User talk:Shadeslayer2002

Call My Friends
Please contribute to the discussion at Talk:Wonder (Shawn Mendes album). Please stop removing the song as a single until a consensus is formed. Thanks! D🐶ggy54321 (let's chat!) 04:23, 7 December 2020 (UTC)


 * It is obvious it's not a single. No mv, not sent to radio. The article is stupid, it's just stating it to be the next single because he released a video regarding it on YouTube. He did the same for Teach me how to love, so it's also a single then? Shadeslayer2002 (talk) 04:25, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
 * And? The source used is reliable. Please contribute to the discussion, and read comments by other users to get a better view on this topic. TMHTL doesn’t have a source backing it up that it’s a single, so no it’s not a single. D🐶ggy54321 (let's chat!) 04:27, 7 December 2020 (UTC)


 * This is not how a single works, a single is something which gets a music video and sent for radio support. Did Shawn confirm it was a single like he did for Monster and Wonder. And no the source isn't reliable, it's just stating that because he released that video on YouTube Shadeslayer2002 (talk) 04:29, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
 * A single doesn’t have to have a music video, nor does it need to be pushed to radio. As long as there are sources calling it a single, that’s enough for Wikipedia. Shawn doesn’t need to confirm single status, only sources do. The source provided is from ET Canada, which is considered reliable on Wikipedia. We tend to listen to reliable sources, because it’s not often that they’re wrong. Even if users perceive the source to state false information, they would need sources stating their side of the argument. In this case, we already have a source calling CMF a single. So now, for there to be a valid argument, there needs to be a source calling CMF not a single. D🐶ggy54321 (let's chat!) 04:33, 7 December 2020 (UTC)


 * When we decided to make 'Lost In Japan' the next single, I wanted to do an exciting remix for the song," Mendes says in a press release. "With Zedd being a good friend and such an amazing artist, it felt natural to ask him to collaborate on it. What he did with it is so incredible, and I’m so excited for the world to hear it.” This is from a Billboard article which said Lost in Japan was made a single 'after the remix', while Wikipedia states that it was a single on the day or release itself. Shadeslayer2002 (talk) 04:37, 7 December 2020 (UTC)


 * As for backing it up, there wouldn't be any article stating it isn't a single, because nobody except that dumb article has called it a single. You want them to release articles specifically stating that the other 11 tracks weren't released as singles? Shadeslayer2002 (talk) 04:38, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Lost in Japan was made a single without Zedd, then it was remixed and the remix was also a single. See the chronologies in Lost in Japan. Also, I see what you mean. That’s why we need to come to a consensus, which is an agreement formed by editors who choose to participate in discussion. A consensus is starting to form in the above link (Talk:Wonder (Shawn Mendes album)). You should comment there. D🐶ggy54321 (let's chat!) 04:42, 7 December 2020 (UTC)


 * This happened last time around too with Shawn Mendes the Album, WWYITM and Nervous were called singles when they were a thing called promotion singles. Which artists drop 2 official singles in space of 5 days? If they do, Shawn isn't one of them. Pop artists don't have official singles dropping and going without music videos and radio support. Shawn too never has had any official without these 2. Maybe these things should be kept in mind. Shadeslayer2002 (talk) 04:47, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Ah, promotional singles. Wikipedia is unclear with promo single guidelines, so it’s really hard to tell unless sources say “promo single”. Mvs and radio play don’t equal a single. While this is traditionally what is done, a bunch of singles don’t have these. Doesn't have a music video. Doesn't have radio play. The latter example is a Shawn song, and it never impacted radio. D🐶ggy54321 (let's chat!) 04:53, 7 December 2020 (UTC)


 * That Shawn song wasn't a single. Check out the tweets he made while announcing the song. He called it a song dropping off of his album. When he drops a single, he specially calls it a single. Shadeslayer2002 (talk) 04:59, 7 December 2020 (UTC)


 * New song #Nervous from the album, go download it now Shadeslayer2002 (talk) 05:00, 7 December 2020 (UTC)


 * #MONSTER friday nov 20th @justinbieber. Next single from #WONDER Shadeslayer2002 (talk) 05:10, 7 December 2020 (UTC)


 * These are the 2 different tweets he used to announce the songs. It's pretty obvious Shadeslayer2002 (talk) 05:10, 7 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Guess what, Shawn released a deluxe album an hour ago which has 6 live performances of songs from his new album. Call my friends isn’t there, not the treatment you would expect for a single, with no mv, no radio support, simply a lyrics video like every song, not added to any Spotify playlists when even TMHTL was added to quite a few. If I were to guess, TMHTL will be made the next single, and if it is made a single, mark my words it will have a mv and will he sent to the radio, not like the “so called” singles present on his Wikipedia pages. Shadeslayer2002 (talk) 06:23, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
 * We are not interested in your predictions on which songs will be the next single or whether it'll get "single treatment" (another ambiguous term which implies arbitrary definitions). Perhaps you could take a look at Harry Styles (album). That was a situation where an official source (the record label) explicitly confirmed that a song, which would otherwise be considered a single according to multiple reliable sources, isn't actually a single. The note was a result of a consensus which was reached after a lengthy discussion in which both sides of the argument provided sources supporting their own stances. At the end, we decided to reach a compromise in the form of a note on the article. In our case, however, you have provided no source at all to back up your arguments, other than a bunch unverifiable original research. And just on this, I don't think it was necessary to insert personal attack in your edit summary. I'm sure doesn't really mind, but it's not very civil nor helpful to the situation. Try to focus on the content instead and put aside your personal feelings. Hayman30 (talk) 07:04, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Whatever you say dude, you think you are doing a oh so respectable job of quoting facts, but you are wrong and should give up editing Shawn's page, it would really help everyone. As for my facts, they are more than correct and you can check that anywhere. Another user had a problem with the page and he pointed out the exact things I did, and we hadn't even read each other thoughts before stating it, but what you are doing here is enforcing your thoughts on this page without due consideration of 2 other users, and backing up an factually incorrect article which is the only on the internet which states this. Even after 10 days when no other article will state this, you will keep this incorrect thing incorporated in the page because you have the backing of "an article" which would off course not be taken down even though it's wrong. Shadeslayer2002 (talk) 09:17, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid it'll be quite difficult for us to find a way forward if you don't even recognize the fact that you don't have any reliable sources to support your argument and continue to insist what you're saying is "fact". Verifiability, not truth. And I am not "enforcing [my] thoughts on this page", I don't have any thoughts on this particular subject, "Call My Friends" wasn't even added by me. I'm merely defending reliably sourced information from unjustified and unreasonable removal. I am also not obligated to suppress my actions simply because there are opposing views, especially when those views are invalid and baseless. I am acting in full accordance with core Wikipedia policies, particularly those related to verifiability in this case. Please let me know when you are ready to provide your sources to prove that the article is incorrect, otherwise, the current version of the article will be preserved. Thanks. Hayman30 (talk) 09:55, 7 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Ok so the single wasn't even announced by Shawn, what else do you need? And you want me to provide articles that a song isn't a single? You want articles confirming that songs aren't singles? Have there any been any articles like that? Don't u realise how dumb it sounds? A single is at least announced by the artist and his team, and here it wasn't done. Shadeslayer2002 (talk) 15:14, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
 * It's not a requirement for something to be confirmed by the artist before it could be added on Wikipedia. That's nonsense you made up yourself. In fact, secondary sources are preferred to primary sources. Please familiarize yourself with core Wikipedia policies, and stop your disruptive editing immediately. Hayman30 (talk) 04:47, 8 December 2020 (UTC)


 * I didn't just say the artist, I also mentioned other articles, radio stations, label in the other section of the chat. Please read the entire thing before commenting thanks. Shadeslayer2002 (talk) 05:15, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Obviously the same thing applies. We don't need "official" confirmation. Secondary sources are good enough, if not better. Your ridiculous assertion that a song could only be considered a single if it is explicitly confirmed by an "official" source is completely baseless and not supported at all by any Wikipedia policy or content guideline. Hayman30 (talk) 05:35, 8 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Ok so basically the Wikipedia policy is to provide random information with it being properly confirmed just to be able to get it out there. Got it. Shadeslayer2002 (talk) 06:59, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
 * ...No. The Wikipedia policy is that if information can be sourced and is relevant to add to the article, then it is added. D🐶ggy54321 (let's chat!) 12:27, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

December 2020
Hello, I'm Materialscientist. I noticed that in this edit to Shawn Mendes discography, you removed content without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry, the removed content has been restored. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Materialscientist (talk) 15:20, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Hey, the song Call My friends hasn't been confirmed by Shawn or his team as a single. The article on basis of which it is formed is factually incorrect, because it assumes it to be a single on basis of a YouTube video for the song which showed it's making of, and was released as promotion for the album along with 2 other songs all with a gap of 1 day each. The article misunderstood the intentions of the video release. This consensus has also been supported by one other user which you can see in the talk page for the article. Thanks Shadeslayer2002 (talk) 15:30, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did with this edit to Shawn Mendes discography, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive and has been reverted. Please make use of the sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits. Thank you. Materialscientist (talk) 15:33, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

I just explained my reasoning here, I will just add that while deleting it because the edit is beyond reason and spreading misinformation. You can check with all radio stations and the label. Shadeslayer2002 (talk) 15:36, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to blank out or remove portions of page content, templates, or other materials from Wikipedia without adequate explanation, as you did at Wonder (Shawn Mendes album), you may be blocked from editing. D🐶ggy54321 (let's chat!) 17:03, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

My explanation is adequate, you don't get to decide whether it is or isn't. I don't care if I get blocked, at least I got blocked trying to get the right information out there rather than something which isn't confirmed but kept on the page just for the sake of it. Shadeslayer2002 (talk) 17:05, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
 * No, you don’t get to decide. At least my claims are backed up by sources. Yours aren’t. D🐶ggy54321 (let's chat!) 17:07, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note: If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing.   livelikemusic   ( TALK! ) 17:05, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
 * 1) Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
 * 2) Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

How do I have a discussion when there are 2 people with 1 pov and the other 2 with different one, but the page is being edited by these 2 to suit what they think is right. I have explained everything and if they don't see the reason behind it and then this is a futile exercise. Shadeslayer2002 (talk) 17:08, 7 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Then you stop and wait for others to become involved, instead of constantly reverting to prove "your" point. Wikipedia is built on consensus, and what you're attempting to do is over-ride the process, simply because you believe you are "right," and do not want to engage in a "futile exercise." You need to look up Wikipedia policies, how they work and how you are in fact working against them right now.  livelikemusic   ( TALK! ) 17:14, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Your claim is backed by a single source, which isn't correct. Such things are always confirmed by multiple sources and definitely by the artist and his management, neither of which is there. Shadeslayer2002 (talk) 17:10, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Ok maybe I am working against them right now, but it pissed me off when the changes in the article being done are wrong. And not many people will get involved, because most of them won't have knowledge of it, and so this will be kept in page because of this "source" meanwhile the artist, his management, radio stations and no other article on the internet says so. Shadeslayer2002 (talk) 17:42, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

If it is promised that this will be taken down after waiting for 7-10 days for the artist, his management, radio stations, or any other article for that matter, then I am willing to wait and see how it pans out. Otherwise I feel like this wrong information will be continued to be a part of the page forever, though I know you guys think it to be otherwise. Shadeslayer2002 (talk) 17:44, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

^to confirm Shadeslayer2002 (talk) 17:45, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Such things are always confirmed by multiple sources and definitely by the artist and his management – not true, you made that up. Please point to a Wikipedia policy or content which contains that requirement. While having multiple sources is always better than only one, it is not a requirement. There is no fixed number or minimum threshold. And your claim that the source is incorrect is disputed/challenged, if not completely invalid, so please do not present it as fact. Hayman30 (talk) 05:56, 8 December 2020 (UTC)


 * The source being wrong was also stated by another user before me, who also provided with a similar reasoning. Of course it would be meaningless to you on your quest for providing wrong information on pages, and the ego which you have shown to not accept the idea that there is a possibility that we may be right. Shadeslayer2002 (talk) 06:58, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Just because another user agreed with you doesn't mean you're right, and my ego has nothing to do with me "not accepting your idea"–it's not up to me to decide, I'm merely enforcing Wikipedia policies. If Wikipedia were to "accept" all ideas, even though they are unsourced, simply for the "possibility that they may be correct", then we would have transformed into Conspiracypedia already. Hayman30 (talk) 07:48, 10 December 2020 (UTC)


 * The other user had the same thought process, I know it would be hard for you to get it just because you need to 'think' in order to get there. Shadeslayer2002 (talk) 02:42, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
 * "Thinking" is exactly what you shouldn't be doing. Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought, there is no place for personal thoughts and analyses. We rely on reliable sources, whether you like it or not. Hayman30 (talk) 13:09, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Please stop attacking other editors. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people.  livelikemusic   ( TALK! ) 03:27, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

April 2021
Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Wonder (Shawn Mendes album), you may be blocked from editing. D🐰ggy54321 (the Easter bunny has been summoned...) 03:41, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
 * If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
 * If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

There is no consensus, many users have tried telling you and talking to you, all you do is keep whatever you have edited to the page. Ban me from editing, as if I care. I am not dependent on editing Wikipedia😂. I have some insiders in the industry and they confirm things to me, and I tried editing things as such. 5-6 others have tried telling the same thing but of course you won’t pay heed to them. 1 or 2 people can be wrong, but here its 5-6 vs the 2 of you. You can’t open your mind to the possibility that these people might be correct. Peace. Shadeslayer2002 (talk) 12:31, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Won’t edit anymore, I give up. Shadeslayer2002 (talk) 12:42, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
 * First off, it was always three editors for and two editors against, so maybe you need to open your mind and rethink that "one or two people can be wrong" statement. We can take this to a highly-visible noticeboard where many editors will chime in with their opinions if you want. Second, Wikipedia's core content policies are verifiability, no original research and neutral point of view. We can look past the latter as that isn't relevant here. But, the former two state that you need sources to add anything to an article. Therefore, having insiders won't work. D🐰ggy54321 (the Easter bunny has been summoned...) 14:02, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Go and look at the edit history, at least 4-5 people have tried editing the same thing. Shadeslayer2002 (talk) 03:38, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I know I'm replying 5 months later, but I've been pretty inactive during the past year or so and didn't see this happening live, so I hope you both understand. And in fact Shadeslayer2002 also decided to reignite this war after 4 months (ceased fire in December 2020), so I don't feel too bad. First of all, Wikipedia is not a democracy. Just because there are allegedly more people on your side doesn't mean you're right or you have the authority over the minority, not to mention that some of those people you're supposedly referring to are IP users—we don't know who's behind them; could be you, could be (just as an example, please don't be offended). According to your "the majority always wins" mentality, five vandals can freely vandalize Wikipedia when there are only two editors reverting them, because they are in the majority. I really cannot understand your idea that "if a lot of people think something is fact, then it is fact". You surely know this isn't how the world works, right? You just don't want to admit it because that would be a total defeat for you. Secondly, on your point that "there is no consensus", I'd like to point out that the consensus is WP:V, a Wikipedia policy, which in itself is a reflection of community consensus. When a piece of information satisfies WP:V, no additional consensus needs to be acquired. If you don't agree with the change, you are free to raise valid arguments and engage in a discussion with other editors, but you've yet to provide a single piece of evidence to support your point other than unnamed "industry insiders" you apparently know. And just on that, I'd like to invite you to read what I wrote on the article's talk page back in December of last year, if you haven't already. It doesn't really matter if so-called "industry insiders", Shawn's record label, or heck, even Shawn himself, confirmed to you that this song isn't a single, until you could provide provide a reliable source to back yourself up, your edits will still have no footing here and will therefore be rightfully reverted by us. Thirdly, on your accusation that we can't "open [our] mind[s] to the possibility that these people might be correct". As I've stated before, this isn't about us not accepting new ideas—Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, which a collection of factual information, not a collection of all possibilities in the world, especially when those possibilities are not sourced. Yes, you very well may be right, in fact, I agree that ET Canada might have misreported the song as a single—but that's not our judgement to make. The community maintains a list of unreliable sources, and ET Canada isn't in it. In fact, it is widely regarded as a reliable source on music articles. We can't possibly decide if a source is wrong on one particular instance; inclusion on the RSP list generally requires community consensus. So until ET Canada is classified as unreliable, the information will stay on the article. I hope you really give up this time and won't edit anymore, but I'll welcome you with open arms if you come back with a reliable, authoritative source stating that this song isn't a single. Hayman30 (talk) 16:58, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi, long time no talk! I understand and do not take offence to you using me as an example. As well, I completely agree with and back up this whole message. Thanks! D🐶ggy54321 (let's chat!) 17:24, 11 September 2021 (UTC)