User talk:Mdgds

Welcome!
Hello, Mdgds, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of your recent edits to the page Pepper (song) did not conform to Wikipedia's verifiability policy, and may have been removed. Wikipedia articles should refer only to facts and interpretations verified in reliable, reputable print or online sources or in other reliable media. Always provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is likely to be challenged, or it may be removed. Wikipedia also has a related policy against including original research in articles.

If you are stuck and looking for help, please see the guide for citing sources or come to  The Teahouse, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Here are a few other good links for newcomers:
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * Introduction tutorial
 * Contributing to Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Simplified Manual of Style
 * Task Center – need some ideas of what kind of things need doing? Go here.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need personal help ask me on my talk page, or. Again, welcome.  Rob van  vee  09:42, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

February 2021
Hello, I'm Robvanvee. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, This Is How We Do It, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so. You can have a look at the tutorial on citing sources. If you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page.    Rob  van  vee  09:49, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Please do not add or change content, as you did at Song 2, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you.  Rob van  vee  11:30, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to add unsourced or poorly sourced content, as you did at Minority (Green Day song), you may be blocked from editing.  Rob van  vee  13:14, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you add unsourced material to Wikipedia, as you did at Pepper (song). 'I've asked nicely, you've flat-out ignored me. Next step WP:ANI  Rob van  vee ' 17:54, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Verify your edits
Hi. I've said it repeatedly in my reverts and messages above but perhaps a personal note is what is required to help you understand WP:CATV, a policy you are disruptively violating. Please familiar yourself, thank you.  Rob van  vee  11:33, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
 * They've been re-adding the cats to edits you've reverted . I don't think they're going to stop. ResPM  (T&#x1F508; &#x1F3B5;C) 00:11, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree . If I get back later and it is continuing, I will be taking this to WP:ANI.  Rob van  vee  05:13, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

ANI notice
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread can be found here.  Rob van  vee  09:16, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Block
 You have been blocked from editing for a period of one week for persistent addition of unsourced or poorly-sourced content. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page:. El_C 10:30, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
 * , straight out of their block and back to the exact editing that led to it. Please could you attend to this when you have a moment, thanks.  Rob van  vee  07:29, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

I was going to suggest a block on this editor. I don't have a problem with the categorization, but there is never any mention of song key in text, nor any reference to the key. They are on an unstoppable mission and I suggest a longer block. Brunswicknic (talk) 10:38, 21 February 2021 (UTC) I suspect they are a sockpuppet of Encyclopædius Brunswicknic (talk) 10:48, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

This isn't really an area of the project I am too familiar with so as to even attempt to comment on about different socks, so WP:SPI would be the venue for that if you feel you have a strong case. But can either of you point to a problematic diff? Because I looked at a random one, and it checks out. Sorry, I don't really have time to otherwise engage in the investigation end of things. El_C 05:16, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
 * There is no socking. Not sure what that's about. Just adding unsourced info to articles on mass scale.  Rob van  vee  05:30, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I'll take out back to ANI.  Rob van  vee  05:31, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Okay...? Before doing that, can you respond to what I asked about above, though? El_C 05:33, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Sure, give me a few minutes... Rob van  vee  05:35, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Hey, I'm no rush. I may not even be able to get to it till tomorrow, anyway. So, in that case, if problems resume, a noticeboard request might be the way to go. El_C 05:39, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Ok. Im on my phone so let me get on to that just now. Yeah there is a span of unsourced edits yet again from yesterday. Ill ping you later but if you're too busy I'll take this back to ANI. Thanks for your trouble.  Rob van  vee  05:47, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, not all au fait with procedures. I had a check of the two username activities. Encyclopædius has created most of the categories, and has been blocked in the past. Mdgds does not edit at the same time as Encyclopaedius. Looking at their activity, while fairly harmless, it looked to me like some sort of puppetry. Thank you though for your comments and suggestions, more thought out and knowledgeable than my own. Brunswicknic (talk) 10:56, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
 * No worries and thanks for the clarification. Not sure about any socking here but certainly an editor who has no time for WP:CATV or for communicating with concerned editors bringing issues to their attention on their talk page, both concerns that saw them recently blocked after my WP:ANI report. I'm waiting to see if Mdgds is ready to do the right thing before I call back  or file another report which won't result in a 1 week block next time.  Rob  van  vee  14:30, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

I see the latest block has ended...
None of the other editors have an objection to the category, it is the complete lack of evidence to back up the categories that means we do not accept what could be a completely wrong assignation. If you can find a secondary reputable source to the key of the song, fantastic, put it in, use the categories. Otherwise you are behaving poorly and likely to have sanctions imposed. Brunswicknic (talk) 07:25, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Mdgds: Hello, good night. How are you? well I have to tell you that well I apologize for having made the categories in some songs like Crashin'Out without making a reliable source to really show that you have the evidence that this song is on that scale and therefore can´t be put into category, but it seems unfair on their part that in songs that do have references and secondary sources that support the song in terms of scale to which it belongs, such as ICE CREAM by Black Pink or Where'd You Go by Fort Minor they put it as a Wrong category and delete the category that I did, I hope that this will solve the problem and we can carry out a conscious dialogue. Mdgds (talk) 02:08, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
 * No it won't solve the problem. Not until you read, understand and follow WP:CATV. If not, it's WP:ANI next.  Rob van  vee  08:21, 5 March 2021 (UTC)}
 * Mdgds: Ok, I understand I read it and I understand that I must make a secondary appointment to confirm that the song is on a scale, thank you very much for sending the article so as not to make mistakes again and more than that I am a foreigner. I will not break the laws of wikipedia againMdgds  (talk) 02:41, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Great. That's all we ask for. If you want to add a category that states a song in in a specific key, you merely need to be sure what you are adding is reliably sourced in the text of the article. If not, add a source or do not add the category. Thank you.  Rob van  vee  08:48, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 6
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited 2002 (song), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Key. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 06:20, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Apology
I'm so sorry; when I saw your most recent edits, I assumed incorrectly that you were continuing what you had done before. But I should have looked more closely; those songs were indeed mentioned as being in the key of A in the article. Again, I am sorry. --jpgordon&#x1d122;&#x1d106; &#x1D110;&#x1d107; 07:17, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

June 2021
Hello, I'm ResolutionsPerMinute. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, Don't Know Why, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so. You can have a look at the tutorial on citing sources. If you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. You added citations before. Why are you stopping? ResPM (T&#x1F508; &#x1F3B5;C) 12:08, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Unverifiable "Songs in key of __" categories
Hi, I've noticed you've been adding song key categories to articles in many cases where the key is not mentioned anywhere in the article (and hence fails WP:CATV). Examples:
 * Special:Diff/1031305044
 * Special:Diff/1031299503
 * Special:Diff/1028511429

It's troubling to see from your talk page that other editors have warned you about this repeatedly before, and that you've even been blocked for this. Please try to be more careful in the future. Colin M (talk) 22:45, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

Update: I noticed you restored the category for Gangsta's Paradise while also adding a citation. Definitely appreciate that, but I'm a bit confused about how the given source verifies the stated key of C minor. At https://www.musicnotes.com/sheetmusic/mtd.asp?ppn=MN0026618 the only place I see key explicitly mentioned is in the "Original Published Key" field, which is given as "Eb Major". Am I missing something? Colin M (talk) 22:56, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

Hey, could you please slow down? You're still very rapidly adding categories, and in many cases these additions still include errors. e.g. here you cited a link to sheet music for Beyonce song in an article about a B-52's song. I think it also bears discussing how to properly handle songs that aren't uniformly in a single key. e.g. the "Composition" section of And I Love Her says A majority of the composition shifts back and forth between the key of E and its relative minor C#m. It also changes keys altogether just before the solo, to F. The final chord is a D major. It seems odd to translate that into Category:Songs composed in C-sharp minor. Colin M (talk) 23:10, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

Not sure if you're reading these, but if you're going to add text to a song article about the key it's written in, it's probably more appropriate to add it to the body (typically in a section like "Composition") rather than the intro, since it's generally not a key piece of information that needs to be part of the summary provided by the intro (at least in the case of pop songs). Example edits: (Also, the Manual of Style advises straight quotation marks rather than curly ones.) Colin M (talk) 00:20, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Special:Diff/1031313983
 * Special:Diff/1031314866
 * Special:Diff/1031308371

July 2021
Hi Mdgds! I noticed that you recently marked an edit as minor&#32;at Sexual Healing that may not have been. "Minor edit" has a very specific definition on Wikipedia – it refers only to superficial edits that could never be the subject of a dispute, such as typo corrections or reverting obvious vandalism. Any edit that changes the meaning of an article is not a minor edit, even if it only concerns a single word. Please see Help:Minor edit for more information. Thank you. Muhandes (talk) 16:01, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Duplicate musicnotes
Please stop adding a second citation to musicnotes.com. The first one is adequate. Binksternet (talk) 22:12, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Mdgds: Helo, It is true that I put the second musicnotes citation and I apologize, the problem is that although I have already cited the tonality or scale of the song, many reporters accidentally delete (dial because there is no citation when there is) the categories that I put and that they are adequate because it already has a citation that proves it and therefore they are suitable to put a category. And the worst thing is that just because I put the unnecessary second citation they eliminate the categories of the songs that are appropriate to the tonality and that the citation proves it. That is very unfair, both edit for nothing. I will not pass mistakes but not injustices. Mdgds (talk) 18:05, 10 July 2021 (UTC)


 * When you must repeat a reference then you can name the existing reference and repeat just the name. Instructions may be found at WP:REFNAME.
 * In my opinion it is not so critically important to categorize every song according to the key that it is in. The key of a song is very rarely chosen for its supposed emotional characteristics such as innocence for C major and depression for F minor. Those ideas are mostly archaic now. The keys of many songs happen by chance. And any musical key can be changed very easily by transposition.
 * Also, the categories for song keys are worded poorly. A category that says "Songs composed in A minor" should only apply to songs that were purposely and thoughtfully "composed" in A minor; songs for which the key is important to the composer or later observers. The category should not apply to songs that are coincidentally recorded in that key. (The guideline is WP:CATDEF.) For instance, One (U2 song) is often performed in A♭ minor, even though the recording is in A minor. Which version was the song "composed in"? Was it composed lower for ease of performance but recorded higher to get that little bit of strained voice? Or composed higher but later found to be too difficult to perform repeatedly? The answer is not found in the article. Binksternet (talk) 00:28, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I strongly agree with you on the WP:CATDEF concern. Since we use equal temperament scales nowadays, there is basically no substantive difference between one major (resp. minor) key and another. The fact that a song's key is almost never mentioned outside of primary sources (i.e. sheet music) is a strong indication that it's not generally a defining characteristic. Colin M (talk) 15:28, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Sloppy Musicnotes citations
Hello, Mdgds. Please be (much) more careful with your addition of musicnotes citations. I reverted your edit at Rock Lobster because it pointed to music for "Baby Boy", a song by Beyoncé. You had the names backwards anyway (Beyoncé Knowles, etc.), which is why I noticed it.

Then at "Gangsta's Paradise" I find your edit to do multiple inexplicable things at once:
 * 1) The writers' names are backwards (Stevie Wonder, etc.), as above.
 * 2) The names are not in the order shown at Musicnotes.
 * 3) You credit people in the ref citation who are not credited in the music you linked to (e.g., Coolio). This includes the ridiculous L.V. Coolio feat, which you apparently blindly copied from the performers' names.
 * 4) The first credit uses the parameters last first when, because there are multiple authors, they should use last1 first1 (this is the least of our worries, since the citation still works).
 * 5) You added the citation before the period at the end of the sentence; WP:REFPUNCT tells us that references should precede punctuation (e.g., " ". This would also be minor if I didn't see from your history that you appear to do this always.
 * 6) You use this citation to support the claim that "This song is written in the key of C minor", which you added in the prose and also as a category. Unfortunately, the source says "Original Published Key: E♭ Major". I'm no music expert but I assume there's a considerable difference.
 * 7) You added a date for the citation , but I see no indication of this date at the page pointed to. Wherever did you get this? It looks entirely made up, which is the opposite of "reliable".

I've reworked the "Gangsta's Paradise" citation, but it still says "C minor", which I invite you to fix or remove. But: Could you please, please pay closer attention to what you are doing, familiarise yourself with the proper use of the citation templates, and view the results before moving on to the next article? I think you are going too fast to be doing good work. Better is: slower work, but higher quality. Thanks, &mdash; JohnFromPinckney (talk / edits) 12:51, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
 * FWIW, I pointed out issues with both of these edits above almost two weeks ago. It seems Mdgds either didn't read the message or didn't think the issues were worth fixing. :/ Colin M (talk) 15:22, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Categories about keys of songs
I am beginning to reverse your work in categorizing songs by key, using WP:CATDEF as my guide. For most of your contributions, the song's key (music) is not important to the topic, not definitive. Binksternet (talk) 15:56, 12 July 2021 (UTC)


 * I will continue to reverse your work in categorizing songs by key. WP:CATDEF is still the reason. Binksternet (talk) 16:31, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Mdgds: Hello, good afternoon, I know that the key of the music is not defining but I put a reliable source where the key of the songs that I put to categorize is to check it because I cited it in musicnotes and also the articles back it up, that's why I did not put Double date because there I show it in the appointment but they take my job away because for you it is not defining.While the others who do their job of defining the keys of the songs do not eliminate me yes and that is what I do not like. Greetings.  Mdgds (talk) 11:48, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

HEY!! Please stop your low-quality Musicnotes citations!
I'm sorry to be so loud with this section, but I am outraged that you continue to add the same broken citations and make the same glaring errors over and over AND OVER again. You appear to have ignored everything I said in the Sloppy Musicnotes citations section above; you made no reply and, as I see by your contributions today, you have made no improvement. Not even a little bit. Let me detail the items again, this time from my remedial work at Build a Bitch:
 * 1) You had the individual writers' names, that is, you used   when it should have been.
 * 2) The names are not in the order shown at Musicnotes.
 * 3) You credit people in the ref citation who are not credited in the music you linked to. Bella Poarch is the, not one of the writers.
 * 4) The first credit uses the parameters last first when, because there are multiple authors, they should use last1 first1 (this is the least of our worries, since the citation still works).
 * 5) You added a date for the citation , but I see no indication of this date at the page pointed to. Wherever did you get this? I'm still not seeing it.
 * 6) You added a sentence about "Poarch's musical range" which you (correctly!) ended with a period. However, you somehow added a wikilink to the period, piping it to A (musical note) (which isn't even otherwise part of the musical analysis).

Now everybody makes mistakes, so you are allowed to make your fair share. But I looked at some of your other contributions from today and (excluding the category-only edits (which Binksternet reverted), where you added a Musicnotes citation made these same stupid errors. Your edit to Good for Me (song) credits Snow Tom, Grant Amy and Gruska Jay, among others; in your (ungrammatical) edit to Afternoon Delight, you credit the authorship of the Musicnotes page to "Bill, Danoff; Band, Starland Vocal"; and in this edit to I'll Be There (Jackson 5 song), you write, "The song is played in a F major key..." (where "a" should be "an") and then credit this information to "Hal, Davis; Bob, West; Berry, Gordy; Willie, Hutchison; Jackson 5, The; Michael, Jackson", in which you once again transpose first and last names, include the  as one of the supposed writers, and arbitrarily add Michael Jackson,—I mean, Jackson Michael—to the list of writers, although his name appears NOWHERE on the cited source.

Please, PLEASE either learn to do this stuff correctly, even if it takes you much longer to do per article, or STOP DOING IT ALTOGETHER. This extremely sloppy work is tedious to fix (when we notice it), looks bad to readers who wonder who's writing this encyclopedia, and is a general disruption because of the extra work it generates for others. Slow down or stop—those are my best suggestions. &mdash; JohnFromPinckney (talk / edits) 21:39, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

Stop marking every single one of your edits as minor
Edits where you add an entire section like here are not minor, so please do not mark them as such. Adding a whole citation to MusicNotes as you've tended to do are not minor edits. Unless you're fixing a typographical error or changing no bytes of data on a page, you're probably not making a minor edit. Please see Help:Minor edit for what constitutes a minor edit. Thank you.  Ss  112   12:17, 19 December 2021 (UTC)