User talk:Hayman30/Archive 4

Hong Kong International Airport
Quite frankly, you removed it with the edit summary of the section being unsourced then switched your reasoning to call the info "trivial" when it doesn't fit your removal narrative means you don't really know what you're doing. There are other, dedicated articles like Infrastructure of Singapore Changi Airport which proves that it is hardly "trivial". In fact, info like that can be covered extensively. OhanaUnitedTalk page 08:50, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I don’t see any contradiction here. It’s unsourced and trivial at the same time. Just look at all the other section headings, this doesn’t fit in and obviously isn’t important enough to have its own section. The primary source you added isn’t particularly helpful either because it comes directly from HKIA and doesn’t really help establish notability for the Discovery Centre. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a valid argument here and that article is specifically talking about the infrastructure of the airport. Just remember you’re not writing a shopping guide for HKIA, there is absolutely no need to cover all facilities within the airport. Hayman30 (talk) 09:44, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I hope you actually read the policies before citing them. You cited Notability but the page explicitly stated right in the lead section "These guidelines only outline how suitable a topic is for its own article or list . They do not limit the content of an article or list". And using WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is a strawman argument. Citing policy and throwing it around as buzzword in a conversation without checking what the policy actually says proves my point that you don't know what you're doing. OhanaUnitedTalk page 19:42, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Bullshit, I never cited notability guidelines to support my concerns, I merely mentioned the word. I was just trying to say that it doesn't deserve its own section, especially when you look at other section headings, it just doesn't fit in. You mentioned another article (which isn't even the primary article on the airport) is simply irrelevant in this situation. Man I'm sick of dealing with self-righteous editors. Hayman30 (talk) 23:29, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Notable?
Hi! Happy New Year. I need your opinion about Draft:K-391 (music producer). Is he notable for Wikipedia per WP:NMUSIC? Is it ready for publish? Thank You, Siddiqsazzad001       18:52, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
 * No, it is not notable for Wikipedia inclusion. The page has been deleted twice before. Hayman30 (talk) 09:31, 3 January 2019 (UTC)


 * What about this: TheFatRat. Siddiqsazzad001       15:42, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Precious anniversary
--Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:15, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Consensus for Talk:Bangarang
Hi. If you have an issue with my edits feel free, and we can reach a consensus. Thanks. 2402:1980:24D:1405:DCE4:EB5D:AC25:B583 (talk) 05:11, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

HotNewHipHop
Would you be willing to weigh in this discussion regarding HotNewHipHop should be count as an reliable source or not. If you want to. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 21:00, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Touch (Shift K3Y song)
Hi Hayman30, I added Hi-NRG as a genre a while back, based on this Pitchfork review, but I'm not sure if it's explicitly being called dance-pop also. Do you know if "as with", in this case, means 'similar to a lot of crossover UK dance-pop' or 'as with a lot of other UK dance-pop'? It's one of those were if it was spoken I could immediately tell by the inflection how it was meant but because it's written I can't be sure. Theo Mandela (talk) 14:52, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Hey, sorry for the late reply. I think in this case it’s not directly associating dance pop with the song, it merely pointed out the similarities between them, so my answer would be no. Hi-NRG is definitely a yes though. Hayman30 (talk) 19:15, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

No worries, thanks for clarifying. Theo Mandela (talk) 20:32, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

If You Leave Me Now
Hello. I was looking at the Voicenotes era articles since I think it has potential to be a future good topic. But I stumbled upon the page statistics for If You Leave Me Now (Charlie_Puth_song) and saw you have 77% authorship of it, along with high contribution to other articles from the era. Do you have plans to take any of these articles to GA? I don't want to step on any toes. In case you don't plan on it, I could still credit you as a co-nom on every GA nomination I create for the era if you would like. Regards.--NØ 22:46, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

Born to Be Yours
Tbone49 added 'Origins', an Imagine Dragons album, to "album" parameter. However, as a bonus track in not all versions of the album. Can you add the hidden note to not to. 2402:1980:242:92F1:9AC9:CBA7:5181:927E (talk) 07:24, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the heads-up, I have reverted their edit. If they add it again I’ll leave a note. Hayman30 (talk) 07:33, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

Precious anniversary
--Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:57, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

Mainland China
I opened a dispute resolution as the discussion on the talk page did not come to a resolution, would you be willing to provide some comment at Dispute resolution noticeboard. I would appreciate. Thank you so much!  Krazytea  (talk) 20:55, 11 February 2020 (UTC)


 *  Krazytea  (talk) 16:12, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

South Korea
See .―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 09:18, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
 * It’s your responsibility to add the source. See WP:BURDEN. Hayman30 (talk) 09:20, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I added the source in my edit summary.―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 09:22, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
 * You need to add the source to the article, not your edit summary. An edit summary is only used to provide a brief summary of an edit, see H:ES. Hayman30 (talk) 09:25, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I fully understand. You seem to rely on unreliable BNO too much.―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 09:29, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

Worldometers

 * Worldometers Started to provide a source for every update. Is it still considered as unreliable and what make it unreliable?
 * Thanks.  ~Nick~  {talk} 13:23, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Worldometer itself is not a particularly reliable source, but the sources they cite very well may be. If you see that they have a more updated number, try to find the source they cited, and use that as a source for Wikipedia instead. As of now, I still noticed that some of their updates are not sourced. Often times they'll have an incorrect number because they made a mistake during calculation, or they just added on top of a wrong number. More notably, I noticed multiple times that they copied numbers from Wikipedia. I know this because the number they copied was incorrect and was later reverted on Wikipedia. Avoid citing Worldometer as a source if possible. Hayman30 (talk) 13:59, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

South Korea Death
Hi, I would like to inform you that BNO made a mistake in counting the deaths of South Korea by COVID-19. In the official source, the number of death is 28, and the number of recoveries is 34. BNO must have mistaken the number of death as 34. However, there is no original source that claims that. So, the ref I put is still valid, concluding that the confirmed death toll remains 29 by now. Could you put back the reference link and fix this please, or make a note(that BNO made a mistake) on the article? Thank you. Luke Kern Choi 5 (talk) 09:09, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
 * ✅. By the way, any idea why KCDC stopped publishing the 16:00 daily report on their website? They used to do one at 9:00, one regular briefing, and one at 16:00, but now they're only publishing the regular briefing and the daily statistics at 0:00. They still announce new numbers in the afternoon right? Or else how did BNO get the updated numbers? Hayman30 (talk) 09:27, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
 * From March 2, they started to announce 0:00 status at 10:00 with a regular briefing at 14:00 for more accurate statistics. Before, they had 2 updates (9:00 stats at 10:00, 16:00 stats at 17:00) and a briefing. It is mentioned on March 2 00:00 update. I believe the update at the afternoon is updated by Daegu, not by KCDC.Luke Kern Choi 5 (talk) 09:45, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for clarifying. Hayman30 (talk) 09:47, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Rollback
Hey Hayman! Just wanted to ask why you used rollback while reverting good faith edits to the Wonder album page. I know that is frowned apon and could get your rollback permissions taken away (I was also recently clocked for abusing my rollback permissions). The IP was trying to fix a mistake they made while removing part of a reference by accident, and they made constructive edits to fix the grammar of the section as well, so it’s a little puzzling why you would use rollback. If you could ping me when you respond, that would be awesome. Thanks! Doggy54321 (talk) 11:23, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Um, because they broke formatting by removing part of a reference, causing the parameters to leak into the body (by removing the tag). They were not doing it "by accident", they didn't change any content in that particular edit, they just removed part of a reference for no reason and published the changes. The "accident" wasn't part of the initial edit in which they claimed to have "fixed improper grammar" (I don't think there was any "improper grammar" to begin with, he just tweaked the wording a little bit), it was a separate edit, which looked like vandalism to me. Also, in a subsequent edit, they removed the entire reference without giving an explanation. Their edits were not constructive. Hayman30 (talk) 11:55, 6 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I knew that. They still made a change to Wikipedia that wasn’t vandalism (the grammar one), so it just seemed weird as to why you used rollback to revert all 3 instead of just manually fixing the ref. Thanks for clarifying! Doggy54321 (talk) 11:59, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Consensus
Hey. Please look here (Sour Candy - a single?) here (Changes to "Smile") and here (Why TMN shouldn’t be used for release dates) for loose consensus on TMN. It shouldn’t be used, and it should have already been added to WP:RSP. Solely based on the unreliability of TMN is why songs such as Sour Candy (Lady Gaga and Blackpink song) are not singles. Kindly revert your edit. Thanks so much! D🐶ggy54321 (let's chat!) 16:43, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't see any concrete consensus on the reliability of The Music Network based on the links you provided, which were mostly discussions focused on whether a specific song is a single, rather than a detailed probe into the reliability of TMN, which is what is generally required for a source to be considered unreliable by the community, and hence be add to WP:RSP or WP:ALBUMAVOID. Moreover, we're not using TMN to determine whether the song is a single in the case, there are already sources supporting that, it was merely listed as an entry in the release history table, so I don't see much harm there. Based on the reasons set forth above, I will not revert my edit, but I see that you couldn't wait anymore and reverted it yourself, so there's that. Hayman30 (talk) 16:55, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
 * True, I am very impatient 😊😊. Sure, it doesn’t affect the single status, that’s already determined, but it does affect the release date. If it’s added back, the release date becomes October 30, because that is the first date when it was sent to radio. If it’s not added back the release date is November 3, as that is when it is scheduled to impact US radio. Seeing as how we all generally agreed it’s unreliable, even without concrete consensus, I would advise against adding it back, as that would be adding unreliable info to an article. You could do it though, I don’t have power over you, but I will be opening another discussion at WP:SONGS and will try to get a consensus. Thanks! D🐶ggy54321 (let's chat!) 17:03, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
 * No. The song's release date is already determined regardless of what TMN says. We have two independent sources calling the song a single on October 30, 2020, so whether TMN is there or not doesn't affect anything. Seeing as how we all generally agreed it’s unreliable, even without concrete consensus – by "we all", do you mean those one or two editors who called TMN unreliable? Sorry but one or two editors do not represent the community, let alone establishing community consensus, which is generally achieved after lengthy discussions participated by numerous users. At this point in time, I do not consider TMN to be unreliable, and the effect it has on the article is minimal. By the way, you shouldn't have restored your edit, since I already undid your bold revert, which mean you should take it to the article talk page (i.e. not here) as per WP:BRD. Hayman30 (talk) 17:13, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Ok. I’ll self revert. I’m confused though. Does that mean Sour Candy is a single now? I’ll be opening a WP:SONGS discussion now. Thanks! D🐶ggy54321 (let's chat!) 17:16, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Please do open it. If community consensus is reached, it would help avoid disputes like this in the future. I'm currently working on another article so I might not comment on your post right way. I'm not familiar with the "Sour Candy" song you're referring to, but radio impact is not the only determining factor for a song's single status. Hayman30 (talk) 17:21, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Ok cool. Thanks so much! I’ve opened discussion here, check it out whenever! D🐶ggy54321 (let's chat!) 17:33, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

Positions (song)
It is certified Gold in Canada, are you able to add it? AnthonyFG (talk) 17:22, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
 * ✅ Hayman30 (talk) 17:45, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

Thank you very much! AnthonyFG (talk) 21:08, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

Ariana Grande Discography
Are you the one vandalizing the ariana grande discography page, the sources really said she's been certified 52.5M digital singles not 63 million, that calculates 79M records sold along with 7 million albums and 19.5 from the U.K. Not 88.5M records sold, I'm tired of editing it and putting the correct calculation, but the page keeps being vandalized, the last person i see in the recent editing users is you, so are you the one who's doing it? Moonlight Entm (talk) 04:55, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
 * No. I don't edit when I'm logged out, and I'm not even familiar with certifications. Hayman30 (talk) 05:09, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

Precious anniversary
--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:58, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Official linkfire link
Notice the lack of single art you deem official when you look at the official linkfire by searching breathin ariana grande linkfire on google and click the first result? That is because there is no official artwork, back search the single art you added and you see it on fan made sites. The link fire you deemed official is not actually official. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paul to my Linda (talk • contribs) 18:29, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Just because it doesn't show up in a Google search doesn't mean it's not official, and just because the first result on Google Search doesn't direct you to the page containing the cover doesn't mean it's unofficial either. The page is likely set to be hidden from search engines as the song is no longer the current single and thus does not require any more promotion. The domain, arianagrande.lnk.to, is an official domain owned by Republic Records, Grande's record label. Any path following that domain is official, hence arianagrande.lnk.to/SNGLBreathin is also official. See this Tweet from Grande, the URL is in the exact same format. You need to stop edit warring on the page, you have already broken the three-revert rule. I'd suggest you to open a discussion on the article talk page, but it's pretty clear that you are wrong. Hayman30 (talk) 18:49, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Publisher Credits
Hi Hayman,

Although there is no mention of credits at WP:SONG there is at WP:ALBUMS#Personnel. Although publishers aren't mentioned by name, it section talks about avoiding A&R and generic personnel who don't have anything to do with the production, lyrics or design of the song. Many publishing companies listed are actually the limited companies that artists/musician's royalties are paid to and handle their business affairs. In that respect, I consider them superfluous and add very little to an article in line with the principles above - I fully accept that publishers aren't specifically mentioned.

I also took into account FAs and GAs - publisher credits are not widely used. If you still disagree, happy to have a wider discussion on one of the talk pages to have a clearer consensus/direction on it. ≫  Lil- Unique1  -{ Talk  }- 10:55, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Hey. I've actually come across numerous GAs with publisher credits, I'm sure you don't need me to provide you with an exhaustive list, but they exist. WP:PERSONNEL does not mention anything about recording studios either, and I'd argue that recording studios hardly qualify as a "credit", but that doesn't mean we can't include them. There's a difference between something being "not required" (which is your opinion, by the way) and being strictly prohibited/discouraged, and I don't think publishing credits fall in the latter, thus I'm having a hard time seeing any real justification for your edits. I should also mention that you only removed the credits from the articles of the two singles, but not the other three songs from the same album, which is a little strange. Hayman30 (talk) 13:12, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Recording studios are more notable than publishers IMO and there is also a recording studio field in the infobox but not for publishers which suggests the former is more significant and noteworthy than the latter. As explained, the "publishers" listed are from album credits are a mix of genuine publishing companies e.g. Universal Music Publishing, Warner Chappell etc and then a range of "artist-owned" companies which are actually business administration or tax companies that have little to do with the actual publishing of the song. The personnel section does mention avoiding individuals not involved in the actual song, lyrics or production. The companies to which royalties are paid to for a song are not of relevance. That's significantly different to the recording studios. I edited pages that came up in my field of vision - I don't follow or visit all of the articles by Ariana . I do think its personal preference, because as you say its not explicit in the style guides, but its a bigger issue than you or I so probably warrants a bigger discussion if people want them included. ≫  Lil- Unique1  -{ Talk  }- 18:48, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Precious anniversary
--Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:41, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

Nomination of Windows 10 (original release) for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Windows 10 (original release) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Windows 10 (original release) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. — Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 05:17, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

Nomination of Windows 10 version 21H1 for deletion
Hi there. I received a message recently @ my talk page notifying me regarding an ongoing negotiation taking place. Please feel free to share thoughts. Thank you.41.62.148.55 (talk) 16:16, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

Note about template:timeline Windows
I've posted a suggestion @ its talk page but nobody seemed to give a flipping darn. Can U look into this issue? Or would you consider to establish a consensus about that template? Thanks.197.238.101.206 (talk) 12:34, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

Precious anniversary
--Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:42, 9 January 2023 (UTC)