User talk:Blooey

December 2023

Hello, I'm JalenFolf. I wanted to let you know that I reverted one of your recent contributions—specifically this edit to We Are Young—because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Teahouse or the Help desk. Thanks. Jalen Folf (talk) 22:29, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That was actually an accident, I apologize. I wanted to change the figure to 10 million since that 6M figure was accurate for the first few weeks of release that year. Now, it must have sold more than 10,000,000 copies to be certified diamond. I wanted to change the figure and remove the reference but it was some sort of a coding misfire and that entire row was removed. Once again I apologize. Blooey (talk) 13:56, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add or change content, as you did at We Are Young, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. Jalen Folf (talk) 15:10, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

My source was RIAA. Blooey (talk) 20:53, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Blooey (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Caught by an open proxy block but this host or IP is not an open proxy. My IP address is 102.89.44.135. I didn't mean to remoove that section on We Are Young. I wanted to change the sales figure but I erased everything by accident/ I didn't know we could use the preview section to see our future changes. Now that I used the preview I can see the changes. I joined Wikipedia to put more accurate information and to make it more intriguing and inviting for potential readers. I promise that such accidental events will never happen again. Blooey (talk) 16:17, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Your edit is not related to the block. The IP you are on is that of a P2P VPN; this will need to be disabled and your browser cache cleared before you edit. 331dot (talk) 16:35, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

"universal acclaim"

Hello; I saw your edit here at Kill Bill (SZA song) and want to remind you that extraordinary claims like these require explicit citations to RS. It's one thing to say reviews were positive, and it's another to say consensus on the song's critical response was unanimously positive. PSA 🏕️🪐 (please make some noise...) 01:43, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

But many reviews displayed on the page spoke very highly of it, so I didn't think that edit was a bad idea. Which one of these is better:

"critical acclaim"

"widespread acclaim"

"highly positive reviews"

"rave reviews"

"critically lauded"

Kill Bill was one of the public's favorite songs and the critics loved it as well so I don't really believe that "universal acclaim" is a stretch. But do enlighten me on what I can replace that phrase with. Blooey (talk) 14:54, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Removing sourced salesamount

Hi Blooey,

First, I want to clarify that I am not stalking you. All the edits I undid were flagged by maintenance templates that I monitor and clean regularly.

In most of the edits I reverted, you removed sourced |salesamount= figures from certification tables. These figures are typically pure sales numbers reported by reliable sources such as Nielsen, rather than certified amounts by the RIAA. The consensus is to keep these figures, even if they are lower than the certified amounts. If you believe these numbers should not be reported, please discuss this on the article's talk page. If the certification was made later than the Nielsen sales report, there may be more justification not to report it in the table, but I still ask that you discuss this change on the article's talk page.

In other edits, you added a certified amount that was already reported by the template. This is redundant, and as mentioned above, is flagged by maintenance templates, so I undid it.

Happy editing, --Muhandes (talk) 09:39, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I mean some of these citations or sources showing the sales numbers are like several years old meanwhile RIAA definitely shows us the certified amount; you can literally go on their website and see. If a an article showing that this single csold 600,000 copies 7 years ago we shouldn't keep that source if it's been certified higher already Blooey (talk) 12:17, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, if a source is seven years older than the certification than it can probably mentioned in the body of the article, saying "It sold up to XXX as of YYY", and not mentioned in the table at all. But with Judas (Lady Gaga song), just as an example, the certification is from 2016 and the sales figure is from 2019, three years later. Muhandes (talk) 14:28, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, yeah you're right. I'm about to ask a question, I hope this is alright with you. It's just a question in general: Do you think the RIAA is an unreliable source? Blooey (talk) 20:43, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome to ask as many questions as you'd like, and I'll do my best to provide answers. The RIAA is generally considered a reliable source, particularly when it comes to their own certifications, where they are an authoritative reference. However, over the years, we've identified some systematic errors in their database. Muhandes (talk) 06:31, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]