Jump to content

Talk:S&M (song)/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Focused!

Resolved

I guess the deletion of this article didn't quite go through as planned? What happened here exactly? (Not that I care if this page gets deleted or not, I'm just curious as to what the resolution was because I can't find a proper discussion anywhere...)--mikomango (talk) 07:50, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

The song charted, so it established notability. Nickyp88 (talk) 18:47, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Genres

For everyone who keeps changing the genres, the main genres are Europop and Dance-pop. Do not change this. Like I put in the article, Feel free to add a genre but don't change them. Nickyp88 (talk) 18:48, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Excuse me but Europop is not sourced.,... the other genres are. You are not allowed to simple put the genres you feel are most appropriate. If you don't stop changing these you will be reported to administrators for WP:IDHT -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 [talk] 18:59, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Critical Reception

The phrase "chains and whips" is quoted 7 times in this paragraph, and 4 times as a part of the larger lyrical phrase - Sticks and stones may break my bones but chains and whips excite me. It becomes cumbersome to read with that much repetition - could/should it be given a rewrite that covers the same content but is an easier read? Musicguy76 (talk) 00:12, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Done. what do you think now? -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 [talk] 00:48, 10 January 2011 (UTC)


Previous single

Who's That Chick article says S&M is the next single, so i click on S&M and then that article says the previous article is Raining Men, so i click that article, but only Nicki's previous, current and next single box is there. I understand there is something going on on here saying Raining Men is/is not a single??? calvin999 (talk) 22:26, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

"Raining Men" is a single. So the next single in the "Who's That Chick" article should be changed. Tomica1111 (talk)
Done Tomica1111 (talk)
Looks like someone changed what you did because now it goes Whats My Name > Who's That Chick > S&M. Raining Men is listed as a promo single now. 80.5.210.187 (talk) 14:03, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Raining Men/S&M

Like ok, what are we doing now; is it Raining Men a single, a promotional single or a song? Cause if it was a single, than S&M is the fourth official single, not third. Tomica1111 (talk)

its an official single end of. -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 [talk] 20:52, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
Than if it is, we should write clearly in the introduction of the S&M article that actually it's the fourth single, not the third as it is now. Tomica1111 (talk)


Official Single Artwork

Rihanna tweeted from her verified twitter the S&M CD cover. http://twitpic.com/3s5jiu 80.5.210.187 (talk) 00:24, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Our beloved S&M was the musical accompaniment during the opening scene of episode 1.17 of Hawaii Five-0 this past week. Here are some sources: (1, 2, and 3). I have absolutely no idea if this information is allowed on Wikipedia and if so, how to include it in a Wiki. If it is...help? If it's not allowed on Wikipedia, sorry about this -- and if you love this song, I hope this information at least put a smile on your face. Cheers!--mikomango (talk) 21:54, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

All Of The Lights is the previous single, NOT Raining Men

All of the Lights is listed as the next single after Raining Men on that article, as All of the Lights was released on Jan 18th and S&M on 21st Jan. I was going to change it but there is a notice about removing Raining Men as the previous single and that if you change it, you will be blocked from editing. SO i thought i would say it here first for a second opinion about changing it. As the Raining Men article says All of the Light is the next single, and the All of the Light article says the previous is Raining Men and the next is S&M. calvin999 (talk) 13:32, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

whispering I get you, but Wiki rules are Wiki rules. The Wiki manual of style regarding an artist's singles chronology recognizes the "released to radio" date of a single as an official release, even though we have no iTunes remixes or artwork to go with the song. It makes no sense to me either, but it is what it is, dude. Released to radio is recognized as an official release. Rules are rules!--mikomango (talk) 21:41, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
No, Calvin999 was right. "Raining Men" was released to urban radio in December, and "All of the Lights" was released to mainstream radio on January 18, 2011. So "All of the Lights" is the previous single on this article. Someones already changed it anyways. Ozurbanmusic (talk) 21:46, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
Thank goodness. People tend to get pretty heated over "Raining Men"! Lol--mikomango (talk) 21:55, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
erm yer mkiomango you said exactly what i said...FAILcalvin999 (talk) 22:20, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
Oh and btw, it was actually me who changed it :) calvin999 (talk) 22:21, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
Interesting, my understanding of the word "exact" is much different. Sorry I tried to come out in support of your comment, Calvin999! I know better than to ever support your statements on Wikipedia ever again. My apologies! As you were!--mikomango (talk) 23:03, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
You made it sound like I was wrong and as if I don't know what I am talking about, if you had of checked the release dates and radio adds before you wrote the reply, you would have seen that I was in fact correct. You may have been trying to come out in my support, but what you wrote made it read very differently. That's all I am saying. calvin999 (talk) 16:42, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
Here's the thing. At no point did I insult you, as you did me. I am saddened by that, because I consider it pointless. However, I still offer my apologies for getting involved in the first place. DO have a lovely week, Calvin.--mikomango (talk) 23:10, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
Did I say you insulted me? No. I said you made it look as if I am wrong and as if i didn't know what I was talking about, I know you didn't mean anything by, but things can be read very differently to how someone intends something to be read. calvin999 (talk) 16:00, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
Congratulations for being the first editors to actually ask with regards to the hidden warnings. In 2 years of editing i've never seen anyone actually have the common sense to bring things up before simply changing them. well done guys. I'm tempted to say that "All the Lights" should be removed. On Kanye's Vevo and on his album "All the Lights" has no credits for the featured vocals despite Rihanna and Kid Cudi clearly lending main featured vocals plus nine other artists... — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 [talk] 02:03, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
Thanks, as there was a warning notice I thought it would be best to write it here first :). calvin999 (talk) 16:00, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

UK re-editing

Okay I know you will NOT be interested in this seeing as I don't have a source, but the re-editing and re-naming in the UK is only on BBC Radio 1, I listen to a different station (Capital FM) and they play the full unedited album version and call the song only 'S&M' Please can someone change this part at the start of the article that it's only BBC Radio 1 who have edited the song. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.210.39.126 (talk) 19:08, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

No UK radio station plays "S&M" before 8pm... — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 [talk] 19:25, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Exactly UK stations play S&M (Album Version) except Radio 1 who only play the edited version until a certain time, everywhere else plays the original version at any time of day. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.210.39.126 (talk) 12:42, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

MY comment was that no UK radio station plays S&M before 8pm... all play an edited version just the BBC's is more edited than others as its a public broadcaster. — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 [talk] 00:23, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

UK Chart performance

I think somewhere in the UK chart performance it should mention that this is the first time Rihanna has had the first 3 singles from an album chart within the UK top 10. From 'Music of the Sun' only 'Pon de Replay' reached the top 10 From 'A Girl Like Me' only 'SOS' and 'Unfaithful' reached top 10 From 'Good Girl Gone Bad', her 3rd UK single was 'Hate That I Love You' which missed the top 10 (Don't Stop the Music was the 4th single) 'Rated R' only had two top ten UK singles (Russian Roulette and Rude Boy). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.210.39.126 (talk) 19:12, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

S&M was not one of those three songs. In mind December, Only Girl, What's My Name and Who's That Chick were all in the top 10 UK singles chart. S&M is the only one in the top 10 as of right now.calvin999 (talk) 00:22, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't think you understand what I mean, i'm not trying to say she's had 3 singles in the top at the same time, but it's her first time to have the first 3 singles released from an album to have all charted within the top 10. And Who's That Chick? was in the top 10 but it's not from her album. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.210.39.126 (talk) 12:40, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

It's not uncommon to have at least 3 singles to all have reached the top ten, loads of artists have. calvin999 (talk) 23:20, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
The previous commenter was not pointing out that she has 3 top ten hits, like you said many artists do, but that all of the first three singles off this particular album have charted in the top ten which hasn't happened for any of her previous albums. Syko Conor (talk) 16:54, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
I suppose it could be added. calvin999 (talk) 13:07, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Certification

Resolved

Switzerland S&M = Gold source--79.216.168.49 (talk) 23:25, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

S&M and S&M Remix

Do they count as the same song when it comes to charting?? Someone better reply lol calvin999 (talk) 17:16, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

It depends on the chart. For the Billboard Hot 100, yes. See the article here. Yves (talk) 17:19, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
Ok cool. So the charts section contains original and remix chart positions? I think that there should be two separate chart sections, one for remix and one for original? calvin999 (talk) 17:22, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
I agree about having two separate chart sections since both versions had a commercial success. Lucas RdS (talk) 20:45, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
Depends when the chart is physically published. The indication is that so far.. there will be one chart entry. — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 [talk] 02:00, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

New Peak In Canada

Resolved

S&M has gone from #4 last week to #1 this week! Can someone update this?! http://www.billboard.com/#/charts/canadian-hot-100 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.233.241.23 (talk) 15:12, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Remix

A new section should be opened about the remix version featuring Britney Spears. Just leaving this message to all the regular editors of this article.--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 00:54, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

It shouldn't be just yet. Its not that significant so far... just a remix on iTunes. If it recieves a radio release, critical reception and more information about how it came about then yes. But presently there's just 2-3 sentences so I moved them to the background section. — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 [talk] 01:22, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

I've added remix version featuring Britney Spears as it was released as a single and as of know the song is currently out-performing the original and their is a chance it could reach #1 on the Hot 100, therefore I think it was acceptable to add Britney's name to the box.---User:Sashak90

I don't care. "S&M" was sent to radio and released first as a solo single. It recieved the music video and reviews. The version with Brintey is simply a remix and thus IS NOT given prominence in the article. its not part of Britney's single chronology, nor is it that significant that it takes prominence in the infobox. Equally the song cover for the remix is not allowed as it breached WP:NFCC for failing to provide signficant additional contextual significance. Any further attempts to re-add this kind of information will be seen as disruptive. — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 [talk] 07:04, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
That doesn't make any sense in any form at ALL. How does the remix not have any significance to the article when Rihann's own record label (not some "know-it-all" on wikipedia) has declared it to be a single in its entirety, if not it wouldn't have been released to both digital outlets around the world and radio if it had no significance according to you. You've argued that the remix doesn't deserve it's own article yet continue to be disruptive to other edit like really (remix version featuring Britney Spears) is going to actually cause so much chaos. And Billboard is counting it towards Britney's single chronology and her chart history, so???? As soon as it is credited on an official site not wikipedia as Rihanna featuring Britney Spears I will come back to this article and edit everything that you keep editing. Good fucking day. User: Sashak90.
Please be civil. Novice7 (talk) 12:16, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
Then you'll find yourself blocked. Articles are about songs not singles. Numerous soungs recieve remixes... "Yesterday (Toni Braxton song)", "Commander (Kelly Rowland song)", are two name two. The point is "S&M" was released ages ago before the remix existed, its and success as well as critical reception all happened before the remix. When there is enough information about the remix a separate section will be created but overall this is a Rihanna song. Per WP:BRD I've reverted and now where discussing. As you wish to make additions to the article which are contested they cannot be added until there is a consensus to do so. If you continue to behave the way you have you will be blocked/banned from editing. — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 [talk] 19:01, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
Relax guys. Unique boy has a point. Lets wait and see if and where it charts and if a music video is commissioned etc. As of now, there is not sufficient coverage to create a whole sub-section about the remix. Later, if and when all that info is revealed, then we can talk about it. As for the cover, as pretty as it is, and as much as I personally would love to see it there, the rules do not allow it since it doesn't do anything extra for the article except put a nice dress on it.--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 19:07, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
Why not just keep the Charts chart section on this article, then next to it or underneath it, have a second Charts box entitled "S&M Remix ft. Britney Spear". A bit like how if a song charts in 2010, and then charted better or worse in 2011. Thoughts? Then there is no need to make a separate article. Could always just have a section on this article, like Love The Way You Lie Pt 2 has a section on the original Love The Way You Lie article. calvin999 (talk) 13:10, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

The remix #1 on US iTunes, and receiving radio play. The song is on-track to be Billboard #1 next week. Needs a dedicated section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.127.60.77 (talk) 19:59, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

I have to shake my head and wonder when I read discussions like this. One of the biggest stars in pop music has recorded a remix of the song and received coverage by literally hundreds of reliable sources[1] and editors are arguing that it's not important enough to have a section in this article? Even worse, editors are being accused of being disruptive and being threatened with blocks?? Unbelievable. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 13:36, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
If you can compile enough information to enough prose to warrant its own section, by all means, you are welcome. :) Yves (talk) 18:20, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
At the time, a separate section was not required. Its a case of waiting for a short while until there is enough detailed information. Also we're waiting to see if "S&M" (remix) charts separately or together with the regular version. 04:15, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

The Remix and the Original Version have been combined via Billboard.com, so now the article should be changed to S&M - Rihanna Feat. Britney Spears. --98.118.37.130 (talk) 18:15, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 212.159.45.2, 13 February 2011

{{edit semi-protected}} Please change {{singlechart|UKrandb|3|artist=Rihanna|song=S&M|date=2011-01-22}} to {{singlechart|UKrandb|3|artist=Rihanna|song=S&M|date=2011-02-19}}. The ref is currently incorrect. Thanks 212.159.45.2 (talk) 20:37, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

 Done Ozurbanmusic (talk) 21:26, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

i think the chart performance section really need to be refreshed and here is a page for the canadian updates source: http://en-ca.nielsen.com/content/dam/nielsen/en_ca/documents/pdf/newsletters/billboard_canadian-update/Nielsen%20Music%20Canadian%20Update.pdf i hope u could add some information to the section thanks . — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mallende (talk • contribs) 19:59, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

here is a page for billboard usa update source: http://www.billboard.com/#/news/lady-gaga-glee-highlight-historic-hot-100-1005039282.story thanks again — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mallende (talk • contribs) 20:24, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

It did NOT hit #1 on Billboard hot 100, it peaked at #2 so far. (It DID hit #1 on pop singles, but not the official Billboard hot 100, E.T. by Katy Perry is #1 now —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.27.127.205 (talk) 01:39, 17 April 2011 (UTC)


Please change article to reflect that single peaked at #2, not #1, it is misleading to credit it as a billboard hot 100 chart topper when it is not.

<reff>http://www.billboard.com/charts/hot-100#/charts/hot-100</ref>

Not done: Actually, you're misreading your own source--that's the position its in in the week of April 30. However, if you look at the song details at [2], or if you look at the link that's already in the article, the song was number one a few weeks ago. Thus, the information is correct. Qwyrxian (talk) 09:17, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Remix section

This is driving me crazy, but I think the solution would be something similar to Because of You (Kelly Clarkson song), in terms of sections. Xwomanizerx (talk) 18:46, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

I would disagree because: 1) the remix cover would not be allowed because of WP:FAIRUSE, 2) the remix sales have been added to the sales of S&M - its one charting single listed as just Rihanna, 3) Britney Spears is featured on the remix not the original song which is what articles are supposed to be about, 4) the new version is not featured on an album.
However I would support the creation of a section about the remix (without the infobox) as there will be enough information to do so but forking it with subsections like charts etc. is not required as it most countries its charting under S&M not as a separate listing. — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 [talk] 19:13, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
I agree with Lil-unique1's comments. The two versions of "Because of You" appear to have charted separately. As explained in a recent Billboard article, it is the magazine that decides which versions chart together, based on sales and airplay statistics. Yves (talk) 19:18, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
After reading the comments and looking at the page, I believe that a similar format with the Till The World Ends remix section should be adapted for this article. It can help provide background information on the song and the remix, as well as reviews and any other general information. It will be small and I believe it can help solve all problems being mentioned above! ImanAtwal! 26th April 01:00
Yes, I agree something along the lines of what Xwomanizer has done in TTWE is pretty good. This can be done here also. Please lets get on done with and end this circular discussion. — Legolas (talk2me) 16:53, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

General Edit

In the main category, the article states "'S&M' received generally mixed reviews from most of the critics.". I would like to change this to "'S&M' recieved generally mixed reviews from most music critics.", as the later sounds more professional.

71.123.156.162 (talk) 16:16, 30 April 2011 (UTC)Reece Leonard

Um, professional? Novice7 (talk) 16:19, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
I think Mr. IP/Reece implied correct English. Well it can be both ways, and I don't care. Add it if you like. — Legolas (talk2me) 16:50, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
Well, the reviews seem to be mostly positive... Novice7 (talk) 16:53, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Danish

Resolved

NB: The song is listed as number 5 on the danish chart on wikipedia, but in this week the song is ranked as number 2 on the official hitlist. —Preceding unsigned comment added by EUpdates (talk • contribs) 19:02, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Bad grammar

""S&M" was a commercial success Top 5 on Hot 100 and "S&M (Remix featuring Spears)" was topping the U.S. Billboard Hot 100, giving tenth number-one single in the US and Spears her fifth number-one in the US."24.211.211.161 (talk) 20:36, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Live Performance Section Improvement

I have considerably expanded the Live Performance Section with regard to The Brits, Last Girl on Earth Tour as well as the Billboard Music Awards with multiple sources. I spent quite a while making sure it was worded correctly and pre-viewed it several times before finally saving it. Hopefully this will contribute towards the Article Status going from C to a B. (Which is why I expanded the Live Performance section in the first place). calvin999 (talk) 20:24, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

I have been making changes to a lot of errors on this article, added a lot of reliable sources to verify what has been written (MTV, Billbaord etc.) and I have further expanded the Live Performance section again with regard to the BMA performance and it's controversies. calvin999 (talk) 15:41, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
And have now added a European chart performance paragraph in the Chart performance section. calvin999 (talk) 13:39, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
All in all I think that the article is Ok now, however there should be some improvements in the lead part of it. My opinion. Greetings Tomica1111 (talk)
Such as? calvin999 (talk) 13:49, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Britney Performance

So Britney is performing the remix on her new tour and I was wondering if that would be better in the section about the remix or in live performances. --Shadow (talk) 03:47, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

 Done in the Live performance section. Calvin • 999 11:07, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Banned in 11 countries

I saw that there is a "vague" quotation in the music video section about the video being banned in 11 countries. It's obvious that it has been as everyone is reporting the same thing, but I have done a load of google searches trying to find out some or all of the countries banned, but nowhere is reporting which ones. So what should be done about the "vague" quotation? calvin999 (talk) 18:29, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

I also can't find a list of countries, but I think it's pretty obvious where it will be banned 100%: 1) Saudi Arabia, 2) Kuwait, 3) Qatar, 4) Bahrain, 5) Syria, 6) Libya, 7) Malaysia - this one I found on the net, 8) Lebanon, 9) India, 10) Pakistan, 11) Bangladesh. That would be my guess, based on the normal bans. The above Arab/Islamic/South Asian countries usually have bans on such songs. Maybe also the United Arab Emirates. Indonesia, Oman and Yemen don't usually ban songs. It's not banned 100% in Turkey. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.255.249.63 (talk) 12:23, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

You have provided no sources. You can't just add in where you think it was banned. Don't make any edits to the article. Calvin • 999 12:27, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

A class question.

I want S&M to be the first A class song article on Wikipedia (I know there are three A class articles on Wikiproject Songs, but they are not actual songs). I was wondering if someone could tell me how to nominate it for A class, as I am sure it is at that level, as It's in between GA and FA at the moment. Wikiproject Songs and Wikiproject Sexuality both accept A class articles, and I know the founder of Wikiproject Rihanna who could accomodate A class on the assessment table. Calvin • 999 22:10, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Question?

Can I ask why are you repeating refs #23-36 when you already have them in the charts from #85-107? 77.29.82.83 (talk) 09:43, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Because the ones from the Chart performance section properly formatted references. The ones in the Charts table are pre-coded references which automatically format themselves. Calvin • NaNaNaC'mon! 11:20, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

S&M Remix artwork.

I do think this should be included, if someone has a free one. Calvin • NaNaNaC'mon! 11:20, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

File:Ester Dean in "Pitch Perfect" movie set.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Ester Dean in "Pitch Perfect" movie set.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests November 2011
What should I do?

Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 10:43, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Composition section expansion.

Calvin • Watch n' Learn 23:35, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

US R&B Charts

Use of samples

S&M is not sampling Depeche Mode's Master And Servant. It uses the melody from The Cure song Let's Go To Bed. Although I must say, those two songs share very similar melodies. Anyway, references to Depeche Mode sample should be removed, as the sample is not used.

Several reviewers cite "Master and Servant" as the synth line sampled.  — AARON • TALK 19:50, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Source check

An article from Q Magazine at Yale was disguised as a Q magazine page (owned by Bauer Media Group); I've fixed this issue. However, is the former publication reliable? It is an academic newspaper, from what I can see, and it is primarily targeted towards an LGBT audience. Will this do as reliable music journalism? — prism △ 09:37, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 10 external links on S&M (song). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:36, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on S&M (song). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:47, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on S&M (song). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:14, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:S%26M_(song)/Archive_1&oldid=1140124920"