User talk:Ferdinandhudson

(The) Bee Gees
Hello I moved articles that had the disambiguator "(Bee Gees album)" to "(The Bee Gees album)" because the main category is at Category:The Bee Gees, not Category:Bee Gees. Looking at the main article however (which I just did), it is at Bee Gees and not The Bee Gees. Clearly, there should be some agreement between these two. Thanks for your note and if you'd like to respond, please do so on my talk. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:02, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
Hi, You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:38, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

May 2020
Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit you made to E.S.P. (Bee Gees album), did not appear constructive and has been reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use the sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. Sundayclose (talk) 15:07, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
 * , I have reviewed the edit in question and it does not appear to meet the definition of disruptive editing implied by this template. It would be better if you would discuss the disagreement with Ferdinandhudson on the article's talk page. Thanks. --IamNotU (talk) 15:30, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I'll accept that. But it certainly meets the criteria for addition of unsourced information (or removing sourced information) at level 1, especially since this editor reverted a previous revert. So I'll change the template. Sundayclose (talk) 15:36, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Hello, I'm Sundayclose. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, E.S.P. (Bee Gees album), but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so. You can have a look at the tutorial on citing sources. If you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Sundayclose (talk) 15:36, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
 * , sorry but I'm still not seeing any wrongdoing on the part of Ferdinandhudson. I'm not aware of any restrictions on undoing a revert of another user's edit, particularly if no explanation was given in the edit summary. I'm also not convinced about the "unsourced" warning. There was already a sourced statement in the article saying it reached #96 on the top 200 chart. Saying it "barely made the top 100" based on that is not entirely unreasonable, and does seem more accurate than "barely made the top 200" as it had been before. Your solution of directly stating the number is even better though. Thanks. --IamNotU (talk) 16:02, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
 * All the article stated in the charts section was referencing the name of the chart, "Billboard 200", which in itself doesn't relate to what placement a song reaches in the chart. If a song reaches, say, #17 you commonly refer it as a Top 20 hit. So in this case the song reached #96 on the chart so, ergo, barely made it into the top 100. I really don't see the fuss this gets. Someone entered incorrect data, another corrected it which was reverted back to the incorrect statement and I changed it back. I'm fine with just stating the #96 placement. Peace out. Ferdinandhudson (talk) 16:14, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but I disagree. Billboard has specific names for charts. Stating that it's in the top 100 chart without a source to indicate which chart (top 100 or top 200) is adding unsourced information. The information later in the article identifies it as the top 200. It's not a serious policy violation (one that is quite common), thus a level 1 just for information purposes. In any event, please see the change to the edit which I made to completely avoid naming a chart. With that, no source identifying the chart is required. Thanks for raising this issue, and thanks to Ferdinandhudson for agreeing to my last edit. Sundayclose (talk) 16:22, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
 * , I can understand your argument about the interpretation of the source, but it didn't say "top 100 chart"; the top 200 chart does contain the top 100 too. My assessment remains that while the edit could be debated or improved (as you've done), it doesn't qualify as "adding unsourced information" and a warning template alleging misbehavior "just for information purposes" isn't necessary or appropriate - especially not templating a regular editor with a 13-year history and thousands of helpful contributions. I understand that you may disagree, but I feel it should be said for others who may read this talk page, in defense of Ferdinandhudson's spotless reputation. Thanks for your understanding. --IamNotU (talk) 17:22, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Without a source, I (nor any naive reader, which we assume is the case) knows how the different Billboard charts are differentiated, whether the same criteria are used to determine the contents, what metrics are used, whether one chart is incorporated into another, or any of many possible differences. That's why we have WP:V, which (as I'm sure you know) requires a source if the information is challenged, which it was. If the worst template anyone ever gets is a level 1 occasionally, I don't consider that a blemish on their record. I suppose I could have used a self-written comment instead of an official level one, but I prefer templates because the wording is officially approved by Wikipedia. I would not be offended in the least if I added something to an article without a source because I thought it was obvious and someone gave me a level one. In fact, I might appreciate it because it would make me consider my edit in more detail. In any event, I have nothing but respect for Ferdinandhudson and you, and I appreciate this discussion. I'll stop commenting here so as not to annoy Ferdinandhudson with messages. Sundayclose (talk) 18:14, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
 * , but there was a source, later in the article. Per MOS:LEADCITE it's common practice not to put a citation in the lead for uncontroversial information that is included and cited in the body. 96 is within the top 100 of the Billboard 200 chart, and it's not "barely" in the top 200. I'm sorry to keep going on about it, but I still maintain that the warning template for adding "unsourced content" is unwarranted. I'll leave it at that. --IamNotU (talk) 18:49, 9 May 2020 (UTC)