User talk:Robvanvee/Archive 10

Asshat
That was a fine edit. Happy new year! Drmies (talk) 15:44, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
 * ...and to you!.  Rob van  vee  15:56, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Editing
You shouldn't have removed my edits without my knowledge. Ngenxa (talk) 16:03, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Au contraire my dear fellow, you should not have added unsourced information to a BLP article to begin with, as stated in my reverting edit summary.  Rob van  vee  16:22, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Anthony Fantano
A RfC has begun at WP:RSN regarding Anthony Fantano's reviews should be count as reliable. Please add your comments there if interested. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 02:31, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

January 2021
Please refrain from adding, removing or changing genres, as you did to Devouring Radiant Light such as you did here and here, without providing a source or establishing a consensus on the article's talk page first. Genre changes to suit your own point of view are considered disruptive. Thank you. Second Skin (talk) 09:15, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't play games, that's for children and your behavior at this point seems to suggest that perhaps juvenile behavior fits you comfortably. If you have a pair of balls, say to my face what the problem is but your false accusation above and uncivil edit summaries seem to suggest they haven't dropped yet. In a nutshell, you added unsourced genres (and not for the first time) and I removed them. WP:V says the onus is you to source them, hence my template on your talk page.  Rob van  vee  09:33, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
 * 🦗🦗🦗  Rob van  vee  16:17, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Manics
How is the official Instagram page not a reliable source, please enlighten me. MartijnW076 (talk) 06:21, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Edit for Lars Ulrich article
Hi Robvanvee, I know this is very late and so you may not remember, but can you let me know what I edited without a source, as I’m sure I’d have one. Nickcarpani (talk) 00:28, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi Nick. It was this edit. All the best,  Rob van  vee  06:11, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

File:King Tubby Meets Rockers Uptown (song).ogg listed for discussion
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:King Tubby Meets Rockers Uptown (song).ogg, has been listed at Files for discussion. Please see the to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 01:03, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Taylor Swift - alt-rock artists?
You rollbacked my edit, and said, "Don't. Unless it's sourced". Didn't I cite an article which described her latest release Evermore as alt-rock. I did realise I put it in the wrong section because it's not like other pages which lists using the last name, but the first. Are you saying she doesn't belong on the list at all because I'm fairly certain she does? Her wikipedia page does say she incorporates alt-rock under "artistry". - Izb123 17:12, 23 January 2021 (GMT)
 * A source describing a single album as alt rock does not equate to an alt rock artist. It needs to be a source describing her discography as such. Sorry for the snarky edit summary.  Rob van  vee  19:04, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I feel like this is going to get into some philosophical argument about music but surely if an artist releases an alt-rock album they're allowed to be considered an alt-rock artist? The second Taylor moved from country to pop she was considered a pop artist now and not a country artist and now she's released two albums (evermore more than folklore) that critics have described as alt-rock? Do I have to source critics calling both albums alt-rock? I don't know, I'm just very confused at this criteria that you're presenting. - Izb123 11:05, 25 January 2021 (GMT)
 * It's pretty simple actually: if you want to claim she is an alt rock or a pop or a heavy metal artist or whatever genre you claim, you need a reliable source that supports the claim that Taylor Swift is an alt rock or pop or heavy metal artist. If you intend to claim an album is a specific genre, you need to find a reliable source that supports your claim that album X is genre X. But just because Mariah Carey released an alt rock album does not necessarily mean that she is an alt rock artist.  Rob van  vee  15:44, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I mean there are loads of artists on that list that have no source at all? Do they not need a source? - Izb123 18:44, 25 January 2021 (GMT) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Izb123 (talk • contribs)
 * Technically, yes, but neither I nor any other willing editor have gone through the list a to z to check (...one day...). If you question an artist's entry and they are not reliably sourced on their own article or on the list page, feel free to remove them. I hope  that makes sense.  Rob  van  vee  19:19, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
 * BTW, typing 4 tidles ( ~ ) will automatically sign your comments with the time and date. Try it.  Rob van  vee  19:23, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Tom Waits
Hello. Can you provide any evidence that my edit constituted 'original research'? If you don't respond I hope that you won't mind if I reinsert material you have removed.82.17.146.254 (talk) 20:28, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
 * In case you didn't bother to read the policy I quoted "To demonstrate that you are not adding OR, you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and directly support the material being presented".  Rob van  vee  20:31, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Because you delete my edits with correct reference
Give me your reason Drells (talk) 07:17, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes! Give us your reason!  Good morning!  JSFarman (talk) 17:30, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Hey Julie...🤦...never a dull moment round these here parts!  Rob van  vee  18:17, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Sourcing for album genres
You seemed to have an issue with genres being on the pages for certain Weezer albums, however most album pages do not have direct citations for the genres. Do citations need to be in every infobox, and since reviews are subjective then how can they be used as citation? 108.31.104.97 (talk) 20:57, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Please see WP:V, everything, especially genres need to be reliably sourced either in the infobox or in the prose of the article, in a 'musical style' section if one is available. Reviews may be subjective but if they are from what Wikipedia considers reliable sources, then it certainly is preferable to an editor dropping their 5c.  Rob van  vee  06:20, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
 * BTW, it has nothing to do with Weezer as such. This applies to all music articles.  Rob van  vee  06:22, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

The Signpost: 31 January 2021
 * Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:11, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Correction
I don't know where you are from and what type of information you consider to be true but I do not agree with the reversal. You can tell that you rely on any unreliable article and that you also don't know anything about David Guetta's music. It would be normal for a hater to be putting anything on Wikipedia without proof and without knowledge. I have been following him since 2011 but that does not mean that I have stood idly by as a posser. I know more than you about him. I even have photos of David's parents and I know from whom he learned everything he knows about music. For the correction I relied on Discogs. I would like to know if you have an account on Instagram or another social network to discuss this better and in greater depth. Claudia UM (talk) 14:58, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
 * You added information without a reliable source and I reverted because a core Wikipedia policy says "All content must be verifiable. The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and it is satisfied by providing an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution". No one here cares what you think you know, or what you think I know. We only care what reliable sources say (and you are not one). I have nothing further I'd like to discuss with you on any other social media sites, thanks, but feel free to continue this discussion here or on the article talk page.  Rob van  vee  15:44, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

I need a little help, if you can.
Hey man, I made a page for Korpiklaani's new album, Jylhä, I needed someone to review it to be sure that it doesn't have anything wrong with it. I'm pretty new in this, so I didn't know how and where to ask. Also, if you can, I wanted to ask you to also check the album cover I used, please. I tried to put under fair use but I guess I didn't do it the right way. I'm not trying to disrupt anything, just trying to learn and create pages for the bands I love. Sorry for the inconvenience and thanks in advance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Angelus Vieira Burkert (talk • contribs) 01:13, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Hey . Sure, but will only get a chance a little later. We'll chat then. Cheers.  Rob van  vee  05:07, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Re the Sneed -> Chuck vandalism...
I just filed a RPP: here. I think an indefinite protection is needful especially for Floyd Sneed but I think any WP:BIO with a last name of Sneed should probably be protected. I hate dealing with this ongoing & persistent whack-a-mole vandalism... Shearonink (talk) 18:07, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Hey . Snap! This was me earlier. Yeah you're telling me. The only reason any Sneed is on my watchlist is because of this 10 year old twat. I use Twinkle to RPP and have never attempted to request anything longer than "temporary" which usually results in 30 days. Perhaps if one can show via the history page how long this has been going on as well as how many times the pages have been protected in the past, a longer protection period may be granted. Any thoughts?  Rob van  vee  18:16, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Maybe if you posted an addendum to the RPP I just filed, listing allllll the articles and the fact that this is a ten-year old ongoing/persistent/simmering/ohSOclever-NOT/ohSOfunny-NOT vandal/trolling effort? Lol, I suppose filing SPIs on all the apparently-associated accounts could be helpful if one has the stomach to consolidate all the various accounts into one SPI... I just get tired of dealing with this stupidity and I think that there are better uses of my time here on WP than dealing with this. If *all* the Sneed articles received Permanent Semi-protection that would eliminate much of the drudge-work of having to manually review Every. Single. Sneed. Shearonink (talk) 18:25, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
 * @. How about we wait to see which admin protects and then ping them to this chat to see whether they could assist with such a request?  Rob van  vee  18:32, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Sounds good. If they protect...hope they do. I stumbled onto this ongoing pattern since I keep an eye on Floyd Sneed. I thought it was just his article but nope! finally figured out it was many if not all of any "Sneed" articles. Shearonink (talk) 18:35, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
 * .  Rob van  vee  18:36, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
 * See this. It got pending protection from MelanieN. Shearonink (talk) 21:15, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Am pinging you to this discussion because there is an ongoing issue with at least one or more vandals who are persistently changing information in WP:BLPs or WP:BIOs, usually changing the last name from "Sneed" to "Chuck" or something similar. I thought it was just the Floyd Sneed article but then I looked at all the articles listed at Sneed...almost every single one of them has been or is being vandalized with this Sneed/Chuck crud. Is there anything that can be done - other than playing whack-a-mole when it happens, over and over and over again? The IPs are not confined to a single area - there's an .ru one of, a Lithuanian one , a UK one etc. And then there are also the various named accounts, including Floyd Sneedington and Twottle Bird... Thanks, Shearonink (talk) 05:20, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Great, thanks . Just woke up to find this. Let's hope can assist with this ongoing frustration.  Rob  van  vee  05:26, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

I thought something about this seemed a little odd and maybe everyone else around here knows all about the Sneed->Chuck connection but anyway, I educated myself and it's based on a nonsense gag from The Simpson's, "Sneed's Feed and Seed Formerly Chuck's". Maybe a line about this issue could be added to ClueBot's code?... Shearonink (talk) 05:50, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Goodness, right you are! Bloody 4chan. No wonder we're seeing what has been described as "Sneedposting" from different locations and IPs. It's a "thing".  Rob van  vee  06:02, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Hello, all, and thanks for the ping. When I saw the second protection request for a Sneed article, I did a little research to find out what this was about and discovered the Simpson's joke and the resulting meme, so I understand the problem. About protecting, here's the deal: We only protect to stop current vandalism or disruptive editing, and only for as long as seems reasonably necessary. One of our rules is that we don't protect pre-emptively, based on the prediction or possibility that vandalism is likely to happen. And indefinite protection is very rare. So that means I can't just go ahead and protect every article about someone named Sneed. You can see my personal interpretation of the protection guidelines here: User:MelanieN/Page protection. My conclusion on the state of the various Sneed articles was that Sam Sneed needed immediate semi-protection, based on the amount of vandalism, and needed it for a month based on how long it had been going on. My conclusion with Floyd Sneed was that there was some vandalism, not frequent enough for semi-protection, but enough for a couple of months of PC protection (which unfortunately keeps the whack-a-mole game going). My conclusion for Troy, Christine, and R.R., which you mentioned in the Floyd request, was that there was not enough of a current problem to warrant protection at that time. I have just now looked at them again and I see that there were three recent vandalisms to R.R. Sneed by Floydsneadington, but that user has been blocked, so protection of R.R. is still not necessary at this time. I see that Floydsneadington also vandalized Cy Sneed and William Henry Sneed, so you might add those to your watchlists. Here's the bottom line: I can't protect any of these other articles at this time, but if any of them come under more sustained or frequent attack, ping me and I'll see what I can do, since I know the backstory. In the meantime, if you want to see about some kind of edit filter against substituting "Chuck" for "Sneed", you might ask at Edit filter/Requested. -- MelanieN (talk) 17:11, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Oh, and based on the contributions of the other blocked editor Twottle Bird, we should also keep an eye on Meg Sneed and L'Jarius Sneed. Sheesh, look at them all: Sneed. One at Joseph P. Sneed got left in place for a week before someone noticed it. -- MelanieN (talk) 17:16, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
 * The person who reverted the Joseph P. one, and half a dozen others, was an IP. I have just written to invite them to this discussion. I hope they get the message, it looks like a dynamic IP. -- MelanieN (talk) 17:33, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Hey . Thanks for that, makes perfect sense. You added pending changes protection to Floyd Sneed recently after I requested page protection. As a pending changes reviewer, and I hope is too, we can keep an eye on that. How easily is that implemented and what are the time frames for such protection?  Rob  van  vee  17:41, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
 * PC protection is for infrequent but persistent vandalism over a period of time, rather than the three-or-more recent vandalism edits I generally require for semi-protection. I consider the minimum time frame for PC to be a month, and I often make it for two or three months depending on how long the vandalism has been going on. PC protection is a bit of a burden on the page watchers, since it has to be accepted or rejected, but at least it keeps the vandalism from being visible in the general encyclopedia until it is accepted. -- MelanieN (talk) 18:14, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Thx for everything - I'm filing a request at WP:Edit filter, I think that makes the most sense. It is clear to me, from my going through the names yesterday at Sneed that this is a persistent and ongoing issue that will not go away since there is an inexhaustible supply of people who think they are ohsoclever in mindlessly repeating a trolling meme that they seem to think no one has thought of before. This meme-ing of WP content will never end and I know that I am getting tired of whack-a-mole'ing this crap. Here's to hoping the edit filter request gets fulfilled. I'll ping both of you to my filing. Shearonink (talk) 18:37, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
 * .  Rob van  vee  18:44, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Just pinging who has also been pretty busy reverting this shit according to my watchlist, in case you had any good ideas or wanted to contribute something to add to the conversation. Thanks for helping out with this Chaos.  Rob  van  vee  05:44, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Not really, an edit filter is probably best as it's a meme that's potentially applicable to numerous pages, rather than being restricted to one. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 05:47, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I've requested a filter at Shearonink (talk) 05:52, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Suffusion of Yellow has just answered the call at Edit filter/Requested. There is hope... Shearonink (talk) 18:47, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Well done on your persistence ! There is hope. After a day away I returned to find the recent reversions. As you say, this will never end...but there is hope.  Rob van  vee  18:55, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Great work, Shearonink and especially user:Suffusion of Yellow! I am impressed! Shearonink and Robvanvee, let me know if protection issues arise again - but if this solves it that would be great. Edit filters are a wonderful thing. -- MelanieN (talk) 19:35, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Riot - Fire Down Under Release date.
The release date not the proper date. It was released on September 2nd 1981. Somehow the numbers got reversed its 9/2/81 in the U.K. that is displayed as 2/9/81 so it was mistaken for February 9th instead of September 2nd. For references.

New entry at #25 on the Rock Albums chart in Billboard magazine September 5th 1981 issue page 22.

New entry at #180 on the Billboard 200 chart September 12th 1981 issue page 85.

New on the charts article for Riot - Fire Down Under, October 3rd 1981 Billboard magazine page 28. Riot - Fire Down Under listed on New release list in Billboard magazine October 24 1981 issue page 41. Billchit (talk) 05:59, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm not really sure what you're getting at but only the year is reliably sourced, not the rest, hence my latest edit leaving only the year.  Rob van  vee  06:29, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

I'm just trying to put the proper release date in. It was not the proper date and I wanted to correct it. I have provided the references to show the proper release date. Billchit (talk) 06:46, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
 * No problemo! Just be sure to reliably source it and everything will be hunky dory!  Rob van  vee  06:54, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Help me on a draft?
Hello, I’m trying to edit this draft so it can get approved for an article, can you help? Syent713 (talk) 03:08, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Sure, read why it was rejected 3 times and work on those issues. Good luck.  Rob van  vee  05:08, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Jas Mann
Sorry to involve you in this, but you seem like one of the more prolific music section editors and I could use your help. A single-purpose editor is repeatedly blanking Steven Wells's NME-published opinion of Jas Mann (inappropriately checking these edits as "minor"), while dressing up their "just don't like it" edits as removal of supposed "racist" content. This has gone on for a couple of years now. When I today scolded the user for their disgusting trivialisation of racism, they then shifted to claiming that Wells was somehow causing "religious offense". I normally only do minor edits and have learned over the past couple months that disputes typically don't end well for an IP, so perhaps you could challenge this egregious behaviour, if you care to. Thanks for reading, regardless of your decision. 94.9.167.179 (talk) 23:33, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
 * They seem to have relented for now. Sorry to bother you. 94.9.167.179 (talk) 00:04, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I see what you mean. I've added to my watchlist but just hit me up if this bs editing starts again and I miss it. Cheers!  Rob van  vee  06:16, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
 * It's started up again. The user is now claiming that Jas Mann won a court case against the NME's Steven Wells, of which I can find zero evidence online. Thing is, even if the NME were somehow forced to take this review down (which I seriously doubt, given that it remained online into the 2000s before falling off the net, as all the old NME stuff does), this doesn't preclude Wikipedia or any other site from quoting it. It would be similar to the Bryan Adams situation: AllMusic is legally prohibited from writing anything about Adams, but that hasn't stopped their past writings, archived on Wayback Machine, from being used all over Adams-related Wikipedia articles. The legal obligation lies with AllMusic (and NME, if true) - not Wikipedia. Thanks for indulging me with all this. 94.9.167.179 (talk) 16:35, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
 * As per my revert, they appear to have some undisclosed conflict of interest but at the very least, their removal of reliably sourced content is unjustified. And the threat on your talk page is also unacceptable.  Rob van  vee  16:58, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks a lot, I appreciate it. 94.9.167.179 (talk) 17:22, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Anytime!  Rob van  vee  17:40, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

The Bitter Truth
Hello Robvanvee, I need your help with this page. Recently, there is this user who has constantly always new IP and he is messing with the page of the album. The same situation we had was kinda the same like when they messed with the page of The Amity Affliction. User Walter Görlitz fixed that issue. I always reverted his edits, but he is always going back and revert my revert, calling me a vandal and also gave me an unreasonable warning. I don't know if you can do something with that, but I do need your help please. Thanks. --Tobi999tomas (talk) 17:41, 13 February 2021 (UTC)Krsna (rapper)
 * Hi . Yes, their edits are indeed disruptive. Using multiple IP addresses, false accusations of vandalism, WP:OWN and a refusal to follow WP:BRD are all quite concerning. I have given them a warning on their talk page for using multiple IP addresses and for accusing you of vandalism. They need to discuss their objection on the article talk page if they disagree as is expected from all constructive editors.  Rob van  vee  18:47, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
 * For the record, after they reverted my edit from a different IP address, I requested page protection. Hopefully that helps.  Rob van  vee  10:06, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
 * You're welcome.  Rob van  vee  13:06, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Madame Gandhi
Hi, I wanted to ensure that the recent changes that were reverted on Madame Gandhi's page came straight from her personal blog and were requested by Kiran Gandhi herself. Please let me know if you need further any clarification and if I can make the changes again. Sreeja03 (talk) 22:45, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

Discogs
Discogs may be "unreliable" according to Wikipedia standards, but did you even look at the Discogs page? There are clearly pictures and a matching catalogue number on said pictures which provide legitimate proof the vinyl was real, and therefore, shows the bonus track is on a real edition of the vinyl. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:589:8401:A9A0:A1E5:DD3B:E3F0:C2D (talk) 20:41, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
 * You didn't source your edit, merely added the url to your edit summary. That is not an acceptable method of sourcing as your reference is lost in the article edit history. WP:ALBUMAVOID says to avoid Discogs as it's content is WP:USERG and therefore unreliable. Finally, I did click on the link and did not find evidence of your claim in the citation to be easily identifiable. All of the above = my reversion.  Rob van  vee  10:15, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Dude, if you didn't see my "claim" to be easily identifiable, I don't know what you're looking at. Like I said, there were clear pictures and a matching catalogue number on said pictures. It even shows it on multiple releases with more pictures. here, here, and here. On top of that, I don't know you're gonna say that Discogs is unreliable and that I can't use it as a source when it literally uses Discogs under the External links section of the page, basically telling the reader that it's a good list of all the releases of the album. Kinda hypocritical if you ask me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:589:8401:A9A0:E488:7671:9CF4:216C (talk) 12:30, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

I inform you that in the article of Daddy Yankee the information of tour world is the big boss tour.
The editer is correct. The kroll of Krolls (talk) 08:53, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
 * You have been reported for sock puppetry. Go away.  Rob van  vee  08:57, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Regarding your edit on KR$NA (rapper)
Hello Robvanvee, I am user AnDob24. This is regarding your removal of my addition on the page KR$NA (rapper). I would like you to know that the addition done by me was in the discography section. It was based on the YouTube release of the respective songs I added. The artist featured, music producer and release date are all from the respective YouTube videos. There are not many sources to confirm these elements as the artist is not that popular. Should I add the YouTube video as source or the artist's discography from another website, which again, is written by me?
 * Hi . All info should be reliably sourced hence my reversion. Generally YouTube videos are not acceptable sources, but if the content of the video is from a credible source such as Rolling Stone, NME etc. then that would be acceptable. Also, if the video was posted by the artist's official YouTube or their label's YouTube account, that would also be acceptable. I hope this helps. One more thing: please don't leave edit summaries telling other editors not to revert your edits, this is considered a form of WP:OWN. If you have any questions, feel free to shout. Thanks.  Rob van  vee  15:35, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for the reply. Most of the video's are from the artist's YouTube channel or his Label's YouTube channel. So, I guess I'll just add the source and it should be fine, right? Just conforming, am I supposed to link every single track I add in the discography? Or just linking the channel is fine? I have seen many pages without a source in discography anyway. I'll also remember not to put such messages in the edit summary. Edit: I hope you understand that websites like Rolling Stones are generally related to mainstream artists and hence finding reliable sites for seemingly unpopular artists is a huge task itself. So, I am just going with the YouTube video. AnDob24 (talk) 16:40, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
 * That's why we have a notability standard with regards to information added to the encyclopedia. You are right, there remains much unsourced information on the site and we all work to find sources or remove said info. This includes all new info too. We should be aiming for a high standard around here and that means reliably sourcing our edits. It should be fine to add back but may I ask that you link each to its respective source and I'll fill out the bare url's when you are done. Many thanks for trying to make Wikipedia a quality encyclopedia!  Rob van  vee  16:55, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Hi. I have added a lot of stuff on the page KR$NA (rapper). Please review the addition and help to improve the page in any way possible. I am a bit confused whether some of the citations are correct. AnDob24 (talk) 13:07, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi again . I did cast a quick eye earlier without going into your sources too much as I am going away until Monday, but from my glance, it looked good. I'll check on that when I get back. I really appreciate you taking the time to source your edits thereby improving the quality of the article and Wikipedia!  Rob van  vee  08:17, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Ok then. Thank you for your help. I will continue the work until you return. AnDob24 (talk) 13:53, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Regarding of The Bitter Truth
Hello Robvanvee, recently the page was moved and the protection is now gone. Because of it, disruptive editing is happening again. Can the page be under permanent protection again please? Thanks. --Tobi999tomas (talk) 13:54, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
 * My efforts previously went either unnoticed or unappreciated or both, so a lot less keen.  Rob  van  vee  15:10, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I think they did approve your request, but the problem was that recently they moved the page. So maybe that's why the protection is gone. --Tobi999tomas (talk) 10:05, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Article of the álbum
Hello, in the article of The Last Don the album his souce is of the page official "The Richest" and is about earnings and copies. Rookolll90 (talk) 06:14, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
 * How stupid do you think Wikipedians are? If it smells like a sock... Rob van  vee  06:18, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

¿stupid of what? I only given the information and his souce of one page official. friend.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rookolll90 (talk • contribs) 06:28, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Thought you'd appreciate this
I left a Thank you on Suffusion of Yellow's talk page here. Every time I check Edit filter 1120 I am grateful that I don't have to clean up the Chucking trolls' crap anymore. Cheers, Shearonink (talk) 15:35, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
 * My apologies for the delayed reply. Moving house is taking up much of my free time. You deserve as much credit as Suffusion of Yellow and have acknowledged your efforts on your talk page accordingly. Thanks for keeping me in the loop.  Rob van  vee  06:21, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Speak & Spell (album)
Hello apologies for not adding the ref I did find one with a interview with the band from a few years ago where it was referenced that it was recorded between December 1980–August 1981, but unfortunately I can not seem to find it now. I did have however find this https://www.depmode.com/Depeche_Mode_Speak_And_Spell.php which looks like an unofficial Depeche Mode fan page, with original press release posters etc and it also mentions the very same recording dates, therefore I do not think that this reference is reliable either which is why I have not added it. RyTellyFan91. , (talk) 00:26, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi . Thanks for the note and I apologise for not replying sooner. Personally I don't think a fan site will suffice due to it being just that, a fan site. We could ask at the reliable sources notice board if you're interested?  Rob van  vee  06:33, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Hello Robvanvee,Thank you for your messages, and for your reply, Apologies for my slight delay. Yes that was the reason I left it out. It is very annoying I often go through articles citing refs footnotes etc with reliable sources. Unrelated but a very good example of mine I have added the construction dates for BR Class 370 as 1977-1980 with a very reliable source. Seeing this information missed out or unsourced, for example another studio album I have noticed on Dare, The Human Leagues third studio album the recording dates are March 1981- September 1981, and their reasonings for this from my own assumptions are that The Sound of the Crowd as this is the first single taken from the album released on April 20 1981. it It is stated that it was recorded in March 1981.source? But who is to say it wasn't February 1981 or another date for example? As there is no reliable source, the inserts fold out artwork booklet/sleeve in the 2002 CD release and vinyl do not list this as well. Thank you yes it would be good if we could get the notice board to look at this as ideally all studio albums, singles and EPs etc releases articles should have included the recording dates with reliable sources.

RyTellyFan91. , (talk) 01:28, 01 March 2021 (UTC)

album article
¿What happened? the souce is dependable and is of one page official specialized in earnings and copies the page is of https://www.therichest.com/celebnetworth/celeb/singer/don-omar-net-worth/ .. friend. Rookolll90 (talk) 11:44, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
 * That's not a reliable source and you have been reported for sock puppetry.  Rob van  vee  11:52, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

¿because not a reliable one souce? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rookolll90 (talk • contribs) 12:04, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

The Signpost: 28 February 2021
 * Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:30, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Who Was in My Room Last Night?.ogg
Thanks for uploading File:Who Was in My Room Last Night?.ogg. 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) 18:34, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

The Signpost: 28 March 2021
 * Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:45, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

Champagne Supernova Edit
Hello, I am user JamesD12345. Recently I made an edit to the personnel section of the popular Oasis song Champagne Supernova. I placed added percussion next to Alan White, sound effects next to Owen Morris, and backing vocals next to Liam Gallagher. My edits were removed soon after. For what reason? I am not sure. The song has a shaker and triangle on it which is played by Alan White, which is why I put "percussion" next to his name. The studio version of the song also includes both lead and backing vocals by Liam Gallagher. There are also sound effects on the song, like waves for example.
 * Hi . Please see WP:V. Almost all edits should be accompanied by a reliable source. If you need assistance adding the source, I'd be happy to help.  Rob van  vee  19:40, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

The source is the song itself. It literally has a triangle and shaker in by Alan, the percussionist of the band, and extra backing vocals by Liam, as well as wave sounds. I'm not sure how I would source this. You can hear them for yourself in the song which there is a sample of on the Wikipedia page already. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JamesD12345 (talk • contribs) 22:06, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Please read the links I posted in my comment above so as to understand what constitutes a "source" on Wikipedia, thanks.  Rob van  vee  05:25, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Last time I checked there are no cites for any other text pieces under personnel. I'm not sure what you want me to provide a link for? The song? There is already a link to the song on that page. Have you even listened to the song? I don't see what's that hard to understand about this. You can listen to it with your own two ears and hear the backing vocals, triangle, shaker and wave sound effects. I'm not sure what kind of source you want me to provide. They are in the song.

Edits keep getting reverted
I've edited the articles for the Oasis songs Champagne Supernova and Don't Look Back In Anger. I only change the personnel sections to include more instruments being played by the people there or to change who is playing an instrument. Both times my edits have been reverted for seemingly no reason.

Don Omar's King Of Kings album
Why did you remove the tracklist of the Special and Armageddon editions of the album. The special edition is understandable but the armageddon tracklist, that version of the able does exist on all streaming platforms. You should at least have kept it. It didn't violate any guidelines with Wikipedia and also it has been proven that it's accurate. Like next time how about you add proof instead of erasing things next time. If there is a reason to erase then do so. I don't see the for you to do what you did. Like know the tracklist for special editions actually help people know more about the albums and know the total amount of tracks in each one of them. I am bother by this especially since I am a huge Latin music fan and I have contributed to add information for Latin music albums before. I would be really upset at someone for deleting any hard work I have put on something. So next time do your editing better. I will bring back the tracklist that you deleted so people who view this album know about the others songs that aren't in the standard edition. DominicanWikiEdit1996 (talk) 18:53, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

The Signpost: 25 April 2021
 * Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:33, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

The Signpost: 25 April 2021
 * Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:30, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 11
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Rostrum Records, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Independent. 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) 06:03, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

Leonard Cohen New skin for the old ceremony edit
Please note I have separately contacted the arbitration committee to seek the rationale for my being banned from editing Wikipedia. However, I have now come across this post. Hi I am surprised I’m not a little annoyed to find Wikipedia failing to appreciate an entirely legitimate edit. Could you please outline whatever extensive verifiability criteria have to be met I can for example provide a photograph of both album covers with or without the additional wing (please refer to my original edit). Please advise. Simonc1952 (talk) 07:09, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
 * As per my reverting edit summary, you failed to provide a reliable source for your edit, something this policy covers and something you need to adhere to. FWIW, you have not been blocked from editing as you claim.  Rob van  vee  07:35, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

The Signpost: 27 June 2021
 * Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:15, 27 June 2021 (UTC)