User talk:Livelikemusic/Talk Page Archive 25

Valentin/Mikkos?!
Before we get into an edit war, I am trying to understand your reasoning. Maybe we can come to a compromise. Mikkos was legally Valentin's father. Until this year, he was believed to be his biological father. Mikkos took legal responsibility for raising him until he died. He was a father to him and the character's entire existence was based on him having a relationship with Mikkos as a father. I feel it would be inappropriate not to include Mikkos. --Nk3play2 my buzz 02:13, 8 January 2020 (UTC)


 * It's inappropriate for him to be listed. The characters never interacted, aside from a pre-retconned storyline. To me, it'd be the same thing if we listed every single step-parent of a soap character (pre-introduction) — which I believe is over-kill anyway. Soap articles and editors — overall — believe themselves to be "special" amongst editors at Wikipedia, and we're not. Including Mikkos is not appropriate, nor right for the character's article. Not to mention, Mikkos did not raise Valentin — he disowned him at birth, which is now likely due to the fact he was Helena's son and not his own. So, including him serves zero purpose, aside from the previous back story, which is now null due to story re-writing.  livelikemusic    talk!  16:09, 14 January 2020 (UTC)


 * I think we might need to revisit including Mikkos as a stepfather. It's complicated and confusing because of rewrites, BUT, those rewrites have been attributed to Helena lying, which we know is in character for her. If Helena provided the original story about Valentin, we'd have to question it. According to Valentin's confrontation with Helena's ghost (who'd have no reason to lie) on the Valentine's Day episode, Mikkos not only provided for Valentin, paying for his education, and "raising him as his own," though away from the family (in boarding school), he took special interest in Valentin because he felt Valentin could give him the heir Stavros or Stefan couldn't due to the unfaithful women in their lives. The conversation today would imply that Valentin was born after Stavros, before Stefan, and would've become the oldest living male heir should anything have happened to Stavros, which it originally did in 1983. When Helena found out about the possibility that Mikkos could potentially leave everything to Valentin, she told Mikkos the truth to hurt him, and Mikkos created the codicil, but died before he could publicly disinherit Valentin. So according to this version of the backstory, Mikkos did raise Valentin, and even favored him, much like Helena favored Stavros. Maybe we could even consider including Mikkos as Valentin's adoptive father or foster father because according to today's episode, he did raise Valentin as his own. Nk3play2 my buzz 00:00, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

Bring back the Abbott family page
Can you please help me being back the Abbott family page please Dr.Carter1515 (talk) 23:58, 8 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Sorry, but I am not interested in bringing back the page, especially since it did serve little purpose for anything by fan-driven bullshit.  livelikemusic    talk!  16:09, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

List of General Hospital cast members
Hey ,

Sorry, I'm probably a bit blind today. It may be obvious to you, and perhaps I just need to look more carefully. Would you mind taking a moment to tell me which of the WP:3RRNO exceptions apply to the reverts at List of General Hospital cast members?

If none apply and this is a mistake, please quickly confirm that no further reverts will be made.

Thanks and best regards, ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:58, 23 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Of course. The fourth bullet applies; the user has received warnings and reverts, both from myself and another editor, to refrain from their mass-removal, which has no basis of function, especially without discussion. However, said-user is refusing to acknowledge the warnings or attempts to discuss. Instead, they'd rather mass-remove information, without cause, despite being reverted. Clearly, said-user is not here to edit constructively towards the benefit of the encyclopedia, and I've gone ahead and reported them for such vandalism to the page. And given their reverts to my reports, it's clear they are not here to edit appropriately even more.  livelikemusic    talk!  22:01, 23 January 2020 (UTC)


 * It does not, please do not revert. Long answer coming soon ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:02, 23 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Well, I am genuinely sorry for the misundestanding, then. The user was warned, reverted and attempts to begin discuss existed, by myself and another editor. They clearly were not here to edit in the best interest of civility, especially given their editing today. Once again, I do apologize, however, I did (in assume in best faith) so as I did feel that their edits were not constructive, as it was a mass-removal/blanking of information, without a single discussion.  livelikemusic    talk!  22:08, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
 * No worries, Livelikemusic. I have once received a stern 3RR warning by Oshwah; I know the strange feeling for being warned for good edits. The user has been blocked for edit warring now; I just need to be careful not to give unfair preference to established users. As vandalism is defined as intentional damage, and as the user might have been disruptively trying to push their preferred version in good faith, I assumed such good faith instead. I'd also argue that I'm a well-intentioned user. Again, I may be overlooking additional details, but let's perhaps agree that "obvious" is a bit far-fetched. Other exceptions like the 7th point did not seem to apply to the situation – if at all, exception 7 could have applied to the removal, not the re-addition.
 * In almost all cases, there is no need for an immediate fourth revert. Someone else will notice and fix the problem; there is no deadline. The situation can be reported at WP:ANEW, and I personally like the following essay: Responding to a failure to discuss.
 * There now seems to be consensus for the reverts. In a way, one could say "you have reverted to the correct revision", or also "you are right". If the other user disagrees, it's now their turn to start a proper discussion on the talk page. The other user's edits have been clearly disruptive.
 * I am thus not criticizing your preferred version of the article. I am not criticizing the content of your edits. My only concerns have been the following:
 * An editor who repeatedly restores their preferred version is edit warring, regardless of whether those edits are justifiable: "But my edits were right, so it wasn't edit warring" is no defense.
 * Where multiple editors engage in edit wars or breach 3RR, administrators should consider all sides, since perceived unfairness can fuel issues.
 * That's all I had been worried about; your edits by themselves are perfectly fine and much welcomed. Even your reverts have been helpful, just the number of them went up a bit too quickly. :)
 * Thanks for the report, by the way: There was a clear need for immediate administrative action, and it's good that the main warrior has been quickly blocked to prevent further disruption.
 * Best regards ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:30, 23 January 2020 (UTC)


 * The only reason I use the word "obvious" is from their history on the page, especially following the suggestion (via another member) to use the talk page to begin a discussion over their desired edits. Again, I do apologize for the rapid-revert and the level at which they were done. Sometimes, admittedly, we do get into the "heat of the moment," and tend to forget to step back. I just worry about their inventiable return tomorrow, following their block. Again, I apologize for the rapid-state of the reverts, and for the cause of concern. Thank you for reaching out, as well; it doesn't often happen such as this in a situation, and it's refreshing.  livelikemusic    talk!  22:44, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

They returned and immediately resumed their editing on the page.  livelikemusic    talk!  23:44, 27 January 2020 (UTC)


 * I see what you did! Thanks! Right call, especially considering how they vandalised my main page.  livelikemusic    talk!  00:51, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Oh god, I didn't even notice. Thanks for pointing this out. To make sure that any unblock appeal has to address this issue as well, I have now added a note below the block template. No worries. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 01:21, 28 January 2020 (UTC)


 * You're welcome; I didn't even notice the vandalism until I went to my main page to visit another page — and I noticed all of my user boxes had changed. Thought I was at someone else's page for a moment, and got very concerned.  livelikemusic    talk!  01:23, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Dua Lipa album
Why do you want to edit my credit additions again? Coastside2 (talk) 19:37, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
 * "Again?" Please don't come to my page and make accusatory statements against me and make it persona, which it wasn't, especially following this inappropriate edit summary — which citing links in edit summaries are also not acceptable on Wikipedia. Because, if you had come to me, I would've easily explained I mistakenly forgot to re-format the credits. Shit happens on Wikipedia. We're not all perfect human beings. Second of all, you never cited Apple Music in the article, nor did you format them correctly, which is why they were changed and properly cited. Have a great day!  livelikemusic    talk!  14:19, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Cover used on article
Just wanted to get your opinion on a user using a low-quality screenshot of a video posted to Trainor's social media as the cover used for her single on Evil Twin (Meghan Trainor song). Technically, Billboard referred to the image with the two shots of Trainor as its "cover art" here, but the "cover art" is not available on any streaming service I can find, and it seems inappropriate to use a low-quality screenshot with uneven dimensions to me. The user previously added a re-upload of the album art is its cover and seems intent on just having an image there. Thoughts? The user, Another Believer, has now cropped out "Midnight", which doesn't really make any difference on the concerns to me.  Ss  112   22:51, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I've seen this done on other pages by other editors, such as "Watermelon Sugar," with claims that these images are acceptable and appropriate for use, simply because "other articles" do that; in my opinion, they are not, especially if streaming platforms are not using them. If you go to Spotify or Tidal, they use the album cover image, and not the teaser used on social media. Not to mention, the image they uploaded was clearly edited from what Trainor provided on social media. It just looks bad, and I feel like users are taking things a bit far. In today's day of media—especially since the end of physical single releases—single cover artwork seems to be mute. Not every single song receives its own artwork. I also want to know where it says that screen captured images from videos are acceptable as single cover artwork? Not to mention, they're not even following the NFCC rules.  livelikemusic    talk!  14:06, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Feb 25 2020
Sorry for undoing your edit, thought it was vandalism as you blanked a huge part of the page. Faboof (talk)(contribs) 22:43, 25 February 2020 (UTC)


 * No worries! My edit saved before I could even begin to write the summary. Silly browser glitches!  livelikemusic    talk!  22:45, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

Little Mix discography
I don't understand why this IP or IPs are so obsessed with using the other TBA template. Or why they are so sure that "Bounce Back" will definitely be on the next album. Considering that the coronavirus has delayed work on the album, I think we can safely assume that the new album won't be released until November at the earliest, by which time "Bounce Back" will be the best part of a year and a half old... it would be pretty poor to include it on an album at that stage, and at best, I can't see it being anything more than a bonus track on a deluxe version, similar to "Only You". But if this IP insists on altering the discography twice a day for the next seven months until the album's release, we might have to consider asking for page protection. Richard3120 (talk) 18:22, 27 March 2020 (UTC)


 * I find it hilarious. Everyone assumes that LM6 is the album title because of the previous album, which is laughable. I don't see them doing that, any way. Fans will believe what they want to believe; it was never stated that "Bounce Back" was ever for an album. That was something fans assumed. As for the page, it is already protected... yet these edits keep getting through. We might need to request a chance in protection level, because this is going to be fucking ridiculous! Also, hope you are well with the current state of this fucked up world!  livelikemusic    talk!  18:55, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't even believe they think it really will be the title of the next album... they just want it to be noted that a new album is being recorded and is on the way. Well, yeah, that's true of every artist, unless they're retired or dead – their entire job is to make new music. I'm not even a big fan of the group (I'm 50 next month, for God's sake, I'm hardly their target audience) but I keep an eye on the LM articles due to the high level of stanning going on with them. Thank you, and hope you stay safe and well too. Richard3120 (talk) 19:12, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

Edits
Is there a problem with my edits? Jordanpf93 (talk) 02:29, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Edit on Stuck with U
Hi, I'm curious as to why you'd refer to my edits as "ignorant" and "problematic"? Is it because of the "hlist" list styles? -- Lk95 19:25, 1 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Um, it was not your edit I was referring to, nor did I refer to it was an "ignorant" edit. So, I'm kind of wondering why you'd believe it was geared your way?  livelikemusic    talk!  19:34, 1 May 2020 (UTC)


 * My apologies, you changed the list styles I introduced to the article when I created it and you changed nothing else so I thought it was directed at me as the article hasn't been edited by that many people so far. Sorry for the confusion. -- Lk95 19:41, 1 May 2020 (UTC)


 * No, it wasn't you or your editing.  livelikemusic    talk!  20:03, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Executive producer
Hi, Yes. Executive producers do not belong in the infobox. That goes in the cases where someone is an executive producer but do not have actual producer credits in any songs. But Swift has PRODUCER credits in every single song she had ever release since her second album. She co-produced every single song. She's a record producer, not just an executive producer. Just letting you know.

Thank You. BawinV (talk) 19:08, 3 May 2020 (UTC)


 * I understand that, but we only list producers who produced a song, which Swift did, and, in that case, she is listed in alphabetical order like everyone else. I am not negating her inclusion in the infobox — that was not the issue taken, but when you move her to the top of the list, when it is listed alphabetically, and use the excuse "executive producer," it is going to be reverted, due to the request of Infobox album. I also do not need a history lesson on Swift. If you bothered to read my edit summary — which I suspect you did not, since you felt the need to leave this message — you would have seen me explain all of this. ;-)  livelikemusic    talk!  19:24, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

"Sandboxes"
Sorry about that. I've been cleaning Category:Pages using infobox album with empty type parameter and yours are some of the few left that aren't obvious sandboxes. To fix this yourself, you can update the infoboxes on your own. You should be aware however that these are properly userspace drafts and not sandboxes. Only one that I saw (User:Livelikemusic/Jackie) has a notice on the top identifying it as a sandbox. If you intend these as sandboxes, you should add a similar notice to the others. -- Auric   talk  14:55, 7 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Trust me, I am aware of how sandboxes work. A lot are older ones that I have not edited in some time and before I used banners, such as Sandbox notice and User sandbox, and intend to get to at a certain point. I am aware of the changes established at Infobox album, et al.  livelikemusic    talk!  15:02, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I was confused by your edit summaries, where you referred to your userspace drafts as sandboxes. -- Auric   talk  15:09, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

SPI
An SPI case was a bit harsh and WP:BITEy for an IP editor who created an article, then created an account and continued to edit the article. A uw-login was more appropriate (and there are editors who think even that is too harsh). Happy editing, Cabayi (talk) 18:35, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Large images
I wasn't making them large. Just when I was about to reduce the size, you pop screaming "DONT MAKE THEM LARGE". it's the default size. maybe blame Wikipedia. and I was about to customize it, and reduce the size.

and, what do you mean by images that "don't belong on Wikipedia"? BawinV (talk) 13:03, 19 May 2020 (UTC)


 * You are the one who keeps putting image images in the files; there is no need to be putting them in. I removed the sizes prior, you reverted, put the image back in last night and resized, which made the images obnoxiously large, when they did not need those size parameters. You edited the file's information, which originally included a Flickr source, which was not appropriate for use on Wikipedia. And you've done it again. I recommend you read up on Wikipedia's policies on image uploads. You are uploading images that do not belong on Wikipedia, as well as images that fail to meet the content for non-free content.  livelikemusic   ( TALK! ) 13:10, 19 May 2020 (UTC)


 * There is 0 pictures of Swift performing anything, so I do think there is a need to add a single picture. Explain why you *think* there is no need for a picture? I don't understand what's wrong in adding an image? also, I've read the guidelines now and I understand how it works. I didn't understand it before. Now I do, and I've uploaded a non-free image that has been released to be used for educational purposes. Thank you. BawinV (talk) 13:19, 19 May 2020 (UTC)


 * First, no need to ping me on my own talk page. Secondly, it has nothing to do with there being no images of Swift performing. The second image you have uploaded is copyrighted to its original owner, which means it cannot be uploaded. Images found online violate the policy linked above, and continued upload of them can actually lead to many consequences, which could include loss of privilege to upload images and a block from account if seen as disruptive. The propping of Swift across multiple pages is troublesome, and it is now extending to violation policies, which is alarming.  livelikemusic   ( TALK! ) 13:26, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Accusing editors of IP hopping
Hi there. I started to draft the following comment, but then you replied to me at the IP editors page: 'I drafted: "Just a quick drive-by comment to point out (having seen your WP:AIV complaint) that an IPv6 address used by one editor is likely to change regularly, through no fault of theirs. This is the /64 range, and you should add /64 to the end of an IPv6 address when you view special contributions. I pass no comment on your recent complaint at WP:AIV about User:2601:48:8100:9740:F469:9EC6:7F1A:5D80, but one person on an IPv6 address who edits an article across multiple days is quite likely to find their address has changed, and that they have no control over this. Just add /64 to the url at special contributions. Thus: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/2601:48:8100:9740:F469:9EC6:7F1A:5D80/64 lets you see the contributions of just one person."

I then saw your reply to me at the IP editors talk page (see this diff). I was rather surprised that they blanked it with the comment about us vandalising it. But hey ho - they're entitled to do that. I did notice they were quite belligerent in their comments towards one or two other editors in their edit summaries. But I'm still not passing comment on either of your actions (as it's quite late here in the UK, and it's been a long day for me) So, if you think the IP editor has acted inappropriately (across the /64 range) you might be better off reporting your concerns at WP:ANI. You will need clear diffs, and be prepared for your own edits to be looked at too. For myself, your AIV report isn't sufficiently clear cut for me to block another editor without investing a lot of time that I can't commit to right now. I don't believe in assuming that all IP editors are bad apples hope, so wasn't personally willing to take your complaint at face value, as it needed more checking than I can offer you. I do hope this helps a bit. Nick Moyes (talk) 23:57, 27 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately, there seems to be a bit of harassment and Wikihounding happening, which is unfortunate to see. Given their continued changing in IP usage, even if blocked, it is clear they would evade and move onto the next. I will take your words into account; thank you for reaching out to me, directly. I was going to do the same, but, figured you would have seen the ping I left (and eventually seen the page-blank by a different /64 range).  livelikemusic   ( TALK! ) 00:04, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
 * OK, thank you. I'm sorry I could do no more yesterday than just make the one comment to you. I see the IP has now been blocked. I'd not spotted the blanking was done by a separate IP address range, but am glad another admin was able to put in the time to investigate properly (which I was unable to). I quick check just now does suggest that not all the addresses on the /64 range have actually been blocked, so maybe you could keep an eye out for any further trouble from them. Best wishes, Nick Moyes (talk) 10:58, 28 May 2020 (UTC)


 * It is no problem. There is no need to apologize. Time zones are a bitch sometimes, ha! As for the IP range, yes, they were blocked, and I was notified by another admin that should they evade, I should report that, and, if that does not stop them, then more is to be done. I am hoping this ends, as it is simply unacceptable. Thank you for again reaching out Nick! I appreciate it!  livelikemusic   ( TALK! ) 12:21, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Looks like they have already evaded. Lovely.  livelikemusic   ( TALK! ) 12:25, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

They're back, editing under   livelikemusic   ( TALK! ) 01:15, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

They're using even more IPs now. It's becoming out-of-control.  livelikemusic   ( TALK! ) 12:55, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

They're back, AGAIN, under !  livelikemusic   ( TALK! ) 14:42, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

DRN
hello. i will be moderating the dispute you are a part of. please discuss it with the other participants. Clone commando sev (talk) 03:21, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Your report
Hello Livelikemusic. You reported User:JovGeo at AIV, but I'm not seeing the vandalism. If you can identify and document a long-term problem, consider reporting it at WP:ANI. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 17:24, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Glory (Britney Spears album)
Hello, I stand by your point that the deluxe and original Glory cover should be the main one on the article. And on a side note, I haven’t found any sources whatsoever citing Mood Ring as a single from the album. What do you think about it? Thanks. –  Art manha  (talk) 22:33, 29 May 2020 (UTC)


 * No valid source calling it a single, from what I have seen sourced (poorly) on the song's page.  livelikemusic   ( TALK! ) 22:43, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Question regarding edit undo
Hello! I'm a fairly new user and want to learn as much as I can to get the ropes of the website. I wanted to ask you about your comment "Do not ignore the notes + unexplained change for Metacritic location." I don't want to be causing more problems on the article than I am helping with so I would like to make sure which notes I ignored so I can look out for them in the future, and what you mean about changing the location. (And please do let me know if this isn't the appropriate place to contact another user/if there's a personal message option or something like that) Best, Mightbeaquarian (talk) 17:15, 1 June 2020 (UTC)


 * First off, welcome to Wikipedia. Each of the notes are hidden at the end of each cited source, which state to update the "accessdate" of each source when updating a score, which you did do here, but failed to do here. Also, in this edit (same as first above), you changed the location from "United States" to "Lebanon" for no explicit reason. Metacritic's location is United States, and that is where it should remain. As for contact, talk pages are the proper place for contact, though, [some] editors do have email enabled, though, that is usually for off-site contact for discussions that do not belong on Wikipedia. Best wishes in your future editing.  livelikemusic   ( TALK! ) 17:22, 1 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Thank you! Noted, and apologies for the second one, I thought "location" meant the editor's location when they accessed the webpage. Retrospectively that was quite silly of me. Best, Mightbeaquarian (talk) 18:02, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Love On Tour 'Tour Dates' section
Hi, it's been awhile since I've been on editing on here. I noticed the new formatting you did on Love On Tour for the tour table as each region is its own section. Is there a change that I've not been aware of when I've been inactive? I'm just curious because I almost prematurely undid your work. Thanks in advance. Musicpoplover12 (talk) 20:29, 12 June 2020 (UTC)


 * I don't know if it is a brand-new change, but it is how tables should be formatted now, per WikiProject Concerts, MOS:TABLECAPTION and MOS:DTAB. All of it is done to accommodate MOS:ACCESSIBILITY for those with visual impairments.  livelikemusic   ( TALK! ) 20:36, 12 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Thank you. I'll keep in mind when editing other tour pages. Musicpoplover12 (talk) 21:55, 17 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Of course, and no need to ping me on my own talk page—just for future reference—it kind of fucks with my alerts.  livelikemusic   ( TALK! ) 00:41, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 13
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Dream Street (Dream Street album), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Anders Hansson ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/Dream_Street_%28Dream_Street_album%29 check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/Dream_Street_%28Dream_Street_album%29?client=notify fix with Dab solver]).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:13, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 20
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of Days of Our Lives cast members, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Billy Davis ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/List_of_Days_of_Our_Lives_cast_members check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/List_of_Days_of_Our_Lives_cast_members?client=notify fix with Dab solver]).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:11, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Sorry
I'm sorry I wasn't able to respond to earlier posts on my talk page. I'm probably the worst admin to approach regarding vandalism to music pages, as it's a sphere I know nothing about. But clearly if Band A produces a record, and later renames as Band B, our Wikipedia page should state the record was produced by Band A, even though the wikilink from Band A takes them to the page that has been renamed as Band B.

I haven't checked for IP hopping, but it's always best to AGF unless it's absolutely clear the edits are the same as previous disruptive editors. I'm also sorry about the abuse - I've now blocked them across the entire /64 range for WP:HARASSMENT, as the Project should not be willing to tolerate that kind of abuse, even in the heat of the moment. In future it would help to have a link to a specific page to demonstrate repeated IP hopping and disruptive editing. That can be reported to WP:AIV, or specific pages can be semi-protected against varying non-auto-confirmed editors. For threats and abuse, it's WP:ANI that an editor can be reported to. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 15:12, 6 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Exactly! And even WP:NOTBROKEN states this. And, it's not your fault the abuse happened. You acted as swiftly as you could, and that is what matters. I had the report at WP:AIV, and just continued to add-in as things just progressively went to shit. Thank you, again, Nick for your swift response and your courtesy outreach! You and the other Admins deal with so much on the encyclopedia, that shit like this should not even be an issue! Thank you, again!  livelikemusic   ( TALK! ) 15:26, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Jared Padalecki as Sam Winchester.png
Thanks for uploading File:Jared Padalecki as Sam Winchester.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:38, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

AIV reports
In regards to your two recent reports at AIV which I declined, please remember that AIV only handles cases that are obvious enough to take action without any investigation past looking at the diffs. That's because there's no discussion allowed, which means that neither the accused editor nor the rest of the Wikipedia community has any chance to rebut the accusation or weigh in on the problem. So, admins are only supposed to take action on cases where there is no reasonable rebuttal or defense possible.

If I have to have knowledge of the subject of the article in order to know whether or not the edit is legitimate, then AIV is not the right place to report the problem editing. For example, looks like they are trying to legitimately improve the article in question. Sure, they're not using edit summaries, maybe they're not following the MOS, but it looks like good-faith editing at a casual glance. Problems like failing to cite a source, not adhering to the manual of style, or failure to follow typical editing etiquette like using edit summaries, are all things that should be ideally worked out with the user in question, not just blocking them summarily. That makes all of these problem edits a much better fit for other behavior notice boards. –Darkwind (talk) 00:10, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

Brightest Blue - Just a quick one
Hope you're okay Livelikemusic?

Just wanted to clarify re this edit, there isn't a clear consensus at Talk:Brightest_Blue. It seems to be that you're acting on the assumption that what you've said is the only right/correct option even though a few of us (including myself) have given valid arguments too. I think the duck test applies with singles. There isn't an overwhelming response to the discussion nor a consensus that certain songs are or are not singles. Labels will often demote songs that they deemed didn't perform well enough etc. Another reason for including songs previously released, is it impacts positively on an album's streaming sales/units as album tracks also contribute to overall album units shifted. By that very definition "Flux", "Close To Me" and "Hate Me" have a direct correlation with the album's promotion as they impact on its commercial performance. If we went purely by record labels (who are not an independent source), then we would have all sorts of situations were songs are singles and vice versa depending on the POV trying to be pushed. The debate comes down to what is factually a single (i.e. behaves like one) versus what the record label wish to identify as a single - as wikipedia we should be going with the former and sticking to what is factual rather than getting bogged down in the technicality of label politics. That's my two cents anyway. Finally, its worth saying that I'm not interested in edit warring on the article but if you're going to claim it was discussed and decided at the talkpage, its worth making sure there's actually a consensus first. ≫  Lil- Unique1  -{ Talk  }- 16:23, 12 July 2020 (UTC)


 * For me (and the viewpoint of Wikipedia), WP:DUCK does not stand, especially since the essay states: The duck test does not apply to article content, which means using that argument is invalid. In reality, this is a much broader discussion, as this kind of shit has been happening—via multiple artists and multiple record labels—it is becoming a spiraling conversation on a basis-by-basis nature. Purely by the guideline of Infobox album, you see them as promotional for the album. I, based on what I view, do not. Even Tbhotch brought up the key point, and I direct quote them: We are not discussing if these songs were singles, we are discussing this: "The pop star teased the release of the first single (Worry About Me) from her upcoming fourth album" and "I wanted to release this song (Power) off my upcoming album as a preview into the world my new album is in!". It's like we go to the Upcoming Katy Perry sixth studio album (when existing) to add that 365, Con Calma, Never Really Over Small Talk, Harleys in Hawaii or Never Worn White (if any of them is included) were singles off that album despite Perry saying Daisies is the lead single. The overwhelming lean towards songs released prior to "Worry About Me" classifies them as not being singles from the album. Idolator even stated: "The news raises all sorts of questions. Chiefly, is this the long-awaited lead single to Ellie’s fourth album? We’ll have to wait for official confirmation. However, I’d say that the timing does feel right. After all, the “Hate Me” siren confirmed plans to drop the LP sometime this year. She’s also been building up to it with a string of excellent buzz tracks. Will songs like “Flux” and “Close To Me” make the final tracklist? Nothing is guaranteed yet, but hopefully we’ll have more information by the time next Friday rolls around." One could say it is implied songs prior to the release of "Worry About Me" were buzz releases, and are simply just being included. Inclusion ≠ single.  livelikemusic   ( TALK! ) 17:11, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Saying "implied" is WP:SYNTHESIS. ≫  Lil- Unique1  -{ Talk  }- 09:51, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Law and Order SVU (Season 21 Poster).png
Thanks for uploading File:Law and Order SVU (Season 21 Poster).png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 02:50, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Album Certifications Question
Hey Livelikemusic, I have a question since I know you’ve been editing music articles for years now you might be able to answer this question. So a few days ago I was editing Tupac’s album certifications in the US. Several of his albums have been certified Platinum meaning sold 1M units and Gold meaning sold 500K units. All of the albums have the main source coming from the official RIAA website itself, but several editors are following a different source. 2Pacalypse Now is an example as you see on his “Certifications” table you will see his album is said to be certified Gold in the US by the RIAA source, but there’s also another source claiming it has sold over 900K units. Which source is supposed to be followed? I always saw it as following the official RIAA source since it’s the actual company that certifies albums. I’m sorta in a sticky pickle with a few other users, some are saying to follow the other source and not the actual source from the RIAA. Which again I always had assumed to follow the RIAA source since it’s the actual company to certify the albums and to actually know the proper amount of sales. Hope all is well with you as well Pillowdelight (talk) 19:49, 16 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Hello! Hope you are doing well. Unfortunately, I am not as educated in album certifications/charts as other editors may or may not be. However, from my own experience in seeing other articles, I believe it is best to await for the Recording Industry Association of America (a.k.a. RIAA), as they are the ones who certify releases. I am unfamiliar with XXL Magazines reliability, however, they also do not seem to cite anyone, such as the RIAA or even Billboard magazine, both of which would be the more reliable of sources, per Wikipedia. A quick look at Record charts (via WikiProject Albums), it states: Certifications should be sourced directly to certifying agencies, most of which provide a searchable database. When such a database is not available, other reliable sources may be used, but they must directly state that the certifying agency has granted the certification. Many popular press articles will contain statements such as "... has gone gold ..." or "... has gone platinum ..." based on a sales figure, when, in fact, the certifying agency has not yet verified those sales and granted a certification., which, in theory, would be we must following the RIAA. I hope this helps you out on your editing journey concerning the late Tupac Shakur.   livelikemusic  ' ( TALK! ) 19:56, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 17
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Louis Tomlinson World Tour, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Crystal Ballroom ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/Louis_Tomlinson_World_Tour check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/Louis_Tomlinson_World_Tour?client=notify fix with Dab solver]).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:21, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

Discussion
Hello. Please see this discussion. Bionic (talk) 10:16, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Melanie C
Hi, I have blocked the IP you reported at WP:RFPP. However, I'm not convinced this is vandalism, as the IP was exhibiting the same behaviour for each edit, always removing information about her personal life, relationships and children, not all of which was particularly well sourced. It sounds more like someone who knows her taking an exception to the information and trying to remove it - this fits the behaviour of editing anonymously using a mobile phone. In this case, I think shouting "vandalism!" is actually unhelpful. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  16:35, 30 July 2020 (UTC)


 * I have to disagree — I added three reliable sources — The Daily Telegraph, Marie Claire and KNBC, and the anonymous editor continues to cite their edits as "Fixed typo !" or "Not important !" Not to mention, the location targeted from both IPs are from Michigan. This personal clearly does not know her, especially given that all three of those sources cite Chisholm's official website in their reporting of her daughter's birth. In addition, she has also discussed her daughter, in multiple occasions, on television interviews (such as this interview, which aired two-days ago). This, to me, seems a "fan" trying to WP:CENSOR this information, however, with the information now being sourced by three reliable sources of three different types of media, I find it highly unlikely this is someone acting on behalf of Chisholm (which would be a WP:COI).  livelikemusic   ( TALK! ) 12:37, 1 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Okay, now we have some more information and a complete lack of communication, this does now sound like somebody just being a pain in the neck. I have therefore semi-protected the article for three months, escalating from previously. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  14:35, 1 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Excellent! Sounds good to me. Not to mention, just found this source from Hello! (magazine), which also supports Chisholm's relationship with Thomas Starr, another detail the editor was attempting to remove as a "fixed typo" situation.  livelikemusic   ( TALK! ) 15:19, 1 August 2020 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure Hello! is a good source for BLPs, but the Daily Telegraph mentioned earlier, plus the BBC News already in the article should be sufficient. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  15:21, 1 August 2020 (UTC)


 * That is more than fine; I will refrain from adding it. Thanks, again!  livelikemusic   ( TALK! ) 15:22, 1 August 2020 (UTC)


 * No problem. Have you considered filing a request for adminship, then you can sort out this sort of disruption yourself? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  15:46, 1 August 2020 (UTC)


 * I have, however, I feel like the overall process would not result in my achieving that. However, we will see. Maybe it [might] be worth it.  livelikemusic   ( TALK! ) 16:01, 1 August 2020 (UTC)


 * I'll give you my honest opinion - I don't think you would pass RfA now, but you might be able to in future. Happy to discuss in more depth if you like. <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  16:09, 1 August 2020 (UTC)


 * I am fully aware of that. Of course I would be happy to discuss, as well. Sorry for delay on response. Shit has been hectic the past six days.  livelikemusic   ( TALK! ) 12:58, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

Disco (Kylie Minogue album)
This might interest you: Talk:Kylie_Minogue ≫  Lil- Unique1  -{ Talk  }- 10:51, 4 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Thank you. Sorry for delay; shit has been kind of hectic here for the past couple of weeks.  livelikemusic   ( TALK! ) 12:47, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

Dominic Zamprogna
Hi, um, can you show me where on Soap Opera Digest it says that Dominic Zamprogna is back full-time? I looked on the Soap Opera Digest article online and there was no indication that he was back full time. However, before you get upset with me, I did not undo your edits on Dante Falconeri's page. I just want to know where you saw that he was back for good.

Plus, I try my best to edit on here and almost every time I do my edits are always undone and redone differently. Sorry for not meeting Wikipedia standards :( Mysterious459 (talk) 15:26, 5 August 2020 (UTC)


 * It is not on the online article.  livelikemusic   ( TALK! ) 15:59, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 9
An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.
 * Melanie C (album)
 * added links pointing to Touch Me and Rui da Silva
 * Ben Mitchell (EastEnders)
 * added a link pointing to Ted Mitchell

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:24, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 16
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Melanie C (album), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Rui da Silva.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:48, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Kelly Clarkson – Invincible (Residency Poster).png
Thanks for uploading File:Kelly Clarkson – Invincible (Residency Poster).png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:51, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 5
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Nelle Benson, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Barbara Bloom.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:15, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

Housewives
Hi! I notice you edit The Real Housewives franchise a lot and was curious your opinion on this. For departures by housewives, do you think it should be included at the top of their final season (for example Orange County, season 14) with Judge and Gunvalson's departure and their exits being included, or should it be included on the Wiki page for the next season? I'd like to have a civil discussion about this if possible! Thanks! Cinemacriterion (talk) 17:15, 5 September 2020 (UTC)


 * I think it all depends on which is happens closest to, and how it is all worded. In regards to Gunvalson and Judge, I would categorize their exits more so towards the fourteenth season than the upcoming fifteenth.  livelikemusic   ( TALK! ) 01:03, 7 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Should it be notable housewives vs ones who are one for only a season? Just for future edits. Cinemacriterion (talk) 01:31, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Heaven & Hell (Ava Max album)
Hello! I'm sorry to bother you. Could you fix the singles from Heaven & Hell (Ava Max album)? Rangel Carregosa (talk) 14:38, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 30
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of The Kelly Clarkson Show episodes, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Adorn and Miguel.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 10:12, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

The Witches (2020)
Please do not revert to your original upload, since you've not presented any reason and ignored the better version. <small style="font-size:70%;">nyxærös 18:20, 3 October 2020 (UTC)


 * WP:NFCC states if a lower bitrate is available, it should be used, which I did provide in my original upload. Uploading a larger file sized image defies that. And, judging by your history, this seems to be a slight WP:OWN issue.  livelikemusic   ( TALK! ) 19:18, 4 October 2020 (UTC)


 * What do you mean "by your history"? Just because I reverted you doesn't mean WP:OWN. Don't be obnoxious. There are numerous editors here, including User:SnapSnap, who have been uploading better low-resolution images. I don't think a 100KB difference between revisions violate anything as long as the image is low-res. At the very least, they present the article to the readers in a more accurate and eye-pleasing way. <small style="font-size:70%;">nyxærös  06:15, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Melanie C track listing
Can we talk about this please? I have seen the liner notes of the 2CD edition, and have it ripped on my PC. Some of the details that are on the article currently are simply incorrect. The details I provided are as they are given on the liner notes. The main inconsistencies include: Poppy Bascombe does not appear as a writer of “Escape” in the CD booklet, the remix of “Blame It on Me” is longer than the version previously released (its 3:37 not 2:48), and Gary Kemp is one of the writers of “Touch Me” as seen on the booklet and the Wikipedia article on this song. The liner notes are surely the definitive source. Dell9300 (talk) 16:41, 6 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Simply saying you have the liner notes does not equate to being truthful, per WP:OR. Because, I could say the same and say my liner notes are the complete opposite. Not to mention, the first time they were added, you removed a reliable, verifiable source to non-sourced content, and then replaced with an unreliable source. Not to mention, you continue to ignore Track listing and MOS:NUM policies. As such, on the original "Touch Me," which the credits are based on, Kemp is not credited. Keeping the Spotify credits is perfectly acceptable. As for the "Blame It on Me" remix, it does appear they did use the extended mix, and not the edit.  livelikemusic   ( TALK! ) 02:34, 7 October 2020 (UTC)


 * While I see your point with the liner notes, the information I provided matches with the independent record on Discogs (which may be an "unreliable source" as you say but still shows the current info is wrong). I see you've now added "extended" to the remix. This is another inaccuracy. The previously released version is the "Blame It on Me" (PBH & Jack remix edit), this one is not extended. It's just the full version: "Blame It on Me" (PBH & Jack remix). If declaring it as an extended mix with no source of such doesn't constitute to original research then I don't know what does.

Also, please could enlighten me on what exactly I have ignored in regards to those polices. Thanks. Dell9300 (talk) 09:21, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Katie Melua – Album No. 8 (Official Album Cover).png
Thanks for uploading File:Katie Melua – Album No. 8 (Official Album Cover).png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:48, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

RFPP: Vandalism and the MOS
Hello, I thought I would respond here to this edit. WP:VANDALISM has a very specific definition of what is vandalism and what isn't. Errors in markup or editing against the MOS isn't itself vandalism and some see calling good faith edits vandalism a form of personal attack. That isn't to say that it isn't disruptive editing or edit warring if editors continue to put it in. Ideally if there is a disagreement over the MOS then start a talk page discussion with the other editors and try and reach a consensus. Calling the edits vandalism will tend to just inflame the situation. Please don't hesitate to ask me any questions if you are unsure. Woody (talk) 16:37, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Little Mix extra album covers
I was just about to notify you of the discussion I opened at FfD, but I see you've already seen it. We'll see if the uploader reverts your edits, like he did to me. Richard3120 (talk) 17:34, 20 October 2020 (UTC)


 * I just filed multiple FfD reports on the other media they have uploaded, which clearly fails. And, if they continue to revert, an edit-warring report will surely be opened. Disappointing when a nine-year user does not accept content criteria set by Wikipedia.  livelikemusic   ( TALK! ) 17:36, 20 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Ha! They did exactly that, citing the "correct attributes," which makes zero sense.  livelikemusic   ( TALK! ) 12:46, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Hey do you like kittens?
Well if you do, Have a kitten photo!

TheSecretImpostor (talk) 14:13, 28 October 2020 (UTC) <br style="clear: both;"/>

...Baby One More Time / Oops!... I Did It Again name changes
I see your name a lot around Wikipedia and there are many edits you have made that I appreciate, so thank you for those. There are currently discussions going on about whether the Britney Spears albums ...Baby One More Time and ''Oops!... I Did It Again'' should be moved: I'd love for you to voice your opinion there. Thank you. Whitevenom187 (talk) 01:39, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
 * ...Baby One More Time (album) → ...Baby One More Time
 * Oops!... I Did It Again (album) → Oops!... I Did It Again


 * Thank you for the compliments, and I will definitley go and check out those RfM discussions as soon as I possibly can! Thank you for bringing them to my attention.  livelikemusic   ( TALK! ) 01:48, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

Blessing Chitapa
I think we need a separate page on her & I always say don't prepare Series 10 unless a premiere date has been confirmed & I always prepare a week before it starts. --Annamargarita0 (talk) 16:38, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

I apologize for my disruptive edits, and it won't never happen again.
Hello, I'm sorry for the disruptive edit that I made earlier, and it will never happen again. The john perez 16:45, 17 November 2020 (UTC)


 * It is fine. There is absolutely no need to apologize. Just wanted to point the MOS, which had been linked—at nauseam—within the edit summaries. I suggest looking at edit summaries to see why information may or may not added into an article.  livelikemusic   ( TALK! ) 19:47, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Season 19 The Voice Page (Eliminated Artists)
I just wanted to let you know that, on the Season 19 The Voice page, Jus Jon's name is for some reason eliminated even though his Knockouts battle hasn't aired yet (airing on November 23rd). Is that fine or does that violate the "crystal ball" guidelines?

I'm assuming it does so I just fixed it for the second time (i.e. "uneliminate" him on the page).

Please advise at your earliest convenience. Thanks in advance! Disney1024 (talk) 02:58, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

"WTH Do I Know" blocked
Hi Livelikemusic, thanks for the report! I have blocked them for edit warring only; if they're a sock, please create a report at WP:SPI now. Perhaps a checkuser or SPI clerk finds something interesting, or at least we have the sockpuppetry documented. Thanks ~ ToBeFree (talk) 14:36, 26 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Hello ToBeFree, I did open an investigation at Sockpuppet investigations/Highwaynmbr3. I did not include differences, as the edit history of each page is enough to show that user is abusing two accounts—and likely more to come—to prove their points. I only resorted to ANV for immediate result as a temporary fix. Happy Thanksgiving to you and yours if you do celebrate!  livelikemusic   ( TALK! ) 14:37, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Oh, sorry. I should have checked if there is already a SPI. Thanks for having created it, and Happy Thanksgiving to you and yours too Emoji_u1f60a.svg ~ ToBeFree (talk) 14:39, 26 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Ha, do not worry; I was in the midst of opening the SPI when I reported the now-blocked account—who went on a lovely spree of undoing valid edits to re-focus to their own preferred uploads, lol! And, thank you! Stay safe and well!  livelikemusic   ( TALK! ) 14:41, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Glory (Britney Spears album) II
Hello, I noticed you left a message on my talk page about my edit being “disruptive”. All I’m following is Mood Ring that apparently confirmed it as a single due to it being played on the radio in Italy. A lot of users are re adding it as a single during the Glory release but it was only released during the reissue. I don’t think users are understanding that. But I know you’ve been editing for a long time and I’ve reached out to you for advice in the past (not sure if you remember), you’re great at what you do. I just figured I’d give you a heads up. Pillowdelight (talk) 13:57, 4 December 2020 (UTC)


 * All I am going to say is that you are not following the template; you're trying to move around the template—multiple times at length—which borderlines disruptive editing to the point of potentially being considered vandalism. I am also well aware people are going to continually re-add the song, despite the fact it does not belong in Infobox album for the album. Also, please follow my talk page rules: if I post on your page, keep it on your page, please.  livelikemusic   ( TALK! ) 14:18, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Ritual (In This Moment album)
Can you keep an eye of the page? Make sure if they're a sock. 115.164.61.44 (talk) 17:17, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

The Voice series overview
Do u think we get rid of the specific air dates for series overview table? It looks awful in the condensed columns and it's probably unnecessary info. Maybe instead of air dates, we could do something like "Spring 2020" or "Fall 2020"? If people want the specific dates for some reason, they should honestly just go on the season's separate Wiki page. :) Disney1024 (talk) 17:43, 16 December 2020 (UTC)


 * In my view point, there are multiple issues with the table. Firstly, the inclusion of the "fifth place" contestant is a bit much, especially given for seventeen seasons there was no fifth contestant listed. Secondly, the colour-coding is a bit redundant and excessive, in my eyes, as it merely creates something "pretty" for viewers. If anything, we could also remove "Winning coach," as the coach is not the true winner, and, it is a mere attempt to, again, include the colours, which are keyed above. As well, part of me feels as if the colour key is a bit excessive, as it is a mere repeat of the Coaches' team section directly above the Series overview section. As well, eliminating colours would diffuse the on-going, edit-warring of colours that has been happening for many years. However, I am well aware I am likely in the minority on this; I simply feel the table is are too cluttered, and, ultimately, tables are meant to provide an overview, not an in-depth review of each season. Realistically, I would remove the fifth place mention to start. If anything, we merge third and fourth places together, sans colour key, and note a fifth place for the eighteenth and nineteenth seasons if people find it that important to the season overview, which I do not believe it to be. Also, you need to calm down and stop rush-editing and removing posts from my or anyone's talk page. Patience is a virtue. Please, be aware of this in the future.  livelikemusic   ( TALK! ) 17:58, 16 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Like you said, the tables are meant to provide an overview of each season's results. Therefore, the air dates are the least relevant section of the table and should be removed. Having separate columns for third, fourth, and fifth place is absolutely necessary and is done in the Wiki pages for The Voice in other countries (e.g. Portugal, Germany, UK, etc.). Since there's no reason to suggest otherwise, having a fifth finalist will most likely be a norm for the show going forward. Also, let's be real, the show has unfortunately evolved over time to be more about the coach winning than the actual artist. Hence, the winning coach column is necessary since it helps give an overview of which coaches won and how many times they won. Colour-coding helps organize and compartmentalize the table in a way that readers can easily comprehend what they are seeing. :D


 * Please note that you have yet to respond to my question about font size.


 * Sorry for the inconvenience but the comment I removed was a comment that I myself left on your talk page months ago. However, you never responded and the issue was no longer relevant, now that season 19 of the show is over. :( Disney1024 (talk) 18:15, 16 December 2020 (UTC)


 * I will state this: The Voice UK absolutely does not list third, fourth or fifth places; they list the winner and "other finalists," listed in order of second, third and fourth places, and it works for said page. It provides a general overview, without too much specific detail—which I am stating ahead of time—does not need to be changed. And including the coach's name, in theory, is redundant, given the colour key. The key alone should suggest which coach each act ultimately belonged to, and is redundant to listing the coaches' chair order, as well. Again, that is simply my viewpoint and I am aware I am in the minority on this. However, the on-going changes being made seem to be not neutral and more fan-driven, which will ultimately lead to the page becoming not encyclopedic, in my viewpoint, especially based on what I have seen transpire over the years.


 * As for the other comment, it does not matter. If you read my talk page rules, it specifically states: Do not edit my page to add and / or remove what you feel you should; if such is done, I will automatically revert the edit(s) without warning — no questions or hesitations about it. And you removed it once already, and I reverted you stating not to do so fifteen days prior. As of now, I am off to work, and am unable to continue this discussion further.  livelikemusic   ( TALK! ) 18:22, 16 December 2020 (UTC)


 * For the second time, please note that you have yet to respond to my question about font size and I'm still waiting on a response.


 * I already apologized for editing your page and you actually never told me to 15 days prior as you claim to have. I didn't get any notifications/messages on my talk page whatsoever regarding the issue. If you wrote that in the comments on your talk page's edit history, that's absolutely useless bc I don't check the history of other people's private talk pages. I only check the history for public pages I want to edit (e.g. The Voice wiki page) to see what has been done before.


 * Take care and have a great rest of your day! Enjoy work! :D Disney1024 (talk) 18:36, 16 December 2020 (UTC)


 * I will quickly say this: here is the edit; I hit the "undo button," which alerts you above with the bell that someone undid your edit. If you ignore edit summaries, that is on you, however, Wikipedia suggests using an edit summary, and looking at them to see why an edit exists. Ignorance on your part is on you, not on me. As for the text-size question, it was removed, as you were impatient in awaiting my response, and I restored the page back to what I was responding to. Just because another page does something does not mean others should, as well. MOS:TEXTSIZE explains more, so I suggest reading it. If you make something too small, it can violate MOS:ACCESS for users with visual impairments. Realistically, it is my belief it should not go below 95%, as it becomes difficult to read on both visually impaired screens, as well as larger screens [some] users may have. As well, I do see it as a way to try and include more information, which defies what a table is meant to provide.  livelikemusic   ( TALK! ) 18:42, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

My only concern with the table was trying to make the finalist's name fit on one line instead of two. But I fixed that problem by getting rid of specific air dates. It's unnecessary specific information that, like u said, "defies what a table is meant to provide". Personally, I agree that the font size should be 95% but I was trying to get the finalists' names on one line instead of two. But that problem was fixed by getting rid of the season air dates. So I think the series overview table is great as it is and it doesn't seem to violate any guidelines that I'm aware of. Please let me know what u think at your earliest convenience (doesn't have to right away). ;)

Disney1024 (talk) 18:52, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

ANI report
Hey there, generally speaking, it's a good idea to include diffs in your ANI reports that support the complaints you are reporting, as well as a narrative that explains the issues. Your general summary is fine, but admins are often busy, so having clearly-written specifics, like the following is helpful:
 * In, he brings the table colouration out of alignment with WP:ACCESS by making the background so dark you can hardly read the text.

Things like that. This tells us what they did, where it happened, and what guideline or policy they violated. Thanks and regards, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 20:04, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

Soap Hub as a "reliable" source?
I notice you removed quite a few sources from the Lani Price article, specifically Soap Hub. I understand disputing the Ruby's Hub links considering it was just a blog by a fan – I'll stay away from using things like that to state facts. But every writer from Soap Hub has worked in the industry for decades. Diane Brounstein worked interned as a writer as three different soaps, and went on to work as the Senior editor for Soap Opera Magazine and was the managing editor for Sony's soap oriented website, Soapcity.com. And Hope Campbell also worked for three different magazines, including Soap Opera Weekly. Other writers include famed soap journalists such as Janet Di Lauro and Michael Maloney. All of this information is on their website. I plan to reincorporate the Soap Hub sources back into the article.--Nk3play2 my buzz 17:45, 18 December 2020 (UTC)


 * It is from my recollection of past editing of soap-related articles that Soap Hub was deemed unreliable and slightly questionable with their content. Perhaps, this should be brought up at either WikiProject Soap Operas or even Talk:List of soap opera media outlets for other editors to discuss. However, both Ruby's Hub and Soap Hub are not the online unreliable citations you've made to said-article and others. A few other notes... "confirmed" should not be used; the word "announced" should be implemented instead. Also, citing the physical copies of Soap Opera Digest, Soaps In Depth etc should be done with cite magazine and not cite journal (which states This Citation Style 1 template is used to create citations for academic and scientific papers published in bona fide journals. For articles in magazines and newsletters, use cite magazine). The same goes for cite news and cite web. You also continue to ignore WP:OVERLINK and MOS:FAMILYNAME throughout articles, and this should be noted in future editing, as well.  livelikemusic   ( TALK! ) 18:14, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!
Disney1024 (talk) 16:14, 25 December 2020 (UTC)