User talk:Muhandes/Archive 18

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

Archive 18

Archive 19

Archive 20

Verified information

Hello, the information by album Pal Mundo about the copies is confirme. 190.5.46.74 (talk) 10:24, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

The sentence you are adding makes no sense. "The album sold over 676,000 copies, earnings $878,800 and sold 1,000,000 million copies, earnings $1,300,000 and earnings $1,000,000." Make up your mind, how many copies did it sell 676,000 or 1,000,000? For how much, $878,000, $1,300,000 or $1,000,000? A source that says three contradicting things is not a reliable source. --Muhandes (talk) 10:28, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

While we are already discussing what is "Reception comercial"? Please contribute to the English Wikipedia only in English, or consider contributing to another Wikipedia in your own language. --Muhandes (talk) 10:31, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

The album sold 1 million copies confirme in reliable source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.5.46.74 (talk) 10:34, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

I'm not going to argue the reliability of the source, but the sentence you add needs to be in English ("confirme" is not in English) and needs to make sense.--Muhandes (talk) 11:02, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

I corrected your English and tried to make sense of the sentence. I truly recommend you try contributing to a Wikipedia that uses your own language, you are making other editors' life quite miserable.--Muhandes (talk) 11:27, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Deletion request: Image files uploaded by Ikeshut2

Item D of {{PD-Australia}} allows the use of material from published editions (i.e., “the typographical arrangement and layout of a published work”) first published more than 25 years ago. In each case these photographs come from a published work (i.e., the Australian Women’s Weekly) published more than 25 years ago. Have I misunderstood something? Ikeshut2 (talk) 09:58, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

@Ikeshut2: I answered on commons, but in short, Item D excludes photographs. Photographs published in newsprint are protected under items A and B. --Muhandes (talk) 10:13, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

I would consider an image in a newspaper or magazine as part of the "layout of a published work", so rather than just take your word for it could you please provide a link in the Wikipedia documentation that supports your interpretation. Ikeshut2 (talk) 10:22, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

@Ikeshut2: Splitting the discussion is pointless. I answered at the commons. --Muhandes (talk) 11:11, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Removing archives

Can you explain why in this edit the archive was also rmvd? It still supports/contains the info cited in the prose. -- Carlobunnie (talk) 22:16, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

@Carlobunnie: Billboard changed all their URLs (again), so I replaced the dead URL with a live one, which is surely preferred. I auto-archive all the URLs I use, so preemptively re-adding an archive is not a problem, done here. --Muhandes (talk) 10:07, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Let me clarify what I meant. I know BB changed their urls and have no problem at all with you updating the live url per that. I specifically asked abt the orig archive in the ref only because even when a url is updated (as BB is wont to do), I like keeping the old archives as they reflect the orig/truest vers of an article when it was first published (unless ofc the article's content has changed since the archive was saved), so I was more asking why we can't keep the orig archive in the ref since the content is still the same. -- Carlobunnie (talk) 17:58, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

@Carlobunnie: It seems odd to me when a URL does not match the archive URL, but now that I understand the reason I don't specifically object. --Muhandes (talk) 16:06, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

I totally understand how it seems odd to not have the two match, but the "old" BB article url wasn't actually dead. It redirected to BB's current url, so I think both could have been left as is. In that light, would you mind my restoring the archive and old url? As an aside, some websites (like Forbes and EW for eg) reuse their urls, so archives for some articles look completely diff to the live url. Can't think of specific instances on WP to link, but ik I've come across it before. -- Carlobunnie (talk) 00:03, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

@Carlobunnie: I don't know about other websites. I do know that Billboard may remove the redirects soon, like they did in the past. In fact, I went through a few hundreds of these links and for some of them the redirects already stopped working so I had to search for the new URL. Taking that into account I think a live URL is better. Having said all that, if you feel so strongly about keeping the old URL, go ahead and keep it, I have an opinion but I don't really care. It's soon going to be the only URL of the old format on Wikipedia as I'm getting close to updating them all. --Muhandes (talk) 00:11, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

I'd only run into dead chart-related links so far, and articles were still redirecting, so I thought that's how they'd be. "Billboard may remove the redirects soon, like they did in the past" - I totally forgot they do that. Then please disregard the rest of my previous reply, and thanks for explaining! -- Carlobunnie (talk) 04:33, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Sure thing, have fun editing. --Muhandes (talk) 08:12, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

January 2022

Thank you so much for adjusting this. He did the same on F.A.M.E. (Chris Brown album) without being checked, while on this article he was Warned by another admin--109.52.44.164 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 00:33, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

@Morce Library: Please don't use IP editing to avoid the block. --Muhandes (talk) 00:41, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

I just want to help you check his mistakes one last time. User Aardwolf68 still using misleading edit summaries, inexplicably removing wikilinks and updates of this album being certified triple platinum on the lead section, adding completely unsourced reviews, removing lots of references and messing Italics, removing some other valid edits on the lead, and basically just doing what he did before, but on a lesser scale--109.52.240.32 (talk) 15:58, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for caring. From a very quick overview it seems like they are now only mostly undoing Morce Library's edits, so I think this scale of damage is acceptable collateral damage considering the level of vandalism they are undoing. --Muhandes (talk) 16:01, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

The point is that they are not only undoing Morce Library's edits. Anyway have a nice day--109.52.240.32 (talk) 16:05, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

They seem to be acting in good faith undoing vandal edits with some acceptable collateral damage. If you think they are not, report it, but do consider WP:BOOMERANG. --Muhandes (talk) 16:11, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

It's absolutely not in good faith, and this is the proof. In this last edit that he made he claims that he reverted a Morce Library edit, check this 2014 version of that page, it has that exact sourced statement that he removed. Morce Library's first edit is dated 17 September 2021, so Morce clearly did not add that statement, it was there 7 years before his first edit. That's a straight up vandalism + misleading edit summaries, like all of his recent edits--109.52.244.37 (talk) 22:07, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

If you care so much how the Morce Library edits are undone, edit the pages and undo them yourself. I don't care enough to get involved. --Muhandes (talk) 00:47, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Sources reliable

Hello, the source of the website The Richest is realiable, is one page about sale, earnings and net worth. I just want to contribute in Wikipedia with references reliable. Romberd (talk) 12:37, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

@Romberd: First, you are avoiding a block, so you need to address this issue before you continue editing Wikipedia. Second, you seem to have trouble communicating in English so I repeat my suggestion that you may be better contributing to a Wikipedia using your own language. Third, please familiarize yourself with WP:BRD: if you add material (being bold is a not a bad thing) and someone reverts it, you discuss it with them, preferably on the article's talk page. By restoring the material over and over after being reverted you are being disruptive. This was explained to you nine (!) times already, and you actually got blocked for doing it, so what do you do? Ignore it all, open another account and repeat the same thing again? You wrote here that you understand the reason you were blocked, but it is apparent that you either don't understand it or simply don't care. --Muhandes (talk) 12:56, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

@Muhandes: "yes I understand the reason", but only that you understand that I edi with reliable sounces, and edit because editing is not locked. I understand that I made mistake, but i want to fix them. Romberd (talk) 01:40, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

@Romberd: Reliable sources are not the main issue. The main issue is that you are not showing willingness to collaborate on building an encyclopedia. Let me give you another example: look at this revision history. I repeatedly explain that being featured on the soundtrack of a game falls under WP:SONGTRIVIA and you ignore me. You reintroduce the same material a fourth time and on the same edit you ignore another comment I made here: unsourced genre. You may be right and I may be wrong (I often am), but if you are reverted you can't reintroduce the same material. Read the edit summary, see what the concern was, and address the issue or discuss it at the talk page if you don't agree.

By the way, to ease interaction please see Help:Talk and Help:Introduction to talk pages. Note the indentation. You don't need to ping me on my own talk page. --Muhandes (talk) 15:23, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Requesting RfC closure at Talk:Banaras_Hindu_University

Hello, since there are no more comments for about 7 seven days, and the incorrect image of "founders" [1] needs to be removed from the article, therefore I request you to close the RfC appropriately. You may also want to appropriately mark File:The_founder_members_of_BHU.jpg for being incorrectly descriptive as the image of "founder members of BHU". Thanks, User4edits (talk) 07:52, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

@User4edits: I can't close the discussion because I have a strong opinion on the matter which I already voiced. But even if not, I would not close the discussion because instead of discussing the only thing that matters when building an encyclopedia, i.e., what do reliable sources say about the subject, you have turned this into a matter of what is right and what is wrong, viz. a matter of opinion. In matters of opinion, everyone deserves one, and all opinions are equal. I think that in doing so, you are doing the subject a great ill service. Even if this is not the case, you make other editors (like myself) think that you may have an agenda. --Muhandes (talk) 08:49, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

@Muhandes: I don't know how discussing right and wrong, based on facts and sources is a "matter of opinion". Most importantly, the reason why I had to do the RfC was that an editor was repeatedly putting the same image without any source as "founder members". All I wanted was for the Article to be correctly informing the readers. As for me having an "agenda", is your opinion, and you are free to opine whatever suits you. 12:04, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

@User4edits: You are assuming there is one truth and so there is right or wrong. This is why this argument cannot be decided - what you see as right, another editor sees as wrong. I don't think we are here to decide what is "correct". We are here to report what reliable sources say. Since no reliable sources call them founders, we will not call them founders, as simple as that. Well, I guess we will agree to disagree. Happy editing! --Muhandes (talk) 13:25, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Mail call

Hello, Muhandes. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Bishonen | tålk 08:48, 2 February 2022 (UTC).

@Bishonen: Answered you via email. --Muhandes (talk) 11:06, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Technical Barnstar
	I've seen your work on song articles and fixing and enhancing their certification citations. I would like to give you this Barnstar to show my appreciation to your work. Cheers! ɢᴀʙʙʏᴍɪx01 05:31, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

@GabbyMix01: Thank you! --Muhandes (talk) 08:02, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

Regarding the Russian certification

Hi Muhandes, hope you're doing well, I'm just here to let you know that I've found something odd regarding the Russian certification thresholds. To my knowledge, the threshold for the international albums released in Russia throughout the 2000s were (10,000/20,000/200,000) for (Gold/Platinum/Diamond), yet for some reason, albums such as Crazy Hits or FutureSex/LoveSounds despite being certified Diamond, are only listed with 60,000 units. What do you think about it? Moh8213 (talk) 21:02, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

@Moh8213: Do you have any source for that? I know the person who wrote that code, it's 12-years younger me. A handsome young fellow, but still one that sticks to sources. If I wrote 60,000, I had a source that said 60,000 units, at least for the early 2000s. I see now that the link to that source is dead, but I trust old me. Nevertheless, if you have a reliable source that says otherwise, do let me know. --Muhandes (talk) 21:14, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Well, I've found 2 sources that can support my claim, this one shows the best selling albums in Russia and it also shows you the certification levels that launched in Russia since 2003, when you scroll down you will see the list of the best selling international albums. There's also this source that shows the best selling records and artists in the USSR and Russia, scroll down till you see the list of the top selling foreign albums 2003-2012, there you will see the 200,000 unit figure for the Diamond cert. Moh8213 (talk) 20:03, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

@Moh8213: I'm afraid both of these website are considered WP:SPS and unreliable. charmasters.org is actually listed at WP:NOTRSMUSIC. bestsellingalbums.org is a rather new website, I believe from 2020, so there was no discussion about it yet, but it does not divulge its sources nor the identity of the organization behind it. It also seems to mirror some Wikipedia lists. Do you have any objection for me moving this discussion to somewhere more public like Template talk:Certification Table Entry? --Muhandes (talk) 08:13, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

I really don't mind if you wanna move this discussion anywhere else. But my overall opinion is that the 200,000 units for the Diamond certification is much more logical, cuz it doesn't make any sense that the highest certification (Diamond) would be the same as a 3× Platinum (60,000). Moh8213 (talk) 16:29, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

@Moh8213: I'm not sure why you don't find 3× Platinum logical. This is Exactly what they do for domestic. It makes much less sense to have 3× Platinum for domestic and 10× Platinum for imported. Also, from 2010 it was 3×, so it makes much more sense it was 3× before as well. Besides, 3× is a reasonable number. In Belgium Diamond is 2× Platinum, in France it is less than 2×, in Germany it is 2.5×, in in Hungary 2×. I can go on... --Muhandes (talk) 16:37, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

I said 3× Platinum (60,000) because the Russian Diamond certification is also equals to (60,000), take a look at this archived database of international albums that were released in 2006, look carefully at the top 2 certs, you can see that FutureSex/LoveSounds is certified Diamond (60,000) and Loose is certified 6× Platinum (120,000), see what I mean? Even though that FS/LSs listed at the top of the list yet sold less compared to the album below it, same thing goes with Crazy Hits, either way, based on the archived database we have, both of these albums are the only ones to receive the Diamond certification. In fact, that's how I noticed that something is odd regarding the Diamond figure, especially given the fact that the certifications are listed in ascending order. And btw believe me you can have a 3× Platinum (domestic) and 10× Platinum (imported). Moh8213 (talk) 18:36, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

@Moh8213: Your logic convinced me. I copied the discussion here and lets see what other editors think. --Muhandes (talk) 08:39, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Lol! Didn't think that you'd get convinced this easily, anyways thanks for your time! Moh8213 (talk) 09:39, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

@Moh8213: Yes, people don't expect this, but I have a long history of being easily convinced, especially by logic. At work this really drives people crazy Happy editing! --Muhandes (talk) 09:47, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Changes by itsmeuksh

Sir changes are must because there is dignity and designation attached with such post and these are like principal of degree college must be prof and doctor I m not writing unessential things so plz don't revert it I m also HOD in that college and changes were done according to direction of higher authorities Plz do not revert it 2409:4053:2011:DCD1:0:0:1853:90B0 (talk) 00:55, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

@Itsmeuksh: I'm sorry but this is not possible. We have a Manual of Style that should be followed to maintain a consistent, encyclopedic appearance. Deviating from this style, disturbs uniformity among articles and may cause readability or accessibility problems. Adding honorifics and academic titles is against the manual of style and I will therefore ask (for the third time) that you stop adding them. I also ask that you edit while logged into your account. --Muhandes (talk) 07:35, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

sir the manual of style is not working on the kkpg college etawah uttar pradesh Indi as i have seen that Dr and other credentials are used and validated by wki pedia i have read the instruction i m only changes the essentials not non authentic information if u r working on indian colleges information then u must have knowledge that what degree or designation provided to that post -- aprincipal is always a professor and doctor if u not like that anyone can change it then please change it principal = prof. Dr. shailendra kumar sharma and link it with vidwan portal as i have linked it earlier otherwise allow me to change it.it is not a prestige issue u r doing good but plz change it thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Itsmeuksh (talk • contribs) 21:07, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

@Itsmeuksh: There are other articles which don't follow the MOS and if you point them out they will be fixed, or better yet, you can fix them yourself. It was quite difficult to understand what you mean by "kkpg college etawah uttar pradesh Indi", but assuming you referred to Karm Kshetra Post Graduate College, I fixed that too. Linking with an external website is against this policy, I will add more details on your talk page. If you continue your disruptive editing you will be blocked. --Muhandes (talk) 22:02, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

link to vidwan portal

sir actually the external link belong to that person's detail who is the principal appointed in january 2022 in the college and the vidwan portal is government of Indian -- uttar pradesh state university portal and it has all the research scholar information and current designation .plz it is a request that write the correct designation professor Doctor as mentioned in vidwan portal before principal name.i don't have any dispute to any editor but i know that i m writing the correct words because i m in this field since 2006 so it is a request to u plz write the correct words prof. Dr. thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Itsmeuksh (talk • contribs) 22:47, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

@Itsmeuksh: I'm sorry, but you don't seem to be reading the guidelines I am pointing you to, so I will try to be clearer. When you see text in blue it means it is a link - you can follow that link to see the guidelines I am talking about. Here is one: External links guidelines. Click that link and it will take you there. You wills see that we don't allow external links in Wikipedia. Also, please click on the following words: MOS:DOCTOR. This will give you an overview of why we don't add "Dr." or "Prof." before names. Surely you understand that in order to build an encyclopedia we need to follow rules and guidelines. --Muhandes (talk) 23:05, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

make a new page of prof dr shailendra kumar sharma

sir, can i create a page of my college principal in wikipedia and write all the qualification and other achievements in that page just like mulayam singh yadav as u create a link on hover it shows details. thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Itsmeuksh (talk • contribs) 19:21, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

@Itsmeuksh: If you are asking whether an article about Shailendra Kumar Sharma can exist in Wikipedia, then the answere lies in WP:NACADEMIC, WP:NBIO and WP:GNG, in that order. Read those guidelines carefully (click on the links to see the guidelines) and determine whether Sharma satisfies any of those requirements. If you are asking whether you can create that article, then I suggest you go through the WP:AFC process (again, click that blue line to see what's behind it). I also left you a note at your talk page (which you should never ignore) about conflict of interests. Please read that note carefully before continuing to contribute. --Muhandes (talk) 08:35, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

References

can you explain how I am "uninterested" after doing what you said about adding proper references --Yeeta Skeeta

Answered at your talk page. --Muhandes (talk) 18:43, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

Muhandes, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Deji (Youtuber). Yeeta Skeeta, I'm being nice: I suppose I could have simply deleted it as spam. Drmies (talk) 18:30, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

@Drmies: What can I say, I tried. At least I can tell them "I told you so". --Muhandes (talk) 18:43, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

Foxy Brown Discography/Ill Na Na Entertainment.

Everything included in Foxy Brown's Discography wiki page is accurate with sources included, so why delete the information? I will add more sources if needed. Concerning the Ill Na Na Entertainment wiki page it was a real record label and is on the back of her album covers Chyna Doll & Broken Silence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FoxyData (talk • contribs) 18:49, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

@FoxyData: Thanks for communicating. I left you many messages on your talk page and you ignored them. You do know you have a talk page for communicating, you found your way to mine pretty easily.

Regarding the sourcing, please don't add numbers without reliable sources. A number, however accurate it is, is worth nothing if it cannot be verified. also, Please don't add numbers from certifications, the column is for sourced sales, not for certifications, there is another column for that.

Regarding Ill Na Na Entertainment, please read WP:NORG. I don't think it satisfied the requirements. --Muhandes (talk) 18:56, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

Vandalism

Hi Muhandes, a user you reverted before, and warned about it, is still doing the same massive removals using the same false edit summaries he was warned about. Can you please revert his vandalisms like you did last time? Thank you so much for your time--146.241.192.13 (talk) 09:52, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

Anonymous, I am sorry but I am not interested, so please stop bothering me with this issue. Unlike you, at least that editor has the decency to take responsibility for their edits. For all I know, you might be the LTA they are reverting and this might be some private agenda you have against them. I don't appreciate editors hopping IPs to avoid WP:BOOMERANG and making accusations without revealing their editing history. --Muhandes (talk) 10:52, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

I take responsibility for my edits. This is not me trying to get revenge, this is me trying to avoid messy removals on other pages. I'm not editing pages and IP hopping to avoid boomerang, I'm just trying to take care of pages that are receiving wrong removals. Plus I don't understand how is he taking responsibility for his wrong edits when he literally keep on making them--176.246.83.173 (talk) 11:53, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

Which part of "not interested" did you not understand? Has this not hinted you as to where I stand? Take the standard offer or leave it, but stop bothering us - we are not interested. --Muhandes (talk) 11:59, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	Thank you so much for your precious tips! JohnnyCoal (talk) 13:47, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

@JohnnyCoal: Thanks for the barnstar. Feel free to contact me if you have any questions. --Muhandes (talk) 13:49, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Snooker Legends

I added a source but I changed the wording to just say they staged the event in 2022 and removed the other wording about COVID issues. So please leave as I have the basics now sourced. 178.167.199.22 (talk) 08:11, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

You claimed to be here more time than myself, so you should know the ropes. Another editor can challenge anything you add, and when doing so, you should not restore it unless you can provide reliable sources. If you have provided such sources for all facts, I will most definitely leave it as is. --Muhandes (talk) 08:19, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Reliable source

HI, would you kindly replace them with a reliable source. FOr example this one. I'll try to do with others. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 18:02, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

@Fylindfotberserk: I'm sorry, but icbse is used in over 850 articles. If I were to start looking for reliable sources on every edit, I would do nothing but fixing this for the rest of 2022. I am more concerned with Wikipedia serving as the free publicity agency of icbse than with the sourcing of junior and secondary education institutes. This doesn't fall under any of the conditions in WP:MINREF, so strictly speaking we can live for a while without inline citations. If this bothers you and you rather fix those 850 articles yourself, I would be happy to stop removing these icbse links and leave you to do it yourself. --Muhandes (talk) 18:10, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

850 articles! that many! Who did this I wonder? WP:MINREF or not I find it uncomfortable to keep them unsourced. To be frank I don't even like entries without Wiki-articles. I'll try finding reliable sources on those that are in my watchlist. You can continue with the noble task . - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 18:33, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

Email

I just got an email from you about a change I made but I don’t know what you’re referring to. Can you send me a link so I can see what edits were made? Mcmarcuschapman (talk) 14:36, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

@Mcmarcuschapman: I never sent you any email, that's an automatic notification you get when someone leaves you a message on your talk page. I was probably referring to these edits, but many other of your edits lack a source too. --Muhandes (talk) 14:47, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

Ok. I know the email is an automatic notification, but I’m referring to the message you sent me. My edits are based on correct information in Joel Whitburn’s research books that document the various Billboard Magazine charts (R&B singles, albums, etc.). Since those charts are usually already cited as sources for the chart information placed in the entries I didn’t feel the need to cite them a second time. In the case of Bahamadia, her single Uknowhowwedu entered the R&B chart the week ending 2/10/96, so it reached its chart peak in 1996, not in 1995. True Honey Buns was the B side of the single, and although they made a video for it, the song was never released as a single on its own (I double checked this on Discogs before I changed it on the entry). Therefore, I Confess, which entered the chart the week ending 6/29/96, was the second single from her album. Her very first single, Total Wreck, was released in 1994; almost 2 years before her album was released. So even though it’s included on the album, to say it was the “first single from the album“ would be incorrect because there was no album even recorded to promote at that point. Therefore, Uknowhowwedu was the first single “from the album” and I Confess was the second single. Mcmarcuschapman (talk) 15:15, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

@Mcmarcuschapman: You don't need to explain this to me, I don't really care. You need to explain it in the article and provide sources, or at least in the edit summary. --Muhandes (talk) 15:31, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

I explained it to you because you obviously cared enough to go back and change it. Whoever did the previous edits used All Music as a source for their chart information. But All Music does not publish charts so their use as a source for chart dates is secondary. The Charts section for the album Kollage says 1996, and doesn’t have a source directly next to the word “Charts”. The Charts section for Uknowhowwedu says 1995 and has a source cited next to the word “Charts”. The source they used was All Music, which doesn’t even give chart info on their Bahamadia page, so why is it even there when the chart peaks come from Billboard in 1996 and not 1995? I changed it to make the info accurate because I was listening to the album at that moment. I’m not going back to change it again so if you want it to be accurate, keep the info I gave. If you want it to be wrong then keep it like it is. It’s your choice and your integrity, not mine. Mcmarcuschapman (talk) 16:38, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

@Mcmarcuschapman: If AllMusic does not publish charts, it is even more a reason to add a proper source. It turns out this is not difficult at all so I added the chart sources and now the chart also says 1996, which comes back to the original subject – facts with sources. This is as far as my interest goes. If you care enough to explain how this single is actually the "first", go ahead and explain it, but not to me, as I said, I don't care. --Muhandes (talk) 07:34, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

Itunes

Please read this. CUPIDICAE💕 16:19, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

@Praxidicae: Fine, what do you suggest? I've never written an artist biography, these type of sources are new to me. How is one supposed to source release information (mainly release dates) when all the releases are purely digital? Would adding a single link to such a retailer saying all information is from there be sufficient and acceptable? --Muhandes (talk) 16:33, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

If they're so trivial that there are no rs covering them, that should be the answer to your question (hint: it's too trivial to be in the article.) CUPIDICAE💕 16:35, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

@Praxidicae: Thanks for the hint, but (almost all of) these releases are already sourced in the body of the article. I will repeat the sources in the table if anyone asks for it. My problem was that these other sources are not necessarily accurate on the release date of digital singles, sometimes confusing it with the release of the video (I did note that Apple Music is often wrong about the order of artists or their role and I preferred the information on other sources). I thought the digital venue will be the best source for accurate information on release dates, but as you pointed out, WP:NOTRSMUSIC does not agree, and I try to follow policy when I can. Since release date are only used for sorting, I guess that's not a big issue, but I think there might be a place to rethink that policy when it comes to sourcing release dates. --Muhandes (talk) 07:49, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

WP:IAR does not supersede sourcing policies. Ever. CUPIDICAE💕 14:52, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

@Praxidicae: Not going to go philosophical about IAR, but I agree it does not apply in this case, which is exactly what I said (read carefully). --Muhandes (talk) 14:55, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

Grouping charts and certifications

Hey Muhandes. Am I misremembering or misrepresenting or did you say somewhere you were against grouping charts and certifications? I just came across the heading "Commercial performance statistics" for the first time and noticed a few recent edits by HumanxAnthro (whom I had an unrelated conversation with earlier today). Instead of re-litigating my earlier disagreement with them, maybe you want to tell them if you feel strongly about this? They've been editing song pages and squeezing all information (including certifications) into three columns with this heading, which just seems too much tabular information in one section and unnecessary cluttering. Ss112 03:35, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

@Ss112: While I think grouping charts and certifications might get unwieldy, I don't care too much about it. If someone else finds it important, I tend to leave the subject and find something better to do. --Muhandes (talk) 07:00, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

So am I wrong in assuming that you were the user who had said we shouldn't combine these? I don't know if this is you not wanting to take too strong a stance against another editor, but I would find it hard to believe that if you came across an editor changing headings to "Commercial performance statistics" and squeezing content in two columns on a short article next to an infobox that you'd be like "that's fine", Muhandes... Ss112 17:42, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

@Ss112: Like I said, my opinion is that charts and certifications should be separated. In the case you listed it is really bad so I may have reverted too, but in general I'm not going to go on a crusade over cosmetics. --Muhandes (talk) 19:57, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

DYK for ZieZie

On 14 April 2022, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article ZieZie, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Croydon-based rapper ZieZie started studying carpentry in college before he decided to focus on music? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/ZieZie. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, ZieZie), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

— Maile (talk) 00:02, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

Double Lz and alleged name

Hey there; I've been trying to find a source for Double Lz and his name for some time now. While continuing to try to find it, I found this [2], which names Bandokay and Double Lz (allegedly) by their real names as composers.

Do you think this would be applicable as a reference to his name or would it be considered SYNTH? I'm leaning towards the former currently, though I'm not so sure whether or not it would be SYNTH. Hwqaksd (talk) 16:47, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

@Hwqaksd: I'm not sure how the thought process goes. Where does this source say that Bandokay and Double Lz are Andre Deer and Kemani Duggan? The former are the artists, the latter are the composers. --Muhandes (talk) 17:06, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

Because Bandokay and Kemani Duggan are the same person (per [3]) and they are listed as artist and composer in the source, respectively, wouldn't it make sense to assume that Double Lz's name is Andre Deer? Hwqaksd (talk) 19:01, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

@Hwqaksd: It could just as well be a third person. I think the wall between SYNTH and COMMON is a little higher than this. For example if you would have found a source saying Bandokay and Double Lz are the composers, and then this source saying Deer and Duggan are the composers, and a third source saying Bandokay is Duggan, the conceivably, you could use COMMON to say Double Lz is Deer. At least that would be my logic. --Muhandes (talk) 19:18, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

@Muhandes: I could see where Andre Deer could be a third person; I should note that there is an article from the Evening Standard ([4]) that notes Andre Deer as a "member of his [Bandokay's] rap collective". Whether this refers to OFB as a whole or the trio, I don't know - if this refers to the trio, then we can assume that Andre Deer is Double Lz (as we have the names for Bandokay and SJ, through the above The Guardian article and [5]).

In the case this refers to the group, I'll try to find something along the lines of the first source you mentioned. Hwqaksd (talk) 19:41, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

One More Chance

I didn’t add them. They were already there. Smokiewight (talk) 17:35, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

@Smokiewight: I'm not sure I understand, maybe you didn't mean it, but this is your edit. --Muhandes (talk) 19:23, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

No. It’s common knowledge El DeBarge got some of that publishing when his song “Stay with Me” was sampled from it. Smokiewight (talk) 23:02, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

@Smokiewight: Surely WP:V applies even when something is "common knowledge", don't you think? --Muhandes (talk) 12:57, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

Not really. Lots of songwriters,I have seen do not have a citation next to any of their names. And you are the only one that took it off. Sounds like an obsession,don’t YOU thnk? Smokiewight (talk) 19:01, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

@Smokiewight: ad hominem much? Whatever, please just follow WP:V and don't add material without a reliable source. --Muhandes (talk) 19:11, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

Nobody else has. Why should I? And trust me,big dog, if I ad hominem you,you would definitely know. Good day to you and don’t message me again. Smokiewight (talk) 21:37, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

Per your request I am not pinging you, so if you read this it is not because I "messaged" you. I need to warn you that if you ever plan to carry out that threat, it will not be tolerated. Also, if you continue to add unsourced material, it may be reverted. That's how Wikipedia works and I'm not the first to point this out to you. On the other hand, unlike you, I do invite you to engage in communication in the future, in case you have any questions and you plan to remain civil. --Muhandes (talk) 07:11, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

Threat? What threat? I don’t even know you,nor what you look like. I merely ask you don’t message me again because I’m not gonna keep on going back and forth and I have better things to do. I know how this site works,no matter who points out what to me. You’re the one taking this personal. I’m cool,despite what you make of me. Civility is fine with me. As long as you do the same. Ok? Ok. Smokiewight (talk) 07:37, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

DYK for Geko (rapper)

On 29 April 2022, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Geko (rapper), which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Mancunian rapper Geko was signed to UK music collective USG at the age of 13, becoming their youngest member? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Geko (rapper). You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Geko (rapper)), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

— Maile (talk) 00:02, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

Yay, my 50th DTK. --Muhandes (talk) 07:54, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

Certyear required for all instances of Australia Template:Certification Table Entry

Hi. I'd appreciate in future if you let me know on my talk page that I've accidentally removed something that should be present, like that certyear= is still required to be present instead of having to find out because you edited the page later. I understand you've expressed reluctance to post on my talk page in the past because of the bold message, but as it states, that is intended for template notices, queries and editors asking me to help them out, not just simply informing me of something I've done. I believed keeping certyear= there would override using id=. Thanks. Ss112 15:29, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

@Ss112: No problem, I'd be happy to. As a matter of fact I forgot about that talk page message thing. I was just doing my weekly footnote correction and I didn't think you would find this information useful, but I will try to let you know in person in the future. As you probably figured out, the parameter |certyear= is required to determine the footnote type. Happy editing! --Muhandes (talk) 16:39, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

Help with a certification table

Hi Muhandes. Could you advise what is the best way to handle this certification table? Wings' BPI Gold certification was announced today, but I'm unsure how to add that since the tables are combined (I don't think they should be) and I can't add another cert template in the row. Or, if you have the time, could you fix it? -- Carlobunnie (talk) 03:36, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

@Carlobunnie: I agree that the tables should not be combined so I broke them into two tables. I don't see the BPI Gold certification in the database so I can't add it, but it can be done easily once it is out. --Muhandes (talk) 17:29, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

Just saw it, thank you! Wrt Wings, I cited the announcement tweet for the cert as a temp ref until the BPI site updates, and included a note for it to be removed then. -- Carlobunnie (talk) 18:10, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

Esquemas

Hi I was wondering if you could help me out with something. It appears that the article for the album Esquemas was created WP:TOOSOON so it didn't meet notability requirements at the time but now the album has entered charts and gotten enough coverage so it meets notability but the article is protected so it seems I can't edit it to remove the redirect and restore the article as it said on the deletion page. I've never run into this before. Could you help me? FanDePopLatino (talk) 06:00, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

@FanDePopLatino: I suggest you create the article in your own space and ask at WP:RPP/D to remove the protection when ready. --Muhandes (talk) 06:05, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

@Muhandes: Awesome will do. Thanks for your help! :) FanDePopLatino (talk) 06:08, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

Precious

One year!

Precious anniversary

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:50, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

Thanks Gerda Arendt! --Muhandes (talk) 06:54, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for reverting the nonsense edits of 203.213.104.128, with their "failed to top the charts in Australia cause Australians disliked the album" or whatever other variation they rave on with. I've been reverting this person wherever they've popped up for the past year or so, they've never stuck to the same IP, and I have no idea what the "reasons" they give are about. Ss112 19:58, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

@Ss112: First time I encountered them. I'll be sure to revert them on sight from now on. --Muhandes (talk) 22:05, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

Music Box (Mariah Carey Album)

Greetings. I have restored the article primarily to how it was prior to your revert of my edit. The presented reference does in fact explicitly state that Music Box had exceeded German sales of 1.4 million copies by the time of the 1995 release of Daydream. Please be more careful with your future edits as these changes were in fact legitimate.--65.153.143.20 (talk) 20:28, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

OK, I see it, but you have to add the source to the table if you are going to use it there, like this. --Muhandes (talk) 06:56, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

Addition of NIRF 2022 Rankings at Infobox India university ranking

NIRF 2022 rankings have been published[6], additions may kindly be made to the template at urgent priority. Thanks, User4edits (talk) User4edits (talk) 11:31, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

@User4edits:  Done. Let me know if something malfunctions, I did it rather quickly. Don't you think it's time to cleanup the 2019 and 2020 ones? --Muhandes (talk) 11:54, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

Many parameters are now showing as undocumented. Warnings on edit page include:

Preview warning: Page using Template:Infobox India university ranking with outdated parameter "NIRF_E_2021"

Preview warning: Page using Template:Infobox India university ranking with outdated parameter "NIRF_O_2021"

Preview warning: Page using Template:Infobox India university ranking with outdated parameter "THE_W_2022"

Preview warning: Page using Template:Infobox India university ranking with outdated parameter "NIRF_M_2021"

Preview warning: Page using Template:Infobox India university ranking with outdated parameter "NIRF_B_2021"

Preview warning: Page using Template:Infobox India university ranking with outdated parameter "state"

Preview warning: Page using Template:Infobox India university ranking with outdated parameter "NIRF_U_2021"

Preview warning: Page using Template:Infobox India university ranking with outdated parameter "NIRF_L_2021"

Further, I am not sure what do you mean by cleanup, if removal, then yes, NIRF rankings are being published annually at regular intervals, and therefore, no need to include them. However, some universities do not participate each year, and they might need old parameters. Thanks, User4edits (talk) 12:02, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

@User4edits: Regarding the preview warning, that's how it should work. It is telling the editor that they are using outdated parameters, which they are if they are using the 2021 rankings. By cleanup I mean going over all articles that are using the 2019 and 2020 rankings, replacing them with the 2022 rankings, and when done, removing them from the template itself. According to very long-standing consensus, if an institute is not shown in the 2022 rankings, the ranking should be removed, so no, after cleanup there should be no 2019 or 2020 rankings left and the old parameters can be removed. I have done this plenty of times in the past but I am no longer interested in doing it myself. --Muhandes (talk) 12:29, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

Certifications Hungary

Hi Muhandes. I wanted to add the Gold certification for Led Zeppelins In Through the Out Door in Hungary from 2015, but I always get an empty sales number in the table. Certyear is 2015, relyear should be 1979. Do I need to use salesamount in this case? YGO24895 (talk) 07:11, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

@YGO24895: As the template documentation says the thresholds for Hungary Unknown sales thresholds for international albums released before 23 April 2002. Generally, I would say set |nosales=true, but in this case, the certification is for the 2015 reissue. You can verify that easily by selecting the album itself and following it to Spotify, where you will see it is the Deluxe version. In that case, the solution is |relyear=2015 and |note=2015 Deluxe edition. --Muhandes (talk) 08:21, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

Thank you. YGO24895 (talk) 08:24, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

Robbie Williams discography

Hi. Why did you self-revert your rollback of the IP editor who messed up the order of columns and made other unexplained changes on Robbie Williams discography here? It should have stayed reverted—quite sure that IP editor is block evading, as they were previously doing this sort of nonsense on Gary Barlow discography and other discographies. Ss112 13:52, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

@Ss112: I'm afraid I don't recall. Probably some of it made sense to me and I didn't feel like going through the work of figuring it out. --Muhandes (talk) 16:14, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

National Institute of Agricultural Marketing

Hello !!

Kindly dont delete the content on the Wikipedia page of National Institute of Agricultural Marketing - NIAM, Jaipur. Because its a government institute of India & what ever info on the Wikipedia page is right about the Institute and its activities & this is not done for promotional activities as the main purpose is to make aware the people who search about the institute. Boobruh007 (talk) 16:51, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

@Boobruh007: I'm sorry, but I can't understand what you wrote. --Muhandes (talk) 17:27, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

Deletion of the School, College Articles of India

Hi, Greetings. Please do not delete or revert the school, or college articles. I have not created so many schools/college articles just to increase my edit count. Wikipedia is the only source for students to know the history of their school/college. If you go to a school/college and ask them to write something about their school, most of the students will simply fail to do that. If Wiki articles exist, they will be at least able to write something. I know that these school/college articles are just stubs (very little information) but I believe one day some of their alumni will improve that article. I know there are few elite institutions in India, Wikipedia editors only consider these institutes as notable. However, as an alumnus of one such Indian elite institute, I know they only cater to 5-10 percent of indian students. Rest 90 percent of students study in these Mill (according to Wikipedia editors) colleges/universities. The number of students in these mill degree colleges (most of them are govt degree colleges) is much higher compared to some elite institutes in India. Private degree colleges and universities are generally very big and well funded.

For school/college, finding a secondary source with in-depth coverage is difficult (Specifically if they are not in an English-speaking country). Even US college or universities does not have that (most is the self-citation collected from their own webpage). If possible please improve the article but do not delete it. Improving these articles will be much help to humanity, rather than deleting these articles. Deleting a school/college/university article means ignoring their contribution at all. I know articles have to satisfy WP:GNG and passing mention of that school/college in the secondary source will not work. Passing mention only indicates the existence of that school/college. However, in-depth coverage of a university also does not mean that the school/college is really great. It is very difficult to decide the notability of a college/university. Most of the editors do not believe in Google Scholar and they only need in-depth coverage in some newspapers/books. --User:Soumitrahazra

@Soumitrahazra: I'm sorry but I can't oblige. I am not doing this to spite you, I am doing it because it is the right thing to do. The most fundamental principles of Wikipedia are the five pillars, and the first pillar of Wikipedia is that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. It is not an indiscriminate collection of information nor is it a directory of schools and their departments. In other words, notability guidelines (like WP:GNG) are here for a very good reason. If the community does not think that a subject is not notable, having an article about it is detrimental to the quality of Wikipedia. Since I am here to build an encyclopedia, I follow these guidelines, and so should you (unless of course you are not here to build an encyclopedia, which I know is not true).

Second, the fact that students use Wikipedia as the main source of information only means that we should be more strict about the information we provide. An article which copy-pastes from a the college's website is worst than nothing because it gives a false aura of authority to facts which are dubious and unverifiable (even worse is stating facts and following them with unrelated sources).

Finally, I am (more than) slightly insulted by the fact that you claim I do not try to improve an article before I nominate it for deletion (a claim which you repeated here). I very seldom nominate articles for deletion, because if I have even the slightest doubt that a subject is notable, I will not touch it. When I do nominate, it is usually after spending at least half an hour searching for reliable sources with significant coverage. I did not find any for Ghatal Rabindra Satabarsiki Mahavidyalaya, and frankly, neither did you. I found it mentioned in a 1964 book and I added that to the nomination rationale. Do you see many editors going to that length in deletion discussions? --Muhandes (talk) 16:55, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

Template:Single chart and Template:Album chart don't support use xmy dates?

Hey Muhandes. I've just learned that when either Template:Use dmy dates or Template:Use mdy dates is used on a page, it does not convert the dates in Template:Single chart and Template:Album chart to whichever format is in the tag. I literally could have sworn it always did but I've just learned it...doesn't? Did they ever? Did something change for them to not or am I just imagining the dates were changed in the templates when an artcle is tagged? Does formatting need to be implemented for the chart templates to be converted like a citation's dates? Ss112 13:01, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

@Ss112: As far as I know, {{Single chart}} and {{Album chart}} use #tag:ref rather than using Citation Style 1 and 2, so they were never affected by {{use xxx dates}} templates. --Muhandes (talk) 17:16, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

Many Wikipedia College articles are Redirected to University article

I will not oppose if Wikipedia editors think that is the correct thing to do. I also do not know why all college articles are redirected to the University article. Affiliated colleges have separate meanings, they have separate governing bodies and separate faculty everything. They do not have any relationship with the university. University is like an affiliating board, which monitors the quality of the college. Every university has a certain number of affiliated colleges and the university just monitors them to maintain their standard. They just suggest the syllabus and sometimes help them in examining the students (again not always). Every school in India is under some board, so all of them are not simply eligible for any Wikipedia article. Only board articles are just fine. Every engineering and medical college in India is under some university, so it is better to delete every engineering and medical college article. But redirecting them to university articles is a very bad idea, rather it is better to delete every school, college, and medical college article (except university and board articles). Let's see the University of Cambridge Wikipedia article, They also have many affiliated colleges, see articles like Churchill College, Cambridge, St Edmund's College, Cambridge, etc. Harvard University has Harvard College. In this sense, it is also better to delete the articles of Churchill College, Cambridge and St Edmund's College, Cambridge, etc, or redirect them to the University of Cambridge article. It is a matter of debate. Now, I left the decision to other Wikipedia editors for their opinion. However, I think if the opinion is to remove them just delete not redirect. If this is the opinion of everyone, then also delete the article Churchill College, Cambridge, St Edmund's College, Cambridge, etc articles. Please see the article Colleges of the University of Cambridge. Colleges are self-governed charities in their own right, with their own endowments and possessions (similar to Indian colleges). If possible please delete the articles but not redirect them. That's a wrong signal.

Please note the languages from the Colleges of the University of Cambridge article:

Cambridge Colleges provide most of the accommodation for undergraduates and postgraduates at the University. At the undergraduate level they have responsibility for admitting students to the university, providing pastoral support, and organising elements of their tuition, though lectures and examinations are organised by the faculties and departments of the central University. All degrees are awarded by the University itself, not the colleges, and all students study for the same course regardless of which college they attend. For postgraduate students, research is conducted virtually entirely centrally in the faculties, departments and other university-affiliated research centres, though the colleges provide a central social and intellectual hub for students.

Colleges are self-governed charities in their own right, with their own endowments and possessions

Everything is similar to the Indian system.

Thank you... User:Soumitrahazra

@Soumitrahazra: Same answer as above. You are forcing me to go to WP:AFD. Will you every stop wasting the community's time? Do you really prefer to have the articles deleted over redirected, and possibly saved? --Muhandes (talk) 06:40, 16 September 2022 (UTC)