Contents

User talk:Ss112: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 11:58, 3 July 2018

My post was redirected for having "Basically all primary sources, no notability established". I am confused by this but I can personally provide proof for everything. I do not know if this is the right place to put this but I looked everywhere to get in contact with you. I made the article with little source code knowledge; minus some wikia posts a couple years back. I used this person's other EP as a standard and you could create a parallel with everything. That is why it is the same format. I am really passionate about XXXTentacion and want people to listen to his older, deleted songs. I mean no harm to Wikipedia or you so sorry if I seem rude. Also, thank you in advanced! — Preceding unsigned comment added by DrLamentation (talk • contribs) 13:38, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@DrLamentation: I understand that XXXTentacion is a notable artist. I agree that he is. However, we need news sources talking about why Ice Hotel is notable, or reviews from reliable, independent, secondary sources of it. All the sources were to YouTube, SoundCloud and Twitter. These don't establish notability for a recording. An artist may be notable, but their recordings may not have enough coverage to warrant articles made for them. Ss112 13:42, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am really bad with editing this sorry but what kind of news sources would include? Like Complex? — Preceding unsigned comment added by DrLamentation (talk • contribs) 13:51, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@DrLamentation: Yes, Complex would help establish notability. We would need more coverage than just one source, however. Ss112 13:54, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello there! I think you misunderstood what I meant from my intention of moving the page for "The Party" - it wasn't original research to rename it to "The Party" but I thought it was to follow the Manual of Style within the music guidelines (MOS:MUSIC). I'm wrong with not discussing it but are repeated letters used for article titles? I noted Tron Legacy Reconfigured as an example because it's Tron: Legacy R3C0NF1GUR3D. I was getting the approach to note the article as such in the lead:

"The Party" (stylized as "TThhEe PPaARRtTYY") ...

Note that I didn't do this after my move (my apologies for that as well) and you actually moved the page to a correct form within the MOS - "Tthhee Ppaarrttyy". As such, there's a lot of room for how to display the article but the main issue is establishing notability for the song to be its own article. I didn't see that it has charted on anything when I looked at the time of my move.

Anyways, I hope this gives you my perspective and prevents any miscommunication. – TheGridExe (talk) 16:01, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I shoulda looked, although to be fair I don't think Jason Manford albums should be in that category. What if he releases an album from a different genre next time? Same with Sheridan Smith. With your co-operation I'd like to recategorise some of those topics. Let me know what you think. This is Paul (talk) 08:14, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ok, I've given it a day and since you haven't replied I'm assuming it's fine to go ahead with this. I've removed Jason Manford albums and Sheridan Smith albums from Classical albums by English artists, and re-added the individual albums instead. As both have released only one album I feel it's too soon to generalise and add the music of these artists to individual categories. It's worth noting that, for example, Smith herself isn't strictly a classical singer, and may release other material in time that doesn't fall into the classical music genre (I'm not convinced her present album falls entirely into that category to be fair). If you disagree then I'm happy to open a discussion in the appropriate place and we can get some broader feedback. This is Paul (talk) 12:25, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@This is Paul: Well, I only didn't reply because I wasn't the one who categorised them as them as that in the first place, I was just letting you know that's why the user before you removed the category. I suppose when the artists become known for making music in other genres, then the other genres are added to it as well. I'd say that most artists' categories don't really belong to just one genre anyway, but it just seems to be the done thing. Ss112 13:34, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, I'll mention this to the guy who created the categories. I had in mind the David Bowie album David Bowie Narrates Prokofiev's Peter and the Wolf, which is a classical album recorded by someone who's not generally a classical artist, and my thinking with Messrs Smith and Manford was that both are known for their work in other fields. I guess there's a problem with creating a category for someone who's recorded only one album, as they may or may not do other work in the future (largely depending, I suspect, on whether or not album no. 1 sells poorly and sinks without a trace). I personally wouldn't have created them yet, but we're all different. This is Paul (talk) 21:54, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

 Thank you very much! This is for your help in the contribution (and patience...) in the album articles that I have been editing. It's been a great guide.--Mjs1991 (talk) 10:11, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I see you make edits relating to chartin a lot recently and many more within music in general so I thought you'd be a good person to ask.. with charting, is there a limit to how many can be added? I remember another article (I can't remember which one) where an editor said no more than 10, but I don't know where to look to see if there actually is a limit, or a "help" page for adding charts to articles, would you mind explaining or pointing me in the right direction? Thanks, Alexanderlee (talk) 16:15, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Alexanderlee: Not really, it's just become discography standard, like an unwritten rule of thumb. There was a proposal for discography style guide years back (WP:DISCOGSTYLE), but it was not accepted as there was no overall consensus from the community. However, most of that page has become "accepted" regardless, and most editors stick to 10 as the columns become too thin, cramped and the space for other information gets too cramped beyond this. It can also widen the page too much on certain devices and this affects readability. Ss112 16:18, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ah thank you. Is this different with charts that aren't landscape such as the one on the Love Yourself: Tear? I notice there are 12 there, is this because it's portrait charting table it's more accepted? Alexanderlee (talk) 16:27, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ah never mind, I see this is suggestions solely for discographies and not necessarily the album charting :.) Thank you again though Alexanderlee (talk) 16:28, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize for my formatting errors. I just recently started editing Wikipedia seriously so I'm still fresh on the guidelines. You don't have to keep tagging me in your summaries, though; it lessens my motivation. Meanwhile, the first examples in Template:Single chart place the song parameter first, and that's how I learned the order. Sure, I've seen "artist" placed first on plenty of articles, and I don't change it when I see it, but I like using "song" first for personal editorial purposes. It's not like it's hurting anything, and I don't understand what you're so mystified about, but if it's such a problem... As for the numerals, I am well very aware that one should write out numbers less than 10, but with all the counterexamples I've encountered, it became impossible to determine. There are so many specific guidelines that I can't be bothered to learn them all. Regardless, I do still appreciate your fixing my mistakes. Just don't tag me unless I've made a catastrophic error; I'll probably notice the minor misprints on my own anyway. Nowmusicfan2816 (talk) 12:09, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Nowmusicfan2816: I tagged you so you'd see it, it's not like you're being accused of a crime. I'm also not "mystified". In my experience, most articles place "song=" after "artist=" in single chart templates (and "album=" after in album chart templates) because that's how it appears in the reference. "australian-charts.com – Jennifer Lopez – I'm Real". There's no real need to replicate the examples Template:Single chart or any other template gives, unless said template page sets out rules for when not to use it and so on. Ss112 12:12, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Ss112: Still, you don't have to tag me. I usually go through about 10 or 20 pages of my contributions a day so I can check for good faith/vandalism and those mistakes I mentioned, so it's a little pointless unless it's an edit from last month or beyond. It's not like you knew that, though, so I won't hold it against you. Meanwhile, I also like using "song" first because people say "'I'm Real' by Jennifer Lopez", not "By Jennifer Lopez, 'I'm Real'", and the order just looks smoother with "song" first. Nowmusicfan2816 (talk) 12:29, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Nowmusicfan2816: You don't have to ping me on my own talk page. And yes, that might be how most people say it (I'm sure plenty also say "Jennifer Lopez's 'I'm Real'"), but it's how it appears in the reference that matters and is the order most pages I have edited have it. It's going to look rather like a large disconnect if you're intending to change said templates on all pages you edit to song first because that's your personal preference and the template page for example has it first (funny how the template puts song before artist, but it doesn't appear arranged that way in the citation, don't you think?). I don't know what you mean about it looking "smoother"—I don't think that makes much sense. At the very least, you should not be changing (or intending to change) single chart templates that have song or album after artist to vice versa. Ss112 12:41, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not intending to do anything of that sort. The point is I've seen it the other way around on plenty of articles too. It just seems a little odd that the template page lists the "bad" way first for everyone to see. It's misleading, especially if someone makes a quick check to confirm the order (I admit, like me), but whatever you say; you've been an editor much longer than I have. Nowmusicfan2816 (talk) 13:05, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Could you take a look at Anis don Deminas article. He has charted on Sverigetopplistan this week.94.234.50.105 (talk) 07:45, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@94.234.50.105: What about it? Do you want the peak added to the article? Ss112 18:24, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Either way, I've added the peak of "Wasted" there. Ss112 18:47, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I really have no idea what happened there -- that's not the kind of edit I would ever even make, because I try not to fuck with templates, charts, or anything else beyond really basic wiki text. But thanks for fixing whatever it was I apparently did.... PaulCHebert (talk) 06:55, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hye... How did u find the track listing... Can u share with me..??? I really want to know... Thank you for helping... Road boyz24 (talk) 13:14, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hey @Road boyz24: I didn't add the track listing. I only edited the page a few days ago. Ss112 16:26, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You said ‘It doesn't matter if you source it or not. Discographies are not songwriting credit pages. These are removed from discographies all the time because they're generally not considered within the scope of them’ there’s literally one for Justin Timberlake, how come its still in his page? Kitkateey (talk) 10:21, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Kitkateey: I did indeed say that, however, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is never really a valid reason. Perhaps others there have not noticed it or have let it slip past. It doesn't necessarily mean it should be there. Ss112 10:24, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Then I’ll remove it from his page as well Kitkateey (talk) 10:30, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, I'll make sure to remove it if I see another one. Kitkateey (talk) 11:48, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You were within a very close hair's breadth of being blocked for edit warring alongside Carmaker1 for repeatedly reverting Carmaker1's changes and well beyond 3RR. I understand that the content that Carmaker1 was adding were not referenced and could be seen as potentially problematic, but these edits definitely lie in the good faith threshold -- the changes were not vandalism or made with malicious intent, nor were they serious violations of BLP or other policy that would warrant their immediate removal. In the end, the dispute between these articles were purely content-related, and 3RR and edit warring policies and restrictions absolutely apply. After being reverted the second, fifth, seventh, ... after the tenth time, ... you should have stepped away very much earlier than this and asked for help instead of adding more reversions to the pile. However, I took into account that the burden of proof was on Carmaker1 to verify the content they add when asked to (per this section of Wikipedia's verifiability policy), and the fact that you did make attempts to try and explain and discuss the issue - and decided to leave a very clear warning instead. Next time this situation occurs, step away sooner and before you violate 3RR as well, and ask for help or use the noticeboards and resolution practices to help you. Just take this as an opportunity to check yourself and put this on your radar, and just be careful in the future, okay? :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 10:52, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Oshwah: Thanks Oshwah, noted. However, just a Q: doesn't 3RR only apply to individual pages? Not to sound like I'm excusing my excessive reverts, but I didn't go past 3RR on any one individual page. Also, Carmaker1 then spitefully attempted to try to follow me to another article (that they've never edited before) and cause trouble there by reverting me for a totally unjustified reason—as I was restoring content sourced in the body per WP:LEAD. Ss112 10:56, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) You're correct in that your edits didn't exceed more than three changes in a 24 hour period, but dude... that's seriously cutting it close and not how you're supposed to interpret and apply this rule. One can be blocked for edit warring as soon as they start making repeated reverts to (any page) in a back-and-fourth fashion over a dispute, and doing so in place of resolving the dispute properly (AKA talk page it up with them). 3RR is a bright-line rule - its purpose is to define a clear line in the sand that editors can use to determine that they're clearly in "edit war territory" and hence in "blockable waters". You definitely do not have to violate 3RR in order to be blocked for edit warring; the fact that your reverts were clearly between you and Carmaker1 and being made across multiple articles and over the same thing... yeah, that's totally edit warring. It's not the number of edits that determine whether or not you're edit warring, it's the behavior and the intent that does. And yes... I absolutely and completely understand what you mean when you talk about feelings of retaliation and being followed for illegitimate reasons (I have LTAs and trolls after me all the freaking time every single friggin' day (lol)). But instead of continuing the "hot potato" edits - report the behavior! Get someone to step in and put a stop to it! You may feel that their reasons for reverting your changes aren't made with a pure and neutral intent and mindset, but it doesn't make those reversions exempt from 3RR if it's over content-related matters... Like I said, I'm taking this opportunity to try and explain and make sure that you walk away from this with a full understanding of how you should interpret and apply these policies, as well as how admins (should, at least) determine if edit warring is occurring and that action is necessary in order to stop it. If you have any questions or concerns, please don't hesitate to let me know and I'll be more than happy to explain and help you. Cheers ;-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 11:13, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Oshwah: Thanks for that. I should be well aware by now that one does not have to break 3RR in order to be blocked, so thanks for reminding me. Do you ever review unblock requests? They're basically asking for me to be blocked in their unblock request on their talk page because I did a follow-up edit where I removed the unsourced content entirely on Opposites Attract (despite not being a direct "revert" of somebody). "Why weren't they blocked too!?" It's just spiteful. Ss112 11:19, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I review unblock requests all the time but since I'm the blocking administrator in this case and the unblock request is being made with legitimate thoughts and feelings (AKA it's not a troll, LTA, or abusive request that I can just revert and remove), it would be unethical and very improper of me to also be the administrator who reviews his appeal. That needs to be done by another admin so that checks and balances stay in place and that I'm held accountable too. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 11:25, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Oshwah: In that case then, couldn't the reviewing admin go『you know what Carmaker1, you're right—Ss112 should have been reverted!』and proceed to block me? Ss112 11:31, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It also appears now Carmaker1 has made an unblock request where they claim I made four reverts. I'm assuming they're referring to Opposites Attract, where I reverted their addition of poorly sourced content then in the next edit, removed the unreferenced content altogether (added some time in the past—by whom I don't know but if it was, I certainly didn't know that this was Carmaker1 themselves). Ss112 11:02, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry about Carmaker1 or any of that... He's not making a proper unblock request that I want to see when considering whether or not to accept it. It acknowledge or express understanding of what he did wrong and how he'll make sure that it doesn't continue, and he's instead pointing the finger and saying "it's not fair - he did this too and it's him that's the problem, not me". He needs to focus on his behavior and what he needs to do in order to improve things from here, just like you do with yourself. Just take this as a "behavior check" and something to keep in mind for when this happens in the future and you'll be fine. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 11:21, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Oshwah: Indeed. I really do hope though that this user doesn't start hounding me and following me around to different articles once they're unblocked because they got blocked over this. When they reverted me at an entirely different article (whereas both Paula Abdul song articles were on my watchlist), it's just wanting trouble and never ends well (usually at ANI). Ss112 11:26, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If that's what starts to happen and the evidence or messages make it clear, file a report at ANI with the evidence so that it can be handled and we can take care of it. If he reverts citing good faith or legitimate reason (even if you suspect or "know" that he's doing it in order to simply go after you), keep your cool, don't accuse him of doing so (it never ever ends well if you do that... no joke), and discuss it with him. Keep by the book policy-wise and work things out if it can be done.... If you do that, you'll be in the clear and not be violating any policies, and nothing will happen to you ;-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 11:32, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding that entry with Jimmy Barnes, so collaborations should use "with (co-artist)"? That's fine. I just wanted to make sure they are on equal footing, as different sources like ARIA show Jimmy Barnes first or vice versa, as opposed to the "featuring (co-artist)" designation. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 13:19, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hey...can you help me on how to get the archieve url..from gaon website...especially for the monthly chart Road boyz24 (talk) 03:05, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Road boyz24: You can go back to the previous month's URL by clicking the drop down menu on the right of the page here, which you can then alter the URL of to archive the current month (just change the "04" in the URL to "05" for May). It's much the same with albums. Ss112 05:02, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Sean, can you help me to improve and adding some informations to the Yuna (singer) page and Yuna discography page? Adib Kamaruddin (talk) 18:15, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Adib Kamaruddin: I don't know anything about her, and as she's a Malaysian artist, I wouldn't know the first place to go to find chart information for her. Sorry. Ss112 18:18, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There's an error on Yuna discography page about <ref group=upper-alpha> tags or Cite error: There are <ref> tags on this page without content in them (see the help page). templates on external links. Can you fix it? Thank you very much. Adib Kamaruddin (talk) 18:27, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ss112, how long would you guess it will take for an article to be created for the Drake single "I'm Upset"? Reason I'm asking is I've found a source calling it hip hop and another calling it emo-inspired, also I'm a bit surprised there's no article since it's Drake and it charted in Europe, North America and Australia. Thanks, --Theo Mandela (talk) 07:14, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Theo Mandela: I think a pretty basic article could be knocked up already. If you can source the genres and indicate where the personnel credits in the infobox came from (as I assume you might want to add those), then add a bit of a lead, I can add the charts and a bit more if you like? Ss112 02:02, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that would be much appreciated, thanks. I've created a small article, but you might have to correct a few things. I'm not sure how to style the producer's name (in caps or not) and I'll have to find a source about the production collective their from. Also, can add a small bit for the composition section please about the production (here) and the reference to emo influence ([1] and [2]) please?. --Theo Mandela (talk) 04:17, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Theo Mandela: Added that section, but didn't use ThatGrapeJuice, as it's not very reliable. Ss112 04:32, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Good looking out, thanks. --Theo Mandela (talk) 04:34, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Theo Mandela: Also, I see you asked another user to upload the cover art. You can just upload the cover art yourself using the Upload Wizard. It's not a difficult process, even if you haven't done it before or don't know how to do it. It walks you through it. Ss112 05:47, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I've uploaded two cover arts before and they got deleted from Commons, it was to do with permission. In the composition section, where it says "is a hip hop song which features a trap production", which would you say is more proper, "that features" or "which features"? Also, could you look for a ref that links the song and producer to The Working on Dying collective please? Because I forgot to source the article where I read it and now can't find it. --Theo Mandela (talk) 06:12, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello User:Ss112. I need your help, another user Y2kcrazyjoker4 has been reverting these edits to Beautiful Day, Stuck in a Moment You Can't Get Out Of, Elevation, Electrical Storm to his/her own revision, in which he/she believes to be not an improvement to the page, there clearly isn't anything wrong with the sentences, they were fine, so can you have a reason with him/her about it please. 112.208.47.57 8:02, 11 June 2018 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.208.42.121 (talk)

@112.208.47.57: Sorry, but I think Y2kcrazyjoker4 was right to do that, as generally we don't add album track listings for singles. For songs it's generally considered okay though. Ss112 07:57, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, but i wasn't talking about that. I was talking about the wording that he/she reverted in which he/she believes is not an improvement, there clearly isn't anything wrong with the wording. 112.208.47.57 8:10, 11 June 2018 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.208.42.121 (talk)

@112.208.42.121: It looks to me like the same information just in a different order. It's all still there. If you want the change, you should probably discuss with the editor directly. Ss112 08:22, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again Ss112: See, this is what I was been telling you about, this user thinks this re-wording is not an improvement to the page. There clearly isn't anything wrong with it i tell you. 112.208.42.121 13:27, 11 June 2018 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.208.42.121 (talk)

Hello! :) Got7 didn't win awards at Show Champion, M Countdown, and Inkigayo (it was Mamamoo who won). I don't know who added those awards in the article but it's not true, that's why I corrected it. Seokgjin (talk) 14:41, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Seokgjin: Thanks for the explanation, but it would be more helpful to add this to your edit summary next time. Ss112 14:44, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hey could you maybe check out my message here? I think we need a solution for this before it starts to look messy. I've seen you editing on the page before so I thought I would try to message you directly. Thank you.--2A02:8108:1440:2870:9DC:ED29:923:E067 (talk) 18:12, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for interrupt you, someone created a page Noriel (Rapper), could you find someone who could change the name of the page as Noriel (rapper) or simply as Noriel. Have a great day, — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.157.19.180 (talk) 00:56, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Ss112: Should we make a discography for Dotcom? I was just wondering because if Forbes confirmed that he is Marshmello, so that means we should add his remixes and singles in Marshmello discography? Any opinions? I left a message in the discography if you would like to discuss the topic. hueman1 (talk) 05:22, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ss112, I wanted to thank you for your wikignoming on the Madonna articles and catching some of the errors. Keep it up! —IB ^{[ Poke ]} 07:48, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Ss112. I see you've been reverting a lot of these IP address edits that change track times normally by one second. I've been trying to keep up with them too, and I've noticed some changes that are whole minute shifts. It's kind of bizarre, and I don't really get it. Do you think this is vandalism, or just someone who wants the articles to line up with their own personal rips? CelestialWeevil ^(talk) 17:23, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@CelestialWeevil: I've been wondering the same thing myself. It's very strange vandalism if that's what it is. Perhaps they're looking at a different platform, or as you say, their own rips of the albums. Whatever it is, it's getting pretty widespread and annoying. I wonder if the IP could be rangeblocked... Ss112 17:40, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The page has been created for this upcoming single by Cheat Codes and Little Mix – fair enough, seeing as even as a promotional single it'll probably chart in several countries. But as I've noted on the talk page, the article has been created as "Only You (Little Mix song)" – that's definitely wrong, as Cheat Codes have equal credit and in fact first billing on the song. I'm just not sure whether the disambiguator should be "Cheat Codes x Little Mix song", as I believe it is properly credited, or "Cheat Codes and Little Mix song" as a clearer disambiguator. Do you have any idea what it should be? The article needs a lot of copyediting, but I think the title should be fixed first before anything else. Richard3120 (talk) 18:01, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Richard3120: You're right, Cheat Codes and Little Mix receive equal credit, so it should be at "Only You (Cheat Codes and Little Mix song)" (the x is just a thing like "vs." that the convention on Wikipedia is to just state "and" for. If the x was actually part of a collective named "Me x You", for example, then we would probably use it). Just put in a request at WP:RM/TR. Ss112 18:04, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, thanks – I wasn't sure if the "x" came under the MoS for stylisation, like album titles and band names are often stylised on the records, but we don't recognise that stylisation on Wikipedia... the "and" would be my preference too. Richard3120 (talk) 18:20, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

 Done. Richard3120 (talk) 20:15, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The user DB Dilan Brechero is creating pages in a bad spelling mode and songs pages in a bad spelling mode, for example, Latin Dancehall, Duro y Suave (Leslie Grace & Noriel Song) and the drafts he is creating, check the pages DB Dilan Brechero is creating or trying to create. Have a good day. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.157.19.180 (talk) 16:33, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello User:Ss112. The other user Synthwave.94 has reverted these edits to The Way You Make Me Feel, Billie Jean and Beat It to which he mistakenly believes is not okay, there's clearly nothing wrong with them, they were fine. 119.94.84.13 (talk) 12:24, 27 June 2018

HiSs112, would you say the student-run newspaper Indiana Daily Student is considered reliable as a source for genres? --Theo Mandela (talk) 16:34, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Theo Mandela: Nope, just another university student with no credentials offering their opinion on music. Ss112 17:00, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, thanks. --Theo Mandela (talk) 17:10, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You're alibising over nothing. Not everything needs to be sourced, and as mentioned the article included already a number of general sources to demonstrate the artist's list of released works, so do better yourself first. Nobody was claiming there that the song went number one or so, only updated the total number of her works with the latest title. Anyway it seems that to be much more of your so-called concern than mine, so let’s leave you with that. I don’t play foolish games, simple as that. Adios. InUser (talk)