I also want to point out that you were able to write (or just copy) a text for this topic, even with 4 links to some website I have to admit I had no idea about, and you were unable to provide diffs of edits, about which you wrote to me. I haven't edited any article related to the Grammy Awards recently, so I had to check that you probably meant about and, changes from 4 months ago (I don't know why you suddenly decided to come back to it, but OK). By the way, it may surprise you a lot, but even a Pole who did not even graduate from high school to start law studies knows about something like a trademark. Guess what, It doesn't just apply to this one award and only to the United States, and everyone my age is rather aware of it . You can point out to me that I come from a different country and don't have a law degree, as if I was a dumber because of it, but you are definitely not aware of the rules on Wikipedia. I only do what the rules tell me to do. If you disagree, you can make suggestions for changes, as another editor has already written to you on the talk page of this award.
 * I'm really sorry you're insecure about your nationality and educational level. I never criticized either as they have no bearing on this matter.  You state that my edits are against the Trademark styles rules, but that is false.   You are pretending the Wiki trademark rules do not allow all caps for Trademarks.  That is false.  If the Trademark in question is used in an all caps capacity, it may be used in all caps on Wikipedia.  GRAMMY is always capitalized in professional literature. Greenshinobi (talk) 01:30, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
 * You claim you never criticized either as they have no bearing on this matter, although you literally wrote earlier I'm Polish Citizen without a Law Degree, in bold text. If it doesn't really matter, why did you even mention it at the beginning? Based on the tone of your original message, where you had to use a lot of such passive-aggressive phrases and bold text, even posting 4 unnecessary broken links to some website, trying so hard to prove how wrong I'm, you're the 1 who has some weird problems and is insecure. At this point, I believe that you're just trolling, so I'm not going to argue with you. Ending this discussion and focusing on your real problem (for which, for some reason unknown to me, you only come to Wikipedia every few months, which can only confirm my belief that you aren't really here to help and cooperate), your edit is againt Manual of Style/Trademarks, I'm not the only 1 mentioning it and we don't use the all caps version for many years, so maybe there's a reason for it. So I recommend focusing on this change rather than trying to argue with me.

Chronology discussion
Do you have a link for that discussion? DepressedPer (talk) 11:41, 28 July 2022 (UTC) Danionek (talk) 11:49, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Hi! Yes, I have: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Albums/Archive 62

High Road wikipedia page
Hello, I'm writing from Kesha Discord (you can access on Twitter or Discord) to let you know that High Road had only one official single which is Raising Hell, the other songs mentioned are promotional singles. You can look at her other album pages, they had promo singles which were released before the album just like High Road (My Own Dance, Resentment, Tonight); Cannibal had Cannibal and Sleazy, Rainbow had Learn to Let Go, Hymn etc. but they weren't listed as official singles unlike High Road page. The only song that was sent to radio on High Road is Raising Hell in US. 2A00:1D58:4600:1E00:C986:83DD:AE43:6CC8 (talk) 14:20, 3 August 2022 (UTC) Hello IP-range user, welcome to Wikipedia! The main reason I reverted your edit on the article about High Road is because I found it rather incomplete; I mean, you changed the information about those songs in the article about this album, but you didn't make any changes to all 3 separate articles about those songs (My Own Dance, Resentment, and Tonight). Maybe that's just my impression, but I think if you want to change the information on Wikipedia that these songs are just promotional singles instead of singles, then you should start changing the articles specifically about these songs first, then the article about the album and the rest. You, in turn, merely made changes to the article about the album, thus leaving an inconsistency in the rest of the Wikipedia articles. It may seem that you haven't looked at the articles about these songs at all, and this is where the next thing comes in… You may notice that the sources used in the articles about these songs state they're singles, and even though it didn't impact the radio in the United States, they received airplay in Australia (although it's still not recognized whether The Music Network magazine, which reported this information, is fully reliable). I also recommend checking out the Singles criteria page which helps editors distinguish when a song should be considered a single. However, if you still disagree with what is written on this page and think these 3 songs should only be considered promotional singles, and are bold enough to defend your opinion and possibly discuss it with more experienced Wikipedians, then you can again make your edits, but I would suggest you do it in articles about these songs as well. My response seems a bit long, but I wanted to fully explain why I reverted your edit, what you should do if you want to make changes on Wikipedia, and whether you really think these songs should be considered singles or promotional singles. Cheers! :3 Danionek (talk) 16:20, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

September 2022
Hello, I'm Scope creep. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to Bois Lie have been undone because they appeared to be promotional. Advertising and using Wikipedia as a "soapbox" are against Wikipedia policy and not permitted; Wikipedia articles should be written objectively, using independent sources, and from a neutral perspective. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about Wikipedia. Adding an Amazon shop reference link which is promotional.   scope_creep Talk  12:07, 2 September 2022 (UTC) Danionek (talk) 12:32, 2 September 2022 (UTC) Danionek (talk) 13:00, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your very quick response! I was just wondering because you removed the link to Amazon, which is also a music platform similar to Spotify, of which link you left in the article, or Apple Music/iTunes. In the absence of the reliable independent sources, we often use links to primary sources such as Apple Music and Spotify, mainly in sections such as Track listings or Release history, in many other articles about songs (like "Bad Romance", which is a featured article and uses iTunes in the references). For this reason, can I use a link from Apple Music as a source?
 * Hi How goes it? Not if it is a digital download link. It is just as illegal in other articles as its is on this one. Encylopedias don't and can't by definition have a download in an article. Its not cool and it is considered promotional and continual use by editors is considered a violition of the Terms of Use and inevitably leads to a idef block.   scope_creep Talk  12:43, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Fortunately, everything is fine! Of course I understand your advice. In fact, I noticed this rule quite recently, but I haven't seen any major problem yet from other users with using such music platforms as a source, although I prefer to use genuinely reliable and non-promotional sources anyway (unfortunately, I haven't found any of these in the Bois Lie case :P). This rule seems to be a bit forgotten nowadays, or nobody pays attention to it like that, so hence the frequent use of these websites. In any case, thank you for your notice, I'll try to pay more attention to it in the future!
 * I wouldn't worry about. I don't blame folk for putting stuff that like that. I would do the same, if I was in a similar situation. There is no guidance on it unfortunately. I learned for somebody else the same way your learning me. There is the WP:MUSICRS article which describes good music sources but that is the best I know of.   scope_creep Talk  13:22, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

WP:STYLE
Please read WP:STYLE before changing correct English grammar to incorrect grammar. Even the sources cited use the correct grammar, and the formatting is now inconsistent all the way through again like it was before I fixed it. Your edits are borderline disruptive, as are your inconsistent and incorrect grammar in an Encyclopedia with its own clearly defined WP:STYLE. —Cprice45 (talk) 12:42, 4 September 2022 (UTC) Danionek (talk) 13:04, 4 September 2022 (UTC) Danionek (talk) 14:59, 4 September 2022 (UTC) What I will not back down from (and I hope you agree) is that the proper singular possessive form her last name is Spears’s. That will be made standard across her articles. —Cprice45 (talk) 10:50, 5 September 2022 (UTC) Danionek (talk) 15:03, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
 * The only thing I see in your edits is that you've changed the quotation mark and apostrophe symbols from straight (" and ') to curly (” and ’) in the Britney Jean article. Now that you've written this note, are you sure you've read Manual of Style, where it's written you should use only straight symbols? Besides, I've absolutely no idea what you mean, especially your correct English grammar, since it's all about the appearance of symbols, and you haven't given any specific example.
 * I have forgot about straight quotes but the you still placed them inside the punctuation when they are supposed to go after. —Cprice45 (talk) 14:20, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Of course, it depends on whether you should put the punctuation before or after the quotation marks. This is described in Manual of Style. When quoting text fragments, or writing work titles such as a song, the punctation should be after quotation marks. For example, here and here you wrote "Everytime,", "Passenger,", "Perfume,", and "Alien," with a comma in the title of the songs. Does it really look bad only to me? It really looks like these commas are going to be part of the titles. When you only quote a fragment of a sentence, without its beginning, I don't see any point in also putting a period before the quotation mark, since this isn't a fully quoted sentence. I see this thing a lot in other articles, although I've the impression it isn't correct. But putting the punctuation before the quotation marks in the titles looks just ridiculous and is 100% incorrect.
 * yes, I made a mistake about the punctuation, it is supposed to be preserved from the quote, although I believe there are still examples on that page that do not.
 * (Let me slightly change the format of your message) So, English isn't my mother tongue, but I was taught in elementary school that any word that ends with s can or even should be followed by just an apostrophe. A quick research on the Internet says both forms are correct, but I can be unsure about that. Personally, I prefer to write only an apostrophe, not s's, so I would leave the form Spears' as you can see someone preferred to use before, since it's shorter anyway, even by 1 letter. If this is correct then I don't see any need to change.

Sources directly below peaks on discography articles
Hello. Instead of regularly combing through discography articles making edits like this, perhaps it would be best if you left the source there until the song has completed its chart run or when it looks like it's ceased actively ascending the chart week to week. These sources, while intended to be temporary, do not need to be immediately removed once the citation in the column header updates with the data, and it's actually a hindrance when they are removed every week. It's also a waste of time, as they will just be added back, like I just did, when it achieves a new peak because it's actively charting. Please bear this in mind before making such removals in future. Thank you.  Ss  112   06:11, 7 October 2022 (UTC) Danionek (talk) 08:17, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Understood, thank you for your suggestion!

lost you
can u add tohut i lost you as a promo on miley discography 83.34.33.23 (talk) 14:58, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

Danionek (talk) 15:08, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Wow, I didn't know this song was a promotional single! Thank U, I'm going to add!

Danionek (talk) 15:05, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank uu! for adding and the work u do there. btw, "We a Famly", Teardrop, Lucy, Decisions, and Nothing to Lose are listed are official singles when they never got released as such. No radio date, no CD single. So why official? can u check that? thanks!!! --Halloween ends now (talk) 13:59, 17 October 2022 (UTC) Also, Breakout (not even promo), Without You Remix. And also, on a roll
 * I'm aware that none of the songs you mentioned have been sent to the radio or possibly more promoted, so also in my opinion these songs should be considered promotional singles instead of regular singles. However, I know that some editors have a different opinion on this, and perhaps they would find that these songs should still be considered regular singles. I'm not very interested in the topic at the moment, but if you want to suggest this change, why wouldn't you propose it in a discussion for Miley Cyrus discography or any particular song?

Nomination for merger of Template:Big Time Rush
Template:Big Time Rush has been nominated for merging with Template:Big Time Rush (group). You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. (Oinkers42) (talk) 14:20, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

Britney Spears
Are you able to add some chart stats for some of Britney’s releases that I found? I’m not the best at editing Wikipedia 2001:48F8:3028:2BEB:9043:80E2:CBBC:7F0F (talk) 03:02, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

Danionek (talk) 12:04, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Hi IP user, welcome to Wikipedia! I would be glad to help you as long as you provide the sources for these chart stats you mention and they're reliable!

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) 01:41, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

"Right Now (Taste the Victory)"
Hello. I noticed that last month, you tagged Spears's Pepsi promo, "Right Now (Taste the Victory)", as citation needed for being a promotional single. I found this a little amusing as I own a copy. They gave them out like hotcakes at convenience stores in 2001 or '02 for a while when you purchased any Pepsi product:, (just taken). Anyway, I've provided the liner notes as citations (for that and the other promo you tagged, which only exists as a white CD-R with the title on it given to radio stations). I think this is more than sufficient considering they clearly exist, and we can cite them as sources themselves.  Ss  112   08:07, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

Danionek (talk) 09:21, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Hey, thanks for your message and attention! I tagged them only because no source was given, and you know everything on Wikipedia should be confirmed with a source. I don't really doubt these songs were released as promotional singles. By giving the Cite AV media notes of these releases as you did, and your message to me, I assume good faith and believe that these releases actually took place.  Everything is fine, thank you! :3

Revert
Hello. I see the poppy song is again removed, I'd reverted that twice and was reverted. Maybe you can try, thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:49, 5 August 2023 (UTC) Danionek (talk) 12:56, 5 August 2023 (UTC) Danionek (talk) 14:14, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I don’t quite understand what you’re trying to prove by bringing that article back and writing a message like this to me.
 * Prove? That if a disputed article is to be removed then it should be at AfD and not just deleting it. Since you reverted my navbox entry I thought you'd like an explanation of why it was back on the navbox. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:59, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
 * It’s hard to call something disputed when something just doesn’t deserve an article. There’s no need to waste all the editors’ time and make AfD for everything when it’s obvious at 1st glance the article doesn’t have any source to prove its notability (and once there was an AfD, I’m sure everyone would vote to delete it). So I don’t know what you’re trying to prove, because an article like this shouldn’t exist. If you are so convinced and are trying so hard to prove otherwise, maybe find any 3 useful sources 1st. (If you don’t remember, it’s an article about an 8-year-old song, and it didn’t have an article for that long precisely because it wasn’t notable.)

IP editor is most likely Friendlyhelper9949
Hi Danionek, not sure you're aware but the IP editor (47.223.58.232) you've reverted who has made Disney-related and Victorious soundtrack topic edits is most likely. I'm reporting this to an admin to try to get them to stop but as you're interested in this topic area I thought you could keep a closer eye going ahead. A report to SPI might be wise.  Ss  112   13:47, 24 August 2023 (UTC) Danionek (talk) 13:55, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Hi! Thank you for this information. I also immediately thought it might be the same person because of the edit histories. And it can be noticed from their edits this person isn't very interested in listening to valuable feedback and collaborating, so I'm completely unsurprised by this decision.

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) 00:51, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

About Flowers Miley Cyrus
It's important to specify in the lead as to not avoid confusion. Its not to annoy you, I understand that the release date can differ BUT the citations that are added Say 13th so just keep it there as it could be confusing to those who read. I'm inviting you to this discussion as I notice you change it. Its simply a clarification and a minor yet important one. Release Dates on Wikipedia are taken quite seriously and you know that better than me. I only used to edit via ip until I made an account but I know that that kinda clarification is important for the reader. Even sometimes i get confused as often citations don't reflect the article.Everybodyyy (talk) 16:12, 10 February 2024 (UTC) I must admit until you wrote to me, I had no idea the references given in the lead only gave the date of January 13. I was sure at least 1 of them might say January 12 (in the middle of the article there are sources from Glamour, iHeartRadio, and PopSugar, which confirm this date and in my opinion would be more suitable as references in the lead). This is strange to me, because it was written about January 12 for a long time and no more experienced user (explanation: user other than IP or one who just created an account to make this edit) paid attention to it, but well, I'm 1 of them too and I missed it myself. As for the date itself and writing the song was released on January 12 in some regions and on January 13 worldwide – This is, in my opinion, too detailed for a lead. The lead of the article must be a very short summary of its topic, so in the case of a song like Flowers, i.e. musical genres, what it's about, critics' reviews, commercial reception, promotion, awards, etc. But the date? Only one date is really enough and it should be the earliest release of the song, in this case January 12. The date of the song is taken very seriously here (sometimes I have the impression that maybe even too seriously), but information in which regions when the song was released should be included in the body of the article, in the release sections. Notice the lead doesn't provide dates for other release formats of the song or its other versions, only the earliest one. This can also be especially noticeable in articles about songs released before the streaming era, when songs were released in different countries at different time intervals, even months apart, and in the lead itself only the earliest date is enough, when it was first released only in some region. Therefore, I think that the lead should mention January 12, while the discrepancy in dates (or rather simply different time zones in other parts of the world at the time of its release) should be mentioned only in the release section. Danionek (talk) 22:51, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Hi, thank you for your message!

Good article nomination of Love Sux
Hello! I'm The Sharpest Lives. I would like to inform you that I am nominating Love Sux, an article you have substantially contributed to, to be reviewed for the good article nominations process. I believe it is a very well-written article that is deserving of becoming a good article. Anyways, just wanted to let you know. Feel free to discuss with me here, just ping me. The Sharpest Lives (the deadliest to lead) 16:26, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

Girls Just Wanna Have Fun promo single
Don’t know why it wasn’t discovered until 2024 but it was a promo single in Italy, the discography article isn’t editable for me but here’s the proof (also You’re Gonna Make Me Lonesome as well I guess) I saw you’re active on her discography page :) https://www.earone.com/miley-cyrus/songs — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.223.58.232 (talk) 06:44, 2 July 2024 (UTC) Danionek (talk) 07:26, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
 * This wasnʼt discovered until this year, because EarOne recently revamped their website and as a result, suddenly there are radio releases that weren't seen there before. Personally, I wouldn't be sure about considering the songs you mentioned as (promo) singles, due to the lack of dates when they were released on the radio. I would love to consider them singles, but it's just unknown when exactly it happened.

Finland Certifications
Hey, because you seem to be active in adding certifications, I wanted to ask If you could add Ariana Grande's Finland certifications to each of her album's articles.

Source: https://www.universalmusic.fi/2024/03/08/ariana-granden-seitsemas-albumi-eternal-sunshine-on-nyt-julkaistu/

My Everything, Dangerous Woman, Thank U, Next: 3x Platinum

Sweetener: 2x Platinum

In the source, it says that her "newest album", with which they probably meant "Positions" (as "Eternal Sunshine" just came out by that time) is certified platinum too, however I don't know if you could add that, as it's not specifically named.

It's not from the usual site that certificates, however it's pretty much legit, as it's a Universal press release.

I would appreciate it, and thanks in advance! x Mirrored7 (talk) 21:25, 16 July 2024 (UTC)