User talk:Till/Archive 6

Happy new year!

 * Thanks Penguin! Till  05:41, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Happy new year!

 * Thanks! Till  14:40, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Happy New Year 2013

 * Thaaaannks :) Till  14:40, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

List of songs recorded by the Sugababes
When do you want to start? AARON • TALK  14:53, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I started it yesterday in my userbox, I've saved up to D, although I have done most of F, I just haven't saved it yet...because I'm on another computer. I don't know if that makes sense lol. Till  14:55, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Btw, the article is List of songs recorded by Sugababes, cause they don't have an article 'the'. Till  14:57, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Oh yeah hehe. Thought it was funny that there wasn't an article. Okay cool, do you want to add that into the article then? AARON &bull; TALK   15:00, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
 * K I added. I guess we can work on it from there now. Till  15:04, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Okay, leave the lead until the table is finished, as only the lead counts at DYK. AARON &bull; TALK   15:07, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Okay, I removed the lead sentence too. Till  15:08, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
 * The album note references need to be changed to AARON &bull; TALK   15:32, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Okay, did you want to change them for me since I CBA right now? :) Till  01:14, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm moving on to the next place of my holiday now so if I can I will. AARON &bull; TALK   10:06, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Okay then. Enjoy your vacation/holiday in the meantime. Till  11:08, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Talkback
I suggest you start an RfC on this Issue. Regards. ~ TheGeneralUser  (talk)  05:11, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * Thanks ^_^ Till  22:10, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Talkback
- Saulo  Talk to Me 12:32, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

List of unreleased Britney Spears songs
I had my eye on this one. There were 8 "unreleased" articles there 1st Jan, on the 2nd I put merge tags on those where there was a "List of songs recorded by" with the intention of listing them all at once with much the same as I have posted here. Why no deletion for the remaining six? --Richhoncho (talk) 20:35, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * Wow thanks :) Till  03:33, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

A brownie for you!

 * Hello :) Thank you for the brownie Till  03:15, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Talkback
— ΛΧΣ  21  03:11, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

You've got mail!
Just in case you didn't see :) —  ΛΧΣ  21  04:04, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Powderfinger discography
I believe I have addressed your concerns at FLRC:Powderfinger discography and would be interested if you have any further concerns.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 23:12, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Stronger (Sugababes song)
Casliber (talk · contribs) 17:34, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Throwing toys out of the pram
Excuse me but posts like this are completely uncivil and uncalled for. In none of the discussions have I been personal about you or insulted you. I believe "Come Alive" is different to the other Sugababe articles because of the relative size of the parent alum which some users have complained is to big hence we're looking at moving some of the information over to separate articles. Its got nothing to do with hypocrisy or being "a fan" of a particular artist. If you look I actually contributed a lot to the early creation of Sweet 7 and the singles that were released from it. I understand that "Come Alive" is on the cusp of notability but its a different kettle of fish to the Sugababe articles. If you can't criticise someone's edits edits instead of the editor then maybe you should think about wikipedia is. Its a collaborative effort to produce high quality informative articles. The deletion nominations were not anything personal but you've made it so by posting messages such as the ones you did on my page. I'm insulted, hurt and disappointed by your uncivility. Really, I am. &mdash;  Lil_ ℧ niquℇ № 1  [talk]  22:31, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't believe you at all. Heartbreak and Mess actually got coverage independently from the album, and were covered in their own sources, but where is the notability for Come Alive? Oh right there isn't. Everything is either about the album, from the liner notes, or Youtube, Leona herself, and reviews of the album. You are using WP:USEFUL for you Leona Lewis fans to have a separate article when it has no notability whatsoever. Just another double standard to apply different rules to different editors. Goodbye. Till  00:30, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
 * What you've said would be relevant if there wasn't one BIG difference. Glassheart is liek 120kb long and people have complained about the article being slow to load due to its size. Sweet 7 is a fraction of the size and could easily be edited to include a section about the composition of songs on the album which would vastly improve the Sweet 7 article. Erm it has nothing to do with fan-dom or rule-bending at all. The fact that you see it like that is quite sad because in the past you've always struck me as an enthusiastic and intelligent editor. I've nominated both "Thank You for the Heartbreak" and "She's a Mess" in WP:Good faith. The difference is I'll accept the outcome if people decide "Come Alive" is not notable though I would argue that it is a good attempt to rationalise information from Glassheart. If the two articles that you worked on get deleted, I think you'll take it as a personal vendetta. If you can't detach yourself from editing then perhaps it isnt the best thing for you. &mdash;  Lil_ ℧ niquℇ № 1  [talk]  20:52, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm not bothered if the articles get merged. All I'm saying is that it was hypocritical of you to nominate them and let 'Come Alive' have its own article, especially considering you wrote that Heartbreak and Mess didn't have significant coverage (even though they had their own sources) while you claimed that Come Alive is notable but it doesn't even have 1 decent source. You even said that everything from Heartbreak and Mess was from the album reviews which is not enough, yet you used that as an excuse to have Come Alive kept @ the DYK nom. Till  02:48, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
 * To be honest Till, her official VEVO, the album notes and album reviews which talk about the songs are perfectly fine to use. —  AARON  &bull; TALK   10:07, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Overrated (Siobhán Donaghy song)
Graeme Bartlett (talk) 16:02, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

RE:A barnstar for you!
Thanks a lot for the barnstar, appreciate it. :) --Khanassassin ☪ 11:27, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
 * You're welcome :) Till  11:34, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Want to be a guinea pig?
While working my way through the last Billboard change, I figured that a couple of templates to help discography editors could be useful. will return the integer number associated with that BillboardChart, and will return a URL for that chart for that artist, i.e.  will generate. The chart name mapping is documented at BillboardChartNum.

There's no fancy ref formatting or anything: just the raw URL. That way there shouldn't be any arguments about appearance to keep people from using them, and I can get them all to autoupdate the next time Billboard changes everything.&mdash;Kww(talk) 02:52, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't know how to do that, sorry Till  08:01, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
 * That's a problem ... if you can't figure it out, then most editors will have trouble. I just updated the documentation at BillboardURLbyName. Can you take a look and tell me what you think is confusing? The edit Status did here may help.&mdash;Kww(talk) 16:30, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
 * (Replace the URL with the template.) — Statυs  ( talk,  contribs ) 03:58, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

A discussion you may be interested in
Hello there. As someone who has promoted a discography to featured list status, you may be interested in this discussion at WikiProject Discographies. — Statυs  ( talk,  contribs ) 03:57, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Okay thanks Till  04:28, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Favour
Hello, I was wondering if you would be able to comment and/or cast a vote in support or opposition on my FAC Featured list candidates/List of songs recorded by Cheryl Cole/archive1, as only a couple of reviewers have posted comments and it has stalled in the last couple of weeks. Thank you. — AARON  • TALK   19:20, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Okay thanks Till  04:28, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

UK Chart Stats
Finally got a fix in place. The articles that need manual work are in &mdash;Kww(talk) 22:36, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
 * That's good, however, my memory is a bit foggy—what exactly was it that you fixed? Till  04:27, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
 * ukchartstats.com lost access to charts, so every reference was going to a page that explained that the charts had all gone away.&mdash;Kww(talk) 05:10, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Your comment at the FAC
Sorry I didn't answer before. What I told you, about detailed chart trajectories to be discouraged, wasn't from a previous discussion but from this: CHARTTRAJ. Regards. — ΛΧΣ  21  23:59, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I already know about that... you said "discussion" which I'm now assuming was an error Till  04:25, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
 * There was a discussion held on an FAC, but it was centered around that guideline. — ΛΧΣ  21  04:29, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Oh-k thanks, maybe I could find it by searching Till  04:30, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Featured article candidates/Cry Me a River (Justin Timberlake song)/archive1 See Wesley Doods comments :) — ΛΧΣ  21  04:33, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
 * But that for a single not album Till  04:42, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Talkback
— Tomíca (T2ME) 23:11, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I fixed most of the issues and added responses to the others. — Tomíca (T2ME) 10:47, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Hey, I think I fixed all the chart performance issues (LOL, I am fast I know!). Btw, can you please revisit the quotes issues in the composition section? I and some users made some fixes at them. Hope its fine to you now. — Tomíca (T2ME) 12:06, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Was just wondering when you are continuing the review? — Tomíca (T2ME) 22:41, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

"Overrated" disambiguation page
Hello! Please see User talk:Malik Shabazz. Thanks! —David Levy 07:35, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the notification Till  07:58, 15 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Hello. Thank you for your concern although Malik was justified in the deletion of the disambiguation page. Only one article with the title 'Overrated' exists, while the three other entries are merely mentioned as being part of an album (without articles). That is not enough justification for a disambiguation page to exist. Per, a disambiguation page may be deleted if it "disambiguates two or fewer extant Wikipedia pages" which it did, as Overrated is the only article for this title to exist.  Till  07:58, 15 February 2013 (UTC)


 * You've misunderstood the CSD. A disambiguation page need not link to articles solely about the subject reflected in the title.  When multiple songs sharing a title lack dedicated articles, we routinely link to articles about the albums containing them (thereby pointing readers to the most relevant Wikipedia articles available).
 * It's possible that the Siobhán Donaghy song is the primary topic, in which case it should occupy the base title. If so, the disambiguation page should have been moved to Overrated (disambiguation) and linked via a hatnote.  —David Levy 08:33, 15 February 2013 (UTC)


 * I didn't misunderstand anything, I'm just quoting policy. There is no point in having a disambiguation page for "Overrated" when only one article with that title exists. If the CSD was inappropriate, it wouldn't have been deleted by a professional admin but instead would have been declined. Till  08:46, 15 February 2013 (UTC)


 * You're misunderstanding the text that you're quoting; "disambiguates two or fewer extant Wikipedia pages" does not mean "disambiguates two or fewer extant Wikipedia pages with the same base title".
 * I've explained the point; readers seeking information about the other songs with that title are directed to our articles about the albums containing them. Again, that's standard procedure (and not just in this subject area).  Disambiguation pages point to relevant articles, not merely articles sharing a base title.
 * I'm an admin too. The role isn't "professional"; we're normal volunteer editors with access to a few extra tools.  We all make mistakes from time to time.  —David Levy 09:14, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I've explained the point; readers seeking information about the other songs with that title are directed to our articles about the albums containing them. Again, that's standard procedure (and not just in this subject area).  Disambiguation pages point to relevant articles, not merely articles sharing a base title.
 * I'm an admin too. The role isn't "professional"; we're normal volunteer editors with access to a few extra tools.  We all make mistakes from time to time.  —David Levy 09:14, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm an admin too. The role isn't "professional"; we're normal volunteer editors with access to a few extra tools.  We all make mistakes from time to time.  —David Levy 09:14, 15 February 2013 (UTC)


 * You should stop making a mountain out of a molehill because your tone and responses are starting to irritate me now. I already tried explaining it to you nicely, "Overrated" shouldn't have ever been made a DAB page because the Donaghy song is the primary topic. What I simply did here was CSD the page so the Donaghy song could be moved to that simplified title. I don't believe I did anything wrong there. Should other actions be taken following the move (such as adding a hatnote to convenience readers) is not my responsibility per WP:REQUIRED. That is all I have to say on this issue. Till  10:21, 15 February 2013 (UTC)


 * I'm simply discussing a concern. At no point have I claimed that this is an urgent matter of immense importance.
 * I'm sorry that you dislike my tone. I've done my best to engage in polite, respectful discourse.
 * And I've responded in kind.
 * That's entirely possible. As I noted above, if this is the case, the disambiguation page should have been moved to Overrated (disambiguation), not deleted.
 * And I'm explaining that this was erroneous. If the article about the Siobhán Donaghy song is the primary topic, the correct course of action was to move the disambiguation page (without leaving behind a redirect), thereby freeing up the "Overrated" title for your subsequent move.
 * You tagged a page with an inapplicable CSD tag.
 * You did so, of course, in good faith. I have no doubt that you sincerely believed the CSD to be applicable and acted with the best of intentions.  I'm not accusing you of engaging in misconduct.
 * The hatnote would point to the relocated disambiguation page, which currently doesn't exist.
 * And I'm not requesting (let alone demanding) any additional actions on your part. I initiated this discussion to address the deletion (over which you have no control).  I left a note on your talk page as a courtesy and a means of explaining the situation to you.  —David Levy 11:13, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
 * And I'm explaining that this was erroneous. If the article about the Siobhán Donaghy song is the primary topic, the correct course of action was to move the disambiguation page (without leaving behind a redirect), thereby freeing up the "Overrated" title for your subsequent move.
 * You tagged a page with an inapplicable CSD tag.
 * You did so, of course, in good faith. I have no doubt that you sincerely believed the CSD to be applicable and acted with the best of intentions.  I'm not accusing you of engaging in misconduct.
 * The hatnote would point to the relocated disambiguation page, which currently doesn't exist.
 * And I'm not requesting (let alone demanding) any additional actions on your part. I initiated this discussion to address the deletion (over which you have no control).  I left a note on your talk page as a courtesy and a means of explaining the situation to you.  —David Levy 11:13, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
 * The hatnote would point to the relocated disambiguation page, which currently doesn't exist.
 * And I'm not requesting (let alone demanding) any additional actions on your part. I initiated this discussion to address the deletion (over which you have no control).  I left a note on your talk page as a courtesy and a means of explaining the situation to you.  —David Levy 11:13, 15 February 2013 (UTC)


 * You don't have to single out every sentence I make and analyse it. It's condescending and unnecessary. Till  11:44, 15 February 2013 (UTC)


 * I apologize if my replies have come across in that light. I've used one of our standard quotation templates, as I often do, to identify the text to which I'm responding (which otherwise might be unclear).  My intent is only to facilitate communication, not to project smugness or condescension.  —David Levy 12:19, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

The tagging was not inapplicable, because I have previously tagged similar pages with the same criteria and they were deleted by admins. Yet I encountered no problems whatsoever. I'm sorry but I still don't understand the problem here. Till 12:00, 15 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Can you please provide examples of such tagging on your part? It's possible that those applications were correct.  It also is possible that admins erred.  We aren't perfect.
 * The problem is that a valid disambiguation page was deleted. I'm don't assert that it should have occupied the "Overrated" title or that you were incorrect to move the article about the Siobhán Donaghy song there.  I'm saying that the disambiguation page didn't "disambiguate two or fewer extant Wikipedia pages" and shouldn't have been deleted.  —David Levy 12:19, 15 February 2013 (UTC)


 * I think it was called "Back Down". Btw Dave I think I know what your talking about. Is the situation here something like In the Middle, which is the primary topic for that title, although there is also In the Middle (disambiguation) which lists other entries with the same title? I created that DAB page btw.  Till  12:39, 15 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Yes, that's a comparable example. The primary topic's article is located at In the Middle, with a hatnote pointing to the disambiguation page (on which the two other links lead to album articles).
 * Indeed, I just examined your deleted contributions for instances of "G6" and noticed Back Down as an anomaly. (The other G6 taggings appear to have been valid.)
 * I need to bring to your attention an issue that I initially overlooked. You stated that "a disambiguation page may be deleted if it disambiguates two or fewer extant Wikipedia pages".  This omits an important condition: "...and whose title ends in '(disambiguation)' (i.e., there is a primary topic)".
 * This is because a disambiguation page should occupy a title with "(disambiguation)" appended only when the base title is occupied by (or redirects to) an article about the primary topic. In such an instance, if only one other article exists, it can simply be linked via a hatnote; no disambiguation page is needed.
 * Conversely, a two-topic disambiguation page occupying the base title might be valid (if no primary topic exists). That's why the CSD explicitly doesn't apply to two-topic disambiguation pages whose titles don't end in "(disambiguation)".
 * So the tag didn't shouldn't have been applied to Back Down, a disambiguation page that you created after moving its original occupant to Back Down (50 Cent song). Malik Shabazz performed this deletion as well (and might not have noticed that articles about the albums existed, as you delinked them in a previous edit).  —David Levy 13:03, 15 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Okay thanks Till  13:25, 15 February 2013 (UTC)


 * You're welcome. Thanks for your consideration and understanding.  Sorry again for seeming rude earlier.  —David Levy 13:29, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

FLRC for Powderfinger discography is still open
FLRC/Powderfinger discography is still open. You presented a case for its demotion over a month ago: I believed that I have addressed all your concerns by 11 January. I've also handled concerns from other editors and believe that the list should retain its FL status. Could you provide a response to the current situation of the list.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 14:32, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Your FAC
Yes Till, I will today evening (in about 14 hours). Right now I am getting ready to go to work. I really appreciate all the effort you are putting on that article. Jivesh 1205 (Talk) 04:01, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you, I hope you have a good day at work Till  06:01, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Cookies for you!


Jussychoulex has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. You can spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.

To spread the goodness of cookies, you can add {{subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!


 * Thanks! Till  23:32, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Evidence
Go ahead and send it.&mdash;Kww(talk) 21:05, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Sent Till  00:03, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Note...
Not trying to be hard, but U1'ing a talk page raises red flags for any admin and we are expected to NOT do that unless there is a really, really solid and obvious reason that oversighting won't do the job (ie: vanishing, and even then it usually isn't done). This is what Oversighters are for, and why they get the big bucks. It isn't about you, it is about proper procedure for us admin. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 16:31, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
 * But the page was already deleted, everything was fine before it was randomly restored. Till  16:36, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Looking at the logs, it was restored because it was deleted against policy. U1 doesn't apply to user pages, which are held to a different standard.  The admin who deleted it made a mistake.  WP:DELTALK covers this.  We admin are expected to NOT delete a user talk page, and it can be seen as an abuse of tools if we do so without clear and convincing evidence as to why it is required.  Like all admin actions, it is subject to being reversed by any other admin.  This is why you contact a Functionary, ie: an Oversighter.  Again, it isn't about you, this is the same I would say (and have said) regarding deleting any users talk pages.  We just had this discussion the other day with an admin that deleted his own talk pages, and I said the same thing: You can't do that without very, very good cause. Dennis Brown - 2¢  © Join WER 16:52, 5 March 2013 (UTC)