User talk:Teflon Peter Christ/Archive 2017

Composition sections
Hi -- I don't think we've interacted much, except perhaps at FAC. I'm looking for a second opinion on a music article that I'm trying to help with. If you have time, would you mind taking a look at Talk:Make Me Like You, at the discussion about sections on composition and lyrics? The article has failed at FAC a couple of times, and I'm hoping that working with the nominator away from FAC will improve it to the point where it will pass, and might also give them a better idea of what to do with their next article. The issue is whether a section on the composition and lyrics of a song is required, and how directly the sources need to address those points to be usable. Thanks for any help. (And any TPSs with an interest would be welcome to chip in too.) Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:04, 22 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Hi, . I don't think I'd have the time at the moment to delve adequately into that article, nor am I an expert on song articles; I've only worked on a few in any substantial capacity. My opinion would be that a featured article should be comprehensive on all information available in the literature on the topic. If there isn't anything in the sources about a song's composition and lyrics, then it seems unfair to hold that against the nomination. Usually reviews of a work (album, song, etc.) will have some discussion of this information, but since it's critical opinion, that information seems as if it would be touched upon in a reception section. I don't think a section titled "composition and lyrics" (and the like) should be made mandatory simply because it seems to appear elsewhere on Wikipedia. It's really a matter of allocating information IMO. Good luck! Dan56 (talk) 12:36, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks, that's very helpful. Thinking of it in terms of how to allocate the information that is sourced, rather than filling required sections, seems like a good approach to me. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 13:39, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

A kitten for you!
I've recently been looking at Agharta and wanted to thank you for all of the work you've put into it! It's a fantastic article! I am shocked as to all of the sources you found for the album despite it being relatively underrated album. Great job!

Carbrera (talk) 01:54, 9 March 2017 (UTC)  Thank you!!¡!¡! Dan56 (talk) 15:44, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Yo, asshole
Keep it up and I'll see to it that you're blocked permanently. — MShabazz Talk/Stalk 16:13, 2 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Oh my glob, would you please sweetheart? 😍😍😍😍 Dan56 (talk) 16:51, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Red (Taylor Swift album)
Can you keep an eye of the page? First IloveFlorida1845 turned genres into alphabetical order (Template:Infobox album) later we reverted. However another admin reverted to IloveFlorida1845 revision. Destiny Leo (talk) 04:31, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

The Needle Drop
Would you be willing to weigh in this discussion regarding The Needle Drop should be count as an reliable source or not. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 16:31, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

"not getting into it"
I've already got into the issue that you didn't want to get into on that article. This list of names and circumstances contain one of the named accounts as the other editors on the page that you are currently discussing with him, as well as an ip address from the same provider/city/country. Just too much of a coincidence surrounding that guy.
 * I apologize if I was too cryptic. It was done so on purpose. Kellymoat (talk) 14:48, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Kellymoat, this behaviour is verging on harassment. Either make another allegation through the proper means, or stop making these insinuations. Cjhard (talk) 15:30, 5 July 2017 (UTC)


 * It's almost as if you are stalking my edits. Kellymoat (talk) 15:53, 5 July 2017 (UTC)


 * That is just too weird. A user responds to one of his RfC's, just minutes after he posts it - but, like has happened so many other times, the user has made 32 edits in the last 30 days. But we are to believe that, once again, they just happened to randomly appear at the precise time he needed backup? Kellymoat (talk) 18:16, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Report me. Make another SPI request. Put up or shut up. Cjhard (talk) 22:00, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

xx scheduled for TFA
This is to let you know that the xx article has been scheduled as today's featured article for 14 August 2017. Please check the article needs no amendments. If you're interested in editing the main page text, you're welcome to do so at Today's featured article/August 14, 2017. Thanks! Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:21, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Confusion (album) scheduled for TFA
This is to let you know that the Confusion (album) article has been scheduled as today's featured article for 3 October 2017. Please check the article needs no amendments. If you're interested in editing the main page text, you're welcome to do so at Today's featured article/October 3, 2017. Thanks! Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:18, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Unlocked
Hi there! I wondered if you'd have time to leave some comments on my FAc above? Best regards, Cartoon network freak (talk) 20:45, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

8
Cool, I deleted the genres and if you want to put them back you can add some sources, ok? :) 00090R (talk) 23:34, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

Welcome back
I notice you have left Wikipedia back in July and you have decided to come back. Welcome back man, glad to see you have returned to Wikipedia to continue editing. Never leave bro, you're a good editor, I just don't think you shouldn't have leave over a edit dispute. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 23:41, 9 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Thank you <3 Dan56 (talk) 21:47, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Personnel listing for Black Beauty
The personnel listing I provided is the exact same way that it appears in the album's booklet.

This is not debatable.

JaneOlds (talk) 18:36, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Questionable editing
There is this editor has been making edits that are questionable, my main problem is that the edits from this editor is not correct format for album articles WP:MOSALBUM. Keep in mind that this editor has been blocked several times in the past. What do you think of it. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 01:35, 3 November 2017 (UTC)


 * I don't have an opinion; it's a lot of edits--at articles I'm not familiar with--that they've made for me to adequately assess it. Perhaps ask IndianBio, who appears to be familiar with their edits and had a grievance with them here, . Dan56 (talk) 16:25, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Okay, I ask IndianBio about the edits, the reason I asked you about this because you have also deal with this editor too in the past, such as articles like Late Registration. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 13:22, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Alphabetical order again on Red (Taylor Swift album)
An IP 173.238.243.63 turned as alphabetical order as seen here. It violates against Talk:Red_(Taylor_Swift_album). An non-admin user reverted it back again and saying "stop edit warring over stupid things". 115.164.176.85 (talk) 13:59, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Chicago (album)
Re: Your reason for removing my edit: "The source makes no connection between a television performance two years removed from this album, or that review (WP:NOR); the performance is completely unrelated to this album" The connection between the review and the performance is Duke Ellington. The music critic invokes Duke Ellington in his criticism of the album, yet Duke Ellington himself, or the producers of the TV special honoring his music, apparently approve of the group's music enough to invite them to perform on the show. IMHO, that puts the opinion of the music reviewer in a new light.Curious405 (talk) 13:56, 9 November 2017 (UTC)


 * , this is you attempting to make the connection, not the source; the source itself needs to establish the relevancy for it not to be original research (WP:SYNTH). And by the sound of it, this is also an attempt to qualify or discredit the (negative) criticism of the album. Discussion of the performance is irrelevant to the topic of the article, which is the album. My edit summary stands either way; you went off-topic (WP:OFFTOPIC); appropriate research involves using the most reliable sources on the topic, in ways that is consistent with the intention of the sources (WP:STICKTOSOURCE); you used an ad/blurb for a television performance that wasn't even part of promotion for the album in question... I say this half-kiddingly, but, have you no shame sir? lol. Dan56 (talk) 22:25, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your response. I found the link to WP:SYNTH particularly informative and will try to abide by it in future - I had not seen this before, and it helps. And, BTW, I don't have any shame. Wikipedia encourages its editors to be bold (WP:BOLD). I hope hearing back from other editors like you helps my editing going forward.

HotNewHipHop and Salute Magazine
Would you be willing to weigh in this discussion regarding HotNewHipHop and Salute Magazine should be count as an reliable sources or not. Only if you interested in this topic. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 11:05, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Plastic Beach
It appears that Mrwallace05 is also editing as RobFeatherszzz. For the time being, it's probably best to just keep an eye on it. Destiny Leo (talk) 17:07, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

More Life
Would you be willing to weigh in this discussion regarding the infobox should keep "playlist" instead of mixtape. Only if you interested. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 18:01, 20 December 2017 (UTC)