User talk:Joseph Prasad/Archive 4

Welcome back
How are things? — ATinySliver / ATalkPage 🖖 08:21, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
 * , it's alright I guess. Personal life's not too good, but I am back on Wikipedia. I just won't be the hugely active I once was. I'll edit probably every day, but I think I'll stick to doing only discography articles or ones that don't get much attention (like Drake Bell, Jack Griffo), just small articles that not a lot of people edit. Thanks for the welcome back message. -- Joseph Prasad (talk) 19:03, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
 * As always: any questions, I'm here. Happy editing! — ATinySliver / ATalkPage &#128406; 19:56, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
 * , thank you. To you as well. -- Joseph Prasad (talk)

Contribs stalker
With no offense intended, and with the hope that you continue to grow as a contributor, I occasionally take a look at your work. You'll have to forgive me.

One that got my attention: to  Breathe In. Breathe Out. included within its summary, "Promo singles are not official singles." An assertion like that would beg for a source, such as "Promo singles are not official singles per billboard.com/notsingles" (I made that up for demonstration purposes), or a potential "yes they are/no they're not" edit war looms. Say, for example, a promo single charts; is that not then a "single"? Would reverting your edit be wrong?

Thoughts to ponder. Happy editing! 🖖 ATinySliver / ATalkPage 04:57, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Oh, I don't mind at all, . I've had worse stalkers out there, going specifically after pages I've been working on in an attempt to get me blocked, and it worked. So a friendly stalker is fine.


 * The reason I took that out and said that was cause official singles are different from promotional singles. In the days of vinyl, there was promotional singles, but in a different sense. They were singles given out for free to promote albums. Now, the term refers singles that were put out for sale before an album's release that was not put out for radio airplay (see One Direction discography and look at the ones under Made in the A.M. for example, cause if promo singles were there, there'd be 9 singles, kind of rediculous). While the singles I removed were put out to airplay, I was just being Bold and basically pointing out the contradiction, hoping someone would clear out that contradiction and possibly decide if they are promotional singles or official singles. -- Joseph Prasad (talk) 05:25, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Sounds good. Be bold, but be reasonably sure, with evidence if warranted—and it doesn't hurt to reconsider bold if the answer to "would someone be correct to revert me" is a reasonable "yes." (Meantime, FWIW, I'm old enough to remember payola. ) LLaP &#128406; ATinySliver / ATalkPage 05:33, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Well,, it is reasonable here as it's to improve Duff's album article. I'm not entirely sure myself as I just caught up with Hilary Duff's work, just like how I lost Drake Bell from 2009 to a lot of 2011 (of course, he kind of fell off the radar), same with Duff after like, 2009. until just recently. -- Joseph Prasad (talk) 05:49, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
 * We know when we're working to improve an article; others sometimes need convincing. . &#128406; ATinySliver / ATalkPage 06:22, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, I agree, . -- Joseph Prasad (talk) 06:33, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

December 2015
Please refrain from making controversial changes that have already been discussed on the article's talk page, as you did at Red (Taylor Swift album), without first establishing consensus on the talk page. Your edits appear to have gone against established consensus and have been reverted. Thank you. Dan56 (talk) 06:17, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Hi, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you tried to give Ready, Steady, Go! (album) a different title by copying its content and pasting either the same content, or an edited version of it, into Ready Steady Go! (album). This is known as a "cut-and-paste move", and it is undesirable because it splits the page history, which is legally required for attribution. Instead, the software used by Wikipedia has a feature that allows pages to be moved to a new title together with their edit history.

In most cases, once your account is four days old and has ten edits, you should be able to move an article yourself using the "Move" tab at the top of the page (the tab may be hidden in a dropdown menu for you). This both preserves the page history intact and automatically creates a redirect from the old title to the new. If you cannot perform a particular page move yourself this way (e.g. because a page already exists at the target title), please follow the instructions at requested moves to have it moved by someone else. Also, if there are any other pages that you moved by copying and pasting, even if it was a long time ago, please list them at Requests for history merge. Thank you. Snuggums (talk / edits) 22:22, 26 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Thank you for that . I had no clue about a "move" option. -- Joseph Prasad (talk) 22:29, 26 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Happy to help. Just remember to use the "move" feature instead in the future or file a request for a page move. Snuggums (talk / edits) 22:31, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

Carly Rae Jepsen
The removal of unsourced content from BLPs does not need to be discussed. See also WP:3RRNO - if you continue to re-add aforementioned unsourced content about a BLP you will be blocked. GiantSnowman 09:17, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
 * To clarify further before I go away for NYE - if you were to source the content then we certainly we would need a discussion about whether or not the content should be included, and I would be more than happy to instigate it. However no source = no debate, it's that simple. GiantSnowman 09:28, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
 * , you are incorrect. I have been blocked at Jack Griffo's article for removing unsourced content. There is no exception to unsouurced content, only when it violates BLP or is controversial. -- Joseph Prasad (talk) 09:37, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

December 2015
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on Carly Rae Jepsen. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement. Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states: If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing.  livelikemusic  my talk page! 14:14, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
 * 1) Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
 * 2) Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

Sabrina Carpenter
I guess it's okay then, it just didn't make sense to me at first look. nyuszika7h (talk) 20:58, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Yeah, . Understandable. -- Joseph Prasad (talk) 03:29, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Re: Emotion - Flop.
Please see Talk:Carly Rae Jepsen. Thanks. Extraordinary Machine (talk) 05:48, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Bowie U.S.
All those examples you gave though are U.S. people - if you look through the article US is the standard European usage. Dickdock (talk) 04:41, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Featured singles
I could only find FAs counting featured singles Justin Timberlake discography; Bruno Mars discography. Katy Perry was also counting them, but wasn't updated after "Everyday is a Holiday" was cancelled as a single. Swift article got the wrong number as well. There isn't a guideline, so there's no point. Cornerstonepicker (talk) 06:58, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
 * , it's better to separate them. For one, it is not their single, they just made an appearance. Two, we can prevent messes with those like T-Pain who show up on basically everything. -- Joseph Prasad (talk) 07:03, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Is their, is specified how many featured singles are being counted in the number, and it has been like that since forever here. Those singles are sent to radio and usually being promoted by both. Certifications/chart positions count towards both. Cornerstonepicker (talk) 07:06, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
 * No, otherwise they wouldn't be placed in "featured" but in "as lead/main artist". They do not get a credit in the same way. They get a featuring credit. Someone can get a featured credit and barely do much in a song (Miranda Cosgrove's "Leave It All to Me" features Drake Bell, but yet he only sings backing vocals and two or three lines, or Drake Bell's "Bitchcraft", which features Brian Setzer, yet all he does is play guitar. If we included featured into main, then it should be placed as such in the actual tables. And if we do that, like I said, T-Pain, would have like, 100 more or less singles. It's a way to prevent large numbers like that. -- Joseph Prasad (talk) 07:14, 13 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Such an odd example. I guess See You Again isn't a Charlie Puth single, or Uptown Funk isn't Bruno's. We need third opinions. Please,  can you help us here? Cornerstonepicker (talk) 18:04, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Using one of my previous examples, "Leave It All to Me", which was the only Hot 100 entry Drake Bell ever got, yet it is not in his chart history page. Charlie Puth - "See You Again" isn't in his chart history either. Apparently Billboard doesn't think it's their single. -- Joseph Prasad (talk) 18:13, 13 January 2016 (UTC)


 * for an overview, Ariana Grande discography history; number of singles in the lead/in the box. Cornerstonepicker (talk) 18:10, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Whether an artist is credited as a main or a featured on a single it's anyways his/her single. There is no need to separate them. Timberlake has a bunch of featured singles which we count them as his singles too and that's fine. Per your example, "Smooth" is credited as 'Santana featuring Rob Thomas' and if you think about it Santana only play the instruments on the song, while Thomas provides ALL the vocals, so you want to say it's not his song? Sorry Joseph, but your logic doesn't make much sense. And don't bother mentioning Billboard because obviously they add the singles only in the main artist profile. — Tom (T2ME) 18:13, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Other stuff exists, . I can use the same logic for Taylor Swift discography; they don't count it there. And yes, I can mention Billboard. More reliable and reputable than just random logic. And like I said previously, then we should not separate them in the tables, if we're not going to separate them anywhere else. -- Joseph Prasad (talk) 18:17, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Then you should start counting it, because they are her singles too. Also, guess what, Billboard logic is different than UK's Official Chart Company for example. See here, they do list Charlie's featured singles, because they are his singles, what now? — Tom (T2ME) 18:21, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Then again, like I said, we should not separate the singles from featured singles in the tables with the charts if we're not going to separate them anywhere else. That is inconsistency. If it is still their single; then get rid of the "featured singles" section all together and put them in the "singles" section. -- Joseph Prasad (talk) 18:25, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
 * The lead perfectly specifies xx singles (including xx as a featured artist). Pretty sure readers can understand that. Cornerstonepicker (talk) 18:42, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
 * But again, if we don't separate them in the lead and table, why not in the charts? -- Joseph Prasad (talk) 18:44, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
 * It has been like that since forever, because is a good format. Btw, both "as a lead artist" and "as a featured artist" are under "Singles" section, because (like already said) are all their singles. Cornerstonepicker (talk) 19:05, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Featured singles count as singles as much as lead singles do. As for charts, some say they shouldn't be separated to begin with, though that would require consensus at WT:WikiProject Discographies. Snuggums (talk / <b style="color:#454545">edits</b>) 19:10, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Cole Swindell
This is one of the first times I have edited an article on Wiki involving sources but a) each edit I did contains RELIABLE sources (you undid stating unreliable sources) and b) I even copied one of the citation references for syntax exactly since one of the sources we cited a few sentences later.

I relied on TWO sources...the artist's father's obituary listing his children (and their spouses) and then I relied on the article where artist discussed how the song was written and the reason for the song. I spent almost an hour with these edits after being moved by the story since another band is using that song tonight for a memorial and People.com was discussing the song. After reading the information, I looked the artist up on wiki and there was little info so I thought it needed updated. I don't understand why you undid an hour's worth of work -- while I was actively editing it and updating it... Did I mess up the syntax or HTML on the citation references? I copied the reference syntax from its use three sentences after what I wrote. (Someone else used both sources in the prior versions but omitted info I thought interesting). I would like to fix the reference syntax...but not undo everything I just wrote.

The sources were: 1) http://www.legacy.com/obituaries/savannah/obituary.aspx?pid=166791689Obituary: http://www.legacy.com/obituaries/savannah/obituary.aspx?pid=166791689 2) http://www.tennessean.com/story/entertainment/music/2015/12/14/cole-swindell-tells-dad-you-should-here-song/77067780/Tennessean" http://www.tennessean.com/story/entertainment/music/2015/12/14/cole-swindell-tells-dad-you-should-here-song/77067780/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Livorsi (talk • contribs) 23:32, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
 * , I see no sources in what being added here "Cole strives to inspire or help others through his music and lyrics. After the surprising death of his father, Cole turned his grief and loss into a song. The album's first single, "You Should Be Here" was released to country radio on December 14, 2015. Cole wrote the song with Ashley [Gorley] in the parking lot of a Luke [Bryan] show - where he was also performing." -- Joseph Prasad (talk) 23:35, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
 * In the Tennessean article he states "I wanted this song and video to be as powerful as it could,” he said. “I’ve always wanted to release a song that could actually touch someone and help them through a tough time. I was thinking, ‘Wow, this is that song.' Getting to shoot this video, I was watching a rough cut of it, I started thinking, 'Maybe this song is to help me.' ” I did not quote his statements, but I did summarize them and I referred that citation in that paragraph discussing the entire history of the song.  I was typing and editing this and had just saved it to review formatting and was going to add the last citation post when you undid everything.  I was actively working on it (and had been for an hour) and it was all undone while I was going back and forth to see what needed adding.  (Since I can only edit one section at a time and I can't see how the references look until I submit it.  Was your objection that I didn't have a citation after every sentence in my paragraph or that I didn't have the correct hyperlinks?  I am a lawyer and do citations for a living.  I know concepts of citation, but admit this was the first time I had attempted to work with a wiki editor.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Livorsi (talk • contribs) 23:42, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Understand, yes, you need at least one source for every paragraph, but each sentence is preferred. In the opening ref, you place ref name= " ", with the quotes containing what you want to name the reference. If it is not a direct quote, then it would be your own interpretation. And while that is okay, it is better to leave quotes how they are. -- Joseph Prasad (talk) 23:48, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Joseph, don't forget to take care when reverting what appears to be a good-faith effort to improve an article, even if unsourced within a BLP. Policy demands removal of anything controversial or contentious, but this merely needed sourcing and rewriting.
 * , when writing for an encyclopedia, we must be careful to be as neutral as possible—so-called "Wikivoice". Example 1: Cole strives to inspire or help others through his music and lyrics is not supported by your excerpt reproduced here; to the song, yes, but in general, no. Example 2: After the surprising death of his father needs to clarify to whom it was surprising. Otherwise, once properly sourced, it looks fine. &#128406; ATinySliver / ATalkPage 00:02, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Understood, . I know it was a good-faith edit. But, it was non-neutral writing, plus it was unsourced. I could have added a citation needed tag, but it's better just to delete it. The editor may not have went to my talk page and tried to discuss without doing so. -- Joseph Prasad (talk) 00:12, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Possible; but, part of assuming good faith is to assume collaboration until the other editor fails. Another common trick is to make a "dummy edit", a minor correction or somesuch, and use the edit summary to ask the editor if more work is forthcoming. That it's often easier to delete something is not necessarily better. Cheers! &#128406; ATinySliver / ATalkPage 00:18, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
 * True, good idea, I can do that. Sorry, I'm a little agitated - just look at the page history for Drake Bell and you'll see what I'm talking about. -- Joseph Prasad (talk) 00:22, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I've seen it—and I've left articles for less than that. &#128406; ATinySliver / ATalkPage  00:27, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Yeah, it wouldn't have bothered me as much if it wasn't you know who - and plus, removing 40+ citations on an article is ridiculous. Should have just went to the talk page. I would have left, but if you look through that is my top edited article with over 600+ edits, and I just can't abandon it. -- Joseph Prasad (talk) 00:34, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I just can't abandon it. So, masochism is one of your illnesses? &#128406; ATinySliver / ATalkPage  00:41, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Haha, I thought that was a fetish, not illness. But no. Depression, bipolar, stuff like that. -- Joseph Prasad (talk) 00:42, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Sabrina Carpenter and singer-songwriter
I was checking in to this a bit and it looks like consensus on most bio and music projects is to use the term singer-songwriter when multiple reliable sources classify the person as such, otherwise use singer and songwriter. For Carpenter it looks like she is only getting writer credit along with the people who basically write songs for a living - looks to be giving input and I doubt it is much more than a courtesy. I'd feel better with the singer-songwriter classification if at least one of the songs she performs was totally written by her and only her with no additional help. I suspect she helps write the lyrics and doubt she has much input composing the melody on songs she has writer credit on. Of course the purists still insist singer-songwriter is more a genre than an occupation. Geraldo Perez (talk) 02:47, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Well,, many articles have singer-songwriter as an occupation (like Bob Dylan). And there are artists with this label who didn't write many songs totally on their own. Drake Bell for example, only wrote three songs completely by himself, those being "Terrific", "Big Shot", and "You're Not Thinking", all on his EP A Reminder, and he is considered a singer-songwriter by many sources. Her music career ins only about a year or two old, I'm sure as it develops, we will get more sources saying so, especially since her pop music is very folk, which is what the term is associated with a lot of the time. Update: Never mind, Drake did write almost the entirety of his Telegraph album by himself, according to AllMusic. -- Joseph Prasad (talk) 02:56, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I think we should generally only label people singer-songwriter if there is strong reliable source consensus as to that being what they are. Unlikely people starting out will have that strong support for that appellation particularly when they don't have any examples of sole songwriting credit on songs they perform. Geraldo Perez (talk) 03:11, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I doubt she'll have sole writing credits,, at all in her career. She's a pop star, rarely do they wrote all by themselves, or sometimes they don't write at all. Granted, her pop seems a little more authentic and unique relative to today's pop stars, she's from Disney. Actors from child's networks, they either fall off the radar, or grow big. Regardless, they do not write their own songs in most cases (my previous example Drake Bell being the only one I can think of), Miranda Cosgrove, Hilary Duff, etc., do not. -- Joseph Prasad (talk) 03:17, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

User talk:Justinw303
While I think your removal of the user's comment is justifiable on the grounds of it being a personal attack, the user is allowed to remove almost anything he pleases from his talk page. Please don't restore warnings that a user removes. The warnings you restored do not fall under the exemptions listed in WP:REMOVED. Meters (talk) 21:53, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
 * , thank you for telling me. I'm still learning things on here, still relatively new. Only been on here since 2014. -- Joseph Prasad (talk) 21:55, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
 * No biggie. It's a common mistake with newer users. I did the same thing myself. Meters (talk) 21:56, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Rima Horton
See what you made me do?! 🖖 ATinySliver / ATalkPage  05:16, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Rowan Blanchard#Political endorsements
You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Rowan Blanchard. Thanks. Geraldo Perez (talk) 05:23, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

J. Cole
Hi, you reverted the pending edits on page J. Cole by an IP address with an edit summary "Reverted good faith edits by 24.90.32.4 (talk): Unsourced content." I was also reviewing the same and was looking for the sources that support the edits. Fortunately I found one. So, I just want to let you know that I am going to revert your edits and will add the source supporting the edit. Anyways, if I would have been at your place. I would have done the same. Happy Editing Peppy Paneer (talk) 09:36, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Justin Timberlake's song
Thanks for the unnecessary hassle. I got pretty pissed because it seemed like you were blindly attacking me even though I did say refer to the talk page. Did you even read it? The next person removed the introduction to the paragraph altogether. I don't need a consensus. This isn't bullshit about whether Mariah Carey is 45 or 46. This is common sense... Europe. Population: 742.5 million and the US population: 316.5 million. (2013) So Europe is twice the population of US innit? The song #1 for TWO weeks in Europe ENTIRELY as it was #1 for ONE week in the US ENTIRELY. So yeah, I felt like you needed some help on the matter. No hard feelings. Right? Eh. I felt especially bitter since we've had unfavourable encounters already on Billboard. And please refer to my statement on the song's talk page. :D

--Jayshinkw (talk) 05:32, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
 * , you do have to gain consensus, that is how Wiki works. The US is JT's home country, hence why it is more important. Plus, Europe is not a country, it is a continent. Comparing it to a country is bollocks. If you want to go by continent, we could include the entirety of North america, which adds Canada and Mexico. And even then, it's still less, but it's not fair as Europe is more countries and bigger. And it's Billboard's chart. It's not even that accurate considering it didn't chart at #1 in the bigger territories like the United Kingdom. -- Joseph Prasad (talk) 05:11, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Like I said it's common sense. It's blatantly obvious. Your arguments are riddled with fallacies... The 'importance' as Justin's home country has absolutely no relation to this matter. You're using your country argument to belittle Europe in relation to the US when the argument should be used to state the opposite. Do you think the song was #1 in each 50 states of the US? Highly unlikely. It was only Platinum, and its radio peak wasn't even the Top 5. It was only #1 for ONE week. Plus it has a higher certification status of AUS even if it was only #3 (unless you would like to say that peaks are the only thing that is important.) Say this: a song was #1 in the UK. Is this as successful as a #1 song in the entirety of US? No. Both the UK and the US cannot compare to the population of Europe. But they are representative of large parts of the world, because Europe is compiled of many small countries just as the US is comprised of many smaller states. But there isn't data for each US state. Right?

They are both charts by Billboard. Reliability cannot be argued.

'It's not even that accurate considering it didn't chart at #1 in the bigger territories like the United Kingdom.' - This is what you said. Well look at it like this, okay?

Before 2013, Billboard had two major components in its data. SALES and AIRPLAY. In the issue dated February 24 2007, Say It Right rose to #1. HOW? Its airplay rank that week was #4 and its sales rank that week was #5. It was because as a WHOLE, the song performed best in the US that time (its airplay could not beat the radio strength of R&B songs of the 2000s, which then it was common for an R&B song to chart higher in the radio chart than the main Hot 100). You should get what I mean right? Please don't argue that it was the physical sales... (a dance-pop single in the late 2000s. Nah, just use limewire for dat). A song does not have to #1 in all areas/components to be #1 in its parent chart.

Y'know, the Southern states at that time were probably too busy listening to 'Beer In Mexico' lol

So if you look at two large communities as a whole, they were (almost) equally successful. --Jayshinkw (talk) 6:06, 20 January 2016 (UTC) P.S. excuse the English mistakes.
 * You ignored the fact, it said "internationally". Which doesn't just mean Europe. It was only referring to that countries chart. Billboard uses different sources, and the song only hit #1 in the countries of the United States and Spain. And yes reliability can be argued as they are trying to encompass other continents, when they obviously use different sources and different factors into charting. -- Joseph Prasad (talk) 06:20, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Think logically. Of course I accounted "internationally". I'm not ridiculously hollow. Opening the paragraph with 'failed to meet' is not only exaggeration and poor wording (introduces the reader to a paragraph that should be about commercial failure) but is also hasty generalization. You are right that it was not as successful in every single inch of the world. But that was never what I wanted to say. 'And it's Billboard's chart' - the statement uses the fact that it was published by Billboard some sort of supporting evidence to say that it's not accurate or that it's faulty information because it's provided by Billboard. No clarification was made. How do you know that sources for United States aren't more unreliable than Europe? Are you 100% sure? Does this 'judgement' hold the weight to change my sentence?

My sentence was never wrong. Seriously. Why would one even bother to change it back to 'failed to meet' when we've established huge success in other parts of the world - 'significant' success. It is a better representation of the paragraph. Please do not go to unnecessary measures to disregard its success. --Jayshinkw (talk) 12:40, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

For what it's worth ...
I don't recall offhand whether there's a guideline on this, but it's considered poor writing for an encyclopedia to. Since notability is an encyclopedic requirement anyway, it should be demonstrable; to use the word as an adjective in Wikivoice can be construed to lend notability merely because we say so. Cheers! 🖖 ATinySliver / ATalkPage 03:03, 21 January 2016 (UTC)