User talk:GogoLion/Archives

Need for protection
I am not an administrator so I cannot help you with this. I think that the proper place to place your request would be Requests for page protection and administrators will take it from there. Rentzepopoulos (talk) 11:53, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for information. It's so helpful

Speedy deletion nomination of Angel's Knock
Hello Kim Dong Kyu,

I wanted to let you know that I just tagged Angel's Knock for deletion, because the article doesn't clearly say why the subject is important enough to be included in an encyclopedia.

If you feel that the article shouldn't be deleted and want more time to work on it, you can contest this deletion, but please don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions. Meatsgains (talk) 19:48, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

Unspecified source/license for File:Airwarcrystalcastlesnap.png
Thanks for uploading File:Airwarcrystalcastlesnap.png. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. Even if you created the image yourself, you still need to release it so Wikipedia can use it. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time after the next seven days. If you made this image yourself, you can use copyright tags like PD-self (to release all rights), (to require that you be credited), or any tag here - just go to the image, click edit, and add one of those. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:
 * Image use policy
 * Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by MifterBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. NOTE: Once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. --MifterBot (Talk • Contribs • Owner) 17:45, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

File permission problem with File:Airwarcrystalcastlesnap.png
Thanks for uploading File:Airwarcrystalcastlesnap.png. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file has agreed to release it under the given license.

If you are the copyright holder for this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either
 * make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
 * Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add OTRS pending to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Non-free content, use a tag such as non-free fair use or one of the other tags listed at File copyright tags, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in [ your upload log]. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described in section F11 of the criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 19:19, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

May 2018
Hello. Some of your recent genre changes have conflicted with our neutral point of view and verifiability policies. While we invite all users to contribute constructively to Wikipedia, we urge all editors to provide reliable sources for edits made. When others disagree, we recommend you seek consensus for certain edits by discussing the matter on the article's talk page. Thank you. 183.171.180.244 (talk) 14:12, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Assalamu Alayka (Maher Zain song)


The article Assalamu Alayka (Maher Zain song) has been proposed for deletion&#32;because of the following concern: "No evidence of independent notability."

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. JTtheOG (talk) 19:54, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 16
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Big Enough (Kirin J. Callinan song), you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages EDM and Country song ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/Big_Enough_%28Kirin_J._Callinan_song%29 check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/Big_Enough_%28Kirin_J._Callinan_song%29?client=notify fix with Dab solver]). 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) 08:08, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

December 2019
Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Forced conversion, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. If you only meant to make a test edit, please use the sandbox for that. Thank you.  Acroterion   (talk)   13:21, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Wtf are you blind? I gave it OBVIOUSLY. The reference is broken. It says "404" and you say i'm dOn'T gIviNg A vALId rEASoN?  Kim Dong Kyu Speaking   13:32, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 6
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Gotta Be You (2NE1 song), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page EDM.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:28, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

Dynamite
There are sources calling Hotline Bling a single off of Views. There are no sources calling Dynamite a single off of Be. Yea it’s a single, and yea it’s included on the album, but unless there are sources saying 'Bts new single off of their new album, Dynamite' or something like that, we can’t include it as that would be WP:SYNTH and WP:OR. So please self-revert (revert your edit) until we have sources saying the song is a single off of the album. D🐶ggy54321 (let's chat!) 19:17, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

November 2020
Your recent editing history at Dynamite (BTS song) shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing&mdash;especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring&mdash;even if you do not violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. (CC) Tb hotch ™ 19:37, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 18
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Taurus (astrology), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Ceres. 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) 06:34, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

June 2021
Hello, I'm Nehme1499. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions&#32;to LGBT rights in Lebanon have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Teahouse. Thanks. Nehme1499 18:24, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

Bubblegum dance
The consensus was to delete the bubblegum dance article, see Articles for deletion/Bubblegum dance. Please do not restore it again. Schazjmd  (talk)  14:58, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia and copyright
Hello GogoLion! Your additions to Styles of pop music have been removed in whole or in part, as they appear to have added copyrighted content without evidence that the source material is in the public domain or has been released by its owner or legal agent under a suitably-free and compatible copyright license. (To request such a release, see Requesting copyright permission.) While we appreciate your contributions to Wikipedia, there are certain things you must keep in mind about using information from sources to avoid copyright and plagiarism issues.


 * You can only copy/translate a small amount of a source, and you must mark what you take as a direct quotation with double quotation marks (") and cite the source using an inline citation. You can read about this at Non-free content in the sections on "text". See also Help:Referencing for beginners, for how to cite sources here.
 * Aside from limited quotation, you must put all information in your own words and structure, in proper paraphrase. Following the source's words too closely can create copyright problems, so it is not permitted here; see Close paraphrasing. Even when using your own words, you are still, however, asked to cite your sources to verify the information and to demonstrate that the content is not original research.
 * We have strict guidelines on the usage of copyrighted images. Fair use images must meet all ten of the non-free content criteria in order to be used in articles, or they will be deleted. To be used on Wikipedia, all other images must be made available under a free and open copyright license that allows commercial and derivative reuse.
 * If you own the copyright to the source you want to copy or are a legally designated agent, you may be able to license that text so that we can publish it here. Understand, though, that unlike many other sites, where a person can license their content for use there and retain non-free ownership, that is not possible at Wikipedia. Rather, the release of content must be irrevocable, to the world, into either the public domain (PD) or under a suitably-free and compatible copyright license. Such a release must be done in a verifiable manner, so that the authority of the person purporting to release the copyright is evidenced. See Donating copyrighted materials.
 * Also note that Wikipedia articles may not be copied or translated without attribution. If you want to copy or translate from another Wikipedia project or article, you must follow the copyright attribution steps described at Copying within Wikipedia. See also Help:Translation.

It's very important that contributors understand and follow these practices, as policy requires that people who persistently do not must be blocked from editing. If you have any questions about this, you are welcome to leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. — Diannaa (talk) 16:03, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

Music genre hierarchy
Hey. As I see, you mainly basing and creating hierarchy according to Allmusic. I don't recommend doing that, as there are a lot of mistakes, conventions and inaccuracies. Their hierarchy often feels senseless and way too random, not talking about that it has not been updated for 15 years already. For example, they use the whole New Age category as a group of everything that doesn't fit in the other categories, while for traditional folk music they sometimes use 3 different entries for the same genre, placing it in 3 different places in the hierarchy. Their Pop/Rock hierarchy also seems random for many things there. After building | this excessive list of genres over the last six months, which is based on 5-8 external catalogues (incl current wiki's categorizing), I recommend you to use as a basis Rate Your Music's hierarchy: rateyourmusic.com/genres. They back up every genre and its place in the hierarchy by external sources (including allmusic, when their placement makes a sense; but when it comes to newly arisen genres sources are often non-reliable enough for wiki's policy tho), and also it's the most objective one you can find in the internet - quite a large community every time discuss every move and edit regarding music genres and always comes to consensus on the placing genre in the hierarchy, i.e. doing wiki's job. Yes, on wikipedia RYM is considered non-reliable. But most edits on RYM are also based on external sources, discussed in excessive detail and simply logical. The sources they use can be found in the any genre's editing history. So I think it's just right to use their hierarchy (but also look up for additional sources to move it to Wikipedia). Solidest (talk) 19:51, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

Nope. I also found some mistakes on RYM. -GogoLion (talk) 09:58, 30 November 2021 (UTC)


 * I never said it's perfect. There are still a dozens of things that need to be fixed (out of 1800 genres). It's just the most competent one you can find in internet. While allmusic's one is completely incompetent in this regard. It have to be redone by 2/3 at least. Solidest (talk) 13:16, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

You say user-generated editing site like RYM is more trustable than a site that built by music experts like AllMusic? Do you know who are AllMusic contributors? -GogoLion (talk) 13:25, 30 November 2021 (UTC)


 * I'm talking specifically about the hierarchy of genres. And yes, in its current form, RYM is more trustable. And I have given the reasons why this is so. Solidest (talk) 15:11, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

Sir, maybe you could explain to him about RateYourMusic credibility? GogoLion (talk) 22:02, 30 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Eh, too bad I have to explain a seemingly obvious point for the third time in a row. It's not about blindly trusting and transferring RYM to Wikipedia (sourcing RYM is unallowed on wiki), it's about Allmusic being a bad source regarding their genre hierarchy. I've told you that in my experience I've come across both large amount of duplicate entries (https://mix-n-match.toolforge.org/#/sync/4374) and hundreds of inaccuracies (like they put ambient pop as alt rock or indie rock subgenre), including the fact that their rank system is completely unworkable/inapplicable to wikipedia (new age tree). That's all I was saying. Regarding RYM - I just let you know that they also use and list external sources for each genre and I told you where to look for it if you need sourcing for wikipedia. But if you want to ignore that until you're confronted with it all yourself and realize that tree can't exist like this, then it's up to you. While I've already regretted starting a conversation here. Solidest (talk) 01:08, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

"Metropopolis" listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Metropopolis and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 December 30 until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. signed,Rosguill talk 21:12, 30 December 2021 (UTC)