User talk:TheAmazingPeanuts/Archive 1

Multiple reverts
I know a way you can make your editing more efficient. I've noticed that you sometimes correct vandalism and fix things up by reverting two or three edits in a row. You can do it all in one edit from the article's history page by selecting the date stamp for the last good version you want to revert to. That will load the old version of the page, and if you select "Edit", you are now ready to save the page to a restored version. Use "Show changes" first, to see exactly what changes you'll be making. Make sure you don't wipe out any constructive edits that were made in between.

I appreciate the work you've been doing, and am confident that you will not use these powers for evil. Cheers. Willondon (talk) 12:17, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the advice. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 22:45, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

TPAB global sales
Hey there. I've been following TPAB's sales updates on chartnews twitter (unreliable source for WP, but kinda accurate) and it surpassed 1 million WW months ago. Is rare that an American music publication gives WW sales, worse for a hip-hop album, so here editors use the most random sources. I found this from Ici Radio-Canada Télé, confirming 1M, is pretty known in Canada, like iHeartRadio. Need a second opinion. Cornerstonepicker (talk) 00:02, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't know about the link, but I think it's ok to be added to the article. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 19:01, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

Chime in on this RfC?
Hi. Would you be willing to weigh in on this RfC regarding genres at Axis: Bold as Love? There's been little input, and the RfC's been relisted a few times to encourage more discussion. Dan56 (talk) 02:16, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

RfC: I Am... Sasha Fierce
Hi. Would you mind weighing in on this RfC, which involves whether this statement--verified by several sources (1, 2, 3)--should be removed: "I Am... Sasha Fierce received generally mediocre reviews from critics"; "mediocre" paraphrased from "lukewarm". Dan56 (talk) 20:03, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
 * The RfC's been changed to "mediocre reviews" (my attempt to compromise). You originally voted "oppose" the removal of a statement reading "lukewarm reviews"; does this change your position, if it were "mediocre reviews"? Dan56 (talk) 10:04, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I was opposing to the statement "mixed to positive". I think "mediocre" or "lukewarm" might be a better phrase for how you discuss the album's reception. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 07:00, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

AnyDecentMusic RfC
Hi there. :) About starting this RfC - I think it's a good idea, but it makes it harder to see what discussion happened when if you just turn the section into an RfC as it is. I've moved the RfC discussion to a new subsection - if you'd like to replace my comment there with something better describing your proposal (or rewording Dan56's proposal), please feel free. Best — Mr. Stradivarius  ♪ talk ♪ 07:19, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the help. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 02:49, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

FAC: House of Music
Howdy. Would you care to review or comment at my nomination of House of Music for featured status? It's been quite slow getting input from reviewers. Dan56 (talk) 20:31, 11 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Sorry for the late reply. Using an artist's twitter account to verify they said something via twitter makes sense, but I would discourage using material that isn't covered by third-party sources, which not only have editorial oversight and ensure stronger reliability, but they also show by covering something that what they are covering is notable and worthy of including it in an article IMO. Personally I don't find this to be an interesting read or all that relevant to understanding Passion, Pain & Demon Slayin':  I understand that would mean less material in the article, since I see lots there uses his Tweets, but the reality of many articles is that their topics aren't that important if measured by the actual coverage they receive. Dan56 (talk) 20:06, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree what you're saying, I'm not a fan using Twitter as reliable source when they are better sources can be find. I also ask Ss112 about this topic as well, and he give me a note from WP:TWITTER that 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". So he give me advice to just archived the sources from becoming dead links and I did just that. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 15:00, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Starboy reverts
Do you see that IP user reverting me? Do you agree with him? I've never seen anybody say that who played what instrument on what song wasn't allowed to be in the Personnel section. it seems odd they would revert me. I took like 40 min doing that Personnel section. I shouldn't have done the individual tracks on the producers. --Jennica ✿ / talk 00:01, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Well I don't have much to say on the matter, but I don't agree with this IP's opinion. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 18:40, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi. I reverted it because it looked like they removed the certification. That's what it looked like on my end anyway. It was a mistake I guess. Sorry! --Jennica ✿ / talk 10:02, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
 * No need to apologize for your mistake, the edit made by the IP appears to be a test edit, but remove it shortly after. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 05:03, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Your opinion
I left a reply to an editor at User talk:Lemongirl942. You may wish to comment. Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 12:44, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

IP's edits to I Decided
I was going to say, I think you should go ahead and report. They don't seem to have any concept of proper grammar or the Manual of Style, and they are continuing to be disruptive and change the prose on I Decided (album). I think with your warnings and mine, it adds up to enough to be reported.  Ss 112  12:05, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Who never behind these edits is possibly using multiple accounts too. I have reported another IP earlier and have Laser brain to blocked this editor. Now it seems the editor is using another IP access and continue these test edits to articles (especially hip hop articles). Just take a look at Hurricane Chris (rapper) edit history, the edits are almost the same. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 07:11, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Yeah, it looks like the same user using different IPs one after the other. Maybe you can tell Laser brain again, or report them however you did last time. Their grammar is terrible, and their changes are disruptive as they keep making them and add nothing constructive.  Ss 112  13:27, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I agreed, I will reported this IP right away. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 07:42, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

DJ Khaled
Hey Peanuts, I see that you are a very good contributor to DJ Khaled's album Major Key and i got to ask you a question. Somebody made his new upcoming album Grateful with no refs to it, should it be a redirect or do we leave it as it is. JustDoItFettyg (talk) 01:07, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
 * It's too early for an article for this upcoming album, right now we only know the single, so delete the article until we get more news on it. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 19:26, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Okay Thanks, I just wasn't sure if we should of kept the page or not. JustDoItFettyg (talk) 01:53, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
 * It barely been a year since DJ Khaled released his latest album, like I said earlier, if we get more information of this upcoming album, we should have see it on iTunes or other music related sites, as a pre-order release. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 20:16, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Ways to improve Tell Your Friends (The Weeknd song)
Hi, I'm CaroleHenson. Thanks for creating Tell Your Friends (The Weeknd song)!

I've just tagged the page, using our page curation tools, as having some issues to fix. There are references for the weekly charts, but not for the text within the article, so I have tagged the article to improve the references.

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.–CaroleHenson (talk) 15:17, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

American recording artist
Humble (song) has "recording artist". I see this on a lot of hip hop related articles. Would "American rapper" be better? thanks --Jennica ✿ / talk 22:40, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
 * According to Ss112, "Recording artist" is still rarely used on Wikipedia. We use more general terms. And I agreed with him on that, so I think "American rapper" make more sense. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 17:57, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I can't remember if it was you or someone else who also was against the use of "eponymous".. someone just added it to Harry Styles (album). What do you think? --Jennica ✿ / talk 01:50, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I never edit anything in that article, I mostly edit articles that are related to hip-hop and R&B. So it isn't me. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 21:05, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Question
I saw that you like the panda express so, is the food there good? We used to have one in my town but it was shutdown before I moved there. Dinah Kirkland (talk) 23:16, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
 * We don't ask that kind of question here because it have nothing to do with Wikipedia, but I will say the food is fine. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 19:22, 1 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Okay sorry but thank you. Dinah Kirkland (talk) 00:26, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

4:44
Hi. I was wondering if you could look through 4:44 (album) and see if anything needs to be reworded, since you have made a lot of articles. I have written a bulk of the article and I am not totally confident in the wording of some things... and nobody has changed much of it so far. If not, that's ok. thanks --Jennica ✿ / talk 04:52, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't see nothing wrong with the article, it's looks okay to me. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 01:12, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I added a little bit now and I feel it's a little disjointed. Hopefully someone will make it a little more cohesive. thanks for all your expansion on Big Fish Theory btw. --Jennica ✿ / talk 11:27, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Your welcome. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 07:12, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Genre of Slide (Calvin Harris song)
Hi User:TheAmazingPeanuts, can you tell me what these sources are calling "Slide" by Calvin Harris please? I don't know when a music writer's not specific enough for it to be certain that the genres named are specifically in reference to the song, but I know it has to be explicitly and directly called a genre though (not just "influenced" or "mixed").--Theo Mandela (talk) 07:26, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Am not that good when it comes to genres, I myself ask editor's opinions about what genres are correct based on what source they on. So I think you should ask another editor about this topic. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 03:43, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
 * User:TheAmazingPeanuts, could you recommend any users please?--Theo Mandela (talk) 08:51, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
 * These editors are SnapSnap, Dan56, Walter Görlitz and Gentlecollapse6. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 03:59, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
 * That's great User:TheAmazingPeanuts, thanks for that.--Theo Mandela (talk) 13:50, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Be careful ;-)
I saw your report at AIV regarding and noticed the edit war going on at Rather You Than Me. I've blocked the user for 24 hours; just wanted to give you a friendly warning to make sure that you also don't violate 3RR and engage in edit warring yourself ;-). Keep in mind that if it's not an action that's listed as exempt from 3RR, it's generally going to be considered content-related by others. It doesn't matter "how correct" your revision is or "how incorrect" theirs are; it all counts :-). Anyways, thanks for the AIV report - it's all taken care of. It's good to run into you again; hope you're having a good weekend :-)  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   20:04, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't want to get in a edit war with this editor in the first place, I could just ask another editor to revert the edits for me, like I did before. The problem about the edits that they are not supported by reliable sources, and the editor have a history of get in a edit war with another editor before. I wasn't surprised that you respond to me about my reverts on at the article you mentioned, I might have violate the three-revert rule for keep reverting the editor's edits, so I sorry for the trouble. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 15:35, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Move review for Damn (Kendrick Lamar album)
An editor has asked for a Move review of Damn (Kendrick Lamar album). Because you were involved in the move discussion for this page, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the move review. — The   Magnificentist  12:15, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

A pie for you!

 * You're welcome. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 22:53, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Lil Uzi Vert
So is it possible that I could use that source on Lil Uzi Vert's page instead of Luv Is Rage 2? SuperLuigi22 (talk) 22:31, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I think you can, I asked a follow editor about the source here, and she agreed that the source only describes the music of Lil Uzi Vert. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 17:40, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Nice! Thanks! SuperLuigi22 (talk) 22:46, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Culture (Migos album)
As I said, anybody can contribute something to WP:ALBUMS/SOURCES if they think it's a reputable source. If an RSN discussion deemed it wasn't, then it shouldn't be on there. Not everything on Wikipedia will be consistent and not every user checks RSN. Now to the other matter: as several admins told you a while ago when you brought up several IP addresses who edited them, your persistent reversions of any contributions to hip hop album pages is getting to the point where you're acting like you WP:OWN them instead of what you actually are: just one of many contributors to those pages. If your material is challenged in a revert, you don't keep reverting convinced that you are right. Per WP:BRD, you discuss. Also, just because somebody else has the current revision and has changed something on a hip hop page on your watchlist, does not mean you need to go in and edit again so yours is. That's what it looks like sometimes.  Ss  112   05:32, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't know what you talking about, no admins have never tell me about I own these articles, you just see it that way, and the IP addresses I reported are justified. The only thing I guilty of is edit warring and I got blocked for that. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 00:06, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm not talking about your block(s) and I didn't say the IP addresses weren't doing anything else shady. I specifically remember administrators telling you upon your making these reports at least twice that you were editing as if you owned the pages that you were making all these reverts on—that it appeared you had to agree with all changes made to them, like you're the gatekeeper of them. You're correct: I also am starting to see it that way because as I just pointed out, when IPs edit a page that must be on your watchlist, you revert often without providing an explanation (which should not be done if it's not blatant vandalism) and even when other registered editors make some change, you find something else to do so you have the "Current" edit. It doesn't need to be done. Of course no editor upon WP:OWN being brought up agrees, but it often looks that way to others, so perhaps take a step back and examine what you're doing more closely on the pages you edit.  Ss  112   06:46, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I know Wikipedia is made for everybody and no articles own by anybody. I not trying to act like I own these articles and trying to be the current editor of an article. When an IP or another registered editor add incorrect or unsourced content in an article, I will revert it, but reverting without explaining why could be a problem with some editors. I try to act better in the future and won't be reverting so much if it needed. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 01:23, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

More Life
I would like to apologize for causing commotion on the More Life page. I recognize that more sources refer to it as a mixtape than an album. I have changed More Life's status back to mixtape. My apologies. Ajlantarctica (talk) 21:30, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I accept your apology, but next time explained why you think something is wrong instead of reverting, that's why we have talk pages for. I don't wanna get in a edit war with this issue. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 15:47, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Lil Boat 2
Hi. I see upon revering the user Percivl on Lil Boat 2, you used the edit summary "rvv". This generally means "revert vandalism", and their edits were not vandalism, so please be a bit careful about using this summary as editors might take issue with their edits being categorised as vandalism.  Ss  112   00:15, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I didn't know that "rvv" means "revert vandalism", so that's was a mistake on my part, so I sorry for the confusion. I try to be a bit more careful using that summary if there was actual vandalism. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 19:52, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

Alphabetical order
Hi. Why are you going around and moving "BLSSD" before "Ben Billions" (for example) in the alphabetical order of producers on hip hop album articles? Something being in capital letters doesn't negate alphabetical order. If it were "D.J." that might be a different story, as the punctuation changes things. Did you get this from somewhere/another editor? Because I don't think they're right: Alphabetical order states: "Capital letters (upper case) are generally considered to be identical to their corresponding lower case letters for the purposes of alphabetical ordering".  Ss  112   12:47, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
 * The all-caps articles are listed in that way in "Edit watchlist". For example, DS2 is listed before Damn, while GO:OD AM is listed before Genesis. That's where I get that idea from. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 08:16, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Well that appears to be only in the watchlist, as pretty much all other aspects of alphabetical order on Wikipedia mix them, as they should be. See Category:American rappers: capitalised letters are mixed with uncapitalised ones. Placing capitalised titles before uncapitalised ones is not the way alphabetical order works, so you should undo your changes to those articles. Wikipedia's watchlist is obviously coded to place them there; it is not a rule of thumb or something we should all attempt to emulate in article prose.  Ss  112   13:20, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I see your point now. I will revert my edits, sorry for the confusion. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 08:29, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Walk It Talk It (Migos song)
Per your edit summary on Walk It Talk It (Migos song), a song does not need to be sent to radio in 2018 to make it a single. It's one way a song can be a single, but not the only. Radio is becoming less and less relevant as time goes on; radio networks the world over are shedding audiences by the month—relying on this as a method of determining what is and is not a single is not accounting for the wide variety of avenues through which one can release their music commercially. It is still not a requirement on Wikipedia that we need to have a radio add date before we can call a song, in any genre or format, a single.  Ss  112   05:13, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
 * You could be right. The song might be a single afterall despite never be on radio, as long it is supported by an reliable source. Right? TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 00:32, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes. Also, I just saw this edit of yours on Culture II. Radiodate.it is considered a reliable source for Italian radio release dates, but we should go by earliest release date for a single.  Ss  112   12:09, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I didn't know Radiodate.it is a reliable source, so my mistake. Never good at singles. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 07:22, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

IP Vandalism
I've about had enough of this. I just blocked IP 2601:240:C300:58D:0:0:0:0/64 x 3 months. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:25, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
 * This editor is just here to be a pest, this editor clearly knows the guidelines but continue to be disruptive. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 17:39, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Clearly WP:NOTHERE. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:56, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
 * He's using this account now . TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 00:50, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * Thanks. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 00:38, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * Thanks. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 23:33, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Comment for RfC involving genre in the infobox
Can you please vote or comment at this RfC involving the removal of "heavy metal" from the infobox at Back in Black? Dan56 (talk) 23:58, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Flower Boy
How likely do you think it is for it to get to GA status? Aitch &#38; Aitch Aitch (talk) 16:43, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't know too much how to get the article in GA status but I can tell that the articles are well sourced and well edited. I see you added some content in the article but some of the content is unsourced. For example, this have to be sourced. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 14:45, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

Editors
Would it be possible to get a few more experienced editors to help edit Tyler's album articles? I'm trying to get at least two of them up to GA but it's just too overwhelming. Aitch &#38; Aitch Aitch (talk) 15:34, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Here are the editors would probably help you out in the articles, Dan56, Ritchie333 and DannyMusicEditor. But my advice to you is to focus on only one article at a time, like the article Born to Die by Lana Del Rey, since the article is currently a good article nominee by you. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 14:31, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't really know what else to add to that one. I was thinking of starting with Goblin doing a sections about the production and music/lyrics. Aitch &#38; Aitch Aitch (talk) 17:27, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Take my advice, don't nominate articles to good article status if you not gonna add anything else. Try to focus on articles that you're interested in. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 14:29, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Okay. So should I just take off the GA nomination on Born to Die and start working on Goblin? Aitch &#38; Aitch Aitch (talk) 20:05, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I think you should take off the GA nomination on Born to Die since you don't know what to do with the article, if you want to start working on Goblin I say go ahead but you have to work other editors. And another thing, stop linking common words like this, everybody knows what a studio album is, it doesn't needs to be linked per WP:OVERLINK. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 17:43, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I did already make additions to Born to Die, I was just waiting for someone to review it. Aitch &#38; Aitch Aitch (talk) 09:49, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

Starboy (album)
Are you blind? I didn’t revert any edits at all, I added to existing edits myself. As you can see there is literally no difference at all when you reverted my edits. 🤨🤔😒Trillfendi (talk) 05:51, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
 * The reason that I think you reverted my edits because I was fixing some errors you made here, but you came back to made this edit. That's why I think you reverted my edit or restoring your edits. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 01:07, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

RE: Rodeo background section
Hey, I'll see what I can do with it Ninjinian (talk) 11:35, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Okay. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 21:25, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

FAC: Forca Bruta
If you have time, can you offer comments or review to this featured article nomination? The previous one faltered due to inactivity and belated review, so anything would be appreciated. Dan56 (talk) 04:55, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

Merry Christmas
Wishing you and yours a blessed feast. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:37, 25 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Merry Christmas to you as well. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 22:07, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * Thanks. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 14:17, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

"Unconstructive" edit
Hello TheAmazingPeanuts,

In regards to the warning you issued stating that I should refrain from making unconstructive edits, which you felt I did on I Am Greater Than I Was, I was only helping refer to the features in the track list as their stage names, and removed the indication of the features displayed in the notes. The point I'm trying to make is that it wasn't vandalism, or at least intended to be. It's unnecessarily impending a prohibition of me editing in the near future, because the only thing I did to the article was improvise a user's edit, which has nothing to do with causing unmerited harm to the article in general. A clarification would be helpful in regards to why it was vandalism, but otherwise I apologize if it was a disruptive edit.

Sincerely,

--Jimkuzi (talk) 00:00, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you for explaining your edits. My only problem with your edits that you remove this source without explaining why and the guest features are not credited on the album, they only credited as guest vocals. Next time use edit summaries when you removing sourced content. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 23:15, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

Rating template
Hi there. I was just wondering what you were referring to on Template:Rating for the Beautiful Thugger Girls page. Thanks. Koyyo (talk) 08:38, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
 * In the last sentence it says, Note that ratings on a scale of 10 can be hard to read if expressed visually with images. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 02:48, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Oh, my bad. Don't know how I missed that. Thanks for informing me. I'll take that into account from now on. Koyyo (talk) 08:50, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

HotNewHipHop
I read the discussion you linked before I removed it. The consensus of that discussion was two editors saying it was unreliable and you still insisting that it was. They agreed it could be used for minor claims such as release dates. In my edit I removed the citation out of the lead, because WP:LEAD says there should be no citations in the lead, and the thing it was citing did not need a source anyways since the album has already been released. As for the album review, according to WP: ALBUMS MOS we should only use sites that are on WP:ALBUM/SOURCES for reviews in critical reception sections. If HNHH is used in any other critical reception sections in any other article it needs to be removed ASAP. StaticVapor message me!   22:34, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Can you explain why more experience editors use this website, such as Ss112 and Holiday56 . The website have been used in multiple hip hop-related articles and nobody seems to have problem with it. It seems that only you have problem with it. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 18:43, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I explained my reasoning behind this change more in depth on WT:ALBUMS. I don't think the source is unusable, but are they reliable enough to take critical reviews from? That's my question. StaticVapor message me!   03:20, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I think the source is reliable because another pretty knowledgeable editor (Dan56) said the source is reliable because it have editorial oversight, but I gonna let other editors have their opinions about this source. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 22:45, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Yeah sorry for the confusion here, if consensus is that it is reliable thats great for all of us, I just didn't see that in the previous discussion. StaticVapor message me!   04:02, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
 * It's okay. I admit the previous discussion wasn't very good because we don't know for sure HotNewHipHop is a reliable source or not, this time I asked other editors to join in if they went to. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 23:21, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Luv Is Rage
A user recently redirected Luv Is Rage. What do you think, is it notable enough to have an article? Do you think there are enough sources out there that could be found on it? (Also, if you respond, no need to ping me, I'm watching your talk page!)  Ss  112   20:18, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I a little mixed about this. I don't think the article should be redirected, however the article don't have much content to begin with and it doesn't help the mixtape didn't charted on the Billboard 200. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 19:33, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

No need to "fix" redirects
Hi, there's no need to "fix" redirects, as you did here, in fact the practice is discouraged. DuncanHill (talk) 23:28, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Notable sources
Do you have any WP that calls those sources not notable? I haven't reverted your edits as for all I know you might and I don't wish to engage in edit warring. Edit: Maybe 411Mania is as that's mainly WWE based, but do you have anything on the others? --Kyle Peake (talk) 07:24, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
 * The reason I remove those sources because they haven't be used in other articles and editors might get the idea that these sources are not reliable. I did take a second look at these sources (411Mania and Dummy Mag) and they seems reliable enough but The Triangle is a student newspaper, we avoid collage websites because they not professional per WP:V. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 03:01, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Alphabetical order
About your recent edits of the infoboxes on Kids See Ghosts and The Life of Pablo, I understand that your edits to the label's ordering are constructive. But they shouldn't be in this order, as so many of West's articles have them in the order with GOOD first, therefore it would be silly to have the opposite order on just some articles, plus GOOD is distributed by Def Jam which is why it comes first! --Kyle Peake (talk) 06:19, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
 * The reason why I have the labels order in alphabetically because the producers and studios are order in that way. I don't think we shouldn't just keep one list out of alphabetical order while the producers and studios are, it's seems like WP:CHERRYPICKING to me. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 01:46, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
 * The producers aren't in alphabetical order, plus the reasons are because it should be GOOD first for consistency with other West articles and the label is distributed by Def Jam. --Kyle Peake (talk) 07:02, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Okay but should we at least added "released on February 14, 2016, by GOOD Music distributed by Def Jam Recordings" in the lead section? TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 02:39, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Yeah that's understandable, make sure to add a comma after Music though. --Kyle Peake (talk) 07:47, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks and keep up the good work on TLOP and KSG. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 02:51, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
 * It's a honor, the latter is already GA nominated and TLOP will be soon. --Kyle Peake (talk) 07:55, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

TLOP
As you're aware, I've been working very hard on The Life of Pablo ever since last month. I really want to make the album a GA but I'm not too familiar with how to do so for albums, besides the missing information about song lyrics (which I will add soon), are there any issues that would result in a quick fail or something like that? --Kyle Peake (talk) 16:04, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I not too good at reviewing articles but I think the article looks better then before. If you wanna ask another editor for this, I suggest asking Dan56 since he the one to have articles 808s & Heartbreak and My Beautiful Dark Twisted Fantasy in good article status. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 12:35, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Edit warring at Hollywood's Bleeding
Hi TheAmazingPeanuts, please be careful when reverting other editors on the Hollywood's Bleeding article. You've reverted IP editors 4 times in the last 24 hours (Special:Diff/933040995, Special:Diff/933077649, Special:Diff/933090880, and Special:Diff/933091431) in a content dispute about the album's genre. Since the three-revert rule is a bright-line rule, any administrator would have grounds to block you for reverting a fourth time. In the future, please engage with editors (including IP editors) on the article's talk page, and try other forms of dispute resolution if you're not able to reach an agreement with them. Thanks. —  Newslinger  talk   00:46, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
 * The editor was genre warring and using different accounts, which is considered sock puppetry. There's already been an discussion about the genres of the album back in October 2019, me and Binksternet mostly agreed that the sources generally called the album pop, the only editor that disagree with us in the discussion is Billiekhalidfan, who in the past added genres like this in the article. So I don't fully agreed that I was edit warring. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 21:35, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
 * No problem. In the future, if you're claiming an exemption to the three-revert rule (WP:3RRNO), please be sure to mention that in your edit summary. ("If you are claiming an exemption, make sure there is a clearly visible edit summary or separate section of the talk page that explains the exemption.") It would be even better if you submit a protection request and revert after the protection is in place. —  Newslinger  talk   03:47, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I take your advice next time if something similar like this happened, sorry if I being disruptive. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 21:56, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
 * No worries, I just wanted to make sure that you're safely within the rules in case someone reports a similar situation to a noticeboard in the future. The article would end up worse if you were blocked on a technicality. —  Newslinger  talk   03:59, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Edit count
Amazing Peanuts - Just keep doing your good editing and forget the edit count. The numbers will follow. Eschoryii (talk) 09:50, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 09:55, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

IP editor editing hip hop articles
Hey there. I see you've had some issues with after they edit warred at Crash Talk. As you frequent hip hop articles more than I do, can you keep an eye on them? Now they're trying to claim reviews or sources say Pop Smoke's Meet the Woo 2 is hip hop or drill when they say no such thing. I'm not sure if this editor is a sock or not, but it seems suspicious, so I'll report them to Ad Orientem.  Ss  112   05:46, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I have not idea who is this editor is but my picks are Xboxmanwar or JayPe, especially JayPe due to the way they added BMI in the songwriting credits . TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 07:16, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Oh, I forgot about those editors. Well, I've reported the IP editor to Bbb23 and added your suggestions. Until/if they are blocked, please help keep an eye on their edits.  Ss  112   07:46, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Sure, I will keep an eye on their edits. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 08:02, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

Regarding Variety
Hello! I was just wondering if I should not use Variety in template even though MC gives it a score. I understand your point, was just wondering if MC score wasn't enough. Zandor (talk) 21:11, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Despite MC gives Variety a score, it's best not to take scores from MC because it sometimes be misleading. When a review without a score is added in MC, we usually add the review in the article body instead. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 21:25, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Okay, I see, I will take that into consideration in future edits. Also, thank you for fixing my wrongdoings. I'm still fairly new to editing here so mistakes occur at times. Zandor (talk) 21:32, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
 * You're welcome. Other editors Binksternet and Isento may explain the issue better since they been here longer than me. But I glad you understand. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 21:44, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

Blonde revision
Thanks for the revision on my recent edit on Blonde regarding the alternate track list. However, I am unsure why you removed my edit about the alternate version of "Pretty Sweet" that is found in the magazine version of the CD. The only differences in the CD (from the magazine) are found in "Nikes" (added verse from KOHH) and "Pretty Sweet" (alternate intro and some minor vocal differences), and since you included the difference in "Nikes", then "Pretty Sweet" should also be mentioned. Bath2 (talk) 16:23, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I have restore the note back to the article. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 16:43, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Jesus Is King
Just so this doesn't turn into an edit war, I will remind you that incase you misread what I put the issue is that the review should not be included as it makes the reception too extensive as there is already enough to show the reviews were mixed, for elaborating. --Kyle Peake (talk) 09:50, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I see the issue but you could just remove the less notable reviews and restore Robert Christgau's review. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 18:33, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

AOTY
The discussion you provided doesn't allude to being unreliable. Besides, "Content from websites whose content is largely user-generated is also generally unacceptable." And the rest of the User-generated content section doesn't mention the critic ratings that are added by registered users which then checked by the staff of the site is unreliable. Because Metacritic and Rotten Tomatoes also uses critic ratings submitted by users, their staff checks them too, so you can't skew a score, or manipulate it into whatever you want on these sites. Sebastian James what's the T? 10:08, 25 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm mixed about the website, I think website is fine but however as isento pointed out, the site does not offer much information about how it works; as seen here. I think the site could be used but other editors like Holiday56 would remove it, since he the most who add reviews in album-related articles. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 04:43, 25 December 2019 (UTC)
 * It's me, the editor you were talking about on User talk:Koavf. I'm here to inform you that AOTY precedes ADM in the template, so there is no reason to change the order. −αΣn=1NDi[n][Σj∈C{i}Fji[n − 1]+Fexti[(n^−1)]  10:01, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
 * , Yes it does, even you added AOTY in that fashion . So I don't see the reason why you revert my edit for, it's just make you look like a hypocrite then anything else. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 10:12, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, because it happened approximately 2 months ago when the parameter was recently added and I didn't know AOTY preceded ADM. Stop personal attacks, or else you will be reported. −αΣn=1NDi[n][Σj∈C{i}Fji[n − 1]+Fexti[(n^−1)]  10:39, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
 * , That wasn't a personal attack, I only calling you a hypocrite because you make the exact same edit as I did in the article Vulnicura. Don't falsely accuse somebody for calling you out. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 11:33, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
 * It IS a personal attack. You literally compared an old edit that is not relevant to this conversation, and assumed something that I didn't do on another editor's talk page. I don't have any more time for your stupid shenanigans. If you continue to ping me and/or contact me, I will report you. Last warning. −αΣn=1NDi[n][Σj∈C{i}Fji[n − 1]+Fexti[(n^−1)]  12:26, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
 * , You clearly don't know what a personal attack is. I have no interest in continue in this petty argument, have a nice day. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 12:51, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

After Hours (The Weeknd album)
After Hours (The Weeknd album) has been fully protected for two days. Please discuss the matter on the talk page because as it stands, you are edit warring with. Even if you think you are in the right, you can get blocked if it continues.  Anarchyte  ( talk &#8226;  work ) 06:09, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
 * , What are you talking about? I wasn't edit warring, the IP was adding unnecessary formatting in the chart section and I was following the guidelines (MOS:TABLECAPTION). I even left a message at their talk page here, and I don't know why you have to fully protected the page. The editor seems get the warning and haven't edit the page after last warning. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 06:31, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
 * You were edit warring. Unless it's listed here (which it isn't), reverting multiple times, no matter ""how correct" your revision is or "how incorrect" theirs are", it's edit warring (you reverted 5 times). I'm giving you this warning (rather than sending you a boilerplate template) because you've been warned about it—and blocked for it—in the past. I protected the page because I want to give you both time to reflect and move on; I don't want to decline it as NEA right now and then have it reappear at RFPP tomorrow because two users can't agree on how a header should be formatted. You're a great editor, but note that this is a caution and if you're not careful, you will be blocked again if you keep up this trend of reverting people without discussion. And for what it's worth, I gave the same caution to the IP.  Anarchyte  ( talk &#8226;  work ) 11:06, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
 * , I personally don't care about this issue anymore, even if I try to engage with the editor, they are not gonna response to me and keep on editing after that. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 11:28, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Kids See Ghosts
I believe this album is ready for becoming an FA candidate but you are strongly advised to pick a mentor before nominating, so I thought I'd ask for your input. Have closed the peer review request as it has been taking way too long. --Kyle Peake (talk) 19:09, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
 * , I'm not very good at reviewing articles since my grammar isn't that good. I suggest asking other editors for this, sorry I can't be any help. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 03:19, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

VisualEditor
Hi AmazingPeanuts, can you let me know the difference between not using VisualEditor? Isaacsorry (talk) 09:40, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
 * , Your edits are tagged as "Visual edit" in your contributions, which implies that you using VisualEditor. In one of your most recent edits, you made this edit in the article Views, which have some format errors in it. If you want to become an better editor, I advise you to stop using VisualEditor because it will have errors while using it, and some editors such as AshMusique don't want to clean up after you. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 10:03, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Blonde (Yung Lean's feature)
Hey, I just realized Lean is not officially credited on Blonde and that's why he can't be credited for track 7 in the wikipedia page but that's 100% him in the second chorus. I think it would be cool to have a "possible uncredited personnel" section or something.

Cheers, david. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.22.48.23 (talk) 17:38, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
 * , Even if Yung Lean's vocals is on the track "Self Control", it's still need to be supported by a source. Adding unsourced content in articles is considered disruptive. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 03:38, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * , Thank you, I also appreciate your work on Wikipedia. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 08:59, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Celebritynetworth.com as a source
Hi TheAmazingPeanuts. I noticed that you recently used Celebritynetworth.com as a source in Save Me (EP). Please note that the general consensus as expressed at WP:RSN and WP:RSP is that it does not meet the reliable sourcing criteria for such information. I've gone ahead and removed it. If you disagree, let's discuss it. Thanks.--Hipal/Ronz (talk) 17:10, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
 * , That's okay, I was considering to remove it myself. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 20:06, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Sorry
Was eating supper. I see 331dot has blocked them. Unfortunately I am going to be offline again for most of the rest of the week, but this looks like a NOTHERE account. I left a note below their block notice. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:33, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I understand that you don't have time to be in Wikipedia right now, that's why I remove the report because I already see somebody else has blocked the editor. So don't worry, enjoy your tip. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 22:57, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Unorthodox and 24K Magic
I want to thank you for the help with the articles I mentioned above, I was wondering if you could do the same for Doo-Wops & Hooligans?

Best regards, MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 13:18, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
 * You're welcome and don't worry about Doo-Wops & Hooligans, I will to that article later today or tomorrow. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 13:34, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 18:37, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * Thank you. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 19:34, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

Unorthodox and 24K Magic
I want to thank you for the help with the articles I mentioned above, I was wondering if you could do the same for Doo-Wops & Hooligans?

Best regards, MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 13:18, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
 * You're welcome and don't worry about Doo-Wops & Hooligans, I will to that article later today or tomorrow. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 13:34, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 18:37, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * Thank you. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 19:34, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

MOS:TABLECAPTION
Hello,

I have noticed you have been making muliple edits on several articles and most of them seem to have are related to MOS:TABLECAPTION. Nevertheless, I'm having some trouble getting a grasp of the aforementioned subject. If the summary of the section says for example "charts", and before the charts table it says "weekly charts" or "year-end charts", why should be a caption saying "Weekly chart performance for X" or "year-end charts performance for X". Isn't it a given that is the weekly/year-end chart for X song, isn't it a bit repetitive and unecessary? The subject is about song X, not Y, or any other...so I don't understand why it needs to be added? Isn't it clear enough in the title of the summary and its subsection?

If you don't mind, please ping me so I see the response. Best regards, MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 00:35, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I think editor Koavf might do a better job by explaining this. I have a little discussion with him awhile ago about this issue. I also made some edits in the chart sections of Unorthodox Jukebox and 24K Magic, to make it appear less repetitive . What do you think of the edits? TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 04:44, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I will try to reach him. Sure, they do look better. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 14:40, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

Juice Wrld
Greetings friend,

As far as I'm aware we've never spoken and our paths cross infrequently, but I can't help but notice and be impressed by your work with hip hop related articles on Wikipedia. While I mostly enjoy rock and alternative music and have done a lot of work there, I love Juice, and I am wondering if I can get a pair of experienced, comfortable eyes on this article which I've sent for peer review; rap articles are generally way out of my comfort zone. If you don't have the time, I understand, but I have little faith in the PR process as the last two I've opened have been archived with no response and I have a mostly successful nomination rate for GA without it (which I usually go for). Also, I uh, have a question at the bottom of his talk page regarding a source for his new collab with the Weeknd.  danny music editor  oops 02:55, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, I'm not interested in reviewing the article. I suggest you ask other editors, such as Binksternet, Kyle Peake, and Koavf. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 03:16, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Appreciate you taking the time to respond, I understand. Are you able to answer my sourcing question at the bottom of the page, tho?  danny music editor  oops 05:08, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
 * What source are you talking about? TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 05:40, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I'll copy it here:

"I need some help determining if these references are reliable. Hip hop is out of my comfort zone on Wikipedia. Do any of these work to cite the claim I placed a "citation needed" tag on for his song "Smile"?"


 * The claim in question was:

""Smile" was previously leaked on YouTube and SoundCloud under the name "Sad", though with an open verse in place of The Weeknd's."

 danny music editor  oops 01:58, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
 * All the sources are reliable, but I would pick NME since the website is more notable. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 03:09, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Chart tables
Hello,

I know you have been merging the chart tables of separate years in many articles, though this is WP:GOODFAITH I disapprove since when you start using the sortable option for positions it becomes unclear which year a position is from. Can you agree with this in mind that separate years should be kept apart? --K. Peake 21:23, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't think the charts should be kept apart. Maybe the sortable option could be remove instead. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 01:05, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Not a good idea since that is part of the template for charts, plus people like to sort for seeing where something charted highest without having to look through every single position. Do you see why I believe in keeping them apart? --K. Peake 03:40, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Okay now I see the problem, I well restore those charts as before as soon as possible. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 04:04, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Year-end table charts
Just a question regarding some of the modifications, should the caption on the tables read for example "2019 Year-end chart performance for XXXX" or simply "Year-end chart performance for XXXX". I'm asking as the year in question is right below the caption in the table and seems quite repetitive? Should the same approach be taken on those albums/singles that only appeared on a single year end charts? Cheers, MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 15:06, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I already have a discussion with Kyle Peake about merging chart tables is not a good common practice, and should be in separate years apart. I currently don't see why it's repetitive to have each year-end chart with a table caption. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 18:02, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I know regarding the first topic, I saw that. Ok, thank you for letting me know. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 21:50, 16 August 2020 (UTC)