User talk:Sk4170/Archive 1

Lo-Pro
Thanks for adding some sources on the Lo-Pro page, especially the sources for that ink 19 interview, which I've been meaning to look up. I'm typically the only one to do anything significant beyond relatively minor edits to that page, so I appreciate it. Sergecross73  msg me   13:59, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
 * You're welcome :)! Couldn't fix the dead links in the time I had to spare. Perhaps some of them could be dropped from the article, since every single detail doesn't need a source until someone asks for one (just a thought). --Sk4170 (talk) 16:01, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I try to keep as many sources around, even dead ones, to show that the info was legit at one point at least, just because I've had an article or two in my earlier days be torn apart due to not having appropriate sources to back up things that people thought otherwise on. Lo-Pro's not that big though, so I haven't really had that come up on their pages. So anyways, I'd keep them, but if you wanted to get rid of them I wouldn't go against you on it.
 * Your reasoning for keeping the dead links sounds fine to me, although I think aiming to fix them is the general Wiki practice. But if there's no good replacement, I think it's good to keep them for the reasons you stated. For the same reason I should add the "retrieved.." thing to my additions. Hopefully with the new album there will be more interviews and other reliable sources available that prove useful here. --Sk4170 (talk) 15:40, 18 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Separate topic, I saw you added personel sections on a few Lo-Pro pages. I noticed you didn't list Pete Ricci on the self-titled release. Do the credits say he didn't play on it? I lost my cd case years ago so I can't go check that, but I didn't realize that was the case if that is indeed correct. Sergecross73   msg me   13:35, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, you have to be right, since my source was Lo-Pro album credits page @AllMusic.com, and I wondered why his name was missing there. It has to be a mistake @AllMusic, but I didn't dare to fix it. For the same reason, I refrained from adding personnel for the Letting Go EP page, because you wrote that the tracks were re-worked before the EP came out, however there was one exception mentioned and how it was in reality... no clue of the credits! My prior knowledge of Lo-Pro is pretty superficial, limited to just a song or two. I ended up on Lo-Pro's wikipage in the first place via Tommy Stewart where I did a little work recently. --Sk4170 (talk) 15:40, 18 June 2010 (UTC)


 * It could be better to move the discussion to the Lo-Pro talk page, so I'm taking one question there :) --Sk4170 (talk) 15:40, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Okay, we'll move the conversation there. The only reason I didn't write on there before was because, on a vast majority of the discussion pages regarding Lo-Pro and their albums, no one is there or no one responds. (It's pretty much me talking to myself on some of them :/ Sergecross73   msg me   17:15, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Jesus or a Gun, Ozone, writing credits
Hi, I viewed the BMI link that was provided in the articles. It does credit Scallions with a co-write on "Jesus or a Gun", but as he is not credited on the CD, (or allmusic for that matter) he shouldn't be listed as co-writer on Wikipeida. There could be other reasons for BMI listing him, Scallions could have done a re-working of the song for example, or there could have been legal details or possibly it's just a simple error on their BMI's part. Also, I wouldn't say that Bell receiving sole credit on the song could be viewed as a misprint as it would have likely have been corrected on the 2003 reissue. Scallions is credited with a song called "Ozone Baby" on the BMI website, but that's obviously not the same as the Fuel song called "Ozone". Darwin&#39;s Bulldog (talk) 22:32, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your detailed comment. I'd like to defend the reliability of BMI when compared to AllMusic, which, although widely used as reference, unfortunately is infested by errors and missing information. BMI is just like ASCAP, an organization that pays royalties, can't believe in substantial errors in the database. "Ozone" and "Ozone Baby" are two titles of the same song, they have the same BMI Work #4489403. The band re-released some of the EP tracks later on their albums for Sony, and "Ozone" (alternate title "Ozone Baby") is one of them. What your saying about the possibility of Brett re-working the song and receiving the songwriter/composer credits and half the royalties that way, I have to say it sounds very interesting, but without knowing the actual history of the songs, mere speculation. For all we know, Carl could've given the credit to him later from the goodness of his heart, but without a reliable source we can't know. I don't have Porcelain EP, Hazleton EP, or Sunburn myself, so I can't comment on what is said about these tracks there. Imo I wouldn't discard the BMI info as not true based on what's printed on cd covers, but I give it the benefit of doubt and leave your revisions there, until I find more proof. --Sk4170 (talk) 01:04, 15 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm mildy intrigued myself. Scallions is given co-writer's credit on two songs on Something Like Human, "Down" and "Knives", respectively, as well as sole credit on "Luck" from Natural Selection, so I don't see why he wouldn't have been given co-writer's credit on either "Ozone" or "Jesus or a Gun" on Sunburn if he did indeed collaborate with Bell on the two songs. It would help if there was some published third party information regarding this, say from interviews and/or reviews etc. something verifiable as defined in WP:V. Darwin&#39;s Bulldog (talk) 02:13, 15 July 2010 (UTC)


 * If you look at all the seven Fuel songs credited to Scallions (the cue not included) at the BMI database, you can see that the ones we have a difference of opinion here, "Jesus or a Gun" and "Ozone", are both from the pre-album era. Hazelton EP, their first Sony release, was initially a limited college edition from 1997, and Porcelain EP was from 1996. "Alive and Dying" from Fuel EP has a shared credit at BMI, but only Scallions credited on album cover, so another conflict there. I doubt very much that when things started to happen, anyone in the band knew much about the legal side of things or how things are done. Besides, the actual copyrights are registered elsewhere, not on album covers. After Sunburn, there's no conflict between the songwriting credits printed on the album cover and found at BMI search, so I believe that eventually, everyone concerned learned how to do it. Unfortunately, it's been quite impossible to find anything about Scallions the songwriter from the interviews/reviews from that era, or later. It's "Carl Bell the primary songwriter" everywhere. The journalists get their advance info from the record company, and it's the cd. These collaborations are not the major hits, so it's understandable that the subject never comes up. Even Carl himself, perhaps unintentionally, mentioned "Down", which apparently was a collaboration with Brett, as one of his own work when asked to list his Top5 favourite self-penned songs in the Alternative Addiction interview from 2007 (the end of audio). --Sk4170 (talk) 01:21, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

11:59
You didn't need to take this to redirects for deletion. There's a way to over-write redirects; I converted it to a disambiguation page. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 01:36, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Okay, thank you! I didn't know that. --Sk4170 (talk) 01:54, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

With all due respect...
...I find this paragraph you've added absolutely non-notable since Gore doesn't seem to have been actively involved in the lawsuit anyway. IMHO, upon reading that paragraph one goes like, "Huh, so what?" I think it'd be better removed. Thank you. --Garik 11 (talk) 21:14, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
 * At Talk:Martin Gore user Matt57 who suggested adding the info apparently thought it notable enough for the article. While it is true that there has been no further news regarding the lawsuit and whether Martin actually testified or not, it is still interesting trivia. However, I don't have a strong opinion for or against deleting the paragraph. Further development in the case involving Martin imo would strongly support keeping it. --Sk4170 (talk) 22:37, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
 * ... but after more thorough research on the subject, deletion is definitely in order. Done. --Sk4170 (talk) 15:27, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Sounds of the Universe
I changed the accessdates back to the date the source was first added to the article solely on aesthetic grounds, I didn't think it was such a big deal. I don't know of any hard guidelines for this particular matter either, but if the accessdate parameter plays that much of a big role as you said, then I'll try to keep this in mind from now on.  Snap Snap  17:09, 29 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Yeah, despite being aware of the twelve-entry limit of the album ratings table, I was initially considering the ten-review limit imposed by WP:ALBUM ("Include no more than ten reviews in table form") when I removed the NYT review from the table. Also, there was a (rather lengthy) discussion regarding the inclusion of reviews without a proper rating in table form. I'm not sure if a consensus has been reached, but I decided to include the NYT review in the article prose anyway, just in case.  Snap Snap  21:38, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Re: Charts & certification
WP:ALBUMS/STYLE might not explicitly state it, but it does show charts and certifications as having their own separate sections. It's not really a matter of preference, and I'm not the only user applying this particular guideline. Besides, even though they are closely related, adding certifications under charts (alongside the likes of "weekly charts", "year-end charts", etc.) would imply that certifications are charts, which is not true.  Snap Snap  23:10, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

RE: Battlefield of the Mind
Yeah, I've been meaning to add that to the article. Thanks for saying something. Yeah, I've recently overhauled the article, partially because I'm so much better with Wiki-standards and writing than I was in 2009 and 2010 when I originally wrote the Lo-Pro article, and partially to get rid of the "Side-Projects" section because people kept on inflating it with trivia and very loosely related info that didn't really belong. I still kept the more important side-project info in the article though, and I just moved it into the respective timeframes for the band. In that respect, it could definitely be added to the article, in the most recent subsection. I'll do that soon. (I've actually thought about making a "Battlefield of the Mind" article, as I think it could in theory be argued to be notable considering all of the well-known artists from notable bands that are involved, but I've seen so few sources on it, I havne't felt I could attempt it yet...) Sergecross73   msg me   20:27, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Power ballad
Hello Sk4170,

I'd like to know if "power ballad" is a genre or not, because at least I found 5 or 6 references which talk about "power ballad" for this song, but I've never seen "power ballad" in any genre infobox so far. According to the references I read, the genre may be "Power ballad, Glam metal", instead of "Hard rock, Glam metal".

What do you think about it ? Synthwave.94 (talk) 10:13, 2 July 2013 (UTC)


 * As the article about Genre (music) says, the use of 'genre', musical form, and musical style often overlap. In Wikipedia I have rarely (or never) seen the word 'ballad' in any context included in the song infoboxes. Instead there are several ballad categories where songs have been added. For instance, there is a category "Rock ballads" with subcategory for "heavy metal ballads" where this Cinderella song is placed. A power ballad category is missing, but I feel that it is synonymous to rock ballads, if you read the definition at Ballad. I think that ballad is a musical style, not genre, and should not be listed as genres in the infobox. To use the term in the article text, naturally supported with good reliable sources, is the thing to do ;). --Sk4170 (talk) 11:29, 2 July 2013 (UTC)


 * I just found the reference where the song is described as "Power ballad, Glam metal" : it's talking about a "a great hair metal power ballad". If you think "power ballad shouldn't be added to the infobox genre, in this case I think "hard rock" should be removed and "glam metal" should be kept (because "hair metal" is synonymous to "glam metal").


 * No, you missed my point. First off, the reference you found is not directly about the song/album/band, it's a review of a various artists compilation. A good solid source is one that is about the song/album/band, because in different context the comments and wording may have been made on a lighter note by the reviewer. A good solid source is not one where the song is just shortly mentioned in a side-note. I tend to think these reviews on other songs where the song in question is just shortly mentioned, carry a little less weight than those focusing on the song/album/band. When adding a genre to infobox, there's preferably several equally solid sources to support it. I think you should be a little more critical with the references you bring to Wikipedia.


 * Second, power ballad not being a genre is not just my personal opinion WP:NPOV. I was trying to show you how it is currently treated in wikipedia, not as genre, but style ;) I think I told you that genres are a very sensitive subject here. If you look at the old Power ballad article that was redirected to "Ballad", both the revision history and the talkpage show how problematic some definitions can be.


 * To conclude, if I were you, I'd be very careful when adding/changing/removing genres and thinking they will stay that way, unless I have multiple very good sources and/or enough solid knowledge on the subject to successfully support my views to reach consensus. --Sk4170 (talk) 15:12, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

That's the reason why I didn't make any change on this page because I had my doubts about "power ballad". But even if "power ballad" is not a genre but a "style", why this song is so often described as "a power ballad" ? I don't think it's a coincidence. I give you "some" examples :

the power ballad "Don't Know What You Got (Till It's Gone)"

power ballads ("Nobody's Fool," "Don't Know What You Got")

including the power ballad "Don't Know What You Got ('Til It's Gone),"

the band’s signature power ballad "You Don't Know What You Got Til' It's Gone,"

One of Cinderella’s best-known songs, What You Got includes the usual power ballad suspects: an acoustic guitar, a piano, a emotional guitar solo, and heartbreaking lyrics about the regret felt by two people who aren’t able to continue together.

I also find another reference talking about "hair metal" (Best Hair Metal Ballads)

I'm not saying it can't be hard rock but Cinderella is more often described as a "hard rock band" (on Allmusic for example) rather than the song itself. Synthwave.94 (talk) 16:00, 2 July 2013 (UTC)


 * I'm not that sure about removing hard rock from the infobox. I also don't understand why a musical style often associated with a song should not be considered a style but a genre. I think this example shows how vague the boundaries between definitions are. I tried to look if there is any reason why a musical style such as power ballad couldn't be added to the infobox. Mind you, I didn't look that hard though. The infobox (single and song) definition about its genre parameter doesn't further describe what exactly should and should not be added to that field. My assumption is that it should be a genre, as the label says so. It appears that a common practice followed in wikipedia has been to include the style in the text, and possibly add a category if there is one (none for power ballad). I think you should do as you think is closest to the truth, but be prepared that it will be reverted, and there's nothing you can do about it. Have you thought sending this question to the TeaHouse, if you can reach someone specialized in genres?


 * On a different note, you seem to be reading Allmusic Guide exactly like Devil reads the Bible. What is said there is not the ultimate truth. I'm not going into blatant errors in specific data, but the lists of genres and styles often look like lottery, so I wouldn't take the lists too seriously. More importantly, the reviews about songs and albums are the ones worth reading, but keep in mind that they express the opinion of just that one reviewer whose name reads at the end of the review. The ideal is to find multiple reliable sources stating the same thing, in an article, book, review about the song, the album, or the band in question, in a manner that is not open to speculation or different interpretations. --Sk4170 (talk) 13:38, 4 July 2013 (UTC)


 * I'm not reading "Allmusic Guide exactly like Devil reads the Bible". Allmusic is one of my numerous references. I've got other references such as books or reviews that can be found on Google Books in order to get a general idea of what is the more precise genre(s) of a song. Because I can tell you on Wikipedia there are so many songs articles whose genre is completely wrong because someone (an IP adress or an user who doesn't know nothing about music genres) decided to add a genre without any references or discussion which is based on his own knowledge only. And of course, this is original research. My main purpose is to change these wrong genres, which are generally added in one edit among hundreds of edits. No one would change them for weeks, months, years... excepts users like me who "fight" for more precision, for what is "closest to the truth", as you said.


 * For example, if you look at Breakout's revision history, you'll see this edit and then this edit. According to you, why did Elementalsurprise and 69.142.106.108 decide to add sophisti-pop, ska, ska jazz, swing and jazz fusion and new wave, respectively ? Why didn't they add a reference with all these genres ? Because it comes from their own knowledge and this string of genres show how unprecised and how unreferenced is this article. Of course, it's only one example. It's not the only one like this one on Wikipedia. If other users would understand what I do a little bit better, they would understand I'm not here to create "genre wars" or "disruptive edits", as Flat Out told me so many times. That's why besides that, I often create/change/developped singlecharts because I know it's useful too and I don't need to explain these kind of edits. Synthwave.94 (talk) 20:04, 4 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Look, you came here to my personal talk page to ask a question about power ballad, and I did my best to try and help you out. You are talking about other editors by name, which I find inappropriate. If someone is not participating the discussion, please do not bring their names/userIDs up, unless absolutely necessary. I think your work on charts has been helpful and improved the quality of articles, and that is the reason why I have tried to help you to do it a little better and adjust yourself as a new wikipedian, despite the other problems that I among other editors have seen in your contributions. I think it's a good observation from you, regarding your chart edits that "you don't need to explain these kinds of edits". But what about all the rest. You are saying that other editors don't understand what you are doing. What else is there to understand than seeing your edits and the manner in which you participate in discussions. The manner in which you defend your edits is the one that suggests disruption and creates genre wars. I think your mention about another "user who doesn't know nothing about music genres" sums up your attitude problem. I think you just said to another experienced editor, whom I have recognized having exceptionally good knowledge on the subject in question, that he/she should "learn a little bit more about the band himself". There was another similar incident a little earlier, I think. Now, I think I've helped you enough. --Sk4170 (talk) 13:39, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Chartstats.com and archive.is
Chartstats.com (and its subpage chartarchive.org) has deleted its UK singles charts archives after request from The Official Chart Company, who owns the rights to the charts. As chartstats has been included in the list of recommendations at WP:CHARTS, it's been widely used as reference here on Wikipedia. Its advantage over the OCC charts is that the OCC archives have only Top75 chart positions while Chartstats offered Top100. Archive.is, a relatively new independent web archive service, has automatically collected links from Wikipedia, and has archived the now defunct chartstats links as screenshots.

Recently, I noticed that a Rotlink bot, operated by the owner of archive.is, has been replacing the dead chartstats links from Wikipedia with archive.is links (for example, here), and now some IP users have started doing the same manually.

Some editors have voiced concern over the longevity of archive.is, but in my opinion the real problem is with chartstats. I'm no legal expert, but I think it's a good policy to be very careful when copyright disputes are concerned. If the owner of Chartstats.com had no other choice than remove the archived charts, I can't see how using screen captures of the removed allegedly copyright infringing data could be completely without problems.

Since I don't want to become too much involved in Wikipedia politics to seek consensus as I find it tiring and time-consuming for a lazy wikipedian like me, I've decided to be bold and move all chartstats links to UK charts on my watched (mostly Depeche Mode related) pages, only because I think it's the right thing to do. -- I'm not against any other archived content, only chartstats. --Sk4170 (talk) 12:18, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Images
I never brought images to Wikipedia because I was aware of copyright violations, that Wikipedia takes very seriously and I didn't want to have troubles with it.

I found two covers for "Din Daa Daa" but I don't know if I can upload them to the article. For example, can I add this picture (or this one) ? I found them on Ultratop.be website.

By the same way, do you know how can I add a music sample to an article, like on Black Dog or One Night in Bangkok ? There are quite a lot of song articles missing an audio sample. Even featured articles like Hey Jude don't have a music sample. Synthwave.94 (talk) 11:42, 20 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Both are ok, but do you think the first one is good enough? If these were [u]the only ones[/u] to choose from, I'd choose the maxi single cover. Their copyright status seems to be okay, too. Always check that the website where you found the single or album image doesn't violate the copyright, to the best of your knowledge; good sources are eg. the label, band/artist official website, amazon. One would imagine that big online webstores and official charts websites have obtained the rights to use the images. You have to be able to give the exact url for the image in the file upload wizard. Do you know how to use the wizard? Upload the image via your computer, choose non-free/fair use (it is the U.S law that allows using copyrighted images on English Wikipedia in this restricted manner). The most common reason why uploaded images are removed by admins is that the uploader forgets to add the separate fair use rationale for using the image in the named article. The wizard doesn't generate it, it has to be added manually. Single and album covers are meant to be used in the infobox of the article about the release, nowhere else. Here's an example of one of my uploads. The image is the official cover that the artist published on his FB page. Unfortunately, the url is now dead. but it was alive long enough for the admins to check it. I hope this helps! Do you mean the ogg files? I have never made one, but witnessed the disappearance of most old samples from my watched pages, for the missing fair use rationale. The rules keep changing as time goes by. Instead, I have added official YouTube music video links to infobox. Only videos uploaded by the artist/band themselves, or their label should be used, for copyright reasons. There is a template for it. Some editors - or one - has complained that YouTube videos are blocked in some countries, but that shouldn't be an obstacle. As far as I know, there are no guidelines or policies about this. --Sk4170 (talk) 18:20, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I've just added the maxi single cover to the article. I also found two pages which explain how to add a music sample and the corresponding guidelines (here and here), so I will be able to upload music samples too. Synthwave.94 (talk) 20:33, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
 * You forgot to add the fair use rationale.. I believe a bot will notify you about it at any moment, and the image will eventually be deleted. It's the uploader's task to do it. Another thing: there are better quality images around, one of them at amazon.de.  --Sk4170 (talk) 21:42, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
 * What I'm supposed to do (or to write) ? Can I remove the image to change it ? Didn't know there was a template for non free contents.
 * And you're right, Amazon.de images are better than the others on Ultratop.be. Synthwave.94 (talk) 21:51, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
 * You can't remove the image yourself, only admins can do that. There's a link 'upload a new version of this file' below. You might try that for uploading a better cover image.


 * I tell you what I do with fair use rationale. It has to follow a certain formula, certain things must be stated, it's basically always the same content that is required, so I've copied the text elsewhere and modified it. Take a look at the "Fair Use in The America EP" section, you need a similar section for using your image in "Din Daa Daa" article. --Sk4170 (talk) 22:38, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Managed to change the image before receiving a warning message, but the old one is still here. Should I ask an administrator to remove it ? Synthwave.94 (talk) 23:59, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Like I said, admins remove the images. Judging from the fair rationale tag still being there, I think no admin has had time to check the image yet. The old upload will be removed later from the version history, you don't need to do anything, just move on. In future, I think it will save a lot of time from you, if you look for the best possible image before uploading ;) --Sk4170 (talk) 10:11, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I will select the best picture I can find the next time. ^^ Can you tell me if this picture can be added or not ? I hesitate between this one and another one from Hitparade.ch. Many thanks in advance for your assistance ! :) --Synthwave.94 (talk) 16:27, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
 * The copyright status, the quality of the image, is the website legit, can you be sure the image is original and not altered, for instance. If there is an equal choice between two releases, I'd always choose the original single cover, unless it's poor quality and no better ones available. The second criteria would be, which one is more relevant for the article, charts, fame, covers etc. considered, but most often I'd take the original. Mind you, these are only my thoughts. I think I've given you enough information to decide yourself ;) --Sk4170 (talk) 17:04, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Delta Machine Tour
As a friendly remainder, please provide a clear and reasonable explanation for blindly reverting edits, as you've done here. Although User:50.152.18.168 did not adequately explain reasoning for the initial revert (as I am showing a total of 3 between the both of you), it doesn't denounce his/her edit. Even when the user directed you towards a policy, you still chose to blindly revert the edit. Reviewing the edits, I have to agree with the anon user. The band's website shows the tour ending March 7, 2014, with no indication of any additional shows being added. As such, the article should reflect that information. When more shows are added, the article will be updated. Not sure why you perceived the anon user did not have a proper understanding of the policy. Itsbydesign (talk) 13:47, 2 December 2013 (UTC)


 * As a friendly reminder, I have reverted nothing blindly, I have given explanations in edit summaries for those edits. You seem to have brought back all, or most of the edits by User:50.152.18.168 that I reverted with explanations, why? I don't think you considered the edits as a whole but "blindly" chose to take the opposite side. Quite silly to pick the one pov issue about the end date of the tour. You seem to be editing a lot of tour articles, so you should know that for most long tours dates are being added later and the last announced date is not always the final date. Furthermore, as cited in the opening section of the article, there are plans after the current last announced date, if you took time to read before editing. The correct place for a discussion about edits and reaching consensus is the article talkpage, please take your concerns there in the future.


 * I glanced through the incident history at Administrator's Noticeboard, here, here, and here, showing a number of problems with your edit behavior, and now I'm wondering why you chose to attack me on my personal talkpage on these completely legit reverts. The place to discuss them is not here, unless you wanted to throw dirt on me personally. -- Chose to answer here, since you seem to have a habit of emptying your talkpage without archiving discussions . I really don't have time for these. --Sk4170 (talk) 12:09, 3 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Finally had time to look into this! Unfortunately, it looks like user Itsbydesign is agreeing here with him/herself, thus violating WP:ILLEGIT on "creating illusion of support", and also "contributing to the same page or discussion with multiple accounts" at The Delta Machine Tour.


 * Looking at the very long edit history of user Itsbydesign which by all means is not short of disputes, ANIs, editwarring, and frustrating a large group of editors with multiple reverts, no or misleading edit summaries, and the much shorter history of 50.152.18.168, both the style of editing, interest in tour and venue articles. and the nature of contributions are similar. After a typical mass edit on a tour article, it's hard to tell which one was it without checking the user ID.


 * What initially raised my curiosity, the geolocation of this IP user brought back in mind an incident from April-May 2013, a long edit war at Enjoy The Silence and Talk: Enjoy the Silence. regarding keeping a section on the Lacuna Coil cover, where multiple IP users teamed up against a number of registered editors. As far as I was able to see, all or most of the multiple IPs had a certain company and its affiliates across the U.S in common. At that time I was wondering if someone desperate to "win" had access to the company intranet, as there were far too many related IPs involved. Now, IP user 50.152.18.168 shares the city of origin with couple of those warring IP users from last April-May. Also google maps give a spot only a stone's throw from that company's info center in the same city. A mother of all coincidences, perhaps just that, but enough to give me reason to take time to look a little deeper into this and not just move on.


 * Big Time Rush on July 6, 2013
 * A July 6 "edit blooper" is the very first thing that I found to suggest these two accounts might in fact be operated by the same person. On July 6, 2013 01:41, IP user 50.152.18.168 edits Windows Down which is a song by Big Time Rush. At 02:04 Itsbydesign continues to edit tour articles for Big Time Rush tours Big Time Rush in Concert and Summer Break Tour.


 * On several occasions both users have participated in editing and editwarring in the same article, making identical full reverts.


 * Editing/reverting at 2013 Summer Tour April 1 and 18, 2013
 * On April 1, 2013 Itsbydesign adds an image which is reverted by Kww with proper explanation. On April 18, as the very first edit from this IP user, 50.152.18.168 reverts it back, with no explanation, forming a false consensus on an image added to the article by Itsbydesign.  http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2013_Summer_Tour&action=history


 * Editwarring at In a World Like This Tour article June 22 and July 6
 * On June 22, 2013 50.152.18.168 engages in an edit war at In a World Like This Tour article, resulting in two warnings by Gilliam. In response to the warning, 50.152.18.168 uses the expression "blindly editing" which Itsbydesign appears to use. Doesn't return to the article after warning. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:50.152.18.168&diff=prev&oldid=561023926


 * On July 6, Itsbydesign continues editwarring at In a World Like This Tour exactly where 50.152.18.168 left it. Itsbydesign drops it when asked to discuss at talkpage. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=In_a_World_Like_This_Tour&action=history


 * Editing/reverting at Ten: The Hits Tour on July 30 and December 4
 * On July 30, 2013 Itsbydesign adds boxscore to the Girls Aloud tour article Ten: The Hits Tour, in dollars, although it's about a UK act. It is duly changed to pounds. 50.152.18.168 returns on December 4, 2013 to revert it back to dollars. This is another example of either Itsbydesign or 50.152.18.168 returning after a while to support each other's edits. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ten:_The_Hits_Tour&action=history


 * Editwarring at Delta Machine Tour October 17 and 19 and December 2
 * On October 17, user 50.152.18.168 does multiple changes, of which I revert some with explanations in the edit summary, but everything is reverted back by 50.152.18.168 and then by me. Itsbydesign returns on December 2 to bring back 50.152.18.168 's edits (and some more), and approaches me on my talkpage accusing me of not explaining my edits (which is not true) and disregard of a policy.


 * Earlier this year, Itsbydesign is under investigation at ANI, on July 30, disappears, to come back briefly on August 20. The user stops editing for a very long time, only to return December 2. User 50.152.18.168 continues contributing actively, but not on the same days with Itsbydesign.


 * The user Itsbydesign specifically says here at my talkpage that he/she agrees with 50.152.18.168 's edits, leading me to believe there are two editors forming a consensus. I was quite surprised to find what I've listed above.


 * I think this calls for an SPI, but I don't know how to initiate it. My findings suggest WP:ILLEGIT but also WP:SCRUTINY may come in question. I really don't enjoy this one bit, and would rather just edit articles, with the limited time that I have. Maybe I just leave this here, if someone else finds the info useful. --Sk4170 (talk) 15:15, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Soliciting comment...
Hi! Would you care to review or comment at my FA nomination for the article Misterioso (Thelonious Monk album)? It is a short article about a jazz album. Information on reviewing an FA nomination's criteria is available at WP:FACR. If not, feel free to ignore this message. Cheers! Dan56 (talk) 09:14, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

March 2014
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=601252562 your edit] to Saving Abel may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just [ edit the page] again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/BBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/BBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=BracketBot%20–%20&section=new my operator's talk page].
 * List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 21:26, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Their eponymous major label debut Saving Abel (album)|Saving Abel  was released on March 11, 2008. The CD featured the lead song "Addicted", which rose to No.

FYI
I've just removed 153 items from my watchlist. They're all Depeche Mode related, one way or the other, "the other" being a long list of vandals for whom I've started a talkpage for their first warning. I've been watching Depeche Mode wiki articles since the beginning of their Sounds of the Universe era. All this time has been both rewarding and incredibly frustrating. As a long-time Depeche fan, I've enjoyed editing the articles, checking and sourcing facts, and bringing new ones. For some reason unknown to me, these articles in particular attract vandals of all sorts: number vandals messing with dates, chart positions, attendance numbers, catalog numbers, trolls adding misinformation, genre warriors, all enjoying the freedom of Wikipedia the wrong way. I've spent countless hours reverting and slapping warnings, checking and re-checking edit histories to make sure no flawed edit remains uncorrected, following up vandals for their next disruption. It's been a long and hard fight. In the end of the day, they're even not the most frustrating kind. My least favorite disruptions come from registered users with long editing histories, perhaps several accounts devoted to similar or different kind of editing, in many cases history of editwarring, multiple warnings and disputes that, according to one particularly callous one, "have zero effect" on them. They're the ones that fight endlessly at talkpages, or refuse completely to discuss their edits. Or the ones who devote less than a minute for an article, do something quickly, and move on to increase their edit counts. Or the ones who visit an article only once, while not in the least familiar with the subject, make a humungous amount of edits, good part of it erroneous, commenting "this was such a mess", move on and never come back, other than to defend their edits, sometimes from another account. There are other non-favorites, too, but it's no point in listing them all. Needless to say, I'm frustrated. For quite some time I've been thinking of quitting, until I realized that I don't have to do that to make this experience enjoyable again. I just need to let go of the part that has caused the most frustration. I hope I can devote the limited time that I have for proper editing, and start going through a long to-do list that has been on the backburner for too long. That's why I have now given up watching Depeche articles. --Sk4170 (talk) 19:43, 2 April 2014 (UTC)