User talk:Ss112/Archive 7

Rocky Horror Show soundtrack Australian peak.
I've replied to your question, on my talk page.Nqr9 (talk) 02:29, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

Tell Me How I Die
I'm not so sure should redirect to Ryan Higa, or should exist at all. The film stars other actors, Nathan Kress is possibly more notable. And there is no information on the film at Ryan Higa. 117Avenue (talk) 03:52, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I expected that there would be information added to Ryan Higa's article about the film beyond its mention, considering he was promoting it heavily and the ads I saw looked to be touting him as a drawcard. Redirects are cheap and frankly I don't see the problem with the redirect existing.  Ss 112  04:11, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

About tour details
Hey, I just want to ask you that is it suitable for adding tour details in Musician main page, such as Alan Walker? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lysvincent (talk • contribs) 13:52, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
 * It's usually fine to add tour details to a musician's page, as long it's sourced. It might not need its own section; it could just be added at the bottom of the career section.  Ss 112  13:53, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Thx:) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lysvincent (talk • contribs) 13:55, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Arbitration/Requests/Case
I listed you as involved party, so I invite you to discussion about In ictu oculi at ArbCom. --George Ho (talk) 04:26, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
 * This request for arbitration has been declined by the Committee (and withdrawn by the filer). For the Arbitration Committee, Kevin ( aka L235 ·&#32; t ·&#32; c) 04:17, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom request withdrawn
I apologize for jeopardizing the request. Now with upcoming "decline" votes, looks likes you are on your own without me. Notify me when another ArbCom request comes, okay? Back to my break... --George Ho (talk) 00:36, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 8
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.


 * Kiiara
 * added a link pointing to Idolator


 * Protection (album)
 * added a link pointing to Face to Face

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:47, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

Album chart question
Hey! Do you create album chart templates or know someone that does to direct me to? I'd like to have a template created for the UK Christian & Gospel Albums Chart, but when I posted it under Template talk:Album chart I didn't get a response. And in reply to, you didn't sound accusatory at all. I was checking Billboard's FB page to see if they had posted the chart update and they had right when the page loaded, and seeing that you hadn't updated it yet, I thought I'd go ahead. And BTW, thank you for your help on Wiki. I know I can be dense at times, but thank you for explaining different things that I don't fully understand regarding charts, Wiki essays, etc. FanofMusic  (Talk to Me!)  22:05, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Question about the Australian charts
As you are interested in Australian artists and in music charts in general, I just wanted to ask if you maybe own the Kent Music Report (not originally, as you maybe are too young to own them, but the conclusion books) for the time until 1988 or if you know somebody who does, as I don't know anybody who does and these infos could be very useful in the German Wikipedia. By the way: I saw you editing in the German WP and really appreciate all the chart updates. --Ali1610 (talk) 21:20, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Prodigal (Reliant K song)
Hello Ss112, and thanks for patrolling new pages! I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Prodigal (Reliant K song), a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Seems a plausible redirect to me - I'd take this to discussion instead. You may wish to review the Criteria for Speedy Deletion before tagging further pages. Thank you. — foxj 19:20, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm well aware of the criteria for speedy deletion, hence why I tagged the pages (due to "Deleting pages unambiguously created in error or in the incorrect namespace" under G6), and don't need to review it. The creator of that pages and related redirects clearly created them unaware that the band's name is spelt Relient K, as he did not create any with that name but rather, Reliant K. It's plausible that Reliant K would be typed in for the band, but for two sets of redirects for songs that don't have articles to exist seems excessive.  Ss 112  19:24, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Sorry, the template can be a bit patronising. I'm not convinced this isn't a reasonably plausible redirect - I would imagine a non-zero number of people are not aware of this band and, if they became aware, wouldn't know how to spell the band's name. — foxj 20:10, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

NZ Heatseekers
Do you think we can include this chart in the singlechart template? — I B  [ Poke  ] 06:39, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Sure, I don't see any reason why not. Just to note though, I'm a little concerned that if it can be coded in, jumping to the Heatseekers section of the page with "all_records_extra" in the URL may not always link to that exact section.  Ss 112  15:34, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Seeking your assistance
Hi, I've just left a message on Wozza20's talk page about their practice of re-doing chart references from scratch, when the ones that were cited previously were fine, when adding new information to artist/discography pages in the chart tables. I recall that you've noticed this user doing this as well. In (I think it's his) recent edits, he's removed a bunch of references that I listed, which had the correct titles/publishers etc. and replaced them with the same references, but with less-detailed titles/the wrong publisher. Furthermore, I cited specific pages on the offiziellecharts site for German peaks, rather than the generic search page where you have to enter the artist you're searching for. Frustrating.Nqr9 (talk) 10:57, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I definitely think he still has a lot to learn about referencing and not needing to replace everything that was there before. I told him once that removing flagicons from one act's discography wasn't necessary, and since, he's added flagicons to most discographies I've seen that he's edited (as if that was something I had said to do). Like you said in your edit summary, I do think his edits are in good faith, but they are often a little misguided. Maybe if you just explain to him he doesn't need to replace everything he'll get the message.  Ss 112  11:11, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Just one thing - in your recent edit to the Mel and Kim page, I saw you changed the German chart hyperlinks from Media Control Charts to GfK Entertainment Charts. While that is the page that Media Control Charts directs to, I think (or rather, assume, since it is used widely) that the German chart at the time was known as the Media Control Charts, and GfK owned the rights to it much later on (like in the early/mid 2000's).  Not that it matters in this instance, as the chart name is not listed in brackets beside the peaks.  It's the same with listing (not that I've seen you do this) the UK chart as (Official Charts Company) in brackets, when it wasn't known as that in the 80s/90s.Nqr9 (talk) 11:15, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Yeah, it's a bit unfortunate with the ever-changing names of charts and that sometimes what the original incarnation was known is lost (or the current name is assumed—as with New Zealand's industry association changing its name from RIANZ to RMNZ), but the only reason I change those types of links is to avoid the redirect.  Ss 112  11:57, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Grab'm by the Pussy listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Grab&. Since you had some involvement with the Grab'm by the Pussy redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. --Nev&eacute;–selbert 19:00, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Oczy Mlody


The article Oczy Mlody has been proposed for deletion&#32;because of the following concern:
 * The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing General notability guideline and the more detailed Notability (music) requirement. If you disagree and deprod this, please explain how it meets them on the talk page here in the form of "This article meets criteria A and B because..." and ping me back through WP:ECHO or by leaving a note at User talk:Piotrus. Thank you.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 11:16, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * Thanks! It does take up quite a bit of time, so it's nice to be noticed for it!  Ss 112  16:56, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Thanks again for stopping by my talk page and voicing a concern without being argumentative. --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 14:59, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Joanne
Can you revert this nuisance? — I B  [ Poke  ] 18:44, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm sure he'll just revert me as well. He'll most likely forget about it soon and go away, then it can be removed again.  Ss 112  18:55, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Down Home Sessions III


The article Down Home Sessions III has been proposed for deletion&#32;because of the following concern:
 * unreferenced, non notable album

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Jax 0677 (talk) 15:46, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

Adminship
Hello. I would like to nominate you for adminship on the English Wikipedia, if that is okay with you. - ReZawler (talk • contribs) 07:28, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
 * – Thanks for the proposed nomination, but I don't think I'm ready to be one just yet. Maybe one day, but I'd be under heavy scrutiny, have my site history dredged through, every past action questioned and that's a lot to handle. Also, some of the criteria (not based on time spent on Wikipedia, just some other things) I don't think I'm up to scratch on. Again, thanks, but I don't think I'd pass the test at this point.  Ss 112  08:46, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

"Shout Out to My Ex"
Thanks for correcting my revert with a citation – I guess I shouldn't have jumped in so quickly and should have tried to find a source first, but like you I hate it when people change a chart position without attributing a source.

One question though: how come Billboard announce updated chart positions on a Monday, when the rest of the world announce them on Friday? I really don't understand their chart dating system at all – so the chart currently at http://www.billboard.com/charts/hot-100 at time of writing is therefore last week's chart, yet it's dated six days from now in the future... Richard3120 (talk) 20:04, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I didn't see that you had reverted somebody who added the peak of it, but I would have done the same thing. And yeah, Billboard still has a rather outdated tracking week/system even while most new music comes out on Fridays and most charts have adapted their tracking weeks to this, and weirdly dates its issues 11 or so days in advance.  Ss 112  20:09, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

Official Charts Company publisher
Re: your alteration to my edit on TLC discography, the Official Charts company pages all have © The Official UK Charts Company 2016 on them; hence why I specify the publisher being The Official UK Charts Company. Not a major difference, but it's not 'wrong'.Nqr9 (talk) 02:05, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

Precedent and chart formatting
heyo,

You mentioned on your edit summary on Call on Me (Starley song) that your references for chart positions have been "copied" from you from other articles. You're also probably addressing that to me since I created the article. Unfortunately, it is true that I use other articles' Charts sections (those that I have contributed greatly to) as the foundation to formatting new Charts sections in new articles. The reason is simple: I don't want to take the time to remember how to format the Charts section. There is no way I can memorize

"{|class="wikitable sortable plainrowheaders" style="text-align:center"



! Chart (2016)"

similar to how I can't memorize how to type in The New Zealand Heatseekers Chart reference since it's not supported by the single chart template. Also, if you claim that the wording is yours, then my argument would be that you're highly respected and know what you're doing, so you're simply setting the precedent for formatting charts in new articles. That's why a lot of Charts sections look the same. Consistent formatting allows for easy reading and easier article writing; this is why the Australian and New Zealand refs look the same. You're just going to have to deal with it, really. —SomeoneNamedDerek (talk) 16:52, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I didn't look to see who created the page, and I didn't mean to start a dialogue about it, otherwise I would have messaged you, so it was just a general note. I didn't have any objection to the formatting of the wikitable or "Australia (ARIA)" or "New Zealand Heatseekers (RMNZ)" being typed out. I'm only talking about the content of the references. The way I typed those are not exactly what the page titles or headers of the pages are; they're my own simplified version. My thought is that users who are writing a page from scratch would look at these pages themselves and maybe reword them or copy what the page title is (as in, what the title is at the top of the browser tab/window) to make it their own, to show they have taken the time to decide whether the way I worded said information is the best way of presenting it. That's not a veiled insult to you, and I'm not saying you haven't taken the time to do other things, but there's nothing to say that reference wording from page to page needs to be exactly the same.  Ss 112  17:23, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
 * OK, so I just misunderstood you. However you shouldn't necessarily use the word "copied" either since nobody really knows whose reference is whose. Whatever the case is, you're still setting the precedent and people will continue to follow your ref formatting since there isn't really any guideline to formatting the reference for "New Zealand Heatseekers". I think the way you type the reference gets the point across to normal readers and is easy to understand. Cheers, —SomeoneNamedDerek (talk) 17:30, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

Canadian dates
As a lifelong Canadian, I assure you this country virtually always uses month-day-year in prose. Numerically, on forms and the like, it's more a toss-up. As to Cohen albums, all but two had the month first, as of yesterday. I won't fight for it, but I'll suggest you revert yourself or change the rest, for consistency. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:39, November 11, 2016 (UTC)
 * I have asked several Canadians in the past and they've told me they use both. The article on Canada even says "dd-mm-yyyy" is the primary format. I don't know what to believe.  Ss 112  02:25, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Believe everything, just not all the time. When we're dealing with numbers only, either is officially "fine" (though confusing if not consistent). 12/07/2014 or 07/12/2014, no problem. But when spelling out the month name (not just replacing "mm"), it's like it is elsewhere in that Canada article, and elsewhere in our media. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:15, November 12, 2016 (UTC)

hi can you help with Murder of Riley Ann Sawyers ?
I think the page needs attention that i can't give it. I can already see several uses of "Sawyer's" which is for someone surnamed "Sawyer", not "Sawyers". Can you please give the article some care and attention if someone else i tried to contact hasn't already? Paul Benjamin Austin (talk) 09:46, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I'll look into it if I get time, but I'm not really big on editing crime-related articles on Wikipedia, so I don't know how much help I could be.  Ss 112  09:48, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Some friendly advice
I don't know you from Adam, and I wouldn't be able to locate my interest in your pop music dispute even if I had a very powerful microscope, so I really have no clue whether Calvin999 is "lying" or if it is you doing the lying. I do know Calvin999 wants to shut down the discussion (hence his trying to intimidate and harass me for simply saying that the discussion shouldn't be shut down).

Most Wikipedia editors, particularly those who spend a lot of time on ANI and routinely close threads they interpret to be about "content disputes", will glaze over when they see a comment like this. The thread is already TLDR (frankly, it was doomed from the start), and your best hope is that some very diligent admin reads over the whole thing and decides to do something. This is not likely, and the next best scenario would be the thread getting archived without result. Following that would be you getting slapped with a WP:TROUT for bringing a "content dispute" to ANI. Then it goes downhill, with people proposing one-way sanctions against you for bringing a content dispute to ANI. It's unlikely that anyone (except obvious trolling sockpuppets like this guy) will propose an IBAN after only one thread that they didn't bother reading, but that is still technically possible, and believe me you don't want that.

If whatever harassment may or may not be happening continues, you should draft a brief description that doesn't make it look like a content dispute and post that.

But you need to stop posting to that thread unless you absolutely need to, as any more discussion of billboards and charts and records will only make things worse for everyone.

Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 10:49, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I just feel the harassment is going to continue regardless. WP:ANI is sometimes hopeless but I still hold out hope admins read and take notice of what the problem is. But you're right, it's TL;DR at this point. I honestly don't want any further contact from Calvin999, and he's trying to turn everything around on me, which is exactly what he did on his talk page the other week.  Ss 112  11:12, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Again, if you feel the harassment is going to continue regardless, why on earth would you want an IBAN? Don't you realize that all an IBAN would do would be to cause you to get blocked every time you try to report him for harassing you? I don't want any further contact from him either -- that's why it annoys me every time his name shows up in my watchlist (only once every seven months, to be fair). The best advice I can offer is to just ignore him and try editing in another topic area. As far as I am concerned, modern western pop culture is a slime pit and overrun with deplorable editors with no care for encyclopedic content or proper sourcing standards. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 11:39, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Have users who have either requested an IBAN or had it imposed upon them been blocked for reporting the other user? What about if the article is on their watchlist and the other editor has never edited the topic before, so it's like they're not directly reverting the other user but Wikihounding them? Just want to say, thanks for the advice. Not meaning to disparage them, but sometimes it seems like admins really don't want to know or get involved with users' disputes, and so stuff like this often continues, even when users are blatantly harassing the other when they're in the same topic area.  Ss 112  11:47, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Bringing this to your talk page because posting it on ANI makes it look like I am trying to hit you with a BOOMERANG rather than offering friendly advice.
 * First, the above. Put simply, yes. It's a little complicated, and I don't want to go into detail because I am still technically subject to two of the three IBANs in question (and I don't want to grave-dance by going into excessive detail on the one that was converted to a one-way IBAN), but I have experienced:
 * (1) I was threatened with a block for reporting a manual revert of my edits by a user with whom I was IBANned;
 * (2) I was blocked for a minor infraction by the same admin who threatened me in (1) who treated the threat as a "final warning" so justifying a sudden block;
 * (3) I was threatened with a block for reporting a user with whom I was IBANned mentioning my name on their talk page, with the rationale being that I must have been monitoring their edits or I wouldn't have noticed it;
 * (4) I was warned because I accidentally edited the same page as a user with whom I was IBANned two months after they had apparently left Wikipedia;
 * (5) I was blocked for doing the same thing as (4) a second time;
 * (6) I was blocked for naming a user with whom I was IBANned on a user talk page that spun out of an ANI thread about the IBAN and was already leaning toward dissolving the IBAN (this was the minor infraction in (2));
 * (7) I was told to bugger off when I tried to report a user with whom I was IBANned after they posted about me in an ANI thread that had nothing to do with either them or the IBAN;
 * (8) I was blocked for replying to an ANI thread a user with whom I was IBANned started that used my name, and while they were also blocked, their block was altered so as to be explicitly shorter than mine.
 * So yeah, you don't want an IBAN. They are super-easy for harassers to game, and almost impossible to enforce in accordance with their original intent.
 * Anyway, as for the other stuff on ANI:
 * Edit warring on somebody's talk page is absolutely harassment, as is continuing to post after you've been told not to is technically wrong. There are very, very few things on Wikipedia that are "absolutely" harassment. Behaviours such as those are often treated as harassment. The reason for this is that, while users have no authority to unilaterally place an enforceable "ban" on other users from posting on your talk page (you don't technically own this page), we generally treat these "bans" as normative because a higher policy insists that (pending evidence to the contrary) the "banned" users are in the wrong and they don't have a valid reason to continue posting on your page. This is not, however, absolute: I have had a few users accuse me of "harassment" for posting on their talk pages, but when they tried to ban me from those pages it quickly became clear that they were WP:NOTHERE and were themselves indefinitely blocked. AGF says that this is not to be the normal state of affairs, and we are not allowed assume it will be, but saying that violating a "don't post here" request is "absolutely" harassment is also not true.
 * And I'm sorry if I'm misunderstanding, but isn't the immediate problem that led you to post on ANI that the user was removing one of their own comments, not "continuing to post" here?
 * As for the treating of ANI as a first resort: You should definitely not start a new ANI thread when someone immediately violates a warning that was issued as a result of the last ANI thread. You should post on the talk page of the admin who issued the warning. Posting to ANI makes it look like there actually was no warning but you want us to think there was. The only reason to post on ANI is if it were months later, and either the warning admin was inactive or it was unclear if the warning were still in effect. Also, you should try to discuss disputes with other users on their talk pages first. Your dispute with that other user was relatively minor compared to what I put up with last year (look at the diffs -- I'm not going to post them again because I'll be accused of "holding a grudge" just for still being able to locate them) and ... well, actually my first instinct was to email several admins I had dealt with in the past who I thought might be willing to offer me some advice, because I was honestly getting scared for my safety with the things he was saying. It never even occurred to me to open an ANI thread.
 * And I'm the kind of guy who gets threatened with blocks and bans for frivolous ANI threads -- imagine what could happen to the people who I think take things to ANI too quickly. :P
 * Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 10:41, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Doesn't WP:IBAN say that you and the other user can still edit the same pages but that you can't directly or indirectly undo their edits to it?
 * Just noticed this (see what I mean about editing your own posts?). The exact wording of the IBAN policy is irrelevant, because IBANs are enforced by admins, and admins are fallible. An admin can decide (even based on their agreeing with one party on article content!) that one user who directly reverts the other's edits after acknowledging that they are aware who made those edits is not violating an IBAN and another user who happens to accidentally edit the same article two months later is violating the IBAN. The only way to get around this is to get unblocked (it didn't happen in my case because the block was short enough that it expired before anyone reviewed the unblock request) and either get the admin to apologize (something that did happen in my case but can't be counted on) or get them desysopped for abusing their admin tools (something that almost never happens). Failing that, you will have an unrepealed block on your log forever and people like Calvin999 will be able to throw it in your face whenever they like. And if yoi don't get your IBAN removed, you won't even be allowed defend yourself. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 23:35, 16 November 2016 (UTC)


 * I posted on Ritchie333's talk page as well as on ANI. I might have taken it to ANI too quickly, but I wanted to avoid posting on the other user's talk page because I knew it wasn't going to get anywhere constructive. I've done that in the past with them; they just saw each reply as an opportunity to come up with more insults. Also, I know I don't technically own this page. I'm not one of those users who's saying "this is my property, stay off or else!!111" I just mean, I have more right to oversight than that user does. I see removing their own comment and continuing to post/make edits to my talk page as the same thing. His comment is up there in the text. I had forgotten about it until he decided to come back here. I'm sorry, I just don't see this as much of an issue any longer.  Ss 112  10:45, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I have more right to oversight than that user does ふぅぅぅぅーーーーーーんんんん... Again, technically you are right. But if you have said you don't want any more to do with him, and he has said he doesn't want any more to do with you, them trying to remove a comment they made on your page looks like more of a conciliatory gesture, and you trying to maintain it looks like something else. I would hate it if someone I had conflicted with in the past was actively fighting to maintain a signed comment by me on their page -- what if they decided to recontextualize it, "respond" to it (without allowing me to respond to their response), or the like? Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 10:56, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
 * By the way, stop editing your posts post-facto, unless it is absolutely necessary. I hate edit conflicts, as do a lot of people, and it's only going to make people angry at you. took it to an extreme, but what you are doing is substantially the same. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 10:56, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
 * For the love of god, follow the advice I gave immediately above. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 10:56, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
 * It also makes it very difficult to reply to you when you substantially alter your own comments in numerous short blasts. If you posted on Ritchie's talk page, that is just another reason not to open an ANI thread. That's forum-shopping, and inviting the community to comment in cases like this is not a good idea. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 10:58, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
 * What advice? I'm no longer posting to ANI, I have no reason to at the moment, and the conflicts with both users are over (at least, I hope so). Can this just be over now? It feels like you're attacking me now for trying to get my wording exactly right.  Ss 112  11:00, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
 * What advice? "immediately above" ⇒ "stop editing your posts post-facto, unless it is absolutely necessary". I'm not attacking you. I'm offering you advice. You can take it or leave it, but if you and I interact again I might start to get annoyed with you if I have to constantly copy-paste my own comments and open new tabs over and over again because you keep tweaking your comments every minute or two. This happened on ANI too right before I came here. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 11:11, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, I hope I'm not back at ANI soon for one reason or another, because I don't like posting there anyway. But sure, I'll try, I guess?  Ss 112  11:29, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

Said the Sky
Hello.

I just wanted to ask how did you delete pages without administrator rights? - TheMagnificentist (talk) 15:42, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I didn't, and I can't. What page are you talking about?  Ss 112  15:49, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
 * The Said the Sky page. "(Deletion log) Ss112 (talk | contribs) deleted page Talk:Said the Sky ‎(G6: Deleted to make way for move)" - TheMagnificentist (talk) 16:07, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I assume that's automatically generated, as Talk:Said the Sky already existed as a page with content on it, rather than a redirect. Btw, why did you title this message "Michael Jackson"? I assumed it was about one of his pages, and I was thinking it must have been years ago.  Ss 112  16:11, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Ah, that's cool. The title's just random, I didn't know what to put. - TheMagnificentist (talk) 16:13, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

About EPs (Ariana)
Hi, I'm not saying who's right or wrong about the headings, but my issue is about what you said in the edit summary. I went to Extended play, and the only place in the article that says that EPs are unqualified (it does say "usually") as albums is in the lead. And there's no reference to verify the claim. It does say, in the "Definition" section: "If priced as a single, they will not qualify for the main album chart but can appear in the separate Budget Albums chart." The word "album" is mentioned about 30 times in that article, including saying that some EPs have been on the Billboard album chart. Now, you can correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems to me that there are LP albums and there are EP albums (and SP). —Musdan77 (talk) 00:24, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

I appreciate you trying to enlighten me (although I'm not sure why you didn't just reply here), but I'm still a bit confused. There seems to me to be some contradiction in that article. But that's OK. It's not that important to me. Thanks anyway. —Musdan77 (talk) 03:23, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

Question
Why he reverted my edit? My edit was supposed to fix some minor issues. — MUST BE  Love on the Brain.  06:19, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Besides what they said in their edit summary, I'm not sure. That would be a question better suited for Kellymoat; just ask them on their talk page.  Ss 112  06:26, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I did that, but he called my edits "bogus". —  MUST BE  Love on the Brain.  06:38, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, I don't think I can offer any more insight into why they reverted you than they can.  Ss 112  06:40, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

RM discussion at Talk:Baby-Baby-Baby
I see one of your contribution edits at the history log. I invite you to an ongoing RM discussion. --George Ho (talk) 21:00, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

Glory days source
Where is the source that Glory Days by Little Mix only charted 25th in the BBH100?134.83.3.87 (talk)< —Preceding undated comment added 11:20, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I've supplied an extra source now. I presumed Little Mix's artist chart history pages had already updated.  Ss 112  11:22, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Interview invitation from a Wikipedia researcher in the University of Minnesota
I am Weiwen Leung, a student at the University of Minnesota. I am currently conducting a study on how people on the LGBT+ Wikipedians group use and contribute to Wikipedia.

Would you be willing to answer a short 5 minute survey? If so, please email me at leung085@umn.edu. It would be helpful if you could include your Wikipedia username when emailing.

Thank you, Weiwen Weiwensg (talk) 19:32, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Help
Hi Ss112, You made a edit to Dat Stick a few days ago. Then a IP change the name of his next single and i undid the edit. Then Magnolia677 undid my edit and said "Removing unsourced content" when it was already there when you saw it. And then i cussed at him (Because he always stalks my contributions and it was already there since August 14, 2016). Then he undid my edit and said "There is no source in the article confirming this is his "next" single; please stop adding unsourced original research". But he made this edit to Rich Chigga here, adding the sources to the single. Please help me. JustDoItFettyg (talk) 20:30, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Don't worry, I think you've sourced the fact that it's a single with the iTunes link now. The links he added to Rich Chigga in that edit above are Soundcloud links, which just prove the existence of the songs (and does not indicate they are singles).  Ss 112  20:35, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Magnolia always like to stalk my and JayPe's edits everyday and see what information i added to articles and just undo them. Can you please do something about this? JustDoItFettyg (talk) 20:43, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't have any more power to do something about it than you do by asking him not to on his talk page. If you feel it's a continued problem and constitutes harassment, you could raise the issue with an administrator, but I would only do this as a last resort.  Ss 112  20:50, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Did you look at my edits? JustDoItFettyg (talk) 21:36, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
 * After seeing you had edited Kehlani to add the link to a song I didn't know had an article, I glanced at your edits, yes. That's why I edited Kap G and Sage the Gemini. Rae Sremmurd discography and G-Eazy discography have been on my watchlist for a while, so I saw those on there as well.  Ss 112  21:39, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
 * OK, sorry about the accessdate's. I always forget to update them. Thanks. JustDoItFettyg (talk) 21:48, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I did not notice that i added another genre, all i wanted was to undid this edit here JustDoItFettyg (talk) 18:37, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

German album charts
I noticed that when I went ahead to add new album peaks you had already added the German peak of Starboy before the page you linked to updated which was the same reason you left me a message and reverted me for last week. I didn't decide to ask you about this because I wanted to be first to edit but to ask you when it's in fact okay to add/update German album peaks? When the database of offiziellecharts (or rather the results of its search engine) updates or only when the according pages update? -- Lk95 16:56, 2 December 2016 (CET)
 * Sorry, I assumed that because the search result was showing up, the album page had updated too. My mistake; I'll check the album page too in future. That's when it should be added.  Ss 112  15:59, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Hairspray Live!
Hi. Not sure what edit you were trying to make, but I assume it wasn't the removal of most of the page. Try again? :-) APK whisper in my ear  11:05, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I don't know how on Earth that happened!  Ss 112  11:07, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Haha, it happens. APK whisper in my ear  11:08, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I just remembered as I was only half paying attention, the page had not properly loaded before I saved and Wikipedia must have taken my saving before the rest had loaded as a removal of the information. Very unusual!  Ss 112  11:10, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

"Awaken, My Love!"
There was an editor who made this edit in the article, do this belong here? TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 20:55, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I didn't read through the whole section when I just edited the article, but that could definitely be cut down to only the essential elements. It reads like a fan's concert experience. As for the review they added to the reception section, I'm not sure that's a notable publication (the domain suggests it's hosted in the United Arab Emirates), so it could be removed too.  Ss 112  03:02, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm not a very good editor, so I don't know which part of the section should be cut down, and I agree the review should be removed. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 21:13, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Never mind, I've cut it down now.  Ss 112  03:20, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks. It look a lot better now. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 21:25, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Chart positions
I was just going off what Koavf, one of the writers of the WP:MOSALBUM said. I tried to get people to talk about tightening the guidelines for the MOS but nobody agreed with me. I've seen it on other album pages like that.. it was a good faith edit and it's fine you reverted it. --Jennica ✿ / talk 17:25, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I think on some pages it's definitely beneficial to name it "chart positions", with all the similar headings and what-not. Wikipedia is definitely inconsistent in the matter and I think it's something we can't ever aim for consistency on.  Ss 112  17:29, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Ways to improve Alone (Marshmello song)
Hi, I'm Devopam. Ss112, thanks for creating Alone (Marshmello song)!

I've just tagged the page, using our page curation tools, as having some issues to fix. Please add references for verifiability of statements.

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, you can leave a comment on my talk page. Or, for more editing help, talk to the volunteers at the Teahouse. Devopam (talk) 09:23, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't mean to be rude, but why are you templating me? Shouldn't you be sending this to ? I merely created the redirect, not the content that is there, and I'm not a new editor.  Ss 112  10:03, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
 * , hi ! thanks for not treating this as a deliberate attempt (like another admin did few days back). Seems the New Page Review template has few issues to be fixed yet. It identified you as the page creator based on metadata. Will try to investigate myself, or file a bug in a while. Devopam (talk) 10:06, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Edit counter
Hello, Ss112. I was passing by and I noticed that you have something called "EditCounterOptIn.js". I was wondering if you can tell me how to get one for myself. - The   Magnificentist  16:59, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm not even sure what specific edit counter it was for, as it was years ago. I no longer use it, anyway. I use X!'s Edit Counter tool when I want to check something now.  Ss 112  17:05, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Oh okay, thanks! I also use that sometimes. - The   Magnificentist  17:08, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

‎Talk:Pearl Jam discography
Pearl Jam discography, which you contributed, has been the Featured List since 2008. The split proposal will affect the status as FL. Please join discussion. --George Ho (talk) 01:01, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Paramore
If you want to think promotional cd's with no individual download or add date in limited release to one country are official singles be my guest, however kindly leave the sales/certifications that I updated instead of reverting the page to year old sales/certs on Still Into You and Ain't It Fun. BlaccCrab (talk) 03:24, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm only restoring the way it was, as I think the users who have edited and come and gone through it would have changed it if it were not considered a (full) single in some way. I wish we had better consensus on whether it was purely promotional or a single that flopped and stalled, because I've wondered that for a while myself and think the page for determining what is promotional on Wikipedia is not fully solid (as in, not every single is released to radio or may necessarily have a disclosed radio add date in the US—some singles aren't released in certain regions, and other countries' radio adds may be hard to find). Sorry, I should have looked at the text you added on Paramore better.  Ss 112  03:28, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Q
Hi. What's your stance on charts and certifications grouped together? I think it's better when they're separate. --Jennica ✿ / talk 04:21, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I think if it's a particularly well-performing single (with a lot of chart positions, both weekly and year-end), then having certifications in a different section is sometimes beneficial, as all grouped together (even having it in a different column), it can look very crammed. However, I'm not opposed to "charts and certifications", so long as that is the heading and certifications isn't made a subsection of a heading that only says "charts".  Ss 112  04:42, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Thank You! - valign
Thank you, I was just not aware "valign" standard existed. – Conrad T. Pino (talk) 03:20, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Re Ngaiire edits
Thanks Ss112 for the input on the page Ngaiire.

I'd appreciate some assistance to do as you suggest. Is there any chance you can help locate a volunteer to act as an advisor for this? I'm happy to do legwork if someone with more experience can direct traffic.

thanks Werafa (talk) 22:00, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Taiwanese Albums (Five Music)
Hi, I was reading 24K Magic (album) and I'm not sure if that is an official chart, it doesn't appear in WP:GOODCHARTS and the link isn't working for me. It is also in Joanne (album). Should it be removed? Cornerstonepicker (talk) 04:05, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
 * You raise a valid point. I've seen it around a few places, especially on K-pop albums too, and wondered if it's Taiwan's official chart, or a valid chart at all. The translation of the pages doesn't provide much more of a hint, since Google is pretty bad with Mandarin translations. I think an editor who understands Mandarin could help provide an official word on whether it's an acceptable chart for Wikipedia or not. It seems to be a retailer with physical stores that provides a chart, so perhaps it's not allowable if it's only measuring its own sales, as that would fall under the one-retailer section of WP:CHART. Perhaps it needs to be raised at a Music WikiProject...  Ss 112  04:22, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

In ictu oculi's moving pages
Might you take a look at more of his edits? It's going out of my control. I don't know how much cleanup I can do after all the moves and stuff. --George Ho (talk) 08:40, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I actually came across his edits again earlier. The only one I particularly had an issue with was his moving I.O.I. The others you may have to move yourself, as I can't see that there are many more I have a problem with. I do think he moves too many pages, and I feel he should probably have been prevented from moving pages ages ago as I feel it's out of control, but that's not up to me and he considers what he's doing "housekeeping". I'm sure he still thinks from when you filed an ArbCom request that you and I apparently conspired against him or something, and I really don't want him harassing me at my talk page for another week (or really ever, as it's pointless attempting to talk to users who don't listen to others' problems with their main reason for being here), so sorry I can't be of more help.  Ss 112  08:51, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Shall we take this to ANI then? George Ho (talk) 08:55, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
 * If you think that will help then you can, but I'm not sure how much more administrators can be enlightened with. I think they're well aware of IIO, they just don't feel there's much of a problem about what he does. I remember that at ArbCom, they almost entirely ignored IIO's actions and were more inclined to talk about whatever issues they had with you. It just seems pointless to bother sometimes, also as I've come to the conclusion that ANI is full of contrarians who patrol the page to take issue with anything and everything anybody brings up there because they don't feel the issues are worthy of being sorted by admins (and sure, many aren't, but many also are and they're shouted down or bloated to the point admins want to ignore it).  Ss 112  08:59, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
 * December 2015 (very recent). Getting older: September 2014... Can you help me search for others? George Ho (talk) 09:12, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Also, here's WP:CONDUCTDISPUTE, which discusses methods. We can't use ArbCom... not yet. Proposing "community sanctions" at WP:AN would do? --George Ho (talk) 09:17, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
 * If you feel it's appropriate to do it. Personally I wouldn't, as looking at those two issues raised about him at ANI, admins essentially saw nothing wrong with his moves but only took issue with his other actions. I get the frustration, but I just don't see what raising the issue to administrators' attention will accomplish this time. (I accidentally pinged IIO, so he'll probably see this now, but I'm not saying anything I didn't say at ArbCom or to him in the past. Perhaps he would have seen this anyway. IIO, if you see this and have issues, please raise them with George at his talk page. I don't want a dispute or any other input here please.)  Ss 112  10:01, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Let's see what IIO has to say. By the way, he made a comment about my past conducts with others and told me to stay away from his talk page. Also, he told me to ping him. I did, but I'm awaiting his responses. George Ho (talk) 10:09, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

...Well, you're right. What good will taking this to ANI do? Meanwhile, I will try to discuss every renaming/move IIO makes as much as I can. By the way, what about KTL. I had to fix this due to IIO's actions... Actually, the band page, which was "KTL" until disambiguated with "(band)", has article issues. I couldn't undo IIO's doing. Instead, I took this to WP:RM/TR and had the dabpage take over instead. --George Ho (talk) 10:09, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
 * It appears that KTL is barely notable as a band, so it's debatable whether that many people would be typing in KTL to know about them that it would be worth keeping it at KTL. I just don't see what bringing in IIO on my talk page (when I've asked him not to post here again) will accomplish though. Perhaps it's best to sort something out on yours. I feel I'd be being the mediator in a dispute I don't really have (or gave up having).  Ss 112  10:13, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
 * ...Hmm... You're right again. Well, I did apologize to him before he blew me off. George Ho (talk) 10:18, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Restoring e-commerce references
Hello, Ss112. I saw your edit summary about the e-commerce sites. It doesn't seem to me to make sense to add these simply to show the name of a track, because if a track is worth mentioning in an article at all, its name should have been mentioned somewhere in a review, magazine article, etc. This means that the least notable works of an artist are the ones in which commercial promotion is allowed. It also appears that in a lot of musicians' articles no attempt has been made to find proper reliable sources, because of course for them it's preferable to have links to e-commerce sites on their pages.

However, thanks for the link to the WP:RS information; I will stop removing these. I hope, though, that if you believe that some of the ones I removed should be reinserted, you will selectively add only those you feel are legitimate, and not just revert everything, thus restoring at the same time references to self-published material such as SoundCloud, YouTube and Facebook, which are undesirable re WP:USERGENERATED and WP:RSSELF. Thanks, &mdash;Anne Delong (talk) 17:25, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Sorry yeah, I think I restored some SoundCloud references with one of those edits. I only really care about the iTunes references proving titles of songs or proving that they were released commercially, otherwise users (particularly Jax 0677, who is known for and has been asked not to spam-tag articles with CN templates) dispute their single status if they did not chart on a major national chart. The thing with EDM artists is that it's a genre not really known for many notable third-party reliable publications covering single releases (especially before the EDM boom of the early 2010s), and especially with how prolific artists like Showtek and the like were before this time, it's unlikely that publications would have ever covered the amount of singles they released, or found it relevant enough to cover new ones from before the act(s) began charting in the 2010s. (I've searched, but nothing reliable has ever come up, hence my use of iTunes refs to prove they were indeed released commercially.)  Ss 112  17:31, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I totally understand the difficulties in finding reliable sources in certain genres - my favourite music is bluegrass, where even some of the internationally known bands sell a lot of their CDs under little white tents at summer festivals. The  festivals, while attracting thousands of people, are usually held in places where the nearest towns are too small to have even a weekly paper, let alone a music feature writer.


 * However, just because something has been offered for sale doesn't mean it's significant enough to be included in an encyclopedia. Otherwise I could make up a nice boxed set of my amateur YouTube videos or of the tunes from my website, post it for sale on Kijiji, and insert information about it somewhere in the encyclopedia, with a sentence like "This tune has also been recorded by Anne Delong and released through Kijiji" and add a link to my ad.  If the Showtek tracks were enduringly popular, they will eventually end up in a compilation or be discussed by someone writing a retrospective.  If not, a sentence like "Showtek released several singles through iTunes before..." might suffice. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anne Delong (talk • contribs) 19:13, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Their first two "studio" albums essentially functioned as compilations, and perhaps there were many hardstyle and/or EDM compilations they were featured on. I'm not hugely fussed on them as an act myself, thus I'm not worried about them or their early output overall being seen as significant. However, since they released said singles commercially, it would be incomplete or half a list without them, and it appears their notability besides those early recordings has been established, hence my restoring the content (in comparison and to elaborate on your example, no offence to yourself, your notability as an act has probably not been established in reliable third-party publications, which is what WP:SONGCOVER requires). By this, I mean plenty of later-popular artists had significant output before they gained popularity, but publications have no real reason to talk about their early recordings, only in rare instances of re-releases or as you pointed out, retrospectives, yet they still exist and Wikipedia generally covers them. But as I don't see any reason for someone to dig up the dozens of singles Showtek released on the Internet outside of several early recordings charting in the Netherlands, the only source we have for the fact these other singles were released is iTunes. If they were being discussed at length in the prose and having more information attributed to what is simply their listing on an online music retailer, I would understand the reluctance of including the references, but there isn't much to say about them, so that seems unlikely.  Ss 112  20:16, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
 * TL;DR: I know it's not necessarily what you're trying to point out to me here, but I fully understand the importance of trying to find more reliable sources than iTunes to verify non-charting singles' existence. I myself would prefer third-party sources than linking to iTunes here. However, with certain genres and acts, even if their notability has later been established by their charting in several countries and being discussed in third-party publications, some of their early output is not going to be covered. Showtek are far from being the most notable act, but they still had output independent of their chart appearances, and if the existence of said recordings' status as singles can be verified by an e-commerce site, this is preferable to having an incomplete list or a heading that says "singles" implying it covers all their releases when it doesn't.  Ss 112  20:31, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Twitter
I got a question, when I look at articles like Passion, Pain & Demon Slayin', who used Twitter as a reliable source for information, while the guidelines says don't use this website. Can Twitter be used for information if necessary or not? TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 16:18, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
 * It's preferable to not use self-published sources on WIkipedia if better sources can be found, but WP:TWITTER states: "Self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, usually in articles about themselves or their activities, without the self-published source requirement that they be published experts in the field, so long as: [...] the material is neither unduly self-serving nor an exceptional claim; there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity; [and] the article is not based primarily on such sources".  Ss 112  04:06, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Ok, so Twitter can be use as information if there are not reliable sources to support their claims can't be found, but the problem about Twitter is, they might delete their tweets and the source become a dead link. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 22:32, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Perhaps then it may be archived by the Wayback Machine or another such source. If you're concerned that it may be deleted, you can use an on-demand archiving service like webcitation.org.  Ss 112  04:42, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
 * That's a good idea to have those sources be archived to keep it from being deleted. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 22:49, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

÷ Tour listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect ÷ Tour. Since you had some involvement with the ÷ Tour redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Steel1943 (talk) 19:55, 5 January 2017 (UTC)