User:Ad Orientem/Switzerland/Archive 1
Ss112 and MaranoFan
[edit]The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Good morning. I believe it is time that both of you sit down at the proverbial conference table and hash things out. This ongoing bickering/feud has reached the point where if you can't come up with a mutually agreeable formula that allows for coexistence the next stop is probably going to be ANI. And for those unfamiliar with that board, it is not a place known for happy endings. So let me begin with a few starting points to help smooth out the discussion.
- First, participation in this discussion is voluntary. In the event that either or both of you decline a mediated discussion then WP:ANI is that way. You can also consider WP:DR.
- I am taking no sides in this ongoing dispute and am acting as a neutral party whose sole function is to try to facilitate some kind of accord. See the page title.
- Try to assume that both of you are here to build an encyclopedia. Acknowledging that you both have overlapping areas of interest consider what can be done to minimize stepping on each other's toes.
- Who did what to whom is most likely not relevant to the discussion, the purpose of which is to reach an agreement that will allow you both to work and edit in areas where you may have a common interest. Finger pointing is therefore not likely to be productive and should be deprecated.
Please indicate your agreement to a mediated discussion
[edit]Ss112: I'm not particularly interested in a long, drawn-out discussion, as that's not what I meant by my email: I wanted MaranoFan to be asked to stop using calling off our agreement as an excuse to peruse my contributions and edit topics she has never touched before so that it doesn't escalate or get to the point of construing her actions as hounding me, and that I don't feel I have to go to ANI as a last resort. I ordinarily wouldn't have much of a problem with a user editing some topics they haven't edited before after me, if it was a user who did not have a history of disagreements with me. I am not solely referring to music that is popular on Western music charts either that she might ordinarily edit anyway.
I was fine with our email agreement; MaranoFan knows what that is, but called it off because I created a redirect based on an article she edited. (And that actually required looking at my contributions to actually notice I did so.) I don't know how many articles she had edited in the meantime based on what I had, but I saw evidence of quite a few in the recent past when I looked at her contributions during the time I made that redirect. Also, just a note, I have no interest in posting at her talk page, so her barring me from it and writing multiple edit summaries about it there like I actually ever wanted to post there is irrelevant.
In summary: If MaranoFan agrees to go back to our agreement (and reminder, that was not that one could never look at the other's contributions, but rather to not regularly do so and act upon them regularly and/or write snarky summaries to the editor on those articles), then great. No need for further arbitration. I'm not sure MaranoFan got the ping as I didn't, so pinging @MaranoFan:. Ss112 15:18, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
MaranoFan: I'm not really interested in a long discussion either. In fact this may be my only time posting here if I understand that nothing productive is going to come from it. We clearly like to edit similar topics, pop music (that includes K-pop). I think Ss112's contributions are good for the most part. I have given him a barnstar years ago, and he is a great asset to discography articles and updating chart positions on song articles.
He seems to have a problem when I edit articles that he has recently edited (or created), even though my contributions are constructive and sometimes obvious improvements. He, however, continues extensively updating chart positions on articles I have created (Bury a Friend, Cool (Jonas Brothers song), Out of Love (song)) etc. I have never expressed issues with any of these edits. I acknowledge the fact that we are both constructive editors and have done good work on pop music-related stuff. The problem only begins when he puts a magnifying glass on all of my contributions, and thinks I am "attacking" him every time I edit something he has edited before.
In summary: No, I do not agree to our prior agreement (Mostly because there is no chance it will be followed on his part, because I create a lot of song articles and there's no doubt he will be updating charts on there). If he is so triggered by me editing the same articles as him, then he is free to venture into writing articles about films, TV shows, politics, and other stuff. I am interested in music in general (Everything. Pop, rap, K-pop, Country, alternative, any genre that exists). I will not stop editing them just because someone else likes them too, and wants monopoly on all of them. I have written 10 good articles and some featured lists, which are considered some of Wikipedia's best work, and they're all related to music. I'm sure no admin is going to put sanctions on me just because I edit the same topics as Ss112. I think he just needs to stop being paranoid. No offense.--NØ 16:30, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
- Edit- As of this writing, he is still engaging in the type of behaviour he complains about when I do it.--NØ 16:41, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
- You're unbelievable. I created Key discography as a redirect. You had never edited it before yesterday, right after I had edited it multiple times earlier in the day. Now you claim that's me coming after you? Oh God. Your lack of self-awareness and acting like Ms. Innocent, like you came to that article through anything other than stalking me, is embarrassing.
- You have disregarded what I just said. I did not say I had any objections to you editing what I do, because you have expressed an interest in pop music topics. That is understood. It was about you specifically editing topics you have never edited before after me. Not coming to them organically, but only after I do. I also think we can avoid petty Internet-tough-guy wording like "triggered". You also explicitly told me via email you appreciated my chart contributions, now you adopt the tone of you just "allowing" me to do it. Makes no sense.
- I will also never "venture into writing articles" to steer clear of you, or any other editor—as if I would ever stop editing what I want to because of an editor's presence. I'm sure you (and some others) would love it if I avoided music articles, because you've again raise this hilarious claim that I think I have "monopoly" on them, when I have never expressed this nor acted like it—you have invented this idea based on what I can only assume is what you'd like for yourself. Well, sorry, I'm not ever going away because someone annoys or has annoyed me. You could hound me all you like on the sly while denying it to every admin, you will never drive me off editing what I want to edit. Also, I did not ask any admin to place sanctions on you; I asked for an admin to have a word to you. That's not a sanction. You're starting to sound like Flooded with them hundreds, and acting like him too, and we all saw what happened there: He's blocked for sockpuppeting, which you've also done in the past too. Maybe not so dissimilar after all, but if you don't want that comparison, then change and don't act like him. "Ss112 creates so many redirects, he thinks he owns everything!" No, that's paranoia. If I feel I'm being hounded after this (and I don't mean just because you edit pop music topics sometimes), I am going to ANI. Goodbye. Ss112 16:53, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
- I am going to edit whatever I want to edit, I do not have to prove anything to anyone by having "edited it before". That's the whole point. Wikipedia does not revolve around you. No one cares. I didn't ask you to stop editing music articles either. Now if I followed you to a politics, TV, or movie article then make all the noise that you want. But it is not farfetched at all for me to be editing music related topics. If you do go to ANI, no admin is going to ask me not to edit topics you create, just because YOU have a problem with it. The edits themselves are constructive. It is delusional to think anyone at ANI will support your ownership. But since you posted that ridiculous comment about socking, I'm not going to waste more time posting here. You can just close it if you want AO, Ss112 is already trying to pull my strings and trigger my bipolar disorder by yet again bringing up the mistakes I made on Wikipedia as a 12 year old.--NØ 17:03, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
- Yes, please close this, AO. Now she's bringing up this ridiculous crap about "trigger[ing her] bipolar disorder". Oh please. Nobody's responsible for you apart from you. Ss112 17:06, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
- So you are making fun of mental illness now? That is a new low. I thought you peaked with calling me "a ridiculous piece of work". Being bipolar is not some "crap", my life can become living hell sometimes. Thats a low blow.--NØ 17:18, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
- Yes, please close this, AO. Now she's bringing up this ridiculous crap about "trigger[ing her] bipolar disorder". Oh please. Nobody's responsible for you apart from you. Ss112 17:06, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
- I am going to edit whatever I want to edit, I do not have to prove anything to anyone by having "edited it before". That's the whole point. Wikipedia does not revolve around you. No one cares. I didn't ask you to stop editing music articles either. Now if I followed you to a politics, TV, or movie article then make all the noise that you want. But it is not farfetched at all for me to be editing music related topics. If you do go to ANI, no admin is going to ask me not to edit topics you create, just because YOU have a problem with it. The edits themselves are constructive. It is delusional to think anyone at ANI will support your ownership. But since you posted that ridiculous comment about socking, I'm not going to waste more time posting here. You can just close it if you want AO, Ss112 is already trying to pull my strings and trigger my bipolar disorder by yet again bringing up the mistakes I made on Wikipedia as a 12 year old.--NØ 17:03, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
- I will also never "venture into writing articles" to steer clear of you, or any other editor—as if I would ever stop editing what I want to because of an editor's presence. I'm sure you (and some others) would love it if I avoided music articles, because you've again raise this hilarious claim that I think I have "monopoly" on them, when I have never expressed this nor acted like it—you have invented this idea based on what I can only assume is what you'd like for yourself. Well, sorry, I'm not ever going away because someone annoys or has annoyed me. You could hound me all you like on the sly while denying it to every admin, you will never drive me off editing what I want to edit. Also, I did not ask any admin to place sanctions on you; I asked for an admin to have a word to you. That's not a sanction. You're starting to sound like Flooded with them hundreds, and acting like him too, and we all saw what happened there: He's blocked for sockpuppeting, which you've also done in the past too. Maybe not so dissimilar after all, but if you don't want that comparison, then change and don't act like him. "Ss112 creates so many redirects, he thinks he owns everything!" No, that's paranoia. If I feel I'm being hounded after this (and I don't mean just because you edit pop music topics sometimes), I am going to ANI. Goodbye. Ss112 16:53, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
Opening statements
[edit](To be made after both parties agree to the discussion.)
Ss112 & Calvin999
[edit]@Ss112: and @Calvin999:. Since you appear to have mutually excommunicated each other, I offer this little piece of neutral wiki real estate in case you wanna give bi-lateral negotiation a shot.
- I don't wish to have an extended conversation with Calvin. In my experience this has gone nowhere and it turns into a conversation of accusations and word-twisting (on Calvin's part). I already tried to avoid them as best I could; I edited pages on my watchlist to correct typos but was still accused of hounding, etc. and only responded "through edit summaries" and the like after feeling this had been done to myself. I don't wish to have continued interaction with Calvin; my request of the manner in which I wish for them to leave me alone/summary is on your talk page. Ss112 01:01, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
- I would encourage you to reconsider. When you are in a state of open hostility with another editor with whom you share common areas of interest in editing, I see no constructive alternative. If neither of you are willing to talk to the other then we might as well move this to ANI right now. If I had to take a guess that is likely to end with some sort of IBan of a much more formal nature than the voluntary one I was suggesting. And if you can't agree on some framework that will allow you to both edit certain articles and subjects then it could get even worse. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:09, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
- I apologise for talking on two pages here, but I do think a voluntary interaction ban of sorts may be best. Not a full or formal one, because that is not good. Certainly not one that says we can't edit the same pages because that is ludicrous. I just don't wish to get into a repeated mud-slinging match or have accusations thrown at me about "ownership" or whatever else when I don't feel that's what I'm trying to do or say at all. Beyond my request at your talk page that I think will be refused, I don't know what else to "offer" or say. Ss112 01:31, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
- Well we haven't heard from Calvin. So let's see what he has to say. But it seems that some limitation or speed bump for reverting one another might be the best course. Maybe a requirement that proposed reverts have to be submitted to an uninvolved third party before they can be carried out. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:37, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
- In my opinion, reverts are not the main problem here. We haven't really done a lot of that. I hope Calvin doesn't have future cause to want to revert me, because I certainly have no desire to revert him. I just wish to be left alone in updating charts that I used to do mostly alone, with occasional other editors doing things, but not an editor who does not like me interrupting me to do it first. That's really it. Ss112 01:50, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
- I don't know how to respond to that. It sounds like your asking for something close to carte blanche with charts and that another editor who has the same interest and with whom you aren't getting along should just go away. I doubt they will see that as reasonable. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:53, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
- But that's where my point that they appear to have started aiming to do this regularly, every week, making sure they do it first comes in. They did not used to bother about this; now, after our disputes, they have. That's why I brought up the past, because if they are doing so to disrupt what I do, then I think it is reasonable to ask somebody who is doing this to stop. But of course, most people confronted with this will deny wrongdoing. Now they're branching into updating other charts they know I regularly update and I take this as being aimed at me because of our history. I don't know how else to request to be left alone. I understand I can never have "carte blanche with charts" because they are popular and other editors not involved here will aim to update them sometimes too. I was fine with that previously. However, I can't think of another solution or request myself that does not sound the way I'm not intending for it to sound. I feel that it's quite clear my process of updating these charts is being targeted, week after week, by Calvin, moreso lately, because he does not like me. Edit: I'm willing to let Calvin update the Dance Club Songs chart peaks himself as he appears to care quite a bit about this chart, probably more than I do. However, the other charts: the Hot 100, etc. are more recent things he has attempted to take on and I normally do/did these myself. Ss112 02:20, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
- Perhaps somewhere in here there is a solution. What if you both agreed to basically divide the charts in some way and stay out of each other's hair? I am of course just thinking out loud until Calvin chimes in. My guess is that he is not online at the moment. Perhaps we should suspend this discussion for the night and wait to see what tomorrow brings. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:32, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
- But that's where my point that they appear to have started aiming to do this regularly, every week, making sure they do it first comes in. They did not used to bother about this; now, after our disputes, they have. That's why I brought up the past, because if they are doing so to disrupt what I do, then I think it is reasonable to ask somebody who is doing this to stop. But of course, most people confronted with this will deny wrongdoing. Now they're branching into updating other charts they know I regularly update and I take this as being aimed at me because of our history. I don't know how else to request to be left alone. I understand I can never have "carte blanche with charts" because they are popular and other editors not involved here will aim to update them sometimes too. I was fine with that previously. However, I can't think of another solution or request myself that does not sound the way I'm not intending for it to sound. I feel that it's quite clear my process of updating these charts is being targeted, week after week, by Calvin, moreso lately, because he does not like me. Edit: I'm willing to let Calvin update the Dance Club Songs chart peaks himself as he appears to care quite a bit about this chart, probably more than I do. However, the other charts: the Hot 100, etc. are more recent things he has attempted to take on and I normally do/did these myself. Ss112 02:20, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
- I don't know how to respond to that. It sounds like your asking for something close to carte blanche with charts and that another editor who has the same interest and with whom you aren't getting along should just go away. I doubt they will see that as reasonable. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:53, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
- In my opinion, reverts are not the main problem here. We haven't really done a lot of that. I hope Calvin doesn't have future cause to want to revert me, because I certainly have no desire to revert him. I just wish to be left alone in updating charts that I used to do mostly alone, with occasional other editors doing things, but not an editor who does not like me interrupting me to do it first. That's really it. Ss112 01:50, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
- Well we haven't heard from Calvin. So let's see what he has to say. But it seems that some limitation or speed bump for reverting one another might be the best course. Maybe a requirement that proposed reverts have to be submitted to an uninvolved third party before they can be carried out. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:37, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
- I apologise for talking on two pages here, but I do think a voluntary interaction ban of sorts may be best. Not a full or formal one, because that is not good. Certainly not one that says we can't edit the same pages because that is ludicrous. I just don't wish to get into a repeated mud-slinging match or have accusations thrown at me about "ownership" or whatever else when I don't feel that's what I'm trying to do or say at all. Beyond my request at your talk page that I think will be refused, I don't know what else to "offer" or say. Ss112 01:31, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
- I would encourage you to reconsider. When you are in a state of open hostility with another editor with whom you share common areas of interest in editing, I see no constructive alternative. If neither of you are willing to talk to the other then we might as well move this to ANI right now. If I had to take a guess that is likely to end with some sort of IBan of a much more formal nature than the voluntary one I was suggesting. And if you can't agree on some framework that will allow you to both edit certain articles and subjects then it could get even worse. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:09, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
Ss112, if you can stop lying and saying I am word twisting, there could be some resolve. I can supply diffs of all your admissions, so think twice about accusing me of twisting events and turning the table. You're sying above that I am purposely updating charts every week to annoy you (I've updated charts for years), but you said a few months ago that you was doing to spite me! You're not doing yourself any favours by lying. To say you will let me edit Dance Club Songs related articles but not other Billboard articles is astounding. I have updated all manner of charts, not just US ones, for years. Comments like these are what make it difficult for me to want to resolve anything. If you look at my contributions to Billboard related articles (so hundreds) you'll frequently see my name. You've got to stop with this fake perception of my editing history. I edit music articles, so common sense tells you that that means I update chart info as well as other areas such as reviews, composition, background etc. — Calvin999 09:28, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
- Not once I have ever claimed I "trolled [your] edits" and why an editor (unless they were a vandal) would ever admit to such a thing I have no idea. At no point did I say you could not edit Scared of the Dark or any other article (please find the diffs; I never said this); I said it was on my watchlist and therefore saw recent contributions to it and corrected them. I'd like to see the apparent edit where I said I "trolled" anyone's edits or the like. I also have never admitted to updating Billboard charts to annoy you, because I started doing these months before I even knew who you even were. You brought up at ANI last year that I was reverting you while you were posting there for not updating accessdates; I said I was busy at the time and so you were certainly well aware I was doing the charts. You were (and are) quite well aware I updated these and it has nothing to do with you. That's not ownership; I'm saying I have a problem with users who do not like me jumping in ahead of me to do things to spite me. I did not say above that you only "occasionally" edited Dance Club Songs; I'm well aware of your extensive cleanup and other contributions to it, but it appears to have been primarily Ericorbit updating the #1 before 2016. If you got the impression I meant "occasionally", it was in reference to you adding the number one on a regular, continued basis. Please provide diffs of me saying I trolled you or did charts to spite you. It's right there in the Dance Club Songs chart number-one list history that before we ever interacted, I was updating it (June 2016 versus our first interaction, as you pointed out, in October 2016). Proof I was doing Billboard charts before we had a problem, so not lying. You have reverted me on your talk at least three times here, here and here. You said you have never reverted me there. That is an outright lie. This thread is for solutions, not to continue an argument. You again claim I'm lying but I don't see where I'm being dishonest. If you are looking to continue bringing up the past, then I hope Ad Orientem can find a solution so I don't have to continue to be insulted by you with claims that I have said things I have not. Ss112 09:41, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
- I was trying to find a solution to not step on each other's toes; a voluntary IBAN of sorts. I began with the suggestion you could do the Dance Club Songs updates, and did not imply nor say that I could do "everything else". It's not mine to claim, nor yours. I was just trying to suggest how we could work on the charts by not getting in each other's way. Ss112 09:54, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
- Well come up with something else because that is clearly not a good idea. You're getting too hung up on "But I do it". Anyone can do it! It is not solely your responsibility. Me doing Dance and you doing everything else means nothing for nobody else and that obviously isn't fair as anyone can update or edit charts. I like updating charts, especially for artists I listen to, and especially updating records and achievements. That is my starting block for this solution. — Calvin999 10:08, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
- Calvin, I just have to say, thank you for not retaliating with a whole other paragraph and focusing on moving forward. I know anybody can update charts, and they have done so before and will continue to. I'm open to that if they do it correctly (if they're adding peaks ahead of time, to source them correctly, and to update accessdates to show when the peak was achieved). This attempt at a solution for us is not saying there isn't a wildcard element of a user deciding they want to do them instead. That's fine; in fact, I hope another editor (neither of us) comes and does an even better job of being dedicated to updating Billboard charts moreso than you or I. I was just saying, you could do the Dance Club Songs chart and I'd stay out of your hair on that one. Maybe I could focus on the Hot 100. I'm not sure which other charts you are focused on doing. Ss112 10:15, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
- It doesn't really matter if you're open to it, as anyone can edit anything, it's how Wikipedia works. We don't exercise editing rights like that. If someone adds it wrong or vandalises, then change it. No need to revert in order to change, just edit it as a new edit to change it. If it's correct, leave it. EricOrbit used to do it a lot but he isn't active anymore. I'm not chart specific, I like updating charts, especially for singers I listen to and Wikiprojects I belong to and specifically adding records and achievements, that has always been my favourite thing to write in articles. I've rarely done Latin or Country, sometimes do R&B, more often Hot 100 and mainly A/C and Dance. Many of the articles with milestones, records and achievements have been written and formatted by me. It's time consuming but that's what I like doing best. — Calvin999 10:30, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
- Calvin, I just have to say, thank you for not retaliating with a whole other paragraph and focusing on moving forward. I know anybody can update charts, and they have done so before and will continue to. I'm open to that if they do it correctly (if they're adding peaks ahead of time, to source them correctly, and to update accessdates to show when the peak was achieved). This attempt at a solution for us is not saying there isn't a wildcard element of a user deciding they want to do them instead. That's fine; in fact, I hope another editor (neither of us) comes and does an even better job of being dedicated to updating Billboard charts moreso than you or I. I was just saying, you could do the Dance Club Songs chart and I'd stay out of your hair on that one. Maybe I could focus on the Hot 100. I'm not sure which other charts you are focused on doing. Ss112 10:15, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
- Well come up with something else because that is clearly not a good idea. You're getting too hung up on "But I do it". Anyone can do it! It is not solely your responsibility. Me doing Dance and you doing everything else means nothing for nobody else and that obviously isn't fair as anyone can update or edit charts. I like updating charts, especially for artists I listen to, and especially updating records and achievements. That is my starting block for this solution. — Calvin999 10:08, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
- I was trying to find a solution to not step on each other's toes; a voluntary IBAN of sorts. I began with the suggestion you could do the Dance Club Songs updates, and did not imply nor say that I could do "everything else". It's not mine to claim, nor yours. I was just trying to suggest how we could work on the charts by not getting in each other's way. Ss112 09:54, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
- Not once I have ever claimed I "trolled [your] edits" and why an editor (unless they were a vandal) would ever admit to such a thing I have no idea. At no point did I say you could not edit Scared of the Dark or any other article (please find the diffs; I never said this); I said it was on my watchlist and therefore saw recent contributions to it and corrected them. I'd like to see the apparent edit where I said I "trolled" anyone's edits or the like. I also have never admitted to updating Billboard charts to annoy you, because I started doing these months before I even knew who you even were. You brought up at ANI last year that I was reverting you while you were posting there for not updating accessdates; I said I was busy at the time and so you were certainly well aware I was doing the charts. You were (and are) quite well aware I updated these and it has nothing to do with you. That's not ownership; I'm saying I have a problem with users who do not like me jumping in ahead of me to do things to spite me. I did not say above that you only "occasionally" edited Dance Club Songs; I'm well aware of your extensive cleanup and other contributions to it, but it appears to have been primarily Ericorbit updating the #1 before 2016. If you got the impression I meant "occasionally", it was in reference to you adding the number one on a regular, continued basis. Please provide diffs of me saying I trolled you or did charts to spite you. It's right there in the Dance Club Songs chart number-one list history that before we ever interacted, I was updating it (June 2016 versus our first interaction, as you pointed out, in October 2016). Proof I was doing Billboard charts before we had a problem, so not lying. You have reverted me on your talk at least three times here, here and here. You said you have never reverted me there. That is an outright lie. This thread is for solutions, not to continue an argument. You again claim I'm lying but I don't see where I'm being dishonest. If you are looking to continue bringing up the past, then I hope Ad Orientem can find a solution so I don't have to continue to be insulted by you with claims that I have said things I have not. Ss112 09:41, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
I know, that's what I'm saying—other editors (excluding you and I here) can and will do the charts. If editors insert vandalism (adding blatantly false peaks), that should be reverted outright. That's getting away from the point though. I'm just trying to suggest which charts we could focus on of a week instead to minimise interaction and potential conflict. If you want to do the Dance Club Songs chart, you can do that and I won't "interrupt" you. I'm suggesting I could do the Hot 100 without "interruption". I don't know if that is acceptable to you as a solution. Perhaps the others are "fair game" then for either of us to do, unless you want to suggest other charts you want to focus on of a week without interruption by me. Ss112 10:40, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
- I don't think this idea of 'you do this, I do that' will work. Because then if I did something Hot 100 related, or you do Dance related, that will cause friction and to be honest, either can edit either, as can anyone else. We don't own the articles so neither of us can tell each other not to edit them. — Calvin999 10:47, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
- It's already caused friction so that's why I'm trying to suggest a solution to minimise the chances of it occurring. Of course neither of us own any articles, and nor can we say "don't edit them". That's not what I'm trying to say. If you don't wish to agree on or suggest alternative solutions on what we can focus on in terms of specific charts to minimise friction between us, I don't know what solution there is to minimise/avoid future arguments/disagreements. Personally, I don't want any. I'm sure neither of us wants to feel like the other is writing or doing things to target the other. The reason I contacted Ad Orientem was because it felt like you moving into doing more Hot 100 peaks recently was to prevent me from doing them. I understand you will probably say/have already implied that's not the case. Perhaps if we have future disagreements, we can discuss as calmly as possible, with no sarcasm or reference to past disagreements here. Ss112 10:52, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
- 1) I update the lists (e.g. Dance Club Songs, List of number-ones in 2017, List of artists who reached number) and you update all of the song articles chart tables or vice versa.
- 2) We take it in turns.
- 3) You do half the chart, I do half the chart, and do the lists in turn.
- I think these are better than 'you only do this and you only do that', as it avoids friction and it's fairer. — Calvin999 11:03, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
— Calvin999 11:01, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
- Is this a choice, or are you suggesting we do all three? If it's a choice, I like the sound of number one because that is mostly what I do anyway and you seem quite focused on doing the Dance Club Songs lists. Does this apply to the Dance Club Songs only? Because if it doesn't, I don't update the Hot 100 number-ones list nor necessarily all the other number-one lists on a regular basis; a user called The Emperah always gets to the Hot 100 number ones list first, which doesn't bother me as I just accepted they're very quick at it and dedicated. Ss112 11:16, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
- It's a choice, you obviously couldn't do all three or a mixture. No i put 'e.g.' so it would apply to all Billboard charts. Or whichever ones need doing if they haven't been done already. I like 1 or 3, 3 would lighten the load, well, half it essentially. — Calvin999 11:18, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
- Okay, I thought so. It may halve the load, but I think negotiating whose half is whose isn't really necessary. I think we should go with number one. You do the lists and artists; I do the songs and discographies (if I understand it correctly). I don't update all Billboard's lists though, nor update all their charts, so you may end up doing things other users do on a regular basis; I'm not sure which charts you intend to update the lists of. Exceptions should be; if we navigate to an article and have noticed the other hasn't done something after a while, I think it's fine to update them then. Of course, if something can be sourced earlier to one of their articles before Billboard refreshes of a Tuesday, then it seems fair to add these when they become available. From the time Billboard updates of a Tuesday though (usually 5 AM American EST), then the number one solution applies. Does that sound alright? Ss112 11:33, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
- It's a choice, you obviously couldn't do all three or a mixture. No i put 'e.g.' so it would apply to all Billboard charts. Or whichever ones need doing if they haven't been done already. I like 1 or 3, 3 would lighten the load, well, half it essentially. — Calvin999 11:18, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
- Is this a choice, or are you suggesting we do all three? If it's a choice, I like the sound of number one because that is mostly what I do anyway and you seem quite focused on doing the Dance Club Songs lists. Does this apply to the Dance Club Songs only? Because if it doesn't, I don't update the Hot 100 number-ones list nor necessarily all the other number-one lists on a regular basis; a user called The Emperah always gets to the Hot 100 number ones list first, which doesn't bother me as I just accepted they're very quick at it and dedicated. Ss112 11:16, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
- Just as an FYI, I'm online and I will try to look in now and then. If anything comes up that requires my attention just ping me. FWIW I think things are moving in the right direction here. Good luck and carry on. -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:40, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
Okay. They update just before 10am GMT/BST for me. If I don't do it at 10am I will still do it that day. I'm not always at a computer at that time. — Calvin999 09:50, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
- @Calvin999: Do you agree with the exceptions I pointed out though? As some info is made available earlier than Billboard's refreshing of charts at 10am GMT/5AM EST. Ss112 09:52, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
- For the chart tables and discographies? — Calvin999 10:02, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
- I meant Billboard often reveals number ones and other chart peaks earlier than 10AM GMT Tuesday. Do you want the lists that you are interested in updating to be left to be updated by yourself at a time that you are online? (Also, do you have a rough idea of which charts' lists you are interested in updating? That would be helpful to know, but not required) Ss112 10:06, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
- Billboard publishes some of the number-ones around 6pm or 7pm GMT/BST the evening before on a Monday. I will change the chart main article and it's associated lists on the Monday and Tuesday as and when I see them update for all of the charts to keep it consistent. I won't do the updating of the chart tables on song articles or discographies. — Calvin999 10:10, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
- @Calvin999: Okay, so the exceptions don't apply then. That's what I wanted to know. Are you intending to update all the lists of number ones on Billboard charts that you can find on Wikipedia, or just the few charts you're interested in? Just as I said yesterday, some editors already do the other charts' number ones, so I can't say who already does what. Ss112 10:13, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
- I'll go through all of them regardless. — Calvin999 10:13, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
- @Calvin999: Okay, then I will try to avoid the Billboard number-one lists or the main chart pages at 6/7pm GMT Monday/10am GMT Tuesday. If there is something I've done that you were intending to, please drop me a notice here in future (if Ad Orientem will maintain this page, that is)—but I will try to avoid the lists of main charts. Ss112 10:24, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
- Okay. — Calvin999 11:11, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
- @Calvin999: Okay, then I will try to avoid the Billboard number-one lists or the main chart pages at 6/7pm GMT Monday/10am GMT Tuesday. If there is something I've done that you were intending to, please drop me a notice here in future (if Ad Orientem will maintain this page, that is)—but I will try to avoid the lists of main charts. Ss112 10:24, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
- I'll go through all of them regardless. — Calvin999 10:13, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
- @Calvin999: Okay, so the exceptions don't apply then. That's what I wanted to know. Are you intending to update all the lists of number ones on Billboard charts that you can find on Wikipedia, or just the few charts you're interested in? Just as I said yesterday, some editors already do the other charts' number ones, so I can't say who already does what. Ss112 10:13, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
- Billboard publishes some of the number-ones around 6pm or 7pm GMT/BST the evening before on a Monday. I will change the chart main article and it's associated lists on the Monday and Tuesday as and when I see them update for all of the charts to keep it consistent. I won't do the updating of the chart tables on song articles or discographies. — Calvin999 10:10, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
- I meant Billboard often reveals number ones and other chart peaks earlier than 10AM GMT Tuesday. Do you want the lists that you are interested in updating to be left to be updated by yourself at a time that you are online? (Also, do you have a rough idea of which charts' lists you are interested in updating? That would be helpful to know, but not required) Ss112 10:06, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
- For the chart tables and discographies? — Calvin999 10:02, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
- @Calvin999: Do you agree with the exceptions I pointed out though? As some info is made available earlier than Billboard's refreshing of charts at 10am GMT/5AM EST. Ss112 09:52, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
*Happy to leave this page up. Good work on both of your parts. -Ad Orientem (talk) 13:36, 29 June 2017 (UTC)