User talk:Solidest/Archives/2021/July

Welcome!
Hello, Solidest, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions, especially what you did for Stadium Arcadium. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on talk pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place  before the question. Again, welcome! Muhandes (talk) 10:43, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * Tutorial
 * How to edit a page and How to develop articles
 * How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
 * Manual of Style

Digitalism
Hi Solidest,

Thanks for cleaning up after me on the article on Digitalism, great work :) Thanks, and happy editing, --Soetermans. T / C 13:41, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 20
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited OWSLA, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Compilation and Big Beat Records (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 11:24, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 5
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Zomboy, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Warner (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 16:51, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 14
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Ed Rec Vol. X, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Sebastian (musician) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 15:39, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 26
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Jackson and His Computerband, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Barclay (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 11:34, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 21
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Yuksek, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Plugs and Zombie Nation (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 12:40, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 27
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Totally Enormous Extinct Dinosaurs, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Electro (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 08:54, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 10
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Nu-disco, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page The Magician. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 16:03, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 25
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Darkside (band), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page St Vincent. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 09:01, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
Hi, You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:46, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 29
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Worlds (album), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page EDM. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 10:53, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Revert of edit of Siriusmo page
Hi,

Thanks for taking in interest in the Siriusmo page, all help is appreciated.

Fair enough. I would debate discogs being a good reference but I am happy to go with the site rules. I have seen allmusic referenced quite a lot. Is it OK to use them?

Disambiguation link notification for December 24
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Maceo Plex, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Sefton ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/Maceo_Plex check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/Maceo_Plex?client=notify fix with Dab solver]). 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) 10:21, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 17
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Psychedelic trance, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Ambient ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/Psychedelic_trance check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/Psychedelic_trance?client=notify fix with Dab solver]). 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) 13:10, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 30
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Amapiano, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Lounge ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/Amapiano check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/Amapiano?client=notify fix with Dab solver]).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:24, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

I have sent you a note about a page you started
Hello, Solidest

Thank you for creating Ed Banger Records discography.

User:North8000, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:

To reply, leave a comment here and prepend it with. And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~.

(Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

North8000 (talk) 20:44, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Copyright problem: Deconstructed club
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! We welcome and appreciate your contributions, such as Deconstructed club, but we regretfully cannot accept copyrighted text or images from either web sites or printed works. This article appears to contain work copied from https://pitchfork.com/features/article/2010s-rise-of-conceptronica-electronic-music/, and therefore to constitute a violation of Wikipedia's copyright policies. The copyrighted text has been or will soon be deleted. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with our copyright policy. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators are liable to be blocked from editing.

If you believe that the article is not a copyright violation, or if you have permission from the copyright holder to release the content freely under license allowed by Wikipedia, then you should do one of the following:

It may also be necessary for the text to be modified to have an encyclopedic tone and to follow Wikipedia article layout. For more information on Wikipedia's policies, see Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.
 * Have the author release the text under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 License (CC BY-SA 3.0) by leaving a message explaining the details at Talk:Deconstructed club and send an email with confirmation of permission to "permissions-en (at) wikimedia (dot) org". Make sure they quote the exact page name, Deconstructed club, in their email. See Requesting copyright permission for instructions.
 * If you hold the copyright to the work: send an e-mail from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en(at)wikimedia(dot)org or a postal message to the Wikimedia Foundation permitting re-use under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 License and GNU Free Documentation License, and note that you have done so on Talk:Deconstructed club. See Donating copyrighted materials for instructions.
 * If a note on the original website states that re-use is permitted "under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License (CC-BY-SA), version 3.0", or that the work is released into the public domain, or if you have strong reason to believe it is, leave a note at Talk:Deconstructed club with a link to where we can find that note or your explanation of why you believe the content is free for reuse.

See Declaration of consent for all enquiries for a template of the permissions letter the copyright holder is expected to send.

If you would like to begin working on a new version of the article you may do so at [ this temporary page]. Leave a note at Talk:Deconstructed club saying you have done so and an administrator will move the new article into place once the issue is resolved.

Thank you, and please feel welcome to continue contributing to Wikipedia. Happy editing! — Diannaa (talk) 15:20, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

I have sent you a note about a page you started
Hello, Solidest

Thank you for creating Bubblegum bass.

User:Rosguill, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:

To reply, leave a comment here and prepend it with. And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~.

(Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

signed,Rosguill talk 19:46, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 3
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Deconstructed club, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Grime ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/Deconstructed_club check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/Deconstructed_club?client=notify fix with Dab solver]).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 08:21, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Darkcore
I mean no real battle with you, but I had to laugh at you throwing a WP:DE at me on Darkcore. The article was and has been absolutely accurate and concise for ages and need I remind you that it was actually you that stomped into it adding additional genre names when the traditional convention might be to take it to Talk first, and then doubling-down by adding the three pretty weak and contemporary website refs to support your change whilst trying to make me the disruptive editor?! Got to admire it! 77.86.103.78 (talk) 13:39, 27 June 2020 (UTC)


 * To be honest, I can't understand your fanaticism regarding this name and inadmissibility of appearing on the genre page. I came across such name few times on the links that I would not like to post as the sources, like https://rateyourmusic.com/list/TheScientist/rym-ultimate-box-set-darkcore-jungle/, youtube or other inter-language wikis, so I've found the better sources that could confirm that the name is in use. So I come from the fact that we might think that darkcore jungle is a separate darkcore genre (the fourth, after darkcore [hardcore edm], darkstep and this one), but it's not. It's the same as this one - the development of hardcore breaks, and that's all I want to point out here. Also, the genres are not "time capsule", which stays forever in the time they were created or were popular, people can call them with new names and this is OK. (eg, Scouse house has 5 names or so, which appeared sequentially by decades).
 * And once again, you keep ignoring things which I'm pointing out - you are breaking WP:EXPERTISE or WP:AMNESIA. I gave you links that confirm the use of the name in various places, and all you said is "I know the scene better" or "this is contemporary names". Instead of starting a conversation on the Talk page, you continued reverting edits without any decent reasons. It's exactly what I'd call WP:DE. Solidest (talk) 15:50, 27 June 2020 (UTC)


 * No fanaticism at all, it's just that there was nothing wrong with it as it was. Besides, not being funny, but about 90% of your last 500 edits seem to be around genres! Whatevs, peace! 77.86.103.78 (talk) 16:22, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

Techno
I was vandalizing nothing. I was simply trying to make a template more accurate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:C7:C201:C640:F47E:5B35:8067:73AA (talk) 17:29, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 20
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of music styles, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Adult alternative.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:22, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 1
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Ed Banger Records discography, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Loreen.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:26, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Speaking of disruptive
You wrote Also rolling back an entire edit due to disagreement with a 10% of it looks counterproductive and disruptive. That is not what happened, so it is misleading and disruptive. The only substantive changes were a violation of MOS:ACRO and WP:OVERLINK. So it's not clear what your revert was actuallt about. Ignoring WPBRD is also a problem. Also the cite note you linked to clearly stated do not OVLERLINK and nation names could be abbreviated. I'm bringing it here becauseit looks like you're playing by your own rules and I would like other editors to see and discuss it. Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:01, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
 * "That is not what happened". Sorry, but this is exactly what happened. I've reworked genre infobox completely and you've reverted it, instead of fixing the only link that I've put over the country (my bad, I didn't note it and thought you're talking about the other thing\link). But anyway, you've ignored all the other changes I did, and instead of fixing 4 symbols, you've decided to revert the whole correction. That's exactly what I've called disrupting and escalating, especially considering that you've decided to write here, instead of just fixing the link. And also it looks like you think that your own interpretation of MOS:ACRO stands above the work other people do? It looks like your work is worth seeing and discussing by other editors, especially considering that, this isn't the first times you participate in such disputes because of your rollbacks, judging by your talk page. Solidest (talk) 22:37, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 26
An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.
 * Merenhouse
 * added links pointing to Sequencer, Sampler, Merengue and Bata

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:22, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Ghetto House edit
Hi I appreciate your note that gangsta house and g house are different genres. But I am curious why you did not edit out g house altogether from being related to Chicago house. There are no cultural or etymology connections between the tech house variant and Chicago's ghetto house. Quintessential Ghetto House tracks like Jody Finch's "Jack Your Big Booty" date back to 1986, while g house is a new term that is not tied to anyone from that culture.

Ghetto House Genre - March 28
moved to Talk:Ghetto_house

Hyperpop
Thanks, could use your two cents on the talk page—I feel like I’m losing my mind!!! Kkollaps (talk) 00:29, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

I’m definitely sure I’ll regret if I interfere there, I’ll probably even stop following it.. Solidest (talk) 00:38, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

May 2021
Please do not add or change content, as you did at The Bloody Beetroots, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 01:06, 31 May 2021 (UTC)


 * , regarding the first sentence - you have removed content that is verified by the source that you left in the article. That doesn't look very clear on your part and certainly doesn't fit with the word "unverified".
 * Regarding the list of remixes - I compiled that list years ago and it's all compiled from releases on discogs and beatport, and it's quite complete and final. Should I add ref link for each item? (that kind of sourcing seems senseless to me) Solidest (talk) 01:13, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
 * The first thing I'd say is that after reading over the entire article is that this mask stuff is like the least noteworthy thing. The second thing is that this is an interview that reads like a fan blog, and it certainly doesn't say "the band is known for" (and it certainly doesn't verify "Grendel"). The other "reference" saying anything about any mask is this--and that is nothing. Certainly there is no reliable secondary sourcing saying that they are known for masks. That interview, I left that link because it verifies a few basic facts, and the article is in dire need of verified facts. And yes, a discography should be verified too--, are we really just listing every single thing, regardless of whether it's verified, on a noteworthy label, issued as a physical release, etc.? Drmies (talk) 01:21, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
 * , I would say that the mask stuff is one of the most noteworthy things about the band. It's exactly what I call a value judgement. If the source doesn't say about Grendel - then that's what should be removed from the article (I tried to remove it myself a few years ago, but was reverted), not that and the second sourced sentence about Spider-Man/Venom as well, isn't that right? One source talking about the mask is enough, and you can confirm this through dozens of other sources with a simple search if you wish. That doesn't sound like what I would call "unverified" either. And it shouldn't be that hard to reword it from "band is known for" to any other phrase that suit you. Because when there's the picture of the performer in mask on the right and you delete the only mention of that mask in the article, it doesn't look very clear and certainly doesn't do anyone any good.
 * Remixes: If every single remix and release should has ref-link, does that mean that I can remove remix lists or other parts of discographies that have no sources from any articles? Just like you did, since that's probably what makes Wikipedia better and more convenient for everyone? Solidest (talk) 02:00, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Also, what about: "If you boldly make the removal, and it is then reverted by another editor, it is especially important that you discuss it prior to making a second removal." from WP:REMOVAL or "If you think a source can be found, but you do not wish to supply one yourself, you can add the template fact (cn will also work) after the statement, which will add  [citation needed] . This will encourage someone, often the editor who initially added the statement, to add a citation for the information." from WP:USI.? It doesn't sound like you cared much about such things. Solidest (talk) 02:09, 31 May 2021 (UTC)


 * I was pinged, so I'll give my 39 lire. First thing is the mask. Yes, he's known for wearing a mask but it is not positively identified as Grendel or even positively known to be inspired by Spider Man/Venom. That's just Mike Mettler offering his interpretation in the Digital Trends article. An archived version of the other link is a report from CuteCircuit saying he has a new mask made by CuteCircuit, one with interactive LEDs. So it's a primary source, with some limitations of use.
 * The other issue is the list of remixes removed by Drmies. This list was WP:INDISCRIMINATE, showing remixes with no measure of success. There are other entries in the discography section with no indication of success in the marketplace, and they might also be removed. Binksternet (talk) 02:17, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
 * , On masks: In my opinion, it is still an important part that should be mentioned in the article, even if the origin design of the mask is not confirmed by the musician himself. In the article it was stated that the masks resemble the masks of Spider Man/Venom. And since the artist never stated it himself, we can only note the obvious resemblance. Especially when such resemblance can be confirmed by many authors on various sources by cursory search.
 * Remixes: I don't see any text at all about success in the marketplace in WP:INDISCRIMINATE. But tbh it makes no sense in the context of discographies - a lot of popular and not so popular artists have similar objects in their discographies, which could also be called non-successful in the marketplaces, like Daft Punk's remixes - none of them won't pass such statements. The only way I can see this rule being applied in this case is that such information is in the artist's article, rather than in a separate discography article. Is this correct? And then if I move this information to a separate article with - would the same claims be relevant?Solidest (talk) 02:51, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
 * You could list the remixes that were mentioned in the media, for instance these ten, these few, and especially Frank Carters “Why a butterfly Can’t Love a spider” If you moved the discography to a separate article it would still have problems with the lack of references. Discogs can't be used per WP:ALBUMAVOID, even though you said your list was based on that and some other self-published stuff. Binksternet (talk) 04:00, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
 * , I see, thank you. I won't restore it anymore, but now I know I can rightfully delete by 50%-80% most of existing discographies, like almost everything has been working on for months/years, like Kaytranada production discography or his latest Frank Dukes discography and many others. Or non-related List of unreleased songs recorded by Lana Del Rey and even label's discographies like Owsla discography. That's really how we should deal with such things :\ Solidest (talk) 04:22, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, there is a variety of thought demonstrated out there in those lists, largely because Wikipedia is the encyclopedia "anyone can edit." The guideline at WP:LISTCRITERIA says that a list can show every member or it can be limited to notable members, and that common sense should be used to establish the inclusion criteria. One of the main limitations of a list is that every entry should be verifiable in reliable sources. Binksternet (talk) 13:46, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for clarifying once again. The only thing left in question for me is whether such deletions of whole sections are justifiable. The rule WP:USI states that if you don't want to search for sources for some unsourced stuff, and it is assumed that sources may exist, then you should put instead of deleting a whole section, so someone else could fit these items with refs. As we can see from your links above - some of these remixes are indeed may be confirmed by needed sources. But this was not done, nor was the revert done before the discussion took place, which is also contradictory. Solidest (talk) 14:46, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
 * @, I am still waiting for your response to the points raised above. Solidest (talk) 16:28, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Didn't Binksternet make it clear enough? Reliable secondary sources are required. I see you're going for the old "but what about this article"--well, WP:OTHERSTUFF underscores what should be common sense: a poor article shouldn't be held up as a standard. Look for a good example: David Bowie discography is pretty decent... No, we do not need permission; you link USI, but that says, "When information is unsourced, and it is doubtful any sources are available for the information, it can be boldly removed." The article on this band is pretty bad, and the sourcing is even worse, leading me to believe that they actually aren't all that notable and not that well-covered, and it is simply not likely that we will find much secondary sourcing on their remixes, because that's how it goes with remixes (they're a dime a dozen). Drmies (talk) 16:45, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
 * @, Binksternet has answered quite clearly the questions that have been asked regarding general discography posting. And if you've read what he's written about - he gave links that already allows to keep a dozen remixes in the article. Before deleting part of the discography - you should make sure that the notable sources to the deleted information really aren't exist, instead of saying "I believe that they actually aren't all that notable and not that well-covered" based on an inspection of the article. Having thoughts and checking for sources are different things. And I don't really see how you can judge about a discography list based on the writing of the other parts of article. The article has been around for years - and different parts of it were edited by different people. Also, comparing discography of one of biggest artists of all time (David Bowie) with a discography of an electronic music artist of average popularity is an altogether bizarre act, given that there are tons of less popular artists have a more detailed discography.
 * Even with a cursory search - I can see that sources can be found, and not just the ones published by Binksternet, but even more worthy - single publications from major media covering individual remixes. Besides, the band released a remix compilation The Best of.... Remixes, for which several reviews have been written: 1, 2.
 * So there doesn't seem to be any objectivity in such deletions, apart from the hasty actions and attempts to justify them with this conversation (and you once again ignore the fact that after the first rollback you should have discussed it and started the conversation instead of covering your revert-of-revert with a further warning to me). Therefore, the only solution the rules prescribe us in this case is to restore the deleted part and set the pattern {cn}. Solidest (talk) 17:34, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't know what you mean with "objectivity". You restored a ton of unverified material in an already bad article. Now you're telling me there may be sources--well, then you know what to do. But why would a collection of remixes justify inserting a list of individual remixes? As for David Bowie, you are completely missing the point, which is that content should be properly verified, and that decent articles do that decently. If you can't verify it with reliable secondary sources, it simply shouldn't be in here. And if you're continuing down this line of "hasty actions and attempts to justify", which are a violation of WP:AGF, then you are making it very difficult for me to consider you an editor of good faith whose interest it is to improve articles, rather than beef up the resume for this artist. You could start by not telling me what I should and should not do. Drmies (talk) 17:43, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
 * @, I was not the first to point out that there may be sources - Binks cited them - I, in turn, pointed to the rule which clearly states the process for approaching and resolving such cases. "If you can't verify it with reliable secondary sources, it simply shouldn't be in here." - this rule exactly regulates how such cases should be handled. If the condition of unverifiability is met, the information can be removed, otherwise the part of article should be flagged with 'sources are needed' template. We have already found out that such sources can be found, so the rule was not followed.
 * I apologise if my tone seemed rude to you. To me it looks like I'm only pointing out the rule to you, after you've that you probably didn't take into account and issued a warning to me, while ignoring the discussion process before. In my eyes, this is just looks like a violation of WP:AGF as well. Solidest (talk) 18:02, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Diablada articles
Hello, a few days ago you made a request at Cleanup about the Diablada topic. In case you are not watching that project page, here is a comment I made:
 * "I wonder if it necessary to have a separate article for Bolivia's version (Diablada (Bolivia)), because that country is mentioned extensively in the original Diablada article. Perhaps a merge? An attempt to transform the specific Bolivia article to a music genre beyond the dance seems half-hearted to me."

If you are familiar with that topic, as a style of music and dance, we can discuss here whether merging is a good idea. ---  DOOMSDAYER 520 (TALK&#124;CONTRIBS) 15:59, 25 June 2021 (UTC)